Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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."