Are you a Vegetarian? Why?

[Havet]

This is largely discussed in the "Do you eat meat..." Poll in Science. I thought I'd give a chance for OIers to talk about this subject as well.

What i'd like to ask is: Are you a vegetarian? Why and why not? What types of food do you eat exactly?

Personally, I'm a Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian

I take the same approach as people who don't wear fluffly animal jackets

Why should we use those clothes that make animal suffer when there are better alternatives that don't make them suffer and keep us with clothes?

Well, same for vegetarianism: Why don't we eat food that doesn't make animals suffer when there are better alternatives?

After having agreed on that premisse, an important question comes to mind: we still have to feed ourselves to live. On what then?

Simple: every single vegetable on earth, cheese, butter and milk and eggs (because they do not cause animal's pain when you take their milk) and some living beings like some types of seafood (mussels, oysters), because they don't have a developed "brain" or central nervous system capable of experiencing pain like we humans, mammals, birds, fish and reptiles do.

A common reply is: "Don't plants feel as well?"

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28paranormal))

"Overall, there is little concrete, universally verified evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory, and it is therefore apt to receive a great deal of contempt among scientific circles, often disdainfully called 'the Backster Effect'. Skeptics typically criticize the fact that many experiments into 'plant perception' are not taken in controlled conditions and that therefore their results are not verifiable evidence of its existence. Many skeptics of the theory also state that, since plants lack nervous or sensory systems, they are not capable of having feelings, or perceiving human emotions or intentions, which would require a complex nervous system. [2] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1999-November/022303.html)[3] (http://skepdic.com/plants.html) The primary emotional center in the animal brain is believed to be the limbic system which is absent in plants, just like the rest of the nervous system. [2] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28paranormal%29#cite_note-Tortora_2005-1)"

The only reason i don't eat meat actually, besides the "ethical reasons", is that by not eating it, i create less demand in my house, so my parents buy less meat, the butcher sells less meat, and this goes all the way to the animals, which are killed less.

Of course if i was in a desert island with a cow and nothing else to eat, i'd kill it for me to survive, since i value my life more than his. There is a difference between recognizing morality and practicing it. I would still view my action as immoral, although i would prefer to be immoral in that occasion.

I don't like to "force" my views upon people because i think it's a personal choice, and one that can only be achieved by reason, not force. That said, i will always try to reason with people.

By the way, i had to obviously research the matter of whether i'd have any health issues by lack of eating meat directly. I concluded eggs, milk and those dietary products are excellent sources of proteins, so i would never have any problem. Even vegans wouldnt have any problem, because you can mix vegetables and achieve the same protein "soup" required everyday by your body.

Some links to Protein information for those interested:

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he463w.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he463w.htm)

http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/dietarytherapy/a/Vegetarian.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/dietarytherapy/a/Vegetarian.htm)

http://www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html)

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html)

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0677.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0677.html)

So, is my stance common around here, do you have any criticism of it, or do you really don't care, but have nothing else to do than to ***** about it?

[Ovi]

I know that veganism can damage your health if one doesn't eat synthetic vitamins; it makes sense, after all we're not cows to eat grass, we're omnivores. I believe meat is an essential part of anyone's diet and about lacto-ovo-vegetarianism I don't know that much because I couldn't care less.

[Havet]

I know that veganism can damage your health if one doesn't eat synthetic vitamins; it makes sense, after all we're not cows to eat grass, we're omnivores. I believe meat is an essential part of anyone's diet and about lacto-ovo-vegetarianism I don't know that much because I couldn't care less.

Why'd you post then, if you couldn't care less?

Did you even read any of the sources I provide? It doesn't matter where you get proteins, so long as you get them.

Where is your proof that veganism can damage health? Even vegans can get along without any meat. They only have to get a certain amount of vegetables which contain certain amount of aminoacids which are essential to the body everyday, and mix them during the day so as to not leave any out.

[Ovi]

Why'd you post then, if you couldn't care less?

Did you even read any of the sources I provide? It doesn't matter where you get proteins, so long as you get them.

Where is your proof that veganism can damage health? Even vegans can get along without any meat. They only have to get a certain amount of vegetables which contain certain amount of aminoacids which are essential to the body everyday, and mix them during the day so as to not leave any out.
It's not about proteins. It's hard to get much calcium for vegans, so is vitamin B12. Plus the iron from meat is twice as easily absorbed by our body than that from vegetables if I recall corectly. The conclusion is simple:we're omnivores so we should eat both vegetable and animal food to be in our best shape.

[Havet]

It's not about proteins. It's hard to get much calcium for vegans, so is vitamin B12. Plus the iron from meat is twice as easily absorbed by our body than that from vegetables if I recall corectly. The conclusion is simple:we're omnivores so we should eat both vegetable and animal food to be in our best shape.

"Plus the iron from meat is twice as easily absorbed by our body than that from vegetables if I recall corectly"

And where's the source for this?

I don't really care about talking of vegans because i'm not one of them nor do I defend their particular dietary habits.

But, from MY sources (which i actually post):


Vegans are recommended to ensure their diet includes foods fortified with vitamin B12. A range of B12 fortified foods are available. These include yeast extracts, Vecon vegetable stock, veggieburger mixes, textured vegetable protein, soya milks, vegetable and sunflower margarines, and breakfast cereals.

From here (http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html)

As for calcium, a quick google search would have answered your arguments:


Because of heavy promotion by the American dairy industry, the public often believes that cow's milk is the sole source of calcium. However, other excellent sources of calcium exist so that vegans eating varied diets that contain these foods need not be concerned about getting adequate calcium. Sources of well-absorbed calcium for vegans include calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra 1 (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calcium.htm#r1). Grains, beans (other than soybeans), fruits, and vegetables (other than those listed) can contribute to calcium intake but cannot replace these key foods. Table 1 (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calcium.htm#table1) shows the amount of calcium in selected foods. When you realize that there is as much or more calcium in 4 ounces of firm tofu or 3/4 cup of collard greens as there is in one cup of cow's milk, it is easy to see why groups of people who do not drink cow's milk still have strong bones and teeth.

From here (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calcium.htm)

Enjoy

[Ovi]

"Plus the iron from meat is twice as easily absorbed by our body than that from vegetables if I recall corectly"

And where's the source for this?

It's al around the web. http://ibdcrohns.about.com/cs/nutrition/a/fdairon.htm


I don't really care about talking of vegans because i'm not one of them nor do I defend their particular dietary habits.

But, from MY sources (which i actually post):



[FONT=Verdana]From here (http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html)

As for calcium, a quick google search would have answered your arguments:



From here (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/calcium.htm)

Enjoy
Wikipedia mentions the calcium problem too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Calcium.2C_vitamin_D
Surely with lots of pills vegans can do just fine:D

[IcarusAngel]

Vegetarian: I don't eat meat, fish, or eggs. I don't generally wear animal products either for the reasons you mentioned. I have even have shoes that are made from synthetic leather.

However, i don't generally have a problem with people who eat meat. My much bigger goal is eliminating unnecessary hierarchies. In a free society of course I do think though it must be determined whether meat production is efficient or inefficient.

[Ovi]

Vegetarian: I don't eat meat, fish, or eggs. I don't generally wear animal products either for the reasons you mentioned. I have even have shoes that are made from synthetic leather.

However, i don't generally have a problem with people who eat meat. My much bigger goal is eliminating unnecessary hierarchies. In a free society of course I do think though it must be determined whether meat production is efficient or inefficient.
Not efficient or inefficient, but desirable or undesirable.

[Pogue]

I believe that killing an animal, I.e. Causing it to suffer and deprive it of its life, simply just so you can enjoy the taste of its flesh, when you could choose otherwise, is a disgusting, selfish and barbaric decision not befitting of human beings. Its also wasteful.

[Bud Struggle]

I believe that killing an animal, I.e. Causing it to suffer and deprive it of its life, simply just so you can enjoy the taste of its flesh, when you could choose otherwise, is a disgusting, selfish and barbaric decision not befitting of human beings. Its also wasteful.

I LOVE a good hamburger! Medium rare. :lol:

I raise my own pigs (best bacon in the world--nothing like that crap you buy in the supermarket) and goats. (Goat meat is pretty damn good too.) Hopefully I won't be restricted for being a Primitivist! :D

[Edit] Goats are great tax "placeholders." You can buy a piece of land to develop--place some goats on it (by some mathematical formula per acre) and keep the land as "agricultural" until you decide to build. Goats are a moneymaker. I love goats.

[Idealism]

Vegan.
Animals should not be killed or harmed for selfish or unnecessary desire. Due to this, I am oaky when people hunt because they need a source of income, or where people need to eat meat for nutrition. Or other necessities.

[Ovi]

I believe that killing an animal, I.e. Causing it to suffer and deprive it of its life, simply just so you can enjoy the taste of its flesh, when you could choose otherwise, is a disgusting, selfish and barbaric decision not befitting of human beings. Its also wasteful.
Not for enjoying its flesh but to nourish yourself. Simply by living you affect other living things.

Vegan.
Animals should not be killed or harmed for selfish or unnecessary desire. Due to this, I am oaky when people hunt because they need a source of income, or where people need to eat meat for nutrition. Or other necessities.
Indeed. Zoos suck by keeping animals in cages for their entire lifetime and hunting for pleasure seems sick to me.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm vegetarian. I think most moral theories should conclude that vegetarianism is preferable for humans and animals. I don't know any mainstream ethical theories that don't support vegetarianism except egoism and amoralism. Those who know Kant will jump to name Kantianism as a classical response to vegetarianism. However, his response is outdated and most Kantians have reformed the position.

[RGacky3]

I"m not a vegetarian, for 2 reasons, if I was told it was immoral to kill a mammal for the food or clothes, it would be somewhat hypocritical to think it was ok to kill a spider to make your home more comfortable, and its simply not in my moral consience. To me there is a clear difference between a human and an animal, this is a personal moral code, and of coarse everyone has their own, but moral codes should not be hypocritical, they should based on principles that you apply universally (if you get what I'm saying).

Also, I'm into things like powerlifting, streangth sports are almost impossible as a vegetarian, not enough protein, much harder to get the complete strand of amino acids needed.

[IcarusAngel]

Many fighters actually have found vegetarian diets beneficial.
u5781NN93Do

(3:30)

There are also many vegetarian (and even vegan) body builders. It really depends more upon the person.

[Misanthrope]

I am a vegetarian. Vegetarians have been proven to live longer and I had a lot of extra energy after abstaining from meat. I also have a moral problem with the meat industry and cruelty to animals.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I"m not a vegetarian, for 2 reasons, if I was told it was immoral to kill a mammal for the food or clothes, it would be somewhat hypocritical to think it was ok to kill a spider to make your home more comfortable, and its simply not in my moral consience. To me there is a clear difference between a human and an animal, this is a personal moral code, and of coarse everyone has their own, but moral codes should not be hypocritical, they should based on principles that you apply universally (if you get what I'm saying).

Also, I'm into things like powerlifting, streangth sports are almost impossible as a vegetarian, not enough protein, much harder to get the complete strand of amino acids needed.

I think it's an admirable but unrealistic goal to have "universally applied ethics." You probably think we should avoid taking actions that have a high chance of killing someone. For instance, even if I don't intend to kill anyone, driving incredibly fast is dangerous. What if there were insect sized people? Certainly, you'd care about their interests. But would you constantly look out and about to make sure you aren't harming them?

And vegetarianism has the convenient escape when it comes to insects. The scientific evidence seems to suggest insects only feel "pressure" but don't feel pain. The example is if you cut the leg off an insect, it struggles until after the leg is cut. Following this, it acts as if nothing had happened.

I'm not sure if this is accurate when it comes to insects. I'm also not sure "pressure without pain" constitutes absolutely zero harm or whether insects feel pleasure from eating and other activities (they may).

What I'm trying to get at is if you want to your morality to be consistent, I think you're being unrealistic or have a very lazy code of ethics. Many libertarians, specifically, choose a lazy negative based ethical code to avoid this scenario. However, if actions have consequences that we know unintentionally harm others, we might have to reevaluate all our consumer goods and, how we purchase items, and who we interact with in life as a form of "social pressure" to convince others to act right.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I call myself a vegetarian but I eat fish, and I know there is a specific name for someone who eats just fish, but 1) I don't remember it and 2) most people have no idea what it means so it's easier to just say vegetarian.

I'm not one of those people who believe that eating meat is evil, I just don't like the thought of eating other living things, especially mammals. I am still figuring out whether I believe the Buddhist concept of sentient beings so I'm abstaining from eating meat for that reason, even though I could change my mind later. I've found that my diet has improved since I became a vegetarian and it feels healthier because I'm eating more fruit and vegetables. I also think that vegetarianism has environmental benefits as it cuts the number of stages in a food chain, therefore reducing the amount of energy lost in food production. So it's more efficient. It can also be hard to know whether the animal you're eating has been treated fairly and that's why I boycott all of it just to be safe. Lastly, there's a reduced chance of getting things like salmonella and food poisoning seeing as it's commonly caught from meat, not other processed foods.

[fidzboi]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the debate regarding whether it is right or ethical for humans to eat meat, misses the more serious question regarding the quality of the food that we eat in general. Most of the food products we consume are of a very low quality, be they meat or veg.

Which means that rather than arguing in favour of one or tother, we should argue that humans have the fundamental right to eat foods of good quality regardless of what that food is. Everyone, regardless of personal preference, has something of an obligation to demand that all food is produced to high standards.

That means free range eggs, cattle that are raised correctly and tested regularly for mad cows - they're not at the moment - veg that is not sprayed with cancer causing chemicals, etc., etc.

That to me is the important issue, the rest is just a matter of personal preference. And whatever your personal preference you should always remember that it is just that, and you should also remember that people who try to make their preference out to be some kind of morally good thing, often tend to be construed by the rest of us as the most annoying, obnoxious prats there are.
_ _ _ _ _

On a side note, I like Frank Mir, seems like a cool guy who's a really talented BJJ practitioner. But I can't help but think that if he'd had a few more burgers he'd of done a lot better against Brock 'I can't wait to see him get knocked the fuck out' Lesnar. :closedeyes:

[RGacky3]

I think it's an admirable but unrealistic goal to have "universally applied ethics." You probably think we should avoid taking actions that have a high chance of killing someone. For instance, even if I don't intend to kill anyone, driving incredibly fast is dangerous. What if there were insect sized people? Certainly, you'd care about their interests. But would you constantly look out and about to make sure you aren't harming them?

Really that sort of universally applied ethics is the natural consience. For example, even killers have to either overcome their morals compleatly, or find some justification that would make their killing justified.

Driving fast does'nt fall into that because the intention of driving fast is'nt to kill anyone, of coarse you'd feel horrible if you did, and probably feel guilty too, so its not a good idea to drive fast.

The fact is morals ARE applied universally, its just somepeople try and justify things that cannot be justified according to their own morals.

What I'm saying, is if you claim to have a set of morals, then stick to them, other wise they arn't morals.


The scientific evidence seems to suggest insects only feel "pressure" but don't feel pain. The example is if you cut the leg off an insect, it struggles until after the leg is cut. Following this, it acts as if nothing had happened.

If the reason your a vegetarian is ecause you don't wnat to inflict pain on another creature then that would make sense.

However I really don't nkow how its possible for science to findout if a creature feels pain or not, but I'm not a scientist.


Many libertarians, specifically, choose a lazy negative based ethical code to avoid this scenario. However, if actions have consequences that we know unintentionally harm others, we might have to reevaluate all our consumer goods and, how we purchase items, and who we interact with in life as a form of "social pressure" to convince others to act right.

I think when thinking about ethics, you have to look at the outcome and think "am I ok with this outcome" (no matter how it came about), and also apply it to other situations and think "would I be ok with that outcome".

Its like saying I can kill under these circumstances but you cannot, thats not an ethical code.

Saying killing under these circumstances is ok, but under those it is not, for both of us, that is a moral code.

The United states calling for Iraq to follow UN orders, when it itself does not, is doing something hypocritical, thats not morality.


Many fighters actually have found vegetarian diets beneficial.

I'm not saying it can't be done, its just a lot harder. The fighter take protein shakes which are generally whey which is milk based, fine for vegetarians, not for vegans, but this is about vegetarians, so thats fine. (also fighting is'nt really a strength sport perse).


Brock 'I can't wait to see him get knocked the fuck out' Lesnar.

I second that. The guys a douche.

[Dr Mindbender]

I believe that killing an animal, I.e. Causing it to suffer
Not all animals that are killed for their meat suffer though, usually the methods used kill the animal before it even knows about it.


and deprive it of its life, simply just so you can enjoy the taste of its flesh, when you could choose otherwise, is a disgusting, selfish and barbaric decision not befitting of human beings. Its also wasteful.
I'd challenge you to spend a week in a 3rd world community where meat often forms thier stable diet, i doubt you will win them over with your western moralism. I've just come back from the philippines where pigs are often slaughtered by sticking a knife in their throats. With the state of human conditions i felt in a poor place indeed to lecture them about the rights of farm animals.

[Havet]

I'd challenge you to spend a week in a 3rd world community where meat often forms thier stable diet, i doubt you will win them over with your western moralism. I've just come back from the philippines where pigs are often slaughtered by sticking a knife in their throats. With the state of human conditions i felt in a poor place indeed to lecture them about the rights of farm animals.

OBVIOUSLY in third world countries the ONLY viable option for them to survive is for them to eat meat.

I think vegetarianism, like I explained in my first post, should only be practiced when its THE BEST alternative. And in the third world CLEARLY its not the best alternative.

[Dr Mindbender]

OBVIOUSLY in third world countries the ONLY viable option for them to survive is for them to eat meat.

I think vegetarianism, like I explained in my first post, should only be practiced when its THE BEST alternative. And in the third world CLEARLY its not the best alternative.

Well to me it seems hypocrisy to apply one standard in one country but not in another purely on moral grounds.

I wish the militant veggies would get off their high horses.

[Havet]

Well to me it seems hypocrisy to apply one standard in one country but not in another purely on moral grounds.

I wish the militant veggies would get off their high horses.

Its not hypocrisy, because the standard we are trying to voluntarily apply is based on different conditions. If a certain set of conditions is met, then vegetarianism IS the best alternative. If not, then it's not. It's really very simple.

Such set of conditions are dependent on the degree of technological and overall development of a given country. And even within the country there are areas which are poorer than others, so it cannot be applied universally.

Also, don't mistake peaceful vegetarians with assholes like PETA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, don't mistake peaceful vegetarians with assholes like PETA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA)

This is a worthwhile point - dickweeds like PETA, by claiming to speak for vegetarians/vegans, make all of them look like assholes.

[JohannGE]

usually the methods used kill the animal before it even knows about it.

Not in the UK they arn't!

They are suposed to be but as with the welfare of the animals during growth and fattening, considerations of welfare costs money. As with any capitalist enterprise, the objective is to maximise shareholders profits. Anything that diverts money from that end is given the minimum possible consideration.

"In 1992, Simon Kestin of Bristol University reported to the IWC's Humane Killing Workshop (IWC 44/HKW) that 53% of young bulls killed in British slaughterhouses were improperly stunned and may have been conscious during the bleeding-out stage.

A 1993 report by two other Bristol University researchers, M. Anil and J. McKinstry, looked at the slaughter of pigs in England and Wales. In the majority of slaughterhouses they found that pigs were not restrained during the stunning process, and that in part as a result, no less than 15.6% of animals had to be restunned, while 20.5% showed signs of regaining consciousness at the time of sticking (see "Stuck Pigs Still Squeal"). "
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Ethics/uk-my-of.htm

"Chickens are not being reliably stunned before slaughter and so may be conscious when they enter a scalding vat, the pressure group Compassion in World Farming said yesterday.

Live chickens are hung upside down by the legs in metal shackles and then carried by a moving belt to a water bath. An electric current is passed through their bodies stunning them. However, the current recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture, 105 milliamps, is not adequate for the job, Peter Stevenson, who has written a report on the slaughter of chickens for Compassion in World Farming"

"Compassion in World Farming has tried without success to obtain information through parliamentary questions on practices in UK slaughterhouses. Although slaughterhouses are inspected by Ministry of Agriculture veterinarians, the ministry said that no information was available on the proportion of birds which are stunned in practice."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chickens-suffer-needlessly-in-slaughterhouses-1480993.html

Stricter rules on the way in 2013:-

"As from January 2013, stunning and killing criteria for slaughterhouses will be updated, and the general parameters for using electricity to knock out animals, for example, or gas for birds, more concretely defined.
Also, slaughterhouses will also have to have a specific person who is responsible for animal welfare and to ensure all staff are trained and certified."

http://www.meatinternational.com/news/slaughtering/eu-changes-to-stunning-slaughter-methods-id1550.html

And as for halal and kosher practices... :cursing:

Some wide ranging and interesting considerations of food production in this series:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m9xk9

Episode 1 + 2 available to view again, episode 3 next Monday.

[danyboy27]

i am not a vegetarian mainly beccause i love meat and i just couldnt do without it. you could bring me has much substitute you want i would still ask for meat.

i think its ok to kill annimals to eat, except for somes like whales and dolphin and other lifeform with a superior self awareness.

[Havet]

i am not a vegetarian mainly beccause i love meat and i just couldnt do without it. you could bring me has much substitute you want i would still ask for meat.

i think its ok to kill annimals to eat, except for somes like whales and dolphin and other lifeform with a superior self awareness.

By your logic, it would be OK to eat psychologically retarded people because their level of self-awareness would resemble that of a cow or a pig, maybe even less.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And as for halal and kosher practices... :cursing:

I don't know about kosher, but doesn't halal slaughter involve slitting of the throat with a very sharp knife? Bleeding to death may not be the quickest way to die but it hardly strikes me as among the most painful.


By your logic, it would be OK to eat psychologically retarded people because their level of self-awareness would resemble that of a cow or a pig, maybe even less.

That logic only works if you ignore the possibility that retarded people may have friends or relatives that object, let alone the fact that human society has a duty of care toward its weakest members.

[danyboy27]

By your logic, it would be OK to eat psychologically retarded people because their level of self-awareness would resemble that of a cow or a pig, maybe even less.

they are human, i think that pretty much the only exception i have.

not mentionning that retarded people could in the future be helped by chiurgy and that a lot of those retarded folks actually show a great deal of artistic talents; painter, pianists, etc.

also, i know it may sound fascist to other but you dont eat humans, you dont eat your kind. by our kind i of course refers to the human race, regardless of any skin color or religions.

[Havet]

That logic only works if you ignore the possibility that retarded people may have friends or relatives that object, let alone the fact that human society has a duty of care toward its weakest members.

Oh yes you are correct. Since the person is unable to take care of herself, the responsibility is for friends or family, which i doubt would allow it.

Anyway, if we do take that aside, which is possible in very strict scenarios, then the person i was quoting from wouldnt have any problem in eating that person, would he?

[Ele'ill]

I've been vegan. I stopped because I was trying to quit smoking and the sugar in the fruits were giving me killer cravings.

I have now quit smoking and occasionally eat meat.

Vegetarian.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have now quit smoking and occasionally eat meat.

Vegetarian.

One of these things is not like the other...

[Richard Nixon]

I'm not vegetarian.

[The Feral Underclass]

I know that veganism can damage your health if one doesn't eat synthetic vitamins; it makes sense, after all we're not cows to eat grass, we're omnivores. I believe meat is an essential part of anyone's diet and about lacto-ovo-vegetarianism I don't know that much because I couldn't care less.

That's utter nonsense. Please explain to me what vitamins we get from meat other than the mineral iron, which can be easily found elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but this is just a misinformed opinion.

[Solzhenitsyn]

That's utter nonsense. Please explain to me what vitamins we get from meat other than the mineral iron, which can be easily found elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but this is just a misinformed opinion.

Vitamin B12 is the biggest.

[Ovi]

That's utter nonsense. Please explain to me what vitamins we get from meat other than the mineral iron, which can be easily found elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but this is just a misinformed opinion.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-vegetariani-whyi-t116102/index.html?p=1530171#post1530171

http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-vegetariani-whyi-t116102/index.html?p=1530179#post1530179

[Hoggy_RS]

I'm not a vegetarian because I enjoy meat. I don't think I need any other reason than that.

[Ele'ill]

One of these things is not like the other...

I am a Vegetarian. I occasionally eat meat. Its literally like once a year so fuck it man- I'm a vegetarian. :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

I am a Vegetarian. I occasionally eat meat. Its literally like once a year so fuck it man- I'm a vegetarian.

Nope, your not a vegetarian, you just don't eat a lot of meat.

Thats like saying I'm celibite, but I have sex maybe like once a year.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I am not a vegetarian for several reasons.
1) It offers no benefit to me.
2) The vegetarian community signals constantly, and i have no interest in being part of it.
3) The cows seem to not mind the arrangement one bit.
4) Meat is delicious.

Now I'm all for more humane treatment of animals, cruelty for it's own sake is a dangerous social precedent. But that's no reason for us to stop eating the delicious cows.(Besides most of the animals we farm couldn't survive without our care, just think of going on the dinner plate as there part of the exchange.)

[Havet]

Now I'm all for more humane treatment of animals, cruelty for it's own sake is a dangerous social precedent. But that's no reason for us to stop eating the delicious cows.(Besides most of the animals we farm couldn't survive without our care, just think of going on the dinner plate as there part of the exchange.)

The cow is going to suffer whether you kill it more humanely or not. You can try and reduce the amount of suffer she goes by (humane conditions), or eliminate it completely (vegetarianism).

Most of the animals we farm could survive with our care. Even if they couldn't, how is that an argument? Would you think a terminal patient who wants to die, or knows he will inevitably die, will be happy if you force him to live?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The cow is going to suffer whether you kill it more humanely or not. You can try and reduce the amount of suffer she goes by (humane conditions), or eliminate it completely (vegetarianism).

Excuse me, but how does vegetarianism eliminate animal suffering? Thousands of animals get slaughtered daily regardless of whether I personally eat them or not.


Most of the animals we farm could survive with our care. Even if they couldn't, how is that an argument? Would you think a terminal patient who wants to die, or knows he will inevitably die, will be happy if you force him to live?

Animals aren't human cancer patients.

[Havet]

Excuse me, but how does vegetarianism eliminate animal suffering? Thousands of animals get slaughtered daily regardless of whether I personally eat them or not.

Surely you can work this out yourself?

Less home meat demand -> Less home meat spending -> Less meat sold by butcher -> Less animals killed

Of course the actual difference one person does is very reduced (maybe only 1 animal not killed each year), but this is why there are message boards and other platforms where people can get together, share ideas and influence others.


Animals aren't human cancer patients.

That's right, although it still doesn't mean we're doing the animals any favor by killing them (as WhiteMageofDoom suggested).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Surely you can work this out yourself?

Less home meat demand -> Less home meat spending -> Less meat sold by butcher -> Less animals killed

That assumes that significant amounts of people will turn vegetarian, something I've no reason to believe will happen. Meat is tasty and nutritious, and humans will almost always put their own happiness and wellbeing above that of animals.


Of course the actual difference one person does is very reduced (maybe only 1 animal not killed each year), but this is why there are message boards and other platforms where people can get together, share ideas and influence others.

The benefits of vegetarianism seem awfully vicarious to me. Whereas the benefits of meat are in the eating.

I don't predict majority vegetarianism unless it is forced.


That's right, although it still doesn't mean we're doing the animals any favor by killing them (as WhiteMageofDoom suggested).

Of course not, but we are doing humans a favour by slaughtering animals for meat. I'm primarily concerned with human happiness and comfort, and if that takes animal slaughter, so be it.

[Ele'ill]

Nope, your not a vegetarian, you just don't eat a lot of meat.

Thats like saying I'm celibite, but I have sex maybe like once a year.


It really is a black and white world for you guys isn't it?

I am a vegetarian. I occasionally will eat meat once a year. Almost by accident. Or once a year is when that really awkward time arrives at a friends house where they've prepared some really intricate meal and it has meat in it.


If I'm engaged in a conversation about diet with someone and they ask me if I'm a vegetarian I'm probably going to say yes because the imagery of my diet they'll get in their head will be more accurate than if I say "no I'm not a vegetarian."

[Vanguard1917]

That assumes that significant amounts of people will turn vegetarian, something I've no reason to believe will happen.


And indeed the opposite is happening -- meat consumption is increasing. One of the first things that most poor people tend to do as their living standards improve is add more meat to their diets. Vegetarians, on the other hand, are a tiny minority, and yet some of them wish to force their minority lifestyles on to everyone else.

Also, being eaten by humans is a positive thing for animals -- it gives them a purpose in life that they would not otherwise have. When an animal is eaten by a human -- or indeed used to make clothing by him, employed in scientific research and for the expansion of human knowledge and appreciation of nature, and utilised for human adventure and entertainment (hunting, bullfighting, etc.) -- that animal has helped further satisfy the needs, desires and curiosities of a conscious being. That's a truly great thing, albeit, of course, something the animal will never understand or be aware of. What worth or point could an animal's life have if it was of no use to humanity?

[JohannGE]

What worth or point could an animal's life have if it was of no use to humanity?

What about the 3.5 billion years there had been life on earth before the evolution of humans?

Such a biblical notion of all life for the dominion of humans is ridiculous. Life existed before us and is likely do so afterwards.

[Havet]

That assumes that significant amounts of people will turn vegetarian, something I've no reason to believe will happen. Meat is tasty and nutritious, and humans will almost always put their own happiness and wellbeing above that of animals.


The benefits of vegetarianism seem awfully vicarious to me. Whereas the benefits of meat are in the eating.

I beg to differ (http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html)


Of course not, but we are doing humans a favour by slaughtering animals for meat. I'm primarily concerned with human happiness and comfort, and if that takes animal slaughter, so be it.

And what if human happiness can be achieved through vegetarianism, by living longer and not making animals suffer, rather than to end up with a cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Cancer) yet having enjoyed the yummy tasty meat and having hurt thousands of animals?

[Havet]

And indeed the opposite is happening -- meat consumption is increasing. One of the first things that most poor people tend to do as their living standards improve is add more meat to their diets. Vegetarians, on the other hand, are a tiny minority, and yet some of them wish to force their minority lifestyles on to everyone else.

Wrong, try again. Nobody wants to force anybody (except the PETA assholes, that is)

And like i've said countlessly, and countlessly, and countlessly, vegetarianism is ONLY an option when its the best alternative.

OBVIOUSLY poor people cannot be vegetarian, because it is not the best alternative for them.


Also, being eaten by humans is a positive thing for animals -- it gives them a purpose in life that they would not otherwise have. When an animal is eaten by a human -- or indeed used to make clothing by him, employed in scientific research and for the expansion of human knowledge and appreciation of nature, and utilised for human adventure and entertainment (hunting, bullfighting, etc.) -- that animal has helped further satisfy the needs, desires and curiosities of a conscious being. That's a truly great thing, albeit, of course, something the animal will never understand or be aware of. What worth or point could an animal's life have if it was of no use to humanity?

So if any entity, whether a normal animal or a human, really doesn't want to have any purpose, or doesn't have the ability to look for a purpose in life, we should enslave that human or animal for the good of others? What happened to the good 'ol right to leave me the fuck alone? You almost sound like Radical where he said lazy people should be enslaved.

I am NOT against animal use in scientific research, because it is the best alternative, with the most efficient results. However, I am opposed to using animals as clothing, because THERE ARE better alternatives: synthetic clothing, and other natural types. Likewise I oppose entertainment in the form of bullfighting or hunting because there are better alternatives that don't make animals suffer.

[Vanguard1917]

Wrong, try again. Nobody wants to force anybody (except the PETA assholes, that is)

It's not just PETA, though, is it? What about, for example, those who oppose mass meat production and want the government to shut it down?



So if any entity, whether a normal animal or a human, really doesn't want to have any purpose, or doesn't have the ability to look for a purpose in life, we should enslave that human or animal for the good of others? What happened to the good 'ol right to leave me the fuck alone? You almost sound like Radical where he said lazy people should be enslaved.



We shouldn't conflate humans and animals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I beg to differ (http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html)

Even if that's true, so what? I enjoy smoking despite the risk (remember it's a risk, not a cast-iron certainty) of contracting cancer, and I am just as irritated with proslytising anti-smokers as I am with proslytising vegetarians.


And what if human happiness can be achieved through vegetarianism, by living longer and not making animals suffer, rather than to end up with a cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Cancer) yet having enjoyed the yummy tasty meat and having hurt thousands of animals?

Again, even taking such studies as is without any further considerations, humans frequently choose to gamble their long-term health for short-term pleasure, and who the fuck are you to dictate otherwise? Maybe people don't want to live long enough to end up wearing a bib when they eat.

People should be able to choose what they eat. Animals, not being a part of human society, don't get a say in the matter.

[JohannGE]

We shouldn't conflate humans and animals.

In that case, what do you think humans are?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In that case, what do you think humans are?

I hardly think he was using the scientific definition of the term. I may be an animal just like a housecat, my neighbour and a goldfish, but which one do you think I would be able to have a meangingful conversation with?

[Vanguard1917]

In that case, what do you think humans are?

Conscious beings who are unique and special on this earth.

[JohannGE]

I hardly think he was using the scientific definition of the term. I may be an animal just like a housecat, my neighbour and a goldfish, but which one do you think I would be able to have a meangingful conversation with?

Have you met my neighbours?. ;)

Some comments on this thread seem to suggest some confusion about the taxonomy of humans. I thought I should check.


Conscious beings who are unique and special on this earth.

"Beings" is a metaphysical term, let's stick to biology.

Surely "Animals" is the answer. To be accurate, Homo sapiens sapiens, a mere sub species of the Genus Homo, in turn a recent offshoot of the Family Homidae, itself a close reletive of the Order Primatea and a sub division of the Class Mammalia. We are merely a recent (and likely short lived) freakish link in a very long chain.

Should any of the other Homo species have survived, sapiens idatu or ergaster(with it's complex articulate language) would you also wish to apply your laws of total dominion and dissregard over them?

[Havet]

It's not just PETA, though, is it? What about, for example, those who oppose mass meat production and want the government to shut it down?

So?

Because some vegetarians wish to use force that means all vegetarians wish to use force? No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).


We shouldn't conflate humans and animals.

I know there are differences, but on the level of experiencing pain there isn't any difference. Your arguments clings on the intelligence fact that correctly separates human beings from other animals. Lets push your argument to its logical extreme then: Its okay to do whatever we want with mentally-retarded human beings who are as intelligent as other animals (this includes eating them, using them in scientific experiments, hunting them, watching them fight one another for enterntainment, etc).

[Havet]

Even if that's true, so what? I enjoy smoking despite the risk (remember it's a risk, not a cast-iron certainty) of contracting cancer, and I am just as irritated with proslytising anti-smokers as I am with proslytising vegetarians.

So stop pretending vegetarianism doesn't have any good parts about it. DOn't get me wrong - I hate just as much the anti-smokers who think they know what I must or must not do with my life. This is why I am arguing with you instead of lobbying the government. Because i'm fucking intelligent in this regard, contrary to the anti-smokers crowd.


Again, even taking such studies as is without any further considerations, humans frequently choose to gamble their long-term health for short-term pleasure, and who the fuck are you to dictate otherwise? Maybe people don't want to live long enough to end up wearing a bib when they eat.

People should be able to choose what they eat. Animals, not being a part of human society, don't get a say in the matter.

Sorry that you misunderstood me. I do not wish to dictate anyone. I wish to argue with them, and convince them through dialogue, not guns.

I was just discussing that since you were concerned with human happiness and all, perhaps people might value living longer more than enjoying the taste of meat and dying earlier.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So stop pretending vegetarianism doesn't have any good parts about it.

I don't see any benefits as far as I'm concerned - firstly, it's not certain that I will get any kind of cancer (any number of things could nobble me first). Secondly, cancer generally develops towards the end of one's life, so in the meantime I will have had a fun and full life. Thirdly, cancer treatments are getting better all the time, and an early diagnosis will mean such an event will have much less of an impact on my quality of life than it would have previously.


I was just discussing that since you were concerned with human happiness and all, perhaps people might value living longer more than enjoying the taste of meat and dying earlier.

That decision is theirs to make. Furthermore, living a long life and eating meat regularly are not mutually exclusive.

[shadowmare]

I guess you could say I'm a light-moderate vegetarian. I don't eat beef, pork, or chicken of any kind. However I do enjoy seafood and eggs and milk and whatnot
Been so for about 5 years now and honestly I'm the healthiest I can remember myself being

[Vanguard1917]

Lets push your argument to its logical extreme then: Its okay to do whatever we want with mentally-retarded human beings who are as intelligent as other animals (this includes eating them, using them in scientific experiments, hunting them, watching them fight one another for enterntainment, etc).

No, that common animal rights comeback isn't logically sound, and here's why: disabled human beings are still human beings. Even the most mentally-disabled person is potentially still a healthy, fully-functioning human. We should, therefore, always strive to find ways to correct their disorders and make them well or at least better. Unwell people are still people.

An animal, on the other hand, will always be an animal and cannot be a human, healthy or otherwise. That's why it's a fallacy to compare disabled people to animals -- not to mention downright insulting.

[Revy]

And indeed the opposite is happening -- meat consumption is increasing. One of the first things that most poor people tend to do as their living standards improve is add more meat to their diets. Vegetarians, on the other hand, are a tiny minority, and yet some of them wish to force their minority lifestyles on to everyone else.

Also, being eaten by humans is a positive thing for animals -- it gives them a purpose in life that they would not otherwise have. When an animal is eaten by a human -- or indeed used to make clothing by him, employed in scientific research and for the expansion of human knowledge and appreciation of nature, and utilised for human adventure and entertainment (hunting, bullfighting, etc.) -- that animal has helped further satisfy the needs, desires and curiosities of a conscious being. That's a truly great thing, albeit, of course, something the animal will never understand or be aware of. What worth or point could an animal's life have if it was of no use to humanity?

Wow.

You need to realize that animals too are "conscious beings".

This shit about "they like being eaten" is just disgusting. Well, I'm glad we haven't been invaded by extraterrestrials who want to eat us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29). Thanks aliens!:wub: for not thinking of us as dumb automatons whose purpose is to be on your plate.

[Havet]

I guess you could say I'm a light-moderate vegetarian. I don't eat beef, pork, or chicken of any kind. However I do enjoy seafood and eggs and milk and whatnot
Been so for about 5 years now and honestly I'm the healthiest I can remember myself being

That's pretty much exactly what I eat. DO you eat seafood because you like it or because some types of seafood are as much cognizant of pain as plants are?

[Havet]

disabled person is potentially still a healthy, fully-functioning human

Is it? I'm pretty sure there are cases where that is simply not possible (at least with the current medical knowledge).


That's why it's a fallacy to compare disabled people to animals -- not to mention downright insulting.

I think its insulting for you to mention animals only exist for the sake of humans, and that a living being capable of experiencing pain doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake.

[Revy]

To further expand on my point beyond the hyperbole, the same thing could just as easily happen to us. Don't dismiss it because it sounds only like science fiction. Consider it. Humans would be killed for their meat by a species which might in all likelihood be more evolved than us. Because we cannot speak in their languages, they would discount our ability to assert our right to life.

Farm animals are roughly equivalent in intelligence to small human children. In fact, pigs are superior in intelligence to dogs. I have heard Darwinian arguments, appeals to nature, but this idea that animals are dumb mindless things with no consciousness, combined with the idea that being eaten, killed and subject to brutal abuse gives them a "purpose" (other than their real purpose, to live or be free in their natural environment) is the MOST abhorrent pro-meat eating argument of all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow.

You need to realize that animals too are "conscious beings".

Consciousness isn't a binary condition where you either have it or you don't and where having it automatically grants rights and all that jazz.

No, consciousness is a spectrum, and rights are something that only humans are known to formulate and struggle for.


This shit about "they like being eaten" is just disgusting.

It's a good thing that's not what he said, isn't it? He said that being eaten is "a positive thing" for animals - and for most of their life and as a species, it is. Stressed, unhealthy animals produce rubbish meat, and you can't raise and slaughter a species if it is extinct.


Well, I'm glad we haven't been invaded by extraterrestrials who want to eat us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29). Thanks aliens!:wub: for not thinking of us as dumb automatons whose purpose is to be on your plate.

Of course if aliens or Lovecraftian monstrosities or whatever were eating us it would be a bad thing - but what exactly has that got to do with vegetarianism? Farm animals are bred for their docility, unlike humans, who are also capable of formulating complex resistance unlike cows.


To further expand on my point beyond the hyperbole, the same thing could just as easily happen to us. Don't dismiss it because it sounds only like science fiction. Consider it. Humans would be killed for their meat by a species which might in all likelihood be more evolved than us. Because we cannot speak in their languages, they would discount our ability to assert our right to life.

Humans can and will resist being eaten, even by a species that is "more evolved"* than us. When was the last time we had to put down a Bovine Resistance Army?

*Am I the only one who finds the implication that evolution is teleological extremely irritating? Saying that something is "more evolved" is utterly meaningless.


Farm animals are roughly equivalent in intelligence to small human children. In fact, pigs are superior in intelligence to dogs.

So what? Children grow up and become adults. We also have no problems with killing dogs when it suits our purposes.

I'm also skeptical about the claims of intelligence - it's a hard enough thing to measure in humans, let alone other animals with their different evolutionary histories. Further, intelligence alone is not enough to grant moral agency - the ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities expected of one in society is also an important consideration.

[Vanguard1917]

Is it? I'm pretty sure there are cases where that is simply not possible (at least with the current medical knowledge).

Perhaps. But it's still considered a future possibility, which is why we keep trying and look forward to new breakthroughs in medical science. The point is, disabled people are people -- not animals -- and they deserve to be treated as such, receiving care and attention so that their lives as human beings may be improved.



I think its insulting for you to mention animals only exist for the sake of humans,


It is insulting for you, as a human, since you have chosen to be insulted by it, but the animal has no understanding whatsoever of what that concept is, and nor could it ever have. In other words, you've decided to feel insulted for the animal, but the animal does not and cannot ever feel those emotions itself. The crucial difference with human beings is that, as conscious subjects, they're themselves able to feel insulted when they're compared to pigs and monkeys.

[Comrade B]

I eat fish and shrimp, no other meats.
I base it on this; when I see this animal dead, do I think, I could cook and eat that.

I see a dead cow, it is kinda nasty, same with any other mammal or bird

[Havet]

Perhaps. But it's still considered a future possibility, which is why we keep trying and look forward to new breakthroughs in medical science. The point is, disabled people are people -- not animals -- and they deserve to be treated as such, receiving care and attention so that their lives as human beings may be improved.

People are animals, and at that point of hypothetical situation, they are equally intelligent as a non-human mammal. So what differentiates the human from the animal in that case, appart from physical and phenotypical differences?


It is insulting for you, as a human, since you have chosen to be insulted by it, but the animal has no understanding whatsoever of what that concept is, and nor could it ever have. In other words, you've decided to feel insulted for the animal, but the animal does not and cannot ever feel those emotions itself. The crucial difference with human beings is that, as conscious subjects, they're themselves able to feel insulted when they're compared to pigs and monkeys.

I know they have no conscience of recognizing that feeling, how does that disprove my statement?

All beings have a right to exist. However, most beings rely on killing others to survive. We, humans, have the ability to consciously choose, according to criteria, what type of beings we eat. And what vegetarianism states (at least, what I state), is that given the alternatives, in a moderately rich country with several choices, becoming a vegetarian is both best for humans and animals than continuing eating meat (especially red), which is only good for the humans.

We still need to kill animals, but I think its much worthy being killed to benefit humanity (by scientific experiments) than being killed to feed one, two, 5 humans in a single meal (from an animal's perspective, which it doesnt have, but we can put ourselves in their position).

[Fictional]

I'm currently trying to become a vegetarian, it's harder than I expected as so many things contain meat, Haribo (Mega frown), Marshmallows and alot of glutin containing food, going to buy my first Qourn meal today, been told they are disgusting, I guess it's worth a shot.

[Havet]

I'm currently trying to become a vegetarian, it's harder than I expected as so many things contain meat, Haribo (Mega frown), Marshmallows and alot of glutin containing food, going to buy my first Qourn meal today, been told they are disgusting, I guess it's worth a shot.

I wish I had Quorn where I live. Try Seitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seitan), its pretty good and can easily be cooked.

[Fictional]

I wish I had Quorn where I live. Try Seitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seitan), its pretty good and can easily be cooked.
Vegetarian Mock duck D:
Oh man, that sounds tasty, but looks terrible, I'm kind of excited to try some new stuff, most of my life I've lived on meat, living in this city it's usualy processed in some sort, not sure if I'd be able to get Seitan here, I'll have to find some delecatessen shop or something, do you live in a rural area or something? I thought Quorn was rather big in most countries.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wish I had Quorn where I live.

I'm told it's apparently no good to a vegan, though - they use eggs as a binding agent or something like that.


Try Seitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seitan), its pretty good and can easily be cooked.

Seitan? Speak of the Devil... :laugh:

[Fictional]

I'm told it's apparently no good to a vegan, though - they use eggs as a binding agent or something like that.
I'll confirm that, I just Wikipedia'd it and it told me so :3.
Although, I have no problem eating Eggs and well, they're neither Poultry, meat or anything, they do have there own sub-section, but because Eggs are the only thing in that sub-section, Supermarkerts and shops alike just class them as Dairy because it costs less to make an isle, for eggs.

[Havet]

I'm told it's apparently no good to a vegan, though - they use eggs as a binding agent or something like that.

Good that i'm not a vegan then...

[Havet]

Vegetarian Mock duck D:
Oh man, that sounds tasty, but looks terrible, I'm kind of excited to try some new stuff, most of my life I've lived on meat, living in this city it's usualy processed in some sort, not sure if I'd be able to get Seitan here, I'll have to find some delecatessen shop or something, do you live in a rural area or something? I thought Quorn was rather big in most countries.

I live outside a city, but not in a rural area. Sort of suburbs.

There's nothing really major about Seitan. You need onion, water, cooking oil, soy sauce and wheat gluten (generally sold in powder form). Of course, for me its much easier to cook because I have a robot kitchen (http://www.coisasdemae.eu/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bimby.jpg) (basically a multi-task blender).

[Fictional]

Robot Kitchen, sweet - I some how imagine some huge awesome Kitchen with tracks that rovolve around different utensils and machines somehow magicly spurting out awesome food and delivers it fresh to your table.
I need a tissue for this drooling >_>

Going to go to tesco's and spend my wages on food, all vegetarian, I shall report my findings and announce how disgusting or how beautiful they are.
Any idea what Homous tastes like? xD