Eat & Drink
Indoor fishing in Toronto (in a swimming pool)
Did you know you can catch a rainbow trout in a downtown Toronto swimming pool? I know, it sounds like an urban legend - but I'm serious. And, on Thursday afternoon, I watched kids, teens, and adults delight in casting their rods into an indoor swimming pool and reeling in fish of all sizes.
"Gone Fishin'" is an annual event held at the Scadding Court Community Center, offering city dwellers a summer fishing experience without leaving the city.
Last weekend, the community center's 25-meter pool was drained, filled with tap water, and then filled with over 2,000 rainbow trout.
"When we first came up with this idea, we were trying to think about how we could use our resources and assets in different ways," explains Director of Development and Community Engagement Susanne Burkhardt, "A pool is traditionally only a pool in the summer, but we wanted to find new ways to utilize what we have."
According to Burkhardt, Scadding Court adds a chemical to the pool that binds any residual chlorine - ensuring the trout's weeklong home is anything but toxic. An air bubbler is also added, allowing aeration in the pool to keep the fish healthy - and presumably, tasty.
Once you catch your fish, you can head over to the kitchen where volunteers will gut, behead, and clean the fish for you before bagging it and sending you on your way.
Post-cleaning, one young boy was quite distraught over the fact that his fish no longer had a head, but quickly forgot about that when he saw me standing nearby with my camera. "My fish is almost dead!" he declared, clutching his plastic bag. "Wanna see?"
Uh, no thanks.
Recipes for cooking rainbow trout are available to participants as they leave; or alternatively - for those who don't feel like carrying a fish home on the TTC - you can head upstairs to the Cafe where staff will cook the fish and serve it with rice and a salad for a small fee.
Burkhardt tells me the event is amazingly popular, drawing crowds of all ages and ethnicities. The success of this program has led the center to think about other innovative ways to use what they have - and next week, while the pool is still filled with tap water, they're inviting dog owners to bring their pooch in for a swim.
"It sounds a little out there," laughs Burkhardt, "but when we started the fish pond nine years ago it sounded way out there as well, and now its turned into a regular, successful event."
Gone Fishin' is open to the public tonight from 3:30 - 7 p.m. and Saturday from 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Admission is $3 per person and includes one fish. Each additional fish caught is $3.50.
Discussion
261 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Reminds me of a prawn-fishing restaurant I went to in China where you sit around small pools of water, drink beer and try and catch your dinner. All indoors.
We caught 4.
The supermarket where you tell the butcher which fish you want and all he does is scoop it out and chop off the head for you.
Haven't been there in ages, but i remember it being a big deal to my then-15 year old self
Would love to see groups actually going to the lake to fish and getting connected.
the monkeys are coming!
Although farmed trout are of a lower grade and frequently pumped with antibiotics so your kids are actually better off eating a fish from lake Ontario than one of these.
For kids who live in the city, don't have access to a car to go out of town, money for equipment, etc - this is a pretty near idea.
To all the whiners - fish are for eating. Just ask a bear.
The hell that animal goes through to end up on your dinner plate isn't exactly humane either. Its far worse than being caught by a kid in a swimming pool..
the fish are in a swimming pool. in a gym. it's odd.
Most fishermen are not doing it out of necessity - it's apparently a relaxing and fun activity - except that an animal needlessly (key word in my argument) suffers for their enjoyment.
In any case, happy weekend to all. I'm going to go have a burger and beer, whilst driving my thoroughly inefficient 3.5L car. See - told you I'm not a tree hugger, but that doesn't mean I don't have some morals.
"No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded." ~Margaret Mead
The fish have more or less the same fate as they would if you bought a trout fillet at Metro, Whole Foods, Loblaws or even Pusateri's. But in this case there are a whole lot of people who are educated and can make up their own mind about the food they eat and a low income area gets an interesting and exciting event that brings the community together.
Many good reasons to opt for a plant based diet:
http://veganstreams.com/category/vegan-videos/
Enjoy your quinoa... I'll be over here with my bacon wrapped filet mignon. Medium rare (gotta have a little blood).
Killing animals for survival is what has gotten us this far and has been part of our lives since the dawn of humankind (before humans, even). Respecting the animal that is going to be your dinner is the best way to honor them.
Hopefully this teaches kids, who would normally grow up not thinking where their food comes from, that having respect for this once living creature is important. Perhaps these kids will grow up one day to disrespect these factory farming ideals and go catch the fish themselves - sustainable, you know?
Educating people on ways of being self-sustaining is a good thing, not everyone is going to choose your lifestyle, in fact hardly anyone will. Accept that and move on.
This event is hugely positive and I'm sure VERY impactful to it's audience.
Its funny how nobody is telling you to eat meat, but you feel the need to tell us not to eat it, in a thread about catching fish -- trolls, by definition, the lot of you.
Anyways. Enjoy your lifestyle. I'll enjoy mine. Diversity and tolerance are just 2 examples of things that makes our species unique to other species. Homogenizing lifestyle choices is just plain silly, who the hell wants a bland society like that?
Plants have no brain, central nervous system or pain receptors.
Killing animals has not been part of humankind. The earliest (known) 'humans' are known (based on strontium samples and samples from tooth enamel) to have lived on 'largely a vegetarian diet'.
The reason people are mentioning vegetarianism here is that they care about the welfare of animals (fish being part of the animal kingdom).
It is worth remembering that most of the people on here who have chosen to adopt a vegetarian diet started out eating meat, but then had the fortitude to change for reasons of health, compassion, or whatever. I think that is something which should be applauded rather than ridiculed. Most people are afraid of change, yet some of these people are quick-witted and intelligent enough to step away from the status quo and make an intelligent (or emotional) judgement and not follow the rest of society blindly like sheep.
Plant perception, while refuted, is something for you to at least consider as you're asking me to believe un-proven, refuted science as well. Ridiculous when you put that shoe on the other foot, isn't it? Which was my exact point in throwing plant perception into the debate.
Since when does "largely" = exclusively? Weak strawman, that.
The rest of your posts makes ridiculing suggestions that by eating meat you have no compassion, make less intelligent decisions, blah blah blah. Then you've got the wherewithal to say you should be respected and not ridiculed?
Enjoy your "lifestyle choice" And I will mine. I would rather think of the larger picture of environmental sustainability and stability and accept it or not the animal food chain is and always will be (until perhaps an alternative to food is discovered) a part of that.
However, I shall regress and say that this was a wonderful piece and - IMVHO - a great program
We won't be converted to your gay vegetarian ways. I'm afraid that's one gay parade you'll have to join alone. lol
Peace
Or whatever is right. It doesn't take fortitude to be a pansy. You can't stomach the place your food comes from, so you invent some morally superior bs and call yourself courageous. The human diet has always and will always contain meat. There are nutrients you get from meat that you can't get anywhere else, and meat tastes great.
I don't care that you're a self-righteous vegetable eating douchebag, makes no difference to me, but you can keep that bs to yourself. YOU decided YOU can't eat meat, then don't, live and let live.
Personally, I couldn't care less what people choose to consume as long as it does not involve innocent third parties. That is what keeps "douchebags" like me trying to make a positive difference in the world for those who are voiceless.
I disagree totally that a healthy diet MUST contain flesh - I'm living proof it doesn't, so's my husband... Some neighbors and many, many friends. I'm not faulting anyone for wanting their food to be delicious - Mine is I assure you!
But the "live and let live"? Why this is the essence of what is being asked of you! Our civilization will never be for the worse if we extend a bit of kindness to those "smaller" than us. ~peace~
I think it's very innovative, especially for the big city.
Does anybody know if we are required to bring our own fishing gear, or do they provide it/rent it there?
Also, how long will this event last for?
-- conflicting statement, much?
I disagree totally that a healthy diet MUST contain flesh
-- meat isn't flesh.
You've just manged to completely devalue any other fodder you're spewing with those 2 statements. Sounds like you're missing Omega 3 from your diet. You know what a good source of Omega3 is? FISH!
Where do you people come up with this stuff?
People aren't less enlightened, less compassionate, less intelligent, etc, etc for having different dietary choices than you. You're so over the top, its ridiculous.
Life feeds on life. This is necessary. (thanks, Tool)
Bev, you may want to pull out your grade 4 science textbooks on that one. It's quite necessary for different species to consume everything from bugs, vegetation & animals. It's what creates natures balance. We are a part of that balance, just like cats, dogs & (wait for it...) FISH!
The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
Humans are most often described as "omnivores." This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods.
A better and more objective technique is to look at human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are anatomically and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular kinds of diets. (It is common practice when examining fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features to deduce the animal's probable diet.) Therefore, we can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores (plant-eaters) and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological features are associated with each kind of diet. Then we can look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which group we belong.
Oral Cavity
Carnivores have a wide mouth opening in relation to their head size. This confers obvious advantages in developing the forces used in seizing, killing and dismembering prey. Facial musculature is reduced since these muscles would hinder a wide gape, and play no part in the animal's preparation of food for swallowing. In all mammalian carnivores, the jaw joint is a simple hinge joint lying in the same plane as the teeth. This type of joint is extremely stable and acts as the pivot point for the "lever arms" formed by the upper and lower jaws. The primary muscle used for operating the jaw in carnivores is the temporalis muscle. This muscle is so massive in carnivores that it accounts for most of the bulk of the sides of the head (when you pet a dog, you are petting its temporalis muscles). The "angle" of the mandible (lower jaw) in carnivores is small. This is because the muscles (masseter and pterygoids) that attach there are of minor importance in these animals. The lower jaw of carnivores cannot move forward, and has very limited side-to-side motion. When the jaw of a carnivore closes, the blade-shaped cheek molars slide past each other to give a slicing motion that is very effective for shearing meat off bone.
The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short, pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding. The canines are greatly elongated and dagger-like for stabbing, tearing and killing prey. The molars (carnassials) are flattened and triangular with jagged edges such that they function like serrated-edged blades. Because of the hinge-type joint, when a carnivore closes its jaw, the cheek teeth come together in a back-to-front fashion giving a smooth cutting motion like the blades on a pair of shears.
The saliva of carnivorous animals does not contain digestive enzymes. When eating, a mammalian carnivore gorges itself rapidly and does not chew its food. Since proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes cannot be liberated in the mouth due to the danger of autodigestion (damaging the oral cavity), carnivores do not need to mix their food with saliva; they simply bite off huge chunks of meat and swallow them whole.
According to evolutionary theory, the anatomical features consistent with an herbivorous diet represent a more recently derived condition than that of the carnivore. Herbivorous mammals have well-developed facial musculature, fleshy lips, a relatively small opening into the oral cavity and a thickened, muscular tongue. The lips aid in the movement of food into the mouth and, along with the facial (cheek) musculature and tongue, assist in the chewing of food. In herbivores, the jaw joint has moved to position above the plane of the teeth. Although this type of joint is less stable than the hinge-type joint of the carnivore, it is much more mobile and allows the complex jaw motions needed when chewing plant foods. Additionally, this type of jaw joint allows the upper and lower cheek teeth to come together along the length of the jaw more or less at once when the mouth is closed in order to form grinding platforms. (This type of joint is so important to a plant-eating animal, that it is believed to have evolved at least 15 different times in various plant-eating mammalian species.) The angle of the mandible has expanded to provide a broad area of attachment for the well-developed masseter and pterygoid muscles (these are the major muscles of chewing in plant-eating animals). The temporalis muscle is small and of minor importance. The masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling-like arrangement and swing the jaw from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing.
The dentition of herbivores is quite varied depending on the kind of vegetation a particular species is adapted to eat. Although these animals differ in the types and numbers of teeth they posses, the various kinds of teeth when present, share common structural features. The incisors are broad, flattened and spade-like. Canines may be small as in horses, prominent as in hippos, pigs and some primates (these are thought to be used for defense) or absent altogether. The molars, in general, are squared and flattened on top to provide a grinding surface. The molars cannot vertically slide past one another in a shearing/slicing motion, but they do horizontally slide across one another to crush and grind. The surface features of the molars vary depending on the type of plant material the animal eats. The teeth of herbivorous animals are closely grouped so that the incisors form an efficient cropping/biting mechanism, and the upper and lower molars form extended platforms for crushing and grinding. The "walled-in" oral cavity has a lot of potential space that is realized during eating.
These animals carefully and methodically chew their food, pushing the food back and forth into the grinding teeth with the tongue and cheek muscles. This thorough process is necessary to mechanically disrupt plant cell walls in order to release the digestible intracellular contents and ensure thorough mixing of this material with their saliva. This is important because the saliva of plant-eating mammals often contains carbohydrate-digesting enzymes which begin breaking down food molecules while the food is still in the mouth.
Stomach and Small Intestine
Striking differences between carnivores and herbivores are seen in these organs. Carnivores have a capacious simple (single-chambered) stomach. The stomach volume of a carnivore represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. Because meat is relatively easily digested, their small intestines (where absorption of food molecules takes place) are short — about three to five or six times the body length. Since these animals average a kill only about once a week, a large stomach volume is advantageous because it allows the animals to quickly gorge themselves when eating, taking in as much meat as possible at one time which can then be digested later while resting. Additionally, the ability of the carnivore stomach to secrete hydrochloric acid is exceptional. Carnivores are able to keep their gastric pH down around 1-2 even with food present. This is necessary to facilitate protein breakdown and to kill the abundant dangerous bacteria often found in decaying flesh foods.
Because of the relative difficulty with which various kinds of plant foods are broken down (due to large amounts of indigestible fibers), herbivores have significantly longer and in some cases, far more elaborate guts than carnivores. Herbivorous animals that consume plants containing a high proportion of cellulose must "ferment" (digest by bacterial enzyme action) their food to obtain the nutrient value. They are classified as either "ruminants" (foregut fermenters) or hindgut fermenters. The ruminants are the plant-eating animals with the celebrated multiple-chambered stomachs. Herbivorous animals that eat a diet of relatively soft vegetation do not need a multiple-chambered stomach. They typically have a simple stomach, and a long small intestine. These animals ferment the difficult-to-digest fibrous portions of their diets in their hindguts (colons). Many of these herbivores increase the sophistication and efficiency of their GI tracts by including carbohydrate-digesting enzymes in their saliva. A multiple-stomach fermentation process in an animal which consumed a diet of soft, pulpy vegetation would be energetically wasteful. Nutrients and calories would be consumed by the fermenting bacteria and protozoa before reaching the small intestine for absorption. The small intestine of plant-eating animals tends to be very long (greater than 10 times body length) to allow adequate time and space for absorption of the nutrients.
Colon
The large intestine (colon) of carnivores is simple and very short, as its only purposes are to absorb salt and water. It is approximately the same diameter as the small intestine and, consequently, has a limited capacity to function as a reservoir. The colon is short and non-pouched. The muscle is distributed throughout the wall, giving the colon a smooth cylindrical appearance. Although a bacterial population is present in the colon of carnivores, its activities are essentially putrefactive.
In herbivorous animals, the large intestine tends to be a highly specialized organ involved in water and electrolyte absorption, vitamin production and absorption, and/or fermentation of fibrous plant materials. The colons of herbivores are usually wider than their small intestine and are relatively long. In some plant-eating mammals, the colon has a pouched appearance due to the arrangement of the muscle fibers in the intestinal wall. Additionally, in some herbivores the cecum (the first section of the colon) is quite large and serves as the primary or accessory fermentation site.
What About Omnivores?
One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet.
This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores. Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters. (Interestingly, Polar bears hibernate during the summer months when seals are unavailable.)
In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The jaw joint of bears is in the same plane as the molar teeth. The temporalis muscle is massive, and the angle of the mandible is small corresponding to the limited role the pterygoid and masseter muscles play in operating the jaw. The small intestine is short (less than five times body length) like that of the pure carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short. The most prominent adaptation to an herbivorous diet in bears (and other "anatomical" omnivores) is the modification of their dentition. Bears retain the peg-like incisors, large canines and shearing premolars of a carnivore; but the molars have become squared with rounded cusps for crushing and grinding. Bears have not, however, adopted the flattened, blunt nails seen in most herbivores and retain the elongated, pointed claws of a carnivore.
An animal which captures, kills and eats prey must have the physical equipment which makes predation practical and efficient. Since bears include significant amounts of meat in their diet, they must retain the anatomical features that permit them to capture and kill prey animals. Hence, bears have a jaw structure, musculature and dentition which enable them to develop and apply the forces necessary to kill and dismember prey even though the majority of their diet is comprised of plant foods. Although an herbivore-style jaw joint (above the plane of the teeth) is a far more efficient joint for crushing and grinding vegetation and would potentially allow bears to exploit a wider range of plant foods in their diet, it is a much weaker joint than the hinge-style carnivore joint. The herbivore-style jaw joint is relatively easily dislocated and would not hold up well under the stresses of subduing struggling prey and/or crushing bones (nor would it allow the wide gape carnivores need). In the wild, an animal with a dislocated jaw would either soon starve to death or be eaten by something else and would, therefore, be selected against. A given species cannot adopt the weaker but more mobile and efficient herbivore-style joint until it has committed to an essentially plant-food diet test it risk jaw dislocation, death and ultimately, extinction.
What About Me?
The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called "muscles of expression" are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic "square jaw" of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.
Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods.
Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans.
Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)
The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.
Summary
In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
Facial Muscles
Carnivore Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore Well-developed
Omnivore Reduced
Human Well-developed
Jaw Type
Carnivore Angle not expanded
Herbivore Expanded angle
Omnivore Angle not expanded
Human Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore Above the plane of the molars
Omnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Human Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
Carnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Omnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side
Human No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore Temporalis
Herbivore Masseter and pterygoids
Omnivore Temporalis
Human Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore Large
Herbivore Small
Omnivore Large
Human Small
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore Short and pointed
Herbivore Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Omnivore Short and pointed
Human Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Omnivore Long, sharp and curved
Human Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Omnivore Sharp blades and/or flattened
Human Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Human Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore No digestive enzymes
Herbivore Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Omnivore No digestive enzymes
Human Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
Carnivore Simple
Herbivore Simple or multiple chambers
Omnivore Simple
Human Simple
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Omnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Human pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
Carnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Human 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore 10 to more than 12 times body length
Omnivore 4 to 6 times body length
Human 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
Carnivore Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore Long, complex; may be sacculated
Omnivore Simple, short and smooth
Human Long, sacculated
Liver
Carnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Omnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Human Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney
Carnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore Moderately concentrated urine
Omnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Human Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
Carnivore Sharp claws
Herbivore Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Omnivore Sharp claws
Human Flattened nails
And with regards to teaching kids, again your choice. If I have a child, I'm going to feed him/her meat, because that's exactly the way I was raised -- it's MY CHOICE to. But if my son or daughter came to me and said "Daddy, I don't want to eat meat anymore.." I would say "Whatever you choose to do is fine by me". In the end there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG. I have Vegan and Vegetarian friends who bake me and cook me their delicious dinners and I enjoy them very much and they show me the same respect when I go out to a bar and order a burger and eat it in front of their face. It's a good life when you respect each others morals and choices.
"It's a good life when you respect each others morals and choices." But doesn't respecting and valuing other's morals pre-suppose that those morals and choices are ethical? We don't just approve of bad behavior simply to avoid conflict - Right?
I don't know about you... But I was taught (over 57 years ago) to speak out against injustices and indiscriminate harm to the defenseless... And yes, I did consciously "choose" that doctrine many times, over and over in my life. ;)
No. It is a qualified statement. There are "exceptions" to many "rules". No contradiction - Just honesty. ;)
-- meat isn't flesh.
Ummm... What do you think it is? Seriously?
>>>Omega3 - Where do you think the fish get Omega 3 from? Algae. Humans can source it the same way! ;)
It is not a "childish" endeavor to protect the innocent from harm. Indeed the notion of sticking a line with a sharp hook on the end with the hopes of seizing a victim on it - FOR FUN... Now THAT's dangerously childish and pathetically juvenile.
Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar. ~Bradley Millar
I guess the rest of my points were too far above your head for you to understand. Sorry, I age does not always amount to wisdom in you 60+ years on the planet.
Hey, I would never let my grandma decide who I would date, nor would I want my grandma to decide what I eat. Sound good granny?
As a father it would be my choice as to how I would raise my child, when he or she is old enough to make his or her own decisions, I would do my best to support them. I was eating meats as early as 5 years old; and I've chosen to continue to eat meats for the rest of my life. Unless of course, I choose not to.
"I don't know about you... But I was taught (over 57 years ago) to speak out against injustices and indiscriminate harm to the defenseless... And yes, I did consciously "choose" that doctrine many times, over and over in my life. ;)"
And I was taught that eating meats was okay and that whatever choices I make in life would be fully supported by my family and friends. That there are people who choose alternative life styles and those people are to be respected for the choices they made in their life -- those choices might've led them to "greener pastures" or self-fulfillment. It's your choice to speak out on those issues and I respect that of you, I think it's a wonderful thing. But don't try to force those values on me because I won't take, allow me to make the CHOICE by myself and don't discriminate me because I'm a carnivore because I wouldn't do that to you for being an animal rights activist and Vegan.
But I challenge you on that Keven - I think the reason you ARE so defensive about what foods you eat is that you've never, ever questioned them before! I say you are threatened because your habits stem from ancient, fossilized OLD thinking... And your lifestyle is anchored in the OLD ways of your parents, parents, parents.
Adopting a vegan diet means "leaving home" intellectually. Most people stay forever little boys and little girls "safe" within the confines of their cultural ancestored ignorance. Growing up always requires questioning - Obviously some find that too difficult. But fortunately, many also do not! ;)
Trap some fish in a pool without a chance and yep, you're real pro anglers alright.
Hi Don - But of course you know no vegetation has a central nervous system. No vegetation is "aware" of it's beingness. No vegetation feels pain the way we do. No vegetation is like any dog, cat, cow, pig, man, frog, goat or bird. Pretty much no plant cares what the heck you do to it! Hence if you come over my house and walk on my grass - No big deal. Deliberately stomp on my cat's tail - Is a totally different story. Yes?
Furthermore - If someone were truly concerned with "plant suffering" - They'd still eat less meat as 70% of all our grains are "filtered" through animals first. Adopting a vegan diet would prevent so much plant "suffering" too.
Finally --- None of us could possibly survive without the consumption of vegetables and fruits. They are required to sustain a healthy body. Meat is not. In other words... You can live your whole life on plants alone.... Try the same with just flesh and you'd first become crippled (scurvy) in a matter of a year and perish with a few more. Meat is not essential to life... Plants are! That's why we may eat them in abundance and without remorse.
Good news - Yes? :)
But of course no one is preventing you from exercising your choice. But merely questioning why that choice is a good one. The reason you aren't "discriminating" me is because there are no "victims" in a plant based diet. Who would you tell me I was deliberately harming?
Some choices must be challenged in order to have cultural progress... For instance - You wouldn't just allow me to beat up a dog right? Or use roosters in cock-fights... Right? If it were my "choice" to put kittens in microwaves you'd speak out against my "choices". Yes? I bet you would even "discriminate" against me - What if I chose to harm children... Or the elderly... That would certainly warrant disapproval from not only you but most of society. Yes?
"Choices" are fine - like blue car/red car, college or not, marriage or not, etc. But when there are unwilling third-parties to those choices someone has to speak for them... Might as well be me --- Maybe even you too? It's just about expanding your circle of concern - That's all... Our civilization depends on this or we'd still have slavery and other atrocities. Not a good thing. :(
Are you out there preventing the big fish from eating the little fish? Didn't think so.
"I think the reason you ARE so defensive about what foods you eat is that you've never, ever questioned them before!"
How do you know? That's a pretty grave assumption there Bea. I'm not threatened by anything. I believe people should have choices. You on the other hand are clearly threatened by those of us that CHOOSE to eat meat, even after considering the alternatives. Saying I'm "threatened" when I've said nothing of the sort, but you've clearly demonstrated that you ARE, is pretty funny Bea. Bea, you may want to go to the doctor, do the ALS and dementia test(s). You could save your family a lot of heart-ache. I've been through dementia with a family member, it's very sad.
"Adopting a vegan diet means "leaving home" intellectually."
You're an insulting cow. Seriously. The only reason for your being seems to be promoting a Vegan "lifestyle". You need to grow up, stop insulting people, stop judging people and stop being such a "lifestyle" pundit that sees no other alternatives and doesn't respect anyone else's choices --- You're ridiculously immature in both your delivery and your intelligence, as you've only focused on debating the PEOPLE in this thread, rather than the subtances of their post(s).
Grow up. Move on. Go outside and save an ant hill.
So yes, you can def. survive without EVER eating vegetables. You seem to be very behind in your education with concern to many of the points brought up in this thread.
Bea, lots has changed since 60 years ago. Read some material. You may want to see what the "kids" are doing nowadays.
For $3.00 I can buy several pounds of beans and a jar of peanut butter. All much more nutritious and would last a week. Kill a fish... Eat for a day.
I repeat a final time --- Choice is fine as long as there are not innocent third party victims. I'm not telling you who to marry, where to live, how to dress, what to drive. I'm simply stating - Pleading that people extend thought and kindness in regards to how others are treated.
We have laws to protect humans. Laws that protect cats and dogs and "pets" - But the idea that we can do anything we wish to other animals in the name of entertainment OR a "food" that is not necessary deserves closer inspection of what our values truly are. Without insult and in the kindest way possible - All that is requested is to give thought to these actions and "consistency" when we claim ourselves to be "humane". Considering my points... Are we *really* humane?
You stick to your food choices and let others make their own.
Unless you're talking about buying "cheaper" peanut butter than what you'd buy at say, "Whole Foods", where you grind it yourself (and is WAY out of the average household's price range)? If you are, you're doing more damage than good. Most brands of peanut butter contain Palm Oil, which is responsible for a plethora of environmental issues, most notably, habitat loss of critically endangered species such as the Orangutan and Sumatran Tiger and a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions
I don't think the same could be said about the fish. 3.00 dollars for education, fun and enough food to feed your entire family (more than one occasion) is a pretty good deal!
You're claim throughout this entire thread is that, people that eat meat are "savages", lack "enlightenment", "compassionate", are "less healthy", are "delusional", "disrespectful", "childish", "pathetically juvenile", and "sociopaths". You've also claimed that by our choices we are: "less concerned", "bad parents" and the topper: "cultural ancestored ignorance"
These are your words. Not mine.
Pray Tell: What "points" have you addressed. Are you so out to lunch that you think castigating people and their choices are actually "debating the issue"? I believe you are.
The other "law" is The Humane Slaughter Act that merely states animals should be stunned before being butchered... BUT this only applies to cows, pigs, goats, sheep, etc. 9.5 billion chickens, turkeys and birds that are slaughtered every year have absolutely no "coverage" under any "humane" slaughter act. None at all.
So - Am I missing something here? Do you know of any laws that cover the treatment of fishes, birds, calves, etc. ??? I'd be very interested in learning of them - Sincerely I would. Thanks.
The other "law" is the Humane Slaughter Act that states animals must be stunned before being butchered. There is little to no oversight - And the industry is it's own regulator. Further more this "law" does not cover the 9.5 billion chickens, turkeys other birds or rabbits... It is only for cows, pigs, goats, sheep, etc. So if you can show me any law I'm not aware of that covers the treatment of fish, other sea life, or other animals destined for the plate I'd really love to know about them... Sincerely - I would --- What "laws" are there that I haven't covered here?
Bea V Elliott, you're not being positive for our cause at all. When someone tells you that they have made alternative choices to you it is their right and if they are offended by you, tey are 100% correct.
Even though I totally disagree with the content of this blog post, I feel the need to apologies to all that had to read these comments, not all of us feel this way about people that make different choices than we.
Enact positive change and the world will change positively! Embark on a war and the world will change negatively.
Bea V Elliott, you're not being positive for our cause at all. When someone tells you that they have made alternative choices to you it is their right and if they are offended by you, tey are 100% correct.
Even though I totally disagree with the content of this blog post, I feel the need to apologies to all that had to read these comments, not all of us feel this way about people that make different choices than we.
Enact positive change and the world will change positively! Embark on a war and the world will change negatively.
But of course you're right about the palm oil issues - If one were so inclined to do their part for Orangutans and Sumatran Tigers - Processing your own pnb would be a great idea... I bought my processor at a thrift store for $8.00 --- That makes pnb even cheaper and more eco-friendly than store bought.
Those fish... At $3.00 each --- How were they transported LIVE? Surely they had some type of life-preserving air circulaters - And some type of climate control gadget as well.
And I don't know about a decent meal had from fish... I used to salt water fish - By the time the scales, tails, bones, head and organs were removed most fishes hardly made a difference on a small plate. You're saying these fish feed a whole family?
Also - if you're so concerned with Orangutans and Sumatran Tigers you might want to take a look at this:
http://www.thisveganlife.org/circles-of-concern-circles-of-influence
It's all just as well anyway - I was about to close this circular argument as nothing seems to be advancing anyway. I'm content that I gave reason and compassion my best shot.
I leave hoping that a seed or two has been planted. It's how I got here - Someone challenged my course of thinking and I'm sure I won't be the last. Sometimes "positive" vegan cupcakes work... and sometimes people are motivated by ideas. Fair enough. ~peace~
Thankfully you are not a family member or friend of mine who would sit back and readily accept "different choices" like the acts of enslavement, exploitation, and murder we are witnessing here, and then speak against those who are opposing this!? Your comments (acute cognitive dissonance) are profound, to say the least.
I look forward to your response as to what "type of cause" ("positive change") you are supporting here. Your cause obviously does not support ALL Life, so please explain!? Also, I am VERY curious as to what your "business" is? By your comments here, I can only assume it is a human-centric enterprise, but, just in case I am not "100% correct", please enlighten me with more of your speciest wisdom.
As to the Veggie/vegan/omnivore debate. Well it's all a matter of personal choice. I myself was a veggie for about 5 years but found myself craving meat as to me it's natural. That being said there is nothing wrong with being concerned about how the animal that ends up on your plate was treated.
The program is educational, its meant to show them something interesting, once the program is done, the youth can go to Georgian Bay and fish in actual waters.
I am embarrassed that I let your irrelevant and irreverent criticism shake my personal oath to speak the truth on behalf of these victims. A momentary "slip" that I assure you will only fortify me in the future. For that I am grateful to you.
"The thinking [person] must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another."
— Albert Schweitzer
The notion that an INDOOR pool can't find a use except during Summer is ludicrous. Sounds to me like the city just isn't doing a very good job at recruiting and keeping swim instructors, coaches, swim teams, water polo teams, lap swimmers, and others to use the pool during the rest of the year.
On Fishing:
Fish feel pain and they suffer when they are fished. The
Learn more: http://www.chooseveg.com/fish.asp
Your article says that "while the pool is still filled with tap water, they're inviting dog owners to bring their pooch in for a swim." I'm struck by the contradiction of the pool's use first as a device to torture and kill animals and then as a device to entertain and exercise animals.
Lots of pools have "dog days" where dogs are allowed to swim, and those pool patrons don't need to fish first. Why not simply use the pool for compassionate, healthy activities for the whole family rather than use it to promote death, destruction, and violence?
Really, I came into this thread to state my points of view and to say while I don't follow Vegan ideals, that I would respect and support those who do. Yet you come out and not only disrespect me, but call me a murderer as well. Thanks so much, and then you wonder why Vegans get no respect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5vSia_tLeI&;feature=youtube_gdata_player
My cause? My cause.
My business? My business.
Now mind yours.
"Hey, I'll troll a thread about childhood education so I can get hits to my website!" -- F'N Standup! Bravo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc8TrchWeO0
Enjoy! ;)
So, who the hell are you "influencing" with your shit attitude and holier than thou b.s.? Yourself? Each other? LMAO! Get a grip, you're not Che Guevara.
At least people who are not afraid of posting their blog sites are also not the cowards who may be hiding behind "faux" and fabricated names. For all we know you Keven could be a 13 year-old child stealing time on daddy's p.c. Where is your authentic identity? Or are you ashamed of it for all the crude things you've posted thus far?
You really are stretching to find fault... Can we stick to the issue at hand which is unnecessary killing of living beings?
They can learn far worse just by turning on the TV. Like slaughtering other human beings!! We do it everyday and cheer about it when the "enemy" is killed.
I doubt any of these kids dreams will be to grow up to be a fish torturer because of this event.
Your point is well taken about the negative influence killing on t.v. has - And I'd encourage everyone to speak out against programs that "entertain" with violence... And to speak against war and human genocide too. This fish-hunting business is just a small link in a very long, complex chain of exploiting others based on a "might makes right" mindset.
Surely when we change that ideology when it's small - It will reflect to better ends eventually. Wouldn't it be a great event for kids to visit an animal sanctuary instead?
Screw 'em. Let's cook up some T-bones and salmon steaks tonight!
General question here. Would you a) allow them to destroy the ecosystem B) Kill the invaders within that ecosystem?
Remembering: You can't relocate something like fish, as you have to get every last one of them, otherwise it's futile. Getting every last one of them is impossible.
Actually, Bea, what this WHOLE ACTIVITY is designed to do is to bring people CLOSER to the food that they eat, and to teach children a little bit about how to respect the source of their food; To make them realize that the food that they are consuming was a living being at one point, and to drive home the point that meat comes from animals, not a supermarket.
In addition, your comment also reeks of paternalistic, western (upper-class) cultural ignorance. The location of this community center is very close to an area with a large recent immigrant population, many of whom are low-income. What this event does is allow them to show their children how to fish, something that is often a pivotal element of their home cultures, yet is often inaccessible to those without a high amount of disposable income, nor the tools to go fishing in the lake in a safe manner.
When people try to organize events like this, they are doing it with a view to encouraging people to think about where their food comes from, and to deepen their connection with their food. Don't believe me? Go sit in on some of the community cooking classes at Scadding Court. They're run by people who have a strong connection to the land (swing by the community garden there some day, it's beautiful), and an even deeper connection to their community. They care passionately about disrupting the factory-farming status quo, and this event was about strengthening inner city, underprivileged kids' connections to the foods they eat, the community they live in and often the culture that they come from. So when someone like you, who claims to be concerned with the ill effects of factory farming, comes out and cries against it, you move your entire cause back 3 giant steps.
Preach against factory farming all you want. Preach against the faceless nature of buying meat that you have no idea where it came from, preach against children who don't know that beef comes from cows and pork comes from pigs, preach against farmers being taken for all they're worth by slaughterhouses, meat packing plants and factory farming techniques. But when something GOOD like this in a city like Toronto comes along, maybe you need to take a step back and realize that people ARE going to continue to eat meat. If you don't, that's your choice. But don't victimize the kids, the community, the hard working volunteers and, to a greater extent, the small producers and farmers all around Ontario that work so hard to ensure that animals are raised and slaughtered in an ethical, humane fashion. They're partially on your side, and if you alienate them, then you've already won the fight for the factory farming status quo.
Ugh.... Immortal Technique? Seriously? Why should anyone listen to *him*? He can't even correctly spell the words in his damn song.....
Also, just wanted to point out that there is not enough arable land on the planet to support the human race at its present size. In order to fulfill the caloric requirements of the number of people we have, we need to eat meat that is raised on agriculturally nonviable land (pasture and plains) and protein that comes from our waterways. So who lives and dies if the world goes vegan? I can pretty much promise you it ain't gonna be wealthy North Americans. Where's your ethics on that one?">
Your lack of knowledge is profound, to say the least! You do know that 70% of the planets "arable land" is used to feed livestock!?
It takes 15-22 pounds of grains and grasses, and 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of flesh (cow). 1 acre of "arable land" can feed 20-25 Vegan humans, or produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, vs. feeding 1-2 human and producing 1 pound of flesh (cow).
It is estimated by the United Nations, that if we used the land that is now being used to raise meat and dairy (MAD), we could solve world starvation 14 times over! 40,000+ humans die everyday because "a few" erroneously "believe" they are the privileged among us!
I hope this was clear enough for you who are not plagued with, as you say... <"paternalistic, western (upper-class) cultural ignorance"> ...Good talking with you again... well only you know who you really are!
FYI fish eaters: 90% of all the big fish are now gone from our oceans and many are because we took their food from them, and yes most of our fish farms are collapsing because we have not a clue about respecting nature, and how to properly feed ourselves.
There is obviously something really missing from your lives or your diets.
But your shitty taste in rappers is totally beside the point.
*You're* the one taking part in needless killing and vehemently defending it. Your "personal choice" ends when there are victims involved, just like rape and child abuse don't simply boil down to harmless personal choices.
I realize that this exchange will never change you on this thread who have hardened your hearts toward animals that you see as beneath you, but I will continue to speak on behalf of your victims nonetheless.
Are you so bereft of activity that you actually think crusading Internet blogs, for a cause you seem to deem as revolutionary?
If you have anything to add to the discussion, besides your daft insults,, feel free.
Sad, shocking news, I imagine. But true. Your meat is a carcass. It's a corpse. It is, depending on your flesh of choice, a muscle, intestines, organ, or-- sorry, buddy-- the rectum of an animal.
I'd suggest research, and fast. Start easy. Your grammar school library will have some solid books that answer those burning questions like, "are rocks alive?" and "I can't see air-- are my parents lying to me that it's there?" and "what do the other kids mean when they call me 'morbidly obese'" and "does meat come from animals, like some meanie liars I bumped into online said?" Keep reading and educating yourself-- read like the wind, brave young hero!-- and don't give up, sweetie. Knowledge is power! :)
It's ironic that the medium is the web. I wonder why vegans even use the web, considering how many animals die and/or are displaced to power it all.
In all seriousness, the fact that everything is made of plastic which is made of oil has a way bigger impact of needless suffering than a few kids fishing.
Unless you live in the jungle and eat grass you are contributing to needless suffering. Guess where the plastic for your computer comes from? Oil. Guess what kind of suffering they need to inflict on the planet to get the oil? Much more than a few kids fishing.
Get off your high horse, your cellphone, computer, and all your modern day comforts because they come from the destruction of entire ecosystems. That is needless suffering. But I guess you need your iTunes...
It is *still* needless killing and violence being taught to children. Humans are capable of thriving on plant based diets, so why subject animals to torturous deaths when we don't have to? Vegan cuisine has come a LOOOONG way over the years, so you don't have to sacrifice taste on your way to becoming a more compassionate human being.
May I suggest you not point at what can't be done - But what can. Surely opting to not kill fish trapped in a swimming pool would fit that criteria.
And if there is not such a compassionate and thoughtful child in all this group... Is there not a parent or adult who sees the failing is in us?
"Human morality loses nothing when it expands the scope of its ethical concern. Kindness and peace toward other living beings will never deprive the human race of anything." ~Mac
I think that the mere mention of "veg" options reminds us all that there *ARE* choices. If not... We "broccoli heads" would not exist at all. Right? And I think this reminder sets uncomfortably with many who might have an inkling that choices towards "kindness" ought to be made more generously than what they are... This leads to a "fight" within their conscience. I believe what a wise man once said "Let your conscience win!"
I agree with you that we're all rational... Maybe some of us have been exposed to ideas of justice in a way that connected. While others (for whatever reason) don't or won't want to think of anything that complex or controversial. It is much better for many to not make waves and flow with consensus. But I truly believe that as time progresses this topic will gain more momentum and sincere thought. And animal use will be met with less and less favor.
You obviously understand this evolution, as you've acknowledged the flaws in discriminating against "colour of skin or religion" etc. But that took time and loud discord to heal too.
You're obviously making good judgments in that this is the way civilization should go... The "choir" always has a spare seat! ;)
At least I'm acknowledging it and not pretending that I dont' take part in it (like you, for example). Get your head out of the sand.
In contrast... Others use the web for Farmville. I have zero "guilt" about my choices. ;)
You're asking us to crtically think about something, but you've shown zero acknowledgement towards others that are asking you to do the same.
You've said as much in this reply that your work (a blog and trolling comment boards on the "interwebs" none-the-less), nullifies the damage done in using the medium -- "liberating nonhumans from this violent one" as a "necessity". -- Gotchya again!
Eating meat, not eating meat aside. We all contribute to the downfall of our planet. Would your "opinion" be any different if I chose to live in a house off the grid, raise my own livestock and yet, still chose to eat meat? Or is the crux of your problem the "meat" and not actually the "violence and destruction" caused by your lavish, 1st world comforts that you are endorsing in the name of your personal crusade?
I don't expect you to answer any of these critical questions. You've proven as much already.
But that's too much rawness for us isn't it? So we settle for something that looks like a fair deal given that we can stack the deck and play the cards however we wish. That's not respect at all.
If you accuse me of having "western cultural ignorance" I can only remind you that speciesism and classism are the same coin. You look down (and use) another group (nonhumans) because you view them as "less than" you. But their needs and interests are the same as yours!
If this event is part of a "traditional" or "heritage" revival - Since my ancestors bought slaves, am I free to purchase the little boy next door if he was for sale?
"Not all traditions are worthy of admiration and respect. Tradition should never be an excuse for cruelty, and surely harmful practices should not be condoned just because they are cultural practices,”
Michele Pickover, a spokeswoman for Animal Rights Africa
That said - I think it's wonderful that communities are involved in gardens and plantings that provide nutrition and repose. Are you familiar with The Edible Schoolyard? http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/about-us or the Raymond Elementary School students that planted a school vegetable and herb garden http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_8bc5b8de-9351-11e0-965d-001cc4c002e0.html Or St David's College Fruit and Vegetable Garden http://stdavidsveg.wordpress.com/ There's countless more examples that illustrate how kids love growing and tending to their plant-based food. Surly every nationality can relate to planting seeds and cultivating land? More "ethnic" folks originate from this background than "fishing" I assure you!
Finally - I won't argue that long after my bones are dust that some people will probably continue to kill and eat other beings. But just like today, although there is still slavery, it isn't "institutionally" condoned or glorified! I believe someday a plant based "choice" will be the prevelant one - Not the "meat". That time can be hastened or delayed according to what we do and say today.
As for me, it is continuing to call down the many seemingly innocuous "habits" and rituals that promote speciesism that will eventually end the harm. That is my goal. To stay silent while witnessing a wrong only helps the lie stay alive that much longer. No thanks.
I don't believe there is an "ethical" or "humane" way to raise/slaughter sentient beings. I am only expanding my circle of compassion... I wouldn't want someone to do this to me - Why would I say it's okay to do it to them?
Re: arable land - An acre can yield anywhere from 8 to 16 times the amount of calories of plant based food as it can food sourced from an animal. The hard truth is that we're fattening animals while allowing 1 billion people/year to starve.
Meanwhile - There's new technology taking a back seat to animal agricultural interests. Funding is not going to vertical farms, living walls or urband gardens. http://www.verticalfarm.com/ It's not going to invitro "cultured" meat... http://www.whyculturedmeat.org/ No. Government is supporting every kind of food that is NOT sustainable: http://www.pcrm.org/news/usda_food_plate_federal_subsidies_meat_dairy_110602.html
What it takes to make an 8 ounce steak could fill 45 bowls with grain:
http://www.emagazine.com/archive/142
12 pounds of wheat to produce just one hamburger. Twelve loaves of bread could be produced from the same amount of wheat.
http://www.meatoutmondays.org/hunger.php
And just today I read that oats are more profitable to feed to livestock than humans:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/latest/Oats-for-forage-124351944.html?rated=y
Pleeze - You're telling me I have stuck up "western" prejudices? This just isn't so.
If I raised my own livestock for my own food, lived off the grid and had virtually 0 carbon footprint, would you still think I was (insert token insult from your plethora of insults here)? Or is it JUST about the "food" aspect that bothers you the most?
Its a little hollow to cry about 100 fish in a swimming pool when large areas of forest are torn down for farmland. Animals are displaced and probably starve to death (which is a lot crueler than being beheaded or stabbed in the neck).
But its OK because you need your vegetables right?
Thanks for all the "Gotchyas" I knew you'd get it!
"Eating meat, not eating meat aside. We all contribute to the downfall of our planet. Would your "opinion" be any different if I chose to live in a house off the grid, raise my own livestock and yet, still chose to eat meat? Or is the crux of your problem the "meat" and not actually the "violence and destruction" caused by your lavish, 1st world comforts that you are endorsing in the name of your personal crusade?"
My opinion on killing innocent life would be the same. Adopting a plant based diet for secondary environmental reasons are all well and good... But the essence of my "crusade" is to promote the reality that nonhumans live for their own sake - Not ours.
I think it's fine to live off the grid as long as you can sustain your life without taking the lives of others. And surely the "others" are living on plants - No reason why you couldn't too.
BUT - do I think it's rational or wise for someone to abandon "civilization" just so they can live somewhere "primitive" in order to justify killing animals living at peace in their original home? No.
Gotchya again.
I used to fish so I'm aware of the desperate struggle at the end of the line...
"Anyone who says that life matters less to animals than it does to us has not held in his hands an animal fighting for its life. The whole of the being of the animal is thrown into that fight, without reserve." (Elizabeth Costello, in J. M. Coetzee's book The Lives of Animals)
And... Since you're concerned about the bears, raccoon, panthers, wolves, horses, foxes and other wild life - You might want to learn how many of these beings are killed for the sake of cattle interests.
Nice try though! ;)
But what you're doing is placing us all in preposterous situations. No one is going to go into the woods with nothing but their birthday suit - Live on the ground and ex-communicate themselves from civilization. A rare person would do this.
The questions are what can each of us do in the reality we live in? My idea and choice is that we can stop breeding 57 billion animals a year just to kill. I'm not telling the Inuits or the bushman to starve... I'm addressing we HERE who have other options. That is the REALITY I'd like to stick to in this debate if that's okay?
I'm assuming you have had kids at some point. Wife and I have decided NOT to have children due to the world's overpopulation, impact etc. If you have had children, that decision alone has cost more "innocent lives" as you like to say. My own personal impact, even with meat consumption 4 times a week (my personal consumption) is lower than your family's by a HUGE amount. Your family w/o eating meat, is most likely responsible for the death of far more animals then my lifestyle, even with my meat consumption, just because of the need for your conveniences.
Just cause YOU think it's preposterous, doesn't mean it is.
I don't know what living off the grid has anything to do with throwing away all my clothes, and ex-communicating myself from civilization, save the hyperbole. Civilization still will exist all around us, and clothes are mendable and makeable and last I checked, you don't kill things to make cotton.
Further reading on how your laziness (and creating a self-notion that this is "impossible" or preposterous as a 1st world consumer affects the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_usa_per_per-energy-usage-per-person
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100826040013AAKqiMc
So can you give up YOUR lifestyle CHOICE to kill zero animals a year? Hey, just change your out-dated thinking, be more compassionate and try not to let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
You... own... a... car...? You ABSOLUTELY kill more animals a year than I do to power that piece of crap -- especially cause it's not modern and efficient.
Not sure if you need this spoon fed to you or not, but creating and mining for oil has a HUGE effect on the animal kingdom. Up to 100k worth of animals die from oil spills ALONE. That's ONE small impact of mining for oil.
Now, I don't know that there's anything that hasn't been covered here... Environment, health, ethics, wildlife, kids... etc. If it's all the same - There's no information that I or anyone else can offer anyone that isn't available through the web... I suppose all one can do is plant seeds and hope they take. So if it's all the same to you I think we can call this discussion thorough enough.
I'll be watchful and hopeful for Keven to do great things! ;)
And you know what Bea? That's fine by me, it's your CHOICE to live your life this way. I would never castigate you for it and I certainly wouldn't expect you to adopt a lifestyle that my family has chosen over yours.
Just be honest with yourself. It's clear you're unable to come to grips with your own reality. You also are confusing reality with belief. I don't believe a veg diet is healthy. That's MY belief, not my "reality". Our bodies are ridiculously efficient at digesting meat, in fact more efficient than a veg diet. There are no accredited peer studies to prove that a veg lifestyle is healthier. I simply believe in balance and moderation. But thats a discussion for another day. That being said: Have a great day!
And I will maintain that your choices are fine as long as victims aren't bred to entertain or satisfy your wants. At that point my "choice" is to call the practice and habit unacceptable and changeable.
I thought I made it clear that I was aware our bodies could digest meat... After all I did it myself 2/3rds of my life... But I also know how my body in my REALITY has improved with the foregoing of it. I have more energy, my system "moves" the way it ought to. I don't take "supplements" - However I took a multitude of them while on the SAD diet. And I haven't been ill or "sick" for years... Ah correction - One minor 3 day cold 2 years ago... My bad. In all I feel better now than 25 years ago - So for me - it's working. ;)
I can also point you to many dieticians who would discredit you and your "beliefs". Well... for just one example - I figure Bill Clinton can afford the best health care in the world and his doctors highly approve of his plant based diet. You also might want to search "vegan athletes" if you think proper nutrition can't be had in plants.
And if there are but a few accredited peer studies it's because (obviously) a meat-based diet will be hard to fall and a plant based diet difficult to fund. A vegan notion isn't so popular on Wall Street.
But you're right, we should leave this to another day - I'm certain a keen mind like yours has absorbed some unexpected and challenging info. At least that's the hope... That we all continue to learn and grow. ~peace~
W.H.O is also not an "independent body" they make recommendations based on consultation. This is hardly enough (for me) to take it serious, unless I start seeing accreditted peer research, scientific process can't be ignored. Just because someone puts out a "shiny" report, 20 years ago, that speaks to your own beliefs, doesn't mean that the scientific community agrees with it. The report is also aimed at stopping world hunger and has nothing to do with "the healthiest diet on the planet"
"The WHO is financed by contributions from member states and donors. In recent years, the WHO's work has involved increasing collaboration with external bodies; there are currently around 80 partnerships ("official relations" and "working relations")[15] with NGOs and the pharmaceutical industry"
Don't get me wrong, they do amazing work, but one would be really naive to just "take their word for it". Read some contructive critism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism#Criticism
2) I'm not critizing anyone. I'm asking the vegans to keep their crtisisms (sorry, opinions) to themselves as there is no right/wrong answer to the health, well-being questions that seem to be scattered throughout this post. Trolling a thread about a community event aimed at children is my only crtitism. Otherwise, not sure what you feel I'm being critical about, unless you mean in my "thinking", to which I wholly agree.
"there is one solid, undeniable piece of evidence that humans are meant to eat some sort of meat product. One word: B12. This vitamin is essential for sustaining human life. Essential. And it does not occur in the plant kingdom. Period. But humans must have it to live."
"The World Health Organisation have stated that the vegan diet is the most healthiest on the planet."
-- Can you cite this? No. You can't, cause you're making it up.
"According to the director General of the World Health organization, the biggest threat facing humanity today are climate change, rising of new and old epidemic diseases, hunger, heart diseases, obesity, cancer, auto immune diseases and loss of freshwater. Many people will find it surprising to believe that all these problems can be scientifically and efficiently mitigated, managed or retarded if the world adopts a vegan diet."
Balance and moderation, can also lead to the same conclustion. The problem mostly lies in over-consumption and is much more complicated then you're eluding it to be, as simply a "health" issue. Problems can be solved in many ways. The WHO is trying to solve a problem, this was their "opinion" and the study isn't conclusive in any way.
Here's the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#
or you can just google it.
"WHO just a political body?"
No. I said:
"WHO is a political body" -- You added the "just" by yourself.
"B12?"
- Sure you can get b12 from a supplement. I'm talking about a natural diet, not one based on supplements and pills.
"Just making up WHO reference"
What references have I made up? You're not even citing anything to prove me wrong. So seriously, stfu.
-- You, seriously said this? Wow. Yea, I generally base important life decisions on biased documentaries :P
Watching it wouldn't change my mind. Is that okay with you? Am I allowed by you to keep my "opinion"?
"It should be noted that (most) veggies aren't trying to convert into their 'cause', they only want you to consider their point of view before vehement condemnation of their lifestyle. "
How dare you speak for me. I've considered it, decided against it. Is that also okay with you? Am I allowed by your to keep my "opinion" as my "choice"? -- Probably not. I'm sure you'll have something more to say concerning MY choices, which cannot be proven right/wrong.
If you have anything intelligent to add, I'll respond. Otherwise, consider this notice.
Kevin has failed to note that no accredited organizations are encouraging humans to consume vegetables, grains,and legumes in moderation - quite the contrary... Even though Dean Ornish,MD, is published in JAMA with documented evidence (as in, clinical trials) that a vegan diet is effective in both preventing, as well as reversing cardiovascular disease, this too is irrelevant and will continue to be, even after Kevin (and those like him) loses his own prostate health/virility, followed by his first cardiovascular event, aka stroke, heart attack OR colon cancer. Nope, he'll keep clogging that herbivorous colon with meat, take a statin and a blood thinner, et al, and keep on chowing down. Big Pharma is counting on him as is animal agriculture whose marketing he has apparently bought, hook, line, and sinker...
But back to the REAL 'meat' of the original article, the true division in this thread, the real heart of the matter.... Kevin(and those like him) doesn't CARE that he causes pain, or suffering and death to the other sentients of our mutual planet, including these poor fish-in-a-barrel. This is just plain old wholesome fun for the kids of today; we must desensitize them before they start trying to manifest their innate, albeit troublesome empathy. Hooks in the mouth, be-headings, no big deal! They're only fish and Kevin is the superior FFF'ing species, or so he fancies himself; he has a right to perpetrate these atrocities on non-humans, as evidenced by his disregard for their feelings or their well-being, other than how it might affect him. Sadly, this worldview is business as usual in this mile-wide, inch-deep culture.
No addict truly 'cares' who they hurt or how they do it, not even themselves. He's got a decent IQ, but his emotional intelligence is in the red. He's mean and he's gotta have it and he's gonna have his meat-fix, by god! There's no reasoning with an addict, but they sure do enjoy the attention and the banter as everyone pathetically tries...(myself included). Are you vegans blue in the face yet? Because Kevin is surging with vehemence for those of us that care enough to lend our voices for the voiceless, and he's only just begun... so go ahead, continue to make his day.
Hopefully when he hits bottom he'll re-evaluate the supposedly arbitrary evidence/data, his personal choice in favor of 21st century compassion over Dark Ages cruelty. Then, his health as well as the health of our planet(and everyone else who shares it)will be the better for it.
Moderation and balance. Sorry if you weren't able to comprehend that when I said: "I simply believe in balance and moderation.", perhaps I should have been more clear :P
"Dean Ornish,MD, is published in JAMA with documented evidence (as in, clinical trials) that a vegan diet is effective in both preventing, as well as reversing cardiovascular disease"
I really don't think you understand the evidence of Dr. Dean Ornish. If I had a pre-existing heart condition, you would have a point, but I don't. Maybe you need to re-read the actual report (as I have many years ago), instead of taking talking points from the PETA website.
"Nope, he'll keep clogging that herbivorous colon with meat"
There you go, making up things again! Just stop, please for the sake of your "cause".
-- "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. "
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#intest
"loses his own prostate health/virility, followed by his first cardiovascular event, aka stroke, heart attack OR colon cancer."
Since when does eating meat *automatically* makes you at risk. Actually a vegan diet can also cause those same things. So, you're just making stuff up now. And, since when does "prevention" = "immunity"?
"He's a meat addict. Duh! Facts, health or environmental, are of little significance to him"
Meat addict? Hrmph, can you cite some medical evidence of that? Can't seem to find any information about it. Wanna know why? Cause you're just making stuff up, again! I've also outlined how I am quite the environmentalist, so there you go, making stuff up! (AGAIN!)
"Hopefully when he hits bottom he'll re-evaluate the supposedly arbitrary evidence/data, his personal choice in favor of 21st century compassion over Dark Ages cruelty. Then, his health as well as the health of our planet(and everyone else who shares it)will be the better for it. "
So is it about cruelty or health? I'm a very healthy person, perhaps even healthier than you.
Anyways, awesome fantasy fiction you wrote out! Trolling the internet to spread false information and try to make me feel guilty about eating meat. Really, really cute!!! You really are "special" Tierra, turning fiction into fact is a really handy trolling tool isn't it?
"Big Pharma is counting on him as is animal agriculture whose marketing he has apparently bought, hook, line, and sinker... "
I don't take pharmaceutical drugs at all, but haven't you ever wondered who manufactures all the supplements you take? Crtical thinking is a good thing, you should try it sometime! :) Some further reading to give you some perspective on your "choice" - http://www.vegsoc.org/page.aspx?pid=777
Happy learning!
"Ornish recommends the consumption of fish oil supplements and does not follow a strict vegetarian diet, allowing for the consumption of occasional animal products"
Aaaannnnddd... Where on earth do you think fish oil comes from?
I guess with a name like Rob I can't expect much from you...
Fucking retard.
Go suck a bamboo shute, fgt.
ALL carnivores require taurine (an amino acid) to be taken into their diet (from meat); ALL herbivores manufacture taurine in their own bodies - taurine is one of our non-essential amino acids & is manufactured in our bodies.
Carnivores find the smell of rotting flesh a stimulant; herbivores find the smell repulsive - have you ever smelt rotting flesh?
Carnivores have a digestive system which is roughly 24hours. Herbivores digestive system is roughly 48hours. Can you guess the digestive system of people? Does this indicate carnivorous or herbivorous (be truthful now).
Carnivores manufacture vitamin C in their own bodies; herbivores need to have vitamin C as part of their diet. Ever heard of scurvy?
The jaws of carnivores are typically elongated; the jaws of herbivores are more rounded. Mmm.
The canine teeth of carnivores are designed for dispatching live prey and tearing at raw flesh. Our 'canine' teeth are canine in name only. Other plant-eaters such as gorillas, horses and hippos have 'canines' and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours (why not google a picture of a chimp?).
On the subject of canine teeth, a quote from John A. McDougall, M.D. (which stands for Medical Doctor):
"Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not tearing and masticating flesh. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores. I lecture to over 10,000 dentists, dental hygienists, and oral specialists every year, and I always ask them to show me the “canine” teeth in a person’s mouth – those that resemble a cat’s or dog’s teeth – I am still waiting to be shown the first example of a sharply pointed canine tooth.
If you have any doubt of the truth of this observation then go look in the mirror right now – you may have learned to call your 4 corner front teeth, “canine teeth” – but in no way do they resemble the sharp, jagged, blades of a true carnivore – your corner teeth are short, blunted, and flat on top (or slightly rounded at most). Nor do they ever function in the manner of true canine teeth. Have you ever observed someone purposely favoring these teeth while tearing off a piece of steak or chewing it? Nor have I. The lower jaw of a meat-eating animal has very little side-to-side motion – it is fixed to open and close, which adds strength and stability to its powerful bite. Like other plant-eating animals our jaw can move forwards and backwards, and side-to-side, as well as open and close, for biting off pieces of plant matter, and then grinding them into smaller pieces with our flat molars."
So yes, we are capable of eating meat, but our bodies are not really designed for it. We're not designed to have heart-attacks and strokes
This link should give you some insight into where your B12 argument is seriously flawed: http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html (copy & paste).
You say that I'm making up the World Health Organisation findings? As I have previously stated, you need to do some more diligent research. The findings by the World Health Organisation have also been backed up by The British Medical Association; The China Study; The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; The Oxford Study; The American Diabetic Association; and more recently, The British Diabetic Association http://www.wisegeek.com/has-it-been-proven-that-a-vegetarian-diet-is-really-healthier.htm (copy & paste).
Another massive study was carried out by the National Institute of Health which showed similar results - a vegan diet is far healthier. The National Academy of Sciences as well as General Conference Nutrition Council adapted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This has also been endorsed by the National Health Association; Department of Nutrition and Wellness and Cancer Research UK ('ALL cancers are much more prevalent in meat-eaters').
The evidence that we are true omnivores *is* compelling. Click the link I posted above or do some research with regards to *respected* evidence. You have failed at this, completely.
You've claimed that these studies conclude that "a vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet".
A careful review of the studies cited to support your argument for a vegetarian diet shows that the studies are either seriously flawed or the conclusions of the study do not support your claims, but in fact, support a omnivorous diet as being best. The major dietary culprits in cancer and arterial plaque are in fact, plant oils, not animal fats.
I won't even get into the flaws in research OR the bias of almost all of these organizations, cause at this point you're actually supporting my viewpoint by referencing these studies, because you're only taking talking points from them, not actually reading them. You'd think you'd have a bit more due diligence in you research if you are to make such a life altering decision.
[Drs. Messina, V. M, 1996)which are to be found in (non-animal) nature and which always existed in nature (such as seaweed, algae, fermented foods, like spirilana, tempeh & miso to name but a few, as well as plants coming into contact with) why? Are you simply ignoring the obvious in order to reinforce an opinion which is just too desperate to justify? Why are you so vehemently opposed to those who choose not to eat (unnatural) decaying flesh? Why are you so vehemently attempting to defend the indefensible - do you work for the meat-marketing-board? Maybe you're just stuck in your ways and afraid of change (the "we've always done it this way" mentality); or perhaps you harbour a secret yearning that you had the backbone to try something different for reasons of compassion or health.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029531_vitamin_B12_vegan.html
- LOL, you're f'n serious? Cats are obligate carnivores: their physiology has evolved to efficiently process meat, and they have difficulty digesting plant matter.
"You have totally ignored the fact that we have neither the physique or digestion to support a carnivore diet"
You are wrong AND for the 4th, here you go: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
"You state that we need to eat meat to obtain B12, but fail to explain why almost all reported cases of B12 deficiencies are to be found in meat-eaters"
- Deficiency does not equal unobtainable. I think you need to familiarize yourself with some of the "big" words you're trying to use.
Also, yes you can get B12 from plants, after they've been contaminated with (usually) human feces. So what do you think happens when you wash those vegetables, genius? If you're not washing them, well I guess I'd say: "Eat shit, a billion flies can't be wrong".
Finally "You cited "facts" from a site called "pam rotella's vegetarian fun page". -- Nothing you're saying is informative, in fact you're crazy enough to claim that cats are omnivores and a deficiency in SOME humans MUST be because B12 isn't available in meat.
So, yea, if you want to continue this conversation, I'd suggest reading what I write, I've touched on all your deluded points and at this point I feel like I'm enabling someone's misguided thoughts and SERIOUS lack of education on a subject which is going to affect you for the rest of your life. Funny that.
-- Do you have a comprehension problem? Not ONCE have I said that. In fact the entire thread I've said that food CHOICES are personal and nobody should be castigated for their PERSONAL CHOICE. YOU and every single one of you veg heads in this thread have insulted and castigated everyone for their CHOICE to eat meat. How is decaying flesh unnatural? Decaying is unnatural, or meat is unnatural? Misguided much?
"do you work for the meat-marketing-board? "
-- Yes, clearly anyone defending their dietary CHOICE that includes meat, MUST work for the meat marketing board :P
Yup, that pretty much sums it up. You "think" what you want to believe, no matter how ridiculously deluded it is.
" I don't think you've come up with a solution about the B12 debate either"
Lol, are you totally daft? Vegans need to come up with the solution, B12 is READILY available in meat. If people who eat meat have a "deficiency" in this area, it's only cause they are eating over-processed meat. What does that have to do with the fact that B12 is only available in vegetables if contaminated with feces, that you will then wash off, negating the vitamin itself?
Stephen:
"You need to look at facts, Keven, not prejudices. Speak soon."
I have, thanks. Stop being so condescending. Prejudice? Ummm... look in the mirror buddy, I have nothing against you for your food choices, but you have something against those of us that eat meat. You're such an idiot if you believe I have any prejudices, when you've clearly demonstrated your own.
"I have 3 degrees and am paid to do research analytically, providing a critical analysis and evaluation of all of the known facts"
You have 3 degrees -- who cares? -- You do research analytically, providing critical analysis and evaluation of all of what known facts? You work full time in "vegan research"? LMAO!
If you are a "scientist" (I highly doubt it) why are you not focusing on the lack of peer evaluated research? Why do you cite sites like: "Vegan fun emporium" or whatever ridiculous page you cited? Why are you so banal with facts like B12 and can't distinquish between availability and deficiency? Why have you stated that cats are omnivores? Or claim that a vegan diet was said to be the "healthiest diet on the planet by the U.N."; yet you can't cite a single claim of that in the entire report? -- You know why? Cause you're hardly any kind of scientist. You posses absolutely 0 comprehension on the most basic fundamentals of scientific process and logic.
I know that is difficult for somebody like yourself, who clearly has some form of learning disability and is utterly unable to grasp the concept of rational thought. Still, if bafoonery is the bag you're into...who am I to interfere with your bizarre fantasy which most people call reality. I have cited the information you wanted, but you have conveniently ignored it - again, nor have you been able to answer any of my questions, yet you seem capable of typing gratititous drivel (monkey with keyboard springs to mind - except monkeys exhibit a smidgen of intelligence). Scientist? I have 15 letters after my name (academia - you wouldn't understand), yet you would, in all probability, even struggle to write yours. Maybe you should ask nurse for a new set of crayons and ask her to spell it for you. Keven, you are the most opinionated, irrational, stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I was going to say your comments were moronic, but as I have just invented a new word for moron (Keven), I would say that they were 'kevenic'. Keep taking the tablets.
ps Ask an adult to read this out to you and explain it, you may be able to grasp the whole concept within a few decades.
pps I have been a vegan for over 20 years now, aren't you proud of me? It's just a shame that I ate dead animal parts for 25 years before that - it made me feel like bloated shit. Now I know how you must be feeling. Give my love to the spacemen
[url=http://www.electroniccigshop.com/kits/ ]cheap smokeless cigarettes [/url] (often called e-cigarettes and electrical cigarettes)are classified as the newest products on the current market. They are intended to feel and appear like true cigarettes, even right down to emitting synthetic smoke nonetheless they do not basically incorporate any tobacco. Buyers inhale nicotine vapour which seems like smoke without any of your carcinogens found in tobacco smoke that happen to be hazardous into the smoker and other individuals all around him.
The Ecigarette includes a nicotine cartridge that contains liquid nicotine. Any time a person inhales, a very small battery driven atomizer turns a little amount of liquid nicotine into vapour. Inhaling nicotine vapour provides the user a nicotine hit in seconds quite than minutes with patches or gum. If the user inhales, a small LED mild in the idea of the electronic cigarette glows orange to simulate an actual cigarette.
The nicotine cartridges themselves come in many strengths. A lot of the major manufacturers, like the Gamucci ecigarette have full energy, 50 percent energy and minimum strength. This really is designed for people today who desire to stop smoking. Because they get used to employing the electronic cigarette, they could little by little decrease the power they use until eventually they quit.
The main advantages e-cigs have above nicotine patches or gum is firstly, end users have the nicotine strike significantly quicker and second of all, since a major reason why people who smoke fail to quit suing patches and gum is given that they nonetheless miss the act of inhaling smoke from a cylindrical object. The ecigarette emulates that even all the way down to the smoke.
The ecigarette is additionally beneficial from the monetary standpoint. A set of 5 nicotine cartridges expenses around £8 which is equal to 500 cigarettes. Despite the fact that the initial investment of an electric cigarette kit of £50 may perhaps feel steep initially, users spend less income eventually.
Just like many well-liked goods, there have already been a great number of low-priced Chinese imitations flooding the market. They may be generally 50 percent the price of a branded electric cigarette and seem like the true issue too. It's inadvisable to work with these as they have not been topic to the very same rigorous screening the official e cigarettes have and may potentially be hugely destructive to your user's wellness.
As e cigs grow to be a growing number of popular, they are ever more employed to smoke in pubs and clubs by using a cigarette smoking ban. E-cigs appear to be the following matter and should shortly substitute authentic cigarettes in clubs.