Idk if people are trolling
@Eszopiclone or what, but l.o.l at watch you guys go in circles acting like you're not understanding what he's trying to say. Haha.
Its fine that you eat plants, but evolutionary wise, we were made to eat meat & plants & some mushrooms. Hence canine teeth, and other certain organs.
And yes, you're suppose to be able to get your nutritional needs through diet, hence why more people prefer eating both, rather than just veganism or just carnivore. If you need supplements for your diet, it's not good. There is a reason why we have nutritional value information on food, so we can best prepare our diet.
Also lol at holding a moral high ground, no meat eater is defending corporate meat industry practices, or saying that is how they want their meat processed, in fact most would prefer free range and "non cruelty killed" methods, but usually that makes products more expensive, and harder to make the meat industry assembly line esque processing.
Its just there is honestly nothing much people can do to change said practices, but if the meat is already there ready to be eaten, there is absolutely zero reason for it to be wasted.
These faux moral high ground straw man arguments are dumb imo, because if you want to get technical, science has studies showing that, yes, certain plants do "react" to "pain"(at least being eaten/cut) by releasing certain chemical reaction/smells to call for predators(usually birds to eat the insects the plant assumes is doing the damage).
Also, there is evidence that certain plants are able to communicate with each other through roots systems, like when certain plants have a seed of their kind sprout close enough to them, they will absorb nutrition from surrounding areas and help the seedling/sapling plant into maturity.
Also certain nut trees that go through cycles where every certain # of years they explode with seeds for a year, more than all of the squirrels can feed on, and have are more likely to have multiple nuts get forgotten/lost from winter storage of the squirrel and therefore are able to sprout. While then the next few years they only produce their normal amount of nuts instead of an explosion of them. ( I have personally witnessed this in GA with pecan trees).
^^ this is also helped seen with the explosion of nuts, next year(peacans go back to normal amount) an explosion of squirrel because they had more free time because previous year food was abundant, next year(pecans still normal amount) an explosion of predators who consumed the squirrel for same reason, then finally again the pecan tree explodes in nuts again, because the squirrel population is low, allowing for more tree offspring. Then rinse repeat, as squirrel bounce back with nut over abundance again, same with predators because squirrel over abundance, then tree produce more as squirrel population is low this year ect.
Now I know that LONG rant is somewhat random, but it IS documented, now the question comes back to what is the definition of intelligence, and is the tree showing intelligence by knowing the squirrel population is low, and therefore knowing to over produce pecans?
Also, to help
@Eszopiclone with the discussion about the ethics thing, his argument is the fact you cannot have ethics without an observer(entity).
So I leave this long ramble of a post with 3 questions for the vegans.
If plants are innocent, than how do you feel about insect eating plants? I.e. Venus Flytrap. I mean if a plant can choose to "murder" an innocent insect to survive, what is the problem with humans doing the same in order to survive, especially as we are evolutionarily built for both?
Animals are ate by others all the time, even animals we thought we strictly herbivore have been documented with eating meat. And some animals have been domesticated by humans for so long, or are non-indigenous that I'd left to roam, they would be slaughtered just the same by predators because they either lost their defense, or their defense doesn't work in there geographic location. So what difference does it make for a human to eat it instead that will more likely make it's death swift, versus left in the wild very likely being eaten alive, before succumbing to death?(if you have seen any nature documentary or webpages showing nature, more often than not animals begin to eat immediately before their prey has died complete)
And last, would you vegans feel bad about eating the meat of a cow/chicken/animal that died of happy old age? If so, why? When the majority of vegan arguments are the treatment of animals before consumption.
Okay, my dumb 2 cent statements for this thread has been asked/said. God I need to go to sleep<Lmaoo>.
