Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyLS

Thing is, I don't like the thought of killing. I was vegetarian, twice, for about a year at a time. I just got sick because I have another condition which means I can't eat certain foods anyway. Sounds cruel, but our bodies are designed to eat both plants and animals.

I don't agree with the way we kill them, we should go back to times when we didn't have the so called useful technology for these things. We should kill animals in a natural way if we are going to do it.

I respect vegetarians, I just don't think that being a vegetarian is going to save the animals. It's sad, but it's true. If i could change our biological make up, so we only needed plants of course I would. I hate killing too, but meat is what our bodies want.

---

I'm not sure I can agree with the our bodies are designed to eat both plants and animals bit above.

First of all, our bodies have evolved, not been designed. This is not just a play on semantics but of fundamental importance in the vegetarian debate. Biblical ideology has suppressed vegetarianism for a few thousand years on the basis of the dominion over animals nonsense.

Second, leaving that aside and looking to biological probability; there is pretty much overwhelming evidence that humans have evolved as herbivores due to our sost clawless hands and flat grinding teeth. Carnivorous animals tend to have large tearing teeth, extremely short intestines and devastating weapons in the shape of claws or beaks. Herbovores tend to have long intestines, low flat teeth and blunt hands, paws etc.

Contemporary evidence overwhelming points to (unless you are completely stupid or lethargic to change) diets of animal fats on human health as the number one killer of the human population in terms of cancer and heart disease.

It's up to you.

Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyLS

I don't agree with the way we kill them, we should go back to times when we didn't have the so called useful technology for these things. We should kill animals in a natural way if we are going to do it.

---

What's more natural than exsanguination? The only difference between slaughter now and slaughter in the past is that legally all animals have to be sedated first, which of course is for their own good. The only exception to this is ritual slaughter, which is an entirely different issue.

I'm not trying to start an argument since we share similar views on the subject, I'm just wondering what other options you see? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyLS

I respect vegetarians, I just don't think that being a vegetarian is going to save the animals.

---

Oh, I’m not as optimistic as all that; it’s simply a matter of principle. :thumbs_up

Interesting article on the environmental implications of vegetarianism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...wn-environment

Thank you so much for sharing that, blp, that was an enlightening article.

I think it's a good idea to start with 1 day of meat free a week. I am a vegetarian and I am in perfect health. Maybe it is more difficult to switch if one ate meat most of one's life - I was a vegetarian most of my life. Still, as The Dave so kindly pointed out, there was a person, vegetarian, Dave Scott, who won the triathlon gold medal 6 times.

For me it is a simple matter, the combined reasons of ethics, health, and environment. When we give animals chemicals, and then we eat those animals, we are eating the chemicals ourselves. It's better to keep the body pure, for good health and life. I understand as I said, the difficulty of switching lifestyle, especially when it is so, so engrained in our culture. And as to health, if one can't become a vegetarian, at least eating less meat is better. Being active is absolutely necessary to be a healthy vegetarian. I would be utterly miserable without breathing exercises, stretching, yoga/tai chi, a small amount of weightlifting, and walking at least a couple of miles a day. Probably the most important of all these is breathing exercises and meditation. Actually meditation has a great deal of benefit for one's health.

It's fairly necessary to be active in positive/healthy activities, not just "not eating meat" will be healthy. For instance one could eat pizza and chips and deserts and it would be vegetarian but quite degenerative health-wise. And also if one doesn't live an active life, one won't be healthy and strong. How do we expect to be healthy and strong without doing work?

So I think, if one would gradually switch to a more vegetarian diet, and as well, being aware... in terms of breathing exercises, meditation, and other exercise (whatever seems most important), then one could become very healthy. And so, if one can live healthy and strong without meat, then what need is there to kill animals, which have hearts and minds?

the need is because they are tasty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

the need is because they are tasty

---

eh..?

and the justification? perhaps because they can't figure arithemetic?

No that is a perfectly good reason they taste good. Your plant is alive, what is the justification for killing it to eat?

We dont question why the lion kills the antelope, or even why the bird eats the poor defenceless worm.

We are just at a high level on the food chain - this is nature, this is perfectly normal & acceptable, a little less of the proselytizing would be a good idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

No that is a perfectly good reason they taste good. Your plant is alive, what is the justification for killing it to eat?

We dont question why the lion kills the antelope, or even why the bird eats the poor defenceless worm.

We are just at a high level on the food chain - this is nature, this is perfectly normal & acceptable, a little less of the proselytizing would be a good idea

---

Your argument is twisted. If it is morally not okay to kill a plant, that makes it okay to kill animals? I am saying, it is wrong to kill animals. Killing plants, to eat, is a necessity, though it should not be done any more than necessary. You are then trying to argue that it's wrong to kill plants, thus it's okay to kill animals.

Actually you are just poking fun. And correcting me on my proslytizing. Why this pretence? Why can't we have unpretentious communication? Why accuse me of pretense (proselytizing)? Because I am saying something different than you?

The idea that satsifying our tastes is justification for any act is senseless. We must examine our actions to know whether they are not harming anyone. If they harm, then we must examine whether or not it is necessary.

You are saying it's necessary so you can satisfy your tastes. I am very appalled by this. Your reaction is to belittle me and my stance by calling it proselytizing. That is pretence.

And by the way, vegetarianism is a good idea. :thumbs_up

Firstly I am not poking fun. I am completely serious.

Two, no I see the argument is twisted, but it is the flaw in yours I was addressing how is it any better to kill plants as a necessity than it is to kill animals - maybe we should let the plants live and only eat the animals. After all from an environmental perspective the plants at least turn CO2 into oxygen helping the planet whereas the cows are producing all that harmful methane.

Three yes you are doing plenty of proselytizing, just look back to your OP

Quote:

---

My goal is simply to encourage people to become or at least think about becoming vegetarian.

---

I am trying to discuss vegetarianism. I am not perfect and if my imperfection offends you, forgive me. I know it is a touchy issue and I try to be sensitive. The country I live in is 95-98% non-vegetarian and everyone in my family except myself and my grandmother are not vegetarian. It does not hurt my relationship with them. I see no reason why this subject should not be discussed. Naturally as I am a vegetarian I am on the side of vegetarianism in this debate. All you are saying is, "Don't be on that side of the debate." I can only respond, "What the..??"

Quote:

---

Two, no I see the argument is twisted, but it is the flaw in yours I was addressing how is it any better to kill plants as a necessity than it is to kill animals -

---

As I said, my position is that killing animals is wrong, and killing plants is a necessesity but doing so indiscriminately is also wrong.

Animals have hearts and minds, this naturally makes them closer related to us. They also have emotions, can feel fear, pain, joy, and attachment.

Quote:

---

After all from an environmental perspective the plants at least turn CO2 into oxygen helping the planet whereas the cows are producing all that harmful methane.

---

Please read the article blp posted, as it is better written than I could explain.

We breed the animals that we slaughter for restaurants and grocery stores. If we stopped them breeding, they would be gone within a generation.

I refer to the article...

Quote:

---

... in 2006 the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published a study, Livestock's Long Shadow, showing that the livestock industry is responsible for a staggering 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This is only the beginning of the story. In 2008, Brazil announced that in the 12 months to July it had lost 12,000 sq km (3m acres) of the Amazon rainforest, mainly to cattle ranchers and soy producers supplying European markets with animal feed. There is water scarcity in large parts of the world, yet livestock-rearing can use up to 200 times more water a kilogram (2.2lbs) of meat produced than is used in growing wheat.

---

I am not saying "dont be on that side of the debate" at all. I have no problem with vegetarianism, I do have a problem with the way you are going about it. The idea that vegetarianism is the moral, environmentally friendly way to live is frankly absurd to me and it is that idea I have a problem with & question. Folk can eat/believe what they like for all I care, just dont expect when you post your opinion on a public forum that it is not going to get questioned and argued against. There is nowhere in my posts where I have been impolite or rude, I am simply arguing the oppostie side of the coin


In fact if we all became vegetarian, species diversity would decrease dramatically - the cow would go the way of the buffalo and the amount of wild flora would be reduced as fields or wheat, grain & corn rapidly expanded to meet the increased demand.

I am fully aware of the environmental impacts (studied them for a long time) but I refuse to have anything to do with organisations such as Greenpeace or Peta who are not interested in the environment as much as getting headlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I am not saying "dont be on that side of the debate" at all. I have no problem with vegetarianism, I do have a problem with the way you are going about it. The idea that vegetarianism is the moral, environmentally friendly way to live is frankly absurd to me and it is that idea I have a problem with & question. Folk can eat/believe what they like for all I care, just dont expect when you post your opinion on a public forum that it is not going to get questioned and argued against. There is nowhere in my posts where I have been impolite or rude, I am simply arguing the oppostie side of the coin


In fact if we all became vegetarian, species diversity would decrease dramatically - the cow would go the way of the buffalo and the amount of wild flora would be reduced as fields or wheat, grain & corn rapidly expanded to meet the increased demand.

I am fully aware of the environmental impacts (studied them for a long time) but I refuse to have anything to do with organisations such as Greenpeace or Peta who are not interested in the environment as much as getting headlines.

---

I do not have any problem at all with you arguing with me. But accusing me of proselytizing is not discussing vegetarianism. It's okay, it's nothing, doesn't matter. Moving forward... I do not accept your speculation about the cow going the way of the buffalo ( please explain this, anyway ). (In India cows are considered sacred, and there's no reason to believe they would go extinct.

About the fields of wheat, grain, and corn rapidly expanded to meet the increased demand, this isn't right either. It takes 20 pounds of grain used as feed, when you grain-feed cows, to produce 1 pound of beef. So if you converted, only 10% of the beef industry to non-meat agriculture, it would free up vast amounts of grain, and there would be much, much more grain. You wouldn't have to rapidly expand fields of grain to get the grain; you can use the grain you were feeding cows.

As for Peta or Greenpeace, I have nothing to do with them, and this isn't necessarily about them at all.

This thread has been an amazing read.

I have never seriously considered a vegan lifestyle for myself, but the civilized discussion here has been broadening. Maybe one day a week would be a good start.

I started to read The China Report, but its claims are controversial. Somehow I never finished the book.

The moral question is pretty academic to me. We (humans) just happen to be the foremost temporary tenents of the planet currently. This planet got along fine without us previously, and I think it will again after we've poisoned ourselves off the surface.

As to the suffering of slaughtered animals presently I'm afraid I see little difference in Nature: the lion is as deadly to the prey as Ted Nugent.

I was going to say vegetables is what the food eats, but after reading this thread thought better of it. I may be more open minded now. Time (and further discussion) will tell the tale.
I may have to reconsider my prejudices.

what makes us different from the carnivores is that we have a choice.
what makes us different from the other omnivores is that many of us can see a moral difference (between dead plants and dead animals), and respond accordingly.