Yeah, I'm considering becoming Vegetarian - it's something I've been considering for a while. There are various reasons, one of the main ones being the ethics of meat production - plus, the more I read and watch about animals (nature fascinates me! ), the more it seems unfair (to me, at least) to kill them and eat them.
The other main reason is just my general health - I need to drop a stone or two, plus I've begun to feel bloated and sick after most meals. I've heard that meat can have that effect on your digestive system, and I eat a LOT of it!

So I'm trying to phase it out gradually, as I'm not sure it would be a good idea to just give up straight away - I might have trouble sticking to it and fall off the (meat) wagon!

I had my first day of not eating meat, and I have to say... it was really easy!

I also feel... better. It's hard to explain, but I feel like I have more energy, that I'm less sluggish.


So, any hints or tips Dakka? Any Veggies on here? Anyone fancy trolling this thread with posts about how much they love killing/eating animals?



That last one was a joke.

In b4 People Eating Tasty Animals.

My house hosts Buddhist Monks 3 months every year ,
so i know alot about vegetarian.

Majority of people cannot stand not eating meat , but if you can , you are already ahead of the game.

Been a vegetarian doesnt mean you have to give meat up completely , aslong as you are eating abundance of vegetable and fruits , there are no down sides to it.

So good for you! Animals will thank you as well!

Honestly i dont see why eating meat itself is unethical. We owe our intelligence to meat. cooked meat was what allowed us to gain an upper edge.
I can understand the ethics the meat industry(i personally dont care).

garret wrote:Honestly i dont see why eating meat itself is unethical. We owe our intelligence to meat. cooked meat was what allowed us to gain an upper edge.
I can understand the ethics the meat industry(i personally dont care).

I'll show you why its unethical but i cant post that picture xD

Wont someone think of the plants....they have feelings too! Ever seen the movie " Th Happening" you better stop eating them they will get you!

Vindicator#9 wrote:Wont someone think of the plants....they have feelings too! Ever seen the movie " Th Happening" you better stop eating them they will get you!

Myth buster did an episode on that.

But, meat is so good.....

Garret wrote:We owe our intelligence to meat. cooked meat was what allowed us to gain an upper edge.

Well, lions only ever eat meat - I reckon I could complete a sudoku before a Lion! Yeah, high protein diets have been shown to boost intelligence, but there are other sources of protein (dairy being a big one, also beans/pulses iirc), plus I drink a protein shake every morning for my breakfast. Not sure about the cooked meat thing - I thought that the cooking process removes a lot of the good stuff? I'll check that out.

Lunahound wrote:Been a vegetarian doesnt mean you have to give meat up completely

Really? I thought that was the whole idea?

Albatross wrote:Really? I thought that was the whole idea?

There are dififerent types of vegetarians. ( i only list what i know , im sure there are more )

a) Medical reasons
b) Ethical reasons ( for example dont want to kill animals )
c) Religious

Normally speaking , if you eat only plants , that can consider you as a vegetarian.

However , you are not a true vegetarian unless you also leave garlic and onion out.
So in a sense most vegetarians are not true 100% vegetarians.

So i guess in that same sense , you are also allowed little bit off the hook to have some meat once in awhile
if you arnt tied to religious reasons.

Animals like to eat each other, so I eat meat out of respect for their beliefs.

The thing about meat is, it gets you all of the amino acids you're supposed to eat. Most (no?) plants aren't going to, so you're going to have to derive protein from many different sources to get it balanced out. Make sure to eat beans, seeds, nuts, and that sort of thing, just eating carrots and lettuce isn't going to work. If you're giving up dairy you'll want to go pretty heavy on dark green plants too, for calcium.

I think meat - even red meat (fish and poultry is still better for you, though) - catches something of an unfair rap, health-wise, probably in part because it's so commonly fried, covered in sauce or cheese, etc. I'd be more concerned with heavily processed grains and sugar (which isn't, of course, incompatible with vegetarianism).

If you feel better having not eaten meat, that's a good sign. It may just be the novelty of it, but you'll never know unless you go further.

Thats why you eat soy beans Orkeo

I never much liked "soy".

I think I'm still sore about a really bad "soydog" I had once (I thought it was a regular one... I was disappointed).

Does soy have all of the amino acids, though? It might, I'm pretty sure kelp or something does. In that case you might want to work some into your diet.

Also, why wouldn't vegetarians eat garlic and onions?

Soy-(meat product here) always seems comparatively tasteless to me. Meanwhile, Veggie-(meat product here) tastes downright sickening. Silk, on the other hand, is divine.

OT, I think you ought to not make your eating habits ideological. Omnivorism is healthy. If you feel better eating less meat, eat less meat. I'm not sure why the ethics of the meat industry needs to have anything to do with such a decision.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I never much liked "soy".

I think I'm still sore about a really bad "soydog" I had once (I thought it was a regular one... I was disappointed).

Does soy have all of the amino acids, though? It might, I'm pretty sure kelp or something does. In that case you might want to work some into your diet.

Also, why wouldn't vegetarians eat garlic and onions?

Well no offense to vegetarian companies but , yes their soy product are digusting.
I mean i know how they are make , and im utterly confused to how they can make something that has no taste
into something that awful.

Either way , your soy product could be soy milk and especially different types of tofu . Those are easily found everywhere .
I dont know the chemical composition of kelp , but yes they are very rich in nutrient , keeps your hair nice and shinny as well.

Vegetarian for religious purpose bans garlic and onion because the chemicals in those plants produce hmm whats the word...
imbalance hormones i guess that can change human behavior.

Also , soy products produced by Asian will change your minds about not liking soy items. Most of the time if you buy from proper stores ,
you probably cant even tell its not meat.

In relation to the ethical reasons of eating meat:
Yeah it's the natural order of things and all but, if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

rubiksnoob wrote:if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

. . . plants are alive.

Manchu wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

. . . plants are alive.

srry.

*sentient creatures.

rubiksnoob wrote:In relation to the ethical reasons of eating meat:
Yeah it's the natural order of things and all but, if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

I love you!
I love people like you seriously!

That statement is true , and honest.

You know , so often do i see people's reaction upon visiting meat processing plants , how they go "aw thats so sad , i'll never eat meat again"
and 1 week later they say "oh well , humans are omnivores anyways" when they cant fight their urges to some BBQ steak.

rubiksnoob wrote:*sentient creatures.

There're a lot of assumptions in that one asterisked word. Personally, that sentiment means only this much to me: cannibalism is out.

@Luna: Mencius said the compassionate man stays away from the kitchen. He did not say that the compassionate man gave up eating meat.

Long story short Manchu , humans are weak willed creatures and will resort to any available excuses to cover their weakness.

Thats why i applaud what rubiks said , because it hits the weakness right in the heart.

"In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain."

So sayeth wikipedia.

Just my opinion but, why needlessly cause pain/deny pleasure?
I can survive without eating meat and because of it maybe a few other creatures might survive too.

It also doesn't mean anything because he assumes that all animals are sentient. Or at least the ones that are most popular to eat...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:"In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain."

So sayeth wikipedia.

Just my opinion but, why needlessly cause pain/deny pleasure?
I can survive without eating meat and because of it maybe a few other creatures might survive too.

Wikipedia is not what I would call a "trusted" source. If you don't want to eat meat that's fine (More for me!), but don't invent some moral high ground to go with it. If you feel bad just say so, that is totally cool.

rubiksnoob wrote:"In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain."

So sayeth wikipedia.

Just my opinion but, why needlessly cause pain/deny pleasure?
I can survive without eating meat and because of it maybe a few other creatures might survive too.

Because humans like to turn a blind eye upon things that brings themselves inconvenience.

For example , how important are miniatures , how important are human lives?
Have people donated to the starving countries?

Or they rather spend the money on extra box of GW products?

Im not saying im any better , but i do see the problem of our weakness.
And we do turn a blind eye on things.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Wikipedia is not what I would call a "trusted" source. If you don't want to eat meat that's fine (More for me!), but don't invent some moral high ground to go with it. If you feel bad just say so, that is totally cool.

I'm not trying to force vegetarianism on anyone, i'm simply saying why i believe it is right. I don't think less of anyone who eats meat.

Hi Albatross

If that is how you feel go with it.
It isn't that hard. You may eat some now and again at first, but after a short while even that stops- well for me it did any way.

And for the record I don't consider that meat is murder- simply a diet choice. I have no evangelical crusade to pitch.

Like you I just felt very uncomfortable at the lack of animal welfare, so made a personal choice.
The most important thing is to maintain a healthy balanced diet without meat- obviously replacing the protein is important.

I went through a period where i enjoyed eating meat less and less so in a way I weaned myself off it. Do what is comfortable for you in your own time.
All the rest is bunkem.

Luna wrote:However , you are not a true vegetarian unless you also leave garlic and onion out.

You're referring to the more extreme end of the Vegan spectrum here, aren't you? Yeah, I've heard of that - only eating vegetable/fruits which can be harvested without killing the plant. 'Fruitarians' I think they're called. Too extreme for me!

Orkeosaurus wrote:The thing about meat is, it gets you all of the amino acids you're supposed to eat. Most (no?) plants aren't going to, so you're going to have to derive protein from many different sources to get it balanced out.

Well, AFAIK I can get everything I need from dairy, so.... I don't really eat much cheese or eggs at all, but I DO drink quite a lot of milk so I should be fine. Vitamin B12 is the main thing to worry about, apparently, as it can only be found in animal products. Milk should take care of that.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'd be more concerned with heavily processed grains and sugar

Oh, totally. I don't add sugar to anything I eat/drink, and always choose 'sugar-free' drinks already I have been known to devour the odd Mars bar here and there, though!

Manchu wrote:OT, I think you ought to not make your eating habits ideological. Omnivorism is healthy. If you feel better eating less meat, eat less meat. I'm not sure why the ethics of the meat industry needs to have anything to do with such a decision.

Everything is ideological. Every single choice we make that is not directly related to our survival, and even some of those. How would you feel if your partner wanted to have an abortion? Would ideology not enter into it? You're a religious man - I'm sure Christian ideology informs parts of your life. That's your choice.
In any case, the ethical reasons are only PART of the decision - I'm not giving up dairy, and dairy farming isn't exactly top of Albatross's List of Nice Things To Do To Animals.

Rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah it's the natural order of things and all but, if we have the means to survive without taking another animal's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

Fixed. And subsequently agreed with.

Well, lions only ever eat meat - I reckon I could complete a sudoku before a Lion! Yeah, high protein diets have been shown to boost intelligence, but there are other sources of protein (dairy being a big one, also beans/pulses iirc), plus I drink a protein shake every morning for my breakfast. Not sure about the cooked meat thing - I thought that the cooking process removes a lot of the good stuff? I'll check that out.

Saw something about the payoff between the nutrients that are destroyed by cooking, which allows the nutrients to be digested more efficiently; and uncooked food having the good nutrient content that the body finds difficult to digest. It is complicated.

and yes, if eating meat increases brain function, how come white mice are the most intelligent beings on the planet?

I've considered becoming a vegetarian from time to time as well,for many of the same reasons you've spoken of,the best I've managed thus far is to "cut down" on pork & red meat.

FITZZ wrote: I've considered becoming a vegetarian from time to time as well,for many of the same reasons you've spoken of,the best I've managed thus far is to "cut down" on pork & red meat.

Oops that came out wrong

Cutting down is still very good.
Its alot better then the crash diet type where you torture yourself and it comes down to test of will everyday.

I was forced to eat nothing but rice and beans for weeks on end, due to budget issues. That in itself, was far more than enough for me to never want to give up meat. Futhermore, 'alternative food habits' have an awful lot of pseudo-science surrounding them.

Most of these people are not dietitians/nutritionists/scientists of any sort, and as such have little idea about what they are actually saying.

There are almost as many problems with eating soy, if you want to talk about impact to the planet, or eco-friendly impact in general. As far as I know there is absolutely no way to actually provide enough fresh foods (which is basically what vegetarianism, specifically veganism) for the entirety of the planet. Your choices effect your life, and their impact on the food industry at large are minimal, beyond their psychological connotations to people of a like mind.

*Joe Shmoe says*
"Why yes, I have actually lost my appetite since you showed me that picture of a maimed lamb. Astounding isn't it!"

If you want to be vegetarian, I suggest giving a go of it, but using it as a way to feel superior to other people, is condescending and insulting generally. I have nearly gotten in physical fights with overly aggressive eco-nuts, that choose to bully me over my culinary choices.

I also know several vegetarians/vegans/freegans ("Just no... you are eating out of a freaking trash can..."), that are ludicrously unhealthy, and should stop pretending they are helping anything but their ego's. At least two eco-friendly eaters I have known, have had serious injury due to their eating habits. One lady who was in my Judo club, fractured her ankle because of vitamin deficiencies combined with physical sport.

Eat smart, not eco-friendly.

My philosophy on this is.

Animals kill other animals all the time. Why are we so special.

And coming from a poorer family I learned that any food is better then no food. Be it meat or veggies.

Although as a culinary arts student I know that Albatross can still get Proteins from certain nuts and beans if he goes Vegan.

LunaHound wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I've considered becoming a vegetarian from time to time as well,for many of the same reasons you've spoken of,the best I've managed thus far is to "cut down" on pork & red meat.

Cutting down is still very good. Its alot better then the "too hard i give up" crowd.

I'm trying to eat more seafood (grilled fish,etc),for me it's mostly about watching my health ( I'm not a "youngster" anymore).
However,I completely understand where Albatross is coming from with the ethical points as well.

Manchu wrote: Omnivorism is healthy.

Couldn't say it better myself. For health reasons, I think that it's pretty plain that a variety of foods is the best for you. Every day scientists come up with a new way that eating certain foods gives you illnesses, too much of one thing, not enough of another, etc. The world is balanced naturally, perhaps it would be best if we took the hint and ate a wide variety of things, meat and vegetables. That way we get the least sick.
As for ethics, I understand people don't like killing animals, but sustenance is a valid reason.
As for religion, I don't know about the rest of you, but mine teaches me that God put animals on earth. So eat them. Just not too much, because that would make them extinct, clearly against His wishes if He made them in the first place. Other religions are similar, some have zero tolerance, others have no view. As long as you follow your beliefs, eating meat is irrelevant(unless it IS one of your beliefs).

@Luna: I understand that you are fond of pointing out irrationality or hypocritical behavior. But eating meat, generally speaking, isn't really a good subject for this. I feel "sorry" for slaughtered animals. I want no part in slaughtering them personally. I feel no compunction about eating their flesh. I do not see any contradiction here. I can see how one that offers little to no insight could be forced from it, however.

@Albatross: No, not everything must be ideological or political or moral. That viewpoint is responsible for the kind of "religiousity" that you have reported finding so offensive in the past. In its extreme forms, it's how cult leaders and other demagogues end up controlling all aspects of their followers' lives.

Wrex wrote:There are almost as many problems with eating soy, if you want to talk about impact to the planet, or eco-friendly impact in general. As far as I know there is absolutely no way to actually provide enough fresh foods (which is basically what vegetarianism, specifically veganism) for the entirety of the planet. Your choices effect your life, and their impact on the food industry at large are minimal, beyond their psychological connotations to people of a like mind.

*citations needed*

Wrex wrote:If you want to be vegetarian, I suggest giving a go of it, but using it as a way to feel superior to other people, is condescending and insulting generally.

Hmm... not sure I was doing that. Maybe that wasn't aimed at me. Let's find out.

A lot of people are basically saying, "look, there's animals! let's eat them!" It just strikes me as selfish to kill and eat another creature just because it tastes good. If you have no other means of sustenance, or must eat meat for health reasons, by all means, eat it! Personally however, I feel that it would be wrong to kill without need.

Bottom line: I'm not trying to condemn other's choices. It's a personal choice.

I eat meat but not so that animals will be senselessly killed.

In that case manchu i need to remind you that omnivorous does have its down side.

Granted when we first evolved into what we are, it was a perfect solution.

But now , we have antibiotics , growth hormons , preservatives , all mixed into the meat ...

I cant agree to say its a good idea anymore.

Albatross wrote:There are almost as many problems with eating soy, if you want to talk about impact to the planet, or eco-friendly impact in general. As far as I know there is absolutely no way to actually provide enough fresh foods (which is basically what vegetarianism, specifically veganism) for the entirety of the planet. Your choices effect your life, and their impact on the food industry at large are minimal, beyond their psychological connotations to people of a like mind.

*citations needed*

*Insert Monsanto corp. here*

Funny that while simultaneously overestimating the possible damage (present and possible future), a lot of these organizations fighting Monsanta, also underestimate their influence. At the very least, resulting in 'flight of fancy' politics.

Alba wrote:

Wrex wrote:If you want to be vegetarian, I suggest giving a go of it, but using it as a way to feel superior to other people, is condescending and insulting generally.

Hmm... not sure I was doing that. Maybe that wasn't aimed at me. Let's find out.

Shall we? I don't know you, I have never met you, perhaps I phrased that in a fashion that could be construed as an attack.

Here is a quick fix.

Wrex wrote:If you want to be vegetarian, I suggest giving a go of it. (snip... insert rest of context/post here) People using it as a way to feel superior to other people, is condescending and insulting generally, take caution to avoid that.

Luna, it seems like your problem is with the food's packaging rather than the food itself.

Manchu wrote:@Albatross: No, not everything must be ideological or political or moral. That viewpoint is responsible for the kind of "religiousity" that you have reported finding so offensive in the past. In its extreme forms, it's how cult leaders and other demagogues end up controlling all aspects of their followers' lives.

No, everything is pretty much ideological - everything we do, everywhere we go, where we work, everything we choose to eat, whether it's your ideology or someone else's. Note that that's not the same as saying every choice should be a moral or actively political one. Neither is it the same as saying one must make ACTIVE ideological decisions, rather that a persons ideas, thoughts and beliefs represent an ideological structure, one which informs much of the decisions a person makes. It's not necessarily a concious thing.

Ideology touches our lives everday, and at every moment.

Personally I like meat. We where raising our own meat for the table. While they where alive they where treated well. When it came to that time we made it as quick as possible. The main thing I don't like about buying meat from a store is all the chemicals that are in the animals bodies(antibiotics, steriods) At least with mine I new what was in them. Now as for going veggie, its not for me. But if thats what you want, go for it.

Wow...I never thought so much blood would be spilled on a topic about vegetarianism.
I don't have any qualms about killing animals as long as there is some purpose behind it. They don't have souls, so it's not like killing a human. However, I agree that killing animals for the heck of it is pretty stupid and senseless. And wasteful.

@Wrex - Sweeet! No probs man. I didn't THINK I was coming off as having a superior attitude - I'm far too tall and sexy to do that!

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Albatross: No, not everything must be ideological or political or moral. That viewpoint is responsible for the kind of "religiousity" that you have reported finding so offensive in the past. In its extreme forms, it's how cult leaders and other demagogues end up controlling all aspects of their followers' lives.

No, everything is pretty much ideological - everything we do, everywhere we go, where we work, everything we choose to eat, whether it's your ideology or someone else's. Note that that's not the same as saying every choice should be a moral or actively political one. Neither is it the same as saying one must make ACTIVE ideological decisions, rather that a persons ideas, thoughts and beliefs represent an ideological structure, one which informs much of the decisions a person makes. It's not necessarily a concious thing.

Ideology touches our lives everday, and at every moment.

Putting on socks? Deciding what colour refrigerator magnets to buy? Just kidding, but not ALL decisions are moral decisions. I agree that the vast majority do, in some way, have effects on other aspects of our own lives, and the lives of others, but not all the time.

@Albatross: I think you are confusing the "ideology" with "culture."

Nightwatch wrote:They don't have souls, so it's not like killing a human.

Draw me an anatomical diagram of a human soul.

@Nightwatch: Animals have no souls? How'd you find that out? I hear my fellow Catholics say this kind of thing all the time. I can't figure out why they think it's the case.

Nightwatch wrote:Wow...I never thought so much blood would be spilled on a topic about vegetarianism.
I don't have any qualms about killing animals as long as there is some purpose behind it. They don't have souls, so it's not like killing a human. However, I agree that killing animals for the heck of it is pretty stupid and senseless. And wasteful.

I like how the native americans used to do it. You killed it, you used everylast part of it. I agree with you that killing animals just to kill them is wrong. We are animal lovers:Horses, dogs, cats, rabbits. But we also like our share of veggies

Nightwatch wrote:They don't have souls, so it's not like killing a human. However, I agree that killing animals for the heck of it is pretty stupid and senseless. And wasteful.

Would you be talking about hunting here? Sounds like it.

I have never been hunting, but I can understand why people enjoy it. While some may feel that our interactions with nature resembles a Disney movie, others do not. Disney has done an awful lot to make people squeamish over many issues. Not to say that some of it isn't warranted (at least for productive public discussion, as this conversation appears), but sport hunting appears to be no less than that... sport. There is an element of personal freedom involved in participating in such activities.

You can see the extreme of that general idea, within this documentary.

NSFW

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/far-out--2/heimo-s-arctic-refuge-full-length

What an awesome dude, even though I disagree with him on a few issues... like wanting to live in bear territory.

Albatross wrote:Draw me an anatomical diagram of a human soul.

Look in the mirror. In Catholic tradition, there is no separating soul from body. The sense in which they are distinct is purely academic--like claiming that Heisenbergian precision means that a particle does not in fact have both momentum and position just because both cannot be precisely known simultaneously.

Manchu wrote:Luna, it seems like your problem is with the food's packaging rather than the food itself.

I dont think so , other than preservatives all the other things i listed are typically injected into animals we eat all the time

It is possible to eat meat and be ethical, but it requires more effort. It isn't that difficult to find meat from non farm factory producers. I don't have a problem with eating meat, but I do have a problem with the large slaughter factories where animals are bunched together. Meat is healthy in doses i.e. a steak isn't needed in every dinner. Those factories also just absolutely destroy their environment on most conceivable levels. I do think it wouldn't hurt us to eat less meat, but I don't think it is necessary to give it up all together.

As for the existential crisis, I'm with the Buddhists that would, upon their deaths, be chopped up and thrown out for the animals to eat. We ate them, now they eat us. The beautiful cycle of life goes gloriously on. NOM NOM NOM.

Manchu wrote:@Nightwatch: Animals have no souls? How'd you find that out? I hear my fellow Catholics say this kind of thing all the time. I can't figure out why they think it's the case.

Does the Church even mention anything about this?

Ahtman wrote:It is possible to eat meat and be ethical, but it requires more effort. It isn't that difficult to find meat from non farm factory producers. I don't have a problem with eating meat, but I do have a problem with the large slaughter factories where animals are bunched together. Meat is healthy in doses i.e. a steak isn't needed in every dinner. Those factories also just absolutely destroy their environment on most conceivable levels. I do think it wouldn't hurt us to eat less meat, but I don't think it is necessary to give it up all together.

What on earth , i agree with this guy o_o...

And to the people that says animals have no soul.

If thats true , then lets have your dog and cat for dinner ,
still a good idea?

@JEB: No. Aquinas talked about it and there is a contingent in the Church that believes he knew everything. That's the only ground I've ever found for this bizarre insistence that animals don't have souls.

Aquinas didn't know everything?!?!?!

@Manchu - ...and I think you're confusing ideology with politics/morality. Ideology is central to both concepts - it's also an important part of culture, but it isn't the same thing, and it isn't always concious. I'll find a suitable definition - please don't take this to be condescending, it isn't meant that way, mate.

An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview)...

Some conceptions of ideology ... see ideology as the structure of assumptions which form the imaginative world of groups. Ideology, writes Althusser, is "a representation of the imaginary relation of individuals to the real condition of existence." Further, Althusser writes, ideology creates us as persons: it "hails" us, calls us into being.

This is what I'm driving at.

@JEB: I'm afraid he himself realized that he knew very little, not even as much as Aristotle. Except on one all-significant point.

@Albatross: I think of ideology as active, programmatic, and intentional. It is not a behavior itself; rather, it is the motivation behind a behavior. But, seeing hoe you're defining it, I see and agree with your original sentiment. I'd just put it, in its admittedly more banal sense, as "everything is cultural."

Why are no tears shed for the mice and voles of the world? You kill a hell of a lot of those guys when you plow a field.

It is thusly possible to kill less animals in the process of getting a pound of beef than a pound of wheat (though not if the cows were grain fed, of course!). This only really matters you care about all animals equally, of course, which would get quite silly once you got down to insects and roundworms.

@Albatross: I agree. You can't draw the human soul. However, human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith, all point to something supernatural, beyond the physically explainable human person. Animals do not have this.

@Wrexasaur: Nope, I don't have a problem with hunting. Recreation is a part of life too. People who torture squirrels, have pets and abuse them, etc: this is what I'm talking about. Not that I see a lot of them, but they do exist.

@wvlop: precisely. A perfect example of environmentally friendly, ethical, moral, use of natural resources.

@Manchu: What I said to Albatross.

Given that meat is murder, at least I can devour the (oh so tasty) evidence with some confidence.


That said: Good for you Albatross. Pay attention to your protein intake, watch your vitamins, and talk with your doctor or nutritionist.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why are no tears shed for the mice and voles of the world? You kill a hell of a lot of those guys when you plow a field.

It is thusly possible to kill less animals in the process of getting a pound of beef than a pound of wheat (though not if the cows were grain fed, of course!). This only really matters you care about all animals equally, of course, which would get quite silly once you got down to insects and roundworms.

There is a major difference between killing things as a side effect

vs openly raising animals to be locked up in small areas their whole life till their final moment of death.

Manchu wrote:Look in the mirror. In Catholic tradition, there is no separating soul from body. The sense in which they are distinct is purely academic--like claiming that Heisenbergian precision means that a particle does not in fact have both momentum and position just because both cannot be precisely known simultaneously.

My point was that I don't believe that Human beings have souls. Ideology again.

Nightwatch wrote:@Albatross: I agree. You can't draw the human soul. However, human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith, all point to something supernatural, beyond the physically explainable human person. Animals do not have this.

You are saying that there is some kind of supernatural component to a human being. I agree. But I do not see how the absence of the ability to reason abstractly implies that there is no similar component to other forms of life.

If thats true , then lets have your dog and cat for dinner ,
still a good idea?

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:Look in the mirror. In Catholic tradition, there is no separating soul from body. The sense in which they are distinct is purely academic--like claiming that Heisenbergian precision means that a particle does not in fact have both momentum and position just because both cannot be precisely known simultaneously.

My point was that I don't believe that Human beings have souls. Ideology again.

And THAT is an accurate statement about ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@WvLopp: I have eaten dog (thanks Korea!) and found it to be unpleasant tasting rather than "ideologically" (ahem, culturally) or even emotionally unpleasant. Now if you're talking about killing and eating a pet, I would submit that you are talking about something else. This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

I don't see much of a difference in the killing itself. When you slaughter a cow it's to get the meat, killing the cow is just a means to that end. Similarly, the person plowing a field hopes to have crops, and killing voles is just a means to that end.

The caging of animals is an interesting issue; it makes the "life or death" concept superseded by some sort of system of rights deserved by animals. It's then okay to kill animals, but not to cage for their whole lives, or to beat them, and so on and so forth. Not a philosophy I'd necessarily object to; it seems that it would relate to the "natural condition" of an animal.

@Manchu: Bahaha, how did I know that was going to be brought up? Albeit, in a very subtle manner.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't see much of a difference in the killing itself. When you slaughter a cow it's to get the meat, killing the cow is just a means to that end. Similarly, the person plowing a field hopes to have crops, and killing voles is just a means to that end.

The caging of animals is an interesting issue; it makes the "life or death" concept superseded by some sort of system of rights deserved by animals. It's then okay to kill animals, but not to cage for their whole lives, or to beat them, and so on and so forth. Not a philosophy I'd necessarily object to; it seems that it would relate to the "natural condition" of an animal.

If i fire my gun , and someone ran into the bullets path. Yes i killed the person , but that wasnt the intention.

If i fire my gun at a person solely for purpose of doing the person harm , there is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

@Luna, Orkeo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect

Manchu wrote:I think of ideology as active, programmatic, and intentional. It is not a behavior itself; rather, it is the motivation behind a behavior.

Your behaviour is not always motivated by your OWN personal ideology though, it is often shaped by the ideology of others. In this respect, it's not intentional - or more accurately, it's not shaped by YOUR intent. This concept is absolutely central to the idea of 'hegemony'. When you put your trousers on tomorrow, stop and wonder why.

Man, I come here to fething shoot the breeze! I get enough of this during the day!

I'm going to bed on that note.


p.s.

@Nightwatch - Probably not best to go down that particular 'rabbit-hole' with me. These subjects often end up getting a bit flamey. No real need to bring God into this - you're into it, cool. I'm not. A conversation on the topic will not be constructive, I'm guessing.

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

Uh, we're on different pages as usual. I didn't say it was impossible to form emotional bonds with farm animals (although it is questionable that they can do so with us, unlike dogs) but rather that the subject here is about eating or not eating meat regardless of particular relationships. After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

Manchu wrote:After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

What a delicious stranger with a side-order of fries!

And an Iced Tea...

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think of ideology as active, programmatic, and intentional. It is not a behavior itself; rather, it is the motivation behind a behavior.

Your behaviour is not always motivated by your OWN personal ideology though, it is often shaped by the ideology of others. In this respect, it's not intentional - or more accurately, it's not shaped by YOUR intent. This concept is absolutely central to the idea of 'hegemony'. When you put your trousers on tomorrow, stop and wonder why.

This is a tremendous flattening of the word "ideology." As I already said, I can see why you've chosen this word for this concept (thanks for confirming with the inclusion of "hegemony") but I would continue to say that actual ideology is not so pervasive as you suggest. Again, you could easily replace the word ideology used in this sense with a number of other ones. Culture is one. Custom is another. Tradition. Etc, etc, etc.

Man, I come here to fething shoot the breeze! I get enough of this during the day!

S'your own fault, you know what it's like on OffT: overtly ideological!

Manchu wrote:
@WvLopp: I have eaten dog (thanks Korea!) and found it to be unpleasant tasting rather than "ideologically" (ahem, culturally) or even emotionally unpleasant. Now if you're talking about killing and eating a pet, I would submit that you are talking about something else. This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

@Manchu: That would come down to the individiual person. Since I don't want to go to far OT, I'll just say that it does happen on some farms that pets of some sort are put on the table.

As for treatment of animals, when I lived in Southern California I saw plenty of feed lots for cattle. You see those commercials on TV about Real California Cheese and Happy Cows come from California.....ya right. Where I live now I have not seen feed lots(but sure there are some out there) but have seen free ranging cattle.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

Uh, we're on different pages as usual. I didn't say it was impossible to form emotional bonds with farm animals (although it is questionable that they can do so with us, unlike dogs) but rather that the subject here is about eating or not eating meat regardless of particular relationships. After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

We are on the same page machu. Who is the one that chose to have bonds with their pets? We do. And who is the one that chose to have no bonds with the
dead animals in their plate they eat? We do.

Like i said , all humans turns blind eye on things. You , Me , everyone does.

Hi Albatross

I ask myself why i choose not to eat meat.
It is pretty much how you say it it if i have understod you correctly.
As said previously, if that is what you want, all the rest is bunkum.

you are willing to eat strangers?
Xenovore!

@WvLopp: Given my own family's experience of growing up on farms, I am aware that sometimes children think of the animals (especially the baby animals) as pets. But it seems more like having an imaginary friend than having a dog. Dogs are very unique in sharing the a great deal of evolutionary history with homo sapiens.

@Luna: Even if I chose to, I doubt I could form meaningful emotional bonds with all of the world's cattle.

@Manchu
How am I 'flattening' it? 'Ideology' just means a system of ideas and beliefs - you can apply that to the individual or the state. Culture isn't the right word. I'll explain why via PM tomorrow - I REALLY am going to bed this time!

LunaHound wrote:If i fire my gun , and someone ran into the bullets path. Yes i killed the person , but that wasnt the intention.

If i fire my gun at a person solely for purpose of doing the person harm , there is a difference.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. Why does the butcher desire the death of the animal? Wouldn't he rather receive his meat without killing, if he could? And are you declaring that a vole, sitting in his... uh... den or whatever, is putting himself in the path of the plowman's blades by doing so?

I would say a far more analogous situation is this: A robber shoots a random man, so that he can take the money from his wallet. Another robber, desperate to make a getaway with his money, guns down several people who were unknowingly standing in between him and his getaway car. Neither case is more ethical than the other, in both the robber does not particularly wish to kill people but is willing to do so if he gains from doing it. After all, it's not as though the death of voles is an unexpected consequence of the plowing, any more than the death of people is an unexpected consequence of firing into a mass of people to get them out of your way.

p.s try to think of some choices you've made that weren't directly or indirectly motivated by ideology and PM me.

Albatross wrote:

p.s.

@Nightwatch - Probably not best to go down that particular 'rabbit-hole' with me. These subjects often end up getting a bit flamey. No real need to bring God into this - you're into it, cool. I'm not. A conversation on the topic will not be constructive, I'm guessing.

I had hoped myself the thread wouldn't turn that way. I apologize to all people who were hurt/offended at my "Animals have no souls" statement. I meant that their level of being is lower than that of humans, and do not have a soul in the same context. Thus endeth the religious argument. PM me if you care to know my full thoughts on the subject, I can assure you I will answer to well-meaning, pleasantly-voiced questions or statements.
But yes, good for you for trying to give up meat: If there is one thing most of us can agree on it is that we all eat too much of SOMETHING.

Manchu wrote:@Luna: Even if I chose to, I doubt I could form meaningful emotional bonds with all of the world's cattle.

Not asking you to no.

Just the idea that such bond is indeed possible , and the creatures we kill are capable of display all the emtions say a dog or cat do.
May it be 1 , few , or infinite.

Saying not able to bond with all the cows in the world which makes it less painful to look at the sentient being laying in pieces on
the dinner plate is indeed turning a blind eye.

For example , if i take a stray dog you never seen or bonded before , and serve it to you as dinner ,
what would your feeling be? compared to what i asked earlier?

I don't own any pets, so I wouldn't know. Because of the emotional bonds we humans often form with animals, I can imagine that it would be upsetting to eat your pet. Less upsetting to eat someone else's.

Please do! Then there'll be more for me!

@Luna: I actually don't have any remorse for the animal as I look at the steak on my plate. This is why I brought up Mencius. His distinction was between the inclination of the compassionate heart, which is to see itself in all others, and the rational mind, which is to know the difference between one thing and another. The gentleman is both compassionate and rational. These characteristics temper one another. My lack of remorse is not the result of a "blind eye" but rather an open one. Only if I blind myself to the real differences between animals and people will I feel the guilt you seem to be talking about.

Looks like a weak flashlight in the eye...

Before I start responding to people, I’ll just tell you that I don’t eat beef. I used to live in cattle country and I developed something of an affection for cows, and it started to bother me to eat them. I accept this is ridiculous as I’ll happily eat chicken, lamb and all sorts of other animals that don’t deserve to be killed and eaten just as much as cows do.

But it bothers me to eat beef, so I don’t. It’s just my personal choice, and it doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but me. Everybody else should find whatever diet makes sense to them,

Albatross wrote:The other main reason is just my general health - I need to drop a stone or two, plus I've begun to feel bloated and sick after most meals. I've heard that meat can have that effect on your digestive system, and I eat a LOT of it!

Vegetarianism probably won't lead to weight loss, especially if you're used to a high protein diet. In order to feel full you'll end up eating a lot of grains and potatoes and things.

I've known some fat vegetarians in my time.

Nightwatch wrote:Couldn't say it better myself. For health reasons, I think that it's pretty plain that a variety of foods is the best for you. Every day scientists come up with a new way that eating certain foods gives you illnesses, too much of one thing, not enough of another, etc. The world is balanced naturally, perhaps it would be best if we took the hint and ate a wide variety of things, meat and vegetables. That way we get the least sick.

The argument that we should eat meat for health reasons is dubious. The overwhelming majority of people eat far too much meat, and it results in lower life expectancies, especially in men where bowel cancer is such a killer. As a result vegetarians have longer life expectancies.

If you were really specific about having the healthiest possible diet to make sure you lived to 100, then meat would be part of that. But for the rest of us vegetarianism is likely to be at least as healthy as eating meat, if you’re halfway smart about it.

As for ethics, I understand people don't like killing animals, but sustenance is a valid reason.

200 years ago this was probably true, but food science has come a long way. The simple reality is that we can live a healthy life without killing animals. I eat animals, so I’m not condemning anyone else for doing the same, but the argument that animals need to be killed for our sustenance is simply false.

As for religion, I don't know about the rest of you, but mine teaches me that God put animals on earth. So eat them. Just not too much, because that would make them extinct, clearly against His wishes if He made them in the first place. Other religions are similar, some have zero tolerance, others have no view. As long as you follow your beliefs, eating meat is irrelevant(unless it IS one of your beliefs).

Sure, that’s your beliefs and your choice. Other people have their own.

Wrexasaur wrote:There are almost as many problems with eating soy, if you want to talk about impact to the planet, or eco-friendly impact in general. As far as I know there is absolutely no way to actually provide enough fresh foods (which is basically what vegetarianism, specifically veganism) for the entirety of the planet.

No, grains and the like are far less resource intensive than livestock. At the most basic level, instead of eating grain we’re giving it to livestock which we then eat in turn.

Then you can look at the environmental damage and greenhouse gas emissions of livestock.

WvLopp wrote:I like how the native americans used to do it. You killed it, you used everylast part of it. I agree with you that killing animals just to kill them is wrong. We are animal lovers:Horses, dogs, cats, rabbits. But we also like our share of veggies

The idea of Native Americans using every part of the animal is a myth. Modern factory farming, looking to maximise revenue through identifying by-products, is probably a lot more ‘efficient’ than most NA tribes ever where.

Nightwatch wrote:human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith

You still believe in the human ability for reason? I'm guessing you haven't spent much time on the internet.

sebster wrote:But it bothers me to eat beef, so I don’t. It’s just my personal choice, and it doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but me. Everybody else should find whatever diet makes sense to them

This makes sense to me. Far more legitimate to my mind than attempts at moralizing. (And unlike those positions, sebster's is truly non-judgmental of others' dietary practices.)

My mom knew someone who refused to eat lobster because they were "relatives of spiders", which are scary. Sebster's rationale certainly makes more sense than that one!

@sebster: I believe I did leave the option of other religions/no religion open. I stated mine. It was an opinion.

And yes, I believe in the human ability for reason. Let's not get into this, I specifically wrote on my last post I'd prefer not to debate OT.

let's all be friends.

Orkeosaurus wrote:My mom knew someone who refused to eat lobster because they were "relatives of spiders", which are scary. Sebster's rationale certainly makes more sense than that one!

I think the point is that it doesn't need to make sense. Now if you want her to change the behavior then it's another matter.

I would say it depends on whether you're trying to make a taxonomic statement about the relation between spiders and lobsters, or whether you're merely referring to their aesthetic similarities.

Oh, I thought we were talking about whether or not she should eat the lobster.

Well, if the only reason she won't eat lobster is due to a factual misunderstanding, she should probably be informed of her mistake.

It might have been all the legs and spindly bits though. Who knows?

Well, they are both arthopods...
And really, if spiders tasted as good as lobsters and there was enough on 'em to make a meal, I'd eat them too.

According to common folklore, most people eat 20 spiders in their sleep, over the course of their lifetimes.

I'm skeptical, though.

I have few doubts that if you included all sizable bugs (size of a gnat and higher), that number would likely increase.

I doubt that most actually eat 20 spiders, some may be that unlucky though. Gross, I got a leg in my teeth!

I see your point, O. You are talking about her not eating lobster because she genuinely believes it to be some sort of spider and, additionally, it is not acceptable to eat spiders. What I am talking about it that her not wanting to eat the lobster has no implication on the legitimacy of me eating it. I imagine the following conversation:

Me: Will you have the lobster, my dear?
Her: I couldn't, darling, they're related to spiders.
Me: Good heavens! Only insofar as you or I are related to sharks.
Her: Even so, they look terribly ugly!
Me: That's as may be but they are quite tasty.
Her: Well, I will pass.
Me: Very well, very well.

. . . as opposed to . . .

Me: Will you have the lobster, my dear?
Her: How could you!? Oh!
Me: Why, whatever has come over you?
Her: The lobster is capable of suffering! You're a monster to suggest I or any other compassionate person should eat the poor creature, especially given the barbaric way that it is prepared.
Me: Check please! ::to Her:: I think we should see other people.

Jainists would say that anything you could eat suffers. Does that carrot really want to be pulled out of the ground? Of course these are the people that sit under a tree waiting for an apple to drop so as to not cause the tree suffering, and walk carefully on grass for the same reasons.

This is my contribution to the debate.

In addition to "Eating meat is an economical way of concentrating your intake of vegetable matter. Cows eat grass and vegetables. You eat them."

As a meat eater I wouldn't go hunting. It's not particularly fair to the creature, nor do I think it would be all that thrilling. That said, I derive basic sustenance from farmed animals and while I can empathize with their plight, that plight is engineered to allow me to live. Thus I can only empathize hypocritically. The idea that not eating meat somehow lessons an animals suffering, or removes one from the cycle of ethical mistreatment is foolish at best. It's a moral stand that I can respect, but not one that I would endorse.

Nightwatch wrote:@sebster: I believe I did leave the option of other religions/no religion open. I stated mine. It was an opinion.

And yes, I believe in the human ability for reason. Let's not get into this, I specifically wrote on my last post I'd prefer not to debate OT.

let's all be friends.

Sure thing, I can see how my comment following yours on religion might have sounded confrontational, it wasn't meant to be - was just looking to expand the point.

Elsewhere I wasn't looking to challenge your decision to eat meat, just question some of the reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Jainists would say that anything you could eat suffers. Does that carrot really want to be pulled out of the ground? Of course these are the people that sit under a tree waiting for an apple to drop so as to not cause the tree suffering, and walk carefully on grass for the same reasons.

And some wear face masks so they don't accidentally breathe in a bug, and sweep the ground in front of them so they don't accidentally tread on an insect. They're a fascinating lot, but probably a bit far beyond what most of us could aspire to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:This makes sense to me. Far more legitimate to my mind than attempts at moralizing. (And unlike those positions, sebster's is truly non-judgmental of others' dietary practices.)

Yeah, I don't think there's a moral high ground on the issue - everyone compromises somewhere. And even if there was, what good would acting smug about it do anyway? Ever met anyone who realised the error of their meat eating ways because a vegetarian acted smug about it at a dinner party?

I haven't read much of the thread past the 1st page as my comment is directed at the OP.

I seriously reduced the amount of meat I eat and over three months of eating a lot of vegetables, about 10-12 servings a day, I have lost approx 10KG, or 22lbs, a stone and a half.

I know from casual observation that you are buddies with some guys on here who are in the military. Ask them for suggestions towards exercise. Bike riding, rowing and running with a low fat, high protein (I still eat eggs, fish and tofu and the occasional chicken breast), high veggie diet will change your body over a few months. It is a lifestyle change for sure, but sticking with it will produce results. Also snacks and crisps and chocolate and any "food" that is made in a factory doesn't help with all the Gak they cram into.

If you drink a lot of wine and beer, indulge only on the weekend. Hope this helps. Good Luck!

I'm a vegetarian for health reasons (personally, I don't care if people eat meat, or that animals are butchered in "horrific" ways-they're bred for eating!)

I don't eat fish or chicken, and I don't have vitamin or protein issues.

Protein can come from beans, rice, cheese, yogurt, milk, other dairy.

Many vegetables have vitamins, but make sure you eat some or all of the above protein sources to get a complete range of vitamins.

As someone who enjoys eating and feeling full and happy afterwards, I've gotta say that starches are awesome. For example: a baked pasta with potatoes, cheese, and broccoli will fill you up, taste hearty and good, and give you a large range of essential nutrients.

My $.02

sebster wrote:Yeah, I don't think there's a moral high ground on the issue - everyone compromises somewhere. And even if there was, what good would acting smug about it do anyway? Ever met anyone who realised the error of their meat eating ways because a vegetarian acted smug about it at a dinner party?

It's worth pointing out that I'm not looking to claim some sort of moral superiority here - neither am I trying to say that everyone should give meat up. It's just something I want to do, for the reasons I set out. Not saying it should apply to anyone else. Hell, I still drink, smoke and take drugs - I'm hardly Gandhi!

@Khornholio - Cheers mate. Yeah, I already walk about 5 Kilometers most days, so I get a fairly decent amount of exercise - but my eating habits aren't great. Since I started walking more and cutting down on things like sugar in my diet I've lost just over a stone, but that's taken a few months. I just want to speed things up a bit and get a little healthier.

WTF! Giving up meat? Oh my that sound like a bad idea. Meat is good, and it helps control the number of pesky animals. So eat meat and stay manly

I'm a meat eater. It's what me and my system were programmed to do. However, I have morality. That's something my brain was programmed to do. I'd LIKE good health. So that's how I arrange my diet.

In other words, I buy organic and free range. That might be a chicken sitting on my dinner plate, but I'm happy because

a)I know it was a happy chicken
b)I know it hasn't been pumped full of chemicals so it won't harm me
c)It tastes dayum good!

Continuing with the chicken example, I find my happy chickens actually taste better than not-happy chickens. The reason for this is that they haven't been pumped with chemicals throughout their lives, and they weren't injected with half a litre of water after they died to make them look bigger and weigh more.

Anshal wrote:WTF! Giving up meat? Oh my that sound like a bad idea. Meat is good, and it helps control the number of pesky animals. So eat meat and stay manly

I am fully prepared to arm-wrestle anyone who questions my manhood.

Albatross wrote:

Anshal wrote:WTF! Giving up meat? Oh my that sound like a bad idea. Meat is good, and it helps control the number of pesky animals. So eat meat and stay manly

I am fully prepared to arm-wrestle anyone who questions my manhood.

Well bring it on then vegi boy! I challenge you to duel by Nerddom!

Son, I would slay you.

Sorry.

Albatross wrote:Son, I would slay you.

Sorry.

Oh rly? I have reasons to believe otherwise

Nightwatch wrote: I meant that their level of being is lower than that of humans, and do not have a soul in the same context.

How would you explain "level of being"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but, why do people assume that humans are so much more special than animals?

Please forgive me for my ignorance in this post.
What's the issue with killing animals and eating them,I have no problems with that,when I was younger I loved to watch pigs who were slaughtered because I was interested in looks of their organs and I repeat I have no problems with it.
I enjoy being omnivorous,I would never stop eating meat and I like to eat some fruit or a vegetable after finishing my meat meal.
Meat for the meat god.

A great vegetarian cookbook I used when I wasn't eating meat is The New Laurel's Kitchen.
What made it great was it discusses what lacks in a vegetarian diet and how you can maximize your caloric and protein content.
The dishes are pretty tasty too.
I think my favorite was the lentil soup and corn chile.

How would you explain "level of being"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but, why do people assume that humans are so much more special than animals?

Because the basis of morality itself is that humans are somehow 'inviolable' and that we should not kill, eat, or steal from each other. When you have cases of humans being killed, eaten, or dehumanised to the levels of animals, it causes moral outrage. However, no-one kicks up a stink about animals being killed, eaten, or treated as animals. Why?

Because they're animals. And because we can. And because it's far more difficult to empathise with animals. And because for our entire lilves, we treat people as being more significant than animals. And because that's the way it always has been.

Oh, and because they're tasty.

Methinks the OP has never been to Fat Burger, or this post would never have been made.

For people looking to change the world by boycotting... I just dont see it happening. How about advocating the proper treatment of animals rather than just throwing your hands up in the air and effectively abandoning the issue?

I know the OP is stopping for (his/her perceived) health reasons, so that previous comment wasnt necessarily directed at him/her.

rubiksnoob wrote:In relation to the ethical reasons of eating meat:
Yeah it's the natural order of things and all but, if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

Because they taste AWESOME.

LunaHound wrote:However , you are not a true vegetarian unless you also leave garlic and onion out.

Wait... huh?

LunaHound wrote:But now , we have antibiotics , growth hormons , preservatives , all mixed into the meat ...

I cant agree to say its a good idea anymore.

Some of the stuff they use on the veggies isn't so hot either.

Ketara wrote:I'm a meat eater. It's what me and my system were programmed to do. However, I have morality. That's something my brain was programmed to do. I'd LIKE good health. So that's how I arrange my diet.

In other words, I buy organic and free range. That might be a chicken sitting on my dinner plate, but I'm happy because

a)I know it was a happy chicken
b)I know it hasn't been pumped full of chemicals so it won't harm me
c)It tastes dayum good!

Continuing with the chicken example, I find my happy chickens actually taste better than not-happy chickens. The reason for this is that they haven't been pumped with chemicals throughout their lives, and they weren't injected with half a litre of water after they died to make them look bigger and weigh more.

I strongly suggest that you investigate what constitutes organic and free range, legally speaking. When it comes to free range the only requirement put forth by the USDA is that the livestock be given access to the outdoors every day. There are no requirements on the amount of time or how that access is provided. Therefore opening a small door on the side of a large coop for 3 minutes once a day constitutes a "free-range" bird. Also, while the animals cannot be kept in cages there are no requirements on the size, shape, and animal density in their pens. Organic only really means what you think it does if 1) the product is not processed (if it is then it can contain up to 5% by weight non-organic materials) 2) It says 100% organic, and there are exceptions with a large number of materials most wouldn't consider to actually be "organic" on an approved by the FDA list.

I'm a practicing omnivore. I've gone hunting many times. Deer, turkey, wild hogs, pretty much anything that's tasty in the south eastern US I've put a bullet in, dressed, butchered, and ate. Lemme tell you, nothing tastes quite as good as an animal you shot and dressed yourself. I have a bit of a personal conviction that when I go hunting or fishing I'm not looking for trophies, I'm looking for food. I don't shoot or pull anything out on a line I don't intend to make good use of. I dunno, maybe I'm dead inside but I never really got it when it came to vegetarians. If that's how you want to eat, more power to you I just never got it.

I strongly suggest that you investigate what constitutes organic and free range, legally speaking.

I buy from a local butchers who assures me most stringently that the chickens are happy, coming from a relatively local farm(since I'm in the countryside). I've never bothered to check it out myself, but I've been told I could any time I wished.

As to what constitutes organic, when it comes to vegetables, there is actually a definition on what is organic. You cannot have used any chemicals in a field for 5 years before the veg grown there can be called organic. With regards to my happy chickens, it means that they cannot be pumped with growth enhancing steroids, and similar chemical cocktails. A small degree of preservatives during processing, certainly, but no worse than that.

So you leave my Happy chickens alone!

rubiksnoob wrote:In relation to the ethical reasons of eating meat:
Yeah it's the natural order of things and all but, if we have the means to survive without taking another creature's life why kill them if we don't truly need to?

If it can be eaten to sustain our life, it has to be, or have been, alive at some point. We can't survive on inert matter. Try going a week on just dirt and rocks and see how it works out. You can't get around extinguishing life to sustain it.

Ketara wrote:I buy from a local butchers who assures me most stringently that the chickens are happy,

Sorry, but every time you say this I laugh at the absurdity.

I've never bothered to check it out myself, but I've been told I could any time I wished.

I'd suggest you do. It's very easy to make a claim and then say, "And you can verify it at any time." Sounds wonderful and on the up and up... but how man people pursue it beyond that? The overwhelming majority never will, which makes it something suppliers can say with little risk to themselves.

Tyyr wrote:

Ketara wrote:I buy from a local butchers who assures me most stringently that the chickens are happy,

Sorry, but every time you say this I laugh at the absurdity.

I've never bothered to check it out myself, but I've been told I could any time I wished.

I'd suggest you do. It's very easy to make a claim and then say, "And you can verify it at any time." Sounds wonderful and on the up and up... but how man people pursue it beyond that? The overwhelming majority never will, which makes it something suppliers can say with little risk to themselves.

I love the fact that you automatically assume that my chickens aren't happy. Do you know the butcher or the farm? Do you know the chickens in question? Have you spoken to them? Maybe your local chickens aren't happy, or you've read an internet/government poll saying that chickens in general aren't happy, but I'm more inclined to believe the fact that mine are. Why?

Because there are many tell tale physical signs of an intensively farmed chicken, from burning around the ankles from the poo they end up wading in, to the way they deflate in the oven. All physical and practical evidence points to my chickens being very happy chickens.

Ketara wrote:I love the fact that you automatically assume that my chickens aren't happy.

I find it interesting that you automatically assume I assume the chickens aren't happy. I've assumed nothing of the sort and would avoid making such assumptions and assume you would to though that may be assuming too much.

No, I just find it laughable that someone can accurately judge the mental state of a chicken to such a degree to determine that it's happy.

I hate to admit it, but I've been trolling slightly here. I thought the constant overuse of the words 'happy chicken' would have given it away about two posts ago, but alas....

happy chicken indeed.

Do you like fish sitcks?

Do you like the taste of fish sticks in your mouth?

Then you , like Kanye, are a gay fish.

That should just about do it for this thread.

Manchu wrote:That should just about do it for this thread.

Did you forget that this is OT? Threads over 2 pages must end in Lockville. Such is the way of things...

If you do give up meat, trust me as someone who's sister has been a vegetarian since the early 90s, you will have the nastiest, most disgusting smelling farts in the world.

Ain't no fart like a veggie fart.

Trust me, as someone who's known vegetarians and vegans all through my life, you will never be as healthy.

Every veggie, and most especially the vegans I've known, gets colds for longer, falls for maladies more easily and generally seems to lack energy and stamina.

I think we in the west eat meat too much and certainly if I had the patience for it, I'd reduce my dead animal meals to 2-3 a week, but for whatever reason, the veggie folks I know have been more prone to illness/slower to recover.

We're omnivores, there's a balance. Going too far to one extreme or the other is just a bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:I hate to admit it, but I've been trolling slightly here. I thought the constant overuse of the words 'happy chicken' would have given it away about two posts ago, but alas....

The problem is that I've known a lot of organic/free-range nuts and that is EXACTLY the way they thought.

MGS wrote:Every veggie, and most especially the vegans I've known, gets colds for longer, falls for maladies more easily and generally seems to lack energy and stamina.

Could be a lack of B12? Vegans suffer from this especially. It can only be found in food that comes from animals, or supplements. I'm not giving up milk/eggs, so I should be fine. I also get a LOT of protein.

Tyyr wrote:We're omnivores, there's a balance. Going too far to one extreme or the other is just a bad idea.

True, but there are many things in our diet that aren't present in nature - add something, take away something... what's the difference? We have choice. Going down the whole 'it's not natural' route takes you to some questionable places.

You want to support British farmers, eat meat. The vast majority of veg produce is sourced from abroad, whereas the majority of UK farmland is used rearing livestock or growing barley for feeding livestock.

That to me, is a good enough reason to eat meat.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Trust me, as someone who's known vegetarians and vegans all through my life, you will never be as healthy.

Every veggie, and most especially the vegans I've known, gets colds for longer, falls for maladies more easily and generally seems to lack energy and stamina.

I think we in the west eat meat too much and certainly if I had the patience for it, I'd reduce my dead animal meals to 2-3 a week, but for whatever reason, the veggie folks I know have been more prone to illness/slower to recover.

my anecdata defeats your anecdata!
i've been vegan for about twenty years now, and honestly, i'm in much better health than i was before i was vegan.
all the health problems i have come from way before that, and i almost never get sick.
one of the big problems with a lot of folks who adopt veg*n diets is that they just eat prepackaged crap foods all the time.

Albatross wrote: I'm not giving up milk/eggs, so I should be fine. I also get a LOT of protein.

You're giving up chickens but not eggs?

All your symptoms in your first post sound like a lack of exercise. Have you considered giving up 'bad' (pretty much anything from a supermarket) meat. Try going for higher quality meat from sources you can trust, this will have a side effect of reducing your meat intake (at least initially).

Probably not as interesting as turning your dietary habits into an empty moral crusade.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Nightwatch wrote: I meant that their level of being is lower than that of humans, and do not have a soul in the same context.

How would you explain "level of being"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but, why do people assume that humans are so much more special than animals?

It's kind of hard to explain , especially without the use of emphasis and things that you give up when you talk in text and not verbal dialogue, but I think I would say that humans consist of much deeper things than animals. Wild animals eat, sleep, mate, poop, and that's about it. Domesticated animals, particularly pets, seem to be able to bond with humans in ways that wild animals can't. However, there is still a massive range of things that humans do that pets can't, like will, intellect, the ability to reason, etc.

As a very basic example, you may be able to teach a monkey to recognize an object, like a chair. However, if you show the monkey another chair, perhaps a little shorter, with a different seat shape, the monkey will not recognize it as a chair. Animals cannot distinguish between classes of objects. To animals, there are no groupings, no shared characteristics which can classify people, places, and objects under the same set of criteria. Humans, on the other hand, are quite capable of observing data, and drawing inferences from that data. Example: Padded cushion-type thing, legs, elevated above the ground, piece of wood elevated above, this object is clearly to be sat on, and I can put it in a group of similar objects, which all go by the name "chair".

I don't know if that was clear or not, but that more or less sums up in a very basic form, one reason I believe animals are inferior to humans.

There are other things too, and if I can find a suitable link, I'll post it.

It's not that I don't like animals, or think they're useless, but that they are a legitimate food source and my opinion is that there is nothing ethically wrong with eating them.

Pets on the other hand, are valuable companions to humans. Many animals share desirable characteristics (docility, furriness, etc... ) and for this reason humans have kept them for company. A good reason not to eat your pet.
That's about it. I hope I cleared up my views for you.

George Spiggot wrote:You're giving up chickens but not eggs?

Well, I don't really like them or eat them very much... but no, I'm not. Problem?

All your symptoms in your first post sound like a lack of exercise.

You obviously missed the part where I said that I walk at least 5K most days.

Probably not as interesting as turning your dietary habits into an empty moral crusade

Nice try. I'm not falling for it. Try your flame-baiting on someone else.

I suggest going with less meat but still some. I know a couple of vegetarians and they are sick more often than most people that I know. Me personally I know I eat too much meat but I have no self control and love the taste of the little critters.

rocklord2004 wrote:I suggest going with less meat but still some. I know a couple of vegetarians and they are sick more often than most people that I know. Me personally I know I eat too much meat but I have no self control and love the taste of the little critters.

Squirrels?

Who has the energy for all this morality?

Nightwatch wrote:Squirrels?

If you can catch the little buggers I'd be happy to try one. How would you cook those things? We can make Shish Kabobs .

I just ate three chicken-fried steaks. With gravy. This vegetarian thing is starting to sound like a good idea...

I am now a vegetarian! Until the end of the weekend! Or until I have a chance to eat gyros!

Squirrels are good over rice. With chopped mushrooms with a light gravy... nom nom.

Rabbits are, to me, a bit better though.

I may have to try that recipe. What would be the best method of getting a squirrel if one isn't capable of hunting a can of tuna?

Start a tree on fire. Dig in there for the squirrel once it goes out. It's already cooked!

Rocklord wrote:What would be the best method of getting a squirrel if one isn't capable of hunting a can of tuna?

Buy an acorn costume, then hide in some bushes.

I would make a plea to those who are eating tuna to use line caught fish. Whilst more expensive, it is by far the less damaging choice.

rocklord2004 wrote:I may have to try that recipe. What would be the best method of getting a squirrel if one isn't capable of hunting a can of tuna?

A .22 or a pellet rifle. Gotta get a head shot. The damn things are so small a body shot even from a small round will ruin a lot of meat.

Seriously though, rabbit is a much better small animal for consumption. Squirrel is only if you've got no other choice.

A large number of squirrels in a stew/cassarole or curry would be cool.

Im sorry, but what is the point of trying to stop eating meat, because of how it is processed? Someone not eating meat is not going to stop the process from happening. It really makes no sense to me. But to each his own.

You obviously missed the part where I said that I walk at least 5K most days.

I must have blinked. 5k? Is that an affectation of youth or did you use 'K' to make the number look bigger? 5Km is about 45 minutes walk a day, If that feels like exercise to you then you're in bigger trouble than you think.

I don't care either way if you eat eggs. It's your moral high ground, perhaps you like it uneven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

InfernalMajesty wrote:Im sorry, but what is the point of trying to stop eating meat, because of how it is processed? Someone not eating meat is not going to stop the process from happening. It really makes no sense to me. But to each his own.

True, I'm inclined to think it does more good to encourage good practice by buying from suppliers that follow it.

@GS - Still not biting.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I am now a vegetarian! Until the end of the weekend!

Didn't even get past the second meal.

Meat is too sexy, and you know it Orkeo.

*Insert absurd humor addendum here*

I could probably go without meat. But what I don't I don't get is people who think hunting is inhumane. As long as you eat the animal afterwards, I don't see the problem.

I have no reason to not eat meat, but it isn't neccesary. Plants are alive as well, but they can't even move or anything, so I always thought that was kind of unfair.

We might not have to eat meat to survive, but if we didn't, there would be an awful lot of animals around wouldn't there?

Anyway, I much prefer grains, which are plants I know.

Albatross wrote:@GS - Still not biting.

Or exercising. It's your body, what do I care.

@GS - I'm going to take a different approach and pretend you're not just a pointless troll - I'll explain my current exercise levels, just so we're clear.
In the morning I do a 30 min walk to Uni. In the afternoon, I walk another 30 mins to work, which requires me to be on my feet for the entire time I'm there, which adds up to 3 hours everyday. I also do weights every other day.

I mean, I'm not running a marathon every day, but that's fairly active - it's certainly a lot more active than most people I know who work in offices. Fine, maybe I could increase the amount I do.

It's no excuse to be rude, though.

The other point you've missed besides the fact that upping your excercise will do far greater things than not eating meat, is that doing it for health reasons is laughable when you still smoke, drink, drugs, etc etc. That's like someone who rides a 900cc bike to work not wanting to do a bungee jump because he htinks it's too dangerous.

Tyyr wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I may have to try that recipe. What would be the best method of getting a squirrel if one isn't capable of hunting a can of tuna?

A .22 or a pellet rifle. Gotta get a head shot. The damn things are so small a body shot even from a small round will ruin a lot of meat.

Seriously though, rabbit is a much better small animal for consumption. Squirrel is only if you've got no other choice.

Unless you think the best part is the head...!

@whatwhat - Well, it's more wanting to lose a bit of weight than being healthy! I had a mate who went Veggie and lost LOADS of weight - that was the first thing that piqued my curiosity about it. I've lost around 4 pounds this week. Which isn't bad going.

Albatross wrote:@whatwhat - Well, it's more wanting to lose a bit of weight than being healthy! I had a mate who went Veggie and lost LOADS of weight - that was the first thing that piqued my curiosity about it. I've lost around 4 pounds this week. Which isn't bad going.

Well that makes sense, personally I need to gain some weight, which is why I eat meat. Meat is still healthy, and even though some may argue that they add preservatives and things to it and make it less healthy, I could say the same about plants.

The way I see it, the more preservatives you eat the longer you live. After all, you're being preserved.

I cite the increased life expectancy of industrialized countries' correlation with the increase in the use of preservatives as proof.

you'll need lots of peanut butter... but that's really just a stand-in. If the ethics is an issue just look around at how many other things are made at the expense of animals. If health is the issue, I was a vegetarian for about a year and tried to be responsible... eating lots of peanut butter and cale and spinach and whatnot... but I still ended up feeling sick and weak all the time. Our bodies are designed for meat and vegetables. Our teeth are designed to eat anything we can eat. We may want to be all ethical about stuff but hey, we've all smashed a wasp or a spider at some point too. "higher" animals like dogs and cats and things capable of love, of course, are not on the same level as killing a fish who doesn't even know you killed it because it's so dumb. I think: eat the stupid ones. (sometimes i wish the hoomaan species would have done that to its own young too but that's another rant)

Guitardian wrote: "higher" animals like dogs and cats and things capable of love, of course, are not on the same level as killing a fish who doesn't even know you killed it because it's so dumb. I think: eat the stupid ones. (sometimes i wish the hoomaan species would have done that to its own young too but that's another rant)

Actually the balistidae family, the triggerfish and the tetraodontidae family, the pufferfish, are reckoned to be about equal with dogs in terms of intelligence. Given that fish have a vertebrae and nervous system that is very similar to our own, their reaction to pain is also similar.

He said love, not intelligence. Do you ever hear anyone talk about the infamous love of the pufferfish?

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:@GS - Still not biting.

Or exercising. It's your body, what do I care.

George, i dont get it, a bloke says he is "possibly considering" becoming veggie and you accuse him of a moral crusade? He didnt actually say he was veggie, or even condemned people that arent. What is your beef here exactly?

And as for the above, you are just needlessly trolling and being offensive. Here is a thought, post a video of yourself and your awesome physical prowess or just join the ranks of the needlessly aggressive internet troll. Do you think maybe you are spending too much time around your space wolves?

mattyrm wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:@GS - Still not biting.

Or exercising. It's your body, what do I care.

George, i dont get it, a bloke says he is "possibly considering" becoming veggie and you accuse him of a moral crusade? He didnt actually say he was veggie, or even condemned people that arent. What is your beef here exactly?

And as for the above, you are just needlessly trolling and being offensive. Here is a thought, post a video of yourself and your awesome physical prowess or just join the ranks of the needlessly aggressive internet troll. Do you think maybe you are spending too much time around your space wolves?

Or maybe Arnold S. secretly plays Warhammer and posts on Dakka!

Arnold is fething awesome, i think he would play Ultramarines...

get to the choppa! and use it to grind up some fish... then make me a tuna sammich yo... like I said, we all smashed bugs before because they annoyed us, I actually stamped on a mouse once because it was caught in my neighbors trap and I didn't like the thought of it just dying alone there from starvation with 2 broken legs that will never get better. Was I mean for killing it? I prefer to think not, it was just painfully prolonging the inevitable, so I sped it along. I cried afterwards. Animal kindness can only go so far when we live in a world like we do. So, so long as we live in the brutal world that we do, we may as well eat.

Albatross wrote:I mean, I'm not running a marathon every day, but that's fairly active - it's certainly a lot more active than most people I know who work in offices. Fine, maybe I could increase the amount I do.

You're approaching this all wrong. If you're having the symptoms you describe in your first post then you weren't doing enough, further detail about what you do won't change that. But you already know this, this isn't new ground.

Speaking of craving moral superiority...

Mattyrm wrote:And as for the above, you are just needlessly trolling and being offensive. Here is a thought, post a video of yourself and your awesome physical prowess or just join the ranks of the needlessly aggressive internet troll. Do you think maybe you are spending too much time around your space wolves?

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." ~ Frederich Nietsche

Thanks for stopping by.

George Spiggott wrote:Speaking of craving moral superiority...
Thanks for stopping by.

Hmmm... craving moral superiority?

Ok, so i point out you are needlessly acting like a todger and you decide that this bloke you have never met before is craving moral superiority....

Cheers then.

Hope it works for you whatever.