Originally posted by EThuggV2
Meat has been there by choice, not for any natural reason. And if we don\'t have natural means to get it, bows and guns aren\'t natural, then humans naturally at best are scavengers. We are NOT natural hunters. Our teeth are barely capable of ripping flesh, they are not made for it in any way. Pandas and gorillas that are vegan have very small \'canine\' teeth like us, they are not there for tearing meat.
Nowhere in that link is a real, credible source included, and even the most comprehensive study could not know the actual number, ithe number would be IMPOSSIBLE to figure out. And purposfully killing an animal from a great distancse using (some) stealth, they never had a chance, plus there\'s intent. Killing a unknown quantity of animals using a slow, insanely loud, harvesting machine because for some stupid reason, they didn\'t move, is an entirely different story. You could compare the 2 maybe if for 5 minutes before shooting at the deer you yelled and walked toward it.
Bows and guns ARE natural. Each predator has a natural advantage over its prey that it must use to capture it. Ours isn\'t superior physical skill as much as superior mental skill. We build things that can aid us to complete a task. That is totally natural. And hey, I posted 3 sources, you have posted none. Why don\'t you tell me where your arguement that humans are not natural predators is coming from, and why I should give any credibility to it.
And you are totally missing the point with that source. First of all, if you wanna question its credibility, go ahead. It only shows that you don\'t have the ability to argue against it, and shows weakness in your arguement. Tell me, if a slow killing machine were to plow through your house, while your family, filled with many small children, were sleeping, do you think that would be "fair", or "right"? That is just what is happening here. Animals live in the ground, they live in and around the land crops are grown on. Then when you send a killing machine such as a harvesting combine through their habitat, it isn\'t as easy to survive as you make it out to be.
And you know how I could compare the two? If instead of killing a single animal in the forest, quietly, I surrounded a large family of animals, and then unloaded on them with an automatic weapon. I would start on one side of them, and sweep to the other. If would be loud, but that wouldn\'t help them. The very fact that major European governmental studies on agriculture project that more animals are killed in agriculture than are slaughtered for their meat shows that your arguement makes no sense. It is not so easy to get out of the way of a harvesting machine, and that\'s not even taking into consideration the destructive effects that chemicals used on crops have.
Those projections are based on hard data. You don\'t publish a governmental study to the public unless it has backing. And if you expect people to believe what you are saying, with no sources and no information backing your arguement, over what governments are putting forth on the issue, that is laughable.
Oh, and speaking of laughable, I find it interesting that you are choosing to question the credibility of government studies like the one posted in the first place. Tell me, where is your information coming from? Or are you just blindly trying to defend your ignorant position with nonsensical arguements and refusal to believe hard information presented to you? I think that it\'s pretty obvious to me, and the other posters here that this is the case.
And you have yet to explain to me how a process that does kill millions of animals at least, and leaves them to die in the fields is better than one that actually makes something of the dead bodies of the animals that are killed in the process. The only difference between meat and vegetables...the animals that die to make meat aren\'t being wasted.
