Veg V/S Non-Veg

Everyone is entitled to his/her own thoughts that includes you and me. --> You are merely saying this without believing it, as is evident from the rest of your post.

But your language smacks of contempt. --> It is your language that has this problem. You are projecting your style of commenting on me.

Your argument is primarily based on premise that killing of any life form is same. --> You are now making a wild allegation. Is this not a instance of your language smacking of contempt. Based on my previous post, it is obvious that my argument is based on the premise that human hunger and human hardships are to be given the most importance. This automatically means that as per my argument, humans and their lives are given prime importance over either the lives of animals and plants. Neglecting to note this aspect of my argument shows contempt of the other person's side not mine.

Killing of human cannot be equated to killing of animal. --> I absolutely agree with this point. I feel that it is absolutely essential to prevent the killing and also the hardships of humans. Therefore, one would like to allow the eating of farm animals as well as farm grown plants, but while exercising restraint.

similarly killing animal is not the same as killing a plant. --> As humans we would like to care the most about the lives and hardships of our fellow humans but beyond our species, we must strive to compassionate towards both the farm animals and plants who have to be killed to feed our species.

This is sense of discrimination. --> You believe this to be the sense of discrimination. I believe that the sense of discrimination is understanding the needs of humans and putting them first, and then realising that while fulfilling the needs of humans, the lives of animals and plants are to be given importance so that we do not become destructive and overconsume.

Rest, everyone is entitled to live his own way without calling other person wrong. The idea of debate shall be sharing ideas and not blaming. Certainly not hurting. --> I hope that you had practiced this instead of just preaching.

Stating that the resemblances between animals do not prove a point was an instance of high-handed behavior. Your statement "What ecology?" was also out of tune. Your statement "Humans dont need to be destructive in the name of balance." was extremely vicious and ill-mannered. Another statement of yours "Think of it, if you can, man?" was plainly contemptuous. Please examine your own language and then study the responses to it before making wild allegations about anybody else's language.

It seems that you are fond of projecting the problem of your language and projecting as if it is the other person who is doing so.

Posting a reply with a wild allegation one month later is simply not done.

"All animals/humans have evolved from each other so their resemblances do not prove any point."  --> Actually, resemblances between animals are a key feature of determining physiology. Another member of the forum has provided information to prove that gorillas have non-plant based food choices , and this allows for more clarity.

"Primitive humans were non-veg is not disputable." --> Not just primate human, but non-veg consumption has been found even later.


"However, what distinguishes humans from others is sense of discrimination and therefore, this debate." --> Humans must have discretion and discretion dictates that we must acknowledge that both plants and animals have life.

"Horse will not eat meat and lion will not eat grass even if they are dying of hunger. Genetically, they have no choice. Humans have that choice and they should exercise that choice with restraint and compassion." --> A vegetarian diet is not the right way to show either restraint or compassion. Even plants have life and showing restraint and compassion only towards eating animals is plain wrong.

"Nature has its own ways to keep the balance." --> Extremely anti-nature statement.

"Humans dont need to be destructive in the name of balance." --> It is elimination of food choices that is  the destructive trend.

"Nature has provided enough land for all humans and other species to feed." --> One cannot act with impunity and imagine that nature will sustain all.

"We are thankless and devise our arguments to subvert it." -->  This applies more to your argument.

"What makes humans evolve further is not physical act but our thinking ( caring for all) and sentiments ( compassion for all)." Caring for all and compassion for all mean that one must care for the lives of both plants and animals.


"Think  of it, man. if you can?" --> Perhaps you should do more thinking, if you can?

the argument is in favor of veg

what ecology? non-veg food is from the animals who are specially reared for producing meat. Does anyone know how much vegetation is required to produce one kg meat? nearly 30 kg !!  if you stop rearing animals for meat, you can produce veg food enough for double the world population..... leave alone ethical or spiritual aspects.

R P SINGH

Actually, the above paragraph is filled with inaccuracies. Firstly, the statement that meat comes from animals specially reared for rearing meat -- surely, such statements are made who are living in some developed country, unlike our country where meat is sourced by felling field animals who have stopped giving milk or tilling land or not giving enough wool, and where animals eat the grass and plant leaves from the roadside or extra rotis, etc. The pro-veg statement is an extreme example of living in a ivory tower and spouting  arm-chair theories.

human body is made for VEG.

THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VEGETARIAN AND NON VEGETARIAN ANIMALS ARE GIVEN BELOW

1) ALMOST ALL NON VEGETARIAN HAVE BIG CANINE 

    TOOTH

-- you've used the words almost all, so obviously the exception is that of chimpanzee and humans

2)ALMOST ALL NON VEGETARIAN HAVE SMALL

   LENGTH OF INTESTINE.

-- again the use of words 'almost all', again the exception is that of the human beings and

the two species of chimpanzees

3)ALMOST ALL NON VEGETARIAN ANIMALS DRINK

   WATER BY THEIR TONGUE.

-- the exception is that of chimpanzee and human beings

OBSERVING ALL THE ABOVE PROPERTIES WE CAN EASILY SAY THAT THE HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE FOR VEG

-- In fact your statements prove that chimpanzees and humans are exceptional creatures, who are omnivores.

Humans share 96%-99% of DNA similar body features (based on various scientific studies), common behavioural characteristics, similar ailments, HIV, and a high degree of intelligence. The omnivore diet allows both chimpanzees and humans to rise to the top of the chain ladder, and is a natural part of their existence.

Although vegetarian diet is more valuable to human beings as it increases the disease fighting capacity but it is necessary to keep the veg and non veg products in balanced condition. 

Though like veg as much as Non Veg. have known that meat like beef cost less and states like TN,Kerala,Goa Consume lot of this in lower strata which cannot afford higher meat. have also known of pesticide residues being carried through vegetables due to excessive usage and improper cleaning and Monitoring.

There are major demerits for people giving up non-vegetarian diet and taking up a vegetarian diet. For the sake of brevity, only a few are being pointed out here:

1)Inflation:

This is in agreement with Sameer Choksey...life will be very difficult as food inflation will have a spiralling effect on all prices and middle class will feel hurt.

And not just that...it will be impossible for poor people to survive in India, and since there will be more demand for grains worldwide, less grains will make their way to sub-Saharan africa and it is obvious that mass starvation will happen there. This is not just a scare but a very real possibility.

2)Humanitarianism and taking life:

With regard to being human and not taking live, even plants have life, and agriculture depends not just on killing plants on a seasonal basis but also reducing biodiversity to plant a single type of plant.

If everyone takes up vegetarian diet, then we begin to disrespect plants.

3) Usage of land issues:

Additionally, not all land is created equal. For instance, many areas have partial rocky terrain where plants grow between rocks and creeks...domesticated goat and sheep graze on these and then these are used for meat. If the herders stop having non-vegetarian diet and resort to agriculture, they will be trying to force-fit their demands on nature.

Just imagine what the disastrous effect on the environment if people living in forests, at the edge of an oasis in the desert, on sea coastlines, and in rocky terrain give  up non-vegetarian diet.

4) Deficiencies and searching for the wrong solution:

People who resort to plant based diet may suffer from protein deficiency, unless they resort to intake of milk and milk based products...but then the diary industry is to blame for large emissions of methane. Else you can intake eggs, but that is a type of animal farming as well and the poultry industry too is known for animal cruelty. Some would claim that deficiency in protein can be made up by using certain vegetarian foods like soy...now this is a horrible idea since we are again talking about increasing demand for a single plant and thereby moving towards less plant biodiversity.

Other arguments against taking up of vegetarian diet include (1)reducing the options for food (2)humans as natural non-vegetarians based on the intestine and stomach system and the tooth structure (3)humans as being close to chimpanzees who are omnivorous (4)the entire propaganda method in which people are espousing vegetarian diet 

It is difficult.. not impossible..!

I completely agree with you. What you said is true but its very difficult for a non-vegetarian to quit it. But there are some diet in non-veg, helps you to balance all the effects caused by it. So I stand with Non-veg.