Vegetarians - why?

[Liudeius]

I tried stuff like tofu and couscous once. They tasted like hair and were not filling in the slightest. I even tried a full vegetarian lunch and it was not filling(Paella I think is how you spell it. It was some Spanish thing and salad). I have no problem if people like vegetarian food I just want to put in my two cents there that it is extremely unfilling.

I think you mean polenta, paella is a very omnivorous dish with shrimp, chicken, and sausage.
Trying things once isn't enough though (and polenta isn't a very good choice for that once, it is corn meal and water, not a very good meal for anyone). Most vegetarian cooks are admittedly horrific because they are either trying to copy meat or add way too much salt.
Maybe you just don't like tofu (although I would find it hard to believe as tofu's flavor and texture is extremely easy to manipulate if the cook has any competence), but you certainly must like some fruits or vegetables?
Meat is good too, but there are plenty of vegetarian foods that can be eaten, many people who dislike them only do because of our culture and what they were raised to eat. Men are even told that if they don't eat meat (or even touch tofu) they are effeminate.

 

[Lerxst]

Any opinion I have would be immediately shot down.

Not if you come bearing facts. I have no problems at all with people who chose a veg*n lifestyle. what I have a problem with is the static noise like the PCRM echochamber provides. Had they just been promoting a vegan diet, power to them, but these people dont stop there. They slither their way into advisory positions and will lobby and try anything to force their ideologies and habbits down the throat of everybody. With succes too.

One thing is trying to convince someone to your point of view another is to use violence by proxy which is what happens if it turns into law and you refuse to comply. Then its battering time. Ofcourse veg*ns being ever so peaceful can take comfort in the fact that just like the killing their farming causes, they wont have to look, deal or take responsability for it.

You're talking about a double-edged sword. I, personally, have no issues with people eating meat. I do have an issue with consumer advocacy groups that lobby the government to promote their meat-eating goods and lifestyles. Wonder what I'm referring to? Just think if these two simple words "Got Milk?" It goes even deeper than that.

The USDA's food pyramid is based on anything but actual nutrition. It's based on these groups (ranchers, meat councils, dairy industry, etc.) throwing millions of dollars at the government. Years ago, how do you think eggs went from something people were terrified of eating for cholesterol reasons to returning as a staple of people's diet?

The meat and dairy industries are such deep rooted political lobby groups that all the funds of PETA and PCRM can't even come close to touching them. For that matter, all the smear campaigns you hear and read against PETA and other groups are all funded, backed and supported by groups like The Center For Consumer Freedom. I looked that group up years ago when people were talking about their "PETA Kills" campaign and saw them list some of their supporters (they have since hidden that list) and it stated corporations such as Pizza Hut, OSI Restaurant Partners (Outback Steakhouse and others) and Taco Bell. So who should I believe? A non-profit organization, funded by small groups and individuals speaking for a cause, or a non-profit funded by multi-billion dollar organizations trying to sell me their products?

Don't ever think the Animal Rights/Vegetarian groups out there are the ones taking advantage of the public. The others have just been doing it for so long that it's become a fact of life we don't even question at this point.

As for my reasons... I'm a vegan. No dairy, no meat, nothing that's within my power to control in modern society that came from an animal. Yes, rubber, cars, electronics, all contain animal products of some form. The intent isn't to cut out all animal products of the sake of cutting out all animal products. The intent is to do as little harm as possible; the fastest, most direct ways to do that ? stop eating and wearing them.

I'm a Buddhist. I don't condone the taking of a life or stealing from another creature. If it's within my power to do so, I avoid products that came from an animal. If something had to die or suffer in order for me to sustain myself, then there's a karmic debt that needs to be paid off; the greater that creature's ability to have karma, the greater the debt become. A fly, for instance, produces much less karma in their lives than a dog.

Not every Buddhist is vegetarian, but it's not our place to judge those who aren't. Some people live in regions that simply can't grow crops and need to rely on animals for food. Others have hundreds of years of culture guiding them, such as fishing communities do. Others simply aren't at a stage in their lives where they're ready to make the commitment even if they see the link between sentient being and food on their plate.

I was an ardent Animal Rights and Vegetarian critic years ago. I've heard all the jokes and made a few up myself. Yet every time I would sit down and pet a dog or cat, I knew I was being a hypocrite. So the seeds were sown.

PS - I'm also friends with a doctor who works for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM for those who don't know what it meant). He is one of the most sane, practical-minded people I've met. I've also been best of friends with cattle ranchers and used to talk with them about this all the time.

 

[Liudeius]

I'm not from the U.S.A. and nor are a number of the posters on this forum. The way things are done in the States doesn't affect simple truths. If it's illegal to do something in one country it doesn't make that a universal truth that this act is illegal, the act is only illegal in that country. You can't say "this act is illegal" without qualifying where you're on about. This applies not only to laws but to conventions and societal norms, like the way food's prepared.

Just because meat sometimes has to be cooked does not mean that meat has to be cooked. It might mean that meat usually has to be cooked, but it doesn't mean that is has to be cooked.

I'm just going to go right ahead and assume that you've never eaten raw meat, it tastes delicious. It's common to eat uncooked meats in some countries. Therefore it's safe to assume I'm not the only one who enjoys it.
So the claim you made that cooking meat is the only way to make it taste good is in fact false.

In regard to vegetables not needing to be cooked. I could go on to argue about the way humans have evolved to have small, almost non-functional, appendixes making most raw plant matter indigestible to humans and that the other commenter's claim is not utterly incorrect. But it's a waste of time, because a large amount of plant matter is edible raw, and like you said, there's almost nothing in the produce section of a supermarket/greengrocers that can't be eaten raw.

Regardless of context, you made a claim which was untrue. I was simply pointing it out.

Also, while we're on the topic of reading posts and replying out of context, I did mention that I can't be bothered arguing with vegetarians about being a vegetarian. It's not worth it.
That's why I didn't comment on whether or not veggies can be eaten raw.

I never said anything about legality...
But as I've said many times, it was a generalization that was clearly not meant to refer to the entire world, and it's irrelevant anyway, why does it matter that some meat doesn't need to be cooked? The OC was claiming that all vegetables needed to be cooked, so I replied that all meat is cooked. (Yes, I shouldn't have made such a generalization, but in most cases, meat is cooked no matter what country to are in.)

A large amount of animals can't be eaten raw (by humans) either, let's say bones.

I'm actually not a vegetarian just trying to say to the OC that many plants commonly eaten by humans can be eaten raw.

 

[Liudeius]

A) Just because a species ancestors did not posses an adaptation does not mean that the adaptation is invalid and unusable and B) even if that were the case, the ancestor species of humans have all been omnivores since before they became exclusively bipedal.

That's not the point, all the OC said was that humans were not biologically required to eat only meat, you responded that four of your thirty two teeth being canines and a need for protein (which is in a huge number of plants) meant you were REQUIRED to eat meat without not eating meat as a valid choice.

 

[Canid117]

A) Just because a species ancestors did not posses an adaptation does not mean that the adaptation is invalid and unusable and B) even if that were the case, the ancestor species of humans have all been omnivores since before they became exclusively bipedal.

That's not the point, all the OC said was that humans were not biologically required to eat only meat, you responded that four of your thirty two teeth being canines and a need for protein (which is in a huge number of plants) meant you were REQUIRED to eat meat without not eating meat as a valid choice.

Read it again.

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat.

He said we aren't biologically designed to eat meat. As in, we were not meant to eat meat. We have specific adaptations meant to make eating meat easier and it was the easiest source of necessary proteins back when we were developing our dietary habits. I'm not saying you HAVE to eat meat. I am saying we were and are adapted to do it.

 

[Chased]

Yes, but a lot of what humans can eat is simply due to the fact that we take time to cook our food. We really couldn't eat many greens otherwise. Our bodies aren't built for it as a main/only source of nutrition (raw of course).

It's really only detrimental nowadays though, because we have to mass produce it, and that is costly and dirty. Seeing it from say, an old fashioned hunter-gatherer society, and things change quite a bit there.

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat. Our saliva has been evolving over time to become more acidic to break down meat but it is nowhere nearly as effective as the saliva that carnivore's have. Our intestines are also the same as herbivores and considerably much larger than a normal carnivores. Also our so called "canine teeth" are also the same teeth shared by plant eaters such as primates. We do not have the same sharp teeth that a carnivore would have, such as the frontal teeth of a lion or wolf.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

I know that a lot of people like for posters to cite a source for their arguments, but couldn't you find a source anywhere that isn't taken directly from a web site dedicated to promoting your point of view? You're citing a persuasive essay as a source. He also cites persuasive essays as sources. The further you get from the primary scientific evidence, the less sense you make and the more full of shit your opponents are allowed to accuse you of being. (You are, by the way)

I can't get over how you decided to attack the one poster who cited a source whilst we have a 13 page discussion with no one else providing any kind of research other than their own opinions (not to mention you haven't provided an argument of your own in regards to the actual thread topic). Get off your high horse.

 

[Luke Barclay]

Coz meat smells like balls, probably tastes that way too but as I A. Haven't eaten meat since I was 10 and B. have never tasted balls, it's kinda hard to tell. It does smell rank tho. plus the cruelty thing.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

The USDA's food pyramid is based on anything but actual nutrition. It's based on these groups (ranchers, meat councils, dairy industry, etc.) throwing millions of dollars at the government.

Then how come it is primarily touting agricultural products which interrests groups like conagro, monsanto etc have invested billions in telling us we need for food stuffs even if the data does not really support it. we get better shits apparently.

Years ago, how do you think eggs went from something people were terrified of eating for cholesterol reasons to returning as a staple of people's diet?

The real data came in and the cholesterol/CVD hypothesis was put to bed. How did a mainstable in human food become demonized for 40 years all of a sudden?. There is a billion dollar low fat/"light"/statins industry present. Could they have been interrested in promoting such a stupid idea?

The meat and dairy industries are such deep rooted political lobby groups that all the funds of PETA and PCRM can't even come close to touching them.

Which in turn are dwarfed by companies like Monstanto and Conagro.

For that matter, all the smear campaigns you hear and read against PETA and other groups are all funded, backed and supported by groups like The Center For Consumer Freedom.

Me and many others do it for free because Peta is an obnoxious terrorist organisation.

I looked that group up years ago when people were talking about their "PETA Kills" campaign and saw them list some of their supporters (they have since hidden that list) and it stated corporations such as Pizza Hut, OSI Restaurant Partners (Outback Steakhouse and others) and Taco Bell. So who should I believe?

you mean all the companies that Peta regularly targets for picketings and random vandalism has an interrest in trying to create a counterweight to Petas propaganda. Whod have thunk?! F them and F Peta.

A non-profit organization, funded by small groups and individuals speaking for a cause,

Speaking? if only they just stuck to that.

Don't ever think the Animal Rights/Vegetarian groups out there are the ones taking advantage of the public. The others have just been doing it for so long that it's become a fact of life we don't even question at this point.

I do.

most direct ways to do that ? stop eating and wearing them.

entirely untrue and I have clearly outlined what the moral catch22 is in earlier posts on this thread.

PS - I'm also friends with a doctor who works for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM for those who don't know what it meant). He is one of the most sane, practical-minded people I've met

If he is so sane, why would he work for such a scumbag organisation?

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I can't get over how you decided to attack the one poster who cited a source whilst we have a 13 page discussion with no one else providing any kind of research other than their own opinions

Am I on your Ignore list. I have posted several direct links to studies. Not someones interpretation of them or an echochamber of opinion on them. No. links directly to the studies themselves. This includes the largest ever conducted on the link between saturated fat and cardio vascular disease (CVD) controlled by Harvard (Protip: There is no link to be found). But that didnt live up to your high standards or?

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I have no clue what PCRM is, but if you would get your information on studies directly from scientific journals rather than biased sources that are either trying to prove meat is good or meat is bad, you will have a far clearer view point.

thats why I post links to precisely that. But perhaps the forum doesnt paste links or? Am I the only one who can see my links directly to the papers. Or that is, the abstracts and then you can access them by paying a symbolic fee if you genuinely want to know and read them.

You can be right, meat is "not bad" for you.

It's good for you!

 

[EvilPicnic]

Me and many others do it for free because Peta is an obnoxious terrorist organisation.

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.

James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, before the House of Representatives, addressing eco-terrorism:

"During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars." http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282260/peta_when_animal_rights_becomes_terrorism.html?cat=9

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

no idea, but i didnt climb the top of the food chain to eat rabbit food

Bears, sharks, and many more animals can easily kill and eat humans. I don't think we're at the top of the food chain

OT: I don't eat meat and it started with cows, because I can't help but think of cows as huge animals that eat grass all day and remain fat. With that thought, it doesn't make sense for me to put it in my body.

Not to be too confrontational, but we are the Earth's dominant species because we are at the top of the food chain. Our specialty is not in physical strength, but in intelligence. Our tools are our ways of besting those lions and sharks.

 

[Liudeius]

Read it again.

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat.

He said we aren't biologically designed to eat meat. As in, we were not meant to eat meat. We have specific adaptations meant to make eating meat easier and it was the easiest source of necessary proteins back when we were developing our dietary habits. I'm not saying you HAVE to eat meat. I am saying we were and are adapted to do it.

The exact words were

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat. Our saliva has been evolving over time to become more acidic to break down meat but it is nowhere nearly as effective as the saliva that carnivore's have. Our intestines are also the same as herbivores and considerably much larger than a normal carnivores. Also our so called "canine teeth" are also the same teeth shared by plant eaters such as primates.

While reading only the first sentence, it is questionable whether the commenter is saying we can't eat meat or we just don't need to eat only meat, but the following sentences make it clear that the commenter is saying we can eat meat, we just don't NEED it.

We have adapted to eating meat, but that commenter and myself have both been trying to say that meat is not a necessity to live so why should someone not eat it if it's their choice? Just like you choose to eat meat.

 

[Liudeius]

thats why I post links to precisely that. But perhaps the forum doesnt paste links or? Am I the only one who can see my links directly to the papers. Or that is, the abstracts and then you can access them by paying a symbolic fee if you genuinely want to know and read them.

You can be right, meat is "not bad" for you.

It's good for you!

I didn't see any links in your post, but I'm only reading direct responses to my comments. It is well proven by good science that mammal meat is bad for you (even ignoring the environmental impact of meat), but I really don't care. If you want to die young, that's your choice.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I didn't see any links in your post, but I'm only reading direct responses to my comments. It is well proven by good science that mammal meat is bad for you (even ignoring the environmental impact of meat)

well proven. By whom? You talked about journals. Lets see the them.

The environmental impact is largely due to the way we handle animals. Not the animals themselves or the amounts of them. http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/operation-hope-meat-is-medicine-for.html

 

[Liudeius]

Not if you come bearing facts. I have no problems at all with people who chose a veg*n lifestyle. what I have a problem with is the static noise like the PCRM echochamber provides. Had they just been promoting a vegan diet, power to them, but these people dont stop there. They slither their way into advisory positions and will lobby and try anything to force their ideologies and habbits down the throat of everybody. With succes too.

I'm starting to think that you might be getting your information from meatassociationofamerica.meat. PCRM may get contributions from PETA, but they do seem to be quite respectable. The question is, are they getting donations from PETA to manipulate research, or are they getting donations from PETA because the research (done properly) shows that vegetarianism is healthier?

I liked the good old days when not just any idiot could act like a scientist and everything wasn't drowning in bias and bribes. (Like all that Corn Growers Association of America crap about high-fructose corn syrup.)

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I'm starting to think that you might be getting your information from meatassociationofamerica.meat.

I am an avid journal reader. But I also have a few blogs i frequent written by people I know also likes to look at the data themselves.

PCRM may get contributions from PETA, but they do seem to be quite respectable.

What criterion did you use to come to that conclusion? I too think that a guy like Mcdougalls come of as entirely likeable. But I have to look at how this organisation operates. What methods they use etc.

 

[StBishop]

I never said anything about legality...
But as I've said many times, it was a generalization that was clearly not meant to refer to the entire world, and it's irrelevant anyway, why does it matter that some meat doesn't need to be cooked? The OC was claiming that all vegetables needed to be cooked, so I replied that all meat is cooked. (Yes, I shouldn't have made such a generalization, but in most cases, meat is cooked no matter what country to are in.)

A large amount of animals can't be eaten raw (by humans) either, let's say bones.

I'm actually not a vegetarian just trying to say to the OC that many plants commonly eaten by humans can be eaten raw.

I was more drawing parallels between differences in laws based on country and differences in the way other things are done (like preparing food).

Everyone knows there's different laws in different places, it might be less obvious about difference in food prep. Don't worry it's not a big deal.

 

[Canid117]

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat. Our saliva has been evolving over time to become more acidic to break down meat but it is nowhere nearly as effective as the saliva that carnivore's have. Our intestines are also the same as herbivores and considerably much larger than a normal carnivores. Also our so called "canine teeth" are also the same teeth shared by plant eaters such as primates.

While reading only the first sentence, it is questionable whether the commenter is saying we can't eat meat or we just don't need to eat only meat, but the following sentences make it clear that the commenter is saying we can eat meat, we just don't NEED it.

We have adapted to eating meat, but that commenter and myself have both been trying to say that meat is not a necessity to live so why should someone not eat it if it's their choice? Just like you choose to eat meat.

A) Saliva does almost jack shit anyway in digestive terms. Slicing meat up via the sharp teeth at the front of the mouth (not just the canines) and stomach acid is easily capable of digesting raw meat. B) We are omnivores like a vast majority of other primates. This means we were "designed" to eat plants AND meat and it was a necessity when our species was first starting out and our digestive systems are not nearly hardy enough to eat raw plants in a sustainable manner. C) The OC states that we were not meant to eat meat and never clarifies need from capability. I have no idea where you got that idea but it is not in the comment. Give up already. Humans were and are adapted to eat meat and the original comment is blatantly wrong. Why do you insist on defending someone who was clearly talking out of their ass? This skips past devils advocate entirely and goes right into simple stubbornness.

Me and many others do it for free because Peta is an obnoxious terrorist organisation.

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

They themselves do not engage in violent terrorist activities but they have been know to supply funds to known arsonists and vocally support radical terrorist organizations.