Vegetarianism

[nagarjuna]

What is your opinion with regard to vegetarianism and veganism? I want to start a very open-ended discussion with whatever opinions people want to bring.

If someone follows this up, I will post more details, including definitions and my take. As a spoiler, I am a tree-hugging veggiesexual :P. If no one's interested, I won't bother.

[peepingthesmurf]

Hm...
Well, I love meat. I'm all for the meat. Meat meat meat.
But I honestly don't think humans are meant to eat meat. Some animals, like wolves, tigers and dragons, have the natural ability to kill other animals with their teeth (or claws), and survive as such. But humans, waaay back when we first roamed this earth, did not have the natural ability to kill other animals.
Just imagine running head on at a dear and...killing it with your nails? Plus eating it raw, which is what the real carnivores do (because they're just badass like that).
No, humans later invented weaponry and this is how they killed animals for food. So I think that, in the natural food chain, humans aren't supposed to be hunters. We got protein from other sources, like beans and stuff.
And if we're talking about how things were naturally meant to be, don't even get me STARTED on cow milk. . . .

[Zombified]

I eat Smurfs for breakfast.

>=)

But seriously, I tried to be a vegetarian once(not really) and on my fifth day of not eating meat, I came across a cow wandering through the park.
I couldn't help myself.
I ran over, bit it in the ass and savored the taste of meat!

[Shaun]

I'm not sure what you're asking us to debate on here. I'm not a vegetarian and never will be. I like meat. I will continue to eat it. That said, I don't have a problem with other people choosing to eat only veggies. The only thing I can't stand about the veggie/vegan communities are their attitudes (a holier-than-thou tude). Eat veggies, but don't be an ass about it.

[Bowie20049]

Hm...
Well, I love meat. I'm all for the meat. Meat meat meat.
But I honestly don't think humans are meant to eat meat. Some animals, like wolves, tigers and dragons, have the natural ability to kill other animals with their teeth (or claws), and survive as such. But humans, waaay back when we first roamed this earth, did not have the natural ability to kill other animals.
Just imagine running head on at a dear and...killing it with your nails? Plus eating it raw, which is what the real carnivores do (because they're just badass like that).
No, humans later invented weaponry and this is how they killed animals for food. So I think that, in the natural food chain, humans aren't supposed to be hunters. We got protein from other sources, like beans and stuff.
And if we're talking about how things were naturally meant to be, don't even get me STARTED on cow milk. . . .

We were not hunters back then...we were scavengers. We ate fruits, roots, and already killed animals if we could.

I guess we got hungry during the Ice Age and decided to make weapons to hunt. >.>

[Banana]

But I honestly don't think humans are meant to eat meat.

Uh, then please explain our eye/canine teeth.

[Agent P.]

Well, it depends on why someone is a vegetarian. If it's someone who does it for the health factors, I applaud them, I'd never be able to do that. However, I don't agree with the ones who are vegetarians becasue "it's mean/cruel to the animals" I believe in God, and am a Creationist and all that. In the book of Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth and all the animals and plants on the earth. Animals were put here by God so that we could eat. I understand that to many, this isn't a good argument because they can simply say "I don't believe that." I'm just saying why I don't agree without.

This is not to say I support animal cruelty and doing things like feeding animals genetically modfied fodder and the like. We can eat the animals without altering them or excessively harming them.

In response to Bowie, while we may not possess the natural ability to kill animals with our bare hands, we possess the natural ability to invent ways to kill animals, so who's to say we weren't "meant" to eat meat. Perhaps we had to sacrifice greater physicality in exchange for opposable thumbs and higher brain function, which helps to make us the most efficient hunters despite our lack of physical prowress.

[nagarjuna]

You're all getting ahead of me! I had no idea this would catch fire like a bottle of absinthe in the sun O_o

I'd like to clarify the debate (to respond to Shaun.) First, some definitions. There are not definitive in any way; they are just my understanding of these terms. If someone wants to expand/clarify, be my guest.

Vegetarian: A person who, as a lifestyle choice, does not eat meat. The definition of what constitutes "meat" varies. In general, "vegetarian" refers to someone who eats no meat, poultry, or fish, but who does eat egg and dairy products. That's a "lacto-ovo" vegetarian. Some vegetarians eat just one or the other, and some ("pescatarians") also eat fish, but to many it's debatable whether pescatarians are really vegetarian.

Vegan: A non-ovo, non-lacto vegetarian. In other words, no animal protein, and no edible animal products of any kind. Some vegans also don't use some other animal products, including honey, leather, wool, refined sugar (which involves using charred animal bones), or certain products tested on animals. Some vegans, such as practitioners of the Jain religion, take it to extremes. "Fruitarians" eat only fruit and some avoid even certain kinds of plants which have to be killed to be eaten. But those things aren't part of the definition as far as I'm aware.

I can think of several reasons why someone would be vegetarian or vegan. Here is a partial list:

1. Ethical reasons: The belief that eating animals/animal products is cruel, exploitative, a violation of animal rights, or otherwise morally un-copacetic. This may be either because it involves killing animals, or raising them under inhumane conditions, or both. I fall mainly into this category, FYI.

2. Religious reasons: As I mentioned above, Jains are (as far as I know) strictly vegan, even fruitarian. There are also things such as kosher dietary laws, and dietary restrictions in other religions such as Hinduism, but I know very little about them or their rationales. Some one else would have to fill this in.

3. Health reasons: To be frank, this makes close to the least sense to me personally. I think that, nutritionally speaking, the ideal diet is mostly plants with a moderate amount of meat and other animal protein. We don't *technically* need animal protein to survive, but it's pretty tricky to find other ways, even in our modern age. I take many nutritional supplements every day. But all the same, this is one reason or even the primary reason that some people go veggie.

4. Environmental reasons: Second on my list. The agriculture industry has a huge negative impact on the environment, and is one of the main contributors to global warming. It's not too good for biodiversity either, and it's a fabulous breeding grown for diseases that may mutate and pass on to humans.

5. The wrong reasons: I'm sure there are at least a couple. :P

Some of the reasons *against* vegetarianism (in brief, because I don't know as much about them):

1. Health reasons.
2. Religious reasons.
3. Convenience: Either because meat "tastes too good," or "I've tried being vegetarian but I just can't", or the like. To me, these are the least convincing reasons, but also (unfortunately) the most common.
4. Human superiority: Animals are too stupid, not conscious, not moral agents, or the like. I disagree, but that disagreement isn't central to my own argument for vegetarianism.

I have to go right now, but I'll post again soon!

[nagarjuna]

Well, it depends on why someone is a vegetarian. If it's someone who does it for the health factors, I applaud them, I'd never be able to do that. However, I don't agree with the ones who are vegetarians becasue "it's mean/cruel to the animals" I believe in God, and am a Creationist and all that. In the book of Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth and all the animals and plants on the earth. Animals were put here by God so that we could eat. I understand that to many, this isn't a good argument because they can simply say "I don't believe that." I'm just saying why I don't agree without.

I haven't read Genesis in a bit, but all the same I understand it more as a kind of stewardship than dominion. Even "dominion" does not mean the same as "we can do whatever we like with them." Parents have a form of dominion over their children, but that gives them no moral right to maltreat them. (By the way, what you're arguing above is what I meant by "religious reasons" for arguing against veg'ism.)

We also have no *need* to eat animals (as I argue below), and if and when humans do have that need, I would never claim that eating meat was wrong in that case. And even then, I would not relax my belief, extreme as it sounds, that in God's eyes killing an animal is in the same moral ballpark as killing a human. When there is no emergent need, it is murder.

The fact that billions of animals, as many animals as all humans on earth many times over, are killed every year in the factory farming industry should ring some alarms. Even if you're not prepared to claim animals as equals to humans in any way, there is an alarming disparity between the reasons people state for eating meat and the quantity of animal life being sacrificed. Not that the animals live very long, but even their short lives are sunless, diseased, maimed, crowded, unnatural, senseless, and often needlessly sadistic (to make an understatement.)

This is not to say I support animal cruelty and doing things like feeding animals genetically modfied fodder and the like.

Well, yes, the fodder is modified, but more important, the animals are.

If you care AT ALL about cruelty to animals, the argument above should hold at least *some* water for you, and whether or not you're prepared to go veg, it makes sense to do something, no matter how small, to stem the completely gratuitous tide of acts of cruelty. Agribusiness is legally exempt from just about every form of animal cruelty law. If it were inflicted by a pet owner on her/his pet, it would be illegal. And to anticipate claims that pets are smarter or more valuable than food animals, pigs (for one example) are at least as intelligent as dogs, and cows are considered sacred in India; contrariwise, in some countries it's quite thinkable to eat a dog or a cat. These are all just forms of prejudice and preference. I say, cruelty is cruelty.

We can eat the animals without altering them or excessively harming them.

But, in practice, we do both. When you eat meat, you are almost certainly eating genetically altered animals that were raised in unimaginably cruel conditions. Unless you go out of your way, and even there, options are dwindling rapidly.

In response to Bowie, while we may not possess the natural ability to kill animals with our bare hands, we possess the natural ability to invent ways to kill animals, so who's to say we weren't "meant" to eat meat.

That's true, and even without the brain part, we are still omnivores. On the other hand, the label "omnivore" doesn't mean what certain lifestyle carnivores would have it mean. Humans are not necessarily "meant" to eat meat in any way. We definitely aren't meant to eat as much of it as we do, USDA hogwash aside. Nonetheless, we are definitely not natural herbivores.

Perhaps we had to sacrifice greater physicality in exchange for opposable thumbs and higher brain function, which helps to make us the most efficient hunters despite our lack of physical prowress.

I think this is probably true. But now we've gone even further. Our intellectual prowess, our knowledge, and our technologies now allow us (at least in developed countries) to do without meat if we should choose to do so. We don't need to hunt; the fact that hunting is now a recreation should show that. We don't even need to raise animals on farms. Not that we do anyway; the phrase "factory farm" is anachronistic. They're really just "factories", in which animals are just cogs and gears. This applies equally in most important respects to fishery and aquaculture.

[Jack]

Well, it depends on why someone is a vegetarian. If it's someone who does it for the health factors, I applaud them, I'd never be able to do that. However, I don't agree with the ones who are vegetarians becasue "it's mean/cruel to the animals" I believe in God, and am a Creationist and all that. In the book of Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth and all the animals and plants on the earth. Animals were put here by God so that we could eat. I understand that to many, this isn't a good argument because they can simply say "I don't believe that." I'm just saying why I don't agree without.

I don't believe that. :P

Besides, I am not sure how much there is to argue over here. If people don't want to want meat for whatever reason, they don't have to. There is more than enough support (vegetarian meals etc.) for some one that chooses this lifestyle, and it doesn't really have an impact on anyone else. (Other they can be very annoying to cook for).

[nagarjuna]

Besides, I am not sure how much there is to argue over here. If people don't want to want meat for whatever reason, they don't have to. There is more than enough support (vegetarian meals etc.) for some one that chooses this lifestyle, and it doesn't really have an impact on anyone else. (Other they can be very annoying to cook for).

I believe similar arguments were made leading up to the American civil war :rolleyes:

Obviously, it *does* have an impact--on animals!--and that's the point. But if you don't agree with that, it naturally seems to be a "live and let live" issue. Which is a little ironic. It makes the mistake of thinking that the debate is about vegetarians defending *themselves*, which is not the issue. Like you said, it's a personal thing for which there is much support. But vegetarians (if they fall into the "ethical" category) are not defending themselves any more than a non-slave-owner, a pro-lifer, or a man who doesn't beat his wife. It's hard to get others to realize that that is why we think the whole discussion is important. It's not because we want people to like us or think that we're cool, or morally superior or something.

[Agent P.]

We also have no *need* to eat animals (as I argue below), and if and when humans do have that need, I would never claim that eating meat was wrong in that case.


I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and because of this she had to get pills for protein supplement. She changed her mind about being a vegetarian after that (she was doing it for health reasons, and also just to P.O. her parents :P). I think if you need to take pills to make up for the loss of meat, then we probably need meet.


in God's eyes killing an animal is in the same moral ballpark as killing a human.

Not true. God often had people in the Old Testament sacrafice animals to Him. Some could argue that the humans did that of their own accord. Well He also ordered the slaughter of sheep when He sent the Angel of Death to Egypt to kill every firstborn. He had the Israelites feast on lamb and smear the blood on their doors. In this way the Angel of Death knew not to kill in that house. He created us in His image, and created the Earth to sustain us. This is not to say we have the right to abuse the gifts of the Earth He has given us, but we're allowed to use them the way they were meant to be used. In this case, animals for dairy and meat.

The fact that billions of animals, as many animals as all humans on earth many times over, are killed every year in the factory farming industry should ring some alarms. Even if you're not prepared to claim animals as equals to humans in any way, there is an alarming disparity between the reasons people state for eating meat and the quantity of animal life being sacrificed. Not that the animals live very long, but even their short lives are sunless, diseased, maimed, crowded, unnatural, senseless, and often needlessly sadistic (to make an understatement.)


I understand that many people are unnecessarily cruel to animals. I would much prefer that people woud raise animals naturally, however some refuse to. I do not beleive becoming a vegetarian would do anything to help this, not unless you convinced the a good portion world to become vegetarian also, wich is an unrealistic expectation. If you don't, the meat industry won't stop. And no, while this may seem horrible to some people, I do not beleive animals are equal to humans. I beleive we should care about them, for every living thing on Earth has value and a purpose, but I do not believe they are equal. If you kept to that standard, people would not be allowed to own pets because it would be considered slavery. I said before I believe everything has a purpose, and some animals' purpose is to provide other animals something to eat.

[peepingthesmurf]

Uh, then please explain our eye/canine teeth.

Our canine teeth are really short, compared to wolves, tigers, and dragons. But they still eat meat. I suppose what I should have said was that we weren't meant to hunt.
Like what Bowie said, if we did eat meat (when we first walked the earth), it was probably animals that were already dead or the remains of already-killed-and-eaten animals.

Also--eye? What?

[Bowie20049]

Predators generally have their eyes facing forward as for herbivores have their eyes on the sides of their heads.

[nagarjuna]

I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and because of this she had to get pills for protein supplement. She changed her mind about being a vegetarian after that (she was doing it for health reasons, and also just to P.O. her parents :P). I think if you need to take pills to make up for the loss of meat, then we probably need meet.

Is she vegan or lacto-ovo vegetarian? I honestly don't think a vegetarian should need dietary supplements, if you eat right. As for vegans, you can still get enough protein. I take omega-3 which is a little harder to get, but that's it, plus multivitamins which most people should take anyway. I would hardly call that a "need" to eat meat.

Not true. God often had people in the Old Testament sacrafice animals to Him. Some could argue that the humans did that of their own accord. Well He also ordered the slaughter of sheep when He sent the Angel of Death to Egypt to kill every firstborn. He had the Israelites feast on lamb and smear the blood on their doors. In this way the Angel of Death knew not to kill in that house. He created us in His image, and created the Earth to sustain us. This is not to say we have the right to abuse the gifts of the Earth He has given us, but we're allowed to use them the way they were meant to be used. In this case, animals for dairy and meat.

Although I don't share your perspectives on the Bible, I can understand/respect what you mean here. All the same, I think it's important to only eat animals that were raised respectfully, and without unnecessary cruelty.

I understand that many people are unnecessarily cruel to animals. I would much prefer that people woud raise animals naturally, however some refuse to.

The vast majority refuse to. There are precious few, and small, "natural" farms, and even those often have to use unsavory slaughterhouses.

I do not beleive becoming a vegetarian would do anything to help this, not unless you convinced the a good portion world to become vegetarian also, wich is an unrealistic expectation.

I don't think that Jesus would think much of this logic. Who cares if everybody follows your lead? Shouldn't you do the right thing anyway?

If you don't, the meat industry won't stop.

If you increase awareness enough, it'll happen. It doesn't necessarily take everybody going veggie either; various forms of legislation could do the trick. Even PETA has gotten somewhere by just scaring the hell out of various agribusinesses. I'm not always crazy about PETA's techniques, of course, but they are a sort of existence proof.

There are also related causes such as the anti-vivisection movement. While not directly related to this thread, those deserve attention to and they're something that could be changed without major lifestyle changes on everybody's part.

And no, while this may seem horrible to some people, I do not beleive animals are equal to humans.

Neither do I. I just think they deserve a little thought also. And given their shear numbers, maybe a *lot* of thought.

I beleive we should care about them, for every living thing on Earth has value and a purpose, but I do not believe they are equal. If you kept to that standard, people would not be allowed to own pets because it would be considered slavery. I said before I believe everything has a purpose, and some animals' purpose is to provide other animals something to eat.

Who gets to say what that purpose is? Even with the Bible, a human being has to interpret. Human beings are notoriously bad at interpreting the Word of God; it's been used before to justify racism, sexism, and even mass murder. It is always the case that the high-and-mighty keepers/interpreters of God's divine word decide to use it against the powerless and the voiceless. That's exactly what happens here. Animals can't speak for themselves; if they were able to, I doubt very much they would claim that their purpose was to be eaten by other animals. That is an ancient human loophole known as the "myth of consent."

[Jack]

Obviously, it *does* have an impact--on animals!--and that's the point.

I said it doesn't have an impact on anyone, not anything. :P

Peoples don't eat meat because they don't give a rat's about the conditions of the animals. I do care about the conditions of the animals, just not enough to make a drastic lifestyle change.

EDIT: Don't try and use any Bible stuff against me unless your simply justifying your beliefs, I don't accept that as a reasonable answer when debating.

As for those saying that we were never supposed to hunt, we developed the need to hunt just like all other predatory animals out there.

[nagarjuna]

I said it doesn't have an impact on anyone, not anything. :P

I don't think that animals are "people" exactly (except in the case of Chimpanzees and some other great apes), but they're not really "things" either. They're obviously not human, so we shouldn't treat them as humans. But, as is, we are treating them as complete garbage, or else something that deserves no concern whatsoever. And some of the stuff done to animals in factories is downright sadistic--probably because people tend to go a little around the bend when they have to do too much of that kind of work.

So yes, going veg does have an impact, and an impact on beings that are worth our moral consideration.

Peoples don't eat meat because they don't give a rat's about the conditions of the animals. I do care about the conditions of the animals, just not enough to make a drastic lifestyle change.

What do you care enough to do? If something, then do it!, and if nothing, then why claim that you care?

As for those saying that we were never supposed to hunt, we developed the need to hunt just like all other predatory animals out there.

Although it's correct what someone posted that we were scavengers before we developed hunting.

[Jack]

What do you care enough to do? If something, then do it!, and if nothing, then why claim that you care?


Outside of refusing to by animal products there is nothing substantial I can do. I like meat, shoot me.

When I start buying my own food chances are I will start to take a little more consideration for how the animals are kept and the way they are treated, although there really is very little to indicate exactly how they are kept. Until some form of real identification as to whether or not the animals have been treated fairly for a food product (and by fairly I mean a life that is not breached at all by animal cruelty), there is little I can do other than stop eating meat and animal products. I am not prepared to do that. That, however, doesn't mean I don't care. The average person cares about poverty in third world countries, but they don't have to give to charitieis dealing with that sort of thing to show it.

[nagarjuna]

The average person cares about poverty in third world countries,

They do?

but they don't have to give to charitieis dealing with that sort of thing to show it.

They don't?

When you care about something, but you do absolutely nothing about it, what indication is there that you care? Choosing your battles is one thing, not choosing anything at all is another. I know a number of caring people are "not prepared" to stop eating animal products. Sacrificing a meat-eating lifestyle is a negligible price to pay personally for the huge amount of animal suffering/cruelty that goes into making meat, even what goes into a single meal. I'm not trying to impugn your motives or call you a liar; I really do believe that you care. I'm just trying to point out that caring without action might as well be apathy. It is often worse; it makes it look like something is being done about the problem, when really it's just being "cared about."

[seikoXchan]

Just have to say that I love the topic of this debate.

In late December, I attempted to become a full-fledged vegan with all of the works - no milk; no meat; no animal-made clothing. Within the first week, I decided to be merely a vegetarian. (My only pair of sneakers would have been cast out otherwise and life without dairy products is hell for me.) I was going fairly strong for about a month and a half - and was proud of it - until my mother neglected to tell me that there was chicken broth in the soup she made one night. It was pretty hard for me to get on track in the first place, so attempting it a second time was really harsh.

When that happened, though, I took it from another perspective - animals in the wild do it all of the time. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there - literally. Some animals even resort to cannibalism. Although it sounds sort of crude and inhumane, it happens. As long as there's no cruelty to the animals and all of the parts of it are used, it's become somewhat acceptable.

Personally, I'm on the fence - it's one thing to eat meat once in a blue moon, but carnivore-esq appetites sets me off entirely.

[peepingthesmurf]

Predators generally have their eyes facing forward as for herbivores have their eyes on the sides of their heads.

Gorillas have eyes on the front of their heads; they're herbivores.

[Zombified]

Did someone mention the Bible?

Jesus...how does every debate end up going back to the Bible.

[Bowie20049]

Gorillas have eyes on the front of their heads; they're herbivores.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/mammals/gorilla.htm

Wrong, they are omnivores.

[Jack]

Did someone mention the Bible?

Jesus...how does every debate end up going back to the Bible.

I know, I wish we could just keep it out of debate. /spam

[nagarjuna]

I know, I wish we could just keep it out of debate. /spam

You don't have to agree with people about the Bible, and they're free to use it in their arguments. I don't agree with it either (not with literalism anyway), but for someone who uses it to justify their opinions, asking to not bring up the Bible is often asking to not express an opinion at all.

(The Bible is a great piece of literature, which I think is worth study and contemplation. I don't believe, or don't believe in a literal way, a large number of things printed in it. I mostly just read the gospels, 'cause Jesus kicks ass!)

[Jack]

You don't have to agree with people about the Bible, and they're free to use it in their arguments. I don't agree with it either (not with literalism anyway), but for someone who uses it to justify their opinions, asking to not bring up the Bible is often asking to not express an opinion at all.


The Bible is largely useless as a debating tool. Nothing in it can be used as fact or evidence to support arguments. That's all I mean.

[eriko]

I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and because of this she had to get pills for protein supplement. She changed her mind about being a vegetarian after that (she was doing it for health reasons, and also just to P.O. her parents :P). I think if you need to take pills to make up for the loss of meat, then we probably need meet.

I simply can't believe this. She could have easily eaten pulses. Try Indian food, it is purely vegetarian.

In Hindu Dharma, laws concerning vegetarianism aren't strict. Actually laws concerning aything in Hindu Dharma are not absolute. So it a religion of do as you please. But we don't eat beef. And many castes in India are purely vegetarian though this is changing. But there are castes who are purely non-vegetarian (except beef). Rare though. But even then India is a largely vegetarian country. Actually, it is the only vegeterian country in the world. And we Indians are proud of our low consumption of meat.

Personally, I eat only fish that too very rare , mostly when there is some occasion or family gathereing. No egg, because I don't like it. No chicken because I find live chickens disgusting to look at. So only fish.

Why people should be vegetarian?
1. Prime reason: Golobal Warming. One of the biggest reason for global warming is the methane gas released by cows because of the change in their feed. I read it in Scientific American as the cover story. Especialy in America, they make them eat and eat all they long so that they can be fat and even fatter and then they can be cut.

2. Cruelty that is met to the animal, which mostly happens in the developed countries. Simply because developing and underdeveloped countries lack the infrastructure. Eg: denying milk to the baby calves or slamming piglets on the floor and killing them. I saw those videoes myself.

These two resaons are enough I guess.

[Shaun]

Why people should be vegetarian?
1. Prime reason: Golobal Warming. One of the biggest reason for global warming is the methane gas released by cows because of the change in their feed. I read it in Scientific American as the cover story. Especialy in America, they make them eat and eat all they long so that they can be fat and even fatter and then they can be cut.

It accounts for 14% of emissions. So, no, not one of the biggest reasons for global warming. This could be solved by using science to figure out a way to use those emissions (cows also emit a hell of a lot of ammonia). Wouldn't be that hard to do, actually.

On a side note, you do realize that the vast majority of crop farming produces greenhouse gases, right? Almost nobody farms by foot anymore...

2. Cruelty that is met to the animal, which mostly happens in the developed countries. Simply because developing and underdeveloped countries lack the infrastructure. Eg: denying milk to the baby calves or slamming piglets on the floor and killing them. I saw those videoes myself.


This sounds like a bunch of PETA nonsense. Yes, cruelty does happen, and the conditions we currently have are not ideal (I'd like to see them changed, eventually), but the videos you tend to see about cruelty are extreme examples, not standards. Most farmers don't run around slamming piglets into the floor. Calves, by the way, are fed something else other than milk, so that's not even cruelty. If you base vegetarianism on a handful of bad examples, then you probably shouldn't be eating at all, because a lot of bad crap happens in almost every industry. What we should be doing is spending more time making sure that the animals we do eat are treated better.

I'll keep eating cow. They're good...

[Jack]

I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and because of this she had to get pills for protein supplement. She changed her mind about being a vegetarian after that (she was doing it for health reasons, and also just to P.O. her parents :P). I think if you need to take pills to make up for the loss of meat, then we probably need meet.

The same happened to my sister when she became a vegetarian. She now needs to take two or three pills a day with her food because she lacks protein etc.

[Rose]

Being a vegeterian isn't really healthy because as you mentioned before,the body will be needing protiens that it can only gain through eating meat...

[Shaun]

The protein one needs for a healthy vegetarian diet are available in nature. The only reason we have never been vegetarians is because it's easier to get those proteins from meat (meat contains more of the amino acids we need). If you have vegetarian friends/family who are having to take supplements, then they aren't eating right. Vegetarian diets have to be meticulously managed to get the proper nutrients. It can be done, but you can't half-ass vegetarianism.

[nagarjuna]

This sounds like a bunch of PETA nonsense. Yes, cruelty does happen, and the conditions we currently have are not ideal (I'd like to see them changed, eventually), but the videos you tend to see about cruelty are extreme examples, not standards.

Whether or not individual occurrences in these videos are common or rare, the "standard" conditions animals are kept in are extremely cruel. The "extreme" practices are more common than you think also. Workers can become very sadistic and all kinds of horrible (and unnecessary) things have been inflicted on the animals; they have been documented in numerous factory farms, and the workers report that the practices are fairly common.

In any case, it doesn't take examples of "extreme" treatments (like chopping the legs off pigs, beating piglets to death with crowbars, and ripping the heads off chickens) to show that the general conditions are cruel. Factory farms are legally exempt from animal abuse laws that apply to non-food animals. Animals are diseased, crippled, crowded, and unable to live out a form of existence which is natural to them (such as having social structures, or even just access to sunlight and fresh air.)

Calves, by the way, are fed something else other than milk, so that's not even cruelty. If you base vegetarianism on a handful of bad examples, then you probably shouldn't be eating at all, because a lot of bad crap happens in almost every industry. What we should be doing is spending more time making sure that the animals we do eat are treated better.

Yes, we should work for better treatment for animals. One way of doing that is to boycott the industry by becoming vegetarian. I have nothing against people who work to legislate for better treatment of animals in the factories without explicitly promoting vegetarianism/veganism. It's just that ultimately, I don't think animals will be treated well as long as they're treated as food.

I'll keep eating cow. They're good...

I'll keep raping women. They're good. (j/k.... but only partway.)

[nagarjuna]

Vegetarian diets have to be meticulously managed to get the proper nutrients. It can be done, but you can't half-ass vegetarianism.

Most people, carnivorous or otherwise, aren't eating well enough that they should forgo taking basic supplements like vitamins. Yes, a vegetarian diet has to be somewhat meticulous, but not much more so than an ordinary diet. With sufficient variety, a vegetarian diet will contain enough (complete) protein. Most of us get too much protein, not too little.

Being a vegeterian isn't really healthy because as you mentioned before,the body will be needing protiens that it can only gain through eating meat...

You can get all the protein you need without animal protein. The right combination of foods (and this is not as delicate as most people think) will have enough of the right amino acids for you to get complete protein. Soy is also great for protein.

[Shaun]

Whether or not individual occurrences in these videos are common or rare, the "standard" conditions animals are kept in are extremely cruel. The "extreme" practices are more common than you think also. Workers can become very sadistic and all kinds of horrible (and unnecessary) things have been inflicted on the animals; they have been documented in numerous factory farms, and the workers report that the practices are fairly common.

Depends where you look. At the best factory farms, the conditions are not ideal, but only cruel if you hold extreme views. They need to change eventually, though, so they are more ideal.

And no, the extreme practices are not more common than I think. They used to be, but they are less common now than PETA wants us to believe. The problem with PETA is that it only represents what supports its viewpoint, and as soon as you start to really look at the situation, you see that reality is not at all the bloody, evil picture they want you to believe. It still may not be the best picture we can muster, but it's not nearly as terrible as the ALF or PETA want us to think. There are thousands of factory farms in the United States alone. Most of them are not nearly as cruel as PETA would have us think. Some of them are horrible, and many of them have been shut down for violating a number of cruelty laws.

I'm not denying it happens. But it doesn't happen as often as you'd like to believe. I've known people who worked or lived at a factory farm. And there are people like Temple Grandin who have changed the way many farmers think about animals and how they treat them, even in the process of killing them.

In any case, it doesn't take examples of "extreme" treatments (like chopping the legs off pigs, beating piglets to death with crowbars, and ripping the heads off chickens) to show that the general conditions are cruel. Factory farms are legally exempt from animal abuse laws that apply to non-food animals. Animals are diseased, crippled, crowded, and unable to live out a form of existence which is natural to them (such as having social structures, or even just access to sunlight and fresh air.)

Actually, they're not. There are strict rules that factory farms have to follow set up by the U.S. government which governs how they are allowed to keep the animals, how they are allowed to kill them, etc.

And, by the way, I hate to break it to you, but the modern cow lives in the conditions that is natural to it: on a farm. They've been so domesticated now that the wild cow is practically nonexistent (or what was the wild cow before we domesticated them). The same for chickens and pigs.

Yes, we should work for better treatment for animals. One way of doing that is to boycott the industry by becoming vegetarian. I have nothing against people who work to legislate for better treatment of animals in the factories without explicitly promoting vegetarianism/veganism. It's just that ultimately, I don't think animals will be treated well as long as they're treated as food.

Well, that's not going to happen. I like meat. I will continue to eat meat for as long as I live. Animals are food to me (some of them anyway), and I'm not changing that to make other people feel better about it. I've tried vegetarian. It's boring as hell and tastes like crap...

So, no, that's not a viable way of doing it. There are better ways, which have actually worked in numerous states across the U.S. (like California, which now has new laws on the book that govern how much space chickens must be given at a minimum in all farms). Nobody had to become a vegetarian to agree to that one.

[nagarjuna]

Well, that's not going to happen. I like meat. I will continue to eat meat for as long as I live. Animals are food to me (some of them anyway), and I'm not changing that to make other people feel better about it. I've tried vegetarian. It's boring as hell and tastes like crap...

So vegetarianism is not a viable option simply because you like the taste of meat, and it's more comfortable to you to think of animals as food? Where else would that kind of self-serving logic ever be considered acceptable? You may think of it as "extreme", but I think of animals as living beings worth at least some of our moral consideration, and I am trying to help them out. So sue me.

So, no, that's not a viable way of doing it. There are better ways, which have actually worked in numerous states across the U.S. (like California, which now has new laws on the book that govern how much space chickens must be given at a minimum in all farms). Nobody had to become a vegetarian to agree to that one.

Most of these laws are lip service at best. For example, the "free range" label is extremely loose. It may just mean a small door going out to a tiny plot of dirt, or even just having a window. The point is that, however "cruel" or not, animals in these factories are not treated as living things, they are treated as equipment. That won't change no matter how much we try to regulate a system which is wrongheaded from the start.

[Shaun]

So vegetarianism is not a viable option simply because you like the taste of meat, and it's more comfortable to you to think of animals as food? Where else would that kind of self-serving logic ever be considered acceptable? You may think of it as "extreme", but I think of animals as living beings worth at least some of our moral consideration, and I am trying to help them out. So sue me.

No, it's a little more complicated than that for me. But it's easier just to reduce it to what makes me happy. It's not a comfort thing. I have pets. I wouldn't eat an animal I kept as a pet, whether it was a chicken or a cow (I'd eat eggs, but that's a different story). I will eat animals that I don't keep as pets, however, partly because I like meat and partly because vegetarian diets are notoriously difficult and expensive to manage if you want to get the proper nutrients.

That's not to say I want the animals to be mistreated. But treating them better does not translate to not eating them. Our species evolved to become meat eaters for a reason. We are still meat eaters for a reason. We can be more sound in our relations with animals (in terms of morality), but that does not preclude our need and desire to continue to eat meat to satisfy certain biological and evolutionary drives. Being vegetarian is a choice, not a necessity.

Most of these laws are lip service at best. For example, the "free range" label is extremely loose. It may just mean a small door going out to a tiny plot of dirt, or even just having a window. The point is that, however "cruel" or not, animals in these factories are not treated as living things, they are treated as equipment. That won't change no matter how much we try to regulate a system which is wrongheaded from the start.

There's nothing wrongheaded about eating meat. That kind of viewpoint is a thoroughly biased and, frankly, ignorant of the very basis for our species. If we were meant to be vegetarians forever and always, we would have evolved that way. Why is it that people like you are perfectly fine with the rest of the animal kingdom killing and eating one another, but when it comes to humans, suddenly it's not okay? Have you see lions take down prey? Nature is not at all kind to the animals deemed to be food by predators. We are at least kind enough to kill them instantly (with rare exception).

And I think the more interesting thing to address here is this: if everyone decided to be vegetarian, we would be completely incapable of providing the necessary nutrients for survival for almost half of the Earth's population. It's bad enough that we have starvation and malnutrition running rampant among our species, but a conversion to vegetarianism would amplify that ten fold, so much so that half of the Earth's population of human beings would have to die in order to be sustainable, if not more. Crop farming cannot sustain the human population on its own. Again, there's a reason we eat meat. Vegetarianism is really a privilege.

[ICeAngel302]

Not true Rose, you can find all the proteins and victims you need in plant life. And being vegetarian is a lot healthier because think about all the fat you consume when eating meat..yuck. I have to take pills (though I don't) because of lack of iron in my blood, but the main foods that contain iron is red meat though beans and lentils have iron in (I just don't eat enough of them :P).

Also vegetarian diets have benefits, such as lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and other disorders. Plus you can get diseases from eating meat.

[Shaun]

Not true Rose, you can find all the proteins and victims you need in plant life. And being vegetarian is a lot healthier because think about all the fat you consume when eating meat..yuck. I have to take pills (though I don't) because of lack of iron in my blood, but the main foods that contain iron is red meat though beans and lentils have iron in (I just don't eat enough of them :P).

Also vegetarian diets have benefits, such as lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and other disorders. Plus you can get diseases from eating meat.

Your body needs fats, for starters. Certain cuts of meat have more than is necessary, but your body requires fats in order to survive. So the idea that vegetarian diets are healthier because meat has fat in it is a misrepresentation of reality. If all you eat are ribs and steak, then, yeah, you're right, there's a lot of fat there. But if you eat steak and ribs every once in a blue moon, but have chicken, fish, pork, or lean cuts of beef (ground turkey actually tastes roughly the same as ground beef, surprisingly), then you're not doing yourself all that much harm (in fact, studies show that white meats are generally better for you, and a light diet of red meats provides some benefits to your body...emphasis on light). I personally don't eat all that much red meat anymore (I splurge for a burger). Partly because red meat is expensive, and partly because I have a genetic condition that makes consumption of red meat problematic for my future health.

The last part of your post is also a misrepresentation of reality. You can have a meat diet that is healthy. The problem isn't that meat is unhealthy; the problem is that people, in general, don't eat healthy.

You can also get diseases from eating veggies, too.

[eriko]

It accounts for 14% of emissions. So, no, not one of the biggest reasons for global warming. This could be solved by using science to figure out a way to use those emissions (cows also emit a hell of a lot of ammonia). Wouldn't be that hard to do, actually.

Maybe. But it was a reason enough to be the cover story.

On a side note, you do realize that the vast majority of crop farming produces greenhouse gases, right? Almost nobody farms by foot anymore...

Farming is a necessity but eating meat is not.

This sounds like a bunch of PETA nonsense. Yes, cruelty does happen, and the conditions we currently have are not ideal (I'd like to see them changed, eventually), but the videos you tend to see about cruelty are extreme examples, not standards.

Look I know nothing about this PETA stuff. So you got fifty cows. Out of which ten live in extreme conditions. Are you so self centred so as to justify their condition because the other forty cows are well treated? And then what is the point of ttreating them when you are eventually going to kill them. It is like giving a child poisoned chocolate.

Most farmers don't run around slamming piglets into the floor. Calves, by the way, are fed something else other than milk, so that's not even cruelty.

You do realize that how much important is mother's milk for the development child. Doesn't the same apply for calves? Great going. Deny the calf of it birth right.

If you base vegetarianism on a handful of bad examples, then you probably shouldn't be eating at all, because a lot of bad crap happens in almost every industry. What we should be doing is spending more time making sure that the animals we do eat are treated better.

I am not against non-vegeterianism. But I am against the exploitation and commercialization of animals. Of course if you are living near the North Pole, maybe in a very cold or very hot climate, and there is no vegetation. You will eat meat, of course you need to live. This makes sense. But you are living in rich developed country or mabye a good developing country and you eat meat, on the daily basis, when vegetarian diet is available. This doesn't make sense.

The same happened to my sister when she became a vegetarian. She now needs to take two or three pills a day with her food because she lacks protein etc.

That is because you are simply not eating what has to be eaten. Look I understand it is your lifestyle. And the vegetarian diet is not that varied in America as in India. But that doesn't mean that vegetarian diet is insufficient in nutriets. Let me give you an example: My eatng habits are as folows:
1. Breakfast: Stuffed Potato Indian Bread: Carbohydrates, fat.
2. Lunch: Fluffed Indian Bread with Curd, and one vegetable (cooked with onions, pease etc): Some vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates.
3. Dinner: Fluffed Indian Bread, One bowl of pulses, one vegetable: carbohydrates, protiens etc

See, I got everything including the protiens.

Vegetarian diets have to be meticulously managed to get the proper nutrients. It can be done, but you can't half-ass vegetarianism.

Vegetrian diet is very easy, if you are willing.

Well, that's not going to happen. I like meat. I will continue to eat meat for as long as I live. Animals are food to me (some of them anyway), and I'm not changing that to make other people feel better about it. I've tried vegetarian. It's boring as hell and tastes like crap...

Then maybe you didn't try enough. Vegetarian food can be easily cooked to taste like meat and even better. And it is not at all boring, it is more varied than meat anyways.

So, no, that's not a viable way of doing it. There are better ways, which have actually worked in numerous states across the U.S. (like California, which now has new laws on the book that govern how much space chickens must be given at a minimum in all farms). Nobody had to become a vegetarian to agree to that one.

Still they get killed. So whats the point in regulating the laws. If once person avoids meat for a day, he saves one animal. Alright, nobody wants to be saint but why are you behaving like demons, at least be human.

No, it's a little more complicated than that for me. But it's easier just to reduce it to what makes me happy. It's not a comfort thing. I have pets. I wouldn't eat an animal I kept as a pet, whether it was a chicken or a cow (I'd eat eggs, but that's a different story). I will eat animals that I don't keep as pets, however, partly because I like meat and partly because vegetarian diets are notoriously difficult and expensive to manage if you want to get the proper nutrients.

I like meat myself but it is irrational to have it every day. The most recent fish that I had was first in two years or maybe more. I don't remember. It is not vegeterian diet that is expensive, but the American lifestyle that favours non-vegetarianism. If all those poultry farms would have been alloted for growing crops, then maybe the demands would have been better met. I am not certain but animal diet would also be affecting the stock available in the market. And there is also a question of accesibility and comfort that so has been formed in the minds of people that they feel that eating meat is inexpensive. If not for the commercialization of killing of animals, non-vegetarian diet would have, if not less, but equally expensive.

You yourself are very intelligent to undertand that market price depends on the accesibility of the product. And then why is meat inexpensive, or seen as a subsitute for the expensive vegetarian diet? It is because the government has been incapabable of supplementing the needs of the people, largely because of the ignorant attitude.

That's not to say I want the animals to be mistreated. But treating them better does not translate to not eating them. Our species evolved to become meat eaters for a reason. We are still meat eaters for a reason. We can be more sound in our relations with animals (in terms of morality), but that does not preclude our need and desire to continue to eat meat to satisfy certain biological and evolutionary drives. Being vegetarian is a choice, not a necessity.

Strange. India, before independence and much before the Muslim invasion, has always been largely vegetarian. And it was because our culture, our attitude and knowledge. India was never subjected to religious stuff. There never was any religion in India. The word Hindu was officially used by the British so that they could collect taxes. And what was their defination of Hindu, anybody living in India who is neither a Christian or Muslim. Nor was their any Jainism or Buddhism. Just giving the the background info. India still remains to be the only vegetarian country because of our attitude and culture. It is all about your attitude.

Of course vegetrianism is a choice not a necessity, but a righteous choice.

There's nothing wrongheaded about eating meat. That kind of viewpoint is a thoroughly biased and, frankly, ignorant of the very basis for our species. If we were meant to be vegetarians forever and always, we would have evolved that way. Why is it that people like you are perfectly fine with the rest of the animal kingdom killing and eating one another, but when it comes to humans, suddenly it's not okay? Have you see lions take down prey? Nature is not at all kind to the animals deemed to be food by predators. We are at least kind enough to kill them instantly (with rare exception).

Animals do not have choice, but if you view yourself to be belonging to their category eat as you wish. But there is one more reason, basically why most Hindus are vegetarian. It is because when you kill a ceratin animal there is some negative energy that gets stored in the body of the animal, and we intake it when we eat it. From a spiriitual reasons, it is always advised not to eat meat to avoid intaking the negative energy. I know that there is no modern scientific data to back this, and you would surely argue on this. But Hindu science is beyond the scope of modern scientists. So, you can't really convince me otherwise.

And I think the more interesting thing to address here is this: if everyone decided to be vegetarian, we would be completely incapable of providing the necessary nutrients for survival for almost half of the Earth's population.

Nobody is going for complete vegetarianinsm of the planet. But at least we should see it as our first priority.

[Jack]

Maybe. But it was a reason enough to be the cover story.




That is because you are simply not eating what has to be eaten. Look I understand it is your lifestyle. And the vegetarian diet is not that varied in America as in India. But that doesn't mean that vegetarian diet is insufficient in nutriets. Let me give you an example: My eatng habits are as folows:
1. Breakfast: Stuffed Potato Indian Bread: Carbohydrates, fat.
2. Lunch: Fluffed Indian Bread with Curd, and one vegetable (cooked with onions, pease etc): Some vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates.
3. Dinner: Fluffed Indian Bread, One bowl of pulses, one vegetable: carbohydrates, protiens etc

See, I got everything including the protiens.



Vegetrian diet is very easy, if you are willing.



Actually, my sister is vegetarian, not me. And I live in England :p

[Shaun]

Maybe. But it was a reason enough to be the cover story.

There's no maybe. That's scientific fact. 14%.

Farming is a necessity but eating meat is not.

You missed the point. If you're going to complain about greenhouse gas emissions in meat farming, then you have to also complain about them in crop farming. We're always going to have a carbon footprint. Finding out which elements of our lives to alter doesn't lead to changing our eating habits. The one thing that would really solve the problem is changing what we drive.

Look I know nothing about this PETA stuff. So you got fifty cows. Out of which ten live in extreme conditions. Are you so self centred so as to justify their condition because the other forty cows are well treated? And then what is the point of ttreating them when you are eventually going to kill them. It is like giving a child poisoned chocolate.

The difference is that I wouldn't settle for those ten being the way they are. They most certainly are that way, but that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it or think it should go unchanged.

The point of treating them humanely? Maybe because if we're going to kill them and eat them, it'd be nice if they at least lived a comfortable life? Maybe because that's the humane thing to do? If that's like giving a child poisoned chocolate, then life is literally the same thing. You live and you die. Some of us don't die the way we want to.

You do realize that how much important is mother's milk for the development child. Doesn't the same apply for calves? Great going. Deny the calf of it birth right.

Formula. You know, before you open your mouth and make yourself sound like a sexist ass, you might want to consider the implications of what you're saying. There are women who can't nurse their children. They use formula instead, and, for the most part, it works. In the case of calves, it works fairly well. But you're not in America where we regularly nurse animals back to health using unnatural means.

I am not against non-vegeterianism. But I am against the exploitation and commercialization of animals. Of course if you are living near the North Pole, maybe in a very cold or very hot climate, and there is no vegetation. You will eat meat, of course you need to live. This makes sense. But you are living in rich developed country or mabye a good developing country and you eat meat, on the daily basis, when vegetarian diet is available. This doesn't make sense.

Why?

That is because you are simply not eating what has to be eaten. Look I understand it is your lifestyle. And the vegetarian diet is not that varied in America as in India. But that doesn't mean that vegetarian diet is insufficient in nutriets. Let me give you an example: My eatng habits are as folows:
1. Breakfast: Stuffed Potato Indian Bread: Carbohydrates, fat.
2. Lunch: Fluffed Indian Bread with Curd, and one vegetable (cooked with onions, pease etc): Some vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates.
3. Dinner: Fluffed Indian Bread, One bowl of pulses, one vegetable: carbohydrates, protiens etc

You supplement with vitamins and minerals. I don't particularly want to spend my days consuming processed vitamin pills just so you'll feel better about yourself because I won't be eating animals anymore. Try again.

Then maybe you didn't try enough. Vegetarian food can be easily cooked to taste like meat and even better. And it is not at all boring, it is more varied than meat anyways.

Take it from someone who eats meat (not as regularly as you think I do, but whatever): imitation meat doesn't taste like real meat, and nothing you can do to a vegetarian diet can replicate the flavors, textures, and bodily sensations that meat produces for me.

Still they get killed. So whats the point in regulating the laws. If once person avoids meat for a day, he saves one animal. Alright, nobody wants to be saint but why are you behaving like demons, at least be human.

I like meat myself but it is irrational to have it every day. The most recent fish that I had was first in two years or maybe more. I don't remember.

And this is where your entire argument falls apart. You cannot sit here and get on my case for being "a demon" and not-human when you yourself partake in the consumption of meat. Do you know how they kill fish? They suffocate them. Instead of shooting them in the head, they let them suffocate to death. So stop with the self-righteous nonsense.

It is not vegeterian diet that is expensive, but the American lifestyle that favours non-vegetarianism. If all those poultry farms would have been alloted for growing crops, then maybe the demands would have been better met. I am not certain but animal diet would also be affecting the stock available in the market. And there is also a question of accesibility and comfort that so has been formed in the minds of people that they feel that eating meat is inexpensive. If not for the commercialization of killing of animals, non-vegetarian diet would have, if not less, but equally expensive.

You really don't know what you're talking about here. Since I live in America and buy groceries daily, I can tell you that a vegetarian diet is not cheap, not if you want to eat healthy. It costs me $4.00 for four chicken breasts, which provides me with most of the amino acids I need to properly formulate proteins and muscles in my body. The same money spend on vegetables won't provide me the same nutritional value.

And, no, because factory farms take up less space than the average crop farm would to produce the same nutritional output, removing the factory farms would not drastically change the output of crops in the United States. We'd have to mow down more land to convert it to crop farming, which would affect water supplies across the midwest and would drive up produce costs if the government didn't subsidize it. We'd also be forced to import foods from other countries at a drastic rate.

Animals do not have choice, but if you view yourself to be belonging to their category eat as you wish. But there is one more reason, basically why most Hindus are vegetarian. It is because when you kill a ceratin animal there is some negative energy that gets stored in the body of the animal, and we intake it when we eat it. From a spiriitual reasons, it is always advised not to eat meat to avoid intaking the negative energy. I know that there is no modern scientific data to back this, and you would surely argue on this. But Hindu science is beyond the scope of modern scientists. So, you can't really convince me otherwise.

And that's all religious mumbojumbo that has no meaning to me. You're talking to an atheist here. And you'd fail miserably in trying to convert me.

Nobody is going for complete vegetarianinsm of the planet. But at least we should see it as our first priority.

You've contradicted yourself here.

[ICeAngel302]

Your body needs fats, for starters. Certain cuts of meat have more than is necessary, but your body requires fats in order to survive. So the idea that vegetarian diets are healthier because meat has fat in it is a misrepresentation of reality. If all you eat are ribs and steak, then, yeah, you're right, there's a lot of fat there. But if you eat steak and ribs every once in a blue moon, but have chicken, fish, pork, or lean cuts of beef (ground turkey actually tastes roughly the same as ground beef, surprisingly), then you're not doing yourself all that much harm (in fact, studies show that white meats are generally better for you, and a light diet of red meats provides some benefits to your body...emphasis on light). I personally don't eat all that much red meat anymore (I splurge for a burger). Partly because red meat is expensive, and partly because I have a genetic condition that makes consumption of red meat problematic for my future health.

The last part of your post is also a misrepresentation of reality. You can have a meat diet that is healthy. The problem isn't that meat is unhealthy; the problem is that people, in general, don't eat healthy.

You can also get diseases from eating veggies, too.


Ah you stopped me from being smart :(

[eriko]

Sorry I could not reply sooner.

You missed the point. If you're going to complain about greenhouse gas emissions in meat farming, then you have to also complain about them in crop farming. We're always going to have a carbon footprint. Finding out which elements of our lives to alter doesn't lead to changing our eating habits. The one thing that would really solve the problem is changing what we drive.

Understood. But we must try at our personal level. Every action counts.

The point of treating them humanely? Maybe because if we're going to kill them and eat them, it'd be nice if they at least lived a comfortable life? Maybe because that's the humane thing to do? If that's like giving a child poisoned chocolate, then life is literally the same thing. You live and you die. Some of us don't die the way we want to.


But this is mass murder. Right so you got a cancer patient and you refuse him medicines, since you consider him already dead.

Formula. You know, before you open your mouth and make yourself sound like a sexist ass, you might want to consider the implications of what you're saying. There are women who can't nurse their children. They use formula instead, and, for the most part, it works. In the case of calves, it works fairly well. But you're not in America where we regularly nurse animals back to health using unnatural means.

What was sexist in it? I am not talking about human mothers. All I am saying is that calves have the right to have milk. So you don't believe in animal rights at all? According to you nor do they have the right to live naturally or die naturally. And as you said that that for most of the part, that means that artificial milk, or whatever it is, is not a perfect substitute for mother's milk. Not only that, you also believe in disrupting the nature as you want when clearly their is no need for the artificial milk. I am glad that I don't live in America. And just the fact that such unnatural processes are in regular use, doesn't make them right.

Why?

Because we should avoid killing as much as we can, that's why.

You supplement with vitamins and minerals. I don't particularly want to spend my days consuming processed vitamin pills just so you'll feel better about yourself because I won't be eating animals anymore. Try again.

It isn't my personal agenda to convince you to stop eating meat. I am sorry if I made you think that way. All I am saying is that its a myth that vegetarian diet lacks in proteins, vitamins etc. All you need is bowl of pulse a day for proteins. And aren't you backtracking from your previous statement meticulous arrangement of diet.

Take it from someone who eats meat (not as regularly as you think I do, but whatever): imitation meat doesn't taste like real meat, and nothing you can do to a vegetarian diet can replicate the flavors, textures, and bodily sensations that meat produces for me.

Why, the indispensable non-vegetarian curry that is favoured across Europe and maybe America, its concept has been borrowed vegetarian Indian curry. And since not many people eat raw flesh, I mean most people eat it cooked, so taste always depends on the way you cook. I am not sure but we have this dish soyabean chop that tastes just like tandoori chicken. Actually the likeness is very frightening, telling this from my personal experience.

And this is where your entire argument falls apart. You cannot sit here and get on my case for being "a demon" and not-human when you yourself partake in the consumption of meat. Do you know how they kill fish? They suffocate them. Instead of shooting them in the head, they let them suffocate to death. So stop with the self-righteous nonsense.


It wasn't my intention to accuse you. Let me explain. Indians face a lot of problem when we travel abroad. Either people there don't know what what vegetarian food is or they simply can't believe that there are people who are purely vegetarian. So, we have to live on bread and butter or if you are regular traveler to places especially China, Malaysia etc you would always carry instant vegetarian food with you. So to avoid this situation if it ever comes in my life, my parents had me eat meat. The first time I ate, I couldn't take the stuff in and threw out. But once I got comfortable I left it. I have eaten egg, chicken, mutton, and fish. And as I previously said that the most recent fish that I ate was first in two years. But since that I have eaten meat, so I can't simply deny that I haven't even though I avoid it as much I can, since it isn't a situation of life and death and defy family pressure in doing so. I have eaten it, so okay if I have eaten though I wish that I hadn't.

You really don't know what you're talking about here. Since I live in America and buy groceries daily, I can tell you that a vegetarian diet is not cheap, not if you want to eat healthy. It costs me $4.00 for four chicken breasts, which provides me with most of the amino acids I need to properly formulate proteins and muscles in my body. The same money spend on vegetables won't provide me the same nutritional value.

All I said that it is a vicious circle of demand and supply. If not for the exploitation of animal, meat woudn't have been as inexpensive as now.

And, no, because factory farms take up less space than the average crop farm would to produce the same nutritional output, removing the factory farms would not drastically change the output of crops in the United States. We'd have to mow down more land to convert it to crop farming, which would affect water supplies across the midwest and would drive up produce costs if the government didn't subsidize it. We'd also be forced to import foods from other countries at a drastic rate.

Well, that is why I said that I wasn't sure about that part.

And that's all religious mumbojumbo that has no meaning to me. You're talking to an atheist here. And you'd fail miserably in trying to convert me.


Of course not, honestly I have better things to do than try to covert you. And that isn't religious mumbojumbo. The data dates back before there were any religions on earth.

You've contradicted yourself here.

No I haven't. Possibly my words would have been a bit misleading but a complete vegetarianism of the world is impractical. And however that you think that I am trying to impose my views on you, I know better than to do anything as such with anyone. All I believe is that eating meat is not ethical , even though you yourself consider this to be hardly an arguement. But that is your personal viewpoint, and does not strike out the fact. Ethical not because of religious stuff, but you are killing someone. And under the present situation when we are facing a global climate crisis, we should do everything that can be done to guarantee a good future, disregarding the fact if it is the main culprit or not. Conclusion: And if you can't let meat completely go you must avoid as much as you can. That is all.

[Shaun]

But this is mass murder. Right so you got a cancer patient and you refuse him medicines, since you consider him already dead.

The vast majority of the world doesn't consider it mass murder. And even though I love animals and want them to have more rights, they are not the same thing as a human being. I agree with Derrida when he says that animals do not truly "die," but that humans do. You're trying to attribute your personal belief system to everyone, and that won't work. If such things worked we would only have Christians on this planet.

What was sexist in it? I am not talking about human mothers. All I am saying is that calves have the right to have milk. So you don't believe in animal rights at all? According to you nor do they have the right to live naturally or die naturally. And as you said that that for most of the part, that means that artificial milk, or whatever it is, is not a perfect substitute for mother's milk. Not only that, you also believe in disrupting the nature as you want when clearly their is no need for the artificial milk. I am glad that I don't live in America. And just the fact that such unnatural processes are in regular use, doesn't make them right.

You said, and I quote: "You do realize that how much important is mother's milk for the development child. Doesn't the same apply for calves? Great going. Deny the calf of it birth right."

So, yes, you were talking about human mothers. We're human. We "disrupt nature" all the time. We're disrupting nature by typing on computers. The argument doesn't hold. And we can have this discussion without you insulting my country. If you want to go down that route, I'd have plenty to say that is wrong with India.

It isn't my personal agenda to convince you to stop eating meat. I am sorry if I made you think that way. All I am saying is that its a myth that vegetarian diet lacks in proteins, vitamins etc. All you need is bowl of pulse a day for proteins. And aren't you backtracking from your previous statement meticulous arrangement of diet.

You should re-read what you've written here, because it seems like much of this discussion is your personal agenda to get the world to stop eating meat because it makes you feel bad. Would you be amenable to changing the meat industry into a more appropriate human hunting mechanism? Would us killing animals ourselves as our ancient ancestors did with spears and the like be appropriate? Or in your world view are humans the only ones that must be exempt from enacting nature's natural impulses? Animals kill each other all the time. Why can't we do the same for the same purpose (eating)? Seriously. I want to know how you reconcile your belief that animals should be treated more like humans with the reality that leveling the playing field also means that we are just as allowed to kill for food as other animals are.

Why, the indispensable non-vegetarian curry that is favoured across Europe and maybe America, its concept has been borrowed vegetarian Indian curry. And since not many people eat raw flesh, I mean most people eat it cooked, so taste always depends on the way you cook. I am not sure but we have this dish soyabean chop that tastes just like tandoori chicken. Actually the likeness is very frightening, telling this from my personal experience.

I've eaten a lot of vegetarian curry. Doesn't taste like meat. It tastes good, but it's not the same.

It wasn't my intention to accuse you. Let me explain. Indians face a lot of problem when we travel abroad. Either people there don't know what what vegetarian food is or they simply can't believe that there are people who are purely vegetarian. So, we have to live on bread and butter or if you are regular traveler to places especially China, Malaysia etc you would always carry instant vegetarian food with you. So to avoid this situation if it ever comes in my life, my parents had me eat meat. The first time I ate, I couldn't take the stuff in and threw out. But once I got comfortable I left it. I have eaten egg, chicken, mutton, and fish. And as I previously said that the most recent fish that I ate was first in two years. But since that I have eaten meat, so I can't simply deny that I haven't even though I avoid it as much I can, since it isn't a situation of life and death and defy family pressure in doing so. I have eaten it, so okay if I have eaten though I wish that I hadn't.

This shouldn't be an issue when visiting America. We have a rather vibrant vegetarian and vegan community here. I would think eggs would be the least problem for you precisely because unfertilized eggs are not killed creatures. Plus, eggs are good. And your argument is still falling apart here. You can't sit here and get on my case or other people's cased for eating meat when you are also a consumer, even if you consume far less than most of us, especially when you attribute the consumption of meat to murder. With that logic, what you're saying here is "you're worse than me, because I only killed one Jew in the Holocaust, and you killed 10." If it's murder to you, then that logic doesn't fly.

All I said that it is a vicious circle of demand and supply. If not for the exploitation of animal, meat woudn't have been as inexpensive as now.

It's a lot more complicated than that. It's cheaper to produce meat than it is to produce crops. Crops are subsidized here (point of fact: because our crops are subsidized, India actually exports one of its crops, because it's cheaper to export them and buy from the U.S. than it is to keep the crops they have, which are enough to sustain the country. I forget which crop (I want to say rice, but I'm sure that's wrong), but it's an interesting fact). The problem here is that there isn't enough land on this Earth suitable for crop farming to feed the entire world by fruits and veggies only. We'd have to destroy entire habitats and ecosystems and make millions of species extinct just to feed every mouth on this planet. Or, we could exterminate 3/4ths of the human species. I don't think I can justify either method just so we can stop eating animals.

Of course not, honestly I have better things to do than try to covert you. And that isn't religious mumbojumbo. The data dates back before there were any religions on earth.

It's not science, therefore, it's religious mumbojumbo. It's your religious mumbojumbo, and you're welcome to it, but it's still religious mumbojumbo and has no influence or bearing on the debate we're having here.

[Amour]

I would think eggs would be the least problem for you precisely because unfertilized eggs are not killed creatures.

If his biggest issue is animal rights/treatment, then the biggest issue is not eating the egg, but the way the egg is MASS PRODUCED. Unfertilized eggs are going to cause the chicken that produces them problems, not the egg itself.

Chickens' life cycles have been dramatically reduced to feed humans unnaturally. So no, this isn't human instinct--human instinct is to hunt to survive, not to feed antibiotics to chickens so they produce eggs faster, are bigger, and can be farmed in quick succession.

Furthermore, humans--yes--DO need meat. There is no other natural way of obtaining heme, and heme is so very important in our systems. However, there are unnatural ways. Before these unnatural ways are held against using unnatural means, take a look at what I said earlier. These unnatural ways are healthier. You can get vegetarian products/vegan products that taste the same as meat. And if this is a matter of taste, then again, it's not instinct anyway. We want to survive; the problem is, we want to survive gluttonously. And that is no argument against vegetarianism.

The way we produce meat is unfriendly and abusive to ... US. Not animals, even, if you don't want to think that far. But it's unhealthy. We feed them antibiotics, which then increase the frequency of resistant bacteria, which then affect us humans. But, we're abusive to animals too (though this is exhausted in this debate already)

The problem here is that there isn't enough land on this Earth suitable for crop farming to feed the entire world by fruits and veggies only. We'd have to destroy entire habitats and ecosystems and make millions of species extinct just to feed every mouth on this planet. Or, we could exterminate 3/4ths of the human species. I don't think I can justify either method just so we can stop eating animals.

You're talking about the detriment of the world here--but you're so specifically focused that it follows your argument perfectly. But the issue ISN'T the fact that their isn't enough cropland. It's the fact that our population is growing so exponentially huge, unnaturally huge, that we don't have enough to feed our planet fruits and veggies. This is the same case for EVERYTHING. For any resource we have. It's the exact same problem according to meat.

And Eriko was exactly right. The only reason it isn't a problem for meat any longer is because of the exploitation of the animal. We make them bigger, we speed up their lives so they reproduce faster, die faster, etc. We don't spend the energy, the money, we don't spend anything to this extent on crop growth.

Meat is not healthy the way humans eat it. Look at portion size. Totally wrong, too much.

Talk about the entire world--yes, it's hard to feed them all veggies and fruits. But hey, I don't see anyone giving the entire world meat either. We don't have the resources to provide ANYTHING for the entire world the way we use them, so specifying it to vegetables is very narrow.

[eriko]

he vast majority of the world doesn't consider it mass murder. And even though I love animals and want them to have more rights, they are not the same thing as a human being. I agree with Derrida when he says that animals do not truly "die," but that humans do. You're trying to attribute your personal belief system to everyone, and that won't work. If such things worked we would only have Christians on this planet.

Why are you always accusing me of imposing my views here when it just a healthy discussion. You could have easily said that you don't value animal life as much as human. And its okay with me. But this doesn't make any of us either right or wrong.


You said, and I quote: "You do realize that how much important is mother's milk for the development child. Doesn't the same apply for calves? Great going. Deny the calf of it birth right."

So, yes, you were talking about human mothers. We're human. We "disrupt nature" all the time. We're disrupting nature by typing on computers. The argument doesn't hold. And we can have this discussion without you insulting my country. If you want to go down that route, I'd have plenty to say that is wrong with India.

I was giving an example, that is assuming since we both respect mothers and then we should respect all kinds of mother disregarding their species. I wasn't actually bringing humans into it. And if you are going to say that this is how things are done in America, then I do have the right to say that I don't want to be a part of those things. I don't think that I insulted your country in any way.

Alright we disrupt nature all the time, than we should stop it, right. We can start with little changes and save ourselves, alright maybe not save but at least extend the life of Earth. All I am saying is that everything counts. So got it, you aren't buying this arguement. So neither of us will agree to the other.

You should re-read what you've written here, because it seems like much of this discussion is your personal agenda to get the world to stop eating meat because it makes you feel bad. Would you be amenable to changing the meat industry into a more appropriate human hunting mechanism? Would us killing animals ourselves as our ancient ancestors did with spears and the like be appropriate? Or in your world view are humans the only ones that must be exempt from enacting nature's natural impulses? Animals kill each other all the time. Why can't we do the same for the same purpose (eating)? Seriously. I want to know how you reconcile your belief that animals should be treated more like humans with the reality that leveling the playing field also means that we are just as allowed to kill for food as other animals are.

Frankly, it does make me feel bad and there is nothing wrong in feeling bad about it. Nature's natural impulses? We are omnivores, surely we can avoid some meat. When animals kill, the ecological balance is maintained when when humans do, it is disrupted. And of course animals have no choice. Actually I don't really wish to change or do anything with the meat industry, just that people should be aware about the consequences of their action. After that, if they choose to ignore it, its their choice, and I don't mind this at all.


I've eaten a lot of vegetarian curry. Doesn't taste like meat. It tastes good, but it's not the same.

Then I don't know. Maybe it is different in America. Here both non-veg and veg are cooked nearly the same way.


This shouldn't be an issue when visiting America. We have a rather vibrant vegetarian and vegan community here. I would think eggs would be the least problem for you precisely because unfertilized eggs are not killed creatures. Plus, eggs are good. And your argument is still falling apart here. You can't sit here and get on my case or other people's cased for eating meat when you are also a consumer, even if you consume far less than most of us, especially when you attribute the consumption of meat to murder. With that logic, what you're saying here is "you're worse than me, because I only killed one Jew in the Holocaust, and you killed 10." If it's murder to you, then that logic doesn't fly.

I know. America has some really good Indian restaurants. But I am not denying that I am not a non-vegetarian. And the point is I am uncomfortable in eating meat, and I avoid it as much as I can, and the same is what I am asserting. Avoid it, if you can, that is all. And yes, I do consider it murder that is why I am always in a dilemma about this. And this too, that I am responsible for the deaths of all animals that I have eaten. Look again you would accuse me of imposing my belief on you. So I am being clear, I don't expect anyone to think as I do. Its always a sin when you consider it to be, and I understand that.

It's a lot more complicated than that. It's cheaper to produce meat than it is to produce crops. Crops are subsidized here (point of fact: because our crops are subsidized, India actually exports one of its crops, because it's cheaper to export them and buy from the U.S. than it is to keep the crops they have, which are enough to sustain the country. I forget which crop (I want to say rice, but I'm sure that's wrong), but it's an interesting fact).
I didn't quite understand, do we export and then again import that crop from you, because it is less expensive that way?

The problem here is that there isn't enough land on this Earth suitable for crop farming to feed the entire world by fruits and veggies only. We'd have to destroy entire habitats and ecosystems and make millions of species extinct just to feed every mouth on this planet. Or, we could exterminate 3/4ths of the human species. I don't think I can justify either method just so we can stop eating animals.

I don't think I can really debate that at the present. But there was an article in the Scientific America about, I forgot what kind of farming. But they we were growing crops in multi-storied buildings. They said that we would have to shift to such farming to meet future food requirements. But this would be involve so much of investment at the present. But it is a cool thing.

Point of fact I do agree that we can't take any drastic step just to become vegetarians, but lets say much more vegetables and less meat, than more meat and less vegetable. And that too at the personal level., and let the effect trickle down as much as it can.


It's not science, therefore, it's religious mumbojumbo. It's your religious mumbojumbo, and you're welcome to it, but it's still religious mumbojumbo and has no influence or bearing on the debate we're having here

Its spiritual science. And it is interesting.

[Shaun]

Why are you always accusing me of imposing my views here when it just a healthy discussion. You could have easily said that you don't value animal life as much as human. And its okay with me. But this doesn't make any of us either right or wrong.

Because, as much as you say that you aren't, you actually are. Your words are belied by your other words, as it were.

I was giving an example, that is assuming since we both respect mothers and then we should respect all kinds of mother disregarding their species. I wasn't actually bringing humans into it. And if you are going to say that this is how things are done in America, then I do have the right to say that I don't want to be a part of those things. I don't think that I insulted your country in any way.

And by giving the example, you brought mothers into the picture. You can't really weasel your way out of it. It was said, it was sexist, and as much as you want to say you didn't bring it up, you did.

And yes, you did insult my country, and there are plenty things that India does that America doesn't do that I think would be insulting to most modern democracies today. Trying to play high and mighty here is earning you no favors in this debate.

Frankly, it does make me feel bad and there is nothing wrong in feeling bad about it. Nature's natural impulses? We are omnivores, surely we can avoid some meat. When animals kill, the ecological balance is maintained when when humans do, it is disrupted. And of course animals have no choice. Actually I don't really wish to change or do anything with the meat industry, just that people should be aware about the consequences of their action. After that, if they choose to ignore it, its their choice, and I don't mind this at all.

Most people choose to ignore it. So why are we having this discussion? I also find it funny how you're trying to push humanity outside of the ecological balance, as if we're not a part of the natural spectrum of this planet. The very fact that we exact and can change how the world works is precisely what makes us a natural species. These things come naturally to it, and by acting we are doing exactly what we were supposed to be doing. The rest of the animal kingdom is no more innocent.

I didn't quite understand, do we export and then again import that crop from you, because it is less expensive that way?

Yup. I believe India sells this particular crop to Australia. Again, I want to say it's rice, but I'm sure that's the wrong crop.

Point of fact I do agree that we can't take any drastic step just to become vegetarians, but lets say much more vegetables and less meat, than more meat and less vegetable. And that too at the personal level., and let the effect trickle down as much as it can.

Generally speaking, from a health perspective (and not from your perspective), most people should be eating less meat because it's healthier. Too much meat is bad for you, especially red meat. A lot of people don't understand this, and so they sit around consuming steaks and ribs and ground beef all the time (I've done this and it's not good stuff for your heart). But meat is a natural supplier of necessary amino acids for the body and having a healthy portion in ever meal is actually a good thing. But you need veggies and fruits too. Fruit is good stuff.

Its spiritual science. And it is interesting.

It's not science. To say that this is a kind of science is insulting to science. It's no more science than the people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are doing science...

[nagarjuna]

Shaun, might I ask, why is it sexist to "bring mothers into the picture?" In the case of humans, the mother's milk is psychologically and physically much healthier for the infant (than formula, or even than a different mother's milk.) Why should this be different for animals? I am pretty leary of a male accusing a female of sexism when she brings up the benefits of motherhood...

(Speaking of sexism, when it comes right down to it, this entire argument (and many others) boils down to male contempt for the female side of things, but don't get me started...)

[Shaun]

Shaun, might I ask, why is it sexist to "bring mothers into the picture?" In the case of humans, the mother's milk is psychologically and physically much healthier for the infant (than formula, or even than a different mother's milk.) Why should this be different for animals? I am pretty leary of a male accusing a female of sexism when she brings up the benefits of motherhood...

(Speaking of sexism, when it comes right down to it, this entire argument (and many others) boils down to male contempt for the female side of things, but don't get me started...)

It's not necessarily different for animals, but by bringing mothers into the picture he's making the argument that it's not right to feed infants except by breast feeding, when, in fact, sometimes you don't have a choice. That's a sexist notion.

[nagarjuna]

It's not necessarily different for animals, but by bringing mothers into the picture he's making the argument that it's not right to feed infants except by breast feeding, when, in fact, sometimes you don't have a choice.

In the case of factory farming, we *do* have a choice. We can not raise animals apart from their mothers. Even if we use cows as food animals, we can do it without that particular cruelty. Also, did you mean "she"? (in reference to Eriko.)

That's a sexist notion.

I still don't understand why you say this.

The vast majority of the world doesn't consider it mass murder.

So? The vast majority of the world is not always right. No, I can't force anyone to accept my beliefs or even act in what I consider a moral way. I am simply arguing what I consider moral/immoral and why, as is eriko as far as I can tell.

And even though I love animals and want them to have more rights, they are not the same thing as a human being. I agree with Derrida when he says that animals do not truly "die," but that humans do.

Without more context, that makes no sense to me. Of course animals die. They are alive, then they are not. That's death.

You're trying to attribute your personal belief system to everyone, and that won't work. If such things worked we would only have Christians on this planet.

What are you trying to say? That trying to back your own beliefs in any way is not valid? I don't understand what line of argument you are trying to knock down with this. Obviously not everyone is going to agree. What is wrong with strong personal beliefs, and healthy debate about them?

[Shaun]

In the case of factory farming, we *do* have a choice. We can not raise animals apart from their mothers. Even if we use cows as food animals, we can do it without that particular cruelty. Also, did you mean "she"? (in reference to Eriko.)

Yeah, I probably meant "she."

Yes, we CAN, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not doing it. Plenty of mothers choose not to breast feed even if they are physically able. Not doing so isn't inherently bad. That's a fallible argument.

I still don't understand why you say this.

The argument implicates that it is somehow wrong to prevent natural methods of feeding for animals, and thus, by using the analogy of a mother breastfeeding, also that women who don't breastfeed, whether they have a choice or not, are committing the same kind of wrong. If you can't see what's sexist about that, I don't know how else to explain it.

Without more context, that makes no sense to me. Of course animals die. They are alive, then they are not. That's death.

They die in the sense that an animal ceases living, but Derrida's argument is this:
--When animals die, they are replaced. Nothing is necessarily lost in the death of an animal. Therefore, the animal doesn't truly die.
--Humans, on the other hand, die and naturally take something away from the collective. We can measure what the death of a human removes from the human spectrum, since that person is both individual/unique and a possessor of skills, traits, intellectual qualities, or what have you. So, the death of a human being represents an intrinsic loss. We truly die.

What are you trying to say? That trying to back your own beliefs in any way is not valid? I don't understand what line of argument you are trying to knock down with this. Obviously not everyone is going to agree. What is wrong with strong personal beliefs, and healthy debate about them?

Having strong personal beliefs and trying to propagate them across the world are two very different things.

[nagarjuna]

Yes, we CAN, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not doing it. Plenty of mothers choose not to breast feed even if they are physically able. Not doing so isn't inherently bad. That's a fallible argument.

Like I said, it's physically and psychologically healthier for the infant to have its mother's milk. My mother is an OB/GYN and we frequently discuss this.

The argument implicates that it is somehow wrong to prevent natural methods of feeding for animals, and thus, by using the analogy of a mother breastfeeding, also that women who don't breastfeed, whether they have a choice or not, are committing the same kind of wrong. If you can't see what's sexist about that, I don't know how else to explain it.

I don't think Eriko was accusing any mothers of being immoral (although I can't speak for her on that.) As for me, I'm also not making accusations. Even if I were, wrong as I may be, that wouldn't necessarily be sexist, especially considering that I'm female. Breastfeeding is not exactly some misogynistic male oppression--it's just the way things happen naturally.

They die in the sense that an animal ceases living, but Derrida's argument is this:
--When animals die, they are replaced. Nothing is necessarily lost in the death of an animal. Therefore, the animal doesn't truly die.
--Humans, on the other hand, die and naturally take something away from the collective. We can measure what the death of a human removes from the human spectrum, since that person is both individual/unique and a possessor of skills, traits, intellectual qualities, or what have you. So, the death of a human being represents an intrinsic loss. We truly die.

I don't like to use this word often, but I would call this speciesist. It is, to me, simply another form of the argument that say, a black, a woman, or whatever other target of prejudice, is not of value enough that their death "represents an intrinsic loss." Chimpanzees mourn their dead, as do other animals. Whether they have value to US is not the ultimate standard of their inherent value. They are living beings with their own interests.

Having strong personal beliefs and trying to propagate them across the world are two very different things.

What is wrong about wanting to propagate your beliefs? Yeah, clearly, using an immoral method such as brainwashing or force, is immoral, but as for wanting others to believe as you do when you are convinced that you are correct, that is just natural. I certainly want a belief in veganism to spread and I will do what I can to spread it, within the limits of my conscience.

[Shaun]

Like I said, it's physically and psychologically healthier for the infant to have its mother's milk. My mother is an OB/GYN and we frequently discuss this.

That's nice, but it doesn't address the problem question: is not breastfeeding wrong?

I don't think Eriko was accusing any mothers of being immoral (although I can't speak for her on that.) As for me, I'm also not making accusations. Even if I were, wrong as I may be, that wouldn't necessarily be sexist, especially considering that I'm female. Breastfeeding is not exactly some misogynistic male oppression--it's just the way things happen naturally.

It's entirely possible to be sexist against your own sex...being female doesn't preclude you from that activity.

I don't like to use this word often, but I would call this speciesist. It is, to me, simply another form of the argument that say, a black, a woman, or whatever other target of prejudice, is not of value enough that their death "represents an intrinsic loss." Chimpanzees mourn their dead, as do other animals. Whether they have value to US is not the ultimate standard of their inherent value. They are living beings with their own interests.

Except when a black man/woman or a woman dies, that does represent an intrinsic loss. It's speciesist, yes, but it's also an argument that works.

What is wrong about wanting to propagate your beliefs? Yeah, clearly, using an immoral method such as brainwashing or force, is immoral, but as for wanting others to believe as you do when you are convinced that you are correct, that is just natural. I certainly want a belief in veganism to spread and I will do what I can to spread it, within the limits of my conscience.

If spreading it means you are going to make laws that support your beliefs, that would be propagation in the most negative sense.

[nagarjuna]

That's nice, but it doesn't address the problem question: is not breastfeeding wrong?

.... why would breastfeeding be wrong, and who is making the claim that it is?

It's entirely possible to be sexist against your own sex...being female doesn't preclude you from that activity.

It is. But I'm not.

Except when a black man/woman or a woman dies, that does represent an intrinsic loss. It's speciesist, yes, but it's also an argument that works.

This is the nub of the whole argument. All of the multitude of reasons for going veg -- environmental, religious, etc. -- are fairly unconvincing to me, except this one. It is about animal rights and animal suffering, and whether (not how much, *whether*) you value animals. Although you say that you love animals, with all due respect I beg to differ, and make the claim that if you did value animals you would be unwilling to support the factories.

If spreading it means you are going to make laws that support your beliefs, that would be propagation in the most negative sense.

I am not here arguing for a change of laws. I am arguing about the moral side of the issue.

[Shaun]

.... why would breastfeeding be wrong, and who is making the claim that it is?

Eriko was making the argument that not breastfeeding is wrong. That's not my argument. I don't think it's wrong to do it either way.

This is the nub of the whole argument. All of the multitude of reasons for going veg -- environmental, religious, etc. -- are fairly unconvincing to me, except this one. It is about animal rights and animal suffering, and whether (not how much, *whether*) you value animals. Although you say that you love animals, with all due respect I beg to differ, and make the claim that if you did value animals you would be unwilling to support the factories.

I don't support factories in their present condition. I have never claimed otherwise. I believe in reducing suffering to the lowest point we can muster while also maintaining our ability to continue to consume meat. I don't agree that we should stop eating animals altogether, though. That's a personal choice and it should only be a personal choice. One can love animals and still eat them. i.e. Native Americans.

I am not here arguing for a change of laws. I am arguing about the moral side of the issue.

And I don't buy the moral argument that it is somehow immoral to consume animals. I think it is immoral to consume animals while being unwilling to address how we care for them prior to consumption. There's nothing inherently immoral about feeding a natural and very necessary biological impulse.

The problem is that Eriko's rhetoric implied that he/she was for forcing vegetarianism upon the general public. I understand that he/she doesn't agree, but if you read his/her words, you see the argument being made. That's the argument I have problems with. It's one thing to make it illegal to abuse animals (and it should be), but it's another to try to make vegetarianism a requirement.

[nagarjuna]

Eriko was making the argument that not breastfeeding is wrong. That's not my argument. I don't think it's wrong to do it either way.

I misparsed your sentence as "(is not) breastfeeding wrong?" and got the opposite meaning. I'm clear on this.

[Shaun]

I knew what you meant :P

[nagarjuna]

I don't support factories in their present condition. I have never claimed otherwise. I believe in reducing suffering to the lowest point we can muster while also maintaining our ability to continue to consume meat. I don't agree that we should stop eating animals altogether, though. That's a personal choice and it should only be a personal choice. One can love animals and still eat them. i.e. Native Americans.

You're citing a culture that, one, need(s/ed) meat to survive and, two, I suspect would not eat meat that came from a factory farm, for the very reason that it is a spectacularly unloving way to turn animals into meat.

The problem is that Eriko's rhetoric implied that he/she was for forcing vegetarianism upon the general public. I understand that he/she doesn't agree, but if you read his/her words, you see the argument being made. That's the argument I have problems with. It's one thing to make it illegal to abuse animals (and it should be), but it's another to try to make vegetarianism a requirement.

Factory farming is animal abuse. You may not believe that eating meat is wrong in principle, but I am arguing that it is wrong, given the current state of farming, to consume factory meat (and eggs, fish, etc.) In essence, what I'm saying is that although we cannot always afford a complete boyccot of ill-gotten goods, in the case of meat we certainly can and should, at least if we have the privilege (and you were right, it is a privilege) of doing so. Ethics trump flavor preference. Or else I would eat babies for breakfast. :)

To clear up, some arguments I am NOT making:

1. Vegetarianism should be enforced legally.
2. It is always wrong to eat meat, regardless of how the animal was raised/treated.
3. People who really do need meat to survive are immoral nonetheless.
4. I agree with everything Eriko says. :P

N. B. Eriko is female

[Amour]

Yes, we CAN, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not doing it. Plenty of mothers choose not to breast feed even if they are physically able. Not doing so isn't inherently bad. That's a fallible argument.

Just want to mention some things.

You say the word "choose" Plenty of mothers CHOOSE not to breast feed even if they are able. I've seen your posts about how animals and humans are truly unequal because when a human dies there's an "intrinsic" loss and so on--but now you're comparing animals to human mothers when it suits you. Why are they equal in terms of breast feeding, but nothing else?

Firstly, animals don't get to CHOOSE not breast feeding. It's not inherently bad when you apply these things to humans, because obviously we can survive just well without it. Another key word is SURVIVE. Animals aren't raised to survive, they're raised for our own means--they don't care to keep them near their mothers because they don't care about their long-term survival. They might as well be iPods, not living creatures.

--When animals die, they are replaced. Nothing is necessarily lost in the death of an animal. Therefore, the animal doesn't truly die.
--Humans, on the other hand, die and naturally take something away from the collective. We can measure what the death of a human removes from the human spectrum, since that person is both individual/unique and a possessor of skills, traits, intellectual qualities, or what have you. So, the death of a human being represents an intrinsic loss. We truly die.


The death of an animal changes the entire life-cycle of the world. Humans are animals. I don't understand this argument the least bit--and, if anything, this is hypocritical at best. We let humans die all the time, and there is nothing taken away from the collective: otherwise, don't you think, we'd be able to sense it with all the deaths happening away from our marvelous first-world countries? If we were to die as a mass, we'd take away from the collective--but so would any other animal.


Shaun: Basically, as I understand it, you don't support factory conditions, you love animals, but you will still eat factory produced food because of your own sensory preferences.

I think it is immoral to consume animals while being unwilling to address how we care for them prior to consumption. There's nothing inherently immoral about feeding a natural and very necessary biological impulse.

It's immoral to consume animals willingly, knowing the conditions they are in, if you claim to actually care about those conditions. "Addressing" how we care for them prior to consumption doesn't negate the fact that you're eating them, or make it anymore moral to eat them. It is not a necessary biological impulse anymore. It's an impulse, but it's one that we can survive without.

Heard of our appendix? We probably needed it at one point, but when we adapted to life without it, it dwindled into uselessness. How come no one takes evolution into account with meat? It's because of survival that we eat it, yes, it's a necessary biological impulse for survival, yes... but once we adapt around meat, it's no longer necessary for survival. THAT'S a biological concept.

There are plenty of ways to adapt without eating meat, and you survive just fine (healthier, in fact), than while eating mass-produced factory farm meat.

[eriko]

First thing first, I am a female and I am not sexist, and especially not towards my own gender. Next, I said
Understood. But we must try at our personal level. Every action counts.

All along I have been shouting that people should try to be vegetarians at personal level, and I really did not say anything about changing the laws of the factories. Nor did I say anything about shutting down the factories. All I said that maybe we could convert those poultry farms into farms if that was possible, and then you said it wasn't, so I said okay.

Because, as much as you say that you aren't, you actually are. Your words are belied by your other words, as it were.

No they are not. That is how you are looking at it, trying to find hidden meanings in my words.

And by giving the example, you brought mothers into the picture. You can't really weasel your way out of it. It was said, it was sexist, and as much as you want to say you didn't bring it up, you did.

I don't deny that I didn't bring it up. But the point is that I I did not make an arguement out of it. Nor did I question the morality of the human mothers not breastfeeding their babies. All I talked about was the cow mothers, and I making this very clear.

And yes, you did insult my country, and there are plenty things that India does that America doesn't do that I think would be insulting to most modern democracies today. Trying to play high and mighty here is earning you no favors in this debate.

This just shows of insecure you are of people commenting on your country. Again, I didn't say anything bad or insulting about it, but if you think I did..then there is nothing that I can do about it.

Most people choose to ignore it. So why are we having this discussion? I also find it funny how you're trying to push humanity outside of the ecological balance, as if we're not a part of the natural spectrum of this planet. The very fact that we exact and can change how the world works is precisely what makes us a natural species. These things come naturally to it, and by acting we are doing exactly what we were supposed to be doing. The rest of the animal kingdom is no more innocent.

Because the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't have a choice, but you do have a choice. And with all our technology, do you really believe that we are part of the ecosystem..when it is plain that we could easily survive without dismantling the ecosystem. And yes, I do say it openly, that animals have the right to live on their own and they have an equal right to land as us. And I find nothing wrong in it. And to avoid you from digging for hidden meanings in my words, let me say that it is not at the expense of the human population. But we got ingenious minds, all we need is to apply and do something before it is too late. And yes I do feel very strongly about this.

Yup. I believe India sells this particular crop to Australia. Again, I want to say it's rice, but I'm sure that's the wrong crop.

I think its wheat. A few years ago there was a scandal about it.


Generally speaking, from a health perspective (and not from your perspective), most people should be eating less meat because it's healthier. Too much meat is bad for you, especially red meat. A lot of people don't understand this, and so they sit around consuming steaks and ribs and ground beef all the time (I've done this and it's not good stuff for your heart). But meat is a natural supplier of necessary amino acids for the body and having a healthy portion in ever meal is actually a good thing. But you need veggies and fruits too. Fruit is good stuff.

Then we both agree. Little bit of meat and more vegetables.

It's not science. To say that this is a kind of science is insulting to science. It's no more science than the people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are doing science...

Actually it has a term Metaphysics. If you don't believe in it, don't.

It's not necessarily different for animals, but by bringing mothers into the picture he's making the argument that it's not right to feed infants except by breast feeding, when, in fact, sometimes you don't have a choice. That's a sexist notion.

When did I say that?

Yes, we CAN, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not doing it. Plenty of mothers choose not to breast feed even if they are physically able. Not doing so isn't inherently bad. That's a fallible argument.

When did I question the morality of human mothers not breastfeeding their babies? Its their kids, they can do whatever they want to do with him/her. But declining baby cows from feeding from their mothers is wrong.


The argument implicates that it is somehow wrong to prevent natural methods of feeding for animals, and thus, by using the analogy of a mother breastfeeding, also that women who don't breastfeed, whether they have a choice or not, are committing the same kind of wrong. If you can't see what's sexist about that, I don't know how else to explain it.


So the arguement implicates...that is your own interpretation. I never implicated anything, my words were direct about the cause of cow mothers. And besides its the baby calves because they are the real sufferers.

They die in the sense that an animal ceases living, but Derrida's argument is this:
--When animals die, they are replaced. Nothing is necessarily lost in the death of an animal. Therefore, the animal doesn't truly die.

--Humans, on the other hand, die and naturally take something away from the collective. We can measure what the death of a human removes from the human spectrum, since that person is both individual/unique and a possessor of skills, traits, intellectual qualities, or what have you. So, the death of a human being represents an intrinsic loss. We truly die.

So you want to differentiate between animals and humans because of their contribution to the economy? So if we apply the same logic to the humans as a whole, then according to this super-idiotic logic we can simply wipe the 65 plus, since they longer can work and hence no longer contribute to the economy.


Having strong personal beliefs and trying to propagate them across the world are two very different things

Look, if I really wanted to propagate then I would have written articles and mailed them to people around me, signing petitions and holding protests. But here we are having a healthy debate and all I am doing is putting my views forward. And so are you. Then applying your own logic on yourself then why are you propagating about the eating meat?

It's entirely possible to be sexist against your own sex...being female doesn't preclude you from that activity.

Better if you stopped judging my character and stick to the debate.

If spreading it means you are going to make laws that support your beliefs, that would be propagation in the most negative sense.

Who is making laws?

I don't support factories in their present condition. I have never claimed otherwise. I believe in reducing suffering to the lowest point we can muster while also maintaining our ability to continue to consume meat.

So do I. More veggies, less meat.

I don't agree that we should stop eating animals altogether, though. That's a personal choice and it should only be a personal choice. One can love animals and still eat them. i.e. Native Americans.

All I am saying is that people should be aware of the consequences of their actions, and afterwards whatever they do is their choice. Fells like deja vu?....because I have been saying this all along.


And I don't buy the moral argument that it is somehow immoral to consume animals. I think it is immoral to consume animals while being unwilling to address how we care for them prior to consumption. There's nothing inherently immoral about feeding a natural and very necessary biological impulse.

And I find it immoral to kill anyone.


The problem is that Eriko's rhetoric implied that he/she was for forcing vegetarianism upon the general public.

No, I am not. The point is that you are just trying to be intimidating here Shaun and putting words into my mouths. My brother and father are both non-vegetarian, they just had meat yesterday. If I had been so adamant on imposing my beliefs, then they would have been the first people whom I would have stopped from eating it. It is a personal choice..so stop putting words into my mouth.

I understand that he/she doesn't agree, but if you read his/her words, you see the argument being made. That's the argument I have problems with. It's one thing to make it illegal to abuse animals (and it should be), but it's another to try to make vegetarianism a requirement.

So what is wrong with being vegetarianism a requirement? And I never said that laws should be made by the government, as it would be so stupid. Everyone can try at a his/her personal level. All I am against is when people prefer meat over vegetarian diet...and I am taking about the situation when people consume meat in the most unhealthy way possible and loads of it above their protein requirement.

[Jack]

Actually it has a term Metaphysics. If you don't believe in it, don't.


Metaphysics is a term for philosophical ideology more than any thing else. It isn't literally a science.

[nagarjuna]

Metaphysics is a term for philosophical ideology more than any thing else. It isn't literally a science.

It's not an ideology so much as a topic within philosophy for which there are various ideologies. But I derail.

[MetallicGryffon]

Only animal products I eat are chicken, turkey, and occasionally beef.

[nagarjuna]

Only animal products I eat are chicken, turkey, and occasionally beef.

So no fish, eggs, or dairy? ... Why the weird combo? Seems an odd choice, unless you just don't like those foods.

[noro]

Um, I've been a vegetarian for almost three years now. >_>

[ScottyMcGee]

Who gives a fuck what you eat anyway? I sure don't.

Just eat something.

[Peppermental]

Shut up Little Demon. Also, shut up Noro, this thread has been dead for months.

I went vegetarian for a while, its not that difficult. Your statement was a grammatical nightmare Little Demon, but from what I managed to glean from the ramblings, you are being a condescending douche. Not the kind who has a superior logical position, mind you.

Arguments in favor of vegetarianism shouldn't be idiotic "well its like really hard asshole" type statements; instead they should focus on WHY it is better to not eat meat. Factory farms, consequences of overproduction, w/e the fuck reason you think is most reasonable (reasonable reason hehe). You do a disservice to vegetarians everywhere when you defend it with such feeble logic.

[Jack]

Let's try and refrain from personal attacks; this is a debate, so let's focus on the topic at hand, shall we?

[Little Demon]

Sorry, :blush:

Don't forget religious reasons to stop eating meat. (like Wiccan)

[Peppermental]

The meat production practices today are quite disgusting, but the act of eating meat is a natural thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with not eating meat, mind you, but its not like killing something for the sake of consumption is an inherently inhuman thing to do.

[noro]

Um Peppermental? I wasn't saying that to be spiteful or anything. I was just saying it for the sake of saying it. D: And I'm sorry that I didn't know this thread had been dead for months.

[Crocolyle]

let's try and refrain from personal attacks; this is a debate, so let's focus on the topic at hand, shall we?

vegetotalitarians! I will not be silenced!

[Rage]

Never really had an opinion on vegans. They’ve become a group of people whom I automatically ignore, I dislike people who have an opinion and attempt to force it upon communities.
Sure, I’d imagine they’re vegans out there who are giving up meat purely based on their own morals, and that’s respectable. But the majority of people who run around with homemade signs, yelling at everyone who eats meat that they’re wrong ect, that’s ridiculous.

We’ll probably be able to clone animals in the not so distant future anyway, problem solved. :sarcasm:

[Peppermental]

Anyone watched the series of videos on youtube called Earthlings? Lots of people who watch it become vegetarians. Factory farms are pretty fucked up.

[Hemlock]

Meat isn't my favorite thing in the word, but I eat it. I don't have a strong opinion on vegetarians, but I'm glad everyone has the right to decide what goes in their bodies. It works for some people, but doesn't work for others. It's their choice; they can do what they want with or without meat.

But in the past, I've had a bit of trouble with their attitude towards my choices. Several of my friends were vegetarians, and two of them have decided "to become vegetarian" out of the blue (the other has been a vegetarian for years). We would be sitting at lunch, and they would literally glare at my food. And word for word, they said it was disgusting that I chose to "eat flesh".

I'm cool with vegetarianism, and I know that not every vegetarian acts like my peers in the previous paragraph. I'm just sharing an experience. Carry on!

[Valencian]

I tried to be a vegetarian. It lasted a week because someone had a pepperoni pizza :P

[Faust]

I was a vegertarian for two years then ate meat for a year but i turned vegertarian a week ago.

[bookworm]

I'm a vegetarian for a few joint reasons.
First thing: health. Hormones, antibiotics... I don't want to eat this stuff.
I don't paricularly like animals; I have no pets and they often annoy me, but being against animal cruelty I thought it would be a "nice" thing to do.

The thing is, vegetarianism was never really a dihlemma: I don;t particularly like meat. I ate it once a week at my grandmother's house, sometimes in restaurants. I only ate chicken and sausages anyway. It wasn't really a sacrifice.
I eat fish, though, and I can't imagine being vegan- it's practically impossible to eat anything, or at least so it seems. I'm pleased with my present, let's call it "eating situation" and I don't want to change anything. Fruit, veg, chocolate and ice-cream wins!

[lalodragon]

Vegetarianism: I don't worry about it either way. My mom throws up if she eats meat (it's physical, not a choice; she's tried to eat it) and my dad eats a lot of meat. Mom's heathly, so obviously someone who doesn't eat meat won't die. (She's healthier than Dad, actually. :sarcasm: ) I wouldn't suffer if I gave up meat, but I don't have the discipline to keep it. There's no incentive for me to, for one thing, and at any friend's house I'd be hard set. Besides, I love jerky. :laugh:
Veganism: I can't imagine life without meat, egg or dairy. But if you can live on it and it fits your beliefs, I won't look down on it.
I'm not a hardcore carnivore. I respect vegetarians because they must have some self-control. I also cheer for the deer hunters I know. :blush:

[bookworm]

I'm not a hardcore carnivore. I respect vegetarians because they must have some self-control.

Not always. It really depends on the person. I haven't missed meat for over six months. In fact I'd probably be sick. Meat just doesn't work for my body; for others it does.

[lalodragon]

Not always. It really depends on the person. I haven't missed meat for over six months. In fact I'd probably be sick. Meat just doesn't work for my body; for others it does.

Well, sure. But you have to read most labels for gelatin, lard and things (don't you?) since they're meat. Discipline, maybe, more than self control.

[bookworm]

Yeah, the jelly is awful.
Most people eat perfectly reasonable-looking cakes, without realizing that that wobbly colourful thing is in fact leftovers of a pig.

[lalodragon]

Yeah, the jelly is awful.
Most people eat perfectly reasonable-looking cakes, without realizing that that wobbly colourful thing is in fact leftovers of a pig.

Even knowing what gelatin is, I eat marshmallows and Jello. :rolleyes:

[bookworm]

Even knowing what gelatin is, I eat marshmallows and Jello. :rolleyes:

I've started doubting in your sensitivity/imagination. One of the two.