On Vegetarianism

Not surprising. Our bodies developed biologically to eat meat because we needed the immense energy that meat gave us to fuel our massive brains and bodies. In modern society today people are eating more meat without using more energy. It's simple mathematics, so i'm not surprised by the findings of the study. Having said that, i haven't read the report nor do i have the time to read through it but i'm sceptical to whether they accounted exercise into the equation.

Vegetarianism is more healthy than a pure meat diet no doubt about that, vegetarianism is also more healthier for you if you don't use excessive amounts of energies like on exercising or building muscle. However vegetarianism is not more healthy than a balanced diet that contains meat.

I mean i have empathy for them of course but i don't see why i have to justify myself because of it. I like the taste of meat therefore i eat it. It's instinctual, something hard to argue against. I'm definitely not going to become vegetarian because of something as factitious as a moral qualm which i don't have.

And animal cruelty in the food industry, of course im not for it, but being vegetarian isn't going to change anything and is just feel good slacktivism. Personally i'd like the solve the issue of children starving on streets before tackling rights for animals that can't even comprehend them.

...That's it? I give you a full study published jointly by Cornell and Oxford DEMONSTRATING that vegetarian diets are statistically more healthy than BOTH a high meat diet and low meat balanced diet, and your response is essentially, "I'll buy that it's better than a high meat diet, but as far as low meat balanced, nuh uh." I mean, there's saying, "I haven't read the report so no comment" and then there's denial of what the report SAYS.



I'm gonna draw an analogy. Don' take offense, I'm not comparing eating meat to this, I'm just comparing your justification to it, demonstrating why the justification isn't a real one.

A psychopath likes killing and torturing people, so he does it.



Not really. As I said before. David Hume. Naturalistic Fallacy.



Great, you don't view the infliction of demonstrable suffering of animals as a bad thing. You have your own reasons for that. I empathize with them, you don't. Simple. I'm not trying to tell you "Become a vegetarian or you're an evil fascist!" I'm just giving MY reasons for why I am one, and why I don't buy excuses that people who choose to eat meat tend to give me. And I say that because if I ACCEPTED the excuses...then I would probably be eating meat.



Animals...can't comprehend their rights? Well, I suppose they can't vote for them if they were given the option, but the fact remains: they do suffer, both physically and mentally. 80% of the European Union's meat is factory farmed, 99% of the United State's meat is factory farmed, this is not only an all too common problem, but it's something people tend to not care about. As far as being a vegetarian not solving any problems...you do accept basic economics right? Demand and supply? As Demand goes up, so then does Supply? Demand goes down and Supply results in a surplus that results in lower amounts of production.

In other words, if I become a lifetime vegetarian, then ALL the meat I would have eaten if I had not become one, are then not purchased anymore, decreasing the need for producing more. It's very simple.

Also, real quick, I find it funny that you keep railing about meat being required for energy to exercise and all that. That's completely untrue. You can find protein products all over the vegetarian dietary scale from smoothies to supplements to substitute veggie burgers. So...you're wrong on that too.

That's a complete straw man and you know it.



Ask a baby or a toddler whether they would rather eat meat or vegetables. I'm willing to bet that the majority are inclined to say the the former rather than the latter. Instinctively our taste buds are geared around liking and eating salty foods and sweet foods rather than bitter or plain foods. There's no fallacy around that.




A clash of opinions lets move on.



Yeah cool except for that's based off flawed basis because there isn't a demand for the supply actually. Or more precisely to say that the demand for food production isn't fueled by consumer demand at the moment. The world harvest produces enough food annually to feed every person in this world twice over already. Also you can't be as naive to believe you, one person not eating meat is actually going to change anything at all rofl.



Not denying that, but why go for those products when meat is cheaper, tastier and more easily available.

Well...your justification was, "I like doing it. So I will."

I'm just pointing out that...nobody would buy that in ANY other situation. So why does it all of a sudden magically work for this one?

"But I like to rape women."

"But I like to burn ants with a magnifying glass like I'm God exacting divine punishment."

"But I like telling homosexuals they're faggots that are destined for hell and don't deserve rights."

It just doesn't work. I understand that you think it works BECAUSE you're naturally inclined to eat meat. But as I've demonstrated before and below, the fact that you're naturally inclined to do something doesn't make it a 'good' thing.



Give a toddler a live bunny and an apple and see which one it eats. I can play this facile game too.

It doesn't matter what we're 'naturally inclined to'. No matter how hard you try, simply pointing that out doesn't at all imply that we ought to be that way. There IS a 'fallacy around that'. It's called the is/ought gap.



True, but at least I substantiate mine with evidence.



Well it's not naive. It's a fact. I'm not eating meat, so I'm not contributing to the industry, so I'm lessening the need to produce. Unless you have statistics that say that being a vegetarian doesn't do anything to help animals I'm afraid you've not a leg to stand on.



Cheaper? No. Tastier? Arguable. More easily available? No.

You want protein? There's protein mix supplements you can buy in large containers that you can add to water that can last for a long time. Much longer than any meat product you buy, and they're cheaper too. And available at most big grocery stores. You can get protein smoothie shakes that are just as expensive as any energy drink or meat product that taste fantastic.

I feel like you haven't done like, ANY research on this, and are just kind of talking out of your ass. I gave two books to look at in my first post, plus another study for you to look at that you haven't read, yet deny the conclusions of regardless. I've given plenty of links explaining the problems with animals in factory farming and your response is, "Pfft, but you becoming a vegan doesn't DO anything." without anything to back it up whatsoever. And that's just aside fro mthe fact that I'm not looking to put gvegetarianism into law, it's a MORAL thing, a PERSONAL moral thing, so it's not even my GOAL to end all factory farming. So there's a straw man on your part. You don't know how readily available vegetarian dietary products are for everyone, you don't know how expensive they are, and you don't know how healthy they are in providing sufficient energy for even those who work out at gyms regularly.

And to top it all off, your MAIN argument is an example of a known logical fallacy. Hume's Naturalistic Fallacy.

And you have the balls to come in on your first post and say, "The thing is, being a vegetarian is retarded."

I expect better from you Anesthetize.

It's an unhealthy lifestyle, it makes women sterile and they ruin a good dinner.

No peer reviewed sources for those claims?

Excuse me while I snicker and read the mainstream science that doesn't agree.

One of my friends got sterile because of her vegan diet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtZAXHRr5k0&feature=channel
6:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkz-DPDiu9E

[color=#2e1a6b]Reading this thread instantly made me remember this picture that Red Vodka Posted


[color=#2e1a6b]I think Humans are at the top of the food chain. In order to say eating meat is immoral, you have to say that the food chain is immoral. Should carnivores be detained to prevent them from eating other animals?

Anecdotal evidence. Fail.


Not a peer reviewed source

[/quote]

Not a peer reviewed source.

Thanks for playing.



No, because of the following main reasons.

1. Carnivorous animals don't have the mental capacity to contemplate the consequences of their actions. That's why morality doesn't apply to them.

2. Carnivores require meat to survive. Humans don't.

So. Humans don't require meat to survive, and we have the option to be vegetarians as a result of acknowledging the unnecessary suffering inflicted on animals. That's why I'm a vegetarian.

Also, to say we're at the top of the food chain isn't to make any sort of moral statement. I've mentioned this to Anesthetize several times that he ignores outright, but I'll say it again. To say that something naturally IS a certain way does not imply that it OUGHT BE that way. Otherwise, you're committing a logical fallacy known as David Hume's Naturalistic Fallacy. There is intense academic philosophical debate as to how the fallacy can be applied, but it's generally agreed on that one can't make the statement, "X is natural" and have that be moral by default.

prove it.


It seems a big part of what drives people to become veg-heads is the cruelty bit. What about animals that are slaughtered humanely? if the suffering is such a big motivation, why not just avoid the industial meats and raise/kill it yourself? that way you could make sure it doesn't suffer or get tortured.

also,
BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON

Suffering is linked to brain activity and nervous systems. Plants lack these. Proven.




I don't live in an area conducive to farming and I'm not good enough to do it. Plus, I find the phrase, "slaughtered humanly" lulzworthy and oxymoronic.

Raising an animal for the express purpose to slaughter and kill it, to me, seems callous and cruel. I'm against Toddlers and Tiaras for a similar reason.



Trolololololololololololololololololololololollololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololollololololololololololololololololololololol

http://www.grandin.com/humane/rec.slaughter.html

Dude meat dont give you no where the energy plants give you. As a matter of fact the energy you get from meat comes from a plants. Just read a food pyramid.


Dude, it is totally possible to live without water or food. I have Personally gone on without food for a few months and a few weeks without water. If it weren't possible I would be dead by now, since you supposedly can only survive without food for a month at the most and a few days for water. Also, there are articles of humans that were tested and passed successfully. If you still not convince, just remember the famous quote, "Mind over matter"

Dude, it is totally possible to live without water or food. I have Personally gone on without food for a few months and a few weeks without water. If it weren't possible I would be dead by now, since you supposedly can only survive without food for a month at the most and a few days for water. Also, there are articles of humans that were tested and passed successfully. If you still not convince, just remember the famous quote, "Mind over matter" [/quote]

Mind over matter is also incorrect. There are no articles of humans tested in peer reviewed laboratory conditions that survive for months on end without water or food.

Also, you can survive up to a month without water, and several months without food. Those are your limits.

Oh yeah, and @ Mr. Shaggnificent...none of those links are 'humane'. As I went over before, raising something for the purpose of killing and eating it...is...callous and unnecessary. So I don't find it humane.

I was a vegetarian for quite a bit due to a workout my dance team had me on. It felt good and I was a lot healthier and felt better, but I loved meat. I found I still felt really healthy and good, while eating non-greasy and unhealthy foods. So I guess that my point is you can be healthy either way, but it all comes down to your personal preference!!!!!!

What would you consider humane?

Letting animals live their own lives without taking dominance over them unnecessarily.

I am not a vegetarian, but I DO NOT eat beef. I used to, but then I realised that

mad cow disease = 100% Death

And beef (which was never a big part of my diet anyway) is no longer eaten by me.

AND BEFORE ANYONE SAYS ANYTHING, I realise the extreme unlikelyhood of obtaining the human for of mad cow disease, but it has a 100% fatality rate.

Not worth it folks.

But it's in human nature to do this so it is humane ...

Beign vegetarian is inhumane ...

Ahem.

Humane: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed


I've made this point to Anesthetize, and he ignores it entirely, and I also made it to Lelouch, but I guess you haven't been paying attention. Which is fine because it's not reasonable to ask you to read in detail every single post I make

However I'd like to point out that this is what's known as David Hume's is/ought gap, also known as the 'naturalistic fallacy'. The fact that something is natural, is in no way, either implicit or explicit, a statement of moral goodness, in and of itself.

Please tell me how taking dominance over, and enslaving animals for the purpose of consumption shows...compassion...and tenderness, and sympathy...for the animals?