Meat is good for you only if it limited and you eat the right kind. There are many nutritional diets that have been introduced lately that say you can have a diet without meat. An example is a an episode from oprah, where she brought in a nutritionalist who pointed out the things people could eat from nuts, pumpkin, blue berries, wild salmon and other stuff. He also said people can live healthly without meat.
Vegetarian/Nonviolence/Kosher ethics
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Actually a meat based diet is a recent introduction - if nutritionists are recommending vegetarian diets at the moment it just means they are going back to the way it used to be - its only in recent times that there has been an abundance of animals to eat, domestic animals like cows, goats and pigs were more valuable alive than dead
Ok hapsburg you can go out on the african savannah and see what your ancestoral canines will bring down but I will stick to an agricultural subsistence 
Its true meat has been the basis diets all across the continent in all cultures. SOme cultures in east are the ones who have the most vegetarian diets and have had it for a long time. America is new to this type of diet, but it seems to be growing rapidly. Only recently however nutritionalists and doctors are introducing less meat or no meat diets.
Hapsburg said:
You wouldn't have to rely on such an artifical arrangement if your body was properly adapted to eating meat - just the simple fact that we don't eat carrion (or you can if you want but we don't have a suitable digestive tract for such things - you probably get sick and die), like all other meat eaters, indicates there is something a bit fishy about the whole proposal of meat eating
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Hapsburg:
"Using the example of hitler as a vegetarian to say that all vegetarians are bad is a reductio ad hitlerum logical fallacy."
Re-read the posts. I simply used hitler as an illustration of how being a non vegetarian doesnt imply non-violence. Nowhere did I say or imply that all vegetarians are 'bad' or that vegetarianism is a 'bad' lifestyle choice. I dont care whether people choose to eat meat or not I just think there are more important political issues concerning food consumption.
Lightgigantic:
"I must admit I was a bit taken back by your statement that you were not really concerned with how an animal is killed - I guess the point is that somebody eats it and becomes responsible for the act - I am not sure whether your stance is that you don't see anything intrinsically wrong with killing an animal or you don't consider there is anything intrinsically wrong with eating an animal, regardless of how it was killed since the deeds done and its all history"
Well I said I am more concerned with how and where an animal was raised than with how it was slaughtered, so yes you are correct I don't see anything wrong in killing an animal for consumption (if you know of a better way of slaughtering a cow then please mention the method). You imply that because the slaughter is brutal we are responsible for the death through complicity by eatng the animal. This is why I asked if you would feel better about the consumption of meat if for example a chicken's head were twisted off or if a cow was systematically speared to death. You wrote at one point "if one truly appreciates the value of nonviolence they will apreciate it anywhere", well I think of nonviolence as a political strategy not a way of life. I eat meat yet I have yet to become physically violent with someone and wouldnt unless it were in defense. You presume it a fact that meat consumption=violence towards our fellow man and I disagree with this unless you can provide me with some examples I can consider. Again I would like to know if your sympathy lies with the death of any living creature including insects for food consumption? No I don't live in the tundra but have been living in Cambodia for the last three years, which is why I included insects. Grasshoppers and spiders, not to mention cats and dogs are often eaten in this part of the world...*smiles*...and no I haven't tried any except the fried grasshopper.
"Using the example of hitler as a vegetarian to say that all vegetarians are bad is a reductio ad hitlerum logical fallacy."
Re-read the posts. I simply used hitler as an illustration of how being a non vegetarian doesnt imply non-violence. Nowhere did I say or imply that all vegetarians are 'bad' or that vegetarianism is a 'bad' lifestyle choice. I dont care whether people choose to eat meat or not I just think there are more important political issues concerning food consumption.
Lightgigantic:
"I must admit I was a bit taken back by your statement that you were not really concerned with how an animal is killed - I guess the point is that somebody eats it and becomes responsible for the act - I am not sure whether your stance is that you don't see anything intrinsically wrong with killing an animal or you don't consider there is anything intrinsically wrong with eating an animal, regardless of how it was killed since the deeds done and its all history"
Well I said I am more concerned with how and where an animal was raised than with how it was slaughtered, so yes you are correct I don't see anything wrong in killing an animal for consumption (if you know of a better way of slaughtering a cow then please mention the method). You imply that because the slaughter is brutal we are responsible for the death through complicity by eatng the animal. This is why I asked if you would feel better about the consumption of meat if for example a chicken's head were twisted off or if a cow was systematically speared to death. You wrote at one point "if one truly appreciates the value of nonviolence they will apreciate it anywhere", well I think of nonviolence as a political strategy not a way of life. I eat meat yet I have yet to become physically violent with someone and wouldnt unless it were in defense. You presume it a fact that meat consumption=violence towards our fellow man and I disagree with this unless you can provide me with some examples I can consider. Again I would like to know if your sympathy lies with the death of any living creature including insects for food consumption? No I don't live in the tundra but have been living in Cambodia for the last three years, which is why I included insects. Grasshoppers and spiders, not to mention cats and dogs are often eaten in this part of the world...*smiles*...and no I haven't tried any except the fried grasshopper.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Sgal: SOme cultures in east are the ones who have the most vegetarian diets and have had it for a long time.
But why is this? For some its because meat is more expensive, for a South Indian Hindu its based on religious principles. Thailand and Cambodia are both Buddhist countries but they still have meat and fish in their diet. Aisan's do not necessarily refrain from eating meat based on the manner of death of the animal.
Sgal: "Also some animals we eat can be our pets as well and we don't eat our pets so that just is wrong."
One mans pet is another mans food. In many parts of Asia cats and dogs are considered edible. In China fresh monkey brain is considered an expensive treat and when they say fresh they mean it. At wild game restaurants the monkey is placed alive in a box in the middle of the table where there is a hole and the cranium exposed, the chef comes along slices off the top of the head and the brain is eaten even while the creature spasmodically struggles and shrieks.
But why is this? For some its because meat is more expensive, for a South Indian Hindu its based on religious principles. Thailand and Cambodia are both Buddhist countries but they still have meat and fish in their diet. Aisan's do not necessarily refrain from eating meat based on the manner of death of the animal.
Sgal: "Also some animals we eat can be our pets as well and we don't eat our pets so that just is wrong."
One mans pet is another mans food. In many parts of Asia cats and dogs are considered edible. In China fresh monkey brain is considered an expensive treat and when they say fresh they mean it. At wild game restaurants the monkey is placed alive in a box in the middle of the table where there is a hole and the cranium exposed, the chef comes along slices off the top of the head and the brain is eaten even while the creature spasmodically struggles and shrieks.
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
I am familiar with the practices of that part of the world - one time I remember scouring around for something vegetarian and I was quizzing a shop owner who assured me some cakes were vegetarian "no meat" he said "only insects" - yes not eating meat means not eating all creatures great and small - the thing about carrying out violence on animals is that it makes humans more inclined to violence - actually vegetarian culture is quite intrinsic to buddhism - the principle being that whatever violence you exhibit in this world will be returned to you - of course not all branches of buddhism practice vegetarianism - but even buddha wouldn't drink the milk of a cow that had a calf younger than 12 weeks (so he wouldn't deprive the calf) and he strongly recommended that all his disciples filter their drinking water through a fine cloth so they don't accidently harm other living entities - in other words if a person is practiced to looking ou tfor the welfare of other living entities it becomes an easier habit to look for that welfare in human society - and if one is practiced to turning a deaf ear to the screaming wails of slaughterhouse animals it becomes easier to turn a deaf ear to humans in similar circumstances
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Lightgigantic: "yes not eating meat means not eating all creatures great and small - the thing about carrying out violence on animals is that it makes humans more inclined to violence"
For the first part of your statement I respect your dietary choice but as for the second statement you still have to prove this to be true. A vegetarian Hindu society did not prevent Hindu against Muslim slaughter throughout India. It didn't prevent the deaths of thousands in Ayodhya perpetuated on Muslims by Hindus. Why is it that these devout Hindus didn't uphold the "principle being that whatever violence you exhibit in this world will be returned to you" while remaining faithful vegetarians? You speak of Buddha so I ask what about Jesus? Supposedly he was also peaceful and preached non-violence and brotherly love but he fished and from what little we know of the man ate a kosher cuisine which would of course include meat. If you base your argument on religious dogma you will fail to convince and you jeapordize your argument by assuming we all accept buddhist principles at face value or are sympathetic towards buddhist doctrine.
...and don't forget the buddist monks who set themselves on fire while sitting in the prostate position in protest of the vietnam war. What happened to their principle of non-violence? Isn't it possible that violence is simply a part of human nature? Under certain conditions would you consider eating meat? What would you say to the Inuits who have subsisted on fish, whale fat etc for survival? What about of the Sammi who eat reindeer? Are they subject to your evaluations? They are not buddhist but animist. Even hunters and gatherers ate meat though mostly subsisted on roots, berries etc because going on a hunt didn't always ensure success of a kill.
...And no I am not a christian.
For the first part of your statement I respect your dietary choice but as for the second statement you still have to prove this to be true. A vegetarian Hindu society did not prevent Hindu against Muslim slaughter throughout India. It didn't prevent the deaths of thousands in Ayodhya perpetuated on Muslims by Hindus. Why is it that these devout Hindus didn't uphold the "principle being that whatever violence you exhibit in this world will be returned to you" while remaining faithful vegetarians? You speak of Buddha so I ask what about Jesus? Supposedly he was also peaceful and preached non-violence and brotherly love but he fished and from what little we know of the man ate a kosher cuisine which would of course include meat. If you base your argument on religious dogma you will fail to convince and you jeapordize your argument by assuming we all accept buddhist principles at face value or are sympathetic towards buddhist doctrine.
...and don't forget the buddist monks who set themselves on fire while sitting in the prostate position in protest of the vietnam war. What happened to their principle of non-violence? Isn't it possible that violence is simply a part of human nature? Under certain conditions would you consider eating meat? What would you say to the Inuits who have subsisted on fish, whale fat etc for survival? What about of the Sammi who eat reindeer? Are they subject to your evaluations? They are not buddhist but animist. Even hunters and gatherers ate meat though mostly subsisted on roots, berries etc because going on a hunt didn't always ensure success of a kill.
...And no I am not a christian.
Last edited:
This sort of thing has been discussed before:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1005030#post1005030
--- Ron
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1005030#post1005030
--- Ron
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Almost everything on sciforums has been discussed before, ones interest depends on whether they have entered the discussion before.
I believe the posters main point of view is that eating meat makes the flesh consumer more violent as compared to the vegetarian consumer and it's this aspect of the vegetarian diet we have been discussing.
I believe the posters main point of view is that eating meat makes the flesh consumer more violent as compared to the vegetarian consumer and it's this aspect of the vegetarian diet we have been discussing.
Last edited:
Did you follow the link?
Morality is the knowing of consequence.
Actions affect your habits of thought,
what you take for granted in life,
your appreciation of it.
--- Ron.
Morality is the knowing of consequence.
Actions affect your habits of thought,
what you take for granted in life,
your appreciation of it.
--- Ron.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Yes I did but I was not part of that discussion and I don't believe there is a negative consequence in regards to eating flesh anymore than there is for being exclusively vegetarian. What we take for granted in life (especially in the west) amounts to almost everything including having the luxury of having a choice.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
offer a logical argument that links violence with meat consumption. Lightgigantic to his or her credit has taken the time to consider or tolerate a different point of view or at least broaden his or her argument.
Lucysnow said:
Vegetarianism therefore engenders tolerance, obviously.
--- Ron.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Absolutely. But guess what I am a flesh consumer tightly grounded on the restriction of certain forms of food consumption but these are not based on how terrible the cow will 'feel' when it gets slaughtered; in other words I am not concerned with how an animal was slaughtered. I eat meat but not everyday though I will certainly do so tonight, I too am tolerant, in other words vegetarians don't bother me in the least. I live in a country where chickens run free even in the city, where oxen stops traffic. I eat meat that has been slayed in a very old fashion way. This is still mostly a rural environment even though it be Phnom Penh. I buy from locals who feed their families and send their children to school.
Lucysnow said:
The point is that the quality of compassion is nurtured by a vegetarian outlook - you may be compassionate to a greater or lesser extent but if you adopt practices that cultivate the quality of compassion then it stands to increase - an obvious way to cultivate a quality is to be attentive in all circumstances where it appears - like for instance if you just "turn off" in reagards to animal slaughter you miss out on an opportunity to operate on a more compassionate level of performance.
You may appear compassionate by supporting the local economy, but you could also be a drug dealer by the same logic - in other words wisdom consists of making the distinction between long term and short term benefit