??? I don't think they see us eating them as a favour either
Why I'm not a vegetarian
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
??? I don't think they see us eating them as a favour either
toolzombie
Registered Member
I don't like to call it rape..that sounds so harsh. Let's go with "surprise sex."
And I never said that I frowned upon cannibalism.
Have something to attack when you come to battle.
there is plenty of protein available in vegetables. everything you get from meat, that animal originally got from a plant.
seriously though right. if we stopped eating meat then we would ahve to kill the animals anyway, due to over population
vslayer how exactly do you figure that?
Firstly if you get say 1 gram of amino acid 1 from 100KG of grass but the amino acid is not destroyed by the body (after all we arnt talking about sugar's here) but rather stored in the nervious system and builds up over time then you would have to eat 100KG of grass to get one gram of amino acid 1. However, if you eat 1 cow you get all the amino acids that have built up over the intire time that cow has been eating
The same goes for shell fish (where these substances REALLY build up but i couldnt think of what shell fish eat)
Then there are amino acids and fatty acids that can be produced by OTHER animals but not ourselves.
Firstly if you get say 1 gram of amino acid 1 from 100KG of grass but the amino acid is not destroyed by the body (after all we arnt talking about sugar's here) but rather stored in the nervious system and builds up over time then you would have to eat 100KG of grass to get one gram of amino acid 1. However, if you eat 1 cow you get all the amino acids that have built up over the intire time that cow has been eating
The same goes for shell fish (where these substances REALLY build up but i couldnt think of what shell fish eat)
Then there are amino acids and fatty acids that can be produced by OTHER animals but not ourselves.
TW Scott:
Oh come now. You can't be that stupid. Why play dumb?
Orleander:
Start here: [enc]Equal consideration[/enc].
Asguard:
The CSIRO diet has been questioned by a number of people, as well as many other diets that include a lot of red meat. Are you aware of the health risks of eating a lot of red meat, or only the pro-meat propaganda?
No. Humans have evolved to be omnivores, not carnivores. Most human beings do not eat large amounts of meat - and certainly nothing like the amount that the rich people in western nations habitually eat.
Besides, even if it was the case that we evolved eating lots of meat, that does not mean that it is morally right to do so. To say that it is is to commit the [enc]Appeal to nature[/enc] fallacy. Ask TW Scott about that. I spent a lot of time attempting to educate him about it, although he apparently has a very short memory.
lucifers angel:
Interesting. Please explain your reasoning.
Oh come now. You can't be that stupid. Why play dumb?
Orleander:
Start here: [enc]Equal consideration[/enc].
Asguard:
The CSIRO diet has been questioned by a number of people, as well as many other diets that include a lot of red meat. Are you aware of the health risks of eating a lot of red meat, or only the pro-meat propaganda?
No. Humans have evolved to be omnivores, not carnivores. Most human beings do not eat large amounts of meat - and certainly nothing like the amount that the rich people in western nations habitually eat.
Besides, even if it was the case that we evolved eating lots of meat, that does not mean that it is morally right to do so. To say that it is is to commit the [enc]Appeal to nature[/enc] fallacy. Ask TW Scott about that. I spent a lot of time attempting to educate him about it, although he apparently has a very short memory.
lucifers angel:
Interesting. Please explain your reasoning.
An appeal to nature is not always a falacy. To claim that because something is natural that trumps all other evidence, yes, that's a fallacy. But the fact that something is natural to a given species is evidence that should be weighed along with all the rest.
We don't know everything about nutrition. There are probably vitamins and other factors important to nutrition that we know nothing about. Some vitamin X that would prevent cancer or alzheimer's, or whatever. I mean, every day you hear conflicting evidence about whether coffee is good or bad for you. Whether this or that causes cancer, etc.
For hundreds of thousands of years humans have been omnivores. Our bodies evolved to consume a diet that includes meat. In the absence of definitive data, doesn't it just make sence to eat a diet that is "natural" to us? One that includes meat?
Furthermore, eating is not a moral issue. Morals only apply to interactions between humans. So, unless you're a canibal, morality doesn't enter into it.
madanthonywayne:
The "Appeal to nature" fallacy is a fallacy because it seeks to derive a "should" from an "is". Even if we were to agree that humans evolved to eat meat and factory farm other animals, that doesn't mean we should, as a matter of ethics.
If you want to make an ethical argument, simply pointing to "natural" conditions will not help. You need to show that it is ethically good to eat meat, not merely that it is "natural" to do so. The two things really are quite different. I realise that I am bucking the common current assumption in pop culture that "natural" things are somehow supposed to be automatically good just because they are natural. People are so keen to fall for this argument these days that advertisers stick the "natural" label on all kinds of products in order to give them a feel-good factor with the customer.
What makes you think that?
Maybe. But would it be morally right to do so? That is the question.
No, sorry, you're wrong. I thought we'd discussed this before, though.
You obviously have a personally narrow conception of the beings to whom you owe moral obligations. Perhaps you think animals are kind of like automatons, or mindless robots. I wonder if you think the same about human infants, or mentally disabled people.
There's nothing I can really do to help you "get over" this deficiency, I don't think. Either you can see that you owe a duty to other creatures with whom you share the planet, or you can't. I'm guessing you're probably not an environmentalist, either. Why should you care about what happens to the Brazilian rainforest? Or, if you do care, it is only because you worry about the possible effects on yourself and human beings you care about. You owe no duty to the forest itself. It is just a thing, right? It has no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].
Am I wrong?
The "Appeal to nature" fallacy is a fallacy because it seeks to derive a "should" from an "is". Even if we were to agree that humans evolved to eat meat and factory farm other animals, that doesn't mean we should, as a matter of ethics.
If you want to make an ethical argument, simply pointing to "natural" conditions will not help. You need to show that it is ethically good to eat meat, not merely that it is "natural" to do so. The two things really are quite different. I realise that I am bucking the common current assumption in pop culture that "natural" things are somehow supposed to be automatically good just because they are natural. People are so keen to fall for this argument these days that advertisers stick the "natural" label on all kinds of products in order to give them a feel-good factor with the customer.
What makes you think that?
Maybe. But would it be morally right to do so? That is the question.
No, sorry, you're wrong. I thought we'd discussed this before, though.
You obviously have a personally narrow conception of the beings to whom you owe moral obligations. Perhaps you think animals are kind of like automatons, or mindless robots. I wonder if you think the same about human infants, or mentally disabled people.
There's nothing I can really do to help you "get over" this deficiency, I don't think. Either you can see that you owe a duty to other creatures with whom you share the planet, or you can't. I'm guessing you're probably not an environmentalist, either. Why should you care about what happens to the Brazilian rainforest? Or, if you do care, it is only because you worry about the possible effects on yourself and human beings you care about. You owe no duty to the forest itself. It is just a thing, right? It has no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc].
Am I wrong?
James there are also ALOT of questions around a vegan diet, especially for women. ALOT of vegans are anemic because unlike a "normal" healthy diet a vegan diet has to be planed EXACTLY right because the protine and amino acids for a start are so much lower in plants than in animals.
Now to see which is better for you look at it this way
2 fish per week, 2 red meat, 1 or 2 chicken and one vegatarian aprox per week with fruits, veg, milk ect and you will be right as long as your careful that your not consuming to much fat and as long as you vary your fruit and veg.
Now if we compare a vegan diet you almost need a degree in nutrition and a $ million lab to make sure your getting everything you require
There for by occams rasor you can quite easerly say that the first diet is better for you because it provides the same health benifits with less energy output.
Everything in moderation is the way to go, both exstreams will leave you sickly
Now to see which is better for you look at it this way
2 fish per week, 2 red meat, 1 or 2 chicken and one vegatarian aprox per week with fruits, veg, milk ect and you will be right as long as your careful that your not consuming to much fat and as long as you vary your fruit and veg.
Now if we compare a vegan diet you almost need a degree in nutrition and a $ million lab to make sure your getting everything you require
There for by occams rasor you can quite easerly say that the first diet is better for you because it provides the same health benifits with less energy output.
Everything in moderation is the way to go, both exstreams will leave you sickly
The first half of my argument wasn't ethical, it was practical. Regarding my statement that I doubt we know everything there is to know about nutrition, what could possibly make you think we know everything?!? My particular area of expertise is the eye. I know for a fact that we don't know jack about what's really important in ocular nutrition.
The landmark study in ocular nutrition was done only a few years ago. It seemed to show that certain vitamins helped delay the onset of macular degeneration. But, at the time the study was started, we didn't know enough to include the pigments found in the macula (lutein, zeanthin, etc). We assume that since those pigments are found at a high concentration in the macula, they must be important, but we don't know for sure.
A new study is being done now. I imagine our knowledge regarding the rest of the body is pretty much at the same level. We just don't know everything there is to know about nutrition. So the healtiest way to go is to eat a balanced diet in which all food groups are represented.
And surely even you would admit that all animals (including humans) have the right to eat the food they need to be healthy and thrive?
I agree completely It's as though the concept of vitalism never really died.
Rights are a social construct invented by intelligent beings to make their interactions more efficient and mutually beneficial. They are based on our nature as thinking beings with free will and our ability to abide by a social contract.
Animals can not understand the concept of rights or a social contract. They are incapable of honoring a social contract. So they get no protections from it.
As I mentioned, the social convention called rights is based upon the social contract and the nature of man. It is natural for us to protect the young and the weak among us. We do this as part of the social contract knowing that when we were young, our parents protected us; and in the hope that when we are old and weak others will again protect us and care for us.
None of this applies to animals.
I see no deficiency. I see your way of thinking as weak and overly sentimental.
Nope. You're pretty much correct. I would lament the loss of the rainforest only for the loss of possible drugs and products that could have come from it. And, or course, the natural beauty that would be lost.
If I needed to kill every spotted owl in existence to save the life of one person I cared about, I wouldn't even hesitate. I do not support needless cruelty to animals, but I value human life infinitely more than animal life.
Well you are the one assuming that my view is stupid. I guess it is up to you to prove that it is so. Of course if you prefer ad hominem attacks when I certainly made none myself that is fine.
Now I know you are railing about the Appeal to nature fallacy. After all it would seem to fit at first blush. however this is not nearly the case. Yes, i do know just becuase it is natural does not mean it is moral. However that also mean just becuase it is natural does not make it immoral. You have yet to provide any proof that the consumption of meat is indeed immoral. Given that mankind for millenia has recognized many things that are immoral, even if we still practice them, it would seem that if eating meat was immoral as a society would would recognize it. Now I realize that is not an airtight case, but my end does not have to be airtight.
I read that you can get all the amino acids you need from plant sources, e.g. soy, spirulina, quinoa, buckwheat, hempseed, and amaranth. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein, http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c218c.html) Other plant proteins may each lack some amino acids but you can still get all of them by eating a combination, e.g. beans and rice.
As far as I know one thing vegans can't get from plants alone is vitamin B12. But they can get it from other supplements containing no animal products. Many foods are enriched with these vitamins today anyway.
But for people who are vegetarian to avoid animal cruelty, an alternative is to eat artificially grown meat (animal tissue without the animals). PETA recently offered a million dollar prize to anyone with a method of doing this economically. I think this outcome is more likely than the world becoming vegetarian. Then the cows will all be killed or at least sterilized since we'll no longer need them, although some might be left in zoos. Maybe that's better than keeping millions of domesticated animals alive in their current conditions though.
Yes you can get all your amino acids from plant sources. Getting functional B-12 from a nonanimal source is questionable. Brewers yeast has worked for some people, and not for others. I would also note that anytime something is fortified with B-12 you can almost guarantee the source was animal matter. I would also note that vegans are more prone to anemia and many other vitamin deficiencies than an omnivore. So being a complete vegan is much like playing Russian roulette.
I will tell you I don't mind a vegan or vegetarian. I just let them know when they are guests in my house I am not wasting my time and effort in making a special meal for them. I have enough to do just taking care of the guests who don't get preachy over food.
I think being a vegetarian rots your brain. Here's proof.
PRINEVILLE, Ore. -- Oregon State Police arrested a man Fridayfor serial-type killing of wildlife, officers said.
Ronald A. Livermore, 60, of Prineville, was caught with a sawed-off .22-caliber rifle with a homemade silencer "spotlighting" in the area where more than a dozen deer have been found dead over the last several years.
Investigators said they believe Livermore, who said he is primarily a vegetarian, would drive around in the dark shining his spotlight until he saw the glimpse of eyes. At that point, he would shoot at the deer and continue on, looking for more.
The deer that had been killed had been left to waste beside forest service roads and many were pregnant or had recently given birth, police said.
Police said they found a special compartment in the trunk of Livermore's car used to conceal his custom-modified weapon.
A forensic examination by the OSP proved that Livermore's weapon was used in some of the killings, police said.
Substitute 'vegetarian' with 'being black', and you have a bannable offense. Funny that.