Vegetarianism

[Totaltruth]

Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable rejecting the "Collage of Psychic Studies." Do they have any experts on phrenology?

Considering they're offering "healings" on their website... just wow.

This crap isn't accepted in mainstream psychology.

*yawn* fine a'll put effort into it.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=wIhGSrCaEYa7jAeS6ohj&ct=result&q=real+psychic+studies&btnG=Search+Books

Theres a whole WEALTH of psychic studies there for you to realise you are completely screwed in this particular debate. Dating back over a century.

Game, Set, match.

I'm struggling to grasp whether you are a troll or not. If you could please provide a recognised Biology journal's abstract on Psychics I'd be interested.

Considering that the people who have numbed pain responses still have brain activity, yeah, it'd still be murder. Now, if you were to stab someone who was brain dead, they're already considered legally dead. There can be a difference between suffering and physical pain: you don't need to feel physical pain to suffer, but a brain is a prerequisite.

Find me a carrot with brain activity, then we'll talk.

Havn't studied biology have you?

All plants have brains, just because it's not complex as a human brain doesn't mean they don't have them. Without it they wouldn't be able to turn their leaves towards the sun to maximise their photosynthesis or produce the chemicals necessary for photosynthesis to occur, or know when to produce more of them.

Beyond that, you've claimed that plants also have as complex nervous systems as sentient beings which is a very outlandish remark based on no provided fact. It is especially difficult taking this stance considering you are not supporting vegetarianism. If you believe that psychic communication is possible between sentient and non-sentient beings, doesn't this conflict with your fundamental moral ideologies? Furthermore, you're effectively putting human life equal to animals, therefore wouldn't it be logical to be a practising vegan?

 

[Lexodus]

I always wonder why people get so impassioned about eating meat...Probably all that 'you need meat to survive' propaganda out their.

Years of studying food and nutrition, plus research on the subject matter published in magazines, scientific journals, and, once, scrawled in shit on the wall of a public bathroom cubicle.

I'm sorry to say it but you are horribly misinformed. Full grown adults require eight amino acids in their diets.

Source?

You can in fact get all your essential amino acids simply from corn and beans(Beans are only deficient in Methionine).

Source?

Your longer posts sources simply state unplanned vegan diets lack protein, which in itself isn't very profound. As with any unplanned or non-acted upon diet, malnutrition will occur.[/quote]
Why would trying to be profound be the object of my argument? In those posts, the highlighted point is that it is easier to be unhealthy from a badly planned vegetarian meal than from a badly planned normal one, as a deficiency is easily worse than an overabundance in most cases (deficiency in this case can lead to horrible diseases, and overabundance generally just leaves you really, really fat, which can be fought).

 

[Lexodus]

Incorrect. I'm saying that, because we can, we should be able to.

I can beat people up and take their money, that doesn't mean I should become a mugger instead of getting a job if it's the path of less resistance.

Okay, firstly, that is retarded as I was only using the current situation, so you have removed contextual information, and thus misquoted me, but secondly, yes you should be ABLE to. You probably shouldn't DO, in this situation, but you should be ABLE to DO.

I think you didn't understand exactly what I'm talking about when I said 'appeal to nature' and how your arguments run afoul of it.[/quote]
I knew, I understood, and you denied something because you wanted to believe the opposite.

okay, that was retarded. Yes, I said that, and I reiterated it. The only mention of word-patterns is when I define what a hypothetical 'flesharian'
would be, so don't try and baffle the fuck out of me with your faulty reading skills.

Um, just don't set up a basis for judging people--"particular word"-- unless you actually mean it.

or what? You're going to cry? It's just a word, and I'm going to use it if I like, goddamngaysexhailsatanwomenshouldhavenorightsheilHitlerbabyrapeit (just trying to throw in some more objectionable words there so you're completely offended, and those seem to be the popular ones).

Just because it might be unhealthy to only eat meat and not veggies and fruits, that doesn't mean you can conclude without more evidence that the opposite--to only eat veggies and fruits and not meat--is also true.

But it has been proven.

Then you should use that proof, not make an argument about how the opposite extreme is unhealthy.[/quote]
Many people have, during the course of this thread, yet you refuse to listen, and thus they have stopped trying and basically the only people here now are arguing about their own argument (read: US.)

 

[Totaltruth]

Source?
Why would trying to be profound be the object of my argument? In those posts, the highlighted point is that it is easier to be unhealthy from a badly planned vegetarian meal than from a badly planned normal one, as a deficiency is easily worse than an overabundance in most cases (deficiency in this case can lead to horrible diseases, and overabundance generally just leaves you really, really fat, which can be fought).

Sorry, I thought you said earlier you had studied nutrition, my mistake. Having only majored in Biology I thought complex knowledge of essential proteins would be a vital part to being a nutritionist.
Writing "not exactly profound" was a remark at the in-your-face obivousness of those articles ie. they provided no worthwhile insight into the issue.
Personally, vegans I know, due to them being required to be more vigilant with their nutrition are in fact more healthy than a lot of my other peers.

Edit: Regarding sources, go find any standard University, even high school Biology text book which will provide you with the basics.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Source?
Why would trying to be profound be the object of my argument? In those posts, the highlighted point is that it is easier to be unhealthy from a badly planned vegetarian meal than from a badly planned normal one, as a deficiency is easily worse than an overabundance in most cases (deficiency in this case can lead to horrible diseases, and overabundance generally just leaves you really, really fat, which can be fought).

Sorry, I thought you said earlier you had studied nutrition, my mistake. Having only majored in Biology I thought complex knowledge of essential proteins would be a vital part to being a nutritionist.
Writing "not exactly profound" was a remark at the in-your-face obivousness of those articles ie. they provided no worthwhile insight into the issue.
Personally, vegans I know, due to them being required to be more vigilant with their nutrition are in fact more healthy than a lot of my other peers.

Just for fairness, maybe you should provide a link that explains the information you posted. I believe I gave the tree whisperer the same line when he said he studied biology, with no additional evidence given. Saying you study biology isn't the same as evidence.

http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/dietarysuppleme_soha.htm
http://www.csmngt.com/amino_acids.htm

Here's a little bit I quickly dug up from the internet, it seems to support your claim (I thought it would). It just would be handy to include it in your post. Saves you time when people ask for sources.

 

[Totaltruth]

I have recently started practicing vegetarianism. I still eat fish but will not eat any other type of meat due to them being raised to die. I would like to know if anyone has any advice for me or any warnings that my lifestyle of not eating much meat could have on me.

I commend you for breaking the norm in what is a often highly criticised practise(partially blame poor public campaings like those from PETA, though often just from "eat meat" propaganda).
Though if you're going to be a vegetarian on a personal moral basis still eating meat, I personally think you should continue thinking about the issue. Not to mention eating fish will unfortunately be the first thing people will criticise you for. I would recommend learning some basic nutritional information on what you will be lacking and some good vegan/vegetarian cook books.

 

[Chartic]

I have recently started practicing vegetarianism. I still eat fish but will not eat any other type of meat due to them being raised to die. I would like to know if anyone has any advice for me or any warnings that my lifestyle of not eating much meat could have on me.

I commend you for breaking the norm in what is a often highly criticised practise(partially blame poor public campaings like those from PETA, though often just from "eat meat" propaganda).
Though if you're going to be a vegetarian on a personal moral basis still eating meat, I personally think you should continue thinking about the issue. Not to mention eating fish will unfortunately be the first thing people will criticise you for. I would recommend learning some basic nutritional information on what you will be lacking and some good vegan/vegetarian cook books.

I've been called out so much because of that you wouldn't believe.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I have recently started practicing vegetarianism. I still eat fish but will not eat any other type of meat due to them being raised to die. I would like to know if anyone has any advice for me or any warnings that my lifestyle of not eating much meat could have on me.

I commend you for breaking the norm in what is a often highly criticised practise(partially blame poor public campaings like those from PETA, though often just from "eat meat" propaganda).
Though if you're going to be a vegetarian on a personal moral basis still eating meat, I personally think you should continue thinking about the issue. Not to mention eating fish will unfortunately be the first thing people will criticise you for. I would recommend learning some basic nutritional information on what you will be lacking and some good vegan/vegetarian cook books.

I've been called out so much because of that you wouldn't believe.

Eleven pages helps me believe.

 

[Totaltruth]

Source?
Why would trying to be profound be the object of my argument? In those posts, the highlighted point is that it is easier to be unhealthy from a badly planned vegetarian meal than from a badly planned normal one, as a deficiency is easily worse than an overabundance in most cases (deficiency in this case can lead to horrible diseases, and overabundance generally just leaves you really, really fat, which can be fought).

Sorry, I thought you said earlier you had studied nutrition, my mistake. Having only majored in Biology I thought complex knowledge of essential proteins would be a vital part to being a nutritionist.
Writing "not exactly profound" was a remark at the in-your-face obivousness of those articles ie. they provided no worthwhile insight into the issue.
Personally, vegans I know, due to them being required to be more vigilant with their nutrition are in fact more healthy than a lot of my other peers.

Just for fairness, maybe you should provide a link that explains the information you posted. I believe I gave the tree whisperer the same line when he said he studied biology, with no additional evidence given. Saying you study biology isn't the same as evidence.

http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/dietarysuppleme_soha.htm
http://www.csmngt.com/amino_acids.htm

Here's a little bit I quickly dug up from the internet, it seems to support your claim. It just would be handy to include it in your post. Saves you time when people ask for sources.

Thanks(haven't looked at it yet though, I trust you!)
But c'mon...whispering to trees!
After finding what's on current booklists for 1st Year Science Students
Biology: Eighth Edition. Campbell, Reece and Meyers. 2009.
(Don't get me for incorrect citing!!! It's been too long.)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

But c'mon...whispering to trees!

I know. I hear you.

Somehow, though, I don't think the trees do.

 

[Lexodus]

Incorrect. I'm saying that, because we can, we should be able to.

I can beat people up and take their money, that doesn't mean I should become a mugger instead of getting a job if it's the path of less resistance.

Okay, firstly, that is retarded as I was only using the current situation, so you have removed contextual information, and thus misquoted me

I read your entire post; I found nothing in the rest of what you said that qualifies what I post so that for purposes of my response, I'm misquoting you.

, but secondly, yes you should be ABLE to. You probably shouldn't DO, in this situation, but you should be ABLE to DO.

Well, then you're right--you're not making an Appeal to Nature fallacy: you're simply arguing that nature should determine what is moral. Of course, you need to support that now with something other than "it's natural" or the equivalent.

Um, just don't set up a basis for judging people--"particular word"-- unless you actually mean it.

or what? You're going to cry?

I'm...not going to take your argument seriously and I'm going to discount the things you say? I thought that was the purpose of this exchange.

Good; it will just prove my point that if I do one thing you don't like, you won't listen to what I've said, and the same reflects for anyone else that's contradicting you.

Then you should use that proof, not make an argument about how the opposite extreme is unhealthy.

Many people have,

But you weren't, not in that particular instance. I was only talking about you in that particular instance.

And I wasn't. See how that works?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Then you should use that proof, not make an argument about how the opposite extreme is unhealthy.

Many people have,

But you weren't, not in that particular instance. I was only talking about you in that particular instance.

And I wasn't. See how that works?

Tell you what: could you please post that evidence again so we can discuss this properly? Otherwise we're just going back and forth over nothing.

 

[Totaltruth]

But c'mon...whispering to trees!

I know. I hear you.

Somehow, though, I don't think the trees do.

*chuckles*
I'll salvage what little good is likely to come from the rest of this thread.

 

[Elivercury]

Wow this is fun, big can of worms stirred up here. I can't help but wonder though, that while i respect your decision (even if i think your reasoning is weak), it sounds to me like you're more concerned with animal welfare than the fact someone on your plate used to be furry and cute. Which there is nothing wrong with at all, in fact it's to be commended in my opinion. But if this is the case, why not just buy from sources where the animals are treated correctly? Jumping straight to vegetarianism seems like jumping with both feet first where, walking would do.

I personally only buy Free range chicken and eggs, which i know have been given the best life possible in captivity (which honestly probably is more pleasant than in the wild...do chickens even exist in the wild anymore?). Cow i only buy British beef, which is generally from a farm, and cows just sit around in a field in the wild, so i fail to see how a fence and someone to make sure they don't get sick bothers them. Fish i'll be honest I've never bothered much about as i'm not a big fish eater, and while i probably SHOULD check the sources, i don't buy it often enough that it affects me (probably less than once a month).

Not that i'm trying to change your decision, as if you're happy with it i wish you the best of luck, just giving my two cents.

On the topic of Carnivores, Herbivores and Omnivores, does it really matter that people call themselves vegetarianism? I mean, you say that people need to make up a word to point out they're not following nature, does this apply to homosexuals? What about political parties, should we involve those also? I think it's more of a social thing than a nature thing.

Also being a Carnivore i'm pretty certain is impossible due to insufficient carbohydrates and the amount of Protein, iron and fat in red meat would kill you. However i could be mistaken about that, as animals do manage it, and i'm not biology savvy enough to know whether nutritionally it's possible for humans.

As with the pills argument, it's better to avoid pills if possible, as vitamins and iron and other such nutrients aren't stored like fat, thus if you take a concentrated dose you only actually get what you can absorb in the time it passes through your system, which is maybe 20%? That is why pills give over your RDA, whereas meat and other food give it a lot slower as well as usually containing things that help you absorb nutrients.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Wow this is fun, big can of worms stirred up here. I can't help but wonder though, that while i respect your decision (even if i think your reasoning is weak), it sounds to me like you're more concerned with animal welfare than the fact someone on your plate used to be furry and cute. Which there is nothing wrong with at all, in fact it's to be commended in my opinion. But if this is the case, why not just buy from sources where the animals are treated correctly? Jumping straight to vegetarianism seems like jumping with both feet first where, walking would do.

I personally only buy Free range chicken and eggs, which i know have been given the best life possible in captivity (which honestly probably is more pleasant than in the wild...do chickens even exist in the wild anymore?). Cow i only buy British beef, which is generally from a farm, and cows just sit around in a field in the wild, so i fail to see how a fence and someone to make sure they don't get sick bothers them. Fish i'll be honest I've never bothered much about as i'm not a big fish eater, and while i probably SHOULD check the sources, i don't buy it often enough that it affects me (probably less than once a month).

"Free range" typically means the chickens just get slightly bigger cages. Misleading, I know.

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php
http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

If you can stomach wikipedia, check the US section of the article they have on free-range products. Free range, in most cases, doesn't really mean anything. It's mostly a marketing term. Maybe the animals are fed more grains. It doesn't have a lot to do with cruelty. This is consistent with the claims made in Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range

So no, that doesn't neccesarially mean you're avoiding animal cruelty.

 

[Elivercury]

Wow this is fun, big can of worms stirred up here. I can't help but wonder though, that while i respect your decision (even if i think your reasoning is weak), it sounds to me like you're more concerned with animal welfare than the fact someone on your plate used to be furry and cute. Which there is nothing wrong with at all, in fact it's to be commended in my opinion. But if this is the case, why not just buy from sources where the animals are treated correctly? Jumping straight to vegetarianism seems like jumping with both feet first where, walking would do.

I personally only buy Free range chicken and eggs, which i know have been given the best life possible in captivity (which honestly probably is more pleasant than in the wild...do chickens even exist in the wild anymore?). Cow i only buy British beef, which is generally from a farm, and cows just sit around in a field in the wild, so i fail to see how a fence and someone to make sure they don't get sick bothers them. Fish i'll be honest I've never bothered much about as i'm not a big fish eater, and while i probably SHOULD check the sources, i don't buy it often enough that it affects me (probably less than once a month).

"Free range" typically means the chickens just get slightly bigger cages. Misleading, I know.

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php
http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

If you can stomach wikipedia, check the US section of the article they have on free-range products. Free range, in most cases, doesn't really mean anything. It's mostly a marketing term. Maybe the animals are fed more grains. It doesn't have a lot to do with cruelty. This is consistent with the claims made in Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range

So no, that doesn't neccesarially mean you're avoiding animal cruelty.

The Wikipedia article on Free range indicated that the UK requirements for free range are higher than the US, but it still wouldn't shock me if it's not a kick in the arse off caged. So yeah, i take back the point i tried to make if you're in the US, and it probably still isn't valid if you're in the UK.

Although i don't believe a Vegetarian diet is more healthy than a "normal" omnivore diet, i just believe that a lot greater % of Vegetarians understand nutrition (or at least what a well balanced diet is), than omnivores do. It's more a case of most "normal" people don't know what is good to eat and what is bad, i mean look at idiots avoiding Pasta because it has Carbs and idiots assuming because it has carbs and a mars bar has carbs they're the same thing.