What benefits do you get from being Vegetarian?

[Lost In The Void]

I have a balanced diet of meat and poultry and fruits and vegetables. I grew up on a cattle ranch so I know where the meat comes from and how the animal is killed and I'm ok with that. I also like the taste of meat and would prefer not to limit myself from that.

I hold nothing against people who want to avoid meat and animal by-products; its their choice and they're welcome to it, who am I to say otherwise? As with any belief too much stigma comes from both sides simply judging each other. In the end, on either side you're going to have your misinformed, you're going to have your assholes and you're going to have your smug bastards, its just part of life.

I know who I am, what I am and what I like so I feel no need to preach.

 

[The Human Torch]

Are lesbians who use strap-ons fooling themselves?

Are gay men who take it in the butt fooling themselves?

...

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[Sordak]

there are no benefits from beeing a vegetarian. that is a fact. if anyone tells you that you get healthier from it they lie.

yess eating too much meat isnt healthy, but so is not eating any. You should have a regular diet. and realy FUCK animals. If we werent breeding cows and pigs for food they woulodnt exist in their current form.

 

[grizzlyAssuager]

All predators on the planet that eat meat have their eyes towards the front, look it up for christ sake.

There is a serious difference between "all predators have their eyes towards the front" and "all creatures that have their eyes to the front are predators." You used the former to state humans are predators, and are now urging me to look up the latter. Which I did.

Some predator animals, particularly large ones such as sperm whales and killer whales, have their two eyes positioned on opposite sides of their heads. Other animals that are not necessarily predators, such as fruit bats and some primates also have forward facing eyes. These are usually animals that need fine depth discrimination/perception; for instance, binocular vision improves the ability to pick a chosen fruit or to find and grasp a particular branch.

there is a good discussion about it here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006040811620

Since this is the internet and it is filled with lies, I'd love to point you to page 30 of Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful By George R. McGhee, which you can conveniently read online: http://books.google.com/books?id=QwDSr1qdqXUC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=binocular+vision+carnivore&source=bl&ots=Eh94TyLgto&sig=lNynfSsuhf33c4kdCyxl8311taU&hl=en&ei=R9vGTtmYMoSEO

But for your ease of reading, I quote:

"..Exeptions to this rule are numerous. For example; the primate have highly developed binocular vision that is, in general, unrelated to a carnivorous mode of life. Instead, many primated need binocular vision because they are arboreal- they need precise depth perception in order to jump from tree branch to tree branch without missing the branch, and perhaps falling to their deaths to th forest floor below."

Basically, in most cases you would have been right, but it's just not that simple. There are various other reasons why binocular or peripheral vision would be benefical for a certain species, besides diet. Some small predators also are prey species, and thus benefit from having peripheral vision. Likewise, species that fly or do fine object manipulation are better off with binocular vision, no matter their diet.

Also this:

 

[jam.on.the.toasts]

The hygiene rules are beside the point though. You can make the argument that they - too - are outdated, but that's hardly an important discussion (not that I personally care all that much about humane slaughter, but oh well.)

Compared to modern methods, slitting the throat of an animal, however neatly, isn't all that humane though.

Ok so here this is exactly what I'm getting at you don't actually care how the animal is killed you care that it's religious and that's the problem you are attacking religion through halal and kosher slaughter and that's just the wrong way to go about it. As far as slaughter methods go they just aren't that bad yes there are better methods out there but there are also comparable methods out there still used and not just in developing nations.

If you attack religion attack things that are big problems not small problems attacking small problems makes you look petty and you can be dismissed as such attacking big important things is the way to go.

You can spin it every way you want. There has been more studies than you can afford to deny. Even been reported cases of animals living 20 mins after the throat was cut. Its not even a problem with having the prober equipment to ensure that the death is quick and painless. The money spend on kosher butchering equipment mind bogging. We are talking about lifts and frames that keep the animal in place while it cramps up from bleeding out.

As for sanitary. that is bullshit as well. Just do a bit of research. Halal butchers are no cleaner than than other types.

I dont know why you would want to defend this stuff other than if its your religion. If that is the case then please just say that and we can agree to disagree.

if the animal lived 20 minutes after having it's throat slit then it wasn't done properly and it's then not really a kosher and halal problem if it was incorrectly done by other methods you would have similar results the article that was first linked to me suggested up to 2 minutes before death I don't know where you're pulling the 20 minutes from it's just not going to happen that after a correct throat slitting that the animal is going to last that long.

so far as equipment goes all slaughter houses need lifts and frames because animals are exsanguinated after slaughter that's what happens they all need those frames regardless off it being a halal or kosher slaughter house.

and with the halal (and kosher) butchers not being any cleaner I'm not saying that they are, what I'm saying is repeat with me now you are singling out halal and kosher because they're religious not because of the methods involved you are jumping on this much harder than it needs or deserves to be jumped on

and yes clearly as a Jewish Muslim I'm leaping to defend my faith /deadpan once again you are attacking the wrong aspect of religion you don't drop a jenga tower by taking blocks off the top layer friend you go for the weak areas.

Maybe you should reread my posts then. The Massey University experiment is crushing to your claims of slow painfull death due to carving away at an animal being humane. And that's just one of many bits of research all pointing to the same direction. Such as Grandin's Improving religious slaughter practices in the US, which cites the unnecessary suffering in religious slaughter practises, or this article [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174007003038], which shows how the development of aneurisms will prolong the suffering of animals killed using archaic religious methods. Or research done by the AnimalScience Group Wageningen UR, such as Chwencke, K.z.j., Voedsel en Religie - Jodendom Ritueel slachten en het welzijn van dieren.

So 'to be fair', it's 4-0 regarding sources, and an even worse figure for you when it comes to logical arguments. Basically all you've done is claim archaic religious slaughter is more humane, and then contradict everything said against it without proof or argument.

No ok lets get this sorted I'm not saying that it is more humane what I said was that it is not slow and painful it is fairly quick even with you're new evidence it's not saying that it is it says that it is not painless (which let's be honest isn't that surprising) and that it could be faster - that's faster than the 10-30 seconds for unconsciousness the new one is talking about clots forming in the dying animal trust me this isn't going to be a huge extension of time were talking here it's suggesting once again altering the current process not outlawing it trying to make it better not because it's exceptionally inhumane but because it can be improved.

It pays well. I was making four or five times the salary classmates were.

And any amount of time (I've seen rabbits move well over a minute after the cut was made by the way) it's still indefinately slower than electrical stunning used on chicken and rabbits. The moment they touch the water they're out from the shock. And considering the current running through there will kill a human being, I'd say those animals are a lot more than just knocked out.

The current is so powerfull that it often causes small blood points in the meat, especially with pork. Many of us preparing meat will sometimes have seen that. Tiny red dots in a small part of the meat. That's where the animal touched the apparatus (or water) delivering the sedating electrical shock.

see the tiny blood spots they may have issue with but that's also pork so a moot point anyway but interesting I don't know if it doesn't occur in other animals or if it's not a problem the first article you linked said that in NZ they do have a method of stunning the animal with electricity that they use that improves the method, with the killing with electricity vs stunning seems like there's a debate in the kosher and halal practices as to weather killing them with it makes it count as carrion or not but the stunning seems like it should be fine.

Two wrongs don't make a right, so that's not a valid argument. Besides, the other slaughters methods you're referring to are ussually going to be in a situation where there's no alternative. I'm not going to point the finger of blame at some villager in a rural part of a poor country in Africa killing an animal without minimising the suffering.

I am pointing the finger of blame at religious people who make animals suffer unnecessarily because they are intellectually lazy and closedminded, and stick to archaic outdated methods despite of much better alternatives being both available and affordable.

Fortunately, religious privilege being used as an excuse for cruelty towards both humans and animals is rapidly running out. Just last week the Dutch Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit fined several people who had killed sheep using archaic methods and the farmer who sold them the animals, and confiscated and destroyed the carcasses.
A law will enter into effect in 2012, forbidding religious slaughtering practises altogether, unless it can be proven these lead to no more suffering than conventional methods. And since that will never happen, the current religious practises will be banned.

The only way out is for Jews and Muslims to acknowledge their teachings to be outdated, and figure out that the only relevant part of them was draining the blood, a bit of common sense their priests had copied into their scriptures. So basically modern slaughtering methods are good enough to satisfy those religious teachings.
It's only superstitious closedminded people who want to hold on to every letter of them who take to hacking away at animals cluelessly, hoping it'll die at some point and their fictional god cheers over all the pointless suffering they've just caused.

look I don't want to rock you're world view but it's not just developing nations. We arrive here once again it seems IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK RELIGION DON'T ATTACK KOSHER AND HALAL SLAUGHTER METHODS, it's just not a viable method of attack if you were to see someone beating a child in the kitchen you don't say they're a terrible person because they put the juice back in the fridge when there's not even enough left in it for a full glass you go after the important things.

the goat wouldn't have been kosher and probably not halal like I've been saying it's just not inhumane to the point you could say it's illegal as far as vs conventional methods I'm fairly sure halal and kosher would get a pass since they're comparable to other methods unless they make every slaughter house update they're methods which wouldn't be easy to achieve.

Once again halal and kosher laws when you look at them are mostly about food sanitation pork is a potentially very dangerous meat you have to be careful with it if you eat it not eating animals which feed on carrion (which most carnivores may do in a pinch) is again a good way to stop disease spreading not butchering things that you cannot confirm was healthy at the time of slaughter is fairly standard food hygiene practice.

So what am I trying to get across here - you're attacking halal and kosher and that's short sighted because they're reasonable practices go after stuff that matters I encourage that it should be done but make sure it's something that does matter and that can make a difference.

 

[s0p0g]

save the whales

blah de blah de blah

Let's be honest:
1) If you're concerned about having enough food for animals then stop forcibly breeding the animals. You really have the problem backwards: we're not eating the animals' food; We're wasting food on animal protein.
2) Plants don't have brains. Animals, aside from corral - which most of us aren't morally concerned about, do. No brains = no sentience. We're not morally concerned about the experience of braindead patients - their other cells might be alive, but that's clearly not what's important.

There we go. No more intellectual dishonesty.

you took this serious? seriously? ^^
awrite, why not, i'll throw in a thought or two
1) i cannot stop breeding them animals because of us beef-eaters, so we need plants as food for our food
...
......
wait, it's a clever scheme to slowly diminish our numbers! you sneaky...

2) a short paper on plants and brains by a work group about plant-neurology of the university of Bonn http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/pdf/NeuroPlantTZ-Biologia.pdf
plants aren't (that) braindead

3) sentience means... what, exactly? sensations are mere neuro-bio-chemical "reflexes", why attribute so much importance or meaning to that?
naturalistic fallacy? moralistic fallacy? is-ought-dichotomy? (probably not, but i don' know the exact base of your thoughts, so i'll keep that as an option)
best thing i can come up with regarding sensations is that they simply are.

wait, what happened, that was more or less serious.
great, you ruined it.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

save the whales

blah de blah de blah

Let's be honest:
1) If you're concerned about having enough food for animals then stop forcibly breeding the animals. You really have the problem backwards: we're not eating the animals' food; We're wasting food on animal protein.
2) Plants don't have brains. Animals, aside from corral - which most of us aren't morally concerned about, do. No brains = no sentience. We're not morally concerned about the experience of braindead patients - their other cells might be alive, but that's clearly not what's important.

There we go. No more intellectual dishonesty.

you took this serious? seriously? ^^
awrite, why not, i'll throw in a thought or two
1) i cannot stop breeding them animals because of us beef-eaters, so we need plants as food for our food
...
......
wait, it's a clever scheme to slowly diminish our numbers! you sneaky...

2) a short paper on plants and brains by a work group about plant-neurology of the university of Bonn http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/pdf/NeuroPlantTZ-Biologia.pdf
plants aren't (that) braindead

3) sentience means... what, exactly? sensations are mere neuro-bio-chemical "reflexes", why attribute so much importance or meaning to that?
naturalistic fallacy? moralistic fallacy? is-ought-dichotomy? (probably not, but i don' know the exact base of your thoughts, so i'll keep that as an option)
best thing i can come up with regarding sensations is that they simply are.

wait, what happened, that was more or less serious.
great, you ruined it.

First off, interesting read. The article is using some specialized language and I strongly doubt it implies exactly what you think it does, but let's suppose that it does. Let's suppose that plants have consciousness and can suffer. By being a vegan I am harming far fewer plants, because I am eating them directly instead of wasting them by feeding them to animals - who will also suffer - as feeding people with animals requires more plant matter than feeding people with plants directly.

As for sentience: it's the ability to have subjective experience - it's you observing the world through your eyes. It's the ability to feel pain, and be the subject of empathy - for someone to attempt to understand what it's like to be you in a given situation. This isn't fallacy, it's acknowledgement of a phenomenon. When you are hurt, that's an experience. If something kills you, you have no more experiences. When you trade a cow's life for a meal, you're trading it's ability to be a cow and have cow-experiences for a burger that you'll forget about in five minutes. That's pretty fucking callous in my view.

Edit: Seems to conform well to my blind skepticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_neurobiology#Criticisms

 

[Diplodocus462]

I'm not a vegetarian, I eat meat, so all my fellow meat eaters should listen to my argument, since I'm on your 'team'!

Ok, firstly, it is totally irrelevant whether eating meat is 'natural'. There are evolutionary bases for any number of human behaviours, *including* things that no one wants to think about, like theft, murder and rape. Either eating meat is morally wrong, morally right, or morally neutral. This is utterly independent of whether it is a natural behaviour.

Secondly, if someone offers you a reasoned argument for why something is unethical, you need to either offer a rebuttal, or accept that you yourself are acting immorally. I honestly believe that the reason so many who eat meat immediately get absurdly aggressive on the issue of veganism is because, in the dark of the night, they realise that they really do not have any justification for why it is OK for animals to suffer as much as they do for the sake of mere convenience and taste. Because that is all it is.

It troubles me deeply the number of people who imply that merely taking a moral stand on something is a character flaw. People who choose to not eat meat for ethical reasons *are* holding the moral high ground. They *are* behaving better than you are morally on this issue, and if you want to claim that they are not, you need to offer a counter argument. Ad Hominem doesn't count, as I am sure you all well know.

 

[GoldenFish]

I got through about half the first page of this thread before it made me so hungry for meat I got some unfinished lamb from the fridge. I'm 16 and a growing boy. I need a lot of protein to keep up with my development. Maybe when I'm older I might try eating less or no meat but I really doubt it. I just like it so much.

 

[jam.on.the.toasts]

This is exactly why I asked why you defend it.

You are assuming people jump on this harder because it is religious, while we got the data showing this is what is it. Yes I am against other forms of animal abuse. Skinning of critters before they are put down is bad as well. I dont like when geese are force fed so they can make their liver expand to make more pate.

I am against that as well, yet you are assuming I hate it because it is religious.

The methods are barbaric. End of story. People are bringing up example upon example of this and you dismiss it as "we are just hating on religion"? Why the assumed bigotry? I made a point of swapping Halal and Kosher at random because they use the same methods. Therefore equally bad.

The thing is I have read the studies. I have seen the documentaries. Its awful and unnecessary.
And yes there are other animal abuses out there, but at the very least they dont wear it as a mark of pride on their product so they can sell more. They are ashamed of it like they should be. "this animal was killed while suffering for your cleanliness".

Its cruel, barbaric and unnecessary. The only reason I can see that someone would defend it is because its a religious tradition. And that is why I asked if you were Jewish/Muslim. Dont make this into a question of bigotry. This is about the factual methods.[/quote]

see you are now mentioning skinning and practising surrounding pate production but that's because I called you on focusing on halal and kosher slaughter what I've been trying to get at is that its just not that bad. The article the other chap linked showed 10-30 seconds before unconsciousness it's just not that bad objectively especially compared to other problems in the animal food production industry so it stands to reason that the actual practice isn't what bothers you.

and the methods they use just aren't barbaric they're nearly the same as some standard practices exsanguination is what happens to all meat and yes there is room for improvement on currently used halal and kosher methods but the addition of a stunning method prior to this process is something that once again from that other guys article there is a way of doing and still being under kosher and halal rules it's something that I hope takes off but what they currently do just isn't that bad. Besides they're current reasoning for not stunning first isn't malicious like you're making it out to be it's just about being over protective of the I'd say quality of the meat but you'd probably misinterpret that we'll go with state of the meat.

thing about documentaries is that for the most part they're fairly unreliable and that's not saying they pick on religion, religious documentaries do the same thing from the other side with less fact checking that's just the way they are. I feel like you didn't read my post in full and to be fair it was long but my central thesis for all this has been you are not angry at the actual methods involved but where those methods come from.

So I'm really hoping you just didn't read the whole message because otherwise you don't see sarcasm when it's spelled out, I'm an atheist not some sort of Jewish Muslim but unlike quite a lot of atheists that I've met I'm able to stay objective halal and kosher methods simply aren't bad enough that you can go after them and not look petty you argue the big things where there's actual legitimate problems do you want another analogy?

I don't like having this side conversation in this thread so pm me or something but I think this is where most of the problems are coming from I'm trying to have a discussion while you're looking for an argument.

and for reference what you should be talking about is live animal transport that's barbaric and some kosher and halal slaughterhouses use that that is a legitimate avenue to argue but once again it's just not unique to halal and kosher practice. what you need to be looking at is why you didn't call out other practices that are worse than halal and kosher that's been most of my reasoning because the way that they slaughter just isn't that bad.

 

[s0p0g]

save the whales

blah de blah de blah

snip

yadda yadda yadda

First off, interesting read. The article is using some specialized language and I strongly doubt it implies exactly what you think it does, but let's suppose that it does. Let's suppose that plants have consciousness and can suffer. By being a vegan I am harming far fewer plants, because I am eating them directly instead of wasting them by feeding them to animals - who will also suffer - as feeding people with animals requires more plant matter than feeding people with plants directly.

As for sentience: it's the ability to have subjective experience - it's you observing the world through your eyes. It's the ability to feel pain, and be the subject of empathy - for someone to attempt to understand what it's like to be you in a given situation. This isn't fallacy, it's acknowledgement of a phenomenon. When you are hurt, that's an experience. If something kills you, you have no more experiences. When you trade a cow's life for a meal, you're trading it's ability to be a cow and have cow-experiences for a burger that you'll forget about in five minutes. That's pretty fucking callous in my view.

Edit: Seems to conform well to my blind skepticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_neurobiology#Criticisms

as i don't spend much time (read: zero) with plants in detail, the wiki-link came in handy
i never liked biologists that much anyway, so that will strengthen my opinion of them

anyway, maybe it's callous and cruel and cold (what's with them (usually considered) "negative" words starting with c??), but then again that's life in its purest, most pristine form - even on biochemical-levels;
eat or be eaten, the rest is the very artificial and abstract construct of morale, which we can only bother with because we have more than we need to survive, in these parts at least.

i don't imagine either of us would even think of the possibility or "necessity" of this discussion if we were drinking muddy water, getting us cholera, and wouldn't know how and where to get the next meal; it's pure luxury ^^

 

[Jonluw]

The hygiene rules are beside the point though. You can make the argument that they - too - are outdated, but that's hardly an important discussion (not that I personally care all that much about humane slaughter, but oh well.)

Compared to modern methods, slitting the throat of an animal, however neatly, isn't all that humane though.

Ok so here this is exactly what I'm getting at you don't actually care how the animal is killed you care that it's religious and that's the problem you are attacking religion through halal and kosher slaughter and that's just the wrong way to go about it. As far as slaughter methods go they just aren't that bad yes there are better methods out there but there are also comparable methods out there still used and not just in developing nations.

If you attack religion attack things that are big problems not small problems attacking small problems makes you look petty and you can be dismissed as such attacking big important things is the way to go.

It seems you don't see what I'm getting at.
I'm not trying to attack religion by condemning halal and kosher. As you say, there are plenty of other grounds to attack religion on.
I did, however, attack their practice a while back there when I accused them of only following the literal word of God instead of trying to be good people.

The fact that I, personally, don't care much about humane slaughter does not mean that the general consensus on this ground is that should be slaughtered as humanely as possible.
I can still condemn people for not following laws or norms I don't care about. Unless it's a law I openly disagree with.
What I'm saying is Halal and Kosher both cause unnecessary suffering, and while I don't really care that much I see how the tradition is offensive towards those who support animal welfare.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

The feeeling of superiority and being able to talk down to people and have them think it's perfectly normal behaviour?

Its funny people expect that(i realise you wer having a laugh) from me, they are always dissapointed when i don't.

but i grew up with animals slaughtered around me and indeed helping the butcher that came out to our farm. Couldn't care less really, people gotta eat and meat can be eaten thats fine I don't though: its really silly people fight about it and vegetarians seem to start the fights.

I just do vegetarian.

i just like it, it just feels clearer.

But most vegetarians i know are odd about the whole thing, maybe its because we're australians.

 

[interspark]

Our bodies are designed to eat both so it doesn't matter. We have four sharp canine teeth in our mouth and it sure as hell isn't for tearing apart the skin of an apple. We also have the ability to survive without eating meat and you should not be against it. We are designed as predators though, so don't ever let someone who doesn't eat meat tell you otherwise. Our eyes sit in the front of our skull, not off to the side. Our ears are small, like most meat eaters.

actually, we've devolved from predators, we've lost all the natural weapons we had when we were apes, we're now something completely unique and new, surviving with our brains instead of our bodies, which is why we have the right to choose what we want to eat

Well thanks for not really answering my question and instead told me stuff I already knew, wow we can eat a variety of foods.

that's not what i was saying at all, you said we were designed as predators which i don't think we are, if you don't want to argue your point then fine, but don't just be a sarcy prat about it

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

save the whales

blah de blah de blah

snip

yadda yadda yadda

First off, interesting read. The article is using some specialized language and I strongly doubt it implies exactly what you think it does, but let's suppose that it does. Let's suppose that plants have consciousness and can suffer. By being a vegan I am harming far fewer plants, because I am eating them directly instead of wasting them by feeding them to animals - who will also suffer - as feeding people with animals requires more plant matter than feeding people with plants directly.

As for sentience: it's the ability to have subjective experience - it's you observing the world through your eyes. It's the ability to feel pain, and be the subject of empathy - for someone to attempt to understand what it's like to be you in a given situation. This isn't fallacy, it's acknowledgement of a phenomenon. When you are hurt, that's an experience. If something kills you, you have no more experiences. When you trade a cow's life for a meal, you're trading it's ability to be a cow and have cow-experiences for a burger that you'll forget about in five minutes. That's pretty fucking callous in my view.

Edit: Seems to conform well to my blind skepticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_neurobiology#Criticisms

as i don't spend much time (read: zero) with plants in detail, the wiki-link came in handy
i never liked biologists that much anyway, so that will strengthen my opinion of them

anyway, maybe it's callous and cruel and cold (what's with them (usually considered) "negative" words starting with c??), but then again that's life in its purest, most pristine form - even on biochemical-levels;
eat or be eaten, the rest is the very artificial and abstract construct of morale, which we can only bother with because we have more than we need to survive, in these parts at least.

i don't imagine either of us would even think of the possibility or "necessity" of this discussion if we were drinking muddy water, getting us cholera, and wouldn't know how and where to get the next meal; it's pure luxury ^^

That's not the situation we're talking about, it's irrelevant here.

You can tell you're loosing the debate when you retreat to cholera and nihilism.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Honestly I don't know, I figure they feel better about themselves since most vegetarians I know are only such because they don't like the idea of animals dying for their dinner.

Ask them how they feel about people dying for their freedom.

[/troll]

The people who sign up to die for their freedom? (Let's play along and pretend that's what war is for.)

Do non-human animals get to be conscientious objectors to being eaten? These days people sign up. Other animals don't.