Let's Go Vegetarian

[Radha Krsna]

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.48:
“na krtva praninam himsam
mamsamtpadyate kwacit,
na ca pranivadhah svargyas
tasman mamsam vivarjayet”
(Meat will not be obtained without hurting living things, and the persecution of living beings is an obstacle / abstinence in pure bliss, and therefore a person should avoid eating meat)

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.51:
“anumanta vicasita nihanta
krayavikrayi,
samskarta copaharta ca
khadakacceti ghatakah”
(He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he is cut, he who killed him, he who buy and sell, he was a cook, he is menyuguhkannya, and he ate it all should be regarded as the killers of animals)

Manawa Dharma Sastra = The Law of Manu

Forgive me, I did not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.

[mono]

UN report:
Consumption of meat is the main cause of global warming
____________________________________________
- More than 70% in the Amazon rain forest cut down for meat production
- Livestock produce more greenhouse gases than the combined transport of pollution around the world
- Produces 65% of nitrogen oxides are caused by humans (296 times more heat than CO2)
- Produces 37% of methane caused by humans (23 times more heat than CO2)
"Livestock are one of the largest contributors to environmental problems are most serious at the moment.
Urgent action is needed to improve this situation. "


Dr. Henning Steinfeld
Head of Livestock Information and Policy, FAO-UN
Though I appreciate your sharing of these statistics, even as a fellow vegetarian, I find this relatively difficult to believe that direct meat consumption leads before fossil fuel emissions. Personally, I would feel that if everyone began, at once, using only environmentally safe vehicles (biodiesel, electric, hydroelectric, etc.) and ceased use of unsafe household appliances (old refrigerators, air conditioners, dryers, lawnmowers, etc.), which seems very idealistic in itself, this would create more of a beneficial effect than everyone, at once, ceasing meat consumption; I feel that even the EPA would admit to this, as their government website prioritizes fossil fuels over livestock consumption, undoubtedly, in terms of realistic as well as attainable results. Bluntly stating that "consumption of meat is the main cause of global warming" sounds absurd; this sudden spike in climate change seems more in synchrony with industrial development, otherwise even cavemen feasting upon their latest kills would have encountered global warming in addition.

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact this is really a very deep thought. I always subscribe to this idea for today we are growing ruthless and think self-centeredly, completely unthinking. We through our unethical approach to nature are completely destroying our natural habitats, and in doing so we are not only kind of taking away their rights to live, but we are totally deserting this planet that will end up in turning it into a completely lifeless planet soon. We busy ourselves with destructive plans, unawares; the once beautiful and bounteous planet is gradually getting devastated with all its organisms menaced. Now the time has ripened for all of us to rethink and take to vegetarianism and that is what is likely to redeem us

[Red-Headed]

Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian? :eek:

[Radha Krsna]

Forgive me, I do not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.


Maudgalyayana

The power of inner strength from the Maudgalyayana is among the greatest of all the disciples of Buddha Sakyamuni. At the time of the Buddha lived, never happened thus: In the place of origin of the Buddha, as the royal Sakya Nation Jiabiluo be attacked by the King Lazuli of the Kingdom Qiaoshanmiluo. Buddha three times to try to prevent the tragedy that would occur with the way sitting in the middle of the road that would pass the king Lazuli's army. Though King Lazuli had three times to reverse the direction troops movements, but the hatred of revenge was not yet extinguished. The Buddha realized the certainty of retribution, all things there must be a solution. Seteleh fulfill his love to save the country, the Buddha had to accept the reality that will happen.

However, Maudgalyayana still intend to prevent this tragedy by using his power. After receiving the news that the kingdom was surrounded by Jiabiluo King Lazuli army, so he was facing a teacher's emotional, "O Buddha, Jiabiluo Kingdom immediately be attacked by enemy forces, we must do something to help them." Buddha's disciples consider for a moment, then with the voice of love to give this explanation, "Maudgalyayana, Sankya nations have done bad karma, this is a collective retribution, you can not represent them. While they do not repent, still continues to do as good as the heart, not improve, then like a house that had rotted, will eventually fall, too. "After hearing from the teacher, Maudgalyayana can understand this fact. But because he has the greatest magic powers, he still wanted to try to save the Nation Sankya’s karma with his power.

The King Lazuli's army as the sea of ants surrounded Jiabiluo Kingdom tight, no one could exit and enter.

Maudgalyayana with his power to fly through the air and into the city. Among residents who Sankya Nation chaotic, Maudgalyayana chose 500 healthy people stronger, then put them in a bowl hermit, and then flew out of town. With delight, he came to the Buddha who was suffering from headaches for three days. He opened the lid bowls, and stunned, because the people he had saved in a bowl has turned into a hermit blood fluid. He could not understand why so, and begged the discourse of the Buddha.

The Buddha also delivered, "Long ago, in a kingdom that I live in, there is a large lake. To celebrate the feast on the big day, the people there to dig channels to drain the lake water, and ate all the fish that live there. Among them there is a giant fish. There is a child who does not like to eat fish, with amazement took a twig and then knocked on the fish's head three times. This giant fish is current king Lazuli, army troops are herd the fish in the lake. The child was me. My headache is three days knocked retribution fish head three times. As for my people ate the fish lake in the past, finally had to accept the tragedy of revenge in this period. "

[mono]

Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian? :eek:
During the latter period of his life, yes, though, not as a well-disciplined vegetarian, he indulged in consuming meat from time to time. I hardly know what this should contribute to the discussion nonetheless, since Kubla Khan consumed meat in immense amounts, and both Stalin and Mussolini both proved themselves easily as omnivores. I have seen no connection between vegetarianism and mentally unstable chancellorships.

Forgive me, I do not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.
No worries, my friend, as I suppose I may have read the message wrongfully, as the reading of an opinion and the quotation of a brochure seem two different things; I only disagreed with such a generalized statement made by the brochure, preaching more for its cause than for the benefit of reducing global warming, and I admit this even as another vegetarian. The gaseous methane excretions of several mammals, particularly those of cows, have proven as harmful to the ozone (O3) layer, thus contributing to global warming, yet I only had a disagreement with them as the most threatening to climate change. Thank you for clarifying, and I intended no offense.

Maudgalyayana


The power of inner strength from the Maudgalyayana is among the greatest of all the disciples of Buddha Sakyamuni. At the time of the Buddha lived, never happened thus: In the place of origin of the Buddha, as the royal Sakya Nation Jiabiluo be attacked by the King Lazuli of the Kingdom Qiaoshanmiluo. Buddha three times to try to prevent the tragedy that would occur with the way sitting in the middle of the road that would pass the king Lazuli's army. Though King Lazuli had three times to reverse the direction troops movements, but the hatred of revenge was not yet extinguished. The Buddha realized the certainty of retribution, all things there must be a solution. Seteleh fulfill his love to save the country, the Buddha had to accept the reality that will happen.

However, Maudgalyayana still intend to prevent this tragedy by using his power. After receiving the news that the kingdom was surrounded by Jiabiluo King Lazuli army, so he was facing a teacher's emotional, "O Buddha, Jiabiluo Kingdom immediately be attacked by enemy forces, we must do something to help them." Buddha's disciples consider for a moment, then with the voice of love to give this explanation, "Maudgalyayana, Sankya nations have done bad karma, this is a collective retribution, you can not represent them. While they do not repent, still continues to do as good as the heart, not improve, then like a house that had rotted, will eventually fall, too. "After hearing from the teacher, Maudgalyayana can understand this fact. But because he has the greatest magic powers, he still wanted to try to save the Nation Sankya’s karma with his power.

The King Lazuli's army as the sea of ants surrounded Jiabiluo Kingdom tight, no one could exit and enter.

Maudgalyayana with his power to fly through the air and into the city. Among residents who Sankya Nation chaotic, Maudgalyayana chose 500 healthy people stronger, then put them in a bowl hermit, and then flew out of town. With delight, he came to the Buddha who was suffering from headaches for three days. He opened the lid bowls, and stunned, because the people he had saved in a bowl has turned into a hermit blood fluid. He could not understand why so, and begged the discourse of the Buddha.

The Buddha also delivered, "Long ago, in a kingdom that I live in, there is a large lake. To celebrate the feast on the big day, the people there to dig channels to drain the lake water, and ate all the fish that live there. Among them there is a giant fish. There is a child who does not like to eat fish, with amazement took a twig and then knocked on the fish's head three times. This giant fish is current king Lazuli, army troops are herd the fish in the lake. The child was me. My headache is three days knocked retribution fish head three times. As for my people ate the fish lake in the past, finally had to accept the tragedy of revenge in this period. "
Thank you for the wonderful narrative, Radha Krsna - much appreciated; it functions very well as an allegory, in addition, to such a philosophical lifestyle.

[Zee.]

i ate a big mac before. was yummy

[Red-Headed]

During the latter period of his life, yes, though, not as a well-disciplined vegetarian, he indulged in consuming meat from time to time. I hardly know what this should contribute to the discussion nonetheless, since Kubla Khan consumed meat in immense amounts, and both Stalin and Mussolini both proved themselves easily as omnivores. I have seen no connection between vegetarianism and mentally unstable chancellorships.

Maybe the lack of protein or having a balanced diet contributed to his being a bit, how shall we say, cracked? :banana::banana::banana:

After all, we are a predator, not eating meat is going against natural laws surely?

[Red-Headed]

i ate a big mac before. was yummy

I had roast beef & horse radish, was equally yummy. I wonder if they put real 'horse' into horse radish... :lol:

[NikolaiI]

Maybe the lack of protein or having a balanced diet contributed to his being a bit, how shall we say, cracked? :banana::banana::banana:

After all, we are a predator, not eating meat is going against natural laws surely?

We are not exactly a predator. We have a very long colon while predators like tigers have very short colons... for example...


i ate a big mac before. was yummy

When a human eats beef, it begins to decompose before it leaves the body.

A pleasant thought?

[OrphanPip]

I had a vegetarian quiche for lunch today. I try to not eat meat too often, but I'm not a vegetarian :redface:

[Hurricane]

When a human eats beef, it begins to decompose before it leaves the body.

A pleasant thought?

Eh, it all gets hit by the digestive juices pretty quickly. Looking at any aspect of the digestive system should prepare you to be disgusted. Maybe one of the more science-type people could back me up or call me out on this, but I always thought humans had omnivore characteristics with regards to teeth/digestive system.

Frankly, meat is delicious. Eaten in the proper amount and manner, it is nutritious. Thus, I will eat it.

[Lokasenna]

i ate a big mac before. was yummy

I'm not sure that qualifies as food, never mind meat...;)

I think food is one of the most important things in my life; I can't just shovel 'fuel' into myself, I have to savour the tastes and textures (or not, depending on the cook!). While I can, and frequently do, enjoy a vegitarian dish, the removal of meat does massively reduce one's choice and experience of good food - I really don't think I could manage without meat! Last time I was home, Sunday dinner consisted of a lovel, tender leg of lamb cooked with apricots and redcurrants... oh heavens, I can still taste it now...

Oh, and as for Hitler being a vegitarian, I really don't think we can blame his diet for his behaviour - I know plenty of veggies, and not one of them is a mass-murdering nutter with a god-complex! Though, so come quite close...:lol:

[Red-Headed]

We are not exactly a predator. We have a very long colon while predators like tigers have very short colons... for example...


Ermm...Tiger colons? We are omnivores but still predators.

So, why do we have (a) stereoscopic vision, (b) advanced communication skills, (c) innate hunting instincts (d) ability to digest meat?

I know, I know ... *puts hand up* ... because we are predators. :nod:

[OrphanPip]

Human beings are certainly predators, as are almost all primates.

Anyway, this doesn't really matter since being able to eat meat really isn't an ethical argument in support of consuming meat.

After all, I can digest human babies too, but that doesn't make it acceptable behavior :p.

[Red-Headed]

Oh, and as for Hitler being a vegitarian, I really don't think we can blame his diet for his behaviour - I know plenty of veggies, and not one of them is a mass-murdering nutter with a god-complex! Though, so come quite close...:lol:

He didn't drink alcohol or smoke either. What does that tell you? I just don't trust people who don't drink or eat meat. Smoking I can give or take. But not drinking or eating meat is just not natural I tell you! :lol:

[Red-Headed]

After all, I can digest human babies too, but that doesn't make it acceptable behavior :p.

:eek:

[Niamh]

Hey everyone! can we please refrain from making this yet another meateater v vegetarian thread and simply let it be a vegetarian thread? Is it really really necessary that any topic created about vegetarianism ends up with comments like these? Some people choose to be vegetarians because it suits them, others because their religious practices indicate they should etc. keep smart comments to yourselves, especially ones that could be seen as insulting to others.

[Red-Headed]

Yeah, give peas a chance. :lol:

[The Comedian]

I've recently made efforts to become a 2/3s vegetarian: Breakfast + lunch = veggie. Dinner = general balance of meat, veggies, starch. So far it's going pretty well.

[Zee.]

meat provides the brain with certain proteins and enzymes that .. without, studies have shown, can lead to bipolar and other mental disorders.

[Haunted]

Meat also helps in controlling weight problem. It makes a person feel fuller and eat less.

[papayahed]

I would love to go vegetarian, the only thing standing in my way is the almighty Cheeseburger. I love me some cheesy goodness.

[NikolaiI]

He didn't drink alcohol or smoke either. What does that tell you? I just don't trust people who don't drink or eat meat. Smoking I can give or take. But not drinking or eating meat is just not natural I tell you! :lol:

Alcohol is a poison... didn't you know?


Hey everyone! can we please refrain from making this yet another meateater v vegetarian thread and simply let it be a vegetarian thread? Is it really really necessary that any topic created about vegetarianism ends up with comments like these? Some people choose to be vegetarians because it suits them, others because their religious practices indicate they should etc. keep smart comments to yourselves, especially ones that could be seen as insulting to others.

Well, it seems inevitable...

There are always a lot of "It has been proven," comments... one thing it has been proven is that when people get emotional, then they do not use the analyzing part of their brain anymore - so hopefully it won't get like that. But there are some simple facts which should actually really gross anyone out who thinks about them and still eats those things. Like what I mentioned before - when we humans eat beef, it begins to decompose before we are finished digesting it. Just consider that long and carefully, that whenever you do that, you have the decomposing dead body of an animal inside you, in your colon.

Well, that is one reason. Another is the insane inhumanity of slaughterhouses and factory farms. Chickens which are kept in cages smaller than 1 ft x 1 ft, and fed so much that they cannot walk. Cows which are injected with hormones which actually kill all the muscle tissue around the place where they are shot. Pigs that are kept in gestation crates, where they are unable to move, stand up, or anything, for 24 hours a day.

So where is the humanity there? Why is it that animals are slaughtered? Christians who support this will give you scripture, but I don't think they even know what is going on.

So I seriously, with dead seriousness, propose that at least vegetarians and non-vegetarians with care at least for the inhumanly way animals are treated in factory farms and slaughterhouses at least band together to outlaw them! I am just now reading a wonderful book, Black Elk Speaks, and when he speaks of the hunters 'making-meat' in terms of going on a hunt for buffalo, this is not an un-spiritual thing.

But let us please try to improve the standards around here, and stop those slaughterhouses and factory farms. I would say, best to buy food from local farmers, or hunters, or places where they get their meat from those sources, etc. - rather than from any fast food place, or even any grocery story or restaurant. Just an idea and if you think the premise is good but implementation needs work, then please apply yourself to the problem. But at least be aware there is a problem.

One supporting analogy for my idea - to 'boycott' the places where the meat is almost surely to come from factory farms and slaughterhouses - I will steal from a friend who is a vegetarian... it's like if you see 8 big guys beating up on a little child, you may not be able to stop them, but at least you don't have to join in. :)

[Scheherazade]

After all, I can digest human babies too, but that doesn't make it acceptable behavior :p.Oh, Jonathan Swift begs to differ! (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

[DanielBenoit]

Oh, Jonathan Swift begs to differ! (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I was a veg for about a year and a half until I just started eating meat again. I've kind of forgotten why.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that because one consumes meat, one does not love the animals. :rage:

[QUOTE=NikolaiI;810941]We are not exactly a predator. We have a very long colon while predators like tigers have very short colons... for example...

Actually, the length of the colon is only important relative to the length of the small intestine (and the functionality of the caecum for some animals). Tigers are exclusive carnivores, with much longer small intestines relative to their colons. Humans have a longer small intestine than colon, though their digestive enzymes vary from cats. Herbivores (or vegetarians, if you wish) typically have large colons and functional caeca. This is because plant-based matter is broken down and nutrient absorption occurs in the colon, while most animal-based matter is digested in the small intestine. So really, our body is perfectly designed for omnivorous eating habits.


When a human eats beef, it begins to decompose before it leaves the body.

A pleasant thought?

That's the whole point of digestion. Were our food not decomposed before it was expelled, no nutrient absorption would occur and we would not survive.

[Virgil]

Goodness gracious, another vegetarian thread. Humans were designed to eat meat. It's quite unnatural not to.

[NikolaiI]

"That's the whole point of digestion. Were our food not decomposed before it was expelled, no nutrient absorption would occur and we would not survive."

You may be right. I had only heard it and I am not too keen on doing too much research to find out references, so I concede that.

However there is no possible justification for the way animals are treated in factory farms. The only way people should ever consume animals is if the animals are given a natural and possibly fulfilling life, either in nature or in a healthy environment.

[NikolaiI]

Goodness gracious, another vegetarian thread. Humans were designed to eat meat. It's quite unnatural not to.

Virgil what about what goes on behind the doors of factory farms? There is no naturalness to it. I won't repeat my list of grievances, but I hope you will know I am not making it up.

Again, I will say, the way the Natives used to eat, that was natural - our system is not. Find out for yourself. It does matter, and it is important.

[Virgil]

Virgil what about what goes on behind the doors of factory farms? There is no naturalness to it. I won't repeat my list of grievances, but I hope you will know I am not making it up.


I'm not pleased about that. I understand your concerns. I just don't know what to do about it. There are a lot of people in the world and for them to eat meat is raising their standard of living. I don't want people to live in poverty and being denied affordable meat is poverty.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not pleased about that. I understand your concerns. I just don't know what to do about it. There are a lot of people in the world and for them to eat meat is raising their standard of living. I don't want people to live in poverty and being denied affordable meat is poverty.

Then again you could be feeding those people with crops grown on the land allotted to growing feed for livestock. Cows are yummy and all, but that cow easily eats the equivalent of several meals for a human being every day of its brief life. I don't know what the currently accepted ratios are, but cows are one of the least efficient ways of producing food.

[DanielBenoit]

Cows are yummy and all. . . . .

I rest my case :nod:


Come'on everbody let's all be friends, not to say that this thread has gotten vicious, but it probably will. This is a shaky subject, and yet it is so futile. I mean, I applaud vegetarians for being so compassionate for beings not even of their own species, but on the other hand, what does it really do? It by no means stops the meat-product companies from killing animals, and if you can't get two-thirds of the country off McDonalds, you're certainly not going to get it on a vegetarian diet.

[Virgil]

Then again you could be feeding those people with crops grown on the land allotted to growing feed for livestock. Cows are yummy and all, but that cow easily eats the equivalent of several meals for a human being every day of its brief life. I don't know what the currently accepted ratios are, but cows are one of the least efficient ways of producing food.

Sure if efficiency is your goal, then so be it. But no one considers himself having a decent standard of living eating rabbit food. I certainly wouldn't for myself and I don't expect others to. If you want to live that way, that's your business.

[OrphanPip]

Perhaps we could first concentrate on providing any form of proper nutrition before we start looking at palatability. I can't say I can speak for everyone, but I imagine that most people prefer some food to no food.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html

Edit: I have to comment on the vegetarian dating site ads, google ads never fails to amaze me.

[billl]

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

I really think a lot of people aren't aware of what goes on with these animals, there's such a disconnect. Of course people are gonna get upset if they're accused of being unkind to animals--they are only eating--but I think it is wrong to suggest nothing can be done about the problem.

It isn't a pleasant discussion, though, and I pretty much never bring it up outside of a thread specifically about it in an online forum. I certainly wouldn't shake up a meal with other people over it. But if someone is reading this thread, and they feel angry at me or whatever, sorry about that, and of course do whatever. But saying nothing can be done, as if that's the big winning justification to the issue, might actually have an effect on some people reading it.

[Radha Krsna]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:L4r4xLFldsUR7M:http://animacenter.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Dog-Cat-years-1.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:TDN7cwJe5orSlM:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jqLfcKPE_IQ/Su25Lz4-ZBI/AAAAAAAAAiI/YLxpsirlG44/s400/cat%2Band%2Bdog.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:F74adE_40_OQwM:http://mwan.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kucing-anjing.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BbUvEcGr4r8IsM:http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cat-vs-Dog-animal-humor-680096_639_530.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:pl-NNxhRM2IBWM:http://diarydiarytoo.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cat-and-dog.jpg"]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:pl-NNxhRM2IBWM:http://diarydiarytoo.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cat-and-dog.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ZzNHz54uj8kwGM:http://www.dogandcatpantry.com/my_files/images/cat-and-dog2.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:B20ZYjEufnNQUM:http://www.forfun.us/funpic/1206285738-Happy-dog-sex-Picture-Gallery.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:eEQRQ35RCqAc9M:http://blog.timesunion.com/bark/files/2009/05/cat-and-dog-sleep.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zmqddTeNBaRgNM:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/30/dog_cat.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:i0bh6YsGv95fdM:http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x18/Fecher/funny-pictures-cat-punches-dog.jpg

There are three forms of violence: bringing meat or ask, cut the body of the creature, buy / cook / eat meat.
(Mahabharata 115.40)

In the book The Science of Self-Realization

Journalist: How do you know that animals have a soul?
Srila Prabhupada: You can certainly find out. Here is scientific proof. Animals were looking for food, you are also looking for food, the animals were sleeping, you were sleeping, the animal was protecting himself, you're protecting ourselves, animals do sexual activities, you also make sexual activity, the animals have children, you also have children , you have a place to live, they also have. If the animal's body torn, blood will out. When your body is torn, will also bleed. So, all these similarities really real plastered in front of us. If so, why would you want to deny this truth? That animals and we both have a spirit! Have you ever studied logic? In the science of logic, there is a comparison principle, namely by searching things equal between two objects, then make conclusions. If humans and animals have so much in common, both have a spirit, why do you deny this fact? Logic and scientific truth can not be denied.

Master Wang Che Kuang, Director of the Institute of Maitreya the World: "In the face of this earth, although there were only two people, provided that still eat meat, then the war will still be there."

George Bernard Shaw wrote a song for peace:
We are the living graves of the animals were killed, slaughtered to satisfy our lust mouth ...

Only quote ...

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...

[billl]

ok, ok...

[Virgil]

Only quote ...

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...

Is that supposed to be profound?

[NikolaiI]

I believe it is more like pointed humour. :)

[skib]

George Bernard Shaw wrote a song for peace:
We are the living graves of the animals were killed, slaughtered to satisfy our lust mouth ...

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

[OrphanPip]

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

[neilgee]

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

Pip I've agreed with everything you've said so far. You speak uncommon common sense and I admire your tenacity in the face of the replies you have received. Just thought you might appreciate some support.:thumbs_up

[Red-Headed]

Alcohol is a poison... didn't you know?

No it isn't. You may as well say salt is a poison. Too much of it will kill you. In sufficient doses cyanide, ricin & radioactive plutonium is a poison, although I believe arsenic in small doses is actually a tonic. In fact, according to modern medical research, small doses of alcohol are good for you. So is a *bacon sandwich. :thumbs_up


*Oh, I forgot, especially with HP Sauce! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Sauce)

[Hurricane]

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

+1. For a good read on the American food industry, check out The Omnivore's Dilemma or In Defense of Food, both by Michael Pollan. I try to buy local/free range/etc., but it's hard since 90% of the time I'm eating in the dining hall:sick:.
I feel like Americans are going to start seeing more serious health effects from our eating habits, in particular due to the industries where we get our food (both meat and otherwise).

[Helga]

I'm a vegetarian, have been for 8 years

[NikolaiI]

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

Very well said.


Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

But there is one in his avatar. :)

[*Classic*Charm*]

Then again you could be feeding those people with crops grown on the land allotted to growing feed for livestock. Cows are yummy and all, but that cow easily eats the equivalent of several meals for a human being every day of its brief life. I don't know what the currently accepted ratios are, but cows are one of the least efficient ways of producing food.

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?



Only quote ...

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...

Well obviously the baby wouldn't want to eat it raw :rolleyes:


No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

What is it specifically about industrial farms that you're against? I don't mean to imply that there are no problems, just that everyone says "Don't you see what's happening!?" when most don't actually know how those farms are run. Just looking for specific examples to carry on the discussion :)


No it isn't. You may as well say salt is a poison. Too much of it will kill you. So is a *bacon sandwich. :thumbs_up

Well put :D To say that something is a poison because it is capable of causing damage is wrong. Alcohol is just a chemical compound, same as the vitamins we get from our precious vegetables. If you want to look at it that way, a number of vitamins can be poisons too- once they reach toxic levels in the body, trouble ensues. Though this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Paulclem]

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

I really think a lot of people aren't aware of what goes on with these animals, there's such a disconnect. Of course people are gonna get upset if they're accused of being unkind to animals--they are only eating--but I think it is wrong to suggest nothing can be done about the problem.

It isn't a pleasant discussion, though, and I pretty much never bring it up outside of a thread specifically about it in an online forum. I certainly wouldn't shake up a meal with other people over it. But if someone is reading this thread, and they feel angry at me or whatever, sorry about that, and of course do whatever. But saying nothing can be done, as if that's the big winning justification to the issue, might actually have an effect on some people reading it.

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

Not pompous at all! That was very nicely and fairly put!

[Paulclem]

Thank you

[Virgil]

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

Just to make myself clear, I respect that Pip. Personally I've weighed both sides of the issue and have come down that it's better for society to have affordable meat than optimum humane practices. You obviously look at it differently. I understand. I don't know your background, but I grew up poor. I sympathize with the poor.

[Radha Krsna]

Back to first post please...

[billl]

Back to first post please...



Manawa Dharmasastra 5.48:
“na krtva praninam himsam
mamsamtpadyate kwacit,
na ca pranivadhah svargyas
tasman mamsam vivarjayet”
(Meat will not be obtained without hurting living things, and the persecution of living beings is an obstacle / abstinence in pure bliss, and therefore a person should avoid eating meat)

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.51:
“anumanta vicasita nihanta
krayavikrayi,
samskarta copaharta ca
khadakacceti ghatakah”
(He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he is cut, he who killed him, he who buy and sell, he was a cook, he is menyuguhkannya, and he ate it all should be regarded as the killers of animals)

Manawa Dharma Sastra = The Law of Manu

Forgive me, I did not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.



Sorry, but you have edited the first post just today (just 3 minutes before this one). A discussion about vegetarianism has been going on. Why are you pointing back to a recently-edited first post? What did you change about the post? As I remember it, it also was about vegetarianism, and that has been the discussion so far.

[OrphanPip]

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?


Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

[Red-Headed]

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?

When I wash my hands thousands of bacteria are killed in the name of personal hygiene. I actually tried vegetarianism for a couple of years, predominantly more for perceived health benefits than for any tendentious political or religious reasons. I think it was a bacon sandwich which bought me back to being an omnivore. Meat has been a part of our diet for tens of thousands of years & is a rich source of protein. At the end of the day you could actually exist on a pure vegetable diet. If you tried to live on a pure meat diet I think you would get scurvy within a few weeks. Neither is really a balanced diet. The Royal Navy solved this problem with the introduction of fruit juices being served to sailors on long sea journeys, lime being one of the major ones, which is why Americans refer to English people as Limeys to this day.

Meat is an important part of our diet, you can get protein from other sources, but at the end of the day something usually has to die for you to consume it. It is a natural cycle. Something will probably consume us when we shuffle this mortal coil. What makes a sweet potato that much different from a cow?


Sweet Potato

Of all things living
I'd be a sweet potato,
fresh dug up.

~ Shinkichi Takahashi (1901 - 87)

[OrphanPip]

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?


Well there are two major philosophical schools involved in animal rights advocacy. You have animal welfare advocates and animal rights advocates. I tend to be swayed by the welfare advocates. These people go back to preference utilitarian Peter Singer's 1970s Animal Liberation where he argued that since animals feel pain and can suffer we have a responsibility not to cause them harm. Singer accepts that killing animals isn't necessarily wrong because they don't have any concept of their own existence and they don't really "expect to live". It is however wrong to cause suffering to animals, because they do seem to display a preference for not being hurt. Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

See, you're the first person to actually specify that, which makes your argument far more legitimate as far as I'm concerned. And I can't help but accept your numbers: cows are consuming more than they are producing. Even so, I really don't see that as being a factor or particular importance: while I have read the current press releases stating that the wold currently has its highest-ever percentage of malnourished people, I have read in the recent past scientific journal articles stating that based on the world's current food production practices, there is enough food to eliminate malnutrition in the world, it is just not distributed in such a way. I'm sorry I can't source that, I don't think I have the papers anymore, and most online science journals want me to pay them for access.

I do know what a feedlot is and how they function. I'm studying animal biology through the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph, and a number of my early courses have been geared towards agricultural production and industry (with definite focus on welfare and housing). I've been on the feedlots.

Yes, the majority of the grain is consumed on feedlots, and while feedlots definitely have issues to be worked out, grain-fed animals do produce different meat than grass-fed ones. And as for the last-minute fattening up- it's not as though the cows are starved until just before slaughter and then stuffed until they're fat. There is a specific feeding regime which maximizes the right type of fat for good meat. Do you suggest that we grass-feed, or stop farming cattle altogether? And then what about dairy cattle? They consume more grain than they produce milk. How does this argument apply to them?

[Red-Headed]

Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

[OrphanPip]

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

Plants have no nervous system, it is hardly an assumption. Let alone bacteria which don't even have organelles. o.O

@Classic

I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation. There are other issues like water contamination/use and soil erosion. This is kind of a non-issue in a place like Canada, but in the Southern USA fresh water is getting scarcer every year and arable land is being depleted.

Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.

[stephofthenight]

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

[Dirtbag]

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?
I used to take vitamins made for vegetarians. I eat meat now...

[Lads of E3]

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

I love bigmacs, and so do millions of others. :)

[stephofthenight]

to each his own, personaly i will take the cardboard

[billl]

I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

I never thought of meat as being an important source of vitamins, but it turns out that there is one very important vitamin that comes primarily from things that vegans don't eat: Vitamin B-12. The rest of the vitamins and minerals seem to be coming from other things just fine, no need to eat meat for them.

I eat a TON of cheese, so I get plenty of B-12. (Eggs work, too). But my brief internet research has encountered a pretty serious warning to vegans (vegetarians who don't even eat eggs, cheese, milk, etc.) that they need to watch out for this B-12 thing, and the answer is probably to take a vitamin supplement or some fortified cereal or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency#Natural_food_sources_of_B-12

I have also heard that vegans should be careful to get enough calcium (again, people who eat plenty of cheese should be fine in regards to calcium).

Basically, I'm no doctor or nutritionist, but I think B-12 and calcium are the only big concerns, and that is mainly just for vegans.

[stephofthenight]

Thanks Bill. intersting to know. Isn't b-12 an energy thing. ?

[Lads of E3]

Realistically, if you eat meat once a month anyway, I don’t think you would.

[stephofthenight]

Lads...I don't do fast food. I confess to never having a true bigmac before, but i did have a few bites of cheeseburger before being sick. I simply cant handle the though of putting that much fat in my body for something I dont even like the taste of... :(

[Lads of E3]

Hmm i suppose its a shame your missing out then. :)

[stephofthenight]

Having worked fast food, and seen the disgusting things. I dont feel the least like im missing out... I'll take salad or icecream any day over that.

[Lads of E3]

I don't know how much seeing "disgusting things" has to do with it. If it tastes nice and you exersize I don't see a problem. I just enjoy eating meat and I dislike the sense the vegetarians are conveying on this thread that it is wrong to do so and should restricted from doing so when the majority of the population enjoy it when, in my opinion, we have every right.

[Red-Headed]

Plants have no nervous system, it is hardly an assumption. Let alone bacteria which don't even have organelles. o.O

It still doesn't mean that they don't respond to being killed. When trees are damaged they can give out chemical compounds which can be detected by other plants or trees. This could be viewed as being distressing to a tree. I think that you are being 'nervous system chauvinistic' here. This is a philosophical point. It could be stated that a turnip or a bacteria has as much right not to be killed as anything else. Where do you draw the line?




I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

This is all to do with economics.


Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation.

I'm not sold on this argument at all.


Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

Well, I wouldn't argue that the agricultural industry isn't greedy. I am not sure how much of it greed or survival however. The overall population of the planet isn't doing us any favours either.


I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.

A lot of my family are farmers. I'm also lactose intolerant, my great-grandmother was Cantonese & lactose intolerance is not uncommon in some Asiatic peoples. I'll have to google who PETA are, I imagine they are a bit like the RSPCA but more militant.

Just what the world needs...more militant nutters! :eek:

[Madame X]

Maybe the lack of protein or having a balanced diet contributed to his being a bit, how shall we say, cracked?


meat provides the brain with certain proteins and enzymes that .. without, studies have shown, can lead to bipolar and other mental disorders.

Au contraire! Psychopathic individuals are the ones so-defined by their conspicuous lack of that magical and ever elusive trait the psychological world likes to call ‘empathy’. But that doesn’t make them evil people…just mean and morally suspect. :angel:

[Red-Headed]

Au contraire! Psychopathic individuals are the ones so-defined by their conspicuous lack of that magical and ever elusive trait the psychological world likes to call ‘empathy’. But that doesn’t make them evil people…just mean and morally suspect. :angel:

Well, I was being a bit humorous. I think it's because he was teetotal. I don't trust people who don't drink alcohol. ;)

[OrphanPip]

It still doesn't mean that they don't respond to being killed. When trees are damaged they can give out chemical compounds which can be detected by other plants or trees. This could be viewed as being distressing to a tree. I think that you are being 'nervous system chauvinistic' here. This is a philosophical point. It could be stated that a turnip or a bacteria has as much right not to be killed as anything else. Where do you draw the line?

Distressing and causing pain are two different things. We know from anesthetics that if you block the nervous system response that you block pain, the stress signals are still going off in the tissue, but there is no pain. It makes no evolutionary sense for plants to have a pain response. Pain is a warning not to continue to do something, or to run away from it. It is a great way to induce behavior in a complex conscious organism. Plants don't have to make decisions whether to move or not, thus any responses to stresses are simply immediate chemical responses.

A preference utilitarian would tell you that only a human with conscious preference not to die has a right not to be killed. Peter Singer supports infanticide up until a few months old, because he considers infants pre-conscious.

The point isn't that animals have a right not to be killed, animals have conscious preferences not to be hurt. If we accept that it is wrong to hurt humans, than it would be speciesist to say that hurting animals is acceptable. The physical process of pain transmission in both humans and animals, especially mammals, is practically identical. We can know for certain that animals feel pain.

If you could prove plants or bacteria feel pain, then maybe it would be wrong to hurt them as well. However, it seems absurd to even consider it. Moreover, we there is the key issue that human beings have the ability to survive without consuming animals, we can't really avoid killing plants and bacteria.

I'd like to clear up that my statements about the environment weren't about global warming, but were about the soil erosion and water use issues.

http://www.peta.org/

I don't know about the RSPCA, but I volunteered with the CSPCA for several years and found them to be a reasonable organization concerned mostly with the immediate issues of animal cruelty and welfare, like providing adoption and health services as well as advocating for more laws against animal cruelty.

[Red-Headed]

It makes no evolutionary sense for plants to have a pain response. Pain is a warning not to continue to do something, or to run away from it. It is a great way to induce behavior in a complex conscious organism. Plants don't have to make decisions whether to move or not, thus any responses to stresses are simply immediate chemical responses.

Strangely; plants will react to a polygraph if part of them is damaged. In my opinion this does not mean that they are necessarily sentient, but it is a form of distress. Just because a turnip or a beansprout doesn't cry out when you strike it doesn't mean it doesn't feel some form of pain.


A preference utilitarian would tell you that only a human with conscious preference not to die has a right not to be killed. Peter Singer supports infanticide up until a few months old, because he considers infants pre-conscious.

I am pretty sure animals don't wish to die & become food. We probably underestimate animal intelligence anyway. My entire point is still that the only reason we are having this debate is because tomatoes don't scream & bleed when they are plucked from the vine.

I have no idea who Pete Singer is.

[OrphanPip]

Peter Singer is one of the most influential living philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Edit: He's worth reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtYA0u5m70&feature=related

[Red-Headed]

Peter Singer is one of the most influential living philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Edit: He's worth reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtYA0u5m70&feature=related

I think I actually have read Singer a long time ago. I just couldn't recall the name. Most of the philosophers I read have been dead quite a while!

[Zee.]

Whether humans were designed to eat meat and whether the way in which animals in modern day time are killed to sustain us - are two separate arguments.


Someone mentioned native americans further back. They never let a single part of the animals they killed go to waste, and they were always killed in a respectable manner.

These days, the way animals are treated is a disgrace

[1n50mn14]

I decided to take a break from being vegetarian at Christmas two years ago, because I was living with a phenomenal cook who made amazing east coast meat-y Christmas dinners. Then I moved to a country of meats. I'm just getting back into being veggie, now...

[stlukesguild]

from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits.

And what exactly is your point? The US grows more than enough food to feed its population... and could feed even more... and so...? We should be truly altruistic and give up our prime rib (mmm...prime rib:nod:) so that we could feed the rest of the world that already loves us so much. And in return we'll get...? A warm and fuzzy feeling all over?:rolleyes:

[Paulclem]

I never thought of meat as being an important source of vitamins, but it turns out that there is one very important vitamin that comes primarily from things that vegans don't eat: Vitamin B-12. The rest of the vitamins and minerals seem to be coming from other things just fine, no need to eat meat for them.

I eat a TON of cheese, so I get plenty of B-12. (Eggs work, too). But my brief internet research has encountered a pretty serious warning to vegans (vegetarians who don't even eat eggs, cheese, milk, etc.) that they need to watch out for this B-12 thing, and the answer is probably to take a vitamin supplement or some fortified cereal or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency#Natural_food_sources_of_B-12

I have also heard that vegans should be careful to get enough calcium (again, people who eat plenty of cheese should be fine in regards to calcium).

Basically, I'm no doctor or nutritionist, but I think B-12 and calcium are the only big concerns, and that is mainly just for vegans.

The b-12 thing is not an issue with vegans. They tend to be people who are careful about what they eat, and are more informed than many of us about their requirements. One B-12 substitute in England is marmite, though not everyone likes it...

You can also get vegan cheese, which used to be horrible. It had calcium in it. Since a lot of cheese in England is rennate free now, vegetarians are well served there.

Also, can you imagine the hoohah should the popular press find out about all the dead, B-12 deficient vegans?

By the way, did you know you can get vegetarian bacon? It's not really that much like bacon, but it's nice to have with eggs etc.

Before someone says, "why don't you eat meat then,you obviously really want to," - I'd like to re-iterate that taste is not the issue with me. I know all about what meat tastes like. My choice is for a different reason.

[OrphanPip]

And what exactly is your point? The US grows more than enough food to feed its population... and could feed even more... and so...? We should be truly altruistic and give up our prime rib (mmm...prime rib:nod:) so that we could feed the rest of the world that already loves us so much. And in return we'll get...? A warm and fuzzy feeling all over?:rolleyes:

No, initially this stemmed from a post by Virgil, where he said that the value of cheap meat was vital for people to get an adequate diet. I responded with evidence that industrial farming processes are incredibly inefficient and waste huge amounts of food. The point is that industrial farming is wasteful and perhaps cruel.

Self-sacrifice isn't such a terrible thing either.

[billl]

By the way, did you know you can get vegetarian bacon? It's not really that much like bacon, but it's nice to have with eggs etc.


Stuff like that can be awesome, for sure.

I haven't tried the "bacons" that I've seen, but there was a company (MorningStar?) with green-colored packaging that makes great breakfast sausage patties (the sausage links are not as great). Maybe I'll give "bacon" a shot...

It was tough giving up meat, but for me, the taste of BBQ sauce or A-1 steak sauce was probably more important than the taste of the meat. That's what I missed more than anything. "Boca" Brand soy-burgers microwave easily, and allowed me to get the BBQ-sauce fix. The first few times, the lack of fat was a little unsatisfying, but I was excited because I used to take protein supplements when I was on a work-out kick, and these burgers were giving me about the same price per gram of protein as the disgusting powders I mixed in O.J. used to. Plus, it had been weeks maybe before I even tried the soy-burger option, because I knew they weren't the same, and I was excited at how they were much better than nothing by that point. After a week or two, I stopped missing the fat in regular burgers. They are every bit as good as the McDonald's $1 burger to me now, and half the price. Never tried the more expensive soy-burgers...

Boca's sausage links are also highly recommended--miraculous, in fact.

Nowadays, every once in a while I get the black bean burrito at Chipotle, and I enjoy it every bit as much as I used to enjoy the barbacoa.

[Paulclem]

Stuff like that can be awesome, for sure.

I haven't tried the "bacons" that I've seen, but there was a company (MorningStar?) with green-colored packaging that makes great breakfast sausage patties (the sausage links are not as great). Maybe I'll give "bacon" a shot...

It was tough giving up meat, but for me, the taste of BBQ sauce or A-1 steak sauce was probably more important than the taste of the meat. That's what I missed more than anything. "Boca" Brand soy-burgers microwave easily, and allowed me to get the BBQ-sauce fix. The first few times, the lack of fat was a little unsatisfying, but I was excited because I used to take protein supplements when I was on a work-out kick, and these burgers were giving me about the same price per gram of protein as the disgusting powders I mixed in O.J. used to. Plus, it had been weeks maybe before I even tried the soy-burger option, because I knew they weren't the same, and I was excited at how they were much better than nothing by that point. After a week or two, I stopped missing the fat in regular burgers. They are every bit as good as the McDonald's $1 burger to me now, and half the price. Never tried the more expensive soy-burgers...

Boca's sausage links are also highly recommended--miraculous, in fact.

Nowadays, every once in a while I get the black bean burrito at Chipotle, and I enjoy it every bit as much as I used to enjoy the barbacoa.

I've got used to the burgers too. We have them often.

We also have quorn over here, which is a mushroom of some kind. We quite like that. It has a good texture, and absorbs the sauce you cook it in. They do a good quorn roast, which is a bit like a meat roast. You have to carve it as well.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation. There are other issues like water contamination/use and soil erosion. This is kind of a non-issue in a place like Canada, but in the Southern USA fresh water is getting scarcer every year and arable land is being depleted.

Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.

GREAT POST Pip!! I don't agree with the idea of eliminating the meat industry- I think it unnecessary for the reasons I've already mentioned, but you've got a very, very solid evaluation here. There are certainly ways of making the industry more efficient/ improve things for the animals pre-slaughter, though it's a matter of cost for the farmers. You're very right to maintain a level of concern with how much farmers are willing to invest in maintaining standards of ethics in their business.

Oh PETA. I love the animals and am all for improving animal welfare, but PETA are unreasonable and ridiculous. I will never ever be associated with them.


Peter Singer is one of the most influential living philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Edit: He's worth reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtYA0u5m70&feature=related

True!


I never thought of meat as being an important source of vitamins, but it turns out that there is one very important vitamin that comes primarily from things that vegans don't eat: Vitamin B-12. The rest of the vitamins and minerals seem to be coming from other things just fine, no need to eat meat for them.

I eat a TON of cheese, so I get plenty of B-12. (Eggs work, too). But my brief internet research has encountered a pretty serious warning to vegans (vegetarians who don't even eat eggs, cheese, milk, etc.) that they need to watch out for this B-12 thing, and the answer is probably to take a vitamin supplement or some fortified cereal or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12_deficiency#Natural_food_sources_of_B-12

I have also heard that vegans should be careful to get enough calcium (again, people who eat plenty of cheese should be fine in regards to calcium).

Basically, I'm no doctor or nutritionist, but I think B-12 and calcium are the only big concerns, and that is mainly just for vegans.

Meat is a more well-known to be a source of other essential nutrients such as Iron and Phosphorus than as a source of vitamins (which are more abundant in plant sources). However, animal matter is the only source of both vitamins A and B-12. Vegetarians do manage to get Vitamin A without supplementation however because there are plant-based pre-cursors for Vit A. No such luck with B-12. (I had a whole lecture on B-12 today :D)


The b-12 thing is not an issue with vegans. They tend to be people who are careful about what they eat, and are more informed than many of us about their requirements. One B-12 substitute in England is marmite, though not everyone likes it...

You can also get vegan cheese, which used to be horrible. It had calcium in it. Since a lot of cheese in England is rennate free now, vegetarians are well served there.

Also, can you imagine the hoohah should the popular press find out about all the dead, B-12 deficient vegans?

Bill is right, Paul. You may be correct in saying that a lot of vegans are more careful and/or knowledgeable about their diet, but to say it's not a problem is an incorrect generalization. If there is one essential vitamin vegans should be concerned with, it's B-12. The ONLY way vegans are going to get this vitamin is through supplementation. The only reason this hasn't become a deficiency issue is because most soy products are now supplemented with it. A lot of vegans consume enough fortified soy products, or are taking vitamin capsules that they avoid this. For vegetarians (not vegans), cheese is a good source.

Also, there's no such thing as a vitamin substitute- marmite would be a source B-12 (though if you're eating the 100g serving it has listed on the label, you're WAY over the amount of Folic Acid you should be consuming). Sorry, just felt like getting picky :)

[billl]

Meat is a more well-known to be a source of other essential nutrients such as Iron and Phosphorus than as a source of vitamins (which are more abundant in plant sources). However, animal matter is the only source of both vitamins A and B-12. Vegetarians do manage to get Vitamin A without supplementation however because there are plant-based pre-cursors for Vit A...

Interesting and surprising (to me) to hear about this issue with Vitamin A. Here's a wikipedia link about it if anyone else is interested in what the "pre-cursors" thing is about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Equivalencies_of_retinoids_and_carotenoi ds_.28IU.29

Like ClassicCharm has already said, it isn't a really big deal--you can trust the nutritional info on your veggies.

[Virgil]

Someone mentioned native americans further back. They never let a single part of the animals they killed go to waste, and they were always killed in a respectable manner.

And today they let anything go to waste? Where did you get that? Any good business man uses every last scrap of resources for his benefit. Every inch of a cow is used, including grinding the bones down for bonemeal. I bet the native americans didn't use anywhere as much as modern industry does.

[Delta40]

Vegemite Is An Australian Icon

Vegemite was developed in 1922 by Australian food technologist, Cyril P Callister, and marketed by a Melbourne businessman, Fred Walker.

In 1923 Fred Walker purchased from Carlton and United Brewery the thick, dark, yeast paste left-over from the beer making process. He gave the paste to his chemist to see what could be done with it and from this previous waste product, ‘Vegemite’ was created.

It took some time for Vegemite to gain popularity. Walker promoted Vegemite as “The Vitamin vegetable paste for use in sandwiches, soups, stews and gravies…full of vitamins…” Vegemite’s reputation for nutrition was boosted when infant welfare centers recommended its use for toddlers to receive their quota of vitamins B1, B2 and Niacin, but the manufacturers failed to mention that it also contained 10% salt. It has since had its salt levels reduced but in its early days it was marketed as a ‘health’ food. In 1954 a radio jingle “Happy Little Vegemites” promoting it to children boosted sales enormously creating a generation of children that loved it.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Interesting and surprising (to me) to hear about this issue with Vitamin A. Here's a wikipedia link about it if anyone else is interested in what the "pre-cursors" thing is about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Equivalencies_of_retinoids_and_carotenoi ds_.28IU.29

Like ClassicCharm has already said, it isn't a really big deal--you can trust the nutritional info on your veggies.

To a point, yes, you can trust that eating your veggies is going to get you everything you need. But there are a lot of things that even well-informed vegans may not be aware of. For example- everyone is well aware the spinach is a good source of iron. Spinach does have high iron content, but what a lot of people don't know is that it also contains a compound which discourages the absorption of iron by the body. There are a lot of interactions which people aren't aware of.

[billl]

Yes, just having a meal means all sorts of interactions, some for the better, some for the worse.

(Feel free to make a joke about dinners with the in-laws...)

[Radha Krsna]

Sorry, but you have edited the first post just today (just 3 minutes before this one). A discussion about vegetarianism has been going on. Why are you pointing back to a recently-edited first post? What did you change about the post? As I remember it, it also was about vegetarianism, and that has been the discussion so far.

That's way I said... (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48924)

William Ralph Inge: We have enslaved the animal creation of God, and treat all our brothers and wings feathered with the most terrible crimes. If only they could establish a religion, they would describe the devil in human form.

[Red-Headed]

the rest of the world that already loves us so much.


& they say Americans don't understand irony... ;)

[Radha Krsna]

The Parent's fur ...

On one day, the chicks lost their mother, they were in the yard only find the mother's fur-blooded, although the chicks call the parent till cry, but it was dead, and it's children did not realize it. They remained together maintaining the parent feathers. They are grieving and hope for the love their mother. Could this feeling is felt by humans?

Albert Einstein: Food vegetarian left a beautiful depth impression in our culture. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the fate of the world.

Dr. Owens S. Parrett: The process of growing old and tired, accelerated by eating meat.

[NikolaiI]

And today they let anything go to waste? Where did you get that? Any good business man uses every last scrap of resources for his benefit. Every inch of a cow is used, including grinding the bones down for bonemeal. I bet the native americans didn't use anywhere as much as modern industry does.

They are so, so very wasteful. They throw out so, so much. They really do. Stuff that is finished, that can't be sold, that they made too much of, the list goes on and on. Restaurants and grocery stores and I don't know what else. America has such a surplus of foods and so much of it gets thrown out.

[Madame X]

Well, I was being a bit humorous. I think it's because he was teetotal. I don't trust people who don't drink alcohol. ;)

Teetotal? Man, I hate it when I come across words I don’t know :mad: (although you were gracious enough to clarify in the succeeding sentence :thumbs_up). Would that, perchance, be, primarily, a Briticism?

[Virgil]

They are so, so very wasteful. They throw out so, so much. They really do. Stuff that is finished, that can't be sold, that they made too much of, the list goes on and on. Restaurants and grocery stores and I don't know what else. America has such a surplus of foods and so much of it gets thrown out.

Did you ever hear of hambuger and hot dogs? It all get ground up, every last bit.

[Haunted]

In 1954 a radio jingle “Happy Little Vegemites” promoting it to children boosted sales enormously creating a generation of children that loved it.

Happy Little Vegemites sounds like the good-guy version of Nasty Little Termites in a little play called Mighty Mites. Then there's dustmites, thread-footed mites, Sarcoptic Mange mites which burrow under the skin. Honestly, no matter how nutritious, I wouldn't eat anything with the word "mites" in it. :lol:

Sorry Delta, I'm teasing at your expense but mean no offense. The thread got contentious at times, so I'm just instilling some humor to loosen everyone up. I'm sure vegemites is lovely.

It's nice to have a doctor in the house, ClassicCharm. Thanks for debunking the food myths — right from the horse's mouth. ;)

I love seafood and I like meat but don't eat much of it. I found that my house recipes for vegetable-based salads work very well for my cholesterol and weight control.

avocado, white corn, chick peas (ginger mango vinaigrette). I use white corn to get a wide color range.

spinach, walnuts, dried cranberries, or I substitute walnuts with the reddish honey roasted turkey for a rich green-red color (raspberry vinaigrette)

bruschetta — I throw in pearl onions and capers. I add mozzarella cheese or some grilled chicken, then drown it in balsamic vinaigrette. mmmm!

eggplant parmesean

I emphasize a colorful presentation that triggers appetite for vegetables. This way I wouldn't miss meat that much. But I do eat meat, it makes you feel fuller and get you to eat less, which is good for weight loss and it's the principle behind the Atkin's diet.



* * * *


On a more serious note, the thought of livestock slaughter bothers me to no end, but humans are omnivorous and the best nutrients come directly from food, not artificial supplements.

Then I have major issues with animal testing. But I won't go into it since this is a vegetarian thread. But I must say though, the OP is a vegetarian propaganda and I don't appreciate it. I also don't appreciate casting people who consume meat as killers. To me it seems out of line.

[The Comedian]

My own quasi-vegetarianism is not based on political or ethical concerns (so much) as wanting to pattern my life on the virtue of simplicity. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains are lower on the food chain, simpler to produce, and consume (no cooking needed). To me there is a certain poetry to a simple diet that I admire.

Of course, I do eat meat -- all sorts of it -- but, simply, not as much as most in my culture.

My focus on a vegetarian-oriented diet really came from reading about what these two cowboys took on an all-day hunting trip: 2 cans of tomatoes, 2 cans of black beans. I read this and was amazed. Of course, their simple vegetarian diet was driven mostly by necessity: they could only afford the cheapest food. But that a rugged day of work and recreation could be supported by $1.50s worth of humble vegetables still strikes a chord with me.

[skib]

My focus on a vegetarian-oriented diet really came from reading about what these two cowboys took on an all-day hunting trip: 2 cans of tomatoes, 2 cans of black beans. I read this and was amazed. Of course, their simple vegetarian diet was driven mostly by necessity: they could only afford the cheapest food. But that a rugged day of work and recreation could be supported by $1.50s worth of humble vegetables still strikes a chord with me.

It makes me wonder whether or not they survived on the nutrition itself or if they were too sick to their stomachs to want to eat. ;) And I wonder if they were still hungry at the end of the day? I certainly would be.

[Red-Headed]

Teetotal? Man, I hate it when I come across words I don’t know :mad: (although you were gracious enough to clarify in the succeeding sentence :thumbs_up). Would that, perchance, be, primarily, a Briticism?

Sorry, I thought teetotal (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=teetotal&title=21st) was widespread as an English word. I try to refrain from using any Mercian/Midlands dialect words on the boards.

You should have a butcher's hook at the dictionary definition, I mean, would you Adam & Eve it that someone wouldn't know what teetotal means? (with apologies to all Cockneys) :lol: ;)

[OrphanPip]

I thought it was a pretty widespread word too. Although, Canada retains a few more Briticisms than the USA.

[Virgil]

It makes me wonder whether or not they survived on the nutrition itself or if they were too sick to their stomachs to want to eat. ;) And I wonder if they were still hungry at the end of the day? I certainly would be.

LMAO! Good one. :lol:

[billl]

If you've been away from the meat (or just the calories and fat), then it would probably be plenty to make one full. (Depends on the size of the cans). It also depends on the size of the person. Black beans are great, a decent source of protein and calories.

It reminds me of when I moved to Japan. For a couple weeks, I couldn't believe how little was served when I ordered at restaurants, and I ended up hungry a lot (and, by the way, there was always meat involved). Then I got used to it, and actually found it hard to finish the over-sized Denny's breakfast I ordered on a trip back to the States. In the U.S., there is an emphasis on selling lots of food, (and driving down the price). Freshness and nutritional value aren't as important (neither are the animals), and people are conditioned to overeat. Maybe not everyone falls for it (like Haunted), but a lot of people obviously do. Including me--I can eat quite a few potato chips once I get started...

[skib]

I can't even consider eating less- much less less meat. For someone who metabolizes things approx. 3 times faster than a normal person, I have to either eat massive portions two to three times a day, or else I end up eating five or six normal sized meals a day. I can't even eat fast food because the meals aren't big enough. (keep in mind I'm six feet tall and I weigh between 145-150 depending on how much I've eaten. Seriously, that's no exaggeration.) My ranch cook told me last summer that whenever he factored me into a meal, he counted me as three people. The thought of cutting that necessary protein from my diet is almost painful.

[billl]

skib, as long as you like eating, it sounds like you're a lucky guy! My metabolism is pretty quick too, but not like that. I can't get too fat, and keeping muscle on is pretty hard beyond a certain point (even if I'm getting 80-100 grams of protein a day). I've adapted my fitness expectations accordingly--a little lanky, but still good at lifting things.

[NikolaiI]

My own quasi-vegetarianism is not based on political or ethical concerns (so much) as wanting to pattern my life on the virtue of simplicity. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains are lower on the food chain, simpler to produce, and consume (no cooking needed). To me there is a certain poetry to a simple diet that I admire.


The other part of that is that vegetables are more efficient in terms of energy. That is, they are closer to the original source of energy, the sun. Vegetables are closer to directly taking energy from the source; and to eat animals who eat the vegetables is less efficient. There is science involved as well, which backs this up, but I am not well-versed in it.


Did you ever hear of hambuger and hot dogs? It all get ground up, every last bit.

Virgil there is lots of meat that gets thrown out, I am sure. But I know a bit more of the other foods that get thrown out - everything else; vegetables, fruits... they get thrown out in very large quantities from grocery stores and farmers. It's really true. Sometimes it gets donated to churches or something, which is very good. But otherwise they have to throw it away when it expires beyond what they can sell. Keep in mind I am not condemning. I am just responding to your indiciating that there is little or no waste...

Oh okay, so your statement was only in regard to meat. Well, there is quite a lot of waste in America from that... restaurants do waste a lot of it; not that the business managers do not know its bad, but sometimes it is unavoidable for uncountable different reasons.

[billl]

The other part of that is that vegetables are more efficient in terms of energy. That is, they are closer to the original source of energy, the sun. Vegetables are closer to directly taking energy from the source; and to eat animals who eat the vegetables is less efficient. There is science involved as well, which backs this up, but I am not well-versed in it.

This is true, and earlier threads about crop usage were talking about the same thing. It is an important factor in a discussion of the economics and ecology of the issue.

However, in some cases, efficiency of absorption within the human body is a different matter (e.g. animal proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Quality) are more efficiently absorbed and utilized, with I believe soy being the main vegetable source of nearly-comparable quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Quality)). It's a different issue, but interesting to consider in a complete discussion about nutritional "efficiency."

[skib]

Oh okay, so your statement was only in regard to meat. Well, there is quite a lot of waste in America from that... restaurants do waste a lot of it; not that the business managers do not know its bad, but sometimes it is unavoidable for uncountable different reasons.

For what its worth, the bears end up eating what would be all the waste food from my ranch. :thumbs_up

[Virgil]

This is true, and earlier threads about crop usage were talking about the same thing. It is an important factor in a discussion of the economics and ecology of the issue.

However, in some cases, efficiency of absorption within the human body is a different matter (e.g. animal proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Quality) are more efficiently absorbed and utilized, with I believe soy being the main vegetable source of nearly-comparable quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Quality)). It's a different issue, but interesting to consider in a complete discussion about nutritional "efficiency."

Hooray!! I've tried to say that for the four years i've been here and obviously I was not eloquent. Very well said! That's exactly correct! Four stars for that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Flag_of_four_star_general_of_Italy.svg/800px-Flag_of_four_star_general_of_Italy.svg.png

[billl]

Hooray!! I've tried to say that for the four years i've been here and obviously I was not eloquent. Very well said! That's exactly correct! Four stars for that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Flag_of_four_star_general_of_Italy.svg/800px-Flag_of_four_star_general_of_Italy.svg.png


Well, it isn't that big of a point! ;) I sense your "hunger" for pro-meat science, but the excitement here is a bit overboard.

Someone interested in getting into shape (ie. muscular, or trim) would have an easier time (and spend less money) going with the soy-protein hamburgers. If they can find them... Soy protein metabolizes VERY well (92% as well as egg whites, which is excellent), has VERY little fat, and is cheaper and more efficient to produce than beef. And there are many other plant sources that contribute as well. Three meals of meat per day is much more protein than the average person needs. The discussions of efficient land use earlier in this thread, as well as the point Nikolai is making, are dealt only the slightest of blows by this other sense of "efficiency."

I think it helps to explain (evolutionarily) why the issue of taste immediately jumps to mind, in the face of what are clear (but distant) horrors. People are designed to like the taste of meat (it gives us a lot of good protein and fat); and, just as with sugar, it is easy to throw good sense to the wind when the flavor takes charge.

In many contexts, I have found that people have to make choices regarding when and when not to call on their higher-selves, or surrender to animal instincts. Personally, I would be very disappointed if a fair-minded attempt to avoid confusion might in any way be taken as a four-star defense of factory-farming, etc.

[Radha Krsna]

http://blog.timesunion.com/bark/files/2009/05/cat-and-dog-sleep.jpg

[skib]

Yep. I like dogs. Not so big on cats, though. However, posting cute little animal pictures isn't making me feel any worse about how much I like eating them.

[Lokasenna]

Yep. I like dogs. Not so big on cats, though. However, posting cute little animal pictures isn't making me feel any worse about how much I like eating them.

I've eaten dog... it was alright, I suppose, but it just tasted like slightly odd beef. Still, it was an experience, and I'm glad I got to try something new.

Never eaten cat though... does any culture use cat as a foodstuff?

[Anna_MAlkovych]

does any culture use cat as a foodstuff?

I think Chinese do

[Lokasenna]

I think Chinese do

Never encountered it while I was out there... oh well.

Hah, this reminded me of something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcrEo1eCBY&feature=related

[skib]

I've eaten dog... it was alright, I suppose, but it just tasted like slightly odd beef. Still, it was an experience, and I'm glad I got to try something new.

Never eaten cat though... does any culture use cat as a foodstuff?

I'm sure I could find one to cook up. Any recipe ideas?

[OrphanPip]

I read once that cat hunting was a traditional sport in Switzerland, but they were thinking of banning it.

[Virgil]

Never encountered it while I was out there... oh well.

Hah, this reminded me of something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcrEo1eCBY&feature=related

:lol: :lol: That was hilarious!! Thanks Loka. :lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

I think Chinese do

My taekwondo instructor was from Korea, and he said that they sell cats at the market down there. He could have been screwing with me though, he liked to kid around.

[Virgil]

I just had veal parmesan for dinner. ;) Boy was that good. Mmm, mmm. :D

[skib]

Got any leftovers you might share?

[JuniperWoolf]

I have an honest question that's been bugging me for a while. It might have been adressed by this thread or one of the other threads about vegetarianism before, but I don't feel like scrolling through all that text.

It's just that, we're living things. As such we have to eat other living things in order to absorb their energy and continue living, therefor our life depends on us killing something else that was once alive (blah blah blah, obviously, but bear with me here, I have a point). Animals are living things. Plants are living things, too. Why, then, is killing an animal a crime, but killing a plant isn't? I don't see why eating something that was once alive but was in plant form is any better or somehow more moral then eating something that was once an animal. What's the difference? Plants move like animals, I've seen that myself. They move slowly, but they do move. They respond to touch. I have a lot of examples (eg. they strain for sunlight). Who are we to say that they don't have feeling and emotions, like animals? If they do have emotions and the desire to survive, isn't it "wrong" to kill them for food? And if it's immoral to eat plants, and it's immoral to eat animals, then what the heck CAN we eat without the constant guilt trip?

[OrphanPip]

One part is the capability argument, we have the capability not to eat animals. The second part is that we can be absolutely sure because of neurological similarity that animals feel pain. If it is wrong to cause deliberate pain in humans, then it must be wrong to cause deliberate pain to animals. Given that we can't show that plants feel pain, and we aren't capable of living without them. It seems that the favored option is to not eat animals. I'm not a vegetarian though, that's just the argument usually made for it.

There are other opinions though, like people who think animals have a right to life or not to be exploited. I don't really think those arguments are worth discussing.

[Paulclem]

I have an honest question that's been bugging me for a while. It might have been adressed by this thread or one of the other threads about vegetarianism before, but I don't feel like scrolling through all that text.

It's just that, we're living things. As such we have to eat other living things in order to absorb their energy and continue living, therefor our life depends on us killing something else that was once alive (blah blah blah, obviously, but bear with me here, I have a point). Animals are living things. Plants are living things, too. Why, then, is killing an animal a crime, but killing a plant isn't? I don't see why eating something that was once alive but was in plant form is any better or somehow more moral then eating something that was once an animal. What's the difference? Plants move like animals, I've seen that myself. They move slowly, but they do move. They respond to touch. I have a lot of examples (eg. they strain for sunlight). Who are we to say that they don't have feeling and emotions, like animals? If they do have emotions and the desire to survive, isn't it "wrong" to kill them for food? And if it's immoral to eat plants, and it's immoral to eat animals, then what the heck CAN we eat without the constant guilt trip?

It's a question of sentience. Plants don't have nervous systems, though they do react to the environment through hydrostatic pressure etc. (I'm sure some of the science bods on this forum could explain it much better than this). As such they don't feel pain, so they don't suffer. I don't think you're "who are we to say they don't have emotions" doesn't stand up as they lack brains.

Animals clearly do suffer, and if you're not sure on this point, have a look at a slaughterhouse to see their mental fear, before the real pain starts.

There are other opinions though, like people who think animals have a right to life or not to be exploited. I don't really think those arguments are worth discussing.

Why not Orphanpip? I knew a Nun once who wrote a paper drawing similarities between the oppression of Women and the oppression of animals. It's not so far fetched if you consider how close we are genetically to other mammals. The rights of the voiceless and oppressed and all that.
_______________

[Poetess]

My boyfriend is a Hindu. I myself work accordingly to the Hindu Philosophy but do not practice the religion. Let`s go vegetarian. :-)

[Radha Krsna]

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.22.35: It is the duty of every living being to perform welfare activities for the benefit of others with his life, wealth, intelligence and words.

[Nikhar]

I am a pure vegetarian. I don't even have eggs.

Often people asked me, why do you eat plants when you don't eat animals, though they both are living beings.

Now, after reading posts above me, I think I got my answer.

[Mrig]

Whatever we eat....lets us plant more trees..avoide using vehicles, plastic...save paper

The Earth needs it!

As far as the eating is concerned....even yoga recommends diet of fresh fruits and veggies ... and I have experienced the difference.....on the other hand .... if evryone eats veg ...we do not have enough food on this earth.... considering the reducing no of farmers and fertile farmlands

[Madame X]

It's just that, we're living things. As such we have to eat other living things in order to absorb their energy and continue living, therefor our life depends on us killing something else that was once alive (blah blah blah, obviously, but bear with me here, I have a point). Animals are living things. Plants are living things, too. Why, then, is killing an animal a crime, but killing a plant isn't? I don't see why eating something that was once alive but was in plant form is any better or somehow more moral then eating something that was once an animal. What's the difference? Plants move like animals, I've seen that myself. They move slowly, but they do move. They respond to touch. I have a lot of examples (eg. they strain for sunlight). Who are we to say that they don't have feeling and emotions, like animals? If they do have emotions and the desire to survive, isn't it "wrong" to kill them for food? And if it's immoral to eat plants, and it's immoral to eat animals, then what the heck CAN we eat without the constant guilt trip?

Honestly, considering that the physiognomic, or even broader - biological, disparity between humans and animals (particularly mammals) is far less than that between humans and plants, one might be justified in countering such a question by asking why it’s a-ok, morally speaking, to feast on cow meat for gastronomic satisfaction but not that of, say, a fellow human being, who we would have no reason to presume would taste at all inferior. Keep in mind, it’s a question of morals, not pragmatics (morality, imo, should not hang on those choices which happen to be most convenient); obviously society would be in an uproar if some people just up and decided that cannibalism was the way to go. But what if it was done systematically, and to a widely marginalized ethnic/racial group who, from our privileged perspective, doesn’t really have much of a life worth living anyway, and, moreover, fails to contribute much to the global community, like all those starving Africans (who would, of course, be duly fattened up before facing the chopping block)? Why do so very many people turn up their noses in (alleged) disgust at such an idea, but not that of factory farming and its products?

And, by the by, I don’t buy the “it’s natural” argument; if every proponent of said argument was really so in-tune with the whims of nature then I don’t suppose they’d be inclined to view, for example, burping/farting/nose-picking ,etc, in public as flagrant acts of classless crudity and would, it is logical to assume, happily add their own bodily contribution to the campy cacophony themselves.

Just some food for thought, so to speak. ;)

[Paulclem]

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.22.35: It is the duty of every living being to perform welfare activities for the benefit of others with his life, wealth, intelligence and words.

I think you have to argue your points in other terms than the Hindu Texts you are quoting. How can posters understand your position unless they are versed in your beliefs themselves, and is this valid anyway to non-Hindus?

[Radha Krsna]

I am a pure vegetarian. I don't even have eggs.

Often people asked me, why do you eat plants when you don't eat animals, though they both are living beings.

Now, after reading posts above me, I think I got my answer.

I have ever thought like that when I was child. But, when I grow up I know that plans can't feel pain because they don't have stimulus receiver like we and animals have...

In Vedic sastra mentioned:
Tri Premana (three kinds of living skills):
1. Plants have only bayu (tenaga)
2. Animals have only bayu and sabda (power and voice)
3. Humans have bayu, sabda and idep (power, voice and mind)

Because plants do not have voice, they must be can't feel pain...


I think you have to argue your points in other terms than the Hindu Texts you are quoting. How can posters understand your position unless they are versed in your beliefs themselves, and is this valid anyway to non-Hindus?

I'm sorry, this thread originally in Religious Texts (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6&order=desc) so I quote Veda text.

[skib]

Because plants do not have voice, they must be can't feel pain...

So, if we shoot up the animals we eat with morphine before slaughter, that makes it all better?

[Radha Krsna]

So, if we shoot up the animals we eat with morphine before slaughter, that makes it all better?

Is consumption of morphine was good for your body?

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...


http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tobey.jpg

Daftar Seleb Vegetarian:

Pamela Anderson
Natalie Portman
Bryan Adams
Tobey Maguire
Kate Winslet
Naomi Watts
Paul McCartney
Richard Gere
Orlando Bloom
Chris Martin (vokalis Coldplay)
Carrie Underwood (jawara American Idol 4)
David Duchovny
Joaquin Phoenix
Prince
Andre 3000
Josh Hartnett
Reese Witherspoon
Joss Stone
Avril Lavigne
Alicia Silverstone
Shania Twain
Faye Wong
Maggie Q
Amitabh Bachan
Kareena Kapoor
Kristen Bell
Barbie Hsu
Jarah Mariano
Jenna Jameson
Nadya Hutagalung
Sophia Latjuba
Dewi Lestari
Titiek Puspa
Ria Warna
Ray Sahetapy


http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/carrie-underwood-closeup.jpg

http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/celebs.jpg




http://pabuc.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/batman__wideweb__430x305.jpg
Christian Bale in Batman Begins


Vegetarian and Vegan Elite of the World


http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0002.jpg
Albert Einstein
German theoretical physicist; 1921 Nobel Laureate in Physics

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0012.jpg
Aung San Suu Kyi
Myanmar (Burma) nonviolent pro-democracy activist; 1991 Nobel Laureate in Peace

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0015.jpg
Sir Isaac Newton
British physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor, and natural philosopher; father of physics

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0017.jpg
Leonardo Da Vinci
Italian Renaissance polymath: architect, anatomist, sculptor, engineer, inventor, geometer, musician, and painter

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0018.jpg
Benjamin Franklin
American author, journalist, scientist, inventor and statesman

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0019.jpg
Thomas Edison
American inventor and businessman

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0020.jpg
Nikola Tesla
Serbian-American inventor, physicist, mechanical engineer and electrical engineer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0027.jpg
Steve Jobs
American founder and CEO of Apple Computer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0031.jpg
Carl Lewis
American track & field star, nine-time Olympic champion

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0041.jpg
Plato
Greek saint and philosopher

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0042.jpg
Pythagoras
Greek mathematician and philosopher

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0044.jpg
Socrates
Greek saint and philosopher

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0050.jpg
Christian Bale
British actor, star of the hit movie "Batman Begins"

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0052.jpg
Dustin Hoffman
American actor, two-time Oscar winner; Emmy and Golden Globe Award winner

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0069.jpg
Leo Tolstoy
Russian novelist, pacifist, moral thinker

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0072.jpg
Manmohan Singh
The 14th and current Prime Minister of India, known as India's most respected politician

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0075.jpg
Mahatma Gandhi
Indian political leader and humanitarian

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0079.jpg
Confucius
Chinese saint and philosopher

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0084.jpg
Zoroaster
Iranian founder of Zoroastrianism

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0093.jpg
Ashley Judd
American actress

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0094.jpg
Brigitte Bardot
French actress

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0105.jpg
Demi Moore
American actress

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0109.jpg
Steven Seagal
American actor

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0110.jpg
Brooke Shields
American model and actress

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0120.jpg
Michael Jackson
American pop singer and songwriter; has won more music awards than any other artists

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0123.jpg
Sinead O'Connor
Irish singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0124.jpg
Pink
American singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0126.jpg
Justin Timberlake
American pop singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0127.jpg
Tina Turner
American pop star

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0129.jpg
Vanessa Williams
American pop singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0134.jpg
Christy Turlington
American supermodel

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0263.jpg
Martin Luther
German theologian, Augustinian monk and ecclesiastical reformer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0295.jpg
LaToya Jackson
American pop singer, sister of Michael Jackson

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0370.jpg
Des'ree
British pop singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0535.jpg
Gillian Anderson
American actress

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0540.jpg
Willem Dafoe
American actor, playing as Green Goblin in Spiderman 1

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0626.jpg
Muhammad Al-Ghazali
Iranian Islamic scholar and Sufi saint

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0627.jpg
Muhammad Rahiim Bawa Muhaiyadeen
Sri Lankan Islamic author and Sufi saint

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0690.jpg
Princess Diana
British Princess of Wales and animal rights advocate

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0692.jpg
Samuel L. Jackson
American actor, Academy Award nominee

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0719.jpg
Chengyen
Chinese Buddhist master and founder of Tzu Chi Foundation

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0792.jpg
Ashoka the Great
Indian emperor of the Maurya Empire, 273-232 BC

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0802.jpg
Jacky Cheung
Hong Kong singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0806.jpg
Harun Kolcak
Turkish singer

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0821.jpg
Brooke Johnston
Miss United Kingdom Universe 2005

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0833.jpg
Kabir
Muslim Master

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/images/0835.jpg
Bulleh Shah
Muslim Sufi Saint


Sumber:
http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip




http://swaramuslim.com/images/uploads/tokoh_sejarah/Kartini5.jpg
R.A. Kartini:

“Vegetarian adalah Doa Tanpa Kata ke Hadirat Yang Mahatinggi”
"Aku adalah anak Buddha, dan sebutan itu saja sudah cukup jadi alasan bagiku untuk tidak makan daging.”

[Mrig]

@Radha Krshna

Would like to know your opnion on what I already posted earlier:


Whatever we eat....lets us plant more trees..avoide using vehicles, plastic...save paper

The Earth needs it!

As far as the eating is concerned....even yoga recommends diet of fresh fruits and veggies ... and I have experienced the difference.....on the other hand .... if evryone eats veg ...we do not have enough food on this earth.... considering the reducing no of farmers and fertile farmlands

[Maryd.]

Hey Mrig, I have a tiny back and front yard and 2 yrs ago when we built our 13square unit, the council made us plant 150 trees (most indiginous plants) Out of all them, 8 died.

That's not bad considering. However things are so strict here that if we didn't plant our trees, we were told we couldn't move in. A little tough I thought, but very good for the Earth. Not only that, they visited one year later to check the plants were still there. They didn't overlook the 8 plants that had died. Instead they suggested we replant them with any plant of our choice, but they must be replaced regardless. Which suited me, as I am a rose lover and will plant some thornless roses.

I also have a tiny green house. (Will be planting lettuce plants this week) Love my salads.

So I believe I am doing my little bit for the Earth.:wave:

[Mrig]

HEy, Mary .....that's great infact I am delighted to hear that! Keep up the good work!

[Radha Krsna]

@Radha Krshna

Would like to know your opnion on what I already posted earlier:


Whatever we eat....lets us plant more trees..avoide using vehicles, plastic...save paper

The Earth needs it!

As far as the eating is concerned....even yoga recommends diet of fresh fruits and veggies ... and I have experienced the difference.....on the other hand .... if evryone eats veg ...we do not have enough food on this earth.... considering the reducing no of farmers and fertile farmlands


I just wanted to introduce the love for all living creatures, especially animals because we and they both could feel the pain.

[Mrig]

I do appreciate your intention. And you will be glad to know that I am a complete veg even no eggs!

:)

[MarkBastable]

Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...


I'm not sure what that's supposed to suggest - but try it with a baby, some chicken nuggets and a parsnip. I suspect under those circumstances you wouldn't offer a car if the kid decided to eat the nuggets.

[Lokasenna]

Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...


I'm not sure what that's supposed to suggest - but try it with a baby, some chicken nuggets and a parsnip. I suspect under those circumstances you wouldn't offer a car if the kid decided to eat the nuggets.

Quite.

Even the most carniverous of us don't chow down on fluffy things that are still wriggling. I mean, I like my steak rare, but there are limits...:lol:

[skib]

[QUOTE=Radha Krsna;815034]Is consumption of morphine was good for your body?
[/center][/QUOTE

Well, it is one of the most highly utilized painkillers in the (western) medical profession, so I would take that as an indication that it isn't TOO terribly awful. I mean, they inject it directly into your bloodstream, so why would ingesting be any worse? There may be some chemical reactions I am overlooking, but it can't be any worse than the rest of the crap we put in our bodies like pesticides used to protect our fruits and veggies.

[Paulclem]

I'm sorry, this thread originally in Religious Texts (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6&order=desc) so I quote Veda text.[/QUOTE]


I see Rhada. No worries. It's certainly prompted lots of posts!

[Radha Krsna]

Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...


I'm not sure what that's supposed to suggest - but try it with a baby, some chicken nuggets and a parsnip. I suspect under those circumstances you wouldn't offer a car if the kid decided to eat the nuggets.

Only the language of literature.

[MarkBastable]

Only the language of literature.

...Huh?

[Lokasenna]

Only the language of literature.

I'm sorry, but you initially attributed that quotation to Harvey Diamond - that really does not qualify it as the 'language of literature.'

[MarkBastable]

I'm sorry, but you initially attributed that quotation to Harvey Diamond - that really does not qualify it as the 'language of literature.'

Oh, I thought that by 'language of literature' he meant that the proposition was a rhetorical device. (Though not a very robust one, which was what I was trying to demonstrate.)

But maybe you're right - he means he's quoting a book. Not that I'd heard of Harvey Diamond - so I looked up his website (http://www.fitforlifetime.com/harvey_diamond.html) which, perhaps unsurprisingly, extols Mr Diamond's virtues as a guru of health and beneficial diet.

Mr Diamond makes great play of his common touch. "I don't write for doctors and scientists. I write for folks. You won't need a dictionary by your side in order to understand what you read."

There are those of us who would interpret this as, "I have no real authority or qualifications, but I'm a pretty convincing salesman and I have very even teeth."

At the bottom of the page, it says this:

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to treat, cure or prevent any disease. The information presented on this site is for educational purposes only; this information is not meant to be a substitute for the advice from your own physician or other healthcare provider.

..which is a bit of a giveaway really, isn't it?

[Madame X]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to suggest - but try it with a baby, some chicken nuggets and a parsnip. I suspect under those circumstances you wouldn't offer a car if the kid decided to eat the nuggets.

Elucidate them on the matter and see if the little lieblings don’t reconsider – “Remember all those cute little chickens we fed at the zoo today? Well, now they’re feeding you!” :brow:

[MarkBastable]

Elucidate them on the matter and see if the little lieblings don’t reconsider – “Remember all those cute little chickens we fed at the zoo today? Well, now they’re feeding you!” :brow:


I think the point of the original proposition was that the baby - uninformed and innocent - would eat the apple, which would somehow demonstrate the 'natural' state of affairs, unclouded by the learned behaviours of blah-de-blah and so on and so forth.

If we're to accept that as the proof of something, then my uninformed baby would demonstrate the natural human preference for chicken nuggets over raw parsnip.

As it happens, following a visit to a farm, I did explain to my kids that the piglets they'd seen were destined to become sausages. The seven-year-old immediately demanded to become vegetarian, which we allowed. She got bored with it in about three days. The five-year-old was utterly unconcerned, and demanded a bacon sandwich as soon as she got home.

[Madame X]

I think the point of the original proposition was that the baby - uninformed and innocent - would eat the apple, which would somehow demonstrate the 'natural' state of affairs, unclouded by the learned behaviours of blah-de-blah and so on and so forth.

If we're to accept that as the proof of something, then my uninformed baby would demonstrate the natural human preference for chicken nuggets over raw parsnip.

As it happens, following a visit to a farm, I did explain to my kids that the piglets they'd seen were destined to become sausages. The seven-year-old immediately demanded to become vegetarian, which we allowed. She got bored with it in about three days. The five-year-old was utterly unconcerned, and demanded a bacon sandwich as soon as she got home.

Oh, I think we can agree that we aren’t born into this world with pure hearts and princely purpose. Meantime, I’m willing to bet most people’d be pretty upset about seeing, say, their neighbour beating his dog, or some farmer kicking the crap outta his cow on the side of the road, heck, some of these nice folk would probably even take steps to try and get these aggressive gentlemen to cease and desist from all such appalling behaviour, feel fairly good about themselves for ‘saving’ the day, tell all their friends about it…and then go home to their nice steak dinners as if it were the most consistent thing in all the world. I certainly don’t presume that not eating meat makes me some sort of angel, not by any means, but, go ahead and call me naïve (and, indeed, perhaps I am :nod:), this type of moral capriciousness I tend to observe in the behaviour of others is nonetheless quite baffling to behold.

[caspian]

I think the point of the original proposition was that the baby - uninformed and innocent - would eat the apple, which would somehow demonstrate the 'natural' state of affairs, unclouded by the learned behaviours of blah-de-blah and so on and so forth.

If we're to accept that as the proof of something, then my uninformed baby would demonstrate the natural human preference for chicken nuggets over raw parsnip.

As it happens, following a visit to a farm, I did explain to my kids that the piglets they'd seen were destined to become sausages. The seven-year-old immediately demanded to become vegetarian, which we allowed. She got bored with it in about three days. The five-year-old was utterly unconcerned, and demanded a bacon sandwich as soon as she got home.

But if uninformed baby's never been introdused to chicken nuggets before most likely the result for baby's apetite would be "nuggets = raw parsnip". :nod:

I wish I was never been introduced to meat meals, or was allergic to it. I'm not doing any better than your seven year old while trying to take animal dishes out of my diet. But I still don't dare try this with my 3 year old child. she doesn't like beef, i blend it into her soup. :brickwall

These kind of threads are so banal... posting animal pictures..

however, It was Thomas Hardy who made me think over my eating. I wonder how much Hardy himself was enjoying pork chops. :nod:
I couldn't even finish the chapter but it was enough to get one more point (one less eater) for cows and chicken; my record is half clean; I've never eaten any other animals, including sea food :nod:

"Jude the Obscure" Chapter 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The time arrived for killing the pig which Jude and his wife had
fattened in their sty during the autumn months, and the butchering
was timed to take place as soon as it was light in the morning, so
that Jude might get to Alfredston without losing more than a quarter
of a day.

The night had seemed strangely silent. Jude looked out of the window
long before dawn, and perceived that the ground was covered with
snow--snow rather deep for the season, it seemed, a few flakes still
falling.

"I'm afraid the pig-killer won't be able to come," he said to
Arabella.

"Oh, he'll come. You must get up and make the water hot, if you want
Challow to scald him. Though I like singeing best."

"I'll get up," said Jude. "I like the way of my own county."

He went downstairs, lit the fire under the copper, and began feeding
it with bean-stalks, all the time without a candle, the blaze
flinging a cheerful shine into the room; though for him the sense of
cheerfulness was lessened by thoughts on the reason of that blaze--to
heat water to scald the bristles from the body of an animal that as
yet lived, and whose voice could be continually heard from a corner
of the garden. At half-past six, the time of appointment with the
butcher, the water boiled, and Jude's wife came downstairs.

"Is Challow come?" she asked.

"No."

They waited, and it grew lighter, with the dreary light of a snowy
dawn. She went out, gazed along the road, and returning said, "He's
not coming. Drunk last night, I expect. The snow is not enough to
hinder him, surely!"

"Then we must put it off. It is only the water boiled for nothing.
The snow may be deep in the valley."

"Can't be put off. There's no more victuals for the pig. He ate the
last mixing o' barleymeal yesterday morning."

"Yesterday morning? What has he lived on since?"

"Nothing."

"What--he has been starving?"

"Yes. We always do it the last day or two, to save bother with the
innerds. What ignorance, not to know that!"

"That accounts for his crying so. Poor creature!"

"Well--you must do the sticking--there's no help for it. I'll show
you how. Or I'll do it myself--I think I could. Though as it is
such a big pig I had rather Challow had done it. However, his basket
o' knives and things have been already sent on here, and we can use
'em."

"Of course you shan't do it," said Jude. "I'll do it, since it must
be done."

He went out to the sty, shovelled away the snow for the space of a
couple of yards or more, and placed the stool in front, with the
knives and ropes at hand. A robin peered down at the preparations
from the nearest tree, and, not liking the sinister look of the
scene, flew away, though hungry. By this time Arabella had joined
her husband, and Jude, rope in hand, got into the sty, and noosed the
affrighted animal, who, beginning with a squeak of surprise, rose to
repeated cries of rage. Arabella opened the sty-door, and together
they hoisted the victim on to the stool, legs upward, and while Jude
held him Arabella bound him down, looping the cord over his legs to
keep him from struggling.

The animal's note changed its quality. It was not now rage, but the
cry of despair; long-drawn, slow and hopeless.

"Upon my soul I would sooner have gone without the pig than have had
this to do!" said Jude. "A creature I have fed with my own hands."

"Don't be such a tender-hearted fool! There's the sticking-knife--
the one with the point. Now whatever you do, don't stick un too
deep."

"I'll stick him effectually, so as to make short work of it. That's
the chief thing."

"You must not!" she cried. "The meat must be well bled, and to do
that he must die slow. We shall lose a shilling a score if the meat
is red and bloody! Just touch the vein, that's all. I was brought
up to it, and I know. Every good butcher keeps un bleeding long.
He ought to be eight or ten minutes dying, at least."

"He shall not be half a minute if I can help it, however the meat may
look," said Jude determinedly. Scraping the bristles from the pig's
upturned throat, as he had seen the butchers do, he slit the fat;
then plunged in the knife with all his might.

"'Od damn it all!" she cried, "that ever I should say it! You've
over-stuck un! And I telling you all the time--"

"Do be quiet, Arabella, and have a little pity on the creature!"

"Hold up the pail to catch the blood, and don't talk!"

However unworkmanlike the deed, it had been mercifully done. The
blood flowed out in a torrent instead of in the trickling stream she
had desired. The dying animal's cry assumed its third and final
tone, the shriek of agony; his glazing eyes riveting themselves on
Arabella with the eloquently keen reproach of a creature recognizing
at last the treachery of those who had seemed his only friends

[caspian]

"However unworkmanlike the deed, it had been mercifully done. The
blood flowed out in a torrent instead of in the trickling stream she
had desired. The dying animal's cry assumed its third and final
tone, the shriek of agony; his glazing eyes riveting themselves on
Arabella with the eloquently keen reproach of a creature recognizing
at last the treachery of those who had seemed his only friends.

"Make un stop that!" said Arabella. "Such a noise will bring
somebody or other up here, and I don't want people to know we are
doing it ourselves." Picking up the knife from the ground whereon
Jude had flung it, she slipped it into the gash, and slit the
windpipe. The pig was instantly silent, his dying breath coming
through the hole.

"That's better," she said.

"It is a hateful business!" said he.

"Pigs must be killed."

The animal heaved in a final convulsion, and, despite the rope,
kicked out with all his last strength. A tablespoonful of black
clot came forth, the trickling of red blood having ceased for some
seconds.

"That's it; now he'll go," said she. "Artful creatures--they always
keep back a drop like that as long as they can!"

The last plunge had come so unexpectedly as to make Jude stagger, and
in recovering himself he kicked over the vessel in which the blood
had been caught.

"There!" she cried, thoroughly in a passion. "Now I can't make any
blackpot. There's a waste, all through you!"

Jude put the pail upright, but only about a third of the whole
steaming liquid was left in it, the main part being splashed over
the snow, and forming a dismal, sordid, ugly spectacle--to those who
saw it as other than an ordinary obtaining of meat. The lips and
nostrils of the animal turned livid, then white, and the muscles of
his limbs relaxed.

"Thank God!" Jude said. "He's dead."

"What's God got to do with such a messy job as a pig-killing, I
should like to know!" she said scornfully. "Poor folks must live."

"I know, I know," said he. "I don't scold you."

Suddenly they became aware of a voice at hand.

"Well done, young married volk! I couldn't have carried it out much
better myself, cuss me if I could!" The voice, which was husky,
came from the garden-gate, and looking up from the scene of slaughter
they saw the burly form of Mr. Challow leaning over the gate,
critically surveying their performance.

"'Tis well for 'ee to stand there and glane!" said Arabella. "Owing
to your being late the meat is blooded and half spoiled! 'Twon't
fetch so much by a shilling a score!"

Challow expressed his contrition. "You should have waited a bit"
he said, shaking his head, "and not have done this--in the delicate
state, too, that you be in at present, ma'am. 'Tis risking yourself
too much."

"You needn't be concerned about that," said Arabella, laughing.
Jude too laughed, but there was a strong flavour of bitterness in
his amusement.

Challow made up for his neglect of the killing by zeal in the
scalding and scraping. Jude felt dissatisfied with himself as a man
at what he had done, though aware of his lack of common sense, and
that the deed would have amounted to the same thing if carried out by
deputy. The white snow, stained with the blood of his fellow-mortal,
wore an illogical look to him as a lover of justice, not to say a
Christian; but he could not see how the matter was to be mended. No
doubt he was, as his wife had called him, a tender-hearted fool.

[MarkBastable]

...this type of moral capriciousness I tend to observe in the behaviour of others is nonetheless quite baffling to behold.

Oh, I agree. I'm against neighbours beating dogs - and I'm not even very fond of dogs. On the other hand, I have no qualms about eating beef. Would I be prepared to kill the cow myself? Probably not. But I don't have to. I pay someone else to do it and that's fine by me.

In exactly the same way, I'm not prepared to treat sewage, but I'm glad someone does. I have no idea how my car works, but I know a man who'll fix it when it goes wrong. I am not about to tackle burglars and drug dealers, but I'm very grateful that my brother and my dad wanted to become policemen. And nothing on God's earth would persuade me to go to the opera, but I think it's important to subsidise the arts out of government funds to which I contribute.

It's not possible to live life under the theoretical threat of 'what if you had to do it yourself?' We live in a society in which tasks are divided up and handed out to specialists. If I gave up meat on the basis that I couldn't bring myself to kill a cow, I'd have to give up wine too, on the basis that I'm not about to tread grapes, and I'd have to give up driving, on the basis that I'm not prepared to drill for my own petroleum.

[billl]

That's not a strong argument Mark. I don't think the idea is that someone would be asking you to make a career at it, that sort of vegetarian argument asks only IF you would even once do it, hypothetically. Nothing about careers, whether you would be skilled at it, or it being an actual necessary ticket to receiving the service of others doing it. Just, would you be fine with it, morally, after having done it.

For me, it is good food for thought, but I think there are hypothetical (survival-type) situations in which a lot of vegetarians would kill and animal and eat it. And I can't say I see any compelling case against those who hunt or raise animals to eat, or even "sportsmen" who manage to clean and consume what they kill, etc.

I think the hypothetical that I have in mind is: Could I hang out in a factory farm and/or modern slaughterhouse and eat what I had witnessed. And I don't doubt that, through the magic of forgetting (and paychecks) or whatever, some people could, and in fact do.

[MarkBastable]

That's not a strong argument Mark. I don't think the idea is that someone would be asking you to make a career at it, that sort of vegetarian argument asks only IF you would even once do it, hypothetically.

I think it's a very strong argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it.

But - okay - no. I wouldn't slaughter a cow.

Somehow, even having admitted that, I still don't feel persuaded not to eat meat.

However, what if I'd said I would? Would that entitle me to eat meat?

[billl]

Yes, I think it would. (Although I am not talking about "entitlement," I'm just saying you'll have made a solid and consistent case, instead of simply turning a blind eye out of convenience).

I am sorry if it seemed I was criticizing your argument-making ability in general (I have seen enough of your posts not to do that, and I'll try to be more indirect in my disagreement in the future), I just thought that, in this case, there was no way to really parallel opera-singing, cleaning waste, and killing (in particular profit-driven slaughter). Certainly, cleaning and entertaining are morally different than the infliction of suffering for profit, and I think this is what the vegetarian argument is getting at. Whether the suffering is worth it for the level of meat-availability that it provides is, I think, something that a person that has actually witnessed/participated in it (or would be willing to, hypothetically) can reasonably claim to have considered.

[MarkBastable]

Yes, I think it would. (Although I am not talking about "entitlement," I'm just saying you'll have made a solid and consistent case, instead of simply turning a blind eye out of convenience).


Okay, bring me the stun-gun and the machete. I'll kill a fricking cow. It'll be worth it just to trot out the experience every time a vegetarian tries to trap me in the 'would you wield the knife' corner.

But I'll be killing the cow simply to please vegetarians - which is an interesting unintended consequence. For myself, I have no trouble turning convenient blind eyes.

[Radha Krsna]

Albert Levi in the book The Meat Handbook: More than 70 kinds of livestock diseases known, can be transmitted to humans.

In the UK, every year there are 40 million chickens piece that die from the disease ...

Journal of the American Medical Association: 97% from a variety of heart disease, there are actually 90% of them can be prevented through vegetarian diet.

Senator George McGovern said: In America, of the 10 leading causes of death, there are 6 main causes associated with eating meat.

[TheFifthElement]

Journal of the American Medical Association: 97% from a variety of heart disease, there are actually 90% of them can be prevented through vegetarian diet.

Here's another interesting statistic: 100% of vegetarians die. Unless you're proposing that vegetarianism is a route to immortality?

[skib]

I'll take my chances. Just out of curiosity, what are the six out of ten causes of death?

[samharris]

Being a vegetarian is better,
This adds up health as well as life...
Now a day as there is no guarantee for life,fleshy food adds up cholesterol which is to be completely negotiated to a level from the diet

[Lokasenna]

Some friends and I went to an all-meat restaurant for the first time yesterday - and damn good it was to!

[MarkBastable]

Having expressed your view at the top of the thread, to which there's been a lot of response both pro and con, what do you expect to add by posting this series of carefully selected citations? Do you think some of the carnivores are going to smack their foreheads and say, "Jeez - George McGovern's giving pro-veg health advice! I shall cease eating cattle forthwith!"

It's starting to look, actually, as if you're not really interested in discussing, but pretty determined to propagandize.



Albert Levi in the book The Meat Handbook: More than 70 kinds of livestock diseases known, can be transmitted to humans.

In the UK, every year there are 40 million chickens piece that die from the disease ...

Journal of the American Medical Association: 97% from a variety of heart disease, there are actually 90% of them can be prevented through vegetarian diet.

Senator George McGovern said: In America, of the 10 leading causes of death, there are 6 main causes associated with eating meat.

[Paulclem]

I think it's a very strong argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it.

But - okay - no. I wouldn't slaughter a cow.

Somehow, even having admitted that, I still don't feel persuaded not to eat meat.

However, what if I'd said I would? Would that entitle me to eat meat?

The point about the slaughter of your own food is about realising and accepting the consequences of your actions. I think that many people would be uncomfortable with killing their own food, but are happy to let others do it. We're not talking about extreme situations, but the day to day choices that people make.

In an extreme situation I would eat meat and kill an animal for my, and my family's survival, just as I would have eaten the human bodies in that Andes air crash. This is not the point though. Very few Westerners are in that survivial situation and we have a choice about what we choose to eat.

This is what the killing your own food point is about. Whether you buy it in supermarket, or hunt it down, it is a moral choice because it involves the suffering of another sentient being. I also think it is a choice an individual has to make, preferably with an appreciation of what really goes on. Preaching vegetarianism to people is counter productive and merely prompts sarcasm and extemity.

[The Comedian]

The point about the slaughter of your own food is about realising and accepting the consequences of your actions. I think that many people would be uncomfortable with killing their own food, but are happy to let others do it. We're not talking about extreme situations, but the day to day choices that people make.

In an extreme situation I would eat meat and kill an animal for my, and my family's survival, just as I would have eaten the human bodies in that Andes air crash. This is not the point though. Very few Westerners are in that survivial situation and we have a choice about what we choose to eat.

This is what the killing your own food point is about. Whether you buy it in supermarket, or hunt it down, it is a moral choice because it involves the suffering of another sentient being. I also think it is a choice an individual has to make, preferably with an appreciation of what really goes on. Preaching vegetarianism to people is counter productive and merely prompts sarcasm and extemity.

Very well stated.

[Paulclem]

Thanks Comedian. I think there is room for compromise, as you noted in your earlier post. The veggie question tends to polarize opinion a bit.

[MarkBastable]

The point about the slaughter of your own food is about realising and accepting the consequences of your actions. I think that many people would be uncomfortable with killing their own food, but are happy to let others do it.

Two things here.

First, even as a pretty standard urban consumer, I think that I have sufficient imagination to understand the processes and consequences of eating meat - even without having to actually slaughter a pig. I do realise and I do accept the consequences of my actions. However, if killing an animal is a necessary precursor to eating meat, I'll sign up. I might learn something.

Still, as a strategy adopted by vegetarians in the hope of persuading carnivores not to eat meat, I think the insistence on killing pigs is a shaky one - because human beings are pretty callous when asked to inflict cruelty on a no-blame basis, and I think you might end up with a lot of utterly convinced butchers and a huge pile of pork chops.

But I don't think that the argument about secondary responsibility really applies in any practical way.

You say, "...many people would be uncomfortable with killing their own food, but are happy to let others do it." Which is true. That's how people are. And I can't see anything wrong with that, really. We all square that circle of disengagement from the process.

For instance - I can't think of anyone who doesn't - in one way or another - rely on coal. And digging coal out of the ground is not a pleasant thing to do. It's not merely an uncomfortable job - it's seriously unpleasant and quite dangerous. Yep - the miners get paid - but that's their bargain.

The rest of us get benefit from their suffering. We might not like to think about how coal gets out of the ground, but as we sit in our warm living rooms, we are happy that others do it. And that's the deal all of us make with life. We live with it. We might not like the implications of it - but we understand that's it's a slightly messed up universe.

For me, at least, the suffering of animals is something I can both regret and live with. I'm glad someone else is killing the animals* and I'm happy for them to do it, although I don't want to think about what that means. That's an implicit hypocrisy - but the dichotomy that fuels it isn't argument enough to persuade most carnivores to become vegetarian.


*Incidentally, ask me about my friend the turkey-farmer, and his December schedule. It's not pretty.

[Paulclem]

Two things here.

First, even as a pretty standard urban consumer, I think that I have sufficient imagination to understand the processes and consequences of eating meat - even without having to actually slaughter a pig. I do realise and I do accept the consequences of my actions. However, if killing an animal is a necessary precursor to eating meat, I'll sign up. I might learn something.

Still, as a strategy adopted by vegetarians in the hope of persuading carnivores not to eat meat, I think the insistence on killing pigs is a shaky one - because human beings are pretty callous when asked to inflict cruelty on a no-blame basis, and I think you might end up with a lot of utterly convinced butchers and a huge pile of pork chops.

But I don't think that the argument about secondary responsibility really applies in any practical way.

You say, "...many people would be uncomfortable with killing their own food, but are happy to let others do it." Which is true. That's how people are. And I can't see anything wrong with that, really. We all square that circle of disengagement from the process.

For instance - I can't think of anyone who doesn't - in one way or another - rely on coal. And digging coal out of the ground is not a pleasant thing to do. It's not merely an uncomfortable job - it's seriously unpleasant and quite dangerous. Yep - the miners get paid - but that's their bargain.

The rest of us get benefit from their suffering. We might not like to think about how coal gets out of the ground, but as we sit in our warm living rooms, we are happy that others do it. And that's the deal all of us make with life. We live with it. We might not like the implications of it - but we understand that's it's a slightly messed up universe.

For me, at least, the suffering of animals is something I can both regret and live with. I'm glad someone else is killing the animals* and I'm happy for them to do it, although I don't want to think about what that means. That's an implicit hypocrisy - but the dichotomy that fuels it isn't argument enough to persuade most carnivores to become vegetarian.


*Incidentally, ask me about my friend the turkey-farmer, and his December schedule. It's not pretty.

Hi MarkBastable. I wouldn't presume to know the extent of your imagination, and it wasn't meant that way. My point was to both vegetarians and meat eaters that it has to be a personal choice. I would dispute whether many people do make that choice though. I wasn't referring to your good self in this regard, as you clearly have some experience of the issue. When i was a meat eater, I too made the choice and accepted the consequences of this. Nothing needs to stay the same though.

I would now not use the argument to persuade a meat eater either. I don't think soap box vegetarianism works, in fact I think it is counter productive. It may well harden attitudes.

Being aware of actions though is, I think, a good thing. It is about making informed choice against an upbringing, such as mine, that may well not offer choice or education or insight. Meat and two veg were the norm in my parents house, and they would have been very scornful of vegetarianism. If people choose, then fine. I think they are entitled to their choice. I maintain that it is a moral choice, factoring in the suffering of animals.

I hope you now don't think I was attacking you.

So what about this Turkey farmer? I hve a strong stomach - I used to work in a slaughterhouse.

[MarkBastable]

Don't worry. I didn't feel attacked, or offended. The argument is an intellectual one for me. And for you, I guess. Though admittedly not for the pig.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I find the whole vegetarian debate very interesting. I’m not a vegetarian myself but I have been leaning towards that track for a while. It comes down to not really being able to justifying having a creature killed just so I can have a particular flavour filling for a sandwich! I mean, I like cheese, I like egg, I like a whole manner of things, so how can I justify putting meat in the middle when the others will do just fine?

As it happens I eat meat relatively rarely, but the point is I do still eat meat and why is that? No, I couldn’t kill a creature for the sake of one meal in a day-to-day context. I would find it a little difficult, (I think) it would be a too messy and quite frankly it would be just easier to boil some pasta or whatever.

I suppose it comes down to convenience and lack of choice in certain contexts. Often in restaurants in particular the vegetarian option is all too often a token choice with very little appeal. I usually struggle in these cases to go for the vegetarian option. I suppose the argument is that the more vegetarians there are, the better the choice there will be, market demand and all that, but where does that leave me in the meantime?

I think, however that I will eventually cut out meat altogether, and join the ranks of the vegetarians, I just see myself drifting this way.

[skib]

I find the whole vegetarian debate very interesting. I’m not a vegetarian myself but I have been leaning towards that track for a while. It comes down to not really being able to justifying having a creature killed just so I can have a particular flavour filling for a sandwich! I mean, I like cheese, I like egg, I like a whole manner of things, so how can I justify putting meat in the middle when the others will do just fine?

As it happens I eat meat relatively rarely, but the point is I do still eat meat and why is that? No, I couldn’t kill a creature for the sake of one meal in a day-to-day context. I would find it a little difficult, (I think) it would be a too messy and quite frankly it would be just easier to boil some pasta or whatever.

I suppose it comes down to convenience and lack of choice in certain contexts. Often in restaurants in particular the vegetarian option is all too often a token choice with very little appeal. I usually struggle in these cases to go for the vegetarian option. I suppose the argument is that the more vegetarians there are, the better the choice there will be, market demand and all that, but where does that leave me in the meantime?

I think, however that I will eventually cut out meat altogether, and join the ranks of the vegetarians, I just see myself drifting this way.

Cheese is iffy. It is an animal by product (it doesn't harm the animal in any way) so if your views are strictly for not harming a creature, no biggy. Eggs, definitely. Eggs would eventually grow into chickens. I don't see how that counts as vegetarianism.
Meat is not strictly about taste. If I was more educated in nutrition, I would tell you, but something about amino acids, protein, things like that. For carnivores like myself, taste is a definite plus. But taste isn't the sole reason for consumption.

[Scheherazade]

I think "kill to eat" is a rather weak argument for vegetarianism as I probably would not have many vegetables/fruit or fish either if I had to grow/catch them myself... Somewhat out of laziness, somewhat out of a dislike for serious gardening, I doubt I could/would grow everything I am happily consuming today.

PS: I am not a great meat-consumer but I wouldn't consider myself a vegetarian either.

[billl]

Again, I think the "kill to eat" usually (or, at least, most usefully) occurs in the form of a "Would you..." thought experiment. Laziness or skill aside, gardening would of course be quite different to do or observe being done, for most people. I used to be completely oblivious to how meat made it into the supermarkets, and always sensed it would be troublesome to pursue such thinking.

Whatever one's conclusions, I think it is useful to think about how so much cheap meat comes about. Presumably, it could be even cheaper, if less consideration for the animals (and workers) were shown. Looking into current practices, I've seen some improvements (apparently, a growing fraction of veal, 35% on the Wikipedia page, is coming from animals that have been permitted to socialize, walk, and see grass and sky like normal cattle would), and plenty of situations that remain disturbing, and uncomfortable to contemplate.

I am sure that my eating habits aren't perfect, and I am no "fundamentalist" about animal suffering. But I think we can push back against the often inhuman thrust of large-industry profit motives, from time to time, at the very least. If not to shut a factory down, then perhaps to at least slow the line down, when necessary.

[Paulclem]

No-one can be compelled to vegetarianism, but it may be that our eating choices are really habits nurtured by a culture of meat eating. I was brought up on meat and two veg, and it was only later that I reflected upon it and decided to become a veggie. Similarly, there are veggie societies such as in parts of India.

The kill to eat argument isn't about actually having to do it - nobody needs to, as has been pointed out. It is sorted by others. It is about informed choices. Things are a little better nowadays in that there is more information available about meat production methods. My reaction to seeing information on factory farmed eggs on the TV at the age of 25 was to go free range. I didn't like what I saw.

If it is a moral choice, then a choice needs to be made. My younger self - and I am not referring to anyone else on this forum - didn't realise that there was a choice. It was just an eating habit.

Someone else has also pointed out the very bad representation of veggies that you get with celebrity chefs and cooking in general. We watch a number of such progs, and their attitude is consistently scornful. If they do a veggie dish, then it usually involves goat's cheese, which all my family think tastes of stables. Veggies are not well represented.

The moral aspect may be why meat eaters are a bit defensive about it. I think a choice is proper, and a non judgemental attitude to others best. It may become an increasingly poignant issue though if food poverty increases, and we have to re-evaluate our habits. Perhaps a sensible reduction would help.

[JackieGinger]

Well, do not worry your heads off that way, some are compelled to vegetarianism. Around here meat is getting more and more expensive as each year passes...I think we (my family) will not afford to buy meat too often! Will we be vegetarians by choice? :blush: :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Eggs would eventually grow into chickens. I don't see how that counts as vegetarianism.

Eggs? No eggs that are sold for human consumption are unfertilized, and fair food for vegetarians surely?

Though for me it is a moral choice of having an animal killed just for the sake of it. If I order a chicken salad I am effectively ordering the death of another chicken, which is starting to come across as a bit selfish from my perspective, when I could quite easily order something else. For me it is as simple as that.

I've improved my diet over the last 6 months or so and cutting out mass produced factory meat is just part of that move. I eat much more fruit and veg, pasta and rice, and cutting down of pizzas and such. So I sort of see my move towards vegetarianism as an extension of that. It is often hard to get quality meat or to guarantee the quality of it anyway - and top quality stuff is often hard to come by and on the expensive side. I certainly won't touch microwave ready meals and never have, just think of the meat in those!

I did go for an an Italian the other day and went for the vegetarian option, where usually I wouldn't have probably. I was a little disappointed with it, if I'm honest, as I said before I think they are often sort of token dishes in some restaurants, but in all reality I would be quite happy eating the margarita pizza washed down with a glass of red wine - so next time I'll just do that, it's not a problem.


Well, do not worry your heads off that way, some are compelled to vegetarianism. Around here meat is getting more and more expensive as each year passes...I think we (my family) will not afford to buy meat too often! Will we be vegetarians by choice?

Yes, it's probably only going to go up too. Where are you from anyway?

[JackieGinger]

trust me you don't want to know :D
well, I think from now on people won't talk to me
:alien:
I'm from Romania :D
And I'm a Hungarian (we are a numerous minority here) - is that correct?! :redface:

[LitNetIsGreat]

No I do want to know I'm interested. What's wrong with Romania or being Hungarian?

[JackieGinger]

Many western people are prejudiced about Romanians (not Hungarians), and they do have reasons (there are many Romanians going to their countries, and - to put it euphemistically - they tend to misbehave) nevertheless, there are many more that don't, but these aren't really in mass media, as the thugs and rapists,what's more, there are a lot of scientists for instance in America and almost everywhere else, both Hungarian and Romanian, that are very useful for those countries(Romanian educational system is not the best there can be, but it is tough enough, and if you're resistant, determined and ambitious, you have opportunities to learn, from excellent teachers). All in all this country and the people are not bad, they do commit mistakes, as all of us do, but as I said, the bad things are everywhere (TV, newspapers etc.), and there are several negative preconceptions about Romanians, although they are warm, kind and friendly, some of them even open-minded and smart! (But this is the wrong place for me to think that people judge according to the opinions of others.) Glad we cleared this! :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh I see. I think it unlikely that many people here are going to hold such preconceived views of an entire nation - you're safe I think. :)

[JackieGinger]

Thanks a lot Neely! That is quite relieving, though I should have been aware of the fact! Of late I've been so paranoid :rolleyes: about everything...(one explanation for this might be that I didn't get too many comments on my poem, and I honestly don't know what to think of it :( )

[Paulclem]

Thanks a lot Neely! That is quite relieving, though I should have been aware of the fact! Of late I've been so paranoid :rolleyes: about everything...(one explanation for this might be that I didn't get too many comments on my poem, and I honestly don't know what to think of it :( )

I work with a Romanian lady, and I have taught Romanians who can speak English, but needed to improve their grammar and spelling etc. If people are labelling a whole country, then they are frankly daft. There are nice people from everywhere.

I also travelled to Hungary in the early 90's. We really liked it - Budapest was great, and Lake Balaton was a brilliant place to visit. We found the people - as everywhere - very friendly.

[NikolaiI]

Again, I think the "kill to eat" usually (or, at least, most usefully) occurs in the form of a "Would you..." thought experiment. Laziness or skill aside, gardening would of course be quite different to do or observe being done, for most people. I used to be completely oblivious to how meat made it into the supermarkets, and always sensed it would be troublesome to pursue such thinking.

Whatever one's conclusions, I think it is useful to think about how so much cheap meat comes about. Presumably, it could be even cheaper, if less consideration for the animals (and workers) were shown. Looking into current practices, I've seen some improvements (apparently, a growing fraction of veal, 35% on the Wikipedia page, is coming from animals that have been permitted to socialize, walk, and see grass and sky like normal cattle would), and plenty of situations that remain disturbing, and uncomfortable to contemplate.

I am sure that my eating habits aren't perfect, and I am no "fundamentalist" about animal suffering. But I think we can push back against the often inhuman thrust of large-industry profit motives, from time to time, at the very least. If not to shut a factory down, then perhaps to at least slow the line down, when necessary.

As I understand the gist or idea of your post, I think it is a most important, beneficial, and necessary effort that we as humanity need to make. Thanks so much for stating this so well.


One day Gautama Buddha saw sheep being driven to be slaughtered at a Yajna (sacrifice). He tenderly lifted a sweet little lamb on his shoulder and followed the sheep to the special enclosure where the ruler of the State was performing the Yajna. On being told that the ceremonial killing of the lamb will bring great good to the ruler and the state, Buddha said, "Of course you must admit that a man, a prince, a monk is much more valuable than a tiny trivial lamb. Kill me and win merit, a hundredfold", and advised him about the inner weaknesses and vices that are symbolized by the victims of the Yajna. Buddha argued him out of his false attachment to the paltry benefits promised for ritual correctitude. He told him that the prayer that rose from every Indian at sunrise and sunset was "Let all beings attain happiness". To kill so that you may live longer and with fuller joy is a reprehensible act, Buddha declared. You have to sacrifice, not a bleating sheep, but your own animality, the bestial lust and greed, hate and malice. Sacrifice these and you earn the heaven of unflinching peace.

http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Av/Buddha/Buddha.htm

[9 Bean Rows]

To each his own... I enjoy meat. Doing what is pleasant (in moderation) seems better to me than eating a diet based upon guilt.

[LitNetIsGreat]

NikolaiI, yes I like that one. Oh I have finished that book you recommended me, it was very interesting thanks, a good mixture of primary extracts.

[NikolaiI]

To each his own... I enjoy meat. Doing what is pleasant (in moderation) seems better to me than eating a diet based upon guilt.

Ah, the framing thing. You may say it is based on guilt or you may say it is based on empathy. That's called framing - how you frame it, to make it seem favourable or unfavourable.

[9 Bean Rows]

Technically, I suppose all opinion is "framed". However my comment was not based upon another person's reasoning, but simply my own (i.e. should I choose to 'go vegan'). I do not require everyone to agree with me in order to respect them nor do I feel compelled to demean those with whom I disagree. It's called tolerance, I believe.

[Paulclem]

H NikolaiI,

I should just point out that the Buddha is often claimed as part of the Hindu canon - an incarnation of Siva. Whilst this isn't a problem for Buddhists, there are fundamantal differences with regards to Karma, Reincarnation and the ultimate nature of reality in the teachings of the Buddha and texts like the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. I just noted your source was a Hindu site.

[NikolaiI]

Technically, I suppose all opinion is "framed". However my comment was not based upon another person's reasoning, but simply my own (i.e. should I choose to 'go vegan'). I do not require everyone to agree with me in order to respect them nor do I feel compelled to demean those with whom I disagree. It's called tolerance, I believe.

I wasn't referring to your position but how you stated it. As in, I prefer to act in what is pleasurable (in moderation) rather than eat a diet out of guilt. That is using a word with negative implications. That's what framing is. The other side of the issue would be vegetarians who would say that their diet is the compassionate way, and that others are a heartless way. Then if they asked you, "Do you eat a diet that is the compassionate life-style or do you eat a diet which is heartless?" That's an extreme case but that illustrates what framing is. You can't answer the question because it isn't asked fairly but it is framed in a completely subjective way.

I wasn't criticizing you just commenting, and of course the what you said wasn't a extreme case of it - just a mild form of framing to make it sound like those who are vegetarians, well that they are associated with guilt somehow.

[Paulclem]

To each his own... I enjoy meat. Doing what is pleasant (in moderation) seems better to me than eating a diet based upon guilt.

It is a global economy - to each his own implies some kind of individual isolation, but the fact is that all actions have repercussions. No Man is an Island.

The argument earlier in the thread was about choice and the consequences of choice. You could try to justify anything because it is pleasant. It's not really an argument.

[NikolaiI]

Cheese is iffy. It is an animal by product (it doesn't harm the animal in any way) so if your views are strictly for not harming a creature, no biggy. Eggs, definitely. Eggs would eventually grow into chickens. I don't see how that counts as vegetarianism.
Meat is not strictly about taste. If I was more educated in nutrition, I would tell you, but something about amino acids, protein, things like that. For carnivores like myself, taste is a definite plus. But taste isn't the sole reason for consumption.

Well, I would just probably give the example TheDave gave a long while ago, of Dave Scott, who lived on a vegetarian diet, winning the Olympic triathlon gold medal more than once...

As for nutrition, I can tell you that I am strong and healthy as a vegetarian, although perhaps not as strong and healthy as Dave Scott. But the point is that you can be strong and healthy as a vegetarian. And you can do serious exercise or sports, like Dave Scott.

As one person pointed out, there are societies in India, some places the whole village is vegetarian. And they are healthy and happy. They live their whole lives, long lives, healthy and happy. So that's pretty strong evidence that it's possible to live a long life free of disease.

And actually, Skib, there is very extensive research and studying giving a ton of evidence for the health benefits of eating a veggie diet. Less chances for almost all kinds of cancer is a big one, and many other diseases. Lifestyle of course is necessary, but those studies, I think they are fairly scientific. It's not just sentimentalism but those are facts.

I just saw your blog and I am not telling you what to do.

As for eggs, no egg you will buy in the store would ever have become a chicken, because they are unfertilized.

As for cheese - well, on farms where cows are loved and considered to be sacred, and kept with care and love; those are happy cows. And oxes used to work - that is their natural life. It is not exploiting to work, actually they need to work, just like certain types of dogs need to run every day.

Actually the Vedas say that the cow is one of the natural mothers of humans (one's natural mother, the teacher or the wife of one's teacher, the earth, the cow, etc.). They are considered to be the mother of humanity because of the nurturing relationship and how they provide us milk. And the ox is like the father. So that is why the cow is considered to be sacred and it is very wrong to kill them.


But Billl said it best. I understand that I am very unliked around here because I am a vegetarian, so I hope I don't tarnish him by saying that admire what he said. But it would be very good if we could give a push against the profit-is-the-bottom-line system which is going on - I know I can't say it as well as Bill. Another thing I heard someone say once, in response to the argument of doing good for humans is a higher priority than doing good for animals, was the following: knowing the agricultural and environmental benefits of growing crops to feed humans as opposed to growing grain to feed cattle, etc., what would be better than a reduction of grain-fed meat, for humans? That is, knowing how much more food would be available for feeding humans, as well as the environmental benefits too.

[blazeofglory]

The idea of being vegetarians is really appealing.