Scratch

777w wrote:

9star wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

So, would you rather test unsafe but potentially life-saving medicine on a human, or an animal?

There is just no viable alternative.

homeopathic remedies.

wikipedia's not the best source but the article on homeopathy says "Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible"

So any help they do give would be simply a placebo.

9star wrote:

TheCatAndTheBanana wrote:

9star wrote:

this is the discrimination i'm talking about, like "feed songbirds, but not pigeons" and "it's okay to eat pig but not dog." i am NOT saying we should eat dogs, i'm saying we shouldn't eat ANY animal.

If we wern't supposed to eat animals, we wouldn't have our canine teeth. Humans evolved to eat BOTH fruits and meats.

gorrillas have HUGE teeth. oh, and what are they for?, fighting!

eating meat is still perfectly natural, prehistoric people ate meat to get extra protein that plants couldnt provide

9star wrote:

777w wrote:

9star wrote:

well, they worked really well for me. scientists say that but they do work really, scientists just HATE admitting they're wrong.

what are you talking about
nobody likes to admit theyre wrong but scientists have the data to show when theyre right
frankly the whole thing sounds rather dangerous to me i mean

Homeopathy... is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.

using the substance that makes you sick to cure you will, by logic, just make you sicker!
the only time that really works that i know of is when you treat cancer with radiation, but even then that just kills cancerous cells and, from what i hear, leaves you very weak

what about vaccines then? they use the thing they're protecting you from.

A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.

the point of vaccines is to make sure your immune system recognizes the disease and can better fight against it, once you actually catch the disease fully your immune system knows it but cant fight against it without proper help, adding more of the disease causing materials will only make you worse

calebxy wrote:

9star, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

i'm 10 but eleven in march.

9star wrote:

777w wrote:

9star wrote:

gorrillas have HUGE teeth. oh, and what are they for?, fighting!

eating meat is still perfectly natural, prehistoric people ate meat to get extra protein that plants couldnt provide

yes, but nuts, beans, chickpeas and other plants provide protien and now we can also take vegatarian protien-providing vitamins.

nevertheless, humans evolved to eat meat which makes the tendency to do so perfectly natural

soupoftomato wrote:

9star wrote:

calebxy wrote:

9star, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

i'm 10 but eleven in march.

Wait a few years and you might laugh at what you're saying on this topic.

Anyway, homeopathy has been proven a hoax repeatedly.

are you saying that when i'm older i'll be a Pigeon-hating-anti-homeopathy-meat-eater? [sarcasm]fat chance![/sarcasm]
i've been feeding pigeons AND been vegatairian since i was six,
and i went vegan when i was 8, i'm staying that way.  you can't say what i'll be like when i'm older.

Last edited by 9star (2013-02-12 06:05:13)

777w wrote:

9star wrote:

777w wrote:

eating meat is still perfectly natural, prehistoric people ate meat to get extra protein that plants couldnt provide

yes, but nuts, beans, chickpeas and other plants provide protien and now we can also take vegatarian protien-providing vitamins.

nevertheless, humans evolved to eat meat which makes the tendency to do so perfectly natural

No it's not. we are not meant to eat meat. please read these:
Source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
ha ha ha.

calebxy wrote:

9star wrote:

777w wrote:

nevertheless, humans evolved to eat meat which makes the tendency to do so perfectly natural

No it's not. we are not meant to eat meat. please read these:
Source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
ha ha ha.

I must say, that 4th link is extremely brilliant.

sorry, but if i don't eat my meat, i will go crazy. 

9star wrote:

777w wrote:

9star wrote:

yes, but nuts, beans, chickpeas and other plants provide protien and now we can also take vegatarian protien-providing vitamins.

nevertheless, humans evolved to eat meat which makes the tendency to do so perfectly natural

No it's not. we are not meant to eat meat. please read these:
Source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
ha ha ha.

Also:

Herbivores: Do not intentionally make vegetable farms
Humans: Make farms

Herbivores: Natural defenses against predators
Humans: No built-in natural defenses

Humans aren't exactly good at being animals; the only way we have survived is through our intelligence.  I would like to point out that carnivores are not able to digest plants[/i], and vice versa (as in herbivores cannot digest meat, not plants can't digest carnivores- which is true anyway, I suppose  ).  Humans are omnivores.  There's nothing unnatural about us eating meat.  Also, can you provide any less biased sources (ie. not animal rights websites or vegetarian blogs, etc.)?

9star wrote:

TheCatAndTheBanana wrote:

9star wrote:

this is the discrimination i'm talking about, like "feed songbirds, but not pigeons" and "it's okay to eat pig but not dog." i am NOT saying we should eat dogs, i'm saying we shouldn't eat ANY animal.

If we wern't supposed to eat animals, we wouldn't have our canine teeth. Humans evolved to eat BOTH fruits and meats.

gorrillas have HUGE teeth. oh, and what are they for?, fighting!

I don't know if you've noticed, but human canines aren't in an ideal place or size for fighting.  Especially against predators.

Last edited by maxskywalker (2013-02-11 12:58:31)

calebxy wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

9star wrote:

No it's not. we are not meant to eat meat. please read these:
Source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
ha ha ha.

Also:

Herbivores: Do not intentionally make vegetable farms
Humans: Make farms

Herbivores: Natural defenses against predators
Humans: No built-in natural defenses

Humans aren't exactly good at being animals; the only way we have survived is through our intelligence.  I would like to point out that carnivores are not able to digest plants[/i], and vice versa (as in herbivores cannot digest meat, not plants can't digest carnivores- which is true anyway, I suppose  ).  Humans are omnivores.  There's nothing unnatural about us eating meat.  Also, can you provide any less biased sources (ie. not animal rights websites or vegetarian blogs, etc.)?

You haven't refuted the arguments at all. We make farms because we can. We are just as capable of evading predators as an absurd amount of herbivores on this planet.

You may think the sources are biased (I can only presume it's because you disagree with the conclusions), but that doesn't mean the considerable amount of facts presented are wrong. Because they are facts.

Fair enough.  I'm bad at talking.  Or you know, writing.  I'm going to duck out of here while I un-awkwardize myself.

jukyter wrote:

9star wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Wait a few years and you might laugh at what you're saying on this topic.

Anyway, homeopathy has been proven a hoax repeatedly.

are you saying that when i'm older i'll be a Pigeon-hating-anti-homeopathy-meat-eating-idiot? [sarcasm]fat chance![/sarcasm]

a) that isnt sarcasm
b) are you calling everyone arguing against you idiots? nice debating skills you have there
but if you ever get a serious condition you may well side more towards the modern medicine side of things

actually, the phrase "fat chance" is a prime example of sarcasm or verbal irony - when one says one thing but means another. "fat chance," used literally, would be a large (fat) probability (chance) of something happening. in this case, 9star used the phrase sarcastically, meaning that there was little or no chance of such a thing happening. (although I will say that the sarcasm tags aren't necessary because the phrase "fat chance" is generally only used sarcastically.)

luiysia wrote:

jukyter wrote:

9star wrote:

are you saying that when i'm older i'll be a Pigeon-hating-anti-homeopathy-meat-eating-idiot? [sarcasm]fat chance![/sarcasm]

a) that isnt sarcasm
b) are you calling everyone arguing against you idiots? nice debating skills you have there
but if you ever get a serious condition you may well side more towards the modern medicine side of things

actually, the phrase "fat chance" is a prime example of sarcasm or verbal irony - when one says one thing but means another. "fat chance," used literally, would be a large (fat) probability (chance) of something happening. in this case, 9star used the phrase sarcastically, meaning that there was little or no chance of such a thing happening. (although I will say that the sarcasm tags aren't necessary because the phrase "fat chance" is generally only used sarcastically.)

hm i guess
i just associate fat chance with no chance of something happening so a sarcastic fat chance would mean it literally i guess
but yeah i was wrong there

Also, what makes it ok that other animals can eat meat while we can't? Yeah, they're built to eat meat only, but it's still killing other animals as you say. And why don't you kill weeds when you eat other plants? They're all plants.