Vegetarianism

[similar.squirrel]

Just try to drink milk and eat rice and eggs [pre-chicken, I'm not sure how you feel about that]. make up the lack of protein, basically.
I eat fish every few months, but I try to make sure it wasn't farmed.

Good luck =]

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Look, the health concerns and benefits are besides the point. The bottom line is, it's possible to be a strict vegan and perfectly healthy. It's a legitimate option, one that I'm considering, and I have a lot of distaste for the social stigma against it.

I'm thinking of going "flexitarian" in the fall for economic reasons, health benefits, and, hey, I'll be playing a part in the reduction of suffering. I have no desire to be holier than thou, I just don't like your arbitrary attack on vegans.

Veggie is one thing, vegan just makes no sense whatsoever. If you're a strict vegan, you have no idea what kinds of stuff you have to avoid. M&M's? Not for you, the dye is made from lice. Little things like that. And you can go on with that for a while. We use animal based things in so many things.
About all the health effects you posted earlier: that's all compared with the normal diet nowadays. Too bad that that's a really shitty comparison. Our current diet is shitty, usually contains too much meat, too much of a lot of stuff in general. Saying that going veggie/vegan is better than that is kind of a "no shit Sherlock". The real comparison is with our natural diet.

Again, besides the point.

A common objection to meatless diets is that they aren't healthy, and that's not neccesarially true. So long as we establish that you can be healthy as a vegan, it doesn't really matter if eating red meat is healthy or not. The main point of contention, that not eating meat is unhealthy, has already been addressed.

It doesn't really matter if eating red meat, occasionally, in small servings is as healthy as being vegan if we've already established that being vegan isn't neccesarially unhealthy.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If you are considering supplements, this means your diet is not effective enough and your body needs something.

No, it means you're being smart. If someone's taking supplements, it means they're making sure they're getting the nutrients they need. It's not "cheating."

Then why aren't just eating some kind of starch porridge with some crushed pills? Or why aren't you just eating the stuff they eat aboard the hovercrafts in The Matrix? Afterall, eating plants still means killing those plants.

Why not? If they can make it taste awesome, who cares?

Also, plants don't share the relevant brain structures that animals use for feeling pain. I'm going to discard the "plants have feelings too" argument. Even if plants can react to physical stimuli, it doesn't mean they'd feel pain the same way. Animals, however, can feel pain.

Vegetarians tend to be more concerned about the reduction of suffering than death, which leads to a lot of misunderstandings and false claims of hypocrisy.

 

[Cowabungaa]

It doesn't really matter if eating red meat, occasionally, in small servings is as healthy as being vegan if we've already established that being vegan isn't neccesarially unhealthy.

It's a simple fact that if you have to grab some peelz to stay healthy because your diet is lacking those things, that the diet is indeed unhealthy no matter if that diet is a veggie one. A healthy diet does not require additional medicine, you can't find medicine in the jungle, for example. A lot of the more regular diets also need additional medicine, because a lot of people don't eat enough fruits and vegetables they don't get enough vitamines, and if people need to supplement that then that's a sign that they're doing something wrong.

Why not? If they can make it taste awesome, who cares?

Also, plants don't share the relevant brain structures that animals use for feeling pain. I'm going to discard the "plants have feelings too" argument. Even if plants can react to physical stimuli, it doesn't mean they'd feel pain the same way. Animals, however, can feel pain.

Vegetarians tend to be more concerned about the reduction of suffering than death, which leads to a lot of misunderstandings and false claims of hypocrisy.

If I go hunting, and I shoot a deer through the head, where is the suffering? Bam, dead, done. A common argument I hear against eating meat, is the one that animals suffer so much in the factory farming industry. That's true, they do, and I despise factory farming and I'm probably just as much against animal cruelty as you are, but eating meat does not require one to support factory farming. I don't, but I still eat meat. Vegitarianism has nothing to do with animal cruelty. Being against animal cruelty and not supporting anything that is cruel to animals has everything to do with animal cruelty. Even then, you should see my cat catching a bird. If he can do it, why can't I? It's not like I'm anything better than him, why would I be better than my cat, just because I have conciousness? What if some alien race has some uber quality we lack, and think the same about us. O shi-

 

[jasoncyrus]

Actually we havn't established the vegan =/= unhealthy route since you havn't provided any legitimate studies outside of the states.

As has been stated before by myself (if not in this thread then the other vegetarian thread) American studies are worth less than a fart in a thunderstorm since they are almost completely incompetant when it comes to executing studies and especially in their study groups.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It doesn't really matter if eating red meat, occasionally, in small servings is as healthy as being vegan if we've already established that being vegan isn't neccesarially unhealthy.

It's a simple fact that if you have to grab some peelz to stay healthy because your diet is lacking those things, that the diet is indeed unhealthy no matter if that diet is a veggie one. A healthy diet does not require additional medicine, you can't find medicine in the jungle, for example. A lot of the more regular diets also need additional medicine, because a lot of people don't eat enough fruits and vegetables they don't get enough vitamines, and if people need to supplement that then that's a sign that they're doing something wrong.

If you're healthy, regardless of how you get your vitamins, how's that a sign you're doing something wrong?

Nature isn't a model of perfection.

 

[Photon987]

Lentils and legumes (peanuts, beans, etc.) are good food to include in a vegetarian diet. Lentils, especially (shameless rip from the wikipedia entry on lentils):

"Nutritional value and health benefits

Lentils contain high levels of proteins, including the essential amino acids isoleucine and lysine, and are an essential source of inexpensive protein in many parts of the world for those who adhere to a vegetarian diet or cannot afford meat.[1] Lentils are deficient in two essential amino acids, methionine and cystine.[2] However, sprouted lentils contain sufficient levels of all essential amino acids, including methionine and cystine.[3]

Apart from a high level of proteins, lentils also contain dietary fiber, Folate, vitamin B1, and minerals. Red (or pink) lentils contain a lower concentration of fiber than green lentils (11% rather than 31%).[4] Health magazine has selected lentils as one of the five healthiest foods.[5] Lentils are often mixed with grains, such as rice, which results in a complete protein dish.

Iron content

Lentils are one of the best vegetable sources of iron. This makes them an important part of a vegetarian diet, and useful for preventing iron deficiency. Iron is particularly important for adolescents and pregnant women, whose requirements for it are increased."

Plus they taste good. I use them during Lent and other fasting periods, and they really do help. Try them and see what you think.

 

[jasoncyrus]

You plan was good till you decided to use wikipedia...I'd prefer proper citations from proper studies. The simple rule of "If you cant use it in a college/university paper, then you cant use it here." works well in this situation.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Actually we havn't established the vegan =/= unhealthy route since you havn't provided any legitimate studies outside of the states.

As has been stated before by myself (if not in this thread then the other vegetarian thread) American studies are worth less than a fart in a thunderstorm since they are almost completely incompetant when it comes to executing studies and especially in their study groups.

I've posted information that shows why it's healthy. Find a European study that shows why being vegan, while eating properly, is unhealthy.

 

[Cowabungaa]

If you're healthy, regardless of how you get your vitamins, how's that a sign you're doing something wrong?

Nature isn't a model of perfection.

Nature isn't a model of anything, nature is reality, we are nature, just as much as (again) my cat. If one needs pills because his diet lacks things, and he gets in the situation where he can't get those pills, his diet has to be changed because it's ineffective. That's all I'm saying: diets who lack things are faulty, that counts for any diet regardless if it contains meat or not.
PS: We're having a bit of a quoting timewarp, haven't we? I edit and you post before you see that, etc, looks odd.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

You plan was good till you decided to use wikipedia...I'd prefer proper citations from proper studies. The simple rule of "If you cant use it in a college/university paper, then you cant use it here." works well in this situation.

Universitys don't accept Wikipedia because they encourage use of primary sources. This is why encyclopedias of any kind are rarely used for research papers. Not because they're inaccurate, but because they're not primary sources. It's bad research, not bad information.

If you can find the Wikipedia article, you're free to not be a douche and follow the citations.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If you're healthy, regardless of how you get your vitamins, how's that a sign you're doing something wrong?

Nature isn't a model of perfection.

Nature isn't a model of anything, nature is reality, we are nature, just as much as (again) my cat. If one needs pills because his diet lacks things, and he gets in the situation where he can't get those pills, his diet has to be changed because it's ineffective.
PS: We're having a bit of a quoting timewarp, haven't we? I edit and you post before you see that, etc, looks odd.

What I'm saying is, just because something works or doesn't work in the "jungle," that doesn't make it right or wrong.

I can't be held responsible if you edit something after I respond to you.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If I go hunting, and I shoot a deer through the head, where is the suffering? Bam, dead, done. A common argument I hear against eating meat, is the one that animals suffer so much in the factory farming industry. That's true, they do, and I despise factory farming and I'm probably just as much against animal cruelty as you are, but eating meat does not require one to support factory farming. I don't, but I still eat meat. Vegitarianism has nothing to do with animal cruelty. Being against animal cruelty and not supporting anything that is cruel to animals has everything to do with animal cruelty. Even then, you should see my cat catching a bird. If he can do it, why can't I? It's not like I'm anything better than him, why would I be better than my cat, just because I have conciousness? What if some alien race has some uber quality we lack, and think the same about us. O shi-

I never said anything bad about hunting. I even mentioned that it is, in some cases, essential to keeping deer populations in check - because their natural predators are scare and they'll eat up all their resources and die out.

But we're not arguing that. There's not enough wild game for everyone to eat. I can't get game meat at the supermarket, not everyone has access to it, so why shouldn't someone who wants to reduce animal suffering be vegan? Why isn't it a legitimate option?

 

[Cowabungaa]

What I'm saying is, just because something works or doesn't work in the "jungle," that doesn't make it right or wrong.

I can't be held responsible if you edit something after I respond to you.

I'm just talking about functionality, not right and wrong. Can you even apply right and wrong to something as a diet? Why would it? Nature is a lot bigger than just our minds.

And no, ofcourse you're not. It's just a nasty habit of mine. It was FAR worse at one point though, you should've seen me in my early internetz days.

I never said anything bad about hunting. I even mentioned that it is, in some cases, essential to keeping deer populations in check - because their natural predators are scare and they'll eat up all their resources and die out.

And since when are we not their natural predators?

But we're not arguing that. There's not enough wild game for everyone to eat. I can't get game meat at the supermarket, not everyone has access to it, why shouldn't someone who wants to reduce animal suffering be vegan? Why isn't it a legitimate option?

That's obviously true, but there are more options, obviously. I don't actually hunt myself (still want to learn though, it learns someone to have respect for one's food). But if I don't need to deviate from my natural diet to reduce my support to animal cruelty, why would I? Why would I deviate from the diet that fits with our species. The whole vegan thing has nothing to do with it, since it can be done without, what's the point in going vegan then, if the result you want to get has nothing to do with being vegan. You can be incredibly cruel to animals and be a vegan and the other way around, and you can eat meat and be incredibly cruel to animals and the other way around. It's the same as with health.

Ooook enough of this edit spam, I'll stop now, respond when everything is complete and stuff. I should really learn to stop with this.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

And no, ofcourse you're not. It's just a nasty habit of mine. It was FAR worse at one point though, you should've seen me in my early internetz days.

It's cool. I do some pretty crazy edits from time to time.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

What I'm saying is, just because something works or doesn't work in the "jungle," that doesn't make it right or wrong.

I can't be held responsible if you edit something after I respond to you.

I'm just talking about functionality, not right and wrong. Can you even apply right and wrong to something as a diet? Why would it? Nature is a lot bigger than just our minds.

Let me rephrase: just because a diet wouldn't work in the jungle doesn't mean it's impractical. We have plenty "natural" foods that we wouldn't have access to in nature. If we can have diets that have less negative impact on the environment and prevent animal suffering - while keeping us healthy - does it really matter if it wouldn't work "in the jungle?"

I don't think so.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It doesn't really matter if eating red meat, occasionally, in small servings is as healthy as being vegan if we've already established that being vegan isn't neccesarially unhealthy.

It's a simple fact that if you have to grab some peelz to stay healthy because your diet is lacking those things, that the diet is indeed unhealthy no matter if that diet is a veggie one. A healthy diet does not require additional medicine, you can't find medicine in the jungle, for example. A lot of the more regular diets also need additional medicine, because a lot of people don't eat enough fruits and vegetables they don't get enough vitamines, and if people need to supplement that then that's a sign that they're doing something wrong.

Why not? If they can make it taste awesome, who cares?

Also, plants don't share the relevant brain structures that animals use for feeling pain. I'm going to discard the "plants have feelings too" argument. Even if plants can react to physical stimuli, it doesn't mean they'd feel pain the same way. Animals, however, can feel pain.

Vegetarians tend to be more concerned about the reduction of suffering than death, which leads to a lot of misunderstandings and false claims of hypocrisy.

If I go hunting, and I shoot a deer through the head, where is the suffering? Bam, dead, done. A common argument I hear against eating meat, is the one that animals suffer so much in the factory farming industry. That's true, they do, and I despise factory farming and I'm probably just as much against animal cruelty as you are, but eating meat does not require one to support factory farming. I don't, but I still eat meat. Vegitarianism has nothing to do with animal cruelty. Being against animal cruelty and not supporting anything that is cruel to animals has everything to do with animal cruelty. Even then, you should see my cat catching a bird. If he can do it, why can't I? It's not like I'm anything better than him, why would I be better than my cat, just because I have conciousness? What if some alien race has some uber quality we lack, and think the same about us. O shi-

1) If the body gets the nutrients it needs, it shouldn't care where it comes from.
2) Again, I'm not saying hunting is bad. (Factory farming on the other hand...) I'm saying that a vegan diet is a legitimate option if your goal is the reduction of suffering.

 

[Shapsters]

Although I think vegetarians are silly hippies, I respect your choice. I do think it is ridiculously hypocritical to eat fish, they are living aren't they?! I honestly have no respect for vegetarians that eat fish because they aren't vegetarians, according to my calculations, fish live, breath and eat. That means you are eating a living thing, which makes you not a vegetarian.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Although I think vegetarians are silly hippies, I respect your choice. I do think it is ridiculously hypocritical to eat fish, they are living aren't they?! I honestly have no respect for vegetarians that eat fish because they aren't vegetarians, according to my calculations, fish live, breath and eat. That means you are eating a living thing, which makes you not a vegetarian.

Again, most vegetarians are concerned with the lifelong suffering of farm animals, not death. If a "vegetarian" isn't opposed to fishing, then it's not really hypocrisy. Though they probably shouldn't be called a vegetarian.

(For the record, I'd assume the oxygen deprivation that fish undergo when they're hauled out of the water to die isn't particularly humane.)

Remember that plants are living things, but they don't have brains, thoughts, or nerves.