Animal Rights

"As far as fur is concerned, if the animals are farm raised, fine, but I really think fur looks tacky anyway. "

I always thought that this was the weakest argument ever levied to justify the cruel treatment of animals.

So what if they were raised with a specific intent? How does that change your moral stance on the issue? Fur farms are okay, but other means of fur aquiring are not? Do you see what I mean by wishy-washy? Don't both animals die for there skin?

So where does you moral fit in? Both animals are subjected to suffering. In fact, the farm raised animal will suffer the entirety of it's "natural" life.

Pick a moral stance and hold to it.

By the way, this argument was applied by the proponents of slavery at one time. The slaves were bred to be slaves so, in turn, it wasn't against anyone's moral standards to use them as such. Very illogical when applied to humans and just as much so when applied to animals.

 

I don't know DEA, kinda sounds like PETA bargaining with Burger King to improve their methods of holding animals for SLAUGHTER.

 

"I don't know DEA, kinda sounds like PETA bargaining with Burger King to improve their methods of holding animals for SLAUGHTER. "

How does that effect PETA's stance on animal issues? Do you believe that since PETA is willing to "reward" Burger King for moving in the right direction that they have somehow compromised their ethics?

No, they still hold that the slaughter of animals is unethical. Nothing has changed in their stance. They applied pressure against Burger King and achieved a goal. A step if you will that leads to what they have always proclaimed their ultimate desire to be. Would it be wise for them to adopt an "all or nothing" stance when dealing with companies and people who's moral stance differs from their agenda?

PETA continues towards it's goal. They haven't gone anywhere. I could see your point if PETA had called it quits after the concessions that Burger King made, but they didn't, did they?

 

Great Apes in NZ? Huh?

In Zoos, medical laboratories, etc.

 

First of all, I do not equate human life with animal life.

I don't give a crap about peter bunny rabbit hopping his furry white tail all over the pristine woods.

Matter of fact, rabbit tastes really good.

The reason I stated that fur is okay in farming is that we shouldn't hunt the animals to extinction, thereby negating any possibility to further utilize the resource. Animals shouldn't be abused, that's for sure, but there is no reason we can't utilize them for our needs. That's nature. Darwin, right?

Did you see those PETA freaks running on the Victoria's Secret stage? That was funny.

 

Doesn't Extremism? Hardly. I stick to my guns, nothing black or white about it. conflict with It's all here in the thread, I am the extremeist...?

 

When you take them out of context they do. The first quote was in direct reponse to a post, the second was sarcasm. If you take a look at the posts in their entirety and within the proper context, then it is quite clear. In any case, how does this promote your side of the debate?

 

I don't see it supporting my side of the debate. That wasn't my purpose. I also don't feel that the contexts were all that different, sarcasm or not.

 

From my own observation and what I find to be pretty ironic is that people get all upset about PETA not wanting them to eat animals, but yet many meat eaters like to rub the fact that they eat meat in the faces of non-meat eaters.

I think its a matter of personal choice (whether you choose to eat meat or not), and its about respecting other people's choices whether you agree with them or not.



One thing I've never agreed with though is the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics. It's wrong to make and animal that can't defend itself suffer in the name of vanity.

 

When PETA attempts to capitalize on a woman's murder, they lose all respect.

 

It doesn't matter what you think nature intended. Of course, no one in here can determine that.

[color=006699]WRONG, it can and has been determined over and over again by Anthropologists and Archaeologists (of which I am both - credentials = BA in Anthropology, MA and PhD in Archaeology) that Hominids, from which MMHs (Morphologically Modern Homo sapiens - ie us) are descended from, have been evolving for over 5 million years and that we are 98% genetically related to our closest ape relative the Chimpanzee - who by the way are meat eaters and, along with eating things such as termites and ants (meat) will seek out monkeys, other small animals and sometimes kill there own kind in order to eat meat. Doctor Christy Turner at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ, is a Physical Anthropologist and Archaeologist and the foremost authority on human dentition, along with Doctor Charles Merbs, also of ASU and who is also a Physical Anthropologist and Archaeologist, along with a multitude of others in this field, and that included Drs Jane Goodall and Diane Fosse, have proven this again and again.

If you take a close look at human dentition over time - beginning with Australopithecus and moving forward to MMHs, you will see that one of the things that remains constant in our dentition is our canine teeth - the teeth used to cut and tear meat off the bone. In the Australopithecus robustus, the canines we not as large as those of afarensis (a much more gracile species of Australopithecus) and their molars, the teeth used for grinding were larger. What happened to robustus - it died out - for many reasons one of which being that it could not compete with the more gracile forms either in scavenging or on a nutritional level as it could not break down the raw meat as well as its cousin. It became a dead end on our evolutionary tree while afarensis and other gracile species of Australopithecus went on to evolve into Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien neaderthalensis and finally, Homo sapien sapiens (MMHs) (NOTE: some geneses and species have been omitted). Our ape ancestors and all the other species that came before them, all the way back to the small tree shrew like animal that mammals evolved from, ate meat in one form or another be it insect or bigger. Side note taken from a lecture I attended by Jane Goodall: While Jane Goodall was conducting her research on the Gambia Chimps, she had to take extra precautions to protect her children while they were infants and toddlers from the chimps as the chimps could quite possibly mistake them for monkeys and attempt to abduct them, kill them and eat them.

Enough on dentition, let us look at a human?s gastronomy ? we have a medium length digestive track and this is important to note as it helps to classify us as Omnivores ? eater of both animal and plant materials; our guts are designed to break down both products but it is much more efficient when breaking down animal than plant materials ? this has been proven by researchers in many fields such as Medicine, Physical Anthropology, Genetics, etc. If nature/evolution had meant for us to live on a strictly plant based diet we would come equipped with a very long digestive tract and at least two stomachs - neither of which we have ? or at least I do not, I am not too sure about you however.

Amino Acids: There are 21 essential amino acids that are required by the human body in order to be healthy and to maintain healthy life, of these 19 can be obtained by eating either animals or plants ? HOWEVER, and this is a big however, there are 2 essential amino acids that the body needs for survival that can only be obtained by eating animals ? no amount or combination of plant material can or will make up for it - check a High School Biology book or if you prefer to live dangerously a college level Human Anatomy and Physiology textbook. Also, in regards to your list of plant resources that are high in iron ? you are correct they are; however, because they are plant the human body can only absorb

 

Great post, Wedge_Antilles_Cmdr!

 

Okay, I'll take the easy one first.

"Plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met. Research suggests that complementary proteins do not need to be consumed at the same time and that consumption of various sources of amino acids over the course of the day should ensure adequate nitrogen retention and use in healthy persons (22). Although vegetarian diets are lower in total protein and a vegetarian's protein needs may be somewhat elevated because of the lower quality of some plant proteins, protein intake in both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans appears to be adequate" Taken from the American Dietetic Associations position on vegetarian diets.

Stop trying to scare people. There isn't a single amino acid that cannot be obtained from vegetables.

---

As far as the rest of your post is concerned. I can sum up for you rather quickly.

If you would like to live your life aspiring to act as a Chimpanzee does, then I can't stop you, friend.

Do you follow all of your developed instinct through to their ultimate end? When you become sexually aroused by a member of the opposit sex, do you pounce them in the middle of the street whether they share your desire or not? If someone angers you or challenges you do you proceed to bludgeon them violently until the slink away under your physical strength?

No. You see, you can tell me all you want about how you are just using the instincts that Nature has provided you, but ultimately you are simply having your cake and eating it too. To survive in a society one must realize that our actions have great effect on others and ultimately we can't blindly follow our biological desires.

I wonder if you feel that a human who rapes another human is merely following his animalistic sexual instincts? Or perhaps the mugger who attacks the elderly in order to secure the means to feed himself is ultimately following natures path by engaging their instinct to survive. When a man is beaten to death by another, do you chalk it up to instinct? We hold ourselves accountable to explicitly NOT follow only our instincts and use our brains and our 'hearts' in these situations.

What you suggest is that when dealing with non-humans we should simply turn these measures off and do as we choose, acting upon our most primal of urges and instincts. When applied to humans, this behaviour when engaged in at a societal level is considered anarchy. So, shall we get rid of our laws and proceed to live as nature intended?

[hr]

Oh yes, I almost forgot! Yeast. Go back to your high school text and see if they classify yeasts into the Animal Kingdom. If so, you have found an error.

[i]"Yeast are unicellular [b]fungi[/b]. The precise classification is a field that uses the characteristics of the cell, ascospore and colony. Physiological characteristics are also used to identify species. One of the more well known characteristics is the ability to ferment sugars for the production of ethanol. Budding yeasts are [b]true fungi[/b] of the phylum Ascomycetes, class Hemiascomycetes. The true yeasts are separated into one main order Saccharomycetales."[/i]

 

[color=006699]First of all, I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND, dude; therefore, do not address me as such ? as for your summary of what I stated ? I state my argument as scientific fact and not in an emotional way as you have:

1. I am sorry that you cannot read about a 12th grade reading level because you missed interpreted everything I said indicating that you do not have much of a clue as to what I stated,

2. I am not the one using scare tactics ? my observations are based on solid scientific fact accumulated by through the findings of professionals in their areas of studies through solid scientific research that has also gone through rigorous peer review before ever being published,

3. Associations should read Association?s ? note the apostrophe s indicating possession and not pluralization,

4. Granted there is not ONE essential amino acid that cannot be obtained from strictly from plant sources THERE ARE TWO - lysine and tryptophan (Dr. John Kimball, Harvard University Professor of Biology). I apologize, but I do need to correct a statement I made in my first post ? there are twenty amino acids, not twenty-one, needed by the human body in order to thrive and survive, eleven of which are produced by the human body and therefore not considered essential ? of the other nine ? the Essential Amino Acids ? Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine (and/or cysteine), Phenylalanine (and/or tyrosine), Threonine, Tryptophan, Valine ? these can only be obtained through diet with lysine and tryptophan only being able to be obtained from animal products.
{John W. Kimball has retired from a lifetime of teaching biology. A graduate of Harvard College, he began his teaching career at the secondary level, teaching chemistry and biology to students at Phillips Academy, an independent school in Andover, Massachusetts. In 1969, he returned to Harvard to study immunology with the late Professor A. M. Pappenheimer. After receiving his Ph.D. there, he went on to teach introductory biology (in both majors and non-majors courses) and immunology at Tufts University where he became a tenured professor. In 1982, he returned again to Harvard where he taught immunology and also participated in teaching the introductory course for majors.
The first edition of Kimball's general biology text was published in 1965. Since that time it has gone through five revisions, the most recent being the sixth edition, which appeared in 1994 (that's its cover on the right). He has also published books on cell biology and a widely-used text on immunology. His biology books have also been published in Spanish, German, Japanese, Arabic, Polish, Korean and Bahasian (Indonesian) versions. See Kimball Biology Pages},

5. Never once did I ever imply or state that humans should live according to their animal or primal instincts (once again are misconstruing the information and facts that I have presented in plain and simple English) therefore I will present them again from a scientific, non emotional, and logical stance - Looking at a human?s gastronomy ? we have a medium length digestive track and this is important to note as it helps to classify us as Omnivores ? eater of both animal and plant materials; our guts are designed to break down both products but it is much more efficient when breaking down animal than plant materials ? this has been proven by researchers in many fields such as Medicine, Physical Anthropology, Genetics, etc. If nature/evolution had meant for us to live on a strictly plant based diet we would come equipped with a very long digestive tract and at least two stomachs - neither of which we have ? or at least I do not; also, if we were meant by our biology to eat a strictly vegetarian diet our dentition, specifically our molars, would be larger ? taking up more room in our mouths, and flatter ? the better for grinding and processing plants and grains ? nor would they be an option to be removed, such as our wisdom teeth which are truly non-essential teeth ? we li

 

"First of all, I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND, dude; therefore, do not address me as such"

I will address you as I choose. I have broken none of the rules outlined in the TOS. However, since it has seemed to offend you for whatever reason, I will refrain.

As far as your observations are concerned, I clearly understand that they are based upon scientific facts. Please point out where you feel that I disputed the gastro-intenstinal or dental physiological make-up of a human being.

The only data that I question was the lack of essential amino acids in the vegetarian diet, for which I indeed supplied a non-biased reference from an reputable scientific body whose sole purpose is to publish information in regards to diet. Your dispute is with them if you feel that vegetarians are not recieving all of the essential aminos.

Of course your statement in regards to yeast was patently false.

In reference to the rest of the debates arguments, I did in fact counter your scientific data relating to the physiological make-up of a human with a non-scientific based response. What's the problem with that?

You can throw all of the science you want at me. The facts remain. People can survive without ingesting meat (in fact, many thousands do and have for many decades) and they can choose not to. Intestines and teeth do not plan my morals and neither do my instincts.

It's all about justification. If we can step out of the rut of trying to condone our own behavior and really look at the effect that our actions have on not only our own race but on the planet and on other living species of animals, then we will start to truly understand wisdom.

None of the answers are in those book, articles, or publications.

On a personal note. I am a complete vegan. I am extrememly active. I weigh more now then I ever have in my life and have even received comments from my physician about how healthy I am. Not only have I been able to gain muscle, but I also engage in rigorous cardiovascular excercise and martial arts 3-4 times per week.

If you would like to know about cholesterol levels in poultry then I would suggest that you consult a dietitian considering you certainly won't listen to me.

 

"3. Associations should read Association?s ? note the apostrophe s indicating possession and not pluralization,"

Thanks for correcting my grammar. Would you like me to do the same? Let's stick to the issue.

 

Alright, my turn. You want to take this to an emotional level, let's. How about a close friend of mine who is a Vegitarian <sp?> who has MANY health issues because of it and has been advised by his doctor COUNTLESS times that he needs to ingest more animal protein?

How about my ex-husband who is a Vegan and has continious Gastro Intestinal <sp?> problems again linked back to his lack of animal protiens?

How about ME, when I was with my ex and eating almost an exclusively vegitarian <sp?> diet, I was ill almost all the time, and my cholesterol levels were through the roof?

Please explain to me, why my current husband (Wedge_Antilles_Cmdr) has been told by his dietician, nutritionalist and doctor that he is be very sure he takes in animal proteins in his diet since being diagnosed with Type II Adult Onset Diabetes <sp?>?

I do not want YOUR opinions stated as facts, when they are NOT, they are your opinions as are mine. The only data I want to see from you at this point is SCIENTIFIC FACTS. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION, AS WEDGE HAS DONE. Until you can show me UNBIASED data on the HIGH levels of cholesterol <sp?> in White Meat. I also would like your UNBIASED data on red meat being a carcinogen. That is all I am asking, is for UNBIASED data, as has been provided by Wedge. So please, if you cannot provide this, do NOT give me your OPINIONS as fact as neither Wedge nor I have stated that our opinions are fact.

Also, though I personally would never consider eating any of my cats nor my dog, I do not consider people in cultures who do eat them to be immoral. So I take extreme offense to being called immoral when my beliefs on the eating of meat differ from yours.

You asked for benefits of eating meat, and Wedge gave them to you, however, because you do not WISH to believe them, you call his facts in error. You need to think about your 'open-mindedness' a bit, and find out what being open-minded really means, as apparently you have no clue. You are about the most closed minded person I have met to this day, even my fundamentalist Southern Baptist sister at least she will listen to others opinions. You are unwilling to do this, that in my OPINION makes you closed-minded.

Also, you have done nothing but attack Wedge on a personal level, never coming up with UNBIASED facts to support your claims. He never once insinuated that we should follow primitive instincts, he stated that we are designed by NATURE to consume and digest animal products. This was in response to your post that no one knows what nature intended, which unless you are an Anthropologist/Archaeologist, you cannot state as fact, yet another example of you stating your opinion as fact.

 

[color=006699]Red Seven, I apologize for my statement in point one but I was frustrated with the person for continually misconstruing my statements of facts and trying to summarize something that he obviously did not understand - and yes, I agree that it was inappropriate for the message board and I will, in the future, do my best to prevent it from happening again.[/color]

 

In no particular order.

Beef, 53mg per 100 grams

Chicken, 64mg per 100 grams

Of course, you may go to the USDA's National Nutrient Database if you wish to research it yourself.

Considering that cholesterol is ONLY found in animals and NEVER in plants I don't know what you are driving at by stating that your levels "were through the roof" when you prescribed to this diet. Of course, some people have a natural disorder in which their body produces high levels of cholesterol, but it is pretty rare. These are not disputable opinions, but rather facts.

"How about my ex-husband who is a Vegan and has continious Gastro Intestinal <sp?> problems again linked back to his lack of animal protiens?"

Considering that my wife experienced many gastrointestinal problems before she switched to a non-animal based diet I can attest that doctors have an extremely hard time diagnosing and finding the causatory factors for intestinal problems. If you were told by a reputable doctor that your ex-husband's problems were somehow related to a lack of protein, then I would seriously challenge his credibilty. Click here for a thorough examination of the most common GI problem, none of which call for animal protein as a treatment.

I am also shocked that you still employ a physician who actively promotes increasing meat consumption as a way to treat Type II Diabetes! That is absolutely ludicrous! Poor circulation is the biggest problem of all diabetics and leads to the majority of all complications. People with diabetes are at an increased risk for heart attacks, strokes and are four times more like to have heart disease than people who are not diabetic. Increasing meat intake also means increasing your cholesterol, fatty acids, and salt intake as well. All significant factors for heart and cardiovascular diseases.

 

Lyta_Skywalker,

"You asked for benefits of eating meat, and Wedge gave them to you, however, because you do not WISH to believe them, you call his facts in error. You need to think about your 'open-mindedness' a bit, and find out what being open-minded really means, as apparently you have no clue. You are about the most closed minded person I have met to this day, even my fundamentalist Southern Baptist sister at least she will listen to others opinions. You are unwilling to do this, that in my OPINION makes you closed-minded.

Also, you have done nothing but attack Wedge on a personal level, never coming up with UNBIASED facts to support your claims. He never once insinuated that we should follow primitive instincts, he stated that we are designed by NATURE to consume and digest animal products. This was in response to your post that no one knows what nature intended, which unless you are an Anthropologist/Archaeologist, you cannot state as fact, yet another example of you stating your opinion as fact."

1. Wedge never supplied benefits of eating meat. Rather, he supplied what he believed to be scientific evidence that concludes that man was meant to eat meat.

2. Insulting me about being "open-minded" is not only uncalled for, but rude as well. I treat you with respect, please do the same for me. Debate can get energized at times, I understand, but verbal attacks are not going to achieve anything.

3. You insuniate that I have dealt with Wedge multiple times in a derogatory fashion. The truth is that I have only responded to him a couple of times very recently. In fact, he has only posted in this thread a total of three times. Never have I insulted him on any level. I realize that since he is your husband you feel an urge to defend him, but you must realize that there is no need as this discussion is kept civil by moderation and rules.

4. Please read the thread before you convict me of being unable to provide source material. Of all the posters here in this thread, there is not one who can claim that he/she attempts to solidify all their claims with reputable sources more frequently or as deliberately than I. I have always done so (as you should already see in my most recent post above) and will continue to do so. If you take issue with a factoid or source, them call me on it specifically and I will respond.

Thank You.

Edit:Corrected an incomplete sentence.

 

I have read the entire thread, and the sources you have posted are those of biased references, who take one test and say that is scientific fact. Wedge has time and again, posted REPEATEDLY reviewed Scientific DATA. Also I have yet to meet a Doctor who promoted a strict vagen or strict animal protien diet as neither are healthy, IMO at this time, most promote moderation in all food types, be it meat, vegetable, fruit, grains etc. I eat a BALANCED diet, one high in carbohydrates and moderate in protiens, because I have a low metabolism. Wedge however, needs a diet high in protien and low/moderate carbohydrates. I do not allow that you are wrong in your beliefs, as they are just that, your beliefs, however, when you open a debate you need to expect that not everyone is going to agree with you, and be willing to allow them there beliefs, as you wish to be allowed yours, and not call them immoral just because they disagree with you. I do not post my opinion as fact, I posted my personal experience as just that personal experience. I leave the facts to those who have studied it from a removed and scientific standing, from which I have gleaned the data from which I have made my opinion, along with my personal experience. Neither the American Dietetic Association nor the Federal Government are unbiased sources for either side to use, as they both have an agenda they want people to follow, this makes them VERY biased, IMHO. Wedge or I will post links to reference material from which this scientific fact comes from at a later time, at which time, it will be up to you whether or not you wish to find these texts and review them. I would suggest you begin as Wedge suggested, and pick up a biology book, either HS or College Level should be appropriate.

Intestines and teeth do not plan my morals and neither do my instincts.

Eating meat is a natural act of living, something I have grown very attached to in the 32 years I have been on this earth, please refrain from putting your values and morals on myself and my family, and I will refrain from putting my moral values on you and yours.

 

"Intestines and teeth do not plan my morals and neither do my instincts."

If I wanted to attempt impostion of my morals upon you, I would have used the word "my". I am speaking explicitly in reference to my own choice in the above sentence.

As far as my references being biased or irreputable, please provide examples. Claiming that I am backing up my side of the argument with falsities is something that I take seriously. You called me out once, to which I provided a link. Obviously, that is not enough, yet I stand by the vast majority of my sources. Again, if you would like to tarnish the credibility of any of them, please do so specifically so that I may respond.

If anything the USDA's agenda (as I have already stated earlier in this very thread) is biased toward the side of eating meat. Considering that their primary mandate is to promote agriculture! If I can't use the United States Department of Agriculture to support findings related to agriculture then this argument will have no backbone on either side. This source is as reputable as they come. As far as the ADA is concerned, their agenda is to inform the public. The do not actively promote any particular diet aside from a healthy, balanced one.

"I would suggest you begin as Wedge suggested, and pick up a biology book, either HS or College Level should be appropriate."

Not only is this insulting my intelligence by assuming that my education does not reach beyond a high-school or college level, which it most certainly does, but it is also a blatent assumption. In any case, knowing that many high-school texts are full of inconsistencies, I would encourage you to seek out a much more credible source than school texts.

"Eating meat is a natural act of living, something I have grown very attached to in the 32 years I have been on this earth, please refrain from putting your values and morals on myself and my family, and I will refrain from putting my moral values on you and yours."

Look, I didn't ask you to come in here and debate the topic. I certainly welcome it, but don't accuse me of pushing unwanted information upon you when it is you who are actively seeking it. I responded to you and your husband, what reaction were you seeking by posting here? Of course I am going to argue my side of the debate, that's why I started this thread, to perhaps open a few eyes. If you aren't one who is going the change, so be it. I will still debate you as I feel that your position is wrong, but be warned, I will try to challenge both your science and your ethics.

 

In any case, knowing that many high-school texts are full of inconsistencies, I would encourage you to seek out a much more credible source than school texts.

If you are right about one thing in this thread DEA, that's it. I've got a school text book from my High School days telling me green is a primary colour. Not an 'additive' primary, but one of the basic primary colours. Wrong.

Can't trust school texts sometimes.

This is an interesting thread, well done.

 

Studies are now being conducted by the research community to determine just how effective and safe Vegetarian diets are, as there has come to the attention of many that SOME people do have problems with it, however, the results are not in as of yet, and may not be for several years, so I will have to concede that AT THIS TIME there is no CURRENT evidence to support my opinion, HOWEVER, the scientific community does see a risk and is currently running the tests to determine the risk one way or another.

As for the comment about picking up a biology book, that was not meant as an insult to you, as it PRESUMED you had a HS, College or greater education. If I insulted you with that it is because you chose to take it as an insult which was not intended nor implied.

"Two of the essential amino acids, lysine and tryptophan, are poorly represented in most plant proteins."

This is from Doctor John W. Kimball, Retired professor of Biology from Harvard University, author of Kimball's General Biology text published in 1965 most recent revision 1994. If you would like to verify the source you may find reference to it here

However, I have tired of having my nutritional habits called immoral, as if I were killing people to eat them and not animals, who are lower on the food chain than myself, and for the record before you scream that I am not an Apex Preditor, I do and have hunted, gutted, cleaned and prepared my game, raised chickens and other animals for food, and have actively participated in the slaughter of such, in as humane a manner as I have been able to make it, and therefore feel it is time to exit this argument as I feel it can go no further as DEA and I will have to agree to disagree.

Edit: Forgot Quotation marks around my quote from Dr. Kimball's site.

 

Lyta_Skywalker,

While I do disagree with you point, your morals are your own. The sole intent of this thread was and is to spawn debate. There isn't an issue or a problem that has ever arisen that didn't have more than one solution. I believe strongly in what I say, but I also believe in the rights of others to form and hold their own opinions as well. It truly scares me when people present their own opinions and solutions as the single viable option (liberals vs. conservatives is a great example in American politics).

Sources of Lysine and Tryptophan that have shown to have high levels of digestability and absorbtion in the vegetarian diet include:

Brown Rice, Wheat, Millet, Maize, Rye, Oats, Potatos, Yams, etc.

There are more of course, but it is interesting to note that the potato (one of the most commonly consumed vegetables) has a protein absorbtion rate of 95% along with the Yam as well.