Our body can survive without meat bud.

Yes it can, however that is not the debate. Like other hominids let's take the Chimpanzees for example, our teeth are designed to process both vegetables and meat. Originally we mainly ate berries and nuts but also we also ate fish and meat. It's not natural to starve you body of proteins which you can only supplemented with vitamins and other supplements. The problem is people forget we are animals no matter how much we choose to elevate ourselves above other lifeforms, applying moral values to one of or more of our food sources is what I find perplexing. Complaining about the way animals are farmed and slaughtered on a mass scale is legitimate as there is a lot of waste and therefore unneeded suffering. However how do we know that lentils do not have feelings too? We don't. So though my body can survive without meat, I choose to continue eating meat as nature intended.

Whether we can digest meat or not has no relevance to whether we *should* kill animals to do it -- that is an ethical question. And since meat is not necessary at all, the answer to that question is obviously "no". Your argument that vitamins aren't natural is also flawed. Just because something isn't natural, doesn't mean it isn't [i] beneficial[/i] -- if you were consistent with your logic, you would be against all forms of modern medicine. Would you turn down vaccines, antibiotics and life saving treatments because they aren't "natural"? I hope not. We don't know whether lentils can suffer, but we have no good reason to believe they can. They have no brains for consciousness and no nervous systems to feel pain. Animals, on the other hand, clearly have both these things. It is the obvious rational decision to eat a plant instead of an animal.

Oh dear another one. "Whether we can digest meat or not has no relevance to whether we *should* kill animals to do it -- that is an ethical question. And since meat is not necessary at all, the answer to that question is obviously "no"" You are wrong we are designed to eat both, therefore we should. It's not unethical to kill animals as they are a food source. With your logic it's unethical for Lions to kill and eat antelopes etc. We are after all animals. "Your argument that vitamins aren't natural is also flawed. Just because something isn't natural, doesn't mean it isn't [i] beneficial[/i] -- if you were consistent with your logic, you would be against all forms of modern medicine. Would you turn down vaccines, antibiotics and life saving treatments because they aren't "natural"? I hope not." I never said vitamins are unnatural, to supplement something that is a natural food source with vitamins is unnatural. That has noting to do with medicine. "We don't know whether lentils can suffer, but we have no good reason to believe they can. They have no brains for consciousness and no nervous systems to feel pain. Animals, on the other hand, clearly have both these things. It is the obvious rational decision to eat a plant instead of an animal." You assume to much, it's proven that plants do have a nervous system and a brain of sorts otherwise they couldn't survive. Just because we cannot translate how plants communicate, i.e how they speak, this doesn't mean they cannot feel pain just because they cannot tell us.

[quote]You are wrong we are designed to eat both, therefore we should.[/quote] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy [quote]It's not unethical to kill animals as they are a food source.[/quote]So the only basis for your moral framework is whether something is a food source? We can therefore kill anything, and anyone we wish as long as someone, somewhere views them as potential food. And to reduce your logic further, as long as we stand to [i] benefit[/i] from something, there's no way it can be unethical. Right? You can surely understand that ethics are grounded in more than mere self - interest. Indeed, acting ethically [b]requires[/b] a concern for the welfare of others. Otherwise, you are left with egotism. [quote]With your logic it's unethical for Lions to kill and eat antelopes etc. We are after all animals.[/quote]The error here is that lions are not cognitively developed enough to discern right from wrong. This is why we place greater responsibility on an axe murderer than a grizzly bear that escapes from the zoo and mauls a civilian. Clearly, there is an irreducible gulf between the self aware mind of a murderer and the primitive, instinct - driven mind of a bear. [quote]I never said vitamins are unnatural, to supplement something that is a natural food source with vitamins is unnatural. That has noting to do with medicine.[/quote]Then you must have missed my point, which I will reiterate: just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it isn't [i]beneficial[/i] for us. Supplements are beneficial. In fact, most meat eaters are recommended supplements for optimal health as well (i). I drew my comparison to medicine to demonstrate this. The claim that "anything that is unnatural is bad for us" is an empty one and demands evidence to be taken seriously. You must now present some. [quote]You assume to much, it's proven that plants do have a nervous system and a brain of sorts otherwise they couldn't survive.[/quote]Citation needed. [quote]Just because we cannot translate how plants communicate, i.e how they speak, this doesn't mean they cannot feel pain just because they cannot tell us.[/quote]You missed my point again. If we have no evidence, we have no reason to believe it. It's perfectly possible that my chair feels pain whenever I sit in it. Should I stand all the time? The phenomena we observe in plants do not imply consciousness. Plant defense mechanisms and communication can be explained as biological functions, just like how our bodily functions result from a complex network of communication that we are not consciously aware of (ii). And, to be more generous than I need to be, let's assume your theory is true: plants feel pain. A vegan diet would still be more ethical because most of the world's plant crops are fed to livestock (iii and iv). In the interest of reducing plant suffering, a meat based diet would not be the rational option. Of course, such a hypothesis is detached from reality, and from the very real suffering that farm animals experience. This is supported by The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, where in 2012 the world's leading neuroscientists gathered together and signed a declaration confirming animal consciousness and the vast bodies of evidence supporting it (v). I make my ethical choices based on evidence, and an empirical understanding of reality. Until evidence arises suggesting plants suffer (if it ever does) to any or a greater extent than animals, I will continue to eat plant foods instead of animals knowing that it is the ethical thing to do. i: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/5-common-nutrient-deficiencies-and-what-to-do-about-them/#axzz3CaE3ocBh ii: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213122358.htm iii: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html iv: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm v: http://fcmconference.org/

Lol uses Wikipedia as a source, no response required. No wonder you are so uninformed.

What an undignified way to retreat from the discussion when I provide evidence threatening your beliefs. None of my statistical sources (bottom of my post) were from wikipedia. Too blinded by your own ego to simply admit when your beliefs may be wrong. Pity.

Not really I read it all, however the part where you said when you sat on your chair that it felt pain, that just confirmed you were a moron. Maybe you were trying to be funny comparing an inanimate object with something that was living (plants) or maybe you were trying to make me look ridiculous. It didn't work. Quoting wiki didn't help your case either. I don't want to discuss anything with you as you are just stating the same tired unproven arguments of a vegetarian. No matter how many sources you link to other sufferers of your condition. I do not blame you as the lack of protein is detrimental to the function of your brain. Good day to you, fyi I am enjoying a nice full English breakfast. Oh the smell is fantastic, I would save you some bacon but I know you would just waste it. Oh well enjoy your soya substitutes and continue slaughtering poor plant-life for your cause.

Unsurprisingly you still avoided addressing any of the points I made -- instead trying to redeem yourself by swaying the focal point. It is patently clear that you have no good defenses to my post -- if you did, you'd have swiftly presented them. I'm always amazed at people's inability to admit when they are mistaken. Surely one should embrace being wrong so they can start being right? But no, the ego flares up and makes them behave in juvenile ways -- as witnessed. For the sake of intellectual growth, I hope you work to correct this. Good luck with your future endeavors.

[quote]Unsurprisingly you still avoided addressing any of the points I made -- instead trying to redeem yourself by swaying the focal point. It is patently clear that you have no good defense to my points -- if you did, you'd have swiftly presented them.[/quote] Again I have no need to try an counter your uninformed arguments. I stated in my original reply my reasoning and facts, I see no need to repeat myself, I addressed the new points you made apart from the part were you pretty much said Lions know no better, otherwise under your reasoning I guess they would choose to be vegetarians themselves. Strangely I felt no need to respond to that conjecture on your behalf. Good day.

That's fine. Your original reasoning was exposed rather conclusively, and I'm more than happy for the discussion to have ended on those terms.

[quote]That's fine. Your original reasoning was exposed rather conclusively, and I'm more than happy for the discussion to have ended on those terms.[/quote] You are very patronising, my reasoning has been exposed only as the truth, how ever you chose to justify your unnatural behaviour. I feel no need to carry on with this conversation, if I wish to be condescended to again I will be sure to hit you up.

I'm patronizing you because instead of doing the respectable thing and admitting your initial arguments were flawed, you weaseled out of the discussion with a childish, insincere, irrelevant remark. Unlike you, I have these interactions because I'm interested in logic, and truth. If I have to abandon my original positions to achieve these, I'm more than willing to do so. You seem more interested in having these discussions to reinforce your views and diminish others. When you realized this was not going to be as easy as you thought, you backed off. Sorry, but after I provided a long, civilized response with numerous sources (that weren't wikipedia) and rational arguments and you act in that manner, I think I am right to be somewhat irritated. If you want to put this little tirade behind us, my post is still there to be addressed respectfully. Otherwise, keep doing what you're doing -- you are only harming yourself. I certainly won't lose any sleep.

[quote]I'm patronizing you because instead of doing the respectable thing and admitting your initial arguments were flawed, you weaseled out of the discussion with a childish, insincere, irrelevant remark. Unlike you, I have these interactions because I'm interested in logic, and truth. If I have to abandon my original positions to achieve these, I'm more than willing to do so. You seem more interested in having these discussions to reinforce your views and diminish others. When you realized this was not going to be as easy as you thought, you backed off. Sorry, but after I provided a long, civilized response with numerous sources (that weren't wikipedia) and rational arguments and you act in that manner, I think I am right to be somewhat irritated. If you want to put this little tirade behind us, my post is still there to be addressed respectfully. Otherwise, keep doing what you're doing -- you are only harming yourself. I certainly won't lose any sleep.[/quote] This is going nowhere, your VIEWS are subjective, you are irritated only because I disagree with your views. Again I feel no need to continue to allow you to try and patronise or condescend to me. Good day to you, I think we will have to agree to disagree, especially on your claim that you applied logic to your argument.

And we shouldn't go to doctors, it's unnatural!