It is perfectly possible to have a sufficient and comprehensive nutritional vegan diet. There is only a lack of B12 but that is found in any multivitimin supplements and 2 proteins, both of which are also available as supplements. Just because something has been practiced for along time does not make it right, nor does it undermine any arguments for change. I was not creating excuses for banning meat, I was proposing an argument for illegalising it along with necessary accomplimenting premises.

Well according to the medical experts (that is those who practice medicine, research it) it is possible to have a healthy diet based only on vegan products. Milk is often wrong because of the pain caused to the cows having to constantly produce milk. Moreover however when they stop producing enough milk of the right quality they are sold for meat. Eggs are considered vegan because most of the male chicks are killed at birth. Multivitims are recommended for everyone. Precisely what is wrong about this? Is it not natural?! Perhaps those 50 antibiotics and hormones injected into the cows isn't nature?

Can you define 'proper' in the context of food please?

alostentity, Ok, I must say, you do sound very genuine, and civilised - and more importantly, you're willing to engage in debate. I also apologies to you for not replying to you on the other thread sooner. So, let's take a look at your first proposition. "Take the Chimpanzee for example. There is evidence that they develop a language that differs from region to region which is picked up from birth". I personally believe in the idea of human exceptionalism, but your idea is one of the most popular and powerful arguments against such exceptionalism. Peter Singer is one of the most influential voices of such ideas. He argues a very similar point to yourself - that the great-apes (chimpanzees, orang-utans ect...) are not only humans nearest relative, but they apparently possess many characteristics we would only normally associate with humans. Nevertheless, can this really be true? Are the great apes just like us? Your are right, to a certain degree, about chimps communicating in the wild, or using tools like sticks or stones for feeding - but, what research has failed to explain, is how such behaviour might be some form of human-like insight. Such behaviour might aptly be explained through Darwin's theory of evolution as a type of associative learning - i.e. through the association between action and the reinforcer - no need for human-like insight. For example, monkeys in the wild scream when they see a predator at close-quarters, however, such screams have no insight - or at least, there is no evidence to suggest that monkeys know what they are doing. Having said that, there is no evidence that monkeys don't know what they are doing either - but what we do know, is that great-ape vocalisation is a trillion miles away from human language. Human communication goes far, far beyond rudimentary alerts about any given danger. The biological anthropologist Kathleen R Gibson, in the introduction of her book 'Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution', argues that ?[o]ther animals possess elements that are common to human behaviours, but none reaches the human level of accomplishment in any domain - vocal, gestural, imitative, technical or social. Nor do other species combine social, technical and linguistic behaviours into a rich, interactive and self-propelling cognitive complex', (page 7 & 8). Indeed, humanity and apes may have been on the Earth for over 6 million years, but in that time apes have evolved only 30 or so behavioural patterns - to argue that apes and humans are pretty much the same, is to denigrate humanity to that of a dumb animal. To argue that there's no real difference between apes and us is to trivialise and lower the human experience, by equating it to that of an animal. I think it's ironic that capable humans like yourself, with intelligence, who have the ability to know what you are, where you came from and where your going, use such ability to rubbish humanities exceptional nature, and your own abilities and achievements. "Is there a rational arguement for avoiding meat when possible? This would not so much be a question of morality but rather a humanitarian (as in compassion) arguement". The thing is, I'm a hardcore speciesist, I eat animals, but I won't eat humans. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Lectures on Ethics, that '[a]nimals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man'. In other words, animals are not really an end to themselves, that's why we can use them as a means to our ends. In the premodern world, this was not always the case. When animals and humans lived side-by-side in horrible degrading conditions, some tribes would call themselves 'human', but would perceive strangers and outsiders as lower than human so they could be killed without a second thought. It was only with the advent of ancient Greece that animals were pushed further out of the picture. It was early Christianity that developed a clear separation between humans and animals. The bible states that we are all made in the image of God; there was no such thing as a 'holy animal'. Indeed, the difference between humans and animals was seen as a 'gift' of God. The more society developed, the more the distinction between animals and humans appeared. By the time we reach Darwin, talk of similarity of humans and animals was seen for what it was - arrogant delusions. Again, there are many researchers in modern times who use their intelligent capacity for consciousness and creativity to degrade and devalue that very same consciousness and creativity. Your point about the 'degree of sentience in animals' pretty much sums up such arrogant delusion. According to this argument, we are supposed to believe that the ability to feel pain (sentience or painience) is somehow a definition of moral worth. So, as far as your concerned, pain, is pain, is pain - therefore, humans superior mental abilities really have no moral consequences, because none of this is relevant when it come to inflicting pain on animals. But, it is wrong to suggest and argue that we all live in some imagined shared community of pain - all that this argument does it to draw a false commonality between human and animals based solely on our central nervous system. Indeed, Peter Singer argued that we should treat animals in the same way we would treat someone who is mentally handicapped. But to compare a handicapped baby or person, who has, at the very least the potential to become a 'normal' human being with an animal, is to degrade babies or the mentally handicapped to that of an animal. Who knows, in the future, we might find cures for the mentally handicapped, which could reverse their state. That is why it is morally justifiable to cause pain in animals for the clear purpose of scientific enquiry or consumption. Of course mindless torture of animals for no good reason is wrong - not because of the pain caused to the animals, but because such treatment reflects badly on the human conducting it. It is right and proper to use animals in a controlled and conscious manner - whether it's the scientist, researcher, pet-owner or butcher.

Krop, "food which is 'not proper' is mecanicly recovered food that is sold to places like mcdonalds, food which has been grown and injected with hormones to produce the most meat, unatural foods. thats what i mean". I'm sorry to say, but this statement is rubbish - there's no such thing as 'not proper' food. Where is your evidence to suggest that what is sold in McDonald's is 'not proper'? The French fries are made from 'proper' potatoes, the all-beef patties come from 'proper' real cows. The buns are made from 'proper' real wheat and 'proper' sesame seeds. Where is your evidence to suggest that it's not? Of course, you have no proof, otherwise you would have shown it to us, wouldn't you? All you seem to have is junk propaganda. The only 'bad' food there is in the world, is food that has gone... err... bad. I'm sorry to say, but you sound more like a first class food snob - an organic munching liberal who looks down their noses at those people who actually do eat such things as McDonald's.

Solient Green....

The caption for that photo is; "Anyone see my glasses?" Thank you for your post. alostenity, I get a kick out of the reactionary who desires change for everyone, as if they have the inside track on all powerful. If you want to eat grass, be my guest. I'll eat meat thank you and I dare you to touch my plate.