Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?
- Thread starter Kernl Sandrs
- Start date
I agree, hence "precautionary principle with regard to 'synthetically based ingredients'"
In other words, don't take the bran out of the wheat, then get operated for diverticulitis and then think all you need is a glass of soluble fiber and you're home free.
At some point it makes sense to reflect...am I missing the basic point of eating natural foods?
Physiology 101 - use it or lose it.
its occurrence within current context is undefined thus up for grabs.
even conventionally...
As new discoveries enabled us to study cells and microorganisms, new groups of life were revealed, and the fields of cell biology and microbiology were created. These new organisms were originally described separately in protozoa as animals and protophyta/thallophyta as plants, but were united by Haeckel in his kingdom protista, later the group of prokaryotes were split off in the kingdom Monera, eventually this kingdom would be divided in two separate groups, the Bacteria and the Archaea, leading to the six-kingdom system and eventually to the current three-domain system. The classification of eukaryotes is still controversial, with protist taxonomy especially problematic.
As microbiology, molecular biology and virology developed, non-cellular reproducing agents were discovered, such as viruses and viroids. Sometimes these entities are considered to be alive but others argue that viruses are not living organisms since they lack characteristics such as cell membrane, metabolism and do not grow or respond to their environments. Viruses can however be classed into "species" based on their biology and genetics but many aspects of such a classification remain controversial. (wiki)
despite her assertion, sam feels the need to slap a clause on the phrase..
sam said:
i too look around for exceptions finding a fairly large one......Autotroph
so ahh...
why bother?
what we are now is all we will ever be and that dearie shall be the whole of the law
But for life feeding upon that life, you would not be here.
So yes, why bother, we should kill ourselves cause the autotrophs are the only "true" life.
Last edited:
Good point - so maybe our future is to turn green and start busting out of our clothes - not as a form of aggression, but to expose maximum surface area to the photons. If we can go from chloroplasts to mitochondria, whats to stop the process from being reversed?
My son was breast fed, which is best, and then on a formula that was best met his needs. I think people should do what is proven healthiest for their children of course. I would never base my conclusions on one study of course. . . . I've heard some not so good things about high concentrations of soy though. It makes me wonder if this is natural soy, or GMO soy.
Your comment was floating in my brain when I came across this:
I haven't looked at the original publication, but its possible the high isoflavone concentrations could be due to GM soy. There are assertions of accelerated puberty and low fertility with high consumption of soy isoflavones but I'm not familiar with all the research on the subject.
sam said:
i knew i could count on you two to work out the technicalities
/smirk
ahimsa
when do we want it?
now!
If I had to eat only fruit/beans ad nauseum, it would make me feel pretty himsak let me tell you that.
I can do beanofruitarianism for a month, max