Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 \An " i*mal\, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F. animal. ] 1. An organized living being endowed with sensation and the power of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking its food into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active aggressive force with progress to maturity. - Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. On 25 Aug 2003 at 18:25, Jan P wrote: I think fish would be an animal like someone else stated. anything that is living and has eyes and central nervouse system. That moveson its on. That thinks of ways to get food. I see it as I was taught in school animals and plants. Jan == Want to see what I've been reading?? http://pixxart.com/bc http://bookcrossing.com/referral/PHC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. They give off carbon dioxide...so I guess that's a " yes, " although I've never heard it called " carbonic acid " before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 well maybe not directly, but their gills still expel co2 into the water which will evaporate into the air. the only " creatures " that are not considered animals are the one-celled organisms like bacteria. I do not treat bacteria with the same ethical standards that i give to animals but i have heard of a few vegans who do, and avoid using vaccines because of this. I can understand respecting the existance of bacteria because of their essential place within the ecosystem, but sheesh! , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > \An " i*mal\, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F. animal. ] 1. An > organized living being endowed with sensation and the power > of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking its food > into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving > carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of > respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active > aggressive force with progress to maturity. > - > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 dave wrote: well maybe not directly, but their gills still expel co2 into the water which will evaporate into the air. ** This is what I was asking....Thanks!! ;~) == Want to see what I've been reading?? http://pixxart.com/bc http://bookcrossing.com/referral/PHC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 If i remember from chemistry acid must contain Hydrogen so technically co2 is not an acid. for some reason carbonic acid used to refer to co2. , " grrl4Chris " <journalfaery> wrote: > > > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. > > They give off carbon dioxide...so I guess that's a " yes, " although > I've never heard it called " carbonic acid " before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 Thanks, yeah, I think that threw me too.... grrl4Chris wrote: > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. They give off carbon dioxide...so I guess that's a " yes, " although I've never heard it called " carbonic acid " before. == Want to see what I've been reading?? http://pixxart.com/bc http://bookcrossing.com/referral/PHC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > \An " i*mal\, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F. animal. ] 1. An > organized living being endowed with sensation and the power > of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking its food > into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving > carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of > respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active > aggressive force with progress to maturity. > - > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. Fish have their own " power of voluntary motion " which, whether they breathe or not, would automatically include them in the definition of animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 it's got to be about impossible to avoid bacteria. it's in everything! our digestive tracts need it for one and it's an essential part of nature. i would never go that far. i don't know how one could avoid bacteria. , " dave " <dave4sale> wrote: > well maybe not directly, but their gills still expel co2 into the > water which will evaporate into the air. the only " creatures " that > are not considered animals are the one-celled organisms like > bacteria. I do not treat bacteria with the same ethical standards > that i give to animals but i have heard of a few vegans who do, and > avoid using vaccines because of this. I can understand respecting > the existance of bacteria because of their essential place within the > ecosystem, but sheesh! > > , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > > \An " i*mal\, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F. animal. ] 1. An > > organized living being endowed with sensation and the power > > of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking its food > > into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving > > carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of > > respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active > > aggressive force with progress to maturity. > > - > > Anyone know enough about fish to know if they " give > > carbonic acid to the air " ?? I know they need oxygen. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 Sheryl wrote: Fish have their own " power of voluntary motion " which, whether they breathe or not, would automatically include them in the definition of animals. ** Wouldn't that exclude sponges??? == Want to see what I've been reading?? http://pixxart.com/bc http://bookcrossing.com/referral/PHC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 you can't. i don't think they're that naive that they think they can avoid killing bacteria, they just are applying the least harm principle. since you won't necessarily get the disease, you don't " need " the vaccine. since bacteria have no nervous system and have an extremely short lifespan it seems pretty ridiculous to me to concern yourself with how many bacteria one kills. In a spirituality forum i belonged to one person went so far as to go, the earth doesnt' have a central nervous system, but it still feels pain... this was not meant in defense of the environment, but rather used to justify his meat-eating! " plants feel pain so all vegetarians are hypocrites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > Sheryl wrote: > Fish have their own " power of voluntary motion " which, whether > they breathe or not, would automatically include them in the > definition of animals. > > > ** > Wouldn't that exclude sponges??? If sponges excrete CO2 and have a digestive tract and a nervous system, then they can still be included. The definition gives things that animals have to have at least one of. They don't have to have them all! (See the other definitions posted earlier.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 " plants feel pain so all vegetarians are > hypocrites. " yeah, i get that too. i think we've all heard it all! plants are also living, so we shouldn't eat them either, huh? The perfect diet is therefore fruitarianism where we don't have to kill plants either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 but you know the meat-eaters who preach this would never consider converting to fruitarianism; i don't know any fruitarians, but i doubt many of them even make the argument that plants feel pain. I think the main reason one becomes fruitarian is for the environment, because eating fruit makes the most efficient use of land and natural resources. however, I believe it is very hard if not impossible to get all of your essential nutrients (i.e. protein) on a true fruitarian diet, so in that sense it would be more justified to consume plants since you need them to live. (not to mention that all livestock consume plants so meateaters are always consuming more plants indirectly). , " Sheryl " <ssarndt> wrote: > " plants feel pain so all vegetarians are > > hypocrites. " > > > yeah, i get that too. i think we've all heard it all! plants are > also living, so we shouldn't eat them either, huh? The perfect > diet is therefore fruitarianism where we don't have to kill plants > either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 As to " They don't have to have them all! " the definition I posted used " and " , " and " , etc. not " or " ...but also had nothing to do with what you posted as a definition. I really don't feel up to going back to find those " other definitions posted earlier " . I was responding to the one post [below-pardon to those on digest] which as worded indicated to me that you felt that an animal had to be able to " have their own " power of voluntary motion " " . I know that a sponge is an animal. It just seemed by your post that you would indicate otherwise. We were both looking from different angles, and apparently have misunderstood each other. Sheryl wrote: , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > Sheryl wrote: > Fish have their own " power of voluntary motion " which, whether > they breathe or not, would automatically include them in the > definition of animals. > > > ** > Wouldn't that exclude sponges??? If sponges excrete CO2 and have a digestive tract and a nervous system, then they can still be included. The definition gives things that animals have to have at least one of. They don't have to have them all! (See the other definitions posted earlier.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2003 Report Share Posted August 25, 2003 dave wrote: .... i doubt many of them even make the argument that plants feel pain. ===>Yes, they do. I have read quite a bit about this diet choice online. [more below] I believe it is very hard if not impossible to get all of your essential nutrients (i.e. protein) on a true fruitarian diet, so in that sense it would be more justified to consume plants since you need them to live. ===> Are you thinking that a frutarian only eats what we typically call " fruit " ? It really does not eliminate much from a veg diet. Frutarians eat anything that does not kill the plant. Potatoes, and garlic, onions.....those sorts of things are out. but cucumbers, squash, eggplant, etc are acceptable on a frutarian diet. So are nuts, seeds [some even include sprouted], and the like. Many say grains are out-- but again, it is killing the plant that is the defining decision maker. Jasmine rice [named for it's sweet aroma] is hand picked in Thailand, and is acceptable. Whereas 'long grain' rice harvested in the US does kill the plant due to the harvesting methods utilized here. Etc, etc, etc...you get the point. Your protein issue sounds a lot like what meat eaters use against vegetarianism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.