__THISRES__81653.jpg "Fly... by °Phill 1 month 8 hours ago")
Ethics of Killing
Rather than run off on a tangent on another post i figured i'd make one here
http://www.animepaper.net/forums/General-Discussion/30885/3/
Is killing ok? Killing a human is not ok (agreed by most), but about animals? hypothetically lets say a monkey could talk would it be ok to kill it? im guessing most people would say no. so would that make 'talking' the proof of the right to life? then what about a dog that could talk? or a cow, or an ant? at what point is killing ok? by now many people are thinking well it's not the ability to talk but something else, what is it? at what point is it ok to kill something, is it nessessity? people feel it nessessary to kill every day, hence the wars. what way can we categorize things into: OK to kill and Not ok to kill. I myself have yet to come up with a factual anwser to this question, other than my own judgement in the situation which i trust over all else. that of course is not practical since no one would think "what would Lightsmith do?" and even if they did there would be no proof that the conclusion they came to would accualy be the same as mine, hence i say a factual anwser is needed.
Personally i think there is something more than being human being able to talk to have a right to life, murderers and rapeists i feel have no right to life whatso ever and should be killed, except rapeists who should be tortured for as long as possible before they die. I'd do it myself if I had the power to do so. of course on the otherside i would not put down and animal because it is in pain, I wouldnt do it to a person so i wouldnt to an animal. so a close to factual anwser would be it is the reasoning and prupose of killing something that makes it ok, but does that mean killing an innocent ok if you thought that they were deserving of death? after further examination it is not close at all.
---
Philosophy is fun!
http://www.animepaper.net/forums/General-Discussion/30885/3/
Is killing ok? Killing a human is not ok (agreed by most), but about animals? hypothetically lets say a monkey could talk would it be ok to kill it? im guessing most people would say no. so would that make 'talking' the proof of the right to life? then what about a dog that could talk? or a cow, or an ant? at what point is killing ok? by now many people are thinking well it's not the ability to talk but something else, what is it? at what point is it ok to kill something, is it nessessity? people feel it nessessary to kill every day, hence the wars. what way can we categorize things into: OK to kill and Not ok to kill. I myself have yet to come up with a factual anwser to this question, other than my own judgement in the situation which i trust over all else. that of course is not practical since no one would think "what would Lightsmith do?" and even if they did there would be no proof that the conclusion they came to would accualy be the same as mine, hence i say a factual anwser is needed.
Personally i think there is something more than being human being able to talk to have a right to life, murderers and rapeists i feel have no right to life whatso ever and should be killed, except rapeists who should be tortured for as long as possible before they die. I'd do it myself if I had the power to do so. of course on the otherside i would not put down and animal because it is in pain, I wouldnt do it to a person so i wouldnt to an animal. so a close to factual anwser would be it is the reasoning and prupose of killing something that makes it ok, but does that mean killing an innocent ok if you thought that they were deserving of death? after further examination it is not close at all.
---
Philosophy is fun!
There is no answer to that because ethics is a constantly changing thing and is rarely universal. There will always be some communities that have slightly altered views if not completely contradictory. And if you're to tackle the problem philosophically, then you would be stuck in a more serious rut as there is no absolute good, therefore no actual line between good or bad. It just becomes a conflict of interest between the majority and the minority as well as those who compromise.
2 years 1 month ago
I don't like animals and i don't care about them ... people will kill me for saying this ...
Anyway, it's better to do experiments on them in order to save lifes ...
Killing them only for fun it's bad ... but when you try to put a limit it's hard since you kill flies all the summer without a remorse -> so why killing a fly is ok and killing a bigger animal is not ?
Does the size give it more right to live ? I don't think so !
Anyway, we can argue for years on this ...
Anyway, it's better to do experiments on them in order to save lifes ...
Killing them only for fun it's bad ... but when you try to put a limit it's hard since you kill flies all the summer without a remorse -> so why killing a fly is ok and killing a bigger animal is not ?
Does the size give it more right to live ? I don't think so !
Anyway, we can argue for years on this ...
The idea would still be morally correct, who cares? what is killing? killing is to end ones life, naturally as it should be all life must end some day, when the time comes, we die, killing hastens it.
What is morally correct? how do we justify correctness? are we not in fact implying our own applications of morality into such unclear lines? why should we? when in fact our ancestors must kill their similiars (say neaderthal vs others) that ended up with us on top of the food chain, we did not eat those other species of ape-man, we are not using them for anything, killing them benefits only one thing, survival of the strongest, domination.
To be correct, all killings are correct by nature, we die, killing is only one method, you cannot judge the same for natural resources around us, how about sawing a tree? isn't that taking life as well?> dare you now ask that question? It is simple, yet complicated, and you in this case, is contradicting yourself? Why do you kill? Because you do.
What is morally correct? how do we justify correctness? are we not in fact implying our own applications of morality into such unclear lines? why should we? when in fact our ancestors must kill their similiars (say neaderthal vs others) that ended up with us on top of the food chain, we did not eat those other species of ape-man, we are not using them for anything, killing them benefits only one thing, survival of the strongest, domination.
To be correct, all killings are correct by nature, we die, killing is only one method, you cannot judge the same for natural resources around us, how about sawing a tree? isn't that taking life as well?> dare you now ask that question? It is simple, yet complicated, and you in this case, is contradicting yourself? Why do you kill? Because you do.
Well, killing has gone on for ages and ages, but now people have become more "civilized" and trained to believe that killing is wrong to a certain degree. It's all thanks to the media and other sources of influence that portray people like killers and rapists as ALL OVER THE PLACE and that you are in immediate danger. Ratings! Ring a bell... Kill the thought process, subliminally manipulate opinion through a pathway or course using a medium like television, and propagandize ideas... ^__^
What prey tell is all this... "society" and it's standards. People tend to have an innate idea that killing is wrong, just like raping. It's mutually agreed upon by the majority, so it's deemed wrong, very wrong. However, there are animals on this planet that do not speak any language we are aware of, so we sometimes kill those beings we assume to be intelligent and could possibly have some value like a soul of a sentient being. We already have cruelty to animals laws, cause "society" understands that we all feel some sort of pain when our brains are able to process the signals. Well, if our brains are just sending signals of bad feelings for whatever reason, maybe someone is hurting you or trying to kill you... there are other more complex things going on in the brain. Experience tends to play a major role in shaping one's views, so those situations are often used as comparative testimony for wrongdoing.
When it all comes down to it, I think all life really just wants to live, else it would not truly exist. However, from whence that life came and how to be is a deeper philosophical debate that's neverending. Thus, my conclusion is that fear of the unknown causes the effect of claiming that life should exist, should not be taken away, especially another human, and that survival is key for any species to continue multiplying in the environment. The ethics of killing is relative from the perceiver's perspective, most believe it's wrong, yet some believe it's right. The majority usually wins the argument due to numbers, but why does a discrepency exist with the few that do choose the path of death?
My answer to all questions can only stem from my deepest perception that appears to be approximately true, all forms have opposites... all opposites have opposites... the yin/yang is symbolic of that. Thus, I choose to state that my ethics of killing is such:
1. I would rather be killed than kill, due to the nature of the universe, but will defend myself cause of the innate self-preservation gene or whatnot.
2. Death happens all the time, you can't really overcome it, only control the time of it's occurrence for the most part.
3. Life could not multiply without death, it's a part of the circle, it begets life.
4. As I die, a new life is born... as my essence is broken into it's basic components, those same compoments are rebuilt into something else in the universe.
But, what about the soul issue? If you kill, does that mean you take away a life and break the chain of the body/soul premise? My belief is that something is there, cause if there was really nothing, then there would be no reason for our existance... maybe it's the anti-life force unbeknownst to our primitive understanding... lolz... It's late.. gtg...
cyaz... hope no one fell asleep thus far... ^__^
What prey tell is all this... "society" and it's standards. People tend to have an innate idea that killing is wrong, just like raping. It's mutually agreed upon by the majority, so it's deemed wrong, very wrong. However, there are animals on this planet that do not speak any language we are aware of, so we sometimes kill those beings we assume to be intelligent and could possibly have some value like a soul of a sentient being. We already have cruelty to animals laws, cause "society" understands that we all feel some sort of pain when our brains are able to process the signals. Well, if our brains are just sending signals of bad feelings for whatever reason, maybe someone is hurting you or trying to kill you... there are other more complex things going on in the brain. Experience tends to play a major role in shaping one's views, so those situations are often used as comparative testimony for wrongdoing.
When it all comes down to it, I think all life really just wants to live, else it would not truly exist. However, from whence that life came and how to be is a deeper philosophical debate that's neverending. Thus, my conclusion is that fear of the unknown causes the effect of claiming that life should exist, should not be taken away, especially another human, and that survival is key for any species to continue multiplying in the environment. The ethics of killing is relative from the perceiver's perspective, most believe it's wrong, yet some believe it's right. The majority usually wins the argument due to numbers, but why does a discrepency exist with the few that do choose the path of death?
My answer to all questions can only stem from my deepest perception that appears to be approximately true, all forms have opposites... all opposites have opposites... the yin/yang is symbolic of that. Thus, I choose to state that my ethics of killing is such:
1. I would rather be killed than kill, due to the nature of the universe, but will defend myself cause of the innate self-preservation gene or whatnot.
2. Death happens all the time, you can't really overcome it, only control the time of it's occurrence for the most part.
3. Life could not multiply without death, it's a part of the circle, it begets life.
4. As I die, a new life is born... as my essence is broken into it's basic components, those same compoments are rebuilt into something else in the universe.
But, what about the soul issue? If you kill, does that mean you take away a life and break the chain of the body/soul premise? My belief is that something is there, cause if there was really nothing, then there would be no reason for our existance... maybe it's the anti-life force unbeknownst to our primitive understanding... lolz... It's late.. gtg...
cyaz... hope no one fell asleep thus far... ^__^
2 years 1 month ago
Saka4Rob10I don't like animals and i don't care about them ... people will kill me for saying this ...
Anyway, it's better to do experiments on them in order to save lifes ...
Killing them only for fun it's bad ... but when you try to put a limit it's hard since you kill flies all the summer without a remorse -> so why killing a fly is ok and killing a bigger animal is not ?
Does the size give it more right to live ? I don't think so !
Anyway, we can argue for years on this ...
Although you say a smaller animals have the same right as us humans, it is actually not true. If you were to be killed my a monkey, us humans would have to put it down. Yet if another human being murdered you, the killer would be sent to jail with a fair trial. now don't you think that if you allowed the monkey to have the same rights as human beings would make it weird? Although they are cute animals, however i think the animal that has the greater intelligence such as humans (not comparing humans together) to have the greater rights. It is humans who created rights in the first place after all. I hope you can understand my point of view. I understand your point of view as well but i have to agree that not all animals would have equal rights. Just like a food chain.
Tr0y had some interesting stuff right there. Well, here's my opinion ^^ killing has been done since the stone ages, its been mentioned too many times and it doesn't get any tru-er. BUT the thing about what animals do and what we do are different.
Animals, for one kill to survive, or to preserve themselves. Take a snake for example, despite what might think, snakes DO NOT attack you unless you provoked it, either by not noticing it and entering its territory (think snake eggs) or for the simple matter of intruding its safe zone. Animals kill other animals to kill and survive. They also kill to defend themselves. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Humans however, kill sometimes for the sake of pleasure. Some think that deer hunting is pleasurable. Where i have friend's who DO do that, i don't really think its justified to some point... however, he was asked by the government to do it because why? the population of the buck in Australia have to be controlled... so well, yeah... in that sense we kill them to keep the food chain balanced. Get what i mean? food chains are literarily chains. If one gets too big, and the other too small (e.g. the buck and the plants arnd it) you basically have an unstable chain right there, and you definitely don't want that collapsing...
Killing people like rapists and stuff... i don't particularly say its right, but that doesn't mean that i have never had experiences with people like them. Its more of like... in the heat of your anger and emotions, obviously we want something like that to happen. Then again i wouldn't like him walking around on the streets again lol.. so since i don't wanna get him killed, or walking on the streets just keep them in jail... =_=
Human killing can be quite disgusting. We are quite a distorted race come to think of it... we kill for power. Not to prove a point, or that we have to, but because we can and we somehow find it an appropriate way to demonstrate our so called POWER. e.g. bioweapons and nukes. we all know those... so if there's no war going on, at least not on a global level, why do we need stuff like that? its certainly for the show of power. Its like saying... "we have a nuke, if you get frisky with us, we'll blow you and your country to bits". Basically what American is doing now. Since when did the attention divert from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam? =_=
I'm losing my point here lol... anyway, i don't feel that we have more right to live than the animals around us, they deserve as much respect, unless of coz, like the animal i am, they enter my territory or safe zone (DIE you F**KING ROACHES! ) Ahem... yeah...
Animals, for one kill to survive, or to preserve themselves. Take a snake for example, despite what might think, snakes DO NOT attack you unless you provoked it, either by not noticing it and entering its territory (think snake eggs) or for the simple matter of intruding its safe zone. Animals kill other animals to kill and survive. They also kill to defend themselves. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Humans however, kill sometimes for the sake of pleasure. Some think that deer hunting is pleasurable. Where i have friend's who DO do that, i don't really think its justified to some point... however, he was asked by the government to do it because why? the population of the buck in Australia have to be controlled... so well, yeah... in that sense we kill them to keep the food chain balanced. Get what i mean? food chains are literarily chains. If one gets too big, and the other too small (e.g. the buck and the plants arnd it) you basically have an unstable chain right there, and you definitely don't want that collapsing...
Killing people like rapists and stuff... i don't particularly say its right, but that doesn't mean that i have never had experiences with people like them. Its more of like... in the heat of your anger and emotions, obviously we want something like that to happen. Then again i wouldn't like him walking around on the streets again lol.. so since i don't wanna get him killed, or walking on the streets just keep them in jail... =_=
Human killing can be quite disgusting. We are quite a distorted race come to think of it... we kill for power. Not to prove a point, or that we have to, but because we can and we somehow find it an appropriate way to demonstrate our so called POWER. e.g. bioweapons and nukes. we all know those... so if there's no war going on, at least not on a global level, why do we need stuff like that? its certainly for the show of power. Its like saying... "we have a nuke, if you get frisky with us, we'll blow you and your country to bits". Basically what American is doing now. Since when did the attention divert from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam? =_=
I'm losing my point here lol... anyway, i don't feel that we have more right to live than the animals around us, they deserve as much respect, unless of coz, like the animal i am, they enter my territory or safe zone (DIE you F**KING ROACHES! ) Ahem... yeah...
Killing is someone or something require basically different approaches.
Regarding the first one, there are na grey areas.Killing somebody is the most sinister and violent act.
The freedom to live is incomprehensable..
About the right to kill an animal, i think it is up to all of us to decide if it's right or wrong...since there is no law (except ecological legislations) prohibiting someone from killing an animal
Regarding the first one, there are na grey areas.Killing somebody is the most sinister and violent act.
The freedom to live is incomprehensable..
About the right to kill an animal, i think it is up to all of us to decide if it's right or wrong...since there is no law (except ecological legislations) prohibiting someone from killing an animal
2 years 1 month ago
kurosaki88
Saka4Rob10I don't like animals and i don't care about them ... people will kill me for saying this ...
Anyway, it's better to do experiments on them in order to save lifes ...
Killing them only for fun it's bad ... but when you try to put a limit it's hard since you kill flies all the summer without a remorse -> so why killing a fly is ok and killing a bigger animal is not ?
Does the size give it more right to live ? I don't think so !
Anyway, we can argue for years on this ...
Although you say a smaller animals have the same right as us humans, it is actually not true. If you were to be killed my a monkey, us humans would have to put it down. Yet if another human being murdered you, the killer would be sent to jail with a fair trial. now don't you think that if you allowed the monkey to have the same rights as human beings would make it weird? Although they are cute animals, however i think the animal that has the greater intelligence such as humans (not comparing humans together) to have the greater rights. It is humans who created rights in the first place after all. I hope you can understand my point of view. I understand your point of view as well but i have to agree that not all animals would have equal rights. Just like a food chain.
I think you're misunderstanding me! The topic is about killing animals and not humans !
So i told killing little or big animals is the same !
BUT animals aren't equals to humans !
As i said before : i care about humans but not about animals !
Well, in fact the question you ask is not that easy to answer...
I myself stopped thinking about it because I could not find any satisfying answer...
Anyway, I would say that killing with no reason is bad (everyone would agree on that). Now what about killing someone who killed? Some might say that it is not the only solution possible. If you want to punish a killer, then you can put him/her on jail for perpetuity. By that, you are stealing his/her life as that killer did to someone else when killing. However, if you empison a person for perpetuity, that could be felt by that person like worse than actually dying... (Personnaly, I would prefer to die rather than stay emprisonned in a little cell with no contact with the exterior). There is another solution: killers don't have to stay in prison until they die; they can be emprisonned for a limited period of time then released. There is another problem here. You may disagree with me, but I think that a majority of killers would kill again if they are given the opportunity, and it happens that in life, we have more opportunities to sin than to be a good person, then they will probably kill again...
That is to say that killing a killer seems to be the only way to not let him/her kill again, and to prevent the killed to suffer by emprisonning him/her. It will also be a kind of lesson to other people planning to kill. Of course, to do this, the Judisiary systems have to be very performant and commit the least possible mistakes, if no mistakes. It is in that scope that it seems to me that killing a killer is the most suitable thing to do. Thinking logocally, that's the answer that I can give. When I say logical, some might think that it can be logical but not ethical at all. However, if a person is really guilty of killing, it would be ethical to prevent that person to kill again (then you should not put it back into the society) and it would be ethical to not let that person suffer in prison (then offer him/her a quick and peaceful death).
In all what I said above, I supposed that I'm talking about a real killer who does not give a damn about people's lifes, and that would kill with no hesitation.
You also talked about killing animals... Actually, I think that it is not the same... I mean, animals are killed every seconds to feed people. It is like this, and this is how it should be. The proof of it is that in animals you find some proteins that have no equivalent in any other food, so we are made to eat animals to get that proteins to be able to grow and be in good health. However, killing animals just for pleasure, as if it was some sort of sport... that's what I can't accept nor understand.
What about killing animals for medical experimentations ? I think that it is something that I can tolerate as long as it concerns some medication that it necessary to Humans' life. I mean, I would not accept experimenting make-up products and some anti-aging chemicals on animals, because it is simply silly in my opinion. However, if it is for the conception of some vaccine, I think that it is ok for me to experiment them on animals even if it would lead to their death (that's practically killing them I think).
I myself stopped thinking about it because I could not find any satisfying answer...
Anyway, I would say that killing with no reason is bad (everyone would agree on that). Now what about killing someone who killed? Some might say that it is not the only solution possible. If you want to punish a killer, then you can put him/her on jail for perpetuity. By that, you are stealing his/her life as that killer did to someone else when killing. However, if you empison a person for perpetuity, that could be felt by that person like worse than actually dying... (Personnaly, I would prefer to die rather than stay emprisonned in a little cell with no contact with the exterior). There is another solution: killers don't have to stay in prison until they die; they can be emprisonned for a limited period of time then released. There is another problem here. You may disagree with me, but I think that a majority of killers would kill again if they are given the opportunity, and it happens that in life, we have more opportunities to sin than to be a good person, then they will probably kill again...
That is to say that killing a killer seems to be the only way to not let him/her kill again, and to prevent the killed to suffer by emprisonning him/her. It will also be a kind of lesson to other people planning to kill. Of course, to do this, the Judisiary systems have to be very performant and commit the least possible mistakes, if no mistakes. It is in that scope that it seems to me that killing a killer is the most suitable thing to do. Thinking logocally, that's the answer that I can give. When I say logical, some might think that it can be logical but not ethical at all. However, if a person is really guilty of killing, it would be ethical to prevent that person to kill again (then you should not put it back into the society) and it would be ethical to not let that person suffer in prison (then offer him/her a quick and peaceful death).
In all what I said above, I supposed that I'm talking about a real killer who does not give a damn about people's lifes, and that would kill with no hesitation.
You also talked about killing animals... Actually, I think that it is not the same... I mean, animals are killed every seconds to feed people. It is like this, and this is how it should be. The proof of it is that in animals you find some proteins that have no equivalent in any other food, so we are made to eat animals to get that proteins to be able to grow and be in good health. However, killing animals just for pleasure, as if it was some sort of sport... that's what I can't accept nor understand.
What about killing animals for medical experimentations ? I think that it is something that I can tolerate as long as it concerns some medication that it necessary to Humans' life. I mean, I would not accept experimenting make-up products and some anti-aging chemicals on animals, because it is simply silly in my opinion. However, if it is for the conception of some vaccine, I think that it is ok for me to experiment them on animals even if it would lead to their death (that's practically killing them I think).
Chire, Senbonzakura
If it's for the preservation of the species, ie. food, medicine, then I will tolerate the killing of animals.
Edit:...er our species, humans.
Edit:...er our species, humans.
Kyto has claimed Yakumo Tsukamoto, and I will fight you to the death for her
Come get your claim with the Frenzy Fanboys
Live in the Southern California area, check us out.
Sentience would be the situation where killing would be unacceptable. In the end though the circle of life includes killing whether we want to or not.
Even if we were to say we'd all become vegetarian for the sake of not killing animals, we would still be taking life as even plants are alive.
It's a part of life that cannot be avoided unfortunately.
Even if we were to say we'd all become vegetarian for the sake of not killing animals, we would still be taking life as even plants are alive.
It's a part of life that cannot be avoided unfortunately.
So many of you are speciesists (like racists but with different species)
so are you saying that if a species with more intellegence than us were to come along it would be alright for them to kill us?
i think people who feel this way don't understand the true meaning of death, while in prison you have are alive you can think you can write you can read you can move, you get to eat talk to other people, if you are dead you cannot do anything like that, you cant even float in an endless abyss of black, you dont exist and don't even have your thoughts. such a fate as that is obviously worse than beign inprisoned, anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't understand the nature of death.
Accually many will disagree that you need animals to survive and there are equilivent nutrients in other plant food and that meat is an uncessessary thing (i don't believe this so i can't really defend it properly, but im just mentioning it.)
kurosaki88
... however i think the animal that has the greater intelligence such as humans (not comparing humans together) to have the greater rights...
so are you saying that if a species with more intellegence than us were to come along it would be alright for them to kill us?
Byakuya-Sama...However, if you empison a person for perpetuity, that could be felt by that person like worse than actually dying... (Personnaly, I would prefer to die rather than stay emprisonned in a little cell with no contact with the exterior)...
...The proof of it is that in animals you find some proteins that have no equivalent in any other food, so we are made to eat animals to get that proteins to be able to grow and be in good health...
i think people who feel this way don't understand the true meaning of death, while in prison you have are alive you can think you can write you can read you can move, you get to eat talk to other people, if you are dead you cannot do anything like that, you cant even float in an endless abyss of black, you dont exist and don't even have your thoughts. such a fate as that is obviously worse than beign inprisoned, anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't understand the nature of death.
Accually many will disagree that you need animals to survive and there are equilivent nutrients in other plant food and that meat is an uncessessary thing (i don't believe this so i can't really defend it properly, but im just mentioning it.)
Maybe that I don't understand the meaning and the nature of death, but who really does anyway? Most of us can just speculate about it from their imagination and from what they read and heard. Anyway, I don't agree with you when you say:
How do you know that you don't exist nor think ? I don't think so. I believe that there is something after death, and it envolves that you have some kind of feeling of what surrounds you: either peace or suffering, and that you can think. That's more or less how I see Death. So death is not an end to me. [no offence meant, just exposing my point of view]
Yeah, I know, some people say that there is the same nutrients in other food than meat, but I don't believe it either. Actually, vegetarians have to pay close attetion to what they are eating to be able to compensate in a certain way the essential elements that are present in meat and that they don't eat, but even when doing this, they are not fully compensating what thet are missing. (that's what I read and heard from doctors).
Lightsmithif you are dead you cannot do anything like that, you cant even float in an endless abyss of black, you dont exist and don't even have your thoughts.
How do you know that you don't exist nor think ? I don't think so. I believe that there is something after death, and it envolves that you have some kind of feeling of what surrounds you: either peace or suffering, and that you can think. That's more or less how I see Death. So death is not an end to me. [no offence meant, just exposing my point of view]
Yeah, I know, some people say that there is the same nutrients in other food than meat, but I don't believe it either. Actually, vegetarians have to pay close attetion to what they are eating to be able to compensate in a certain way the essential elements that are present in meat and that they don't eat, but even when doing this, they are not fully compensating what thet are missing. (that's what I read and heard from doctors).
Chire, Senbonzakura
2 years 1 month ago
Accually many will disagree that you need animals to survive and there are equilivent nutrients in other plant food and that meat is an uncessessary thing (i don't believe this so i can't really defend it properly, but im just mentioning it.)
It is not true there are some proteins that can only be found in meat and you can't found in any plant food !
If you don't believe this; just check it in a biology course ...