Actually, cannibalism is common in the animal kingdom, especially among aquatic animals-- but I don't understand how that could be a justification for any human behaviour, anyway. Lions and porpoises don't possess the ability to discern right from wrong. We are not lions and porpoises. Because we have the capacity to comprehend ethics, I hold humans to higher standards. I don't believe that there's anything "extreme" about that view.

I don't mind seeing people eat meat. The exceptions are rare steaks and any "complete bodies" like Tod Pla (Thai fried fish).

I was working for an online food ordering company. I had to input many meat items. It grossed me out, oddly enough. Maybe because I never look at the meat options on menus. I just skip over them. I had to type lamb, beef, chicken, pork over and over. There are few vegetarian options. It reminded me that so many people eat meat.

By the way, if you look at birds, I mean wild birds, they don't lay eggs every day. A normal hen lays 1-2 eggs every 3 days, and not the whole year. And not her whole life. We humans domesticated them and chose the eggy ones (and meaty ones). Through the domestication, we changed what was supposed to be a chick into actual food. Lots of hens don't even bother sitting on their eggs. I've always seen our dwarf hens adopting the eggs of bigger races who wouldn't do the mother job.

The chicken eggs sold for human consumption are unfertilized. They will not develop into "critters." They are waste products.

Tow, is that ^ enough "common sense" or "rational thought" for you?

I would not call them waste products because they are exactly what our species wants them to be : rich food popping out every day. To me it would be waste if they would be laid by hens that are bread only for meat. Though I'm not sure those even reach the age to lay eggs.

I see you fail to see you comparison is flawed. I will not educate you one subject. What I will do is offer you this. You see both human and chicken eggs as waste if not fertilized. In fact they are both food sources. Food for other living things. A chicken egg left alone will be eaten by another animal or insect. Same goes for human "waste" as you call it if you let it run down your leg. An animal will eat it if they can get to it.


Humans are predator animals that hunt prey in order to survive. You choose what to eat as a human. But you are still an animal first. As humans we are at the top of the food chain, we can eat whatever we want....thank god for that as I love a good salad!.


Predator animals hunt prey to eat......we have a brain and can choose what we hunt for. Meat is not always on the list. Harvesting animals is no different than harvesting plants. (I'm not even going into cruelty to animals or plants!) Plants "feel" or "react" to other plants being harmed. After all they are living things too!.
Killing a chicken humanely is no different than cutting off a head of lettuce.


As a former member of the Amish community I am glad to be at the top of the food chain, otherwise I would be dead. I have skills and a brain to make my life meat free unlike other animals.


So, whether it's your egg or a chicken egg some animal is going to eat it if they want to. As an animal I would eat anything to nourish my body. As a human animal I have a choice! Anyone who chooses to eat other animal parts is only doing what animals do. You can't change who you are---only what you do.

Did you eat the cockatiel's eggs?

Yes, it is different. The chicken is sentient. You have taken a life. Animals are not harvested, they are slaughtered.

I take offense to your statement. I have never slaughtered any animal. I have harvested many. There is a difference. Until you come to grips that you are a human, a predator by nature, you are in denial. I choose to eat a meat free diet. I do not choose a meat free diet because of any animal issue. This is not a PETA website is it? Is it not about eating what we want, to be as healthy as we can be?


I have never abused any animal and never will. That is wrong and criminal. I have taken game, harvested farm animals, and raised animals for the bounty they produce. I do not equate harvesting animals as murder or even killing.


Taking a life is not easy. There has to be a reason for it first. If you are lower on the food chain you may end up as food...it's that simple. Taking a life, a human life would be the hardest to do. Nobody would want to do that. But, if someone or some thing threatened me or my families life I am prepared to exercise my 2nd Amendment right and stop that threat....even if death is what it takes to stop that threat.


It is my choice to not eat meat.......It will be my choice to defend myself if needed........how does the treatment of animals come into any of this? You speak of chickens as being aware beings.....all living things need respect. The plants we eat deserve as much respect as the animals most people eat.

This is not a PETA website, but a lot of people on here are animal rights activists, or people who are Veg*n because of "animal issues."

Plants deserve respect, but they are not sentient. They don't feel pain or experience suffering as far as science can tell, and we need to eat something. I have a choice so I choose plants, based on science.

Killing a animal for food that has been raised for that purpose is called slaughtering. That's just what it's called. Some people call it harvesting because they want to make it seem like it's no different than killing a plant. This is apparently how you see it so I am an utter, complete and overwhelmingly strong disagreement with you.

Humans aren't predatory by nature. We are opportunist omnivores smart enough to adapt to most environments on earth over two and a half million years. Now we are in a situation where we can see that it's not necessary to kill an animal before it's time for food or clothing. This simple fact renders the act of killing an animal for food or clothing an absolute injustice. You obviously disagree with this, and I'm sure you'll give us another eloquent fantasy about how happy animals are "harvested," and god and nature and flowers and butterflies and rainbows. However, I won't be reading it. I won't be reading any of your nonsense anymore. I respect you as a fellow human being, and I'm glad you don't eat meat anymore, but I don't respect your opinions about our feathered and furred brothers and sisters. It's for this reason that I am done with you.

Wow, for someone who has been in and out of a meat free life more than once you sure can condemn me for sticking with one way of life since my medical conditions dictated I eat no more meat. Well, happy trails to you and let us know when you fall off your wagon again so we don't judge you too hard.

Nailed it, I'm with you 200% on this and I couldn't have put it any better. Human beings from the start were opportunists with a proclivity towards bending the rules and manipulating nature's laws. Human beings do not deserve the tag of a predator, that goes to creatures like lions, tigers, wolves and birds like hawks, eagles to name a few - their bodies are a biological marvel, their sense of smell which can detect animals from meters away, very keen hearing with a range half a mile, eyesight that goes well over a mile with added ability of night vision, powerful limbs that can accelerate to over 50mph in short bursts and jaws that can put machines to shame (a tiger has a bite force of over 1100 pounds per square inch - compare that to man's maximum bite of 150 lbs psi), such animals can crush bone and skin like they were nothing. I'd say hunter animals earn their kill purely because of the effort involved.

Man without his "weapons" be it ancient age sticks & stones or modern age cleavers & guns wouldn't last 2 seconds face to face with a predator, a tiger can behead a man with just a slap. Agreed that man's intelligence is what nature has bestowed upon him rather than the gifts of sheer physical strength, isn't that all the more reason to choose peace rather than make weapons, at least in today's times?

It bothers me, so I don't eat in company. Ever. (fish doesn't bother me though, but full bodied shellfish makes me rly sad and one time I cried when I saw a lobster...)

The worst part is... When people shove meat in your face and say "MMMMMM BAAAAAACOOOONNNNNN!!!!!"

I live in MN so V*n/Pescatarianism isn't that common.

Cannibalism is an outdated term which has its etymology from the people of a tribe in West Indies who supposedly ate human meat. It just spread to a generic meaning today which doesn't quite make sense.

Now, I maybe wrong but I've been a member here for about 2+ years and I joined looking at the title, i.e Veggieboards. To the best of my knowledge this isn't a neutral forum, it has a purpose. Tolerance and not judging are all fine but it has its limits, specially when something an entire forum believes in is being questioned. To most of the members here the outside world is hard reality, they face ridicule, stupid questions and unfair judgements on their lifestyle which basically is about peace and harmony. Do they not have a right to express their views which may/may not be politically correct in this forum?

There are no extremes, political correctness is never present anywhere.. its each person following his/her own views and sugar-coating it. Debates are fine but we all have to remember that we have a single purpose on this forum, to advocate for veganism & vegetarianism. There's no point trying to segment ourselves based on motive, unity is strength.

+100 likes. Nuff said.

Usually I am able to *almost* ignore it - not because I'm desensitized per se, but just in the same vein as putting up with all the other things people do that bother me in order to just get along in life.

Times I am truly bothered are when someone is eating meat and talking about how great it is and how nutritious it is for you and some such. I was in that situation recently, and the guy who was chowing down was someone who drives me nuts anyway, and I didn't trust myself not to scream at him. I just ended up leaving (the bar, which served food). Which was a good move both in getting away from him, and in getting away from him talk about how great meat is. Of course, his near-orgasm over meat made me dislike him even more.

I'm an animal first? Speak for yourself, tow. I'm a creature of spirit first, which is why my spirit will outlive my body. God gave me plants for food, because it's best for my spirit; on the other hand, you teach the human body has priority over the soul. I'm sure you'll pardon me, if I don't join your church. In my opinion, that we are slaves to our bodies sounds like something the devil would teach.

There is no difference. You've killed mammals not unlike yourself and your loved ones for no reason other than to satisfy your desire to eat their corpses. If you're going to brag about it on a public forum, at least be honest about what you've done. There is a huge ethical difference between killing for survival and killing for taste. You will receive no sympathy here, at least not from anyone who truly cares about animal life.

As others have so eloquently explained already, humans are not predators. We're opportunistic omnivores. Our ancestors ate whatever they could to survive, which included scavenging the remains of prey left by true predators. We've survived because we're intelligent and adaptable, and our current environment is such that we no longer need to kill sentient creatures (or scavenge roadkill) to eat. To continue doing so without cause is cruel and archaic, certainly not a point of pride!

Animal rights and PETA are not synonymous, and veg*nism is not about "eating what we want." Why would you need a forum for people who do whatever they want without any consideration for those they harm along the way?

So would I. That doesn't justify my "harvesting" humans in situations where my life isn't threatened. Slaughtering a cow to eat his corpse doesn't qualify as self-defence.

Also, that's not what the Second Amendment means.


Beats me. You're the one who went off on a tangent about killing home intruders. I have no idea how the treatment of animals relates to that.

All lives deserve respect, but this does not make plants sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and fear. Are you truly arguing that plants possess sentience and the ability to suffer?

No Whey - I would love to give you a fist bump! Excellently said as always.

Aww. Thank you!

How do you know they don't?

Most people, specially scientists assume that they have nature figured out.. but the truth is that none of us have much idea so far but we sure are discovering as we go along and that's a good thing.

About plants, here is what I know so far from a mix of real-life experiences and reading articles. Two-three years back we had a tree on our lane that was leaning a bit too much, instead of cutting it down people felt that an already chopped up tree log can be used to prop up the bent tree and so it was done. The old log was perfect, it had a Y shape that could firmly hold the tree in place while the other end rested on the ground. What happened 6 months later was really amazing to me - the log which had no roots, no leaves suddenly began to grow a dozen leaves and it had firmly taken roots from the land beneath it. Today both have become perfectly healthy trees, the log hasn't grown in height but has thick healthy leaves in the hundreds. Whenever I pass by I always take this as an example of the resilience of plant life.

From this example I've no doubt that plants can perceive or detect the surroundings they are in, they do not die in the traditional sense of the word. The log could feel that it was placed in the ground & it immediately began to draw the nutrients & resources from it. Likewise its a known fact that certain flowers turn to the direction of sunlight, that certain leaves fold up immediately when touched (mimosa pudica) all irrefutable evidences of plants having the ability to feel their surroundings.

However I still don't know for sure if plants feel pain or even "die" in the traditional sense. Plants generate from almost nothing, in the sense that they don't have a definite origin story. They are derived from nature & they perceive nature without the presence of a nervous system or a brain - almost like the both are one and the same. Weeds, fungi, grass grow out of barren land and can generate infinitely. If we break off branches of trees they grow back in different ways while the branches themselves are capable of germinating into their own tree. I also read of an experiment where a flowering plant was grown with its roots across 2 pots, if one pot was dry it drew water from the other and successfully managed to survive the experiment. This makes me feel that plants are autonomous self-sustaining creations of nature - think about it, its the only creation that doesn't need anything else looking after it or giving birth to it.. it grows where conditions are favourable, if it fades during a harsh season it regerminates next season. It draws carbon dioxide & puts out oxygen, requires minimal water, takes sunlight which is abundant, almost as if it was made for a different purpose - something like a caretaker or sustainer of Earth as we know it. Truly amazing.

Because they don't possess a brain or a central nervous system. Plants can react to their surroundings, as @varun pointed out so elegantly above, but this does not suggest self-awareness. Every individual cell in your body reacts to its environment, as does a computer, yet you would not describe either as a sentient creature.

I don't know the extent to which plants possess "feeling", or whether they may be sentient in any way in which the term is commonly used. We're just beginning to learn about plants, because they are life forms so different from us.

I do know that whatever the case may be with respect to plants, we cause the least amount of harm by eating as low down the food chain as possible, and that's all the reason anyone needs for abstaining from eating animals.

We are animals - animals with the intelligence and reasoning ability to be able to comprehend the suffering we cause and therefore to have the responsibility to act in a way to minimize that suffering.

To call the killing of animals "harvesting" is a silly and transparent attempt to disguise the truth of what is being done. Companies no longer fire half their employees - they "downsize their workforce." Couples no longer divorce - they "engage in conscious uncoupling." People don't die - they "pass on." Sigh.

From veganrabbit.com:

Though certain scientific studies have shown that plants can react to stimuli, these reactions do not point to sentience because they lack three basic qualifications for requiring sentience:

Sensory organs — Plants don’t have organs which enable them to see, hear, taste, etc. like animals do.Variability of response — Animals have a conscious perception which acts as an intermediary between their environment and their many different behavioral responses to it.  Plants lack this variability in that they will react in the same manner regardless of different scenarios (ex.: growing toward the sun).Appetite and locomotion — Nature has enabled animals to be sentient because they have the ability to move around.  As I discussed briefly in my post about “ethical meat”, pain exists to teach sentient creatures what stimuli to avoid in the same way that pleasure exists to teach sentient creatures what stimuli to seek.

Plants do not feel pain the way animals do because they have no reason for it.  If a plant had the means to get up and walk away from an area that was too dry, wet or cold, it would make sense for nature to enable the plant to feel pain.  Enabling a living organism to feel pain without the ability for that organism to alleviate that pain is not something done by nature unless by some sort of mutation (i.e.: a creature being born without limbs or with mental or physical disabilities).

For more information on the science and philosophy explaining why plants are not sentient, click here and here.

2. Logical fallacy: Tu Quoque

A person who uses the “plants have feelings too” argument is guilty of using the Tu Quoque (You Yourself Do It) logical fallacy.  This fallacy has to do with accusing your critic of being guilty of doing the same thing they accuse you of, even though the two situations being compared are not identical.  For example:

“If a vegan can kill plants, then I have the right to kill to animals.”

As I have illustrated above, plants are not sentient and comparing plant’s reactions to stimuli and animal’s proven sentience is not the same, and this renders your argument fallacious.

Taking the above into consideration, for the sake of argument I will ignore the fact that there are clear biological and ethical differences between killing a plant and killing an animal.  Even if there was hypothetically no difference between the two, it still would not change the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right.  For example, if I were to rob a convenience store would that somehow make it okay for you to steal someone’s car?

3. Non-vegans kill more plants than vegans do

Living a lifestyle which includes animal products kills more plants than living a vegan lifestyle because the animals used in these industries are almost exclusively herbivorous (plant-eaters), with many consuming huge amounts of grains, grasses and seeds to be converted into a much smaller amount of meat, dairy and eggs.  Because of this, a non-vegan consumes more plants indirectly than a vegan does directly.  In other words, vegans don’t filter their nutrients through someone else’s digestive system.

Furthermore, animal agriculture is not sustainable and is one of the leading causes of environmental damage, resource depletion, and ecological imbalance, which threatens all plant life, not just the ones consumed by humans.

70% of the crops grown in the US are grown to feed animals on feedlots [Plants, Genes, and Agriculture by  Jones and Bartlet]7 football fields worth of forest land is bulldozed every 60 seconds to create more room for farmed animals and the crops that feed them [The Smithsonian Institution]80% of all agricultural land in the US is used to raise animals for food and grow grain to feed them — that’s almost 50% of the total land mass of the continental US [Major Uses of Land in the United States by Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa]

If you really care about plants, you should go vegan.

4. The possibility of plant sentience does not minimize the reality of animal sentience

The improbable and unproven sentience of plants has no influence on the proven and blatantly obvious sentience of animals.  Regardless of whether you believe that someone mowing the lawn is decapitating thousands of blades of grass, it doesn’t change the fact that animals suffer so long as you continue to consume them.

As discussed above, unlike plants, animals do have reasons to be sentient.

Sensory organs, to feel and perceive the world around them (ex.: ears to listen for lurking predators, eyes to spy on prey, etc.)Variability of response, to respond differently in different situations (ex.: a wildebeest will have different reactions depending on whether a wildebeest or a lion is approaching the herd)Appetite and locomotion, to seek food through foraging or hunting, which requires the ability to move around.  In order for animals to learn what to move toward and what to move away from, they require the ability to perceive pain and pleasure in relation to the objects around them.

Let me get this straight, honey is spit and nectar? If I use it for medical purposes such as burn treatment is that still bad?

I've heard hunters say they are harvesting a deer. And that doing such keeps down starvation and disease.

I don't mind it at all. I do get a little annoyed how the food network shows all of these food experts eating meat. They seem to feel it is a huge accomplishment to eat 3 pounds of meat in a sitting. It is so gross. I watch all of these shows and I can only say that it is amusing.