Happy Atheist Forum

Have been thinking about this for some time now. Is vegetarianism the better or the ideal way? I have read many arguments for vegetarianism and I must say I am somewhat convinced by a few. I feel that the animals are cruelly slaughtered and am all for animal welfare, but maybe giving up all non-vegetarian diet is going too far?

Has anyone tried vegetarianism or thinks it has any non-religious benefits? Would love to hear.

You don't have to stop eating meat; you can just try to make sure it comes from a humane source.

I cringe every time I see a program on animal slaughter and the conditions in which they are raised.   It's horrible how they are treated.

Having said that, I enjoy a good steak dinner too much to give up eating meat.  And my hubby makes a mean pork chop!

Sorry animals.  

It's so curious how similar animals are to people biologically. We're all animals, of course. And we all have to eat. Some animals are naturally fit to eat other animals, and others to eat plants. Humans are fit to eat both.

I don't know how credible the information is, but I have read that depending on blood type, some people may benefit from a vegetarian diet as opposed to meat diet, or vice versa. For instance, since blood type O is an older blood type derived in earlier humans, they might benefit from eating more meat as opposed to vegetables because they thrived in an environment when humans hunted and scavenged.

Later, as humans developed agriculture and civilization, new blood types developed. The most recently developed blood type is A positive. So it may benefit people with this blood type to have a diet with much more vegetables. Their tummies are more sensative than the earlier hunter gatherer types.

As omnivores we can pretty much eat what we want. Go with your instincts. If you don't like meat, don't eat it. If you don't like veggies, don't eat them.

There is a lot of information yet to go through before anything definitive can be said about this. However, the early evidence seems to point towards humans being omnivores, which is what we have thought all along.

A quick, topical article is here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-82352627.html (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-82352627.html)

It is not a conclusion, but an indicator of a good potential answer, and one in need of much further study.

From my understanding cutting out meat completely will not be healthy unless you are really good at making sure you eat a balanced diet.  For instance, it's a lot easier to get iron and protein out of animal products than it is from veggies.  Also, I have read studies which indicate that vitamins may not be all that effective in making up for an unbalanced diet.

I ate a vegetarian diet for a while to loose weight.  I started feeling too drained and went back to eating like a normal person....I think not eating meat was making me anemic since I'm borderline even when I do eat meat.

Also, if you do decide to eat only veggies...make sure to plan ahead.  Most fast food and restaurants will not provide vegetarian options.  If you go vegan it will be that much more difficult because most vegetarian options you do find at places include some sort of animal product....even at the grocery store; something so veggie looking like vegetable broth very well might have animal products in it.

I would suggest eating mostly veggies yet also incorporating meats into the diet to make sure you keep your nutrient levels up.  Most grocery stores offer organic free-range options...I guess that doesn't gurantee they were killed humanely but it does mean they weren't stuck in a cage no bigger than a shoe box.  Personally, I can't afford to buy that stuff..it's double or more the normal cost....actually, eating a vegetarian diet does tend to be more costly.

QuoteFrom my understanding cutting out meat completely will not be healthy unless you are really good at making sure you eat a balanced diet. For instance, it's a lot easier to get iron and protein out of animal products than it is from veggies. Also, I have read studies which indicate that vitamins may not be all that effective in making up for an unbalanced diet.

I ate a vegetarian diet for a while to loose weight. I started feeling too drained and went back to eating like a normal person....I think not eating meat was making me anemic since I'm borderline even when I do eat meat.

Also, if you do decide to eat only veggies...make sure to plan ahead. Most fast food and restaurants will not provide vegetarian options. If you go vegan it will be that much more difficult because most vegetarian options you do find at places include some sort of animal product....even at the grocery store; something so veggie looking like vegetable broth very well might have animal products in it.

I would suggest eating mostly veggies yet also incorporating meats into the diet to make sure you keep your nutrient levels up. Most grocery stores offer organic free-range options...I guess that doesn't gurantee they were killed humanely but it does mean they weren't stuck in a cage no bigger than a shoe box. Personally, I can't afford to buy that stuff..it's double or more the normal cost....actually, eating a vegetarian diet does tend to be more costly.

I too felt pretty drained out when I tried vegetarian diet for a month or so. The funny thing is that here in India, many people are vegetarians and there isn't any apparent difference in the energy levels of the vegetarians and the non-vegetarians. Perhaps it could have something to do with what type of diet the body is accustomed to?

QuoteThere is a lot of information yet to go through before anything definitive can be said about this. However, the early evidence seems to point towards humans being omnivores, which is what we have thought all along.

Thanks for the link. It has some good points on why humans are natural omnivores. Now have got some ammunition to counter my vegan friends, or maybe not, cause they mostly use religious justifications for not eating meat and won't be interested much in scientific arguments  

QuoteI don't know how credible the information is, but I have read that depending on blood type, some people may benefit from a vegetarian diet as opposed to meat diet, or vice versa. For instance, since blood type O is an older blood type derived in earlier humans, they might benefit from eating more meat as opposed to vegetables because they thrived in an environment when humans hunted and scavenged.

Have searched around about something regarding this, but haven't found much. Could you give me the source for this? Sounds interesting. If true it goes against the argument in the article that humans benefit most from mixed diets.  :?

whichever way you look at it, it is natural for humans to eat meat, and kill their animals for it.

all animals die just like all humans do, animals kill each other all the time.

The bad conditions some animals are raised in, then to be killed, i don't think are relevant. If you bring up an animal in captivity, then it will be all that it will know, and so won't mind =P I'm also pretty sceptical about the level of consciousness animals have compared to us...

Meh, theres far worse atrocities than animals being killed for food.

Quote from: "0dan1"]The bad conditions some animals are raised in, then to be killed, i don't think are relevant. If you bring up an animal in captivity, then it will be all that it will know, and so won't mind =P I'm also pretty sceptical about the level of consciousness animals have compared to us...

To be honest, I think the conditions in a lot of places are atrocious and do need to be addressed. The butcher I buy from gets his meat from local sources, which are all open to visitors and run very humanely.

Also, you have to keep in mind that it isn't just a matter of bad treatment being immoral to the animals; it's also generally the case that the happiness of the animal during life is directly proportional to the quality of the meat. Looking at the conditions that some of these creatures can end up in, I wouldn't want to eat them for my own sake more than theirs. You can easily taste the difference, for example, between free range chicken and battery chicken.

I don't eat red meat anymore, and I've found that I'm more healthy for it. I'm on a low carbohydrate, high protein diet which would make cutting meat completely somewhat difficult, though.

Vegetarianism = friendly to animals? Well I suppose so, though not all farm animals are mistreated. I will admit that seeing a cow killed did play a small role in no longer eating red meat, but having your head quickly removed (fish/poultry) seems somewhat humane, though it's probably scary as shit for the poor animals in the last second. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that knif.... OH MY GOD."

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Has anyone tried vegetarianism or thinks it has any non-religious benefits? Would love to hear.

I haven't tried it, but have a sibling who has been vegan for years. She had an obesity problem, and is diabetic, although she claims the reason for her veggie diet is a love of animals.
She has gradually lost weight, and seems to have no nutrition issues, and has excellent control of her blood sugars.
I'm too fond of meat and fish to give it up, although if I had to kill it myself, I would be eating only vegetables and fish. Somehow when you're looking at those steaks and roasts in the supermarket it all seems so far removed from four legged reality.

Quote from: "Willravel"will admit that seeing a cow killed did play a small role in no longer eating red meat, but having your head quickly removed (fish/poultry) seems somewhat humane, though it's probably scary as shit for the poor animals in the last second. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that knif.... OH MY GOD."

Have you seen how they harvest carrots?  They just rip them right out of the ground.  And wheat?  They just slice it in twain.  The barbarians.

I'm a true vegan.  I only eat fruits and veggies that are harvested in a humane and gentle manner.  All my carrots are dug from the ground, gently I might add, and then they are massaged and placed in an organic cotton-lined basket, which was made from bamboo that was harvested from stalks that had fallen over.  It is most definately not cut.

For some reason this thread is reminding me of Richard Jeni's "Platypus Man" stand-up where he talks about the lobsters.  There's prob. a video of this out there....

Well, I found one, but the relevant part is in the middle.  Here's a video with the clip - the lobster parts starts at 5:00 and goes to about 8:00 (if you don't want to watch the whole thing).  Oh - and the language probably isn't "work-friendly".

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpKAj6JN8A

QuoteHave you seen how they harvest carrots? They just rip them right out of the ground. And wheat? They just slice it in twain. The barbarians.

I'm a true vegan. I only eat fruits and veggies that are harvested in a humane and gentle manner. All my carrots are dug from the ground, gently I might add, and then they are massaged and placed in an organic cotton-lined basket, which was made from bamboo that was harvested from stalks that had fallen over. It is most definately not cut.

Rotfl. Lucky carrots :lol:

Moral Issues aside - vegetarianism is vastly more efficient. This should be apparent from a basic course in Biology.

In practice, a balanced diet is difficult for a vegetarian - without a computer. You, however, seem to have one.

First, let me point out - the only known means of life extension is Calorie Restriction, or a Calorie Restricted Optimal Nutrition Diet. The idea is to COMPUTE a diet where all daily needs are acquired through food, not supplements.

A CRON diet has been applied to innumerable species from nematode worms to primates. The projected benefit in Man is 40 to 60% life extension. This has been know for some time, but the mechanism was only recently discovered (I note it was recently featured on NOVA.)

The low-calorie diet over long term is interpreted as a basic threat of starvation, a single gene pair comes "ON", and initiates several others - primarily in the immune complex. Once in Immune Overdrive, we stay there - and all the minuscule infections that otherwise go unnoticed are stemmed earlier, there is less cell death, apparent age is a function of this, and nothing else - we are in no sense "programmed" to die.

The full benefit is achieved when applied to toddlers - who would live long, at an average height of about 4 feet. Wait until full growth is met, that's more humane, I think.

I did this once, the results were spectacular, but - what a chore was cooking and storage. I think I've fixed that - rather than try to make diverse recipes simulating common dishes, I just blenderize what's cheap 'n easy - and again, it really seems to work. I've been at it again for a week, have dropped 12 pounds, and my energy increases steadily - just like last time.

It's simple now. The only supplement is a common daily vitamin, and a little magnesium, both of which can be popped in the blender too.

I would be delighted to share. I have a little spreadsheet (really a notepad) of the results for two meals per day, but this is not fixed - you can create whatever recipes you like. The interest in this is that every NEW RDA nutrient is linked to a Wikipedia page, which helped me organize any possible toxicities or deficiency indicators, as well as innumerable other references on each component.

The surprising result is, I eat the following Daily -

Morning Smoothie - simply delicious, if overwhelmingly sweet.

1 Centrum multivitamin
a spoon of Flax seed oil
1 raw brazil nut
1 banana
2 oranges
1 kiwi fruit
1/4 cup blueberries
1 cup plain nonfat yogurt
1 small scoop soy isolate protein -
  - which may be replaced by 2 egg whites, and omitting the brazil nut.

Evening Soupage -

150 g broccoli
150 g microwaved Yam (3 min.)
20 g salted sunflower seed
3 cloves garlic (pop in with Yams, otherwise SPICY HOT!)
1 small 6 oz. can tomato paste (equivalent to about 5 tomatoes)
1 small scoop soy isolate protein

Check out http://www.nutritiondata.com/ (http://www.nutritiondata.com/) , start a pantry, build your own.

This may seem monotonous, but really, I can't tire of the Morning Smoothie, and the evening Soup is rather flavorless (if garlic is roasted), so spice away.

You will find a good restaurant meal mebbe twice per week tastes REALLY good - there's no sauce like hunger. However, a Big Mac is even far more revolting than before.

The downstroke - groceries cost me about $120 per month, delivered fresh weekly. There are no dishes, pots or utensils - and no waste to speak of. Just rinse blender on the spot, and Big Mug when done.

Anyone interested can have a copy of the spreadsheet, and some other useful stuff.

Live Long, and Prosper!

I eat meat.

There are much more important things for me to think about than trying to figure out and rationalize what sources are 'human' (open to interpretation).

Whats a human way to kill them? I was always under the impression they just took a bullet---I dont see a prob...

Don't think it's so much about the killing as it is about the life they lead before hand (unless you're one of these wacky PETA people who think that owning pets is immoral, let alone killing livestock). As I said, it matters a lot in the sense that it plays a huge role in the quality of the meat. If an animal is cooped up in a box all of its life, gets fed its own kind recycled and never gets to see sunlight then it's going to taste pretty skanky.

May be one of the differences in better/worse meats---that you can taste.

You know some companies cattle industry have actually had good cloning---no great turnovers in the quality of cattle based off the cloned specimens. Used artificial insemination. Read that in rolling stone though. They clones were quite spendy though, but were primarily a research project. That was the impression the article gave me though.

Supposedly the FDA even deemed them adequate to eat in every way---but they didnt get the 'stamp' of approval. No real reason according to RS.

A life without steaks is a life not worth living. I'd rather get "saved" than go veg.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'd rather get "saved" than go veg

I don't know.  At least fruits and veggies have something to offer.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'd rather get "saved" than go veg

I don't know.  At least fruits and veggies have something to offer.

Yeah but a life without a T-bone is like life without.....boobs.....just not worth living. And Hitler was a vegetarian.

Word on Hitlor. Thats why he was pissed off all the time.

Quote from: "tacoma_kyle"Word on Hitlor. Thats why he was pissed off all the time.

No TV and no beer make Homer something-something...  

I was a vegetarian for 8 years. I convinced my girlfriend to become on and now she has been for quite a few years. Now I eat meat again, but she is still a veg-head.

Some good reasons for a veggie diet are:

1. A vegetarian lifestyle is much easier on the environment. You can feed more people from crops grown in the same amount of land used for cattle. I don't know the percentages off hand, but the numbers are out there.

2. Cattle emit methane gas when they fart which is a greenhouse gas.

3. Fecal runoff from animal farms can get into the water supply and be lethal to populations. This will become more common place as town house complexes are built up in farmland not allowing fecal runoff in rain water to naturally filter through the ground. Instead it channels down cement roads and into cement sewers until it finds it's way into the drinking supply.

4. Spread of viral diseases like avian flu and ebola from meat consumption.

5. Poor quality meats, especially ground beef, have been found to contain fecal matter and even ground up cancerous tumors. I don't know the science, but eating a tumor can't be good for you.

6. Many poor quality meats are full of steroids and growth hormones. These chemicals are carried in the meat and we then digest it.

7. Animals are full of pesticides and herbicides from their environments. Sure fruits and vegetables gathered from conventional farming methods have these chemicals too, but only from that season. So the chemicals are in relatively small amounts. When you eat meat from an animal that has been feeding on pesticide laden foods, you are getting in one meal that animal's lifetime worth of poisons stored in it's fat.

8. People are supposed to eat meat naturally, but NOT as much meat as a typical person does. If you look back 100s of 1000s of years when we first became a human animal, we probably were only able to get our grubby paws on meat very rarely. Most of our days would have been spent as gatherers, eating fruits and grains. Our main meat source, was most likely insects. So our bodies didn't evolve to be able to process 3 cheeseburgers a day.

I eat meat now, but only every couple of days and I either have it alone or as the smallest portion on my plate. I also only eat free range and organic meats. More expensive, but because I don't eat a ton of it, my grocery bill is still quite low.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'd rather get "saved" than go veg

I don't know.  At least fruits and veggies have something to offer.

Yeah but a life without a T-bone is like life without.....boobs.....just not worth living. And Hitler was a vegetarian.

Hitler was also anti-communist.

Touche, but you're Canadian so technically you're like a quarter Commie .

Eh, good reasons, but Meat tastes good and it's effecient for protein and the way mother nature intended us to eat.

QuoteTouche, but you're Canadian so technically you're like a quarter Commie .

Personally, more like half.

QuoteEh, good reasons, but Meat tastes good and it's effecient for protein and the way mother nature intended us to eat.

No arguments there. Moderation is the key.

Indeed, Though I do like the occasional 72 oz steak. Eat it all and it's free!

I'm a vegetarian, have been for about 3 years now.  I became one because animal slaughtering is cruel.  Even if it is done humanly I won't eat it.  Because frankly I don't want to die even if the death is "humane".
  It really isn't that hard, and I have noticed that being a vegetarian saves a little bit of money.  Although it can be hard if you go out to eat a lot. There also seems to be a misconception that if you are a vegetarian you are really skinny.  But most people are surprised when I tell them I am a vegetarian.  Because I am quite muscular. Aside from the fruits and veggies I eat a lot of nuts (most nuts oz. per oz. contain more protein than meat) and I take a multivitamin and I am healthier than most people who's diets include meat. :wink:

People always start fights whith me when they find out I do not eat meat but I have emotanal issus form my childhood and being a vegetarian just helps me to bloke the past out. Just though I would put this out thier that just because some one does not eat meat does not mean they do it to save anilmals are for a religious porpouse. I have just set my life aparte form other people and it makes me happy. Thier are 3 thins that make me happy wich are being atheist, vegetarian, and a lesbian.

I would have no problem being vegetarian, as long as there is someone around to cook it all up for me.  Just as easy to go down to Subway and order the veggie sub for lunch, and then hit Taco Bell for the bean burritos.  V-8 is also a great option.  Personally, the most effective weight loss diet I have ever been on is Atkins because the high ketones are effective appetite suppressants (and I think they also make me feel slightly euphoric).  One of the things I noticed with Atkins is that I had to occassionally spike the carbs to get past plateaus when my body became to well adjusted at gluconeogenesis from proteins.  So, one pizza every few weeks worked great and the pounds just kept coming off.  In summary, Atkins good weight loss diet,  South Beach Diet (low glycemic foods) probably a good choice for maintenance.  I don't think eating meat is 'morally' wrong, but I certainly agree with the idea that we could have better conditions for livestock and poultry.  Fish is becoming less attractive as mercury levels increase from continued coal-burning.

I'm a vegan, and while I'm not out to convert the world, i strongly suggest that everyone does serious research before making up their mind on the issue. We've been raised to believe that meat is the best, if not only, source of protein and that milk is the best, if only, source of calcium. Both of these statements, IMO, are completely ridiculous. For some reason it never seems to occur to people that the dairy and meat industries have an agenda just like any other business, therefore the information they are giving the public regarding nutrition might be biased.

In a nutshell, I am vegan for environmental, ethical, and nutritional reasons. The research I've done has convinced me that meat and dairy products are harvested with horrific cruelty, in ways that are extremely destructive to the environment and to human health.

Describing all of this in detail would take forever, but if you're serious about being an informed consumer, take a look at The China Study or  Peter Singer's Animal Liberation and The Ethics of What We Eat. The China study is the result of the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted, and the latter two are written by a respected philosopher who articulates reasonable, intelligent, and (IMO) undeniable arguments for ethical behavior when it comes to what we consume.

Like I said earlier, I'm not out to convert everyone to veganism - I hate evangelism with a passion, even if it is for a cause I believe in. But this thread popped up and I am not seeing anyone arguing on the other side of the "but it tastes good" argument.

Really, what is the difference between blindly engaging in a diet because it tastes good and blindly following a religion because it feels good? Just because a lifestyle is easy or comfortable does not make it right, and I would expect that the atheist, of all people, would be committed to that reality.

Anyway, sorry if I rained on the parade  :wink:

Quote from: "freeverse"I'm a vegan, and while I'm not out to convert the world, i strongly suggest that everyone does serious research before making up their mind on the issue. We've been raised to believe that meat is the best, if not only, source of protein and that milk is the best, if only, source of calcium. Both of these statements, IMO, are completely ridiculous. For some reason it never seems to occur to people that the dairy and meat industries have an agenda just like any other business, therefore the information they are giving the public regarding nutrition might be biased.

In a nutshell, I am vegan for environmental, ethical, and nutritional reasons. The research I've done has convinced me that meat and dairy products are harvested with horrific cruelty, in ways that are extremely destructive to the environment and to human health.

Describing all of this in detail would take forever, but if you're serious about being an informed consumer, take a look at The China Study or  Peter Singer's Animal Liberation and The Ethics of What We Eat. The China study is the result of the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted, and the latter two are written by a respected philosopher who articulates reasonable, intelligent, and (IMO) undeniable arguments for ethical behavior when it comes to what we consume.

Like I said earlier, I'm not out to convert everyone to veganism - I hate evangelism with a passion, even if it is for a cause I believe in. But this thread popped up and I am not seeing anyone arguing on the other side of the "but it tastes good" argument.

Really, what is the difference between blindly engaging in a diet because it tastes good and blindly following a religion because it feels good? Just because a lifestyle is easy or comfortable does not make it right, and I would expect that the atheist, of all people, would be committed to that reality.

Anyway, sorry if I rained on the parade  :wink:

Thanks for providing the vegan info.

While I understand all of your reasons, and commend you for your position, it still tastes good, therefore the cow must die.   :wink:

Joking aside, I do appreciate the "links" to the information.

no problem  

I think most people would be more amenable to vegetarianism if it didn't seem so 'extreme'.   I grew up omnivorous and have never seriously considered life without meat.  It isn't really part of the public education and we all know that those lifetime habits start when we are young.  I think most people look at it like it would be so hard to make the transition and would require a lot more prep time--a perception that is hard to overcome.  Beyond that it makes perfect sense, but most vegetarian products I have seen cost significantly more than their meat-based counterparts.  I don't know what he price of a bell pepper is these days on the mainland, but  out here you pay about $6.00/lb.

Quote from: "Kona"I don't know what he price of a bell pepper is these days on the mainland, but  out here you pay about $6.00/lb.

I think they are one or two dollars each; I don't think I've ever seen them priced by the pound around here.  Anyway, they aren't the cheapest veggie choice.

I've actually eaten all vegetarian for lunch this past week, just by chance, not a concious decicion to use only veggies.  They were also fairly inexpensive lunches....I just had spinach, tomatoes, blueberries (on sale), cucumbers, and veggie burgers made from a middle east based dried mix (Falhala sp?...$2 for a box which is about 12 large servings worth).  The only non vegan stuff in my lunch was the yougurt I used to make a healthy dressing and the pita bread.  Dinner tonight was vegitarian too (not vegan)  Spinach fettichini with baby bella mushrooms sauted in milk and sauce made from mushroom juice mixed with cream cheese and sour cream....fed two people with leftovers for about $10.

Eating completely vegan, however, can get a little expensive if you don't know how to cook well without milk products...I use milk products quite often so I have found following a vegan diet to be very difficult (read: impossible).  If I was that concerned about eating vegan I'd have to take some cooking classes.

QuoteIf I was that concerned about eating vegan I'd have to take some cooking classes.

Agreed.  I think that is the key.  And the best way to entice me into a vegetarian cooking class is beer and babes!  I would love to see a PETA commercial with a spokes model like Gisele Bündchen or Heidi Klum wearing only an apron with a Heineken in one hand and a zucchini in the other!   :cheers:

I generally eat vegetarian. I guess I couldn't tell you why exactly. I mean, I'll go out for sushi with my friends and if I go to a BBQ and a hot dog is my only option, I'll eat it. Oh, and if someone waves crisp bacon under my nose, it's gone (along with their fingers). It's not a big deal to me. My sister and best friend are vegetarian's because they think that eating meat is gross. To each their own, I guess. Besides, someone has to go out and kill the innocent Boca's for my Boca burger.

I was a vegetarian and then a vegan, but mainly because of health reasons (and the fact that I'm lactose intolerant) Now I just eat whatever I want (the reasons behind this are rather complicated). I think vegetarianism is great for those who can manage it. Personally, I love animals, but I think humans are omnivorous.

It sure says something about evolution that it can craft a creature smart enough to go against it's own natural diet and actually selectively choose what types of foods it'll eat. Humans eat both plants and meat, but as animals we can choose what to eat, fascinating. However, I view myself as just another part of the food chain, up near the top I might add. And I'm from Maine, so my family hunts. And I eat deer and moose, and it is so much better than beef, you don't even know (if you've never had it). But I'm not going to start up a debate about the morals of being a predator.

I have been a vegetarian and off and on a vegan for over 20 years now. I am not activist I did not conciously choose this. It was about after three months I realized I hadn't eaten any meat or animal by products. So I just kept going. I come from a family of meat and potato eaters. When we had family gatherings I would be placed down at the far end of the table while the rest of them  sat the other end like I had some contagious disease. They never bothered to tried questioning or learning about it I guess they have only their ideas of vegetarianism sad to say. I just took a cue from this treatment and learnt it was no better to treat people with antagonism about their preference on what they freely choose to eat. That is their personal right to do so. However when it comes to restaurants I would like to sit down with my friends who are mostly omnivorous bordering on carnivorous and be able to eat something other than a salad or the one unremarkable choice of vegi' entrees that are offered to me. My friends and I were at a restaurant recently in which I had to sit there and watch them eat not being able to myself due to lack of choice, making all of us feel very uncomfortable at best. It actually was not me but my friends asking why there was no vegetarian choices on the menu to the manager we were met with silence. Vegetarianism in itself is an eating habit not a religious creed for me at least.It is also not just a diet to lose weight it's a very real eating habit.Having said that I do not believe in the one size fits all theory I believe there are people who can't become vegetarian due blood types, physical ailments,  and extenuating circumstances. I believe everyone has a choice in what they choose to consume and I am content with mine.

I had been a vegetarian for about 9 years starting before my first son was born.  We have gotten off path the past few years, but are recommitting.  It isn't easy, but it is worth it for us.  I'm lucky to have a wife who is skilled in the kitchen, so she can make some good veggie meals.

I think everyone would reduce their meat intake after watching "Super Size Me" and/or "Fast Food Nation".  They are both insightful.  The meat industry is disgusting aside from the 'unethical' treatment.  I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a big fan of eating shit (although my father frequently claimed I had a shit-eating grin ).

In regards to energy, the only time I notice energy loss is when I do eat meat.  The claims of lethargy related to trying vegetarianism is probably due to a processed or fast food addiction.  Head ache and irritability are also traits of coming off of this addiction.

I am well aware that animal treatment is horrendous, immoral, ect. I am also aware that eating a vegetarian diet might be more healthy for me.

But I make the conscious decision to eat meat as well as veggies, and simply respect bovines for their sacrafice.

You know it doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. I was a vegetarian for years, but I eat meat now because my middle kid is allergic to most vegetarian forms of protein, including soy, lentils, nuts, seeds, and some beans. He's also allergic to eggs. I still try to feed my family several vegetarian meals a week: bean burritos, mac-n-cheese, veggie pizza. It's easy, and it is good for the planet and for our bodies. Even if you only replace a couple of meat meals a week with vegetarian ones, it helps reduce your negative impact on the environment and also improves your health.

I am trying to reduce the meat in my own diet right now in an effort to get my asthma under control. I have a host of problems, from asthma to irritable bowel syndrome to Meniere's disease, all of which are caused by inflammation. A diet high in meat contributes to chronic inflammation, according to several sources I've read.

Vegetarianism makes perfect sense under one of two conditions, not mutually exclusive:
1. One does not enjoy eating meat.
2. Plants fight back.
Neither is so in my case, thus vegetarianism is (for me) irrational.

...Seems I have to crawl out of my TV chair and defend my burgers yet again :D

I have been a Vegetarian for almost 9 months now. My particular diet is ovo-lacto-Vegetarian, which means that I consume dairy, eggs, and anything else that a non-meat eater would consume.

Before switching to the dark side of the Force, I read some things about why Vegetarianism is much better for us than the Omnivore diet. The next day, I told my mother that I would no longer consume meat or seafood and so far I have never looked back to the Omnivore diet. Becoming a Vegetarian was for me that simple and easy, but the first week was not so cool; I was physically weak, shaky, and always hungry. Contrary to the mantras that many anti-Vegetarian people repeat, I am not physically weak, slow, I do not smoke pot, I am not romantic with animals, and I did not die after 4 months from not eating meat. The only difference between my new diet and the previous Omnivore diet is that after eating dinner I do not feel like a brick is in my stomach and I no longer feel tired.

I read before about the animals but I do not really care about them; animals are killed and eaten by many other species too and all the time.

Quote from: "Asmodean"...Seems I have to crawl out of my TV chair and defend my burgers yet again

LOL

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Have been thinking about this for some time now. Is vegetarianism the better or the ideal way?

Biologically, I'd have to say neither. Being omnivores, we are supposed to have meat in our diet.

Agreed.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Has anyone tried vegetarianism or thinks it has any non-religious benefits? Would love to hear.

Nope, never tried. Probably never will :)

Kyu

Quote from: "freeverse"I'm a vegan

You're from Vega? Have you talked to SETI?

Kyu

It was the introduction of meat into our diet that allowed development of our Brains ( the same behavior can be seen in chimps hunting other monkeys ) many thousands of years ago. I take this to be an endorsement of meat eating from mother nature.

Plus, it is so delicious.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Oh I have ... I love a good salad ... as long as it's fed to a cow before being slapped on a grill and served up as steak :pop: Following it, we can both claim to be vegans.  

Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.  For instance, the chimpanzees of Gombe are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spend eating overall.  By definition, most of the people in the US are carnivores.  Most Americans eat meat more than once a day which is more than most carnivores in the wild.

The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

QuoteGrowing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

Quote from: "DennisK"Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.

Bears are pretty omnivorous and while some prefer plants, others prefer meat, crows are omnivores too and their diet consists of as much meat as they can get their beaks on. So overall, your point is invalid. "Omnivore" simply means "all-eating" - it does not imply a percent-wise balance beyond that an omnivore is specialised to digest both meat and plant material. An omnivore's consumption of meat is normally anything but minimal. The class you are talking about are herbivores, who will sometimes eat meat but who don't have it on their general menu.

Quote from: "DennisK"For instance, the chimpanzees of Gombe are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spend eating overall.  By definition, most of the people in the US are carnivores.  Most Americans eat meat more than once a day which is more than most carnivores in the wild.

1. The chimps are omnivores, but they are hardly a good representative of omnivores in general. Besides, you have to count insects into their animalic diet.

2. A by-definition carnivore does not eat plants, or does so very rarely. Two words: French Fries. So a very big no to that point.

Quote from: "DennisK"The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

QuoteGrowing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

Yes. I care much more about what's on my plate than what conditions people will live in in 500 years. That said, the increased demand for ANY sort of food will have its own pitfalls and tripwires. Don't try to paint a grayscale picture black and white. Look at all sides.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "DennisK"Many people equate omnivores with eating meat on a daily basis when, in fact, omnivores' consumption of meat is minimal.

Bears are pretty omnivorous and while some prefer plants, others prefer meat, crows are omnivores too and their diet consists of as much meat as they can get their beaks on. So overall, your point is invalid. "Omnivore" simply means "all-eating" - it does not imply a percent-wise balance beyond that an omnivore is specialised to digest both meat and plant material. An omnivore's consumption of meat is normally anything but minimal. The class you are talking about are herbivores, who will sometimes eat meat but who don't have it on their general menu.

Up to 80-90 percent of the bears' diets is vegetation, especially grasses, sages, berries and roots.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Two words: French Fries. So a very big no to that point.

You're not calling fast food french fry a vegetable are you?  It is a non-meat, however.  The reference of us being carnivores was an exaggeration and not meant to be taken literally.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "DennisK"The real concern, though, of eating meat is:

QuoteGrowing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel.

We care more about our yummy burgers than we do about the health of our planet.

Yes. I care much more about what's on my plate than what conditions people will live in in 500 years. That said, the increased demand for ANY sort of food will have its own pitfalls and tripwires. Don't try to paint a grayscale picture black and white. Look at all sides.

It is you who is painting a black and white issue gray.  Do some comparisons on your own.  You will find these claims to be true.  I've put a portion of an article explaining this in the spoiler if you are interested and the link to the article is:http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142
[spoiler:25j6astw]World Hunger and Resources

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britainâ€"with 56 million peopleâ€"could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the ‘feed cost’ of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.”

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.

Environmental Costs

Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.

McDonald’s took a group of British animal rights activists to court in the 1990s because they had linked the fast food giant to an unhealthy diet and rainforest destruction. The defendants, who fought the company to a standstill, made a convincing case. In court documents, the activists asserted, “From 1970 onwards, beef from cattle reared on ex-rainforest land was supplied to McDonald’s.” In a policy statement, McDonald’s claims that it “does not purchase beef which threatens tropical rainforests anywhere in the world,” but it does not deny past purchases.

According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), livestock raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the human population, some 87,000 pounds per second. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household. The much-publicized 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dumped 12 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing an estimated 10 to 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of a virulent microbe called Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.

More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

“We definitely take up more environmental space when we eat meat,” says Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation. “I think it’s consistent with environmental values to eat lower on the food chain.”[/spoiler:25j6astw]

i didnt feel like reading all four pages about vegetarianism, so forgive me if me post is a repeat. i have two points to make.
one, i feel like if you cant stand the sight or thought of killing the animal, then you should not eat the animal. without being fully aware of what it takes to bring that juicy steak to your plate, you can not fully appreciate the loss of life. from what i know about early humans and what still goes on in tribal life, their is a sense of gratitude expressed by the people towards the animal. also, they do not eat meat every day, three times a day. it is reserved for special occasions. if this was our practice, there would be no need to mass murder these animals. farms and ranches would be able to meet the demand and provide a better environment for the animal as well as better food for us.
and two, i realize that humans have been omnivores for a long time now and that it is an evolved behavior, but that doesnt mean it is the best route. in the case of parasites, the creature has evolved a way to survive by praying on a host, but if the creature eventually developed consciousness and critical thinking, then why not find a better way that doesnt harm another species if possible. eating meat is, in a sense, cheating. you are stealing nutrients from another being. that being finds food for its self, and we kill and eat it to absorb the energy the animal gathered for its self. now this behavior is justified in other meat eaters because they do not have the ability to find other ways of survival, but we do. i like to imagine a future where humans are more responsible for their planet and the other beings that inhabit it. i hope one day humans will stop breeding and killing animals for our own enjoyment and find ways to sustain a healthy lifestyle for ourselves that doesnt involve harming living creatures (not counting plants).
this being said, i eat the hell outta some meat, boay! but i also have no problem with imagining the origin of that meat and what had to happen to bring it to me. in fact, (this might seem a little odd) when my family is praying and thanking god for their meal, i take the moment to be thankful to the animal who died to give me life.

Quote from: "DennisK"Up to 80-90 percent of the bears' diets is vegetation, especially grasses, sages, berries and roots.

Polar bears eat almost exclusively meat. So do some brown bears. Which bears are you refering to exactly?

Quote from: "DennisK"You're not calling fast food french fry a vegetable are you?  It is a non-meat, however.  The reference of us being carnivores was an exaggeration and not meant to be taken literally.

Potatoes are, to the best of my knowledge, vegetables. So yes, I sure AM calling french fries vegetables. 'sides, bread is another good example of plant produce. And few people have a diet consisting of so much more meat than plant material.

Exaggerated or not, carnivores is a very wrong description for "most" people - and more so for this particular discussion.

Quote from: "DennisK"The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

The problem is overpopulation. Humans are, in a sense, parasites and it will probably be our doom one day.

Quote from: "DennisK"According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britainâ€"with 56 million peopleâ€"could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

So am I correct to assume that you'd rather continue overpopulating the Earth by providing everyone with enough crappy food rather than controlling population, keeping our eating habits and sustaining some of our other resources longer?

Quote from: "DennisK"While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the ‘feed cost’ of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.”

...I'd still eat my steak and then eat another one just for the good measure of it, without hesitation.

Quote from: "DennisK"Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.

A minor technicality: A good scientist would NOT measure water in pounds. There is a thing called liters. Otherwise, I have nothing to say for or against this claim except that even if it is true, the water runs in a neverending loop so what's the big deal? Most - if not all of it will end up in the clouds sooner or later anyways.

Quote from: "DennisK"Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.

And potatoe chips have been linked to cancer. Most of the rainforest is being destroyed by wood production and plantations. And even more is threatened by the increasing demand for biodiesel

Quote from: "DennisK"McDonald’s took a group of British animal rights activists to court in the 1990s because they had linked the fast food giant to an unhealthy diet and rainforest destruction. The defendants, who fought the company to a standstill, made a convincing case. In court documents, the activists asserted, “From 1970 onwards, beef from cattle reared on ex-rainforest land was supplied to McDonald’s.” In a policy statement, McDonald’s claims that it “does not purchase beef which threatens tropical rainforests anywhere in the world,” but it does not deny past purchases.

Animal rights activists do know their propaganda, so the fact that they managed to slap together a convincing enough case for the more common variety of judges is not surprising.

Quote from: "DennisK"According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), livestock raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the human population, some 87,000 pounds per second. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household. The much-publicized 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dumped 12 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing an estimated 10 to 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of a virulent microbe called Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.

Yeah... And the insectocides used on the grain fields are not responsible for even more damage to the environment..? Again, it's painting grayscale in black and white.

Quote from: "DennisK"More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

I call bullshit on this one - or rather, the art of half truth, quarter truth and not-quite-lies. It's propaganda. The picture is not nearly that dramatic. Beef production is, by definition, sustainable. It's how you do it that matters.

Quote from: "DennisK"“We definitely take up more environmental space when we eat meat,” says Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation. “I think it’s consistent with environmental values to eat lower on the food chain.”

Not really. If you want to be a good environmentalist, try reducing fossil fuel consumption and the population growth. The more humans walk the earth, the more resources they'll need. And even sustainable and environmentally neutral resources can only take this much abuse before they are emptied (like forests, for instance. Or rivers dried up because of irrigation)

I'm sorry if some my comments are a bit short, a bit besides the point and very biased, but it's late, and your post has that feel of propaganda to me so... I'll re-read it and maybe find you some counter-research tomorrow.  Meat eaters can do propaganda too, you know  

It's worth a look at checking out veggieboards it's a great site and is full of people that live the veggie life style and also many, many that do not believe in any God.  Anyway, our bodies don't digest meat very well and can actually intake protein from sources other than meat more easily.  Beans are a great source of protein along with many other non-meat items.  It is tough though, if you want to maintain good health and make sure you are getting all of the proper nutrition you have to be creative and willing to cook.  I love my scrumptous little animal parts, but prefer to shop locally rather than doing the fast food and market meats.  Yum!

Asmodean,

I will start putting a  :D ).  Another point for you (2) :D .  You can tally from here. :D )?  Overpopulation is much less of an issue if our demand for meat decreases.

Quote from: "Asmodean"So am I correct to assume that you'd rather continue overpopulating the Earth by providing everyone with enough crappy food rather than controlling population, keeping our eating habits and sustaining some of our other resources longer?

You would be incorrect in that assumption.  Don't let me stop you from assuming, though (sarcasm :D  Is this a joke?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Animal rights activists do know their propaganda, so the fact that they managed to slap together a convincing enough case for the more common variety of judges is not surprising.

It's much easier to dismiss as propaganda.  Don't look any further, it is settled. :D ).  That means meat consumption requires 4.8 times more land if you ate the same weight in grain.  Therefore, more pesticides for the grain needed to feed the cattle.  Still gray?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "DennisK"More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

I call bullshit on this one - or rather, the art of half truth, quarter truth and not-quite-lies. It's propaganda. The picture is not nearly that dramatic. Beef production is, by definition, sustainable. It's how you do it that matters.

I'm going to need a little more than "bullshit" on this one.  And yes, it does make a difference when cattle are raised organically.  Unfortunately, not many do.

QuoteOr rivers dried up because of irrigation

What happened to "water runs in a neverending loop so what's the big deal? Most - if not all of it will end up in the clouds sooner or later anyways."  Again, math.

vegetables? VEGETABLES?!? That's what FOOD eats!!!  


Alright, all kidding aside, I like to eat meat. I will never even consider a vegetarian diet again. Does that make me a bad guy, or misinformed, or stubborn? No. Because I don't think there's a right or wrong on this one.
Do you want to eat meat? Go ahead. Would you prefer to eat only vegetables? Good for you!
But, that choice is not for me.

Quick side note: What religions tell you not to eat meat? I remember clearly from my "catholic days" the message that animals were put on Earth by god for Humans to eat. In my time looking into other religions' beliefs, I don't remember any of them saying it's a sin to eat meat. Except certain types of meat, or on certain days of the week. All of which, IMHO, is religious mumbo-jumbo, like all the rest of the dogmas.

Anyway, back to the point. I eat once a day, usually. Sometimes, I don't even eat that many times. I am one of those rare people that only eat when I'm hungry. I usually eat whatever I'm craving at the time as well. For the most part, I hate fast food. This is for two reasons: one reason is that it hardly resembles real food at all. Another is that it makes me feel like crap. But you better believe that if I'm hungry, and I only have 2 dollars to my name, the dollar menu will do just fine.
I eat fruits, I eat vegetables, I eat meat, I drink milk (although I'm trying to ween myself off of it because I believe I'm developing lactose-intolerance)
I don't feel bad for any of these, because I just try to eat what makes me feel good. Sometimes I fail. Oh well.

There was a point a couple of years ago when I had a girlfriend who I was madly in love with and would do anything for. She was a vegetarian. Sure enough, she talked me into cutting out the meat from my diet. Boy, was I hating life after a few months. I could never fully satisfy my hunger. I found that I was depressed more often. I didn't sleep well. There were all sorts of problems. I think it was because of my habit for eating only when I'm hungry, and only what I'm craving at the time. I saw no point to make myself suffer, just because of something like food.

Once I got back to my old ways of eating, I felt much better. So I'm going to stick with it. Does that make me right or wrong? Nope. It makes me happier. And since I believe this is the only life I get, that's the route I'm going to take.

If it makes you happier to be a vegetarian, then do it, and be proud of yourself for it. If it makes you happier to be able to eat meat, then do it, and be proud of yourself for it. Through evolution, we've gained the ability to make that choice for ourselves, so make the choice that makes you happy.

Quote from: "DennisK"Asmodean,

I will start putting a  :D ).  Another point for you (2) :D .  You can tally from here. :D is a good way of marking sarcasm. It doesn't let itself translate very well sometimes and so when you say something sarcastic, it looks dead serious to me - the opposite might be true as well, sometimes.

Quote from: "DennisK"Bring on the NWO and trim the fat, eh (sarcasm :D )

Then I suppose my point is at least semi-across.

Quote from: "DennisK"That sounds logical. :D

Yes, I dismiss propaganda no matter if I think it may be right or not.

Quote from: "DennisK"It's simple math.  4.8 pounds of grain needed for 1 pound of beef (sorry, I mean 2.1772434 Kg to 0.45359237 Kg :D

Nothing happened to it. It's still going up in the clouds and falling back down as rain. Not what I'm talking about here.

EDIT: Promised you some research, and I've not forgotten. The problem is that it's on paper (another environmental disaster right there   ) and my burger-eating ass is somewhat lazy. I'll get something coherent for you though. Later today, I think

Asmodean,
Let me say first of all that I apologize for my agitated post.  I let things outside this thread effect the emotion of my rebuttal.  Second, I don't want this thread to get sidetracked any further, so I will be brief.

Water Cycle:  I do understand how a water cycle works.  What I thought would be clear after some reflection is contaminants and displacement of used water effect the cycle, no?  That's why water wars in the US will become increasingly more prominent.

Propaganda:  I am full aware of propaganda and it's effect on the masses, but don't jump so quickly to dismiss research solely on the basis of its source.  

Meat Producing Farm:  What did you feed the animals if not grain?  Do I want to know?

For the sake of argument, even if the environmental impact based on grain intake were even, there are a lot more environmental effects that raising animals for meat production have.

Listen, I still eat meat because I enjoy the taste.  I am a contributer to the problem, but I am trying to quit.  Whether we want to admit it or not, all who eat meat are contributers to the bigger problem.  Most want to put the blame for our environment on someone else and it's natural to do so.  At what cost, though?

As I understand it, a lot of why vegetarians are vegetarians has to do with things like the way animals are treated before and during slaughter and what effect the meat industry has on the environment. I believe I understand both of these complaints, in fact I do what I can to buy responsible, locally grown, free-range meat. I even send out for grass-fed beef when I occasionally eat it.

Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed? Would you still be a veggie?

I'm not a vegetarian so I can't answer the question. I have two points though.

In terms of practicality, the US already suffers from a trade deficit. It's imports exceed it's exports because the US dollar is so strong. America can buy commodities like livestock from other countries cheaply while other countries can't afford American. Your proposal would make it even harder for the US agriculture industry to be profitable. Actually, I suspect it wouldn't be profitable if it weren't for the state subsidy but I'm not an expert. I think the end result of an endeavor like this would be to increase meat imports, which seems like the reverse of buying local.

In terms of politics, I am for sure not a Libertarian but I'm also not a huge fan of unnecessary laws. Are these laws to allow vegetarians to eat meat at the expense of everyone else? Or is it more about animal rights? Would these laws be handled by civil or criminal courts and what kind of penalties would be appropriate?

Interesting idea.

I know a few people who eat mostly vegetarian but will eat meat if they know it comes from an ethical source.

There are also some people who eat vegetarian because they have bought into the propaganda that it is healthier and some will even go so far as to claim it is the 'natural' human diet (which is why we have canine teeth   ).

Quote from: "AlP"I'm not a vegetarian so I can't answer the question. I have two points though.

In terms of practicality, the US already suffers from a trade deficit. It's imports exceed it's exports because the US dollar is so strong. America can buy commodities like livestock from other countries cheaply while other countries can't afford American. Your proposal would make it even harder for the US agriculture industry to be profitable. Actually, I suspect it wouldn't be profitable if it weren't for the state subsidy but I'm not an expert. I think the end result of an endeavor like this would be to increase meat imports, which seems like the reverse of buying local.

In terms of politics, I am for sure not a Libertarian but I'm also not a huge fan of unnecessary laws. Are these laws to allow vegetarians to eat meat at the expense of everyone else? Or is it more about animal rights? Would these laws be handled by civil or criminal courts and what kind of penalties would be appropriate?

Interesting idea.

A key to international trade that economists love to ignore is forcing others to work by your standards. Every time we allow Walmart to import slave-created goods, we're not just allowing China to out-compete our workers, we're endorsing slavery. Just as we should require trading partners to have well-enforced workers' rights laws in place, we should require them to also have animal rights similar to ours.

I certainly agree with what you said with regard to human rights. I don't like exploiting other people's bad luck. Well actually I do but that's more about exploiting wealthy people's ignorance and greed. In my opinion economics is a profession for people who weren't so good at math but still want to be in the field. But I'm just a contrarian individual trader. What do I know? Anyway, I think we should focus first on ensuring that harm is not done to people before we start thinking about cows, sheep and chickens.

By what economic force (law doesn't work outside of its jurisdiction) can we make this progress profitable? I'm thinking more about the humans than the animals but the same principles might apply. I think you have to change the consumer. You could educate the consumer to the point where they can make a value judgement, whether its about the slaves that made their shoes or the suffering of the animals they are eating. Regulation of US agriculture would simply damage their profits (assuming no increased subsidy) and the trade deficit would take care of the rest.

I know a veggie who doesn't eat meat simply because she doesn't feel she has the right to be instrumental in the taking of another life, no matter how humane the death. I posed a similar question to her a while back. I asked her if we could produce synthetic or vat grown meat which was indistinguishable from real meat, would she eat it? Her answer was yes because she could still remember the taste of bacon from when she was a child. So for her, it was the life being taken for our consumption which was the issue. I guess there are many reasons to be a vegetarian.

Personally, I've not knowingly eaten supermarket meat for years and years. I'm lucky enough to live just down the road from a superb butchers.

I myself am Vegan, and believe that the taking of dairy from animals, or it's life for my gain is morally unjustified in the society that I live in. I don't require the death of an animal for me to live, so I shouldn't have to have it die. And honestly after thinking this way for a while, I find meat to be especially gross (dairy too, considering most of it is bodily fluids). I consider equality to be of high morality, so I get pretty strict about this sort of thing.

Quote from: "Pineapple"I myself am Vegan, and believe that the taking of dairy from animals, or it's life for my gain is morally unjustified in the society that I live in. I don't require the death of an animal for me to live, so I shouldn't have to have it die. And honestly after thinking this way for a while, I find meat to be especially gross (dairy too, considering most of it is bodily fluids). I consider equality to be of high morality, so I get pretty strict about this sort of thing.

Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid.  Sorry it's part of being an animal.  You gotta eat.  I see a lion gut a zebra on national television and it isn't considered cruel even though the lions cubs are eating the things organs while its still alive.  At least when you get the meat its dead and it isn't coming back.  It's our nature to eat meat.  Sorry.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid. .

not just that, they breathe and MOVE too. Have you ever seen plants in a time-lapse photography? They move their leaves according to the light, they "sleep" and wake" too

Quote from: "MariaEvri"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid. .

not just that, they breathe and MOVE too. Have you ever seen plants in a time-lapse photography? They move their leaves according to the light, they "sleep" and wake" too

Those poor poor plants ... can you imagine being asleep and someone wakes you up by digging you out of the ground and after baking in a hot sun for an few hours you get shipped off to a factory where they drown ... err soak you in water and cut you into pieces and you are still technically alive in all those different pieces as humans (and their pets sometimes) consume you and while you are just barely awake being digested then finally you die and get turned into poo ... and thats your funeral?

I'm a part time vegetarian.  I try it out occasionally for health and environmental reasons.  I've found it to be impractical, expensive, difficult to get the protein I need and I question the environmental impact of producing vegetables and soybeans as well as livestock.  All agriculture has environmental impacts, we might as well get used to it and learn to adjust so we don't end up living in a cesshole.  As far as the treatment of the animals, I am far more concerned with how they live than that they die.  As long as they are treated well, are healthy and die very quickly with the most minimal amount of pain and suffering realistically possible, I have no problems chowing down an occasional charcoal-grilled T-Bone.

Quote from: "AlP"Anyway, I think we should focus first on ensuring that harm is not done to people before we start thinking about cows, sheep and chickens.

But wouldn't ethical, well regulated agri markets be keeping people from being harmed?  

Slowing down the production pace on the kill floor would help to keep the workers from getting injured and reduce the chance for puncturing the intestines during slaughter and processing that causes bacterial contamination.

Allowing the cattle to be slaughtered to spend the last two weeks of their lives eating grass (instead of corn) is supposed to greatly reduce the amount of e.coli in their digestive system.  This should reduce e.coli contamination in the processing plants since there are already forms of e.coli that are resistant to the PH in the cow's stomachs witch I think are also resistant to some of the anti-biotics used in conventional meat production.

Enforcing workers rights in production plants, reasonable hours/wages, medical benefits, etc are also a part of ethically produced meat.

Seems like moving toward a less conventional form of food production might do more to help people than harm them as well as keeping the animals healthy as well.

Just my    though.

LOL, I just finish my meal, and had some shark's fin
and hear some ridiculous argument from my vegetarian friend.

"eating shark's fin is awful for our environment, you might become a shark and get ya fins chop off in your next life"

"well, at least I'll be a happy predator before my fins are cut of."
 
"oh yeah? then you will born as a finless handicapped shark"

I've no qualms about eating meat, but we probably eat far more of it than we need.  I'm told that 2 or 3 meat dishes per week would provide all the nutrients we need.  If we did that we could free up vast amounts of land in our rich countries and grow more of our own fruit and vegetables, instead of flying them in from the third world.

Okay okay, I can't pass this thread up.

I'm also a vegan (as of April '09). I don't like what animals go through for my benefit, so I choose to abstain from buying/using animal products to the best of my ability. To answer the original question, I personally wouldn't eat or use animal products even if they were ethical, but that's just me. The way I see it, humans are capable of surviving without using animal products, so therefore I choose to. If animals don't need to die for me to live, then I don't see a reason to kill them unnecessarily. And again, that's just my opinion.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid.  Sorry it's part of being an animal.  You gotta eat.  I see a lion gut a zebra on national television and it isn't considered cruel even though the lions cubs are eating the things organs while its still alive.  At least when you get the meat its dead and it isn't coming back.  It's our nature to eat meat.  Sorry.

Yes, we've got to eat. It is, as you said, part of being an animal. If I could survive without killing any living being, I would. But I can't. It would be impossible (as far as I've researched) for we as humans to live without killing plants. That's just how it is. Even fruitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism) kill plants (think of the wood for houses, clothes, stepping on grass, etc). So I'm a vegan (which actually causes less plants to be killed than an omnivorous diet: "The fact is, almost all animals used for food are herbivores, and the amount of plant matter they must eat in order to produce a significant amount of edible meat is many times higher than the amount of plants used in a vegetarian diet." (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1408037/do_plants_feel_pain_an_animal_rights_pg2.html?cat=25)). I also recycle, carpool, and try to do my best not to pollute the air and the environment.
 
And as far as lions, they need meat in order to survive (Yeah, I don't like that the zebra goes through a painful death. But what can I do about that? ). We as humans don't need meat in order to survive. So I as a vegan, I take advantage of that and eschew meat and other animal products as much as I can.


And on a side-note, I as a vegan care about people as well as animals. I volunteer and I do my best to buy fair-trade and second-hand products so as not to support sweatshop labor and whatnot.

(I didn't mean to write that much. I got excited   )

Quote from: "Will"As I understand it, a lot of why vegetarians are vegetarians has to do with things like the way animals are treated before and during slaughter and what effect the meat industry has on the environment. I believe I understand both of these complaints, in fact I do what I can to buy responsible, locally grown, free-range meat. I even send out for grass-fed beef when I occasionally eat it.

Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed? Would you still be a veggie?

I am vegan because when I intentionally and needlessly harm another thinking, feeling creature it causes me harm, as well. It's simple compassion, without a lot of nasty denial in the way.

Humans are animals, too, right? So, what if children were fed good, healthy food and then painlessly killed and served up?

Everyone is born atheist. Similarly, we have to be taught to ignore our disgust at the slaughterhouse.

Quotevegantheist wrote: So, what if children were fed good, healthy food and then painlessly killed and served up?

"Soylent green is people.  It's people!"  

(Det.  Robert Thorn, played by Charlton Heston in Soylent Green, 1973)


Sorry had to be done.


(edited, first quote attributed wrongly to susangail instead of vegantheist, with apologies)

^ Umm, I didn't say that...

Welcome to the forum.

Quote from: "veganatheist"I am vegan because when I intentionally and needlessly harm another thinking, feeling creature it causes me harm, as well. It's simple compassion, without a lot of nasty denial in the way.

Humans are animals, too, right? So, what if children were fed good, healthy food and then painlessly killed and served up?

Everyone is born atheist. Similarly, we have to be taught to ignore our disgust at the slaughterhouse.

Humans have been ingesting meat for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, depending on what point you consider human human. We evolved as hunter-gatherers, and part of being such an organism means we hunt for the meat of other organisms. Early humans did not seem to have an innate disgust at the slaughter of animals to eat, which suggests to me that, as a species, no such universal disgust can be demonstrated. At the most, perhaps some people have that disgust and others do not.

While I love animals dearly, should the situation require it I could see myself slaughtering an animal for sustenance could I utilize a method which I deem truly humane. If I were living quite far from civilization and did not have enough to eat from plant-life, I could see myself using carbon dioxide to allow the animal to painlessly pass out before killing it. I'd never want to shoot at an animal or otherwise use a method which could terrify or cause physical pain because my compassion would not allow such a thing.

As far as I've read so far on this thread, susangail seems a wonderful person and veganatheist seems a person but I don't agree with the whole vegetarian eating lifestyle. I mean, if you are a vagan... go for it, but I don't think that's a good thing to adopt by anybody/everybody.

Here's my 3 cents:
- it's admirable how some of the native tribes had such a deep respect for nature that they would be greatful for their food, but we as a species can survive like that. We can't feed 6 billion people with the resources of our planet. We need industry, even tho I agree we should start thinking and acting more sustainable. Denmark, if I'm not mistaking, can be a case study considering forest. They plant more trees than they cut down every year, and the company that does the cutting plants the trees. Ok, back to what we eat and why
- second, eating meat -> bigger brains -> survival (of course on a very large time line) I say we should stay on course.

Also really interesting point about cannibalism by vaganatheist. I think we left cannibalism behind when we saw it wasn't practical for the species as a whole to eat one another. I don't know of any animal species that does that. (except some spider)

Quote from: "veganatheist"intentionally and needlessly harm another thinking, feeling creature it causes me harm, as well.

Humans are omnivorous, and we need meat if we want to have quality nutrition without having to be slaves to a tedious diet.  So, it's not needless.

Quote from: "veganatheist"Humans are animals, too, right? So, what if children were fed good, healthy food and then painlessly killed and served up?

Most animals tend not to eat their own species AND humans already don't eat animals that remind us of children (ie cute things).

So, why do you draw the link at thinking creatures and not all living things?  I'm assuming it is because you understand there is a need for your own survival...this is the same reason omnivores (people who eat normally) draw the line at things that remind them of kids; we have to eat but there really isn't a good dividing line since everything we eat is alive (or was).

Quote from: "Whitney"Humans are omnivorous, and we need meat if we want to have quality nutrition without having to be slaves to a tedious diet.  So, it's not needless.

I disagree. I don't eat meat or any other animal products and I'm healthy (my doctor and dietician confirmed my health.) I'm not saying you can't be healthy with an omnivorous diet, I'm just saying you can have 'quality nutrition' with a vegetarian/vegan (veg*n) diet. Yes, veg*nism seems like a tedious diet, but it isn't always. It's an adjustment at first, but it's not hard after the first week or two (in my experience). Personally, I've been a vegan since April and I don't feel like a slave to my diet.

Sure, veg*nsim might not be for everyone. I'm certainly not saying it's the only "right" way to eat. I just feel that if I can live a healthy, happy life without eating animals or their by-products, I will.

Quote from: "Whitney"So, why do you draw the link at thinking creatures and not all living things?  I'm assuming it is because you understand there is a need for your own survival...this is the same reason omnivores (people who eat normally) draw the line at things that remind them of kids; we have to eat but there really isn't a good dividing line since everything we eat is alive (or was).

I can't speak for veganatheist, but I draw the line at thinking creatures and not all living things because, as you said, I understand that I need to eat to survive. That being said, I choose to do my best to limit suffering as much as I can. What animals endure in slaughterhouses is horrific and I personally don't wish to buy the products of that suffering. Thus, I'm a vegan. I understand that I cannot live without killing some sort of living thing (if I could reasonably, I would), so I accept it and move on with my life.

.

Athough it is possible to be healthy and be a vegetarian, It seems it would be hard for a person to be a vegetarian and truly prosper.  Think about it, every vegetarian I've seen seems skinny and frail.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, but meat is essential for muscle growth and other nutrition.  Me personally thinking that every human should strive to physical perfection to the best of their abilities surely makes me biased here, but why would you want to starve yourself of such a valuable food/nutrition source that can benefit you in so many ways?

Also, from an environmental point of view, livestock take up far less space than plant growing farms. Sooooo by eating exclusively vegetables, you would be supporting the narrowing of an ecosystem (not allowing diversity by allowing only a couple types of plants on a huge space of land).

And as far as hunting goes, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I've shot shotgun for sport, and want to get into bowhunting in the future.  But I'm a political conservative so I think we should have the right to our guns and such  

Thanks,
Mike M.

I'm not trying to be a jerk Mike, but I have to disagree.

Quote from: "Mike M."Athough it is possible to be healthy and be a vegetarian, It seems it would be hard for a person to be a vegetarian and truly prosper.  Think about it, every vegetarian I've seen seems skinny and frail.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, but meat is essential for muscle growth and other nutrition.  Me personally thinking that every human should strive to physical perfection to the best of their abilities surely makes me biased here, but why would you want to starve yourself of such a valuable food/nutrition source that can benefit you in so many ways?

The idea that vegetarians are "skinny and frail" is a stereotypical myth. Sure, some are, but it probably has more to do with a personal health issue than their vegetarian diet. Every vegetarian or vegan I know seems perfectly healthy to me (though of course I'm no doctor). You don't need meat to grow muscle, you need protein. And there are many sources to get protein from other than animal flesh. Soy, nuts, seeds, beans and other legumes are all good sources of protein. I haven't eaten meat in years and I have never had a protein (or B12) issue. I've seen a dietician and have been assured that I'm healthy.

I completely agree with you that humans should "strive to physical perfection to the best of their abilities", but, IMO, a person doesn't need meat in order to do that. I live off veggies, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds (I can't eat fruit due to a medical condition), and I am not lacking in nutrients (I have blood tests every six months due to another medical condition). I "starve myself" of meat because I don't need it to live a healthy life.

Quote from: "Mike M."Also, from an environmental point of view, livestock take up far less space than plant growing farms. Sooooo by eating exclusively vegetables, you would be supporting the narrowing of an ecosystem (not allowing diversity by allowing only a couple types of plants on a huge space of land).

And from an environmental point of view, raising livestock for slaughter is actually more harmful to the environment than growing crops. Some people actually go vegetarian/vegan specifically to help the environment. Some good links here (http://www.activeg.org/articles/437.html),  here (http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html), and here (http://www.vegan.org/about_veganism/environment.html).

I do see where you are coming from susangail.  I do know that meats aren't the only source of protein, hell, soybeans have a buttload of protein crammed into them!  Although I guess I'm not one to talk about proper nutrition -- I'v eaten 500 calories in the last two days because Ive had to cut for a wrestling tournamet.  I would go more in depth about my points, but I'm really quite tired.  To summarize, though, I don't have any problem with vegetarins, if you are, good for you, if not, wanna go grab a burger?  I just don't see the overall point of being a vegetarian I suppose.

I understand your point too Mike. I just can't help myself when I see stereotypes like the skinny and frail one  :).

Good luck at your wrestling tournament!

As far as I'm concerned... Vegetables are what FOOD eats.

:devil:

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Besides... god created the food chain so that I may reside at the top.  

Finally, someone said it!

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Pineapple"I myself am Vegan, and believe that the taking of dairy from animals, or it's life for my gain is morally unjustified in the society that I live in. I don't require the death of an animal for me to live, so I shouldn't have to have it die. And honestly after thinking this way for a while, I find meat to be especially gross (dairy too, considering most of it is bodily fluids). I consider equality to be of high morality, so I get pretty strict about this sort of thing.

Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid.  Sorry it's part of being an animal.  You gotta eat.  I see a lion gut a zebra on national television and it isn't considered cruel even though the lions cubs are eating the things organs while its still alive.  At least when you get the meat its dead and it isn't coming back.  It's our nature to eat meat.  Sorry.

yah but a carrot doesnt have orgasims

Questions for Vegetarians by will got me thinking about a question Ive had for quite awile. As atheists should we look at meat differently than religion wich advocates eating meat. Have we always been Omnivorous? Did we start to eat meat as a way to survive and there was no going back?, you know to cauliflower. Do chickens and fish count because there more of just a nervous system with feet? Would it be more ethical to eat small amounts of meat as a natural part of the food chain. Would we all look like pale people from India? I'll stop here.

Quote from: "leonswan2000"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "Pineapple"I myself am Vegan, and believe that the taking of dairy from animals, or it's life for my gain is morally unjustified in the society that I live in. I don't require the death of an animal for me to live, so I shouldn't have to have it die. And honestly after thinking this way for a while, I find meat to be especially gross (dairy too, considering most of it is bodily fluids). I consider equality to be of high morality, so I get pretty strict about this sort of thing.

Plants are just like animals.  They are alive, you eat their juices which is tantamount to bodily fluid.  Sorry it's part of being an animal.  You gotta eat.  I see a lion gut a zebra on national television and it isn't considered cruel even though the lions cubs are eating the things organs while its still alive.  At least when you get the meat its dead and it isn't coming back.  It's our nature to eat meat.  Sorry.

yah but a carrot doesnt have orgasims

I don't know that cows have orgasms either whats your point?

Quote from: "leonswan2000"As atheists should we look at meat differently than religion wich advocates eating meat.

Seventh Day Adventists (vegan), Buddhism (vegan), Judaism (no pigs, no shellfish), and Hinduism (no cow) promote some form of abstination from at least certain types of meat.  Eating meat isn't the creation of religions, it was something we evolved to do.  If we were not natural meat eaters we wouldn't have teeth that are specialized for meat (such as our canine teeth).

I don't think what we eat is an ethical question.  What is an ethical question is how was the food killed and does the food cause avoidable harm to the environment.  Although many vegans/vegetarians will claim you can easily live a healthy life on veggies alone but we all have differing dietary needs/resources and it will not be easily healthy for everyone (I would say most who try it).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "leonswan2000"As atheists should we look at meat differently than religion wich advocates eating meat.

Seventh Day Adventists (vegan), Buddhism (vegan), Judaism (no pigs, no shellfish), and Hinduism (no cow) promote some form of abstination from at least certain types of meat.  Eating meat isn't the creation of religions, it was something we evolved to do.  If we were not natural meat eaters we wouldn't have teeth that are specialized for meat (such as our canine teeth).

I don't think what we eat is an ethical question.  What is an ethical question is how was the food killed and does the food cause avoidable harm to the environment.  Although many vegans/vegetarians will claim you can easily live a healthy life on veggies alone but we all have differing dietary needs/resources and it will not be easily healthy for everyone (I would say most who try it).

I didnt know that about seventh day Adventits, I guess I should have looked before I leaped. I think I was just thinking of Abahamic God [Mostly] It still seems like our teeth most resemble a herbivores and the canine are kind of left over. Like our tailbone. I know there are groups of people who can live on primarily meat (Inuit Indians) where most would have to adapt to this over a long period of time. On the other hand it seems just about any group of people could survive without meat and be just as healthy. If we eat meat only for pleasure does it matter?, I guess is what I'm asking. I'm sure it does to the cow. I know we could be a food source for dozens of animals so you could say we and they are just part of the food chain. But we dont need meat to survive. If we know the cow doesnt want to be eaten should we. You know set the cow free and if it comes back it is yours and if it doesnt.....

I heard a funny quote this christmas:

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

QuoteIn other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed? Would you still be a veggie?

Good question.  Personally, yes.   We've been vegetarian at our house for going on 40 years, and red meat just doesn't appeal to me any more.   My wife's a great vegie cook, and I'm happy with what I've got.

Sorry, I know I'm a little late to this conversation, but this is one of the only subjects in the world that really gets me upset.  As a middle class white person who grew up in the suburbs/country, I never really had any experience with discrimination.  But when I was 12 I decided to stop eating meat and let me tell you, I had no idea people could be so judgmental and just plain hostile about a decision that I thought was just me (as a child) being compassionate and caring toward all living things.  Much like being an atheist, some people get really really angry when you tell them you don't eat meat.  It's bizarre.

As for me, I can only think of two reasons to eat meat:

1.  It tastes good (the by far #1 reason I get from everyone who tries to convince me to eat meat, which is almost everyone), and

2.  It's convenient/built into our culture

For most people, these are good enough reasons.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to be a vegetarian (or vegan--I stopped eating dairy about 2 and a half years ago), but there is a LOT of misinformation out there, a lot of bad "facts" and a WHOLE LOT of money in agribusiness and the meat and dairy industries, which are behind the whole "got milk" ads and most of the "studies" that show how important meat and dairy are.  

I'm not a nutritionist, but I've read a lot of books on nutrition and the links between diet and health, from many different sources, and almost every single one points to a link between better health/longer life spans and vegetarianism.  Americans in particular consume too much protein (we only need about 50 grams a day max, and too much can lead to calcium deficiency, ketosis, and liver and kidney malfunction).  There are direct correlations between the introduction of meat (especially processed meat) into a population and heart disease, cancer, obesity, and other diseases.  See The China Study (http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html).  

QuotePosition of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jun;109(7):1266-1282.

    It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

It's true that early humans ate a lot of meat, but it was wild game, which is vastly different than grain-raised cattle and pork that is eaten by most people today.  Also, these people got far more exercise and ate plenty of raw fruit and vegetables, which have most of the fiber, vitamins and minerals required to thrive.

As for the environmental factors, meat eating, and especially conventional industrial farming/feed-lot meat has a massive negative impact on the environment.  Animals raised for meat require an enormous amount of food (mostly grain) and water to raise an animal that will feed just a few people for one meal--all that grain and water used to keep the animal alive could have been used for human consumption instead.  Not to mention the methane pollution (more detrimental than CO2 and mostly produced by animals raised for food), water pollution from industrial agriculture, and deforestation of lands to grow grains to feed these animals.

And then there's the cruelty factor.  The things that are done to the animals in feed lots and slaughter houses, and the fact that they exist in a supposedly "civilized" society, is incomprehensible to me.  I don't even like to think about this part.  It's awful.  The conditions in which the animals are kept, and the antibiotics and growth hormones that are pumped into them to keep them from getting sick and to make them get bigger faster (which are then passed on to humans)... it's just so depressing and cruel and unnecessary.  All for the convenience of a tasty burger (pork chop, chicken breast, etc.)  Most people say they like animals, but do not want to think about the lives of the ones they eat.  Like many others on this board have said, I can live without taking the lives of other creatures, and so I choose to.  Especially knowing the conditions in which they live and die.  (As for the initial question posed--I still wouldn't eat meat because of the other reasons).

Sooo (and I'm sorry this is sooo looong, it's just something I really care about), pro-meat has taste and convenience, while anti-meat has health, environment, and compassion.  The way I see it, it's a no-brainer.  

And just for fun for people who think all vegans are unhealthy and waif-like (haha), here's a list of celebrity vegans (from here (http://www.vegan-nutritionista.com/vegan-celebrities.html)):

    * Alicia Silverstone
    * Alyssa Milano
    * Carrie Anne Moss
    * Casey Affleck
    * Casey Kasem
    * Daryl Hannah
    * Demi Moore
    * Elijah Wood
    * Ellen DeGeneres
    * Emily Deschanel
    * Gillian Anderson
    * Jennifer Connelly
    * Joaquin Phoenix
    * Keenan Ivory Wayens
    * Kevin Nealon
    * Mayim Bialik (Blossom)
    * Natalie Portman
    * Portia de Rossi
    * River Phoenix
    * Sandra Oh
    * Tea Leoni
    * Prince
    * Toby Maguire
    * Vanessa A. Williams
    * Weird Al Yankovic
    * Woody Harrelson
    * Zooey Deschanel

and Vegan Athletes

    * Brendan Brazier (ironman triathlete)
    * Carl Lewis (Olympic Track Star)
    * Ed Templeton (pro skateboarder)
    * George Laraque (NHL)
    * Jack LaLaine (fitness guru)
    * John Salley (former NBA player)
    * Lucy Stephens (triathlete)
    * Mac Danzig (Ultimate fighting)
    * Martina Navratilova (tennis)
    * Pat Neshek (Minnesota Twins pitcher)
    * Ronda Rousey (judo)
    * Sally Eastall (marathoner)
    * Scott Jurek (marathoner)
    * Tony Gonzalez (football)

</end diatribe>  

Well said bfat.   You make the case well.

If it's good enough for Weird Al Yankovic, it's good enough for me.  

Do you know what annoys me...when fat (leaning towards obese) vegetarians try to convince me that vegetarianism is healthier AND when they try to claim it is healthier due to "no hormones" etc when the veggies they buy have pesticides sprayed all over them or are canned and loaded with salt.


In reality, a balanced diet including meat or not is just fine especially since the average person won't find it easy to eat a balanced diet without using some meat.  

The only reason I can think of to avoid meat like it is poison is if a person has an ethical concern about eating meat; in which case they really should be vegan rather than vegetarian to make sure that they do nothing at all that could potentially cause harm to animals (including avoiding all non-food products that utilize animals in some way).

oh, and I found this interesting....

QuoteThe other reason for beef eating is, hold on, ethicalâ€"a matter of animal rights. The familiar argument for vegetarianism, articulated by Tom Regan, a philosophical founder of the modern animal-rights movement, is that it would save Babe the pig and Chicken Run's Ginger from execution. But what about Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse? asks Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, pointing to the number of field animals inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest. Rabbits, mice and pheasants, he says, are the indiscriminate "collateral damage" of row crops and the grain industry.

the whole article is actually pretty good:  http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html)

Quote from: "Whitney"since the average person won't find it easy to eat a balanced diet without using some meat.

This is just a personal anecdote, not science.  

My wife has been a pure vegie for 40 years.   I'm more a 98% vegie, also 40 years.   We don't worry about a balanced diet, other than just everyday common sense.  

We're almost 60.  We challenge board members to an arm wrestling match!!    

People eat meat because they like the way it tastes, which is their right.   No need to make it complicated, imho.

Quote from: "bfat"snip

You wondered why people got annoyed at you?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F1002%2Fvegans-say-meat-is-murder-vegan-meat-murder-demotivational-poster-1265508676.jpg&hash=a9b8d739eb3fea6b9a6e3f5f69642c39be4c96b4) (http://www.motifake.com/vegans-say-meat-is-murder-vegan-meat-murder-demotivational-poster-89101.html)

We as a species have evolved past the point of having to gather and hunt our own food. Instead, we farm and domesticate. To me... those are the same.

I eat meat and vegetables equally and really don't prefer one over the other. Besides...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F0905%2Fvegetarianism-vegetarianism-plants-meat-demotivational-poster-1242163556.jpg&hash=481d24fd099c7ecda0ccd30307b904bc369ed025) (http://www.motifake.com/vegetarianism-vegetarianism-plants-meat-demotivational-poster-56865.html)

Hismikeness

Quote from: "bfat"It's true that early humans ate a lot of meat, but it was wild game, which is vastly different than grain-raised cattle and pork that is eaten by most people today.  Also, these people got far more exercise and ate plenty of raw fruit and vegetables, which have most of the fiber, vitamins and minerals required to thrive.

There's a new diet making the rounds called the Paleolithic diet (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471267554?tag=paleotop-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0471267554&adid=1SD608052CX6SGCB19EV&) (pejoratively called the "caveman diet"), which features a diet heavy in wild game and that has no dairy or grains, which is supposed to be representative of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle humans used to live. Would this be acceptable, from an ethical/health standpoint?

Quote from: "bfat"As for the environmental factors, meat eating, and especially conventional industrial farming/feed-lot meat has a massive negative impact on the environment.  Animals raised for meat require an enormous amount of food (mostly grain) and water to raise an animal that will feed just a few people for one meal--all that grain and water used to keep the animal alive could have been used for human consumption instead.  Not to mention the methane pollution (more detrimental than CO2 and mostly produced by animals raised for food), water pollution from industrial agriculture, and deforestation of lands to grow grains to feed these animals.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that defends the over-processed and highly industrialized meat industry of modern industrialized nations (at least on this forum). What we've done to our food (not just meat, but much of what we consume) is horrid. Still, not everyone supports the food industrial complex. I eat locally and naturally farmed eggs and meats. My chickens lived outside, my fish came from waters that aren't overfished, and the occasional beef is grass-fed. I'm a good liberal commie pinko hippie.  

While I'm aware that meat farming is pretty much universally eco-unfriendly, there are ways of ingesting meat that do virtually no damage to the environment. Case in point, on Saturday I had organic Hog Island Oysters that were out of this world. They're farmed fresh from a renewable source with almost no environmental impact at all.

Quote from: "bfat"And then there's the cruelty factor.  The things that are done to the animals in feed lots and slaughter houses, and the fact that they exist in a supposedly "civilized" society, is incomprehensible to me.  I don't even like to think about this part.  It's awful.  The conditions in which the animals are kept, and the antibiotics and growth hormones that are pumped into them to keep them from getting sick and to make them get bigger faster (which are then passed on to humans)... it's just so depressing and cruel and unnecessary.  All for the convenience of a tasty burger (pork chop, chicken breast, etc.)  Most people say they like animals, but do not want to think about the lives of the ones they eat.  Like many others on this board have said, I can live without taking the lives of other creatures, and so I choose to.  Especially knowing the conditions in which they live and die.  (As for the initial question posed--I still wouldn't eat meat because of the other reasons).

I understand this, too, but getting back to my OP:

Quote from: "Will"Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed?

I'm asking this because I'm trying to get a better understanding of vegetarianism.

Quote from: "Will"I'm asking this because I'm trying to get a better understanding of vegetarianism.

You're unlikely to find a single understanding of course, just as all atheists aren't the same.   Here's one more understanding to add to your list.

A spider just walked through my office.  We're in Florida, and our property, inside and out, abounds with spiders, lots and lots of them.

I could have stomped the spider.  No big ecological damage, and a quick painless death for the spider, who was going to die of something someday soon anyway.

Sometimes I do stomp spiders.   Sometimes I don't.  

When I don't it's because I'm having a rare moment of clarity, and realizing that this little decision to not stomp aids the process of helping me be not quite such a jerk, a little bit nicer person.  

When I don't stomp, I don't stomp for me.

It's all self interest, nothing to do with morality.

Quote from: "Typist"This is just a personal anecdote, not science.  


My wife (snip).

No comment.

Ok, one comment read the link I posted...

Quote from: "Whitney"

QuoteThe other reason for beef eating is, hold on, ethicalâ€"a matter of animal rights. The familiar argument for vegetarianism, articulated by Tom Regan, a philosophical founder of the modern animal-rights movement, is that it would save Babe the pig and Chicken Run's Ginger from execution. But what about Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse? asks Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, pointing to the number of field animals inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest. Rabbits, mice and pheasants, he says, are the indiscriminate "collateral damage" of row crops and the grain industry.

the whole article is actually pretty good:  http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html)

What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

The whole article seemed like it was trying a little too hard to plead both sides, rather than just present the facts.  It did have some really great facts about vegetarianism and its benefits, but most of the "negatives" were the result of people being poorly educated about nutrition, not because of the vegetarian diet itself.  Obviously, a vegetarian who eats nothing but fried cheese sticks, pizza, and Chinese food will not be healthy.  But an omnivore who eats the same thing, but adds pepperoni to the pizza and pork to the fried rice is certainly not any healthier, and probably much worse off.  The quotes about bone-loss and deficiencies were qualified with things like "At least among the vegans who are also philosophically opposed to fortified foods and/or vitamin and mineral supplements." (So take your vitamins and pay attention to what you eat!)  and that children who drink less milk (and drink fake juice and soda instead) have lower calcium intake.  Um, duh?  But children who drink fortified soymilk (or rice milk or almond milk, whatever) are healthy, and can easily get their recommended amount.

A balanced diet is important, no matter what form it takes.  I still eat junk food.  I'm human, and I love me some french fries.  But trying to make vegetarianism seem unhealthy by saying that it doesn't give you enough of certain nutrients is silly.  Not eating enough of those nutrients is what causes the deficiencies--the nutrients are there in the food and supplements, its just people that are weak and prone to making poor decisions.  That's true of omnivores, carnivores, and herbivores alike.

Quote from: "Will"Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed?

Sorry, yes, back to the original topic.  If this were the case, I'd be much happier, but I still wouldn't eat it.  I don't need to take the life of another creature to survive, and all my nutritional needs are met by other means.  But I'd have much less of a problem with meat in general if it was ecologically friendly, less cruel (because killing something innocent, no matter how friendly you are when you do it, is still killing something innocent), and healthier.  The issue would be much less depressing and frustrating.

If it was a matter of survival, however, I would most likely eat meat.  If it was me or the chicken... so long, Ginger.

Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Quote from: "Whitney"Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Why do we value people over both plants and animals?

Quote from: "Whitney"Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Really?

Animals have intelligence, consciousness, and belong to an entirely different biological kingdom than plants.  We can interact with them and share mutual communication.  They can demonstrate an understanding of their surroundings and many can show affection, loyalty, fear, and other emotions that we share.  Would you eat your dog?  What about your houseplant if it produced something delicious?



Plants are alive, and I respect their right to live, but some are designed to be eaten (like fruit that spread seeds of the plants by being eaten).  They do not have central nervous systems, brains, or a demonstrable awareness of themselves or the world around them.  If someone can prove otherwise, maybe I'll become a fruitarian, but somewhere a line has to be drawn, and for me its done by biological hierarchy.  I won't eat anything in the Phylum "chordata" (nothing with a spinal chord), and pretty much nothing else in the "animal" kingdom except scallops.  Though they're made of animal tissue, to me they seem pretty much like plants.

When I was a vegetarian it was always for health and environmental reasons, and really just to try it out. It was more about introducing more variety into my diet than cutting anything out of it. Ethics never really entered the equation. I'll probably have a nearly vegetarian diet again pretty soon, once again for health reasons. Legitimate ones, not because I fell for any sort of propaganda. Unless my and my partner's doctors are all propagandists.

Quote from: "bfat"

Quote from: "Whitney"Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Really?

yes, really.

Animals have intelligence, consciousness, and belong to an entirely different biological kingdom than plants.  We can interact with them and share mutual communication.  They can demonstrate an understanding of their surroundings and many can show affection, loyalty, fear, and other emotions that we share.  Would you eat your dog?  [/quote]

some people do eat dogs...and cute fluffy bunnies.

Fish, shrimp, turtles, lobster etc are off the vegetarian menu yet aren't affectionate et all.  

imo, you are either concerned about harming other living things (in which you should be a frutarian) or you are simply reacting to a cultural gut feeling about only certain types of living things.

Quote from: "bfat"What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

You miss the point. Vegetarians still kill lots of animals by their food choices. Sure, with me, the cow dies and a whole lot of field mice etc, but with you, a lot of field mice still get killed. If you wanted to, you could eliminate this, by farming yourself, by hand, or hydroponically, but you don't. The point being, you still kill animals, just less of them. It really all boils down to convenience. I am not willing to accept the hardship of not eating meat, you are not willing to accept the hardship of farming more carefully, we are really, a lot more similar than you would like to think.

Quote from: "Whitney"some people do eat dogs...and cute fluffy bunnies.

Fish, shrimp, turtles, lobster etc are off the vegetarian menu yet aren't affectionate et all.  

imo, you are either concerned about harming other living things (in which you should be a frutarian) or you are simply reacting to a cultural gut feeling about only certain types of living things.

This is reductive.  The issue is not black and white, where you either care about living things or you don't.  It is possible (and natural, I think) to value certain living things over others.  Most vegetarians don't say "I won't kill or eat any living thing," because this doesn't make a lot of sense.  As members of the food chain, all animals must eat other living things to survive, since we can't make food out of sunlight like plants.  It's either me or the plant, so I'll eat the plant and be thankful for it.  I respect all living things, but I understand that some sacrifice is necessary for survival.  But animals with awareness (even ones that don't show affection) are not necessary in our diets for survival.  I don't need to sacrifice them in order to live, so I don't.  Biological hierarchy exists with clearly defined lines, and it seems logical to draw the line of what you will or won't eat based on this.

Most people are totally appalled at the idea of eating dogs (though some cultures do).  But pigs, which are smarter and also very affectionate, are fine.  Everyone has some dietary boundaries they place based on how they feel, or what they think about different animals.  It's just a matter of where you draw the line.  One isn't any more right or wrong than another (though there are cultural taboos against eating certain things, like people).  I respect everyone's ability to make their own decisions, I just think that most people don't think about what they eat or why the eat it.  People should be encouraged to make educated decisions about their diet.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "bfat"What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

You miss the point. Vegetarians still kill lots of animals by their food choices. Sure, with me, the cow dies and a whole lot of field mice etc, but with you, a lot of field mice still get killed. If you wanted to, you could eliminate this, by farming yourself, by hand, or hydroponically, but you don't. The point being, you still kill animals, just less of them. It really all boils down to convenience. I am not willing to accept the hardship of not eating meat, you are not willing to accept the hardship of farming more carefully, we are really, a lot more similar than you would like to think.

Actually, the point the article was trying to make is that it's somehow more, or at least equally, compassionate to eat cows/pigs/chickens because plant farming kills lots of animals too.  But that's a ridiculous point, because not only do more of the mice and bunnies die to grow more grain for the pigs/cows/chickens, but then the pigs/cows/chickens die too.  Buying locally and organic can reduce a lot of the unnecessary deaths of industrial farming, but I wouldn't imply that it's "laziness" or something on the part of the vegetarian because he/she doesn't want to farm all his/her food by hand (which is extremely impractical, if not impossible, for most people).  It's about doing as much as possible, and making the best decisions that we can, based on our personal ethics.  The accidental deaths of some mice living in a soybean field is a far cry from a cow/pig/chicken raised in captivity and purposefully slaughtered for human consumption.

Some Buddhists remove worms from the dirt they build on, so they won't be killed during construction.  I respect them for this, but holy shit, I can only do so much.  I don't think it's hypocritical, it's just about doing the best I can, given the circumstances.  If I could live in a worm-death-free house, I would.  But I don't really feel responsible for the lives of the wild animals that take up residence in fields that get plowed regularly... maybe future generations of vole/mouse/rabbit will adapt and learn not to build their little houses in a field that gets plowed every year.  But the cow/pig/chicken has no choice.

I fail to see how you address the point I made. You still kill lots of animals, you could reduce this number, but you don't. I kill lots of animals, I could reduce this number, but I don't. Just to clarify, I am not saying my way is any more moral than your way, but I am saying that we are really, very similar. When you say "doing as much as possible", you clearly contradict yourself. You could be doing a lot more, but you don't, you make an effort, but in reality you could be doing a hell of a lot more.

 Also, your last point is surprisingly uncompassionate for a veggie, the cute lil field mice have no clue what on earth is happening to their world when a giant rubmbling death star rolls over their field chewing them up and spitting them out. Trying to say you don't feel responsible because they chose to live there, seems very at odds with your message. They never had an informed choice to make, just like a pig.

I don't kill anything on purpose, ever.  When a road is paved, bugs and probably mice and other little critter things get killed.  So do you think that a "real" compassionate vegetarian should never walk on a road?  Is everyone who drives/walks on that road somehow responsible for the deaths of those animals?  Every product in existence probably has ties in some way to the death of some creature or another.  Saying "surprisingly uncompassionate for a veggie" is really insulting, as if all vegetarians can be generalized in some way, and are expected to have the same feelings on all subjects.  I'm not some radical who wears recycled paper pants and stares at the ground while walking so I don't step on a cockroach.  But, out of respect for their right to live, I don't consume the flesh of other animals.  And its not like vegetable packaging says "453 mice were killed in the harvesting of this crop."  There is no way to know what or if or how many animals die in the production of anything, except meat.

This thread has become completely ridiculous.    

Quote from: "bfat"This thread has become completely ridiculous.    

Maybe the cure is to stop talking about morality (what we do or don't do on behalf of animals) and change the focus to self interest?   After all, that's how animals decide what to eat or not eat, eh?

My wife is a squirrel rehabber, and we've raised a couple hundred orphaned baby squirrels over the last few years.   This experience changed my perspective on critters a good bit.

I was surprised to discover that squirrels have individual unique personalities, and experience many human-like emotions such as embarrassment, envy, jealousy, etc.  

When I see wildlife now I don't see a species, but a unique individual, which does kinda change the hunting equation.  

Which reminds me!   Yesterday I was out in the yard, and a couple hundred sandhill cranes flew over at tree top level, honking up a storm.  It was awesome!  

I didn't eat any of them.  

To be clear, I only pushed the issue because it was said earlier in this thread that there is no reason to eat meat when, in fact, there are real reasons to want to eat meat.  One major reason being convenience.... that in our society it is simply a lot easier to find something to eat on the go if you are omnivorous and most of us were taught how to create a balanced meal using meat.  Take away moral concerns and there is no reason to be vegetarian aside from personal taste preferences because there haven't been enough studies on health...the major studies have been on Seventh Day Adventists who view their bodies as temples and therefore avoid vices and tend to work out regularly to maintain health.  I would also point out that if you have to take supplements in order to survive on a diet that the diet isn't very well rounded.

If someone wants to be vegetarian, vegan or whatever for personal reasons fine but don't pretend to be taking the moral or health high ground over those who see no need to eat in what many view as an extreme, unappealing, and very inconvenient manner.

Whitney, I agree with you that everybody should eat whatever they want to eat.   I also feel that everybody should say whatever they want to say about why they eat whatever they eat.  

Quotein what many view as an extreme, unappealing, and very inconvenient manner.

It's true that many view it that way, agreed.    

It's also true that they are simply wrong.   A vegie diet is not extreme, unappealing or very inconvenient.   No supplements are needed.   No special knowledge or Harvard courses required.  Common sense gets the job done just fine.

Quote from: "Typist"Whitney, I agree with you that everybody should eat whatever they want to eat.   I also feel that everybody should say whatever they want to say about why they eat whatever they eat.  

Quotein what many view as an extreme, unappealing, and very inconvenient manner.

It's true that many view it that way, agreed.    

It's also true that they are simply wrong.   A vegie diet is not extreme, unappealing or very inconvenient.   No supplements are needed.   No special knowledge or Harvard courses required.  Common sense gets the job done just fine.

Typist, I agree with you. What an articulate and well-written post. An excellent read!

I also agree that no suppliments are needed.  

Quote from: "Typist"A vegie diet is not extreme, unappealing or very inconvenient.  

It is for some of us....esp the unappealing and inconvenient part.  It's inconvenient for me to try to find vegetarian meals my husband will eat and unappealing for him to eat most vegetarian meals.  He hates almost all veggies including onions (broccoli and spinach are about all that are okay other than tomato products; not tomatoes) and I don't care for most beans; esp not if I've had them more than once that week.  We'll both eat tofu but apparently now people are raising concern about estrogen in soy so it's bad to have that very often...whatever.

I don't care how much vegetarians and vegans try to claim that an all or mostly veggie diet is easy to maintain; you're either lying or have no social life   .  I know vegetarians and see them trying to go out to dinner with friends and having to eat before hand because they can't eat anything at most restaurants...that's inconvenient.   Not to mention having to learn how to cook with only vegetables without ending up producing something that is smothered with cheese in an attempt to create flavor....I know a lot of vegetarians well, I'll just say that a higher percentage of them end up making meals for group events that I wouldn't want to eat as related to those who just make something without food group restrictions.

now...if vegetarian allowed for  ecologically harvested dumb sea creatures (ie, not eating Flipper) and eggs; then that would be fine.  I basically only cook with chicken, turkey, and fish anyway...wouldn't be that hard to cut out the turkey and chicken if I felt there were a need to do so. I still don't think I'd cut it out completely though...that's where the extreme comes in; I don't like the idea of deciding never again (or never) on something unless it is habit forming.

Quote from: "Whitney"It is for some of us....esp the unappealing and inconvenient part.  It's inconvenient for me to try to find vegetarian meals my husband will eat and unappealing for him to eat most vegetarian meals.  He hates almost all veggies including onions (broccoli and spinach are about all that are okay other than tomato products; not tomatoes) and I don't care for most beans; esp not if I've had them more than once that week.  We'll both eat tofu but apparently now people are raising concern about estrogen in soy so it's bad to have that very often...whatever.

I don't care how much vegetarians and vegans try to claim that an all or mostly veggie diet is easy to maintain; you're either lying or have no social life   .

Or they are merely committing the "I am the world" fallacy thinking that since they find it easy then everyone could find it as easy and fulfilling without taking into consideration that people do have have different metabolisms and physiological needs and might really have severely differing dietary requirements.

Maybe we're talking about two different things, being a vegie, and becoming a vegie.

Yes, I can see how the transition from one diet to another can be challenging.  As example, after 40 years of being a vegie, it would be challenging indeed for me to eat a steak.  

Imagine moving to Thailand.  At first the foods common there might  seem weird and unappealing.   But after we'd been locals for awhile, we'd get used to it, and then we'd probably come around to enjoying it.  If we stayed long enough, we might lose all desire for our old diet.  We might even come to hate our old diet.

Actually, meat eaters who are currently considering aspects of a vegie diet are the experts on the experience of transition.   I made the transition 40 years ago, and it's a memory blur to me.   So yes, during the transition, various aspects of the vegie diet might very well be experience as inconvenient, unappealing etc.

All I really have to contribute is the experience of seeing this from beyond the transition.

I've got plenty of tasty vegetarian recipes. There's fresh basil pesto (http://elise.com/recipes/archives/001329fresh_basil_pesto.php), great for anything from pasta to sandwiches, roasted, stuffed portable mushrooms (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/robin-miller/roasted-stuffed-portobellos-recipe/index.html), lentil soup (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/lentil-soup-recipe/index.html), onion rings (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/patrick-and-gina-neely/pats-old-school-onion-rings-recipe/index.html), mint onion quiches (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/paula-deen/mini-onion-quiches-recipe/index.html), mozzarella sticks (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/mozzarella-sticks-recipe/index.html), pasta with walnuts and fetta cheese (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ellie-krieger/whole-wheat-pasta-salad-with-walnuts-and-feta-cheese-recipe/index.html), breakfast tacos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XMTWJNZEjQ) (everyone to ever have these breakfast tacos has loved them), collard greens (http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/cooking-for-real/vegetarian-southern-style-collard-greens-recipe/index.html), and spiced red lentil soup with cashews (http://www.theparsleythief.com/2010/02/spiced-red-lentil-soup-with-cashews.html). And these are just off the top of my head, I've got loads more. Shoot, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is vegetarian. And everyone loves a PBJ (unless they're allergic to peanuts, in which case they'd only love it until their throat swelled shut).

I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't eat a lot of meat. This week I'm having half a fresh salmon filet from the fish market and half a chicken breast. Other than that, my protein is coming from eggs, soy milk, brown rice, beans and nuts.

Quote from: "pckizer"Or they are merely committing the "I am the world" fallacy thinking that since they find it easy then everyone could find it as easy and fulfilling without taking into consideration that people do have have different metabolisms and physiological needs and might really have severely differing dietary requirements.

Yes, that is probably more likely than lying or not having a social life  

When I first decided to be a vegetarian (when I was 12), I ate a ham sandwich like 6 hours later.  Half way through, I looked down at what I was eating and I was like "whoops..."  I didn't finish it, but it made me realize how totally ingrained meat eating was in my life.  My aunt had made it for me, and I don't think I'd yet announced my decision to the world.  Also, for like the next 5 years, my dad would repeatedly bring me hamburgers and chicken, etc. from take-out restaurants because he forgot (or "forgot" because he was more against my decision than anyone else) that I'd stopped eating meat.  It is a really tough transition to make.  And you're right, it is a pain in the ass trying to eat out (especially now that I don't eat cheese).  I get pretty sick of veggie burgers or salads that are 90% iceburg lettuce, which are the only options at most normal/chain restaurants.  Sometimes I really feel like saying "screw it" and ordering mac 'n cheese or something.

Slowly, though, restaurants are coming to realize that there are vegetarian customers, and offering more options.  Hopefully, as the world becomes a little more open minded, the choice will become easier for people who struggle against the convenience factor.

Quote from: "veganatheist"

Quote from: "Will"As I understand it, a lot of why vegetarians are vegetarians has to do with things like the way animals are treated before and during slaughter and what effect the meat industry has on the environment. I believe I understand both of these complaints, in fact I do what I can to buy responsible, locally grown, free-range meat. I even send out for grass-fed beef when I occasionally eat it.

Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed? Would you still be a veggie?

I am vegan because when I intentionally and needlessly harm another thinking, feeling creature it causes me harm, as well. It's simple compassion, without a lot of nasty denial in the way.

Humans are animals, too, right? So, what if children were fed good, healthy food and then painlessly killed and served up?

Everyone is born atheist. Similarly, we have to be taught to ignore our disgust at the slaughterhouse.

How does owning chickens and using their eggs for consumption constitute cruelty? My sister's chickens are very happy. They actually make very good pets and their eggs...oooh, their eggs are amazing. The yolks aren't yellow, but a deep orange colour. That is the difference between eggs laid by a happy chicken and eggs laid by a battery-farmed chicken. One of my sister's chickens regularly lays double-yolk eggs too. As a vegan, you wouldn't eat those eggs. Why, exactly?

I have a fair amount of disdain for vegans. Not only do they stink (they never understand that the vast amounts of methane they produce is actually rather intolerable - especially in the lunch room!!) but are usually very highly strung individuals. Personally, i get quite offended when someone looks at my food and professes it to be 'immoral and disgusting'... Vegans are also usually quite sickly and have to eat constantly to get enough energy to do anything remotely labour intensive. I'm saying all this from personal experience. I used to live in Devon in a village populated mostly by hippies

Furthermore, we are omnivores. There's a reason we have canine teeth. Our bodies need the vitamins given to us from animal products.
My auntie became a vegan a few years back. It turned her into an asshole. I guess her brain started to cry out for all the essential vitamins and minerals people who eat a normal varied and healthy diet usually receive. Within a year she started to get major health issues. Luckily she saw reason and started eating animal products again, to the great relief of my family.

Good post Karadan, I agree with it a lot.

I knew one vegan who was overall, a top chap, he never evangelised, always brought up food issues in a really fun, jokey way and always took the terrible food he had to eat stoically. He was American, and used to tell me how he really, really missed fried catfish and steak, he still loved the smell of meat. I think a facet of it was his Buddhism, the same thing that prompted him to leave animals alone, prompted him to leave me alone when it came to meat and the like, his attitude was "I can get by without eating meat and diary, doing so reduces the impact I have on other animals, so I do it, and that's fine". Also, I think I remember reading something about chimp populations hunting smaller monkeys, and some think that a similar process happened with us, our increased protein intake allowed us to develop larger brains, sending us on the path to civilisation.

Quote from: "SSY"...sending us on the path to civilization.

A process which some vegetarians are trying to continue and contribute to.  

Civilization is a process of seeing that we'll benefit more by cooperating with others than by pursuing only our own personal agenda.   Concepts like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" were invented to strengthen this civilization building process.

It's true that some vegies (especially new ones) can become moralizing pompous asses, which isn't very civilized.   It's also true that they may be clumsily attempting to "do unto critters as we would have critters do unto us" if we were in the weaker position.

For some, vegetarianism is about trying to learn how to not abuse those who are in the weaker position, ie. civilization.

I know that some meat eaters are offended by claims they are morally inferior.   Ok, that's understandable, we're ALL human, obsessed by our self images.

But at least nobody is eating you, eh?   You have the option to simply ignore moralizers if you wish.  You are not a victim.

Quote from: "karadan"I have a fair amount of disdain for vegans. Not only do they stink (they never understand that the vast amounts of methane they produce is actually rather intolerable - especially in the lunch room!!) but are usually very highly strung individuals. Personally, i get quite offended when someone looks at my food and professes it to be 'immoral and disgusting'... Vegans are also usually quite sickly and have to eat constantly to get enough energy to do anything remotely labour intensive. I'm saying all this from personal experience. I used to live in Devon in a village populated mostly by hippies lol

When I was a vegetarian, I used to say exactly this when it came up - I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not an asshole about it.  One thing that always bothered me about being a vegetarian was the presumption that my diet was somehow fair game for judgment, but I dare not respond by pointing out that I found their food just as gross as they found mine or I was one of THOSE vegetarians.  I accepted that the double standard existed for me because THOSE vegetarians existed and were really annoying and often overbearing, but it still pissed me off a little whenever it happened.

I limit my meat for environmental and economical reasons.  I eat meat, I just eat little of it.  I use it for flavor, rather than substance in my meals that contain it.

I grew up on a farm so I know just how much goes into raising meat.  We used pasture (cellulose rich grass humans cannot digest) but factory farms don't, they use grain.  Cows are very poor converters of grain to meat, worse than humans, actually.  Pigs are far better and chickens better still.  

Veggies, grains, and fruits are cheaper than meat.  I'm poor so I eat little meat.

But I do eat meat, dairy, and eggs.  I don't do well at all on a vegetarian diet.  I got sick (now that would probably be even sicker) a lot and had horrible headaches and PMS.  People generally tell me that means I was doing it wrong.  

So I have an egg, a bit of meat, or cheese every other day or so.

Quote from: "Typist"Snip

What? Was that specifically aimed at the part you quoted? That really was one crazy salad of a post you made, I am not sure I really know how to respond.

I made a post mostly about a vegan friend of mine, and ended on a point about protein intake and the possible evolutionary effect it had on us, as a little follow on to Karadan's mentioning of the important role animal products play in our diet and our adaptation to them.

I never said vegetarians were uncivilised, nor that they are incapable of empathy, I am almost at a loss when it comes to rest of your post, I feel like you were responding to some other post, but quoted mine for some reason? Your point about meat eaters being offended, I can only speak for myself, but more than being offended, I am being irked by hypocrisy of those who claim to occupy some position diametrically opposed to my own, when really, they just give slightly more of a shit than I do about animals (debatable but still. . .).

I am not being eaten, but am completely baffled as what point you were trying to make, I make this post in a genuine haze of confusion.

Hi SSY,

You said...

Quoteour increased protein intake allowed us to develop larger brains, sending us on the path to civilization.

And I said....

QuoteA process which some vegetarians are trying to continue and contribute to....   For some, vegetarianism is about trying to learn how to not abuse those who are in the weaker position, ie. civilization.

That is, now that we have larger brains, we're trying to use them to create a civilization that involves a bit less killing.  The civilization process you described is still unfolding....

Your definition of civilisation is or includes, less killing of animals?

Quote from: "SSY"Your definition of civilisation is or includes, less killing of animals?

Less unnecessary violence of any kind, including animals, yes.

Aztecs less civilised than leaf-cutter ants, got it.

If civilization has anything to do with less killing it is that those who live in the same society as you are encouraged not to kill you; conversely, they are encouraged to kill "the enemy" which can be any outsider the leaders of society choose to demonize.

In a perfect world, we'd all eat vat-grown meat.

Mmmm, vat-grown...

Quote from: "karadan"In a perfect world, we'd all eat vat-grown meat.

Mmmm, vat-grown...

I'll just settle for the human flavored tofu (http://www.strangenewproducts.com/2005/09/tofu-that-tastes-like-human-flesh.html).  

Tastes of chicken?

Quote from: "elliebean"Tastes of chicken?

Apparently not!

"If you've never had human flesh before, think of the taste and texture of beef, except a little sweeter in taste and a little softer in texture. Contrary to popular belief, people do not taste like pork or chicken."

Ok, who the smeg wrote that and how do they know?

Was that some kind of april fools Curio?  :D

Quote from: "elliebean"Tastes of chicken?

Cake or death?

Quote from: "karadan"Was that some kind of april fools Curio?  :D

Yeah. :D

Haha. Nice one. I had a few people in the office crowd around my pc and yell various chants of 'gross' and 'eew'

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "elliebean"Tastes of chicken?

Cake or death?

Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry...

Quote from: "karadan"Haha. Nice one. I had a few people in the office crowd around my pc and yell various chants of 'gross' and 'eew' ;)

Quote from: "elliebean"Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry...

Aaah hah, you said death first!

Quote from: "SSY"(...) Also, I think I remember reading something about chimp populations hunting smaller monkeys, and some think that a similar process happened with us, our increased protein intake allowed us to develop larger brains, sending us on the path to civilisation.

At the risk of going off on a tangent - I've heard this "pre-modern-human meat eating led to bigger brains" claim too, but it always seemed a bit Lamarkian to me, sort of like animals reaching for the upper leaves on plants is what caused their descendants to develop longer necks.  As for the meat-eating claim, how can any brain-size-enhancing effect of eating meat be passed on to my offspring?  Wouldn't they too have to eat meat to get the same brain-size-enhancing effect?  Even if there was selection pressure favouring those individuals that received the biggest brain-size boost from eating meat (perhaps they outsmart the competition for survival and mates?), all they would pass on is their greater ability to gain brain size from meat eating, they would not pass on actually larger brains - surely?

There was even an eat-more-meat TV campaign here in Australia (starring Sam Neil) that referenced the claim about eating meat and bigger brains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBhdqrdN4zg

So it's a pretty common claim.  When I looked into it the link was basically a correlation (the time our ancestors started eating meat was also the time their brains got bigger, therefore... nudge nudge wink wink).

Lamarkian evolution dies hard - I know I had a semi-Lamarkian understanding of evolution for years before I even realised it.

BIAS ALERT - I am a 20-year ovo-lacto vegetarian, so I'm probably predisposed to not like the idea that meat is what gave me my brains.  

I think the argument is not that eating meat caused the evolution of bigger brains but that the desire to eat (fatty) meats provided the body with fuel necessary to grow a big brain.  So, those who had the desire to eat more brain fuel were smarter (since their brains grew better) and more likely to survive; thus passing on the desire and subsequently the ability to grow a bigger brain onto future generations.

Quote from: "Will"As I understand it, a lot of why vegetarians are vegetarians has to do with things like the way animals are treated before and during slaughter and what effect the meat industry has on the environment. I believe I understand both of these complaints, in fact I do what I can to buy responsible, locally grown, free-range meat. I even send out for grass-fed beef when I occasionally eat it.

Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed? Would you still be a veggie?

Yes. I'm a vegan for emotional reasons so yes. It would not change for me. I suppose I might feel all right about eating an animal that I didn't know that died naturally in old age after a life lived in it's proper habitat. But as you can imagine that doesn't seem like anything feasible marketing wise for the agri-business industry.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"I suppose I might feel all right about eating an animal that I didn't know that died naturally in old age after a life lived in it's proper habitat. But as you can imagine that doesn't seem like anything feasible marketing wise for the agri-business industry.

Gotta be honest, that doesn't sound very tasty, either.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"I suppose I might feel all right about eating an animal that I didn't know that died naturally in old age after a life lived in it's proper habitat. But as you can imagine that doesn't seem like anything feasible marketing wise for the agri-business industry.

Gotta be honest, that doesn't sound very tasty, either.

Probably isn't. Although I don't know, before I was vegan I probably only had the same factory farming products most people do.

Arent plants beings just like animals?

So if its not ok for us to consume a being, you still do when you consume a plant. Its living. Its producing energy (like an animal does) but from the sun. Its a being. Are plants different than humans and animals because of the way they acquire their energy?

Or is this just a hippie idea? rofl idk.

I don't think many vegetarians feel it's "not ok to consume a being".

Bacteria are beings. They live in your mouth. You consume them every few seconds, when you swallow (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/03/saliva.spit.survey/).

[spoiler:2u71knqq]The most common type of bacteria found in the survey of saliva was Streptococcus, Stoneking said. People typically have Streptococcus in their mouths living benignly, although certain species are responsible for diseases such as strep throat, meningitis and bacterial  pneumonia.[/spoiler:2u71knqq]

Hmm, so i guess my pondering is if those vegetarians actually exist like that. I guess hippies? ive never met a true hippie so...

Quote from: "Iamwaves"Arent plants beings just like animals?

Are they? Do you seriously feel that the sentience of a lima bean is equal to that of pig? And if so what do you base that upon?

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Do you seriously feel that the sentience of a lima bean is equal to that of pig? And if so what do you base that upon?

Naturally, plants are very sentient of their environment. They do not have brains, obviously, but they can react to changes in the environment, this is obvious. Some plants ‘react’ to insects by releasing deterrent or poisonous chemicals. Some plants release chemicals to deter other plants from growing near them. Some plants are either aggressive or passive in root development depending on whether or not they are around their own species. The Venus Flytrap catches and consumes insects when insects come in contact with tiny hairs that trigger the trap to close. But how do we know a plant doesn't feel pain and suffering when consumed by animals? But what I can believe is that they do have the same sentience in that fact that they both must survive, which comes natural to all organisms.

I was just asking if people think this way. I am not a vegetarian, i was just curious haha

Quote from: "Iamwaves"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Do you seriously feel that the sentience of a lima bean is equal to that of pig? And if so what do you base that upon?

Naturally, plants are very sentient of their environment. They do not have brains, obviously, but they can react to changes in the environment, this is obvious. Some plants ‘react’ to insects by releasing deterrent or poisonous chemicals. Some plants release chemicals to deter other plants from growing near them. Some plants are either aggressive or passive in root development depending on whether or not they are around their own species. The Venus Flytrap catches and consumes insects when insects come in contact with tiny hairs that trigger the trap to close. But how do we know a plant doesn't feel pain and suffering when consumed by animals? But what I can believe is that they do have the same sentience in that fact that they both must survive, which comes natural to all organisms.

I was just asking if people think this way. I am not a vegetarian, i was just curious haha

I have seen the argument before and I still think now what I thought then (before I was veg) that it is naive. There is a very definite difference between the way a lima bean experiences the world and the way a pig does. How do we know a plant doesn't feel pain? Because it does not have the equipment to feel it. Reflexes are not the same as experiencing life. Personally, it is not the argument on which I base my veganism, so if I ever heard evidence to the contrary I'd be open to it. But I find it naive and the argument of the grays: People who are romanticist and see no differences in life forms, who see everything in shades of gray. To me there is a right and wrong, there are lines. They may not be your lines but they are there. Plants don't have the same equipment we do, which is why you will find efforts to give rights to apes but never corn.

But that lima bean wants to survive just as much as the pig wants to survive for the sole purpose of passing on its genes.

I had a conversation at dinner today about vegetarianism and ethics (btw, it was quite civil despite some differences of opinion on how one ought to draw ethical lines) .  One person brought up that given how little we really know about nervous systems that it wouldn't surprise him if we find out later down the line that we have been unknowingly causing horrible harm to tons of plants that really can feel pain but just do so in a way we don't yet recognize as possible.

After reading this entire thread, one question keeps coming back, how do you distinguish between animal life and plant life when deciding what to eat.  I simply cannot comprehend this as a valid argument against vegetarianism.  It seems reductionist to me, much too black and white.  It does, however, raise a deep question about the nature of life and what we value.  I think that vegetarians care less about what is alive, and more about what life has experiences similar to our own.    

I see consciousness as a sliding scale, some beings have more, some less.  By this I mean that some beings are mostly reactionary, and simply react to stimulus, making few decisions independently, and others are capable of thought and decision making that is less effected by immediate stimuli, and more by what we would refer to as thought.  However, the only beings that everyone seems to be certain have consciousness are human beings, since we all are human beings, and most of us think of ourselves as conscious.  It goes along with our hubris.  Since most agree that we human beings have consciousness, we work to explore how our own self-aware state arises, and every indication points to the nervous system giving rise to this effect we call consciousness.

We have no way of verifying if plants have any sort of self-awareness.  At least not right now.  So to me it would seem like there is no case that the lima bean has any feelings or thoughts at all.  That lima beans "want" to survive is equivalent to saying that when wood, oxygen, and heat get together, they want to create fire, or that when I hit submit below, my computer "wants" to post my message.  There is no decision making from what I can tell in plants, they simply react a certain way given their inputs.  I guess it could be argued that all living things are like this, that human beings are simply reacting to the multiple, complex stimuli in the world, but that would render the entire discussion of ethics useless, since without conscious decisions, can we really call an action moral or immoral?

Do the vegans out there grow their own vegies? or do they eat farmed products like most of us? More individual lives are lost tilling and harvesting than are lost for grazing animals. Tractors run over all sorts of creatures as they work the land. And if you do grow your own - eating them would be like murdering your own children - as for the zebras dying cruel deaths - why don't we just eat all the lions? If God didn't want us to eat meat - she wouldn't have made it so delicious.

Quote from: "strikemedown"Do the vegans out there grow their own vegies? or do they eat farmed products like most of us? More individual lives are lost tilling and harvesting than are lost for grazing animals. Tractors run over all sorts of creatures as they work the land. And if you do grow your own - eating them would be like murdering your own children - as for the zebras dying cruel deaths - why don't we just eat all the lions? If God didn't want us to eat meat - she wouldn't have made it so delicious.

so if i where a veggie eater or vegan.... and i planted some cabbage. im going to feel a connection similar to the connection i feel toward my own child?
or even better yet.... if i was a rancher who loved eating cows and a baby calf was born. if i killed it to eat it or sold it to be slaughtered would i be basically murdering a child of mine?
everything dies. if it ever lived it will die. i believe simba called it the circle of life. i see vegetarians and vegans as people who wish to contribute as little as possible to this circle. that or they are people who just dont like to eat meat.
meat eaters such as myself well.... im not about to make a huge generalization like that.

really my point is who cares? if they dont eat meat for whatever reason, there is more for me to choose from at the meat section. maybe this way i can get some good cheap beef ribs. you know the ones that are always sold out. also (i know next to nothing about economics and im about ot prove it) if there is no demand for the supply, wouldnt the cost go down?
im sure if anyone is going to reply to this post they will possibly go the route of vegetarians and vegans judge me as an immoral person. in all honesty i really dont care what vegetarians think of me. but in my 31 years of life i have never met a veggie eater who judged me for eating meat. now ive seen hippies with red paint tossing it on people who wear fur. i dont know if those people are still alive cause thats a good way to get yourself shot.... but thats a whole other story.

Yup still a veggie! I own Chickens and they are treated very well and live happy lives, but I am still not going to eat them. My opinion on meat is you don't eat dogs, cats, horses, or even your pet fish; so why is it ok to eat cows, chickens, pigs, and tuna? Some will say that, we raise dogs to be our pets and pigs to eat, but in China they eat dog. Dogs to the chinese are the same as pigs! Meat is from animals no matter how they are treated before they die, so I will be a veggie no matter what.  

Quote from: "KayLP87"Yup still a veggie! I own Chickens and they are treated very well and live happy lives, but I am still not going to eat them. My opinion on meat is you don't eat dogs, cats, horses, or even your pet fish; so why is it ok to eat cows, chickens, pigs, and tuna? Some will say that, we raise dogs to be our pets and pigs to eat, but in China they eat dog. Dogs to the chinese are the same as pigs! Meat is from animals no matter how they are treated before they die, so I will be a veggie no matter what.  

Given the necessity, I WOULD eat a dog, a horse, insects, cats, whatever I had to to survive.  I don't know many people who wouldn't.  Some people would never choose dog over cow if given the choice, but I honestly don't see how that's much different than choosing to eat vegetables over meats.  One choice is no better or worse than the other, it's just a different standard of preference.  

I'm not saying you personally were claiming anything, but I will say generally that claiming that vegetarianism or veganism is in any way an ethically, logically, or morally superior lifestyle is just as ridiculous in my opinion as claiming that eating meat is more logical because we have teeth that are designated to chew muscle.  We have legs made for walking, that doesn't mean it's always more logical to walk than to drive a car.  It's just a preference.  As long as the logic you feel works for you isn't applied to anyone else, then awesome.  Makes sense.

Sam Harris on morality:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Quoteif they dont eat meat for whatever reason, there is more for me to choose from at the meat section. maybe this way i can get some good cheap beef ribs. you know the ones that are always sold out. also (i know next to nothing about economics and im about ot prove it) if there is no demand for the supply, wouldnt the cost go down?

The change in price would depend on the price elasticity of the good.  http://www.quickmba.com/econ/micro/elas/ped.shtml  Estimates vary based on culture and location, but generally in Canada, meat is an inelastic good, varying from .59 to .76.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4475E/y4475e09.htm  It's been a long time since Econ 101, but from what I understand, if a good is price inelastic, then the demand will not change all that much with the price.  Like gasoline a few years ago, even as price increased, the demand did not subside very much.

In my estimation, and without any backing from research or studies, if demand decreased significantly, price could increase if meat went from a commodity to a specialty good.  Right now, meat benefits from economy of scale.  Since (almost) everyone wants meat, you can sell off an entire truckload in no time at all.  If things were reversed, and a store only sold a few cows a week, the costs of maintaining facilities for producing that meat would no longer be shared across a great number of products, and would increase per-unit costs.  

Just imagine how inexpensive it is to get ethnic foods in their native region, compared to what you would pay at a specialty store in rural areas of the Midwest.  The demand is low in quantity, but the demand curve is inelastic because of the few that are willing to pay almost any price for their ethnic food.  Now imagine you were in the same situation, meat is fairly rare because only a few percent of the people in town actually eat it.  How much would you be willing to pay for a fat, juicy steak?  I would wager that for some, they would pay almost any price for a steak.

Quote from: "TheMagicSpatula"

Quoteif they dont eat meat for whatever reason, there is more for me to choose from at the meat section. maybe this way i can get some good cheap beef ribs. you know the ones that are always sold out. also (i know next to nothing about economics and im about ot prove it) if there is no demand for the supply, wouldnt the cost go down?

The change in price would depend on the price elasticity of the good.  http://www.quickmba.com/econ/micro/elas/ped.shtml  Estimates vary based on culture and location, but generally in Canada, meat is an inelastic good, varying from .59 to .76.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4475E/y4475e09.htm  It's been a long time since Econ 101, but from what I understand, if a good is price inelastic, then the demand will not change all that much with the price.  Like gasoline a few years ago, even as price increased, the demand did not subside very much.

In my estimation, and without any backing from research or studies, if demand decreased significantly, price could increase if meat went from a commodity to a specialty good.  Right now, meat benefits from economy of scale.  Since (almost) everyone wants meat, you can sell off an entire truckload in no time at all.  If things were reversed, and a store only sold a few cows a week, the costs of maintaining facilities for producing that meat would no longer be shared across a great number of products, and would increase per-unit costs.  

Just imagine how inexpensive it is to get ethnic foods in their native region, compared to what you would pay at a specialty store in rural areas of the Midwest.  The demand is low in quantity, but the demand curve is inelastic because of the few that are willing to pay almost any price for their ethnic food.  Now imagine you were in the same situation, meat is fairly rare because only a few percent of the people in town actually eat it.  How much would you be willing to pay for a fat, juicy steak?  I would wager that for some, they would pay almost any price for a steak.

you just killed the dream....  

I'm told you can have vegetarian burgers! *
Is this true?  

[* I sympathise with vegetarians, but why would I have to eat such burgers?...]

I feel a swift 'wtf' is required here...

Well, .

Quote from: "Fininho"[* I sympathise with vegetarians, but why would I have to eat such burgers?...]

QuoteThe Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of Judo,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

I did have an image of karadan force feeding a burger with that tongue thing of his, best not think about that though.

Well, let me be frank, here:
I have never tasted a vegetarian burger!
Just the thought upsets my stomach.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I did have an image of karadan force feeding a burger with that tongue thing of his, best not think about that though.

Tongue thing? Uh-oh.. You been on my youtube page?  ;)

Quote from: "Fininho"Well, let me be frank, here:
I have never tasted a vegetarian burger!
Just the thought upsets my stomach.

Well you should try! As an omnivore, i like my meat but a lot of vegetarian products are actually quite tasty. Veggie burgers are simply a mash-up of various vegetables and spices coated (usually) in breadcrumbs.

What did you think they were made of?

I think those burgers are more artificial than real.
Lots of colorants and preservatives...
And the smell must be another thing!
Is it not like eating dried grass?...

Quote from: "Fininho"I think those burgers are more artificial than real.
Lots of colorants and preservatives...
And the smell must be another thing!
Is it not like eating dried grass?...

http://www.lindamccartneyfoods.co.uk/burger.php (http://www.lindamccartneyfoods.co.uk/burger.php)

Nuff said.

I like vegetarian food, as long as they don't try to imitate meat dishes. Any type of soy- or tofu product makes me feel sick. I just can't eat that stuff.

Quote from: "Tom62"I like vegetarian food, as long as they don't try to imitate meat dishes. Any type of soy- or tofu product makes me feel sick. I just can't eat that stuff.

Yeah, i've always wondered why they feel the need to closely imitate meat. I guess it caters for the conscientious vegeterians. I've had meat free bacon before and that tasted really odd. I actually quite like most of the Linda Mccartney food but i can't eat the mince. That stuff is gross.

I confess not understanding anyone who doesn't enjoy good barbecue.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I confess not understanding anyone who doesn't enjoy good barbecue.

Most veggies say they like the smell of bacon. It must be a massive struggle for many of them, especially the ones who've eaten meat before. You certainly cannot beat a good bbq though.

I've actually eaten meat which was cooked over an extinct volcano in Lanzarote. That thing was incredible. A grill positioned atop a forty foot deep pit at the top of an old volcano. It was good eatin'.

Ummm.....welcome to 1982. I hear they have wireless telephones and small casette players called Walkmen that allow you to listen to music on the go too.

Quote from: "Fininho"I'm told you can have vegetarian burgers! *
Is this true?  

[* I sympathise with vegetarians, but why would I have to eat such burgers?...]

I was a vegetarian for four years. It became more a matter of habit than anything else.

Eventually I gave it up, as I was picking junk food in place of meat. My diet was completely unsustainable toward the end and was rather unpleasant.

Quote from: "Fininho"Well, let me be frank, here:
I have never tasted a vegetarian burger!
Just the thought upsets my stomach.

Do you even know what one is?  For instance, a portabello mushroom grilled and placed on bread is a vegetarian "burger" and is especially yummy if topped with grilled onion.  Some packaged vegetarian burgers are portabello based and don't taste like a soy patty.

On the gross out scale, ground up meat looks pretty gross especially when you think about how it is typically processed (which is why I try not to think about it).  So while I'm not a vegetarian (and think being vegetarian or vegan entirely is too extreme) I can easily see how a vegetarian reading this thread would think you are being rather silly being grossed out by some pressed/seasoned veggies.

I make a pasta sauce with mushroom in place of meat, it's quite popular and they are a fussy bunch around here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I confess not understanding anyone who doesn't enjoy good barbecue.

Makes two of us.
Who is the human who doesn't enjoy the aroma?
But seriously, I avoid meat.
It is very expensive, here in Johannesburg.
My sons are, however, undisciplined in their diet, I'm sorry to say.
I blame myself for that.
They are telling their children to follow the wrong diet, too.
I'm doubly guilty.

Whitney's right.  Portabellos are very meaty in texture, if not taste.  I make a pretty mean stuffed portabello, and if they're large enough, two make a good meal.

Quote from: "Tanker"Ummm.....welcome to 1982. I hear they have wireless telephones and small casette players called Walkmen that allow you to listen to music on the go too.

Hahahaha!! Thank you!  

Just a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

Quote from: "Asmodean"It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with? I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

EDIT: I would claim that, a lot of the time, it is moral to have sex, and to sleep, and to urinate.

I think we make our own morals and I can understand someone seeing it as immoral.
The more strikingly immoral thing for me is the treatment of animals.
One example is the live sheep export trade.  Sheep are crowded onto a ship and sent over to the middle east.
Conditions are hot and cramped and many die.
Why do they do this?  
Because the customers don't trust infidels will kill them in a manner befitting their religion.

I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

Quote from: "Asmodean"It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

I do agree with this. It is similar to saying that wolves, or lions are immoral because they eat other animals.

That being said, humans do not have to be omnivorous creatures. We can survive without eating meat.

To your question, I will only add mine: what are its effects on other people and on yourself; and of those effects, which one seems to outweigh all the others?

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

Quote from: "Asmodean"It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

I do agree with this. It is similar to saying that wolves, or lions are immoral because they eat other animals.

That being said, humans do not have to be omnivorous creatures. We can survive without eating meat.

Well, humans will eventually die anyways, so why shouldn't we eat them?

Morals only come into the equation when humans (or any other intelligent form of life capable of thinking about morality and acting on their thoughts) are involved, so just because other animals do it, it doesn't it moral for us to do it. We can stop eating meat, both on an intellectual and biological level (like you said, we're omnivores). Lions and wolves can't.

Note that I'm not a vegetarian -- however, the morality of eating other living beings has troubled me a bit recently.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

Quote from: "Asmodean"It is justified by our biology, humans being omnivorous creatures. Thus, no moral justification is needed. Morals do not factor in the more basic [than morals themselves] instinctive drives.

Is it moral to have sex? Is it moral to sleep? To urinate?

Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

In short: the act of eating meat is neither moral nor immoral.

I do agree with this. It is similar to saying that wolves, or lions are immoral because they eat other animals.

That being said, humans do not have to be omnivorous creatures. We can survive without eating meat.

Morals only come into the equation when humans (or any other intelligent form of life capable of thinking about morality and acting on their thoughts) are involved, so just because other animals do it, it doesn't it moral for us to do it. We can stop eating meat, both on an intellectual and biological level (like you said, we're omnivores). Lions and wolves can't.

Note that I'm not a vegetarian -- however, the morality of eating other living beings has troubled me a bit recently.

I think humans are capable of doing many things that we do not do. Such as: not judge others based on social stereotypes, skin color, murder one another, etc....(which makes me wonder if we actually do possess such capability to have 'control' over such things).

I've been wondering about eating other animals as well, but I would have to agree with Asm that it is neither moral or immoral. It's nature.
As far as rape goes, there is nothing 'wrong' about it intrinsically, but as a society I think we deem it as immoral becasue inflicts psychological, physical and mental pain. Frankly, I wouldn't want someone to rape me.

 Sadly, we as humans, do not care for the feelings of the animals we eat as much as we do our own kind.

Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

Would you object to being killed for the purpose of being a meal to someone or something?  I wonder....  I'm comfortable in what you mention above as I too partake of flesh.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Note that I'm not a vegetarian -- however, the morality of eating other living beings has troubled me a bit recently.

So, it's perfectly ok to eat plants?
Seems like a somewhat arbitrary line.
The vast majority of what we eat is or was alive at some point.
We have evolved to be omnivores, and although it is possible to live without eating meat, it's not optimal for our biology.

Granted, most people could get by on a lot less meat, and we could treat our livestock much better.

... but I'm not giving up my burger yet.

(my salad is screaming),
JoeActor

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yes, morality is subjective.  I'm comfortable eating dead animals, and fully expect to be eaten when I too die.  It is part of the cycle of life, and not subject to moral judgement, in my view.

Would you object to being killed for the purpose of being a meal to someone or something?  I wonder....  I'm comfortable in what you mention above as I too partake of flesh.

I take that risk every time I go hiking.  We have both bears and mountain lions here, and a bear fatality a few weeks back about 40 miles from here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I take that risk every time I go hiking.  We have both bears and mountain lions here, and a bear fatality a few weeks back about 40 miles from here.

I understand you take the risk, but would you object?  Taking a risk doesn't mean you do or don't object, it simply means you're willing to risk the danger for the fun.  Would you willingly walk into a hungry animal's cage or domain knowing IT WILL eat you?  I wouldn't.

Of course I wouldn't fancy the end, but death comes in a million guises, and being eaten alive is one of them.  I don't waste time worrying about it.

Also, foreknowledge of death in humans is, if not unique in the animal kingdom, extremely rare, to our knowledge.

The consensus I'm seeing here is that eating meat is natural -- which I can agree with, although I think that a lot of what we do shouldn't be dismissed from moral questioning just because it comes naturally to us.

Right now, I'm unsure; I'm still trying to develop a good morality system.

I must confess, the thought of a meatless Legendary Sandwich is causing me deep cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with?

Sorry, but you just tripped right over this sentence:

Quote from: "Asmodean"Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

Let me explain: In cheating on your partner, it's not the intercourse itself that is considered immoral - it is the fact that you are doing it when someone is counting on you not to. In rape, it's not the sex that's bad, it's the fact that the rapist is forcing it on someone and possibly the way of doing it. It is not natural for humans to murder over disagreements. Fight - yes. Kill - no. However, the last argument does not fit into this discussion because it goes outside the boundaries of our basic instinctive drives.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

If you define sex as being wrong, you must be a monk... o.O

QuoteEDIT: I would claim that, a lot of the time, it is moral to have sex, and to sleep, and to urinate.

So urinating is a moral thing rather than a biological necessity?   Note that we are NOT talking about who you are peeing on - just the act of doing it.

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

It's simple really...

If god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Vegetables are what food eats.

And pigs are mankind's greatest invention... they can take anything and turn it into bacon!

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

By that definition, chimpanzees, dolphins, and gorillas are all sentient to a greater or lesser degree.  Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors, and name themselves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_dolphins.html)(which means they understand the concept of personhood).  We have much documentation of the great apes in captivity which have been taught ASL or computer communications using self-referential terms.

So that sentence only means what it reads. "Lol."

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Vegetables are what food eats.

:hail:  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with?

Sorry, but you just tripped right over this sentence:

Quote from: "Asmodean"Morals only start to come into the equasion when you are starting to look at the particular circumstances of each event.

Let me explain: In cheating on your partner, it's not the intercourse itself that is considered immoral - it is the fact that you are doing it when someone is counting on you not to. In rape, it's not the sex that's bad, it's the fact that the rapist is forcing it on someone and possibly the way of doing it. It is not natural for humans to murder over disagreements. Fight - yes. Kill - no. However, the last argument does not fit into this discussion because it goes outside the boundaries of our basic instinctive drives.

I would break it down farther and say that it's causing unnecessary suffering, which is wrong, but yes, I agree with you, except on the part about how it's not natural for humans to murder over disagreements -- how is it not natural? We perceive someone as an enemy, we kill them.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

If you define sex as being wrong, you must be a monk... o.O

Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways), not consenting sex.

Quote

QuoteEDIT: I would claim that, a lot of the time, it is moral to have sex, and to sleep, and to urinate.

So urinating is a moral thing rather than a biological necessity?   Note that we are NOT talking about who you are peeing on - just the act of doing it.

I would define it as both -- you're causing yourself joy, even if just a tiny amount, without the expense of others, which is moral.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would break it down farther and say that it's causing unnecessary suffering, which is wrong, but yes, I agree with you, except on the part about how it's not natural for humans to murder over disagreements -- how is it not natural? We perceive someone as an enemy, we kill them.

Are you refering to tribalism? Because that's not about disagreements. That's territorial behaviour. Within our "tribe", we can fight for status and position with varying degree of aggression, however, killing a member of one's own flock diminishes it's strength as a whole. Thus, we have some instincts saying "don't".

QuoteRape is wrong (almost always, anyways), not consenting sex.

So we agree that it's the consenting part that is the moral issue here, not the sex part, right..?

QuoteI would define it as both -- you're causing yourself joy, even if just a tiny amount, without the expense of others, which is moral.

A moral issue you can disregard. A basic biological need, however, you can not. Say urinating was immoral. How would you stop yourself, provided you aimed for goodness..? Same applies to eating. Without food, you die in a matter of weeks. Being omnivorous, you can utilize both plant and animal food. Morals come later in the equasion.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways)...

Almost always?  

QuoteJust a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

Of course. To say it's not would be to say a large number of animal's survival is unethical.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Just a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

I don't see how morality enters into slow-smoking a nice dry-rubbed pork butt until the juicy meat is falling apart and is served with a lovely home-made barbecue sauce and corn on the cob.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "EssejSllim"I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

By that definition, chimpanzees, dolphins, and gorillas are all sentient to a greater or lesser degree.  Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors, and name themselves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_dolphins.html)(which means they understand the concept of personhood).  We have much documentation of the great apes in captivity which have been taught ASL or computer communications using self-referential terms.

So that sentence only means what it reads. "Lol."

I guess you missed the (proven) I put in there. It was to try and mitigate responses like yours. Sentience is a fairly loose term. Some people, usually activists, use it to mean the ability to feel suffering which would include nearly all animals. Traditionaly it is used to mean at or near human inteligence. Some animal species actually come close to a human childs level of understanding ie about 3-5 year old human. The most common usage is actually in science fiction usually when refeing to a non-human species or intelligence that rivals or exceeds our own.

The ability to recognise yourself in a mirror, while impressive and and obvious sign of intteligence does not automatily prove a species to be "sentient" all it proves is that they can recognise themselves in a mirror. The same with rudimentary sign language skills. language skills prove memory and symbol regognition but are not in themselves proof of anything.

A human child with a severe mental handicap could both be able to speak words and recognise himself in a mirror and yet not understand his existance, could not understand "I think there fo I am". While this wouldn't preclude him from being human and all the rights that come with it, it could be argued that the child was not sentient (as most babies are not).

While I didn't specify on my first post I do personally believe that the are a few species that are probably sentient. Most apes, cetations, and a few bird species would probably fall under sentient. However no species besides man has been deffintively decided as sentient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Quote from: "Tanker"I guess you missed the (proven) I put in there.

I'm unsure how referring to oneself doesn't not meet the definition you laid down: "selfaware".

quote]It was to try and mitigate responses like yours. Sentience is a fairly loose term. Some people, usually activists, use it to mean the ability to feel suffering which would include nearly all animals.[/quote]

I was answering in terms of your posted definition, not what some people say.  

QuoteTraditionaly it is used to mean at or near human inteligence.

Which may or may not indicate self-awareness.

QuoteSome animal species actually come close to a human childs level of understanding ie about 3-5 year old human. The most common usage is actually in science fiction usually when refeing to a non-human species or intelligence that rivals or exceeds our own.

Are not five-year-olds aware?

QuoteThe ability to recognise yourself in a mirror, while impressive and and obvious sign of intteligence does not automatily prove a species to be "sentient" all it proves is that they can recognise themselves in a mirror.

... and this fits the criteria you laid down.  They are aware of themselves as individuals -- self-aware.

QuoteThe same with rudimentary sign language skills. language skills prove memory and symbol regognition but are not in themselves proof of anything.

You missed my point here.  I am not citing their use of ASL as evidence of self-awareness.  I am citing their referring to themselves as evidence of self-awareness.  The medium they use is irrelevant.

QuoteA human child with a severe mental handicap could both be able to speak words and recognise himself in a mirror and yet not understand his existance, could not understand "I think there fo I am". While this wouldn't preclude him from being human and all the rights that come with it, it could be argued that the child was not sentient (as most babies are not).

According to the definition you posted, if they can recognize that they themselves are individuals, they would appear to be sentient.

QuoteWhile I didn't specify on my first post I do personally believe that the are a few species that are probably sentient. Most apes, cetations, and a few bird species would probably fall under sentient. However no species besides man has been deffintively decided as sentient.

I'm pretty sure some others are, based on what I've seen.  When a dolphin gives itself a "name", used uniquely for itself and no other, is that not evidence?

Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Oddly enough, the very first sentence undercuts what you are saying here:  "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive."  By this definition, almost every animal known is sentient.

I think this is the wrong word for what you trying to get across, perhaps?  We seem to be talking past each other.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways)...

Almost always?  

Well, I don't want to say always, as any act can be morally justified.

Quote

QuoteJust a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

Of course. To say it's not would be to say a large number of animal's survival is unethical.

Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

...And only after certain needs are satiated.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Humans, too, are animals.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Humans, too, are animals.

Yes -- so?

Eating meat is a fairly good way of staying alive. Given the energy and nutritious value of meat, it would have been one of the factors contributing to us humans evolving our nice complex and large brains . An evolutionary process that still goes on today by the way. On the flip side, eating meat is exactly as immoral as eating vegetables and plants. Both animals and plants are farmed for food. Now i do not agree with the inhumane practices associated with the farming, we should change those practices. Cannibalism is a natural phenomena too, but its very rare. very few animal species practice it. Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it. It's evolutionary and survival value is very low if not negative.

Quote from: "_7654_"Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it.

Not so sure about that. I think there are a number of humans who have practiced it, and I don't think the wil be the last. Jeffery Dahmer? Just one person I can think of off the top of my head.

In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Quote from: "goatwitch"In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

It's nice to see a different opinion.

Quote from: "goatwitch"In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think that meat is necessarily 'bad' for humans. Bad in what way? My godmother lived to be 95 and she was a meat-eater her whole life.I don't think it is either moral or immoral to eat it. Personally, I love eating meat. Not giving up my beef burritos and turkey sandwhiches.

To me it boils down to: do animals have to suffer? If they do, then it is immoral for me to eat them. Or use any products derived from them. The corporate farming of animals in the USA is done in a manner that promotes suffering of animals.

I do not eat red meat, mainly because I don't like it. I do however, eat lots of eggs. But I always buy the cage free organic variety as 1) the animals can wander around not being cooped up and 2) it doesn't harm the hens to collect their eggs.

I do eat chicken and turkey meat, but I'm less choosy about that. Yes, I know I am a hypocrite. I'm not made of money, and have to budget very carefully. If I were made of money, I would eat only organic/cage free/cruelty free products.

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Some-We-Love-Hate ... =1-1-fkmr2 (http://www.amazon.com/Some-We-Love-Hate-Eat/dp/0061730866/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289183751&sr=1-1-fkmr2)

states:

Quotemost Americans regard cockfighting as cruel but think nothing of eating chicken, when in reality gamecocks are treated very well when they are not fighting, and most poultry headed for the table lead short, miserable lives and are killed quite painfully.

Food for thought, so to speak.

Quote from: "goatwitch"To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.

The point is invalid.

To the best of our knowledge, all life on Earth started as something other than carnivorous because that first cell had nothing living to eat. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous from a specie primarilly herbivorous. Not unlike pigs - we can eat roots and leaves and fruits and veggies, but why pass the opportunity for some animal proteins..?

We have evolved to be omnivorous and, as of today, have not evolved past it in either direction.

QuoteTo say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.

In your current culture, maybe. Doesn't make slavery wrong on a larger scale though. Slavery, however, has little to do with our primary biological needs, so bad example.

QuoteAs humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.

But we do have to eat and being omnivorous, chosing meat is a good and valid option, as stated many times before

QuoteMeat is bad for the environment and health of humans.

Not really. Humans are bad for the environment and health of humans. If you were trying to make some point though, please clarify it more. Preferably with links or ISBNs to peer-reviewed research articles that demonstrate it. (I wouldn't normally ask for this, but what you are saying is counter-intuitive)

If you are refering to too many cows, the problem is that we breed like rabbits and so we have to have larger herds to support ourselves.

QuoteVegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

And the rate of that in general population is what..? 1:25000? Even if it's one in five thousand, it's still a drop in the ocean. You have greater chance of ending up in a serious MVC.

Quote from: "goatwitch"As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Actually the nutrients you get from meat are essential and that's why it's important to have a variety in one's diet. It's much more difficult to have a balanced diet as a vegetarian. It can be done if one is careful enough, but it's too much work for me. Besides, I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat lettuce.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Humans, too, are animals.

Yes -- so?

Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Quote from: "goatwitch"In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.

Nonsense.  Our entire evolutionary history is part of our biology.  Also, what do you mean by "we"?  H. Sapiens?  H. Habilis?  A. afarensis?  ?  How far back are you going to find this pure vegetarian forebear?  Because there is strong evidence that two of the the other three species listed were meat eaters, either killing by their own hands or scavenging the kills of others.  There is evidence (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/did_early_african_hominids_eat_m.htm) that many primitive hominids ate at least some meat:

Quote from: "Gretchen Vogel"Many theories of human origins invoke a switch to a meat-rich diet to explain the sudden swelling of brain power in our own genus, Homo; the new data raise the possibility that meat-eating is not the exclusive province of Homo but a strategy adopted by more primitive species too.

Also, see here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-45KV1VM-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5d562c5f4b543ac4c55661af0b7448ff&searchtype=a), here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html), and here (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/AustralopithecusGarhi.html):

QuoteThursday April 22 3:09 PM ET

Meat-Eating Missing Link Fossil Found In Africa    top
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new species of human ancestor, which looked like something halfway between the famed "Lucy" and true pre-humans, has been found in Ethiopia, scientists said Thursday.

More surprisingly, they found nearby evidence that the creature, named Australopithecus garhi, butchered and ate meat 2.5 million years ago.

The international team of researchers, led by Berhane Asfaw of Ethiopia's Rift Valley Research Service and Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, scrabbled their specimen together from bits of bone and teeth found in the hard-baked rock of Ethiopia's Middle Awash region.

The area, a hard two-day drive northeast of Addis Ababa, is known for its fossil remains of pre-humans, known as hominids.

Quote from: "goatwitch"To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.

I haven't argued that it's cultural, but -- sure, it's a choice.  However, as you yourself noted in your first point, it is not a choice with a moral dimension.  "Amoral" does not equal "immoral."

QuoteMeat is bad for the environment and health of humans.

Not in moderation.

QuoteVegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Post hoc fallacy.  The lower rate amongst vegetarians may not be the result of avoiding meat, but of having a diet heavier in roughage.  Meat eaters who ate as much roughage as vegetarians might well show different results.

Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

Quote from: "madness"Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

How easy can it be? It runs health risks if I don't do it right.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "madness"Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

How easy can it be? It runs health risks if I don't do it right.

Eating a diet with meat also runs health risks if you don't do it right.

Quote from: "Cite134"

Quote from: "_7654_"Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it.

Not so sure about that. I think there are a number of humans who have practised it, and I don't think the wil be the last. Jeffery Dahmer? Just one person I can think of off the top of my head.

Well psychopaths and serial killers, there are a few other examples, that society did not deplore. here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/)  and in a bit more detail
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/A ... AMU%29.asp (http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/72-10-13%28TAMU%29.asp)

Again, not to be understood as approval by any means, it does seem that dire survival would suffice as a justification.

Quote from: "_7654_"

Quote from: "Cite134"

Quote from: "_7654_"Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it.

Not so sure about that. I think there are a number of humans who have practiced it, and I don't think the wil be the last. Jeffery Dahmer? Just one person I can think of off the top of my head.

Well psychopats and serial killers, there are a few other examples, that society did not deplore. here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/)  and in a bit more detail
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/A ... AMU%29.asp (http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/72-10-13%28TAMU%29.asp)

Again, not to be understood as approval by any means, it does seem that dire survival would suffice as a justification.

Indeed. Given the scenario though, psychological or environmental, humans do and can practice it.

iirc, Aztecs and other Central American tribes are suspected of practicing it, due to poor protein availability in their region.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with? I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

It is?  I wouldn't want to meet the person who had a natural inclination to break important promises (cheating on partner), rape, and murder.

Anyway, if the animal is intelligent enough (ie sentient) to know that it is being raised for food and is just living waiting to die then it would be immoral to raise that animal for food (but morally justifiable to eat it if it were already dead and one were hungry).  For animals that are not sentient I see no way to separate them morally from plants nor can I think of why it would be morally wrong (from a humanist/environmental take on morality) to incorporate these 'lower' creatures into our diets.

In short, humans have to eat and almost everything that can nourish us is alive in some way...the best we can do is avoid causing needless suffering when procuring our foods.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

Quote from: "Whitney"Anyway, if the animal is intelligent enough (ie sentient) to know that it is being raised for food and is just living waiting to die then it would be immoral to raise that animal for food (but morally justifiable to eat it if it were already dead and one were hungry).  

I could raise humans for food as long as they don't know what I'm up to then?
If I eat them young, they're less likely to realise their fate.
Eating factory farm meat propagates the system, even if the animal is dead when you eat it.

Quote from: "Whitney"For animals that are not sentient I see no way to separate them morally from plants nor can I think of why it would be morally wrong (from a humanist/environmental take on morality) to incorporate these 'lower' creatures into our diets.

I suppose a humanist by definition is concerned about humans, I would separate plants from animals by their ability to suffer.
Some plants seem to have evolved to be eaten for seed propagation.

Quote from: "Whitney"In short, humans have to eat and almost everything that can nourish us is alive in some way...the best we can do is avoid causing needless suffering when procuring our foods.

The best we can do, or the least we should do?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

If humans are animals, human morality is animal morality, of a sort.

Also, there are some indications that other animals practice moral behavior.  Chimpanzees, for instance, have been observed to deceive each other, which presupposes an unspoken moral rule of not deceiving being the norm.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

If humans are animals, human morality is animal morality, of a sort.

Also, there are some indications that other animals practice moral behavior.  Chimpanzees, for instance, have been observed to deceive each other, which presupposes an unspoken moral rule of not deceiving being the norm.

Yes, but, as far as I know, we have a far greater moral sense and capacity. We separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by our morality, among other things. The fact that we can even think about whether eating meat is right or wrong when it's what we were evolved to do proves this, I think. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than other animals, because we can.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yes, but, as far as I know, we have a far greater moral sense and capacity. We separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by our morality, among other things. The fact that we can even think about whether eating meat is right or wrong when it's what we were evolved to do proves this, I think. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than other animals, because we can.  [Emphasis added]

The emphasized point would seem to undercut your moral argument. Nature has no interest in morality.  That we apply it to each other is gracious.  To apply it to food sources, however, is stretching it.  Essential survival, it seems to me, is beyond the ken of morality; and to argue that killing animals is particularly immoral is silly.

After all, every acre of land put under the plough to supply a vegetarian diet not only kills or displaces hundreds if not thousands of animals (counting insects), it renders that land uninhabitable for most large fauna; reducing their living space, and separating their breeding populations has been shown to greatly speed up the extinction of species.  In this sense, agriculture can be said to be a tool of genocide, in the same sense that, say, the Warsaw Ghetto was in 1943 and '44.  What's more, these are wild gene-pools being eliminated, not domesticated, meaning that the species' genome is done proportionately done greater harm.

If you insist on overextending morality, do so on an equitable basis.  All life, in the end, relies upon the death of another.  Wringing one's hands about it may be noble, but I don't see the utility of it.

I'm a vegetarian and a moral nihilist. The real question for me is what we find acceptable morally as an individual. any discussion in ethics is inherently flawed without first accepting this premise: That any value judgement - 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' 'bad' what-have-you - exist only as subsequent impositions on the action.

I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life. Whether this value proceeds from my experience of the world - the fact I have a dog perhaps, and would not eat him - or from something else does not change the fact that it will never be 'wrong' to eat meat per se, but nor will it be 'right'. It will only ever be 'wrong' or 'right' in a certain context, and with respect to a certain subject - in this case myself.

I would add however that living as we do, in organised and industrialised agricultural society, the consistency of contextual conditions of life, allows what seems to me to be a consistency in subjective perspective: We can all survive without eating meat; survival is thus no longer a fair justification for its consumption. We are all aware of the principle of 'life' ; that is, we know what seperates a living thing from a dead one. We understand animals fantastically well (at least the ones in question here  - those that would-be slaughtered); that they feel pain and emotion etc etc. From here, I think, its a short step to an undeniable conviction.

Rich.

Quote from: "Lermontov"I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life.

I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

QuoteWe can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Lermontov"I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life.

I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

QuoteWe can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

Ok, by Value I don't mean something quantative. I agree you may very well impose a value on life; I'm certiantly not claiming that all meat-eaters consider life valueless. That Value that we impose though is relative to our subjectivity yes? And so I come to the conclusion that eating meat is wrong becuase of X, Y, and Z and you come to the conclusion that it is acceptable, perhaps also too becuase of X, Y and Z.

I think I should say it is by no means the Principle of life that prevents me from indulging my desire for meat. I agree, thats ridiculous but its fair to say that it is my subjective assesment of life with respect to its individual properties (receptivity to pain, development of its cognitive faculites etc etc) - my imposed Value, if you like.

I value life.  The value I place on it, however, has limits.  And yes, that applies to my own life, as well.  I can conceive of situations where I would regard living as useless.

Quote from: "Sophus"I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

I don't think anyone has suggested all carnivores become vegetarian.
The circle of life will be increasingly thrown out of balance as populations become more affluent and aspire to a meaty western diet.
You can sing Hakuna Matata and have others kill your meat for you I suppose.
I don't see evolution as relevant, it's how we got here, it doesn't supply a code of ethics or morals.

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteWe can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

I think you're on shaky ground using developing countries to defend meat consumption.

Chicken thigh fillets are on the menu tonight, best argument I can find for eating them is I want to.

If I have a choice between eating an animal or a plant and they both are not self aware and a humane methods are used to the best of our ability I don't see how ethics would even come into play with my decision.   Animals and plants are both alive.  Animals and plants both move throughout the day (yes, plants move, watch a time laspe video of them following the sun).  This Article (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/plants/news-feeling-plants-how-sensitive-flora) claims research has shown many plants can see, hear, and smell too.

Quote from: "Whitney"If I have a choice between eating an animal or a plant and they both are not self aware and a humane methods are used to the best of our ability I don't see how ethics would even come into play with my decision.   Animals and plants are both alive.  Animals and plants both move throughout the day (yes, plants move, watch a time laspe video of them following the sun).  This Article (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/plants/news-feeling-plants-how-sensitive-flora) claims research has shown many plants can see, hear, and smell too.

Hell, some plants even eat meat.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Hell, some plants even eat meat.

Indeed they do. However, everyone knows they are immoral plants and are of the Devil, so "Hell" is right.  

And of course, bacteria will eat us all at the end of the day.

This is an interesting debate I have with a vegetarian, and atheist, friend of mine. He chooses not to eat meat out of compassion for animals who feel pain. I argue that pain is an evolutionary adaptation. An animal that doesn't feel pain is quickly a dead animal. Why elevate one evolutionary adaptation - the ability to feel pain - over another, say, the ability to transform sunlight into food?

Yes, there are plants that produce particular parts of their bodies with the express purpose of having animals eat those parts, there are also clearly plants that defend themselves against being eaten (cacti are a great example). Plants are in it for themselves, just as all other living things ultimately must be.

I'm not saying "don't eat plants." I am saying that the accident of an evolutionary adaptation in the direction of feeling pain is no reason to elevate one life form over another.

However, there are some animals (dolphins, the great apes) that I believe deserve some level of protection based on the complexity of their mental lives. This is an accident, too, but because we understand how precious consciousness is I think we should err on the side of caution and offer some measure of protection to those beings who may share at least some level of our consciousness.

Yeah, but I refuse to feel guilt over a good steak.  I had no input on evolution; I should not be held liable for its upshot, namely, the medium rare top round I just finished.

*finishes 1/2 lb burger*

mmm, murder, tasty, tasty murder. I've met my share of folks who tell me what i'm doing is wrong, eating animals and all. When the rest of the other animals that eat meat stop doing so then i'll stop too. We aren't special, we're all filthy animals, I hate this stupid distinction people seem to be making. I shit, sleep and eat, just like any other animal.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"*finishes 1/2 lb burger*

mmm, murder, tasty, tasty murder. I've met my share of folks who tell me what i'm doing is wrong, eating animals and all. When the rest of the other animals that eat meat stop doing so then i'll stop too. We aren't special, we're all filthy animals, I hate this stupid distinction people seem to be making. I shit, sleep and eat, just like any other animal.

^This.

*Yet I just finished a roast beef sandwhich.  

I get hungry every time there's a new post on this thread.

You should've had some of the lamb stew I made last night, it was very good, if I may so allow.

Tonight, I will has me a dinner at Big Horn. Many an animal have to die a horrible death to provide me with all that juicy lightly marinated tastiness  :D

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You should've had some of the lamb stew I made last night, it was very good, if I may so allow.

Stew! does any meat benefit from such treatment? Unless it was dodgy to begin with.
Bake a leg, toss a chop in a pan but stew, I'd have to be convinced that is a good idea.

Yes, I prefer my meat roasted, but 1) this wasn't great meat, because good lamb is horribly expensive in America, and 2) I was busy contracting a cold, and stew is what this doctor orders.  Mmmm, broth.

That said, I'll be making homemade beef jerky tonight.  It's been marinating for five or so days now.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I think you're on shaky ground using developing countries to defend meat consumption.

Chicken thigh fillets are on the menu tonight, best argument I can find for eating them is I want to.

What I'm saying is there are some tribes who raise cattle and depend on those bovine to survive. The Nuer tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuer_people) in a pastoral region of Ethiopia for example, meat is their main food supply. Good luck to anyone trying to convince them they should give that up and "go vegan" because what they're doing is immoral and "unnecessary".

Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unneccessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

Quote from: "Sophus"What I'm saying is there are some tribes who raise cattle and depend on those bovine to survive. The Nuer tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuer_people) in a pastoral region of Ethiopia for example, meat is their main food supply. Good luck to anyone trying to convince them they should give that up and "go vegan" because what they're doing is immoral and "unnecessary".

People like this are often forced off their land, the powerful then farm it intensively and export the produce.
The fate of the native farmers and sustainability doesn't really matter.

Not to worry, Pudding, poor folk can't usually afford meat in their diets anyway.  We'll make them go vegan one way or the other.

Quote from: "legs laney"Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unnecessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

What would you consider necessary torture?  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The fate of the native farmers and sustainability doesn't really matter.

What?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The fate of the native farmers and sustainability doesn't really matter.

What?

Doesn't matter to the people taking their land or to the people eating grain fed beef in wealthy countries.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "legs laney"Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unnecessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

What would you consider necessary torture?  

Well, I think the torture of criminals could be justified if you had to get them to reveal secrets.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "legs laney"Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unnecessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

What would you consider necessary torture?  

Well, I think the torture of criminals could be justified if you had to get them to reveal secrets.

Really?

I disagree, absolutely.  Not only is torture immoral, to my mind, it is inefficient.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "legs laney"Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unnecessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

What would you consider necessary torture?  

I think it is fairly obvious that if you are killing an animal to eat it or yanking a fruit off a tree that torture is certain.  Can you do either of those things without torturing the subject?  If so, enlighten me.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Really?

I disagree, absolutely.  Not only is torture immoral, to my mind, it is inefficient.

I think that any act can be justified under certain specific circumstances. Take, for example, this hypothetical situation: a terrorist has planted bombs at a couple of different heavily-populated locations in a city. The bombs are set to go off in about an hour. The only way for the police to find and disable the bombs in time would be to torture the terrorist using new, high-tech techniques that are almost guaranteed to work. Would you still be against torture in this situation?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think that any act can be justified under certain specific circumstances. Take, for example, this hypothetical situation: a terrorist has planted bombs at a couple of different heavily-populated locations in a city. The bombs are set to go off in about an hour. The only way for the police to find and disable the bombs in time would be to torture the terrorist using new, high-tech techniques that are almost guaranteed to work. Would you still be against torture in this situation?

I see a lot of problems with ur hypothetical.  1.  your verbage "almost guaranteed" to work.... that sounds like a half baked promise that cries false to me, there are no guarantees in life and who is doing the guaranteeing?  2.  new, high-tech techniques?  so you are proposing this scenario in the future only, not in the present time? and why? and how would the present day techniques have to change to suit you?  maybe we could start a new high tech technique business together (joke)  3.  you are still not guaranteed the terrorist would give up the info, are you?  i would actually assume it would be more glorious for this kind of man to die for his cause, would it not?  4.  although i am mostly against torture, i would consider it during the following scenario:  if it is my child or family at risk of harm i would consider using torture if it befit the situation; although i still say this is immoral; example:  if someone raped my daughter and got away with it, i would think i would want to hunt him down and make him suffer even if it put my own life on the line. (although we never know what we're capable in any given situation until the situation arises, do we) 5. if the act were justified, who's the judge?  and who is the future judge of the next act?  and how do we know where the line is drawn? and how do we know the guy we are terrorizing really is a bad guy and is a part of the crime?  6. how do we know the bombs will be going off within an hour?  sounds like a bad movie plot.. haha  7.   so assuming there was a way to exerpt info needed to save a mass quantity of people that were guranteed to die, i personally, would risk one life (even if it were mine) to save the whole, but also think that lends a hand in dangerous decisions down the line; but that's just me and my opinion.

Quote from: "legs laney"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think that any act can be justified under certain specific circumstances. Take, for example, this hypothetical situation: a terrorist has planted bombs at a couple of different heavily-populated locations in a city. The bombs are set to go off in about an hour. The only way for the police to find and disable the bombs in time would be to torture the terrorist using new, high-tech techniques that are almost guaranteed to work. Would you still be against torture in this situation?

I see a lot of problems with ur hypothetical.  1.  your verbage "almost guaranteed" to work.... that sounds like a half baked promise that cries false to me, there are no guarantees in life and who is doing the guaranteeing?  2.  new, high-tech techniques?  so you are proposing this scenario in the future only, not in the present time? and why? and how would the present day techniques have to change to suit you?  maybe we could start a new high tech technique business together (joke)  3.  you are still not guaranteed the terrorist would give up the info, are you?  i would actually assume it would be more glorious for this kind of man to die for his cause, would it not?  4.  although i am mostly against torture, i would consider it during the following scenario:  if it is my child or family at risk of harm i would consider using torture if it befit the situation; although i still say this is immoral; example:  if someone raped my daughter and got away with it, i would think i would want to hunt him down and make him suffer even if it put my own life on the line. (although we never know what we're capable in any given situation until the situation arises, do we) 5. if the act were justified, who's the judge?  and who is the future judge of the next act?  and how do we know where the line is drawn? and how do we know the guy we are terrorizing really is a bad guy and is a part of the crime?  6. how do we know the bombs will be going off within an hour?  sounds like a bad movie plot.. haha  7.   so assuming there was a way to exerpt info needed to save a mass quantity of people that were guranteed to die, i personally, would risk one life (even if it were mine) to save the whole, but also think that lends a hand in dangerous decisions down the line; but that's just me and my opinion.

I had written a response to each of your perceived flaws with my hypothetical situation, but then my computer decided to restart (fucking Microsoft Update...), so I'm just going to say that, using your logic, our entire justice system is fatally flawed, most of your points are basically just nitpicking my hypothetical situation, you would think torture justified if your family was in risk of danger but not potentially thousands of innocent people (?), and that if you consider torturing a terrorist to save potentially thousands of life a slippery slope. Did I get that right?

Quote from: "legs laney"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "legs laney"Everything that you can consume was alive at some point... whether you're murdering animals or raping the land, you need to eat to survive.  Every living thing exercises this basic survival principal.  Now, I personally do believe that unnecessary torture is evil... hope that addresses your question.

What would you consider necessary torture?  

I think it is fairly obvious that if you are killing an animal to eat it or yanking a fruit off a tree that torture is certain.  Can you do either of those things without torturing the subject?  If so, enlighten me.

How can yanking a piece of fruit off of a tree be torture? Plants don't feel pain.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Really?

I disagree, absolutely.  Not only is torture immoral, to my mind, it is inefficient.

I think that any act can be justified under certain specific circumstances. Take, for example, this hypothetical situation: a terrorist has planted bombs at a couple of different heavily-populated locations in a city. The bombs are set to go off in about an hour. The only way for the police to find and disable the bombs in time would be to torture the terrorist using new, high-tech techniques that are almost guaranteed to work. Would you still be against torture in this situation?

Yes, I would, for these reasons:

1) Were I the terrorist, I'd only have to hold out for an hour, meaning that if I have a plausible cover story, I can mislead the entire apparatus of law-enforcement, and thereby play an important role in ensuring the success of the operation.  Before you argue, keep in mind: captured American pilots in Vietnam took up to 8 years of torture, with no larger purpose, than survival.  You will have done nothing with your torture other than mislead the organs of enforcement, and sell out your principles.
2) The compartmentalization of any decently-planned operation means that torture will be unremunerative.  If you were planning to kill half-a-million people, would you stock all of the vital info into one brain?  No.  You would tell each operative only what they need to know to carry out their portion of the operation, and nothing more.  Therefore, even if your torture elicits the truth, that truth may well be barren; but you have still compromised your own moral standards.

Also, your ticking-bomb scenario is so vague, not to mention unlikely, as to be useless. In the absence of detail about these  "new, high-tech techniques", you are asking me to approve an immoral action based on a purely hypothetical setup.  That I cannot do.

I can conceive of no instance which would justify torture.  We didn't torture PoW German submariners in WWII in order to learn Doenitz's order of battle in the Atlantic.  We didn't torture Japanese sailors to learn the whereabouts of the Yamato or Musashi.

I would be ashamed to fall short of the standards of my forebears, and you should be as well.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Really?

I disagree, absolutely.  Not only is torture immoral, to my mind, it is inefficient.

I think that any act can be justified under certain specific circumstances. Take, for example, this hypothetical situation: a terrorist has planted bombs at a couple of different heavily-populated locations in a city. The bombs are set to go off in about an hour. The only way for the police to find and disable the bombs in time would be to torture the terrorist using new, high-tech techniques that are almost guaranteed to work. Would you still be against torture in this situation?

Yes, I would, for these reasons:

1) Were I the terrorist, I'd only have to hold out for an hour, meaning that if I have a plausible cover story, I can mislead the entire apparatus of law-enforcement, and thereby play an important role in ensuring the success of the operation.  Before you argue, keep in mind: captured American pilots in Vietnam took up to 8 years of torture, with no larger purpose, than survival.  You will have done nothing with your torture other than mislead the organs of enforcement, and sell out your principles.
2) The compartmentalization of any decently-planned operation means that torture will be unremunerative.  If you were planning to kill half-a-million people, would you stock all of the vital info into one brain?  No.  You would tell each operative only what they need to know to carry out their portion of the operation, and nothing more.  Therefore, even if your torture elicits the truth, that truth may well be barren; but you have still compromised your own moral standards.

Also, your ticking-bomb scenario is so vague, not to mention unlikely, as to be useless. In the absence of detail about these  "new, high-tech techniques", you are asking me to approve an immoral action based on a purely hypothetical setup.  That I cannot do.

I can conceive of no instance which would justify torture.  We didn't torture PoW German submariners in WWII in order to learn Doenitz's order of battle in the Atlantic.  We didn't torture Japanese sailors to learn the whereabouts of the Yamato or Musashi.

I would be ashamed to fall short of the standards of my forebears, and you should be as well.

You're nitpicking. The details don't matter. The point I was trying to get across is that any action can be justified, even if the circumstances by which it would be justified are so far-fetched that it seems very unlikely any sort of similar scenario would occur in real-life (although I did try to pick a plausible situation).

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're nitpicking. The details don't matter. The point I was trying to get across is that any action can be justified, even if the circumstances by which it would be justified are so far-fetched that it seems very unlikely any sort of similar scenario would occur in real-life (although I did try to pick a plausible situation).

I don't believe that any action can be justified. You may believe that raping your five year old son/daughter is justified if you had a gun to your head and the fate of all life on Earth was somehow dependent on it, however I think that creating hypothetical situations that won't exist in order to justify actions... is the same as saying that the actions are unjustifiable.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're nitpicking. The details don't matter. The point I was trying to get across is that any action can be justified, even if the circumstances by which it would be justified are so far-fetched that it seems very unlikely any sort of similar scenario would occur in real-life (although I did try to pick a plausible situation).

I don't believe that any action can be justified. You may believe that raping your five year old son/daughter is justified if you had a gun to your head and the fate of all life on Earth was somehow dependent on it, however I think that creating hypothetical situations that won't exist in order to justify actions... is the same as saying that the actions are unjustifiable.

Perhaps. But you never know what might happen in the future; who knows, maybe something similar to one of these situations comes to pass.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're nitpicking. The details don't matter. The point I was trying to get across is that any action can be justified, even if the circumstances by which it would be justified are so far-fetched that it seems very unlikely any sort of similar scenario would occur in real-life (although I did try to pick a plausible situation).

I don't believe that any action can be justified. You may believe that raping your five year old son/daughter is justified if you had a gun to your head and the fate of all life on Earth was somehow dependent on it, however I think that creating hypothetical situations that won't exist in order to justify actions... is the same as saying that the actions are unjustifiable.

Perhaps. But you never know what might happen in the future; who knows, maybe something similar to one of these situations comes to pass.

I hold discussing the possibility that one of these situations could occur in the same place as discussing Pascal's Wager.

Quote from: "Davin"I hold discussing the possibility that one of these situations could occur in the same place as discussing Pascal's Wager.

I see your point.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"I hold discussing the possibility that one of these situations could occur in the same place as discussing Pascal's Wager.

I see your point.

That is not to say that one should avoid talking about it, I just think that even if one agrees, that in this supremely unlikely scenario that action X is OK to commit, it doesn't mean that they agree that the action is justified. The problem with me discussing this kind of thing is that I've had many discussions with theists that use this kind of thing as a wedge to drive an unreasonable point into the discussion (if all actions can be justified, even if they're justified in situations that well never happen, then you can do anything you want and run around raping and killing people). I'm trying to overcome this bias, but it is difficult for me to not use my experience from talking about similar things.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"I hold discussing the possibility that one of these situations could occur in the same place as discussing Pascal's Wager.

I see your point.

That is not to say that one should avoid talking about it, I just think that even if one agrees, that in this supremely unlikely scenario that action X is OK to commit, it doesn't mean that they agree that the action is justified. The problem with me discussing this kind of thing is that I've had many discussions with theists that use this kind of thing as a wedge to drive an unreasonable point into the discussion (if all actions can be justified, even if they're justified in situations that well never happen, then you can do anything you want and run around raping and killing people). I'm trying to overcome this bias, but it is difficult for me to not use my experience from talking about similar things.

You could go around raping and killing people, but I think you would get arrested fairly soon.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're nitpicking. The details don't matter. The point I was trying to get across is that any action can be justified, even if the circumstances by which it would be justified are so far-fetched that it seems very unlikely any sort of similar scenario would occur in real-life (although I did try to pick a plausible situation).

It's a pity that you regard matters of principle and efficacy as "nitpicking".  

As for plausibility, this sort of instance has been talked about for almost ten years now, and has yet to come up, even once.  However, a shitload of torturing has in fact gone on.  Quite frankly, it appears you are trying to justify actual torture with hypothetical situations.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that if the intentional infliction of pain and suffering is wrong when terrorists do it, it is wrong when we do it.  The ends in this case do not justify the means, especially when one considers that the means more often fail than succeed, judging by the metrics of the very agencies using these tactics.

In the terrorist has to be tortured to save a million scenario, the hero should be prepared to accept his punishment.  
Torture shouldn't be routine, I remember when it was only the bad guys that tortured.
Torture has supposedly prevented terrorist attacks, well how many did the Abu Ghraib happy snaps motivate?

I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

What, then, is your dividing line?  How do you know, a priori, that this round of torture is justified, but this round isn't?  Also, I haven't said that it is always immoral, although I think that's close enough to the truth to eschew the method altogether.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

What, then, is your dividing line?  How do you know, a priori, that this round of torture is justified, but this round isn't?  Also, I haven't said that it is always immoral, although I think that's close enough to the truth to eschew the method altogether.

By logically looking at the situation and weighing the outcome of all of your options.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

What, then, is your dividing line?  How do you know, a priori, that this round of torture is justified, but this round isn't?  Also, I haven't said that it is always immoral, although I think that's close enough to the truth to eschew the method altogether.

By logically looking at the situation and weighing the outcome of all of your options.

In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.

Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.

Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

I understand.  I'm just saying that you cannot perforce know which situations justify it until after you've done it, by which time it is too late.

Under those circumstances, I find it unacceptable.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.

So are you against prisons, and the whole justice system in general? If you are, what do you have in mind to replace it?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.

So are you against prisons, and the whole justice system in general? If you are, what do you have in mind to replace it?

Wow, a very subtle deflection.[/sarcasm] I'll answer anyway.

Prison is in itself a very unpleasant place to live no matter how many "luxuries" prisoners are allowed, however no one is taking prisoners and putting them through torture for answers that they may not have. I'm not happy with the prison system in my country, but I find it mostly acceptable, even if some innocent people get incarcerated.

I see a very big difference between imprisoning an innocent person and torturing an innocent person. One does do some damage, while the other does an immense amount of damage. So while I'm willing to be innocently imprisoned in order to maintain safety and to punish the majority of those that are actually guilty, I'm not willing to allow myself to be innocently subject to torture.

The point you bring up is a good one. We already put innocent people behind bars, do you want to torture innocent people as well?

Quid pro quo.

My moral system is something like that which benefits people is good, that which hurts them is bad.  I think that's kind of the natural form of human morality.  Making the calculations is often hard.

So .. eating meat.  Since I see animals as having human qualities, they figure into my moral calculation, too.  Cruelty to animals is almost as bad as cruelty to humans, so I hate a lot of the commercial operations that raise chickens and other animals in abysmal conditions for food production.  If raised under compassionate conditions, I have no moral objection to killing animals humanely for food.  

Of course at the supermarket we have no idea under what conditions the steaks and lamb chops and chicken breasts lived and were killed.  So I guess the moral thing is to go ahead and make your selection on the basis of what will taste good (since your purchase will have zero effect on the farming practices), but if you have the opportunity to do something to stop animal cruelty, do so.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

i can make it even more simplistic.  the "torturer" and the "hero"  can be interchanged between the view point of the subject.  using the same scenario; the "good guy" and the "bad guy" can also be interchanged.  the person being tortured obviously sees himself as the good guy and the torturer as the bad guy, not the hero of the day trying to save innocents from a ticking bomb...

so using this logic, it most definitely is "always immoral" in some sense.  ...wait a minute though; i thought we've been taught that when you use the word "always" or "never" you're probably wrong.  oh,yeah, that's right; probably wrong.

You can always shop at places like Trader Joe's which expend corporate resources to verify that they are seeling humanely-raised meats.

Regarding torture, we can certainly come up with scenarios in which you'd have to be stupid to say torture would not be justified.  Whether these situations would ever occur is another matter.

The usual is a good one.  Postulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.  Would anyone say, "No, to be faithful to a moral code, we shouldn't waterboard the guy"?  Please.

Of course such situations are highly unlikely.  The usual case is where a prisoner might or might not have information about a terrorist attack.  The problem with a policy condoning torture is that the decisions may not be in the hands of people of great judgment and psychological insight.  The decision maker may be a gung-ho military officer, a paranoid vice president, or someone who enjoys hurting others just a little too much.  Or he may be a smart, savvy guy with common sense who has the country's best interests as his only motivation.  The last guy would probably use torture infrequently and I might trust his judgment.  The others might well overdo it.  The best way to ensure that torture would be used appropriately would be to require approval by a panel of smart, competent people who would balance the slippery moral slope against the importance of the information in a particular case.  And everyone should always remember that information obtained by torture is far from reliable.

QuotePostulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.

How would you know that information? Hearsay from other terrorists who were themselves being tortured?  How could you be sure they didn't just implicate someone -- say, perhaps, a former member who is disillusioned -- to stop the simulated drowning?  

Worse yet, how could you be sure it wasn't disinformation designed to lead the investigative apparatus astray?  I know if I were a terrorist, I'd certainly want to muddy the waters as long as possible up to the moment of detonation.  It wouldn't be enough to cover my trail; I'd want to supply an entirely false trail leading cleanly away from me, so as to buy time to carry out the operation.  How would you winnow the wheat from the chaff in a manner timely enough to prevent the "scenario" you've outlined from coming to the worst?

Given that several falsely-accused people have been interned in Gitmo, and given that at least two internees (and likely quite a few more) have died under our torture, how would you propose to right the inevitable injustices which will occur?

Quote from: "Wilson"The usual is a good one.  Postulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.  Would anyone say, "No, to be faithful to a moral code, we shouldn't waterboard the guy"?  Please.

Not just to preserve a moral code, as you stated later, "[...]everyone should always remember that information obtained by torture is far from reliable." Even if one knew with absolute certainty that the person they were going to torture had the information they needed, there is no guarantee that they will give the correct information. Making the torture useless, but still extremely horrible for the person.

Would you say that it would be OK for Iraqi soldiers to torture U.S. POWs to prevent the loss of innocent civilians? Because it seems that you're saying that it is.

You boys are missing the point.  I know about the unreliability of torture.  But this is a thought experiment.  As I said, let's postulate that we have reliable information, say from a mole within the terrorist organization.  And let's postulate that we have reliable information, from the same trusted source, that a nuclear device will be exploded in downtown New York City in 24 hours, and millions of people may be killed.  And the mole asures us that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, knows the location of the bomb.

Granted, this is unlikely.  But play along.  Given this particular scenario, you are the director in charge of interrogation.  The prisoner isn't responding to questions.  Do you okay sending in Jack Bauer?  Or do you say to yourself, it's God's will, and let nature take its course?

No punking out, now.

Quote from: "Wilson"You boys are missing the point.  I know about the unreliability of torture.  But this is a thought experiment.  As I said, let's postulate that we have reliable information, say from a mole within the terrorist organization.  And let's postulate that we have reliable information, from the same trusted source, that a nuclear device will be exploded in downtown New York City in 24 hours, and millions of people may be killed.  And the mole asures us that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, knows the location of the bomb.

Granted, this is unlikely.  But play along.  Given this particular scenario, you are the director in charge of interrogation.  The prisoner isn't responding to questions.  Do you okay sending in Jack Bauer?  Or do you say to yourself, it's God's will, and let nature take its course?

No punking out, now.

Neither of your dichotomy, torturing under this case would be a waste of time because one could not trust the information acquired from the torture. It would be the same as just blindly guessing where the bomb was, except blindly guessing the location of the bomb would be more useful because it would take less time. Like I said earlier, even if one knew with absolute certainty that the one about to be tortured had the information (already using your scenario), there is no amount of certainty that the person would give the correct information. It's far more likely the person being tortured would just give a false location, especially if they were the only person who knew where the bomb was. Making the torture a useless waste of time.

Davin, I don't like to criticize a person of your obviously elevated moral stature, but just answer the damn question.  

You seem to think that torture never works.  I believe that it does sometimes.  Plenty of false information.  But we have 24 hours.  You can force the guy to give you a location.  Wouldn't take long to check, then if incorrect, torture resumes and continues until the correct location is given.  At some point, I suspect most of us would break under torture and tell the truth to stop the pain.  

Would you, given the scenario I proposed, just let the bomb go off?  Would you feel ethically justified in not trying to force information from someone who would prefer to remain silent, even at the cost of a million lives?  Even if there's only a 10% chance that you could save them?

It's a pretty simple question.

Quote from: "Wilson"Davin, I don't like to criticize a person of your obviously elevated moral stature, but just answer the damn question.  

Would you, given the scenario I proposed, just let the bomb go off?  Would you feel ethically justified in not trying to force information from someone who would prefer to remain silent, even at the cost of a million lives?

It's a pretty simple question.

Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.

Quote from: "Davin"Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.

So you wouldn't torture the man under those circumstances, because the information would VERY LIKELY (but not surely) be false information.  Congratulations!  You are responsible for the death of a million people.  But you'll sleep well all morally superior.

If, under those circumstances, you really wouldn't torture the man in hopes of saving New York City, you'd be - and I say this with respect - a fool.  But I suspect that placed in that situation, you'd do what you'd hate to do - that is, use common sense and do something distasteful and horrible and degrading that you hate to do but would for the greater good.  Else the man in charge would find somebody who would.

In the absence of God, morality is not absolute.  You can't go strictly by rules.  There are exceptions to most rules of behavior.  Thou shall not kill, except it's okay if someone is threatening the life of your family.  Thou shall not torture, except under exceptional circumstances when a lot of innocent lives are at stake.  Set common sense moral rules for yourself and follow them the majority of the time, but make room for a little nuance in your thinking if the situation requires it.  In my opinion, refusing to torture in the above scenario would be immoral.  

You asked, "Would you say that it would be OK for Iraqi soldiers to torture U.S. POWs to prevent the loss of innocent civilians? Because it seems that you're saying that it is."  It wouldn't be okay with me, but they wouldn't ask me.  From their standpoint, if they could save a village by torturing a POW, they would, and they might be morally justified.  Of course it's unlikely that a POW would have any information of that kind.  It's more likely that the Iraqis would do it out of pure hatred.  

Perhaps you are saying that we can't claim the moral high ground and condemn Iraqi torture if we do the same.  That's true.  I'm sure, however, that an enemy army would do what they want to without making sure that we did it first.

As I think I said before, I don't think torture should be used under normal circumstances.  Of course the images are distasteful to the max and degrading to the human spirit.  But I acknowledge that a situation could conceivably come up where it might be the moral way to go.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Davin"Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.

So you wouldn't torture the man under those circumstances, because the information would VERY LIKELY (but not surely) be false information.  Congratulations!  You are responsible for the death of a million people.  But you'll sleep well all morally superior.

No, I wouldn't be responsible, the person that planted the bomb would be responsible. I never sleep well, so it's a moot point any way. Once again, it's not for moral superiority, it's making a decision based on what is more useful. On one hand I have something that you generously stated has a 10% success rate, for those that kind of accuracy I could call a "psychic". Or on the other hand I have U.S. intelligence agencies with a much higher success rate even when there is no interrogation of any kind.

It's more likely that choosing torture will result in letting the bomb go off than using far more reliable resources.

Would you rather rely on something with a 10% success rate (your torture scenario) over something with a much higher success rate (the U.S. intelligence agencies who've stopped way more terrorist operations than torture ever could) when a million lives are at stake?

Quote from: "Wilson"If, under those circumstances, you really wouldn't torture the man in hopes of saving New York City, you'd be - and I say this with respect - a fool.

I don't find that choosing not to rely on something unreliable as being a fool, I find that choosing to rely on something unreliable over something more reliable as being a fool.

Quote from: "Wilson"But I suspect that placed in that situation, you'd do what you'd hate to do - that is, use common sense and do something distasteful and horrible and degrading that you hate to do but would for the greater good.  Else the man in charge would find somebody who would.

No, I'd do what I always do and use things that have evidence for success over things like torture with evidence for not being successful.

Quote from: "Wilson"In the absence of God, morality is not absolute.  You can't go strictly by rules.  There are exceptions to most rules of behavior.  Thou shall not kill, except it's okay if someone is threatening the life of your family.  Thou shall not torture, except under exceptional circumstances when a lot of innocent lives are at stake.  Set common sense moral rules for yourself and follow them the majority of the time, but make room for a little nuance in your thinking if the situation requires it.  In my opinion, refusing to torture in the above scenario would be immoral.

Even with a god, morality is still subjective for us for all practical purposes. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about utility. Torture has large amounts of evidence that shows that it's unreliable, the time is better spent doing something else. Of course I hold room for exceptions, however resorting to torture is irrational under any circumstance anyone has postulated due to the overwhelming evidence that it's extremely unreliable.

Quote from: "Wilson"You asked, "Would you say that it would be OK for Iraqi soldiers to torture U.S. POWs to prevent the loss of innocent civilians? Because it seems that you're saying that it is."  It wouldn't be okay with me, but they wouldn't ask me.  From their standpoint, if they could save a village by torturing a POW, they would, and they might be morally justified.

I just wanted to know if your standard of judgment applies across the board, or if it's just a limited understanding of the way too simplistic view of us vs. them. If you say that it's OK for us to torture people given certain circumstances, you can't say it's bad when other people torture you under the same circumstances.

Quote from: "Wilson"Of course it's unlikely that a POW would have any information of that kind.  It's more likely that the Iraqis would do it out of pure hatred.

Like the half a million innocent Iraqi's we killed in just the first few years of the Iraqi war? Yeah, we killed way more innocents during the war than what happened on 9/11. Iraqis likely doing it out of pure hatred is an assumption, that holds equal weight on the U.S. doing it out of pure hatred, particularly when one already knows that torture is extremely unreliable.

Quote from: "Wilson"Perhaps you are saying that we can't claim the moral high ground and condemn Iraqi torture if we do the same.  That's true.  I'm sure, however, that an enemy army would do what they want to without making sure that we did it first.

When I say it's wrong to do something, I always hold it true for myself as well, it's not very useful to claim something is wrong then do it. I'm not considering what they will or won't do, just whether I can justify my actions as well as condemning the actions of others that I see as bad.

Quote from: "Wilson"As I think I said before, I don't think torture should be used under normal circumstances.  Of course the images are distasteful to the max and degrading to the human spirit.  But I acknowledge that a situation could conceivably come up where it might be the moral way to go.

Not even in your extremely unrealistic scenario is torture even useful, not considering the morality of it.

I've stated before that coming up with situations that will never happen in order to justify torture is the same as saying that torture is not justifiable.

So if I eat meat I'm gonna be tortured to find out where the bomb is? Or will I be the torturer? I'm confused how this all works and what the connection is.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"So if I eat meat I'm gonna be tortured to find out where the bomb is? Or will I be the torturer? I'm confused how this all works and what the connection is.

I guess I could make a new thread on torture.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6281 (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6281)

Quote from: "Wilson"You boys are missing the point.  I know about the unreliability of torture.  But this is a thought experiment.  As I said, let's postulate that we have reliable information, say from a mole within the terrorist organization.  And let's postulate that we have reliable information, from the same trusted source, that a nuclear device will be exploded in downtown New York City in 24 hours, and millions of people may be killed.  And the mole asures us that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, knows the location of the bomb.

Granted, this is unlikely.  But play along.  Given this particular scenario, you are the director in charge of interrogation.  The prisoner isn't responding to questions.  Do you okay sending in Jack Bauer?  Or do you say to yourself, it's God's will, and let nature take its course?

No punking out, now.

Personally, I don't like the idea of approving sticking a red-hot branding iron up a person's ass based on a hypothetical.  Perhaps you call it "punking out"; I call it "thinking", and I'm happy to submit my judgment to others for their input -- you included.

But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.

Now you're just being silly.  This is a guy of the suicide bomber type, and you think threatening him with death will make him reveal?  With paradise awaiting?

Regardless, you're willing to kill the man, but not torture him to save a city?  Where's the morality in that?  I get it.  You're just squeamish.

Let's not resort to ad hominems, guys.

Thump and Davin's arguments have convinced me that torture is ineffective and thus almost never justified. Sorry Wilson, it looks like you're on your own.

Did this thread get derailed into being about torture?

Quote from: "Sophus"Did this thread get derailed into being about torture?

Yes, which is why I created a separate thread on torture.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Let's not resort to ad hominems, guys.

Thump and Davin's arguments have convinced me that torture is ineffective and thus almost never justified. Sorry Wilson, it looks like you're on your own.

That's a shame.  I'd just lately set up a torture facility and hoped to get some referrals.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.

Now you're just being silly.  This is a guy of the suicide bomber type, and you think threatening him with death will make him reveal?  With paradise awaiting?

Regardless, you're willing to kill the man, but not torture him to save a city?  Where's the morality in that?  I get it.  You're just squeamish.

And here it is that you're willing to keep him alive to inflict as much pain as possible, but unwilling to put him out of his misery?

I get it.  You're just inhuman.

See, two can play at bullshit stereotyping.

Perhaps next time you'll pack your brain.  If you need me to spell out my thinking, I'll be happy to do so; you need but ask.

I guess I'm the opposite of a vegetarian. I can't bring myself to eat vegetables with a strong smell, I'm fine with potatos, beans, rice and that sort of thing but meat makes up the bulk of my diet, I can't get enough beef, pork, fish, chicken, venison, gator, turkey, duck, rabbit, elk, etc.

I've found that as I'm getting older I like vegetables more and the texture of meat less (especially processed meats).

And my husband still hates most vegetables.

Coming up with a dinner we both want to eat has been a culinary challenge; with a silver lining of improving and expanding on my cooking skills.

Quote from: "Whitney"Coming up with a dinner we both want to eat has been a culinary challenge; with a silver lining of improving and expanding on my cooking skills.

You can never have enough of that!    

I've been a vegan for a long time now, and as a result, my health both mentally and physically has improved dramatically.

The human body is not fit for the consumption of animals, their eggs, or their fluids, even if it CAN consume them, it's not healthy. By any means. Cancer and heart disease as caused by modern processed foods, additives, and animal products, is the leading cause of death in America. Period.

Also, veggie burgers are amazing if you can find one of good quality, alot of them taste better than real meat. Vegan bacon is amazing.

Junk food is not likely to be the first bad habit to kill you.

Cigarettes and radiation cause cancer too, you know. As do a few infections. Big city air is not good for health, neither is running or sitting for long periods of time.

That said, HOW is human body unfit to consume animal products?

Oh, and I thought the leading cause of death in the United States was heart disease..? Or are you implying that every heart disease known - or at least a vast majority - is caused by the causes you describe, disregarding entirely viral, bacterial, genetic, many environmental, many toxicological and nearly all traumatic causes?

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"The human body is not fit for the consumption of animals, their eggs, or their fluids, even if it CAN consume them, it's not healthy. By any means. Cancer and heart disease as caused by modern processed foods, additives, and animal products, is the leading cause of death in America. Period.

That's a very bold statement considering the lack of conclusive evidence and that generations of people have survived and thrived solely off of animal products (like Eskimos).

There is no reason to be concerned about consuming meat in general...the concern should be overall nutrient consumption and making sure one is not taking in too much of one thing.  

The true number one cause of heart disease, cancer etc in the America is much more reasonably viewed as our high obesity rate....simply not being fat drastically reduces the risk of these killer problems.

So...please don't preach the gospel of veganism to us unless you have some hard proof  

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"I've been a vegan for a long time now, and as a result, my health both mentally and physically has improved dramatically.

The human body is not fit for the consumption of animals, their eggs, or their fluids, even if it CAN consume them, it's not healthy. By any means. Cancer and heart disease as caused by modern processed foods, additives, and animal products, is the leading cause of death in America. Period.

Also, veggie burgers are amazing if you can find one of good quality, alot of them taste better than real meat. Vegan bacon is amazing.

One point does not a trend make. However it is the case that people can survive on a purely carnivorous diet. The Inuit people exist on such a diet and the interesting thing is that Narwal skin lb:lb has as much vitamin C as Oranges. If this were not the case they would suffer from scurvy. Hindus are all vegetarian and some very strict vegans and they can survive quite happily. Some African tribes survive on milk and cows blood for long periods of time. Human dentition is that of an omnivore, neither exclusively the meat cutting and tearing teeth of the the feline/canine nor the grinding teeth of the cow/elephant. Your personal feelings have no bearing on the facts of human omnivorous evolution, sorry.

As Whitney has pointed out it's the nature of the content of the food that we eat in terms of nutritional value that is important. It is widely acknowledged that the UK population was at it's fittest during rationing during WWII. The diet was balanced in terms of nutrient value and calorific content. Obesity and lack of exercise are the key factors in poor health and these are exacerbated by lifestyle and the availability of cheap high energy foods.

And by the way adding the word 'Period' at the end of a sentence as if it added some kind of authority to the preceding statement makes the user look incredibly immature.

Quote from: "Tank"And by the way adding the word 'Period' at the end of a sentence as if it added some kind of authority to the preceding statement makes the user look incredibly immature.

Not only that, it makes Asmodean near-automatically bash the statement  

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"Also, veggie burgers are amazing if you can find one of good quality, alot of them taste better than real meat. Vegan bacon is amazing.

You know what other kinds of burgers are amazing and easy to find in good quality? Beef Burgers. You know what taste even better then Vegan bacon? Bacon bacon.

In general humans, like all animals, don't eat foods that are inhearently bad for us (overdo anything and it will be bad for you). If a cow were to eat nothing but meat it would get sick and die, likewise if a wolf were to eat nothing but plants it would die. When omnivores like bears, pigs, and humans eat a good mix of plants and animals they are healty. Do people in the western world eat to much meat? Absolutly. Is eating meat in moderation bad for us? No.

What would happen to the vegans of this world if soy were to get a blight and die off? Would your diets be as well rounded as they are now. Why, if we were only evolved to eat plants is there only a single plant on all of Earth that contains all the protiens needed for healty human life? If we were evloved to only eat plants why do wee need these protiens to begin with. Why do we have bacteria in our guts, that could easily kill us, that live symbioticly with us to break down meat instead? Why do we have a near perfect mix of teeth for both and herbivore and a carnivore? Why is our digestive tract also a compramise between a herbivore's and a carnivore's? Haveing a GI tract that compramises isnt as effective for plant digestions as say a ungalates or ruminants GI tract so why would we have one that can and does digest meat if it wasn't supposed to? Did you know other primates eat meat? Did you know our closest cousin in the animal world, the Chimp, actualy hunts for it? Why would a species that has over 99% of our DNA in common waste so much energy on something that was not only bad for it but apearently deadly according to you?

A vegatarian friend of mine was recently given a percription by her doctor. Eat meat. She had been eating soy, and peanutbutter, and nuts, ect but she was sick. So sick she was actually killing herself by not eating meat. She wouldn't admit it was the problem, disagreed with all nay sayers and argued with her doctor, after all she was eating a "proper" vegan diet. So her doctor told her simply eat meat or die. She's still alive wanna guess why?

You're much better off claiming the humanitarian angle then trying to claim meat is bad for you. Medical science disagrees with you (aside from a few nitch researchers). In my personal expierence vegatarians have been weaker and sicker then thier peers with a varied diet so what you say does not add up to me.

Why would meat taste so delicious to so many BILLIONS of people if it was so harmfull? If it was such poisen how is it that people can survive on nothing but meat if they wanted? If I ate nothing but pig I could concievably live a very, very long time. If you ate nothing but carrots you would die fairly quickly.

Quote from: "Tanker"[...]Why, if we were only evolved to eat plants is there only a single plant on all of Earth that contains all the protiens needed for healty human life? If we were evloved to only eat plants why do wee need these protiens to begin with.[...]

Lentils have a high amount of protein and have been around in their currentish state for about as long as humans have been farming (most likely not long enough for evolution). Nuts are decent backups for protein. So there are several other good sources for protein and pretty much everything else, but I do agree with most everything else.

I've read in more than one place that stuff in soy mimics the estrogen hormone....meaning it could be bad for women to consume it in high quantity.  I'd rather not wait for the research to come in as it's something I can easily avoid on a regular basis; though tofu or something like that from time to time won't hurt me even if lots of soy is bad for women.  I actually prefer some tofu dishes over their meat counterparts....like in asian dinners (though the way real asian chefs prepare tofu is much better than my attempts to far). Moderation is key

If I want a veggie burger I prefer the ones made from portabello mushrooms...I've had many types of veggie burgers, none of them are a good meat replacement.  The only thing that comes close as a meat replacement is morning star crumbles which function decently as a meat replacement in a spaghetti meat sauce or in hamburger helper (meaning the have to be drowned in something). They are only 'better' if you are looking for a non-meat flavor.  I compared some frozen boca burgers to some frozen turkey burger patties...nutritionally the turkey burgers won because they weren't loaded with salt.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"I've been a vegan for a long time now, and as a result, my health both mentally and physically has improved dramatically.

Well how come you've got blood spattered all over your face?
You're not wasting good meat are you?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Tanker"[...]Why, if we were only evolved to eat plants is there only a single plant on all of Earth that contains all the protiens needed for healty human life? If we were evloved to only eat plants why do wee need these protiens to begin with.[...]

Lentils have a high amount of protein and have been around in their currentish state for about as long as humans have been farming (most likely not long enough for evolution). Nuts are decent backups for protein. So there are several other good sources for protein and pretty much everything else, but I do agree with most everything else.

Yes there are many plants with SOME of the protiens needed for health, but Soy is the only plant containing all protiens humans need to be healty.