Meat, Dairy, and Hurt Feelings?

[Necromancer]

Okay, so I'm talking to someone who has asked me why I'm vegan. Now, if any of you are vegetarian or vegan you know straight out that it's kind of a landmine situation when someone asks you why. You're allowed to give one or two brief reasons, but if you expound it'll turn into a war. I've gotten to the point where 90% of the time in social settings if people ask me, I change the subject as quickly as possible.

It amazes me that you can tell someone with a drink in their hand that alcohol is bad for them, and they'll chuckle and probably volunteer that they should drink less. And you can tell them smoking is bad for them, and they'll nod and say, "Oh I know". But if you dare to say that meat and dairy are bad for them, they go ape-shit-crazy.

I've been in a few situations where people have just gone straight off the deep end and have fallen back on "you're an idiot and a liar" or some variation thereof. The thing is, you can quote 1,000 studies from objective sources, and it doesn't matter, you're still an idiot and a liar. But people rarely have any kind of studies or knowledge of studies to back up the assertion that meat and dairy aren't bad for you at all. Tell people that casein, found in all dairy products, metabolizes into opiates, and they'll look at you like you just told them that Palestine is a colony of aliens from Saturn.

Why is this? It ends up being beyond sacred space. You can argue religion, recreation, or sex, but if you get on food...everyone's skin suddenly melts off of them. I'd love to hear some thoughts about why people refuse to believe the facts, and, more importantly, why it matters so much that they resort to iron-clad skepticism. I mean, lord, if someone tells you meat is bad for you while throwing a martini down their throat, you'd think you could take a step back and say, "But that's really not the same thing as saying I have to stop eating meat since clearly they don't believe that everything bad for you must be stopped"

[CrystalTears]

I'm having such a hard time believing a gay man has a problem with meat.

That's right, I went there.

[Tea & Strumpets]

So do Vegans live longer than normal people?

[Celephais]

So do Vegans live longer than normal people?

No, they all die of aneurysms trying to explain why they don't eat meat.

[Jenisi]

4. Are vegetarians really healthier in the long-run?
Absolutely, positively, yes! Even though nutritionists seem to disagree on many topics, all agree that plant-eaters and fish-eaters tend to live longer and healthier lives than do animal eaters. In every way, the brocolli-munchers tend to be healthier than the beef-eaters:

Vegetarians have a lower incidence of cancer, especially colon, stomach, mouth, esophagus, lung, prostate, bladder, and breast cancers. The protection against intestinal cancers is probably due to the fiber in a plant-based diet. In fact, vegetarians have a lower incidence of nearly all intestinal diseases and discomforts, especially constipation and diverticulosis. The phytonutrients in plant foods, especially antioxidants, flavanoids, and carotenoids, may also contribute to protection against cancer.
Plant food is better for your heart, since it is low in cholesterol and saturated fat, and high in fiber. Vegetarians have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease, namely heart attacks and stroke. A study of 25,000 Seventh-Day Adventists showed that these vegetarians had one-third the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease than a comparable meat-eating population. Another study showed that death from cardiovascular disease was fifty percent less in vegetarians. These statistics may be the result of more than just diet; vegetarians tend to have healthier overall lifestyles.
Plant eaters are much less likely to get diabetes than animal eaters.
Vegetarians tend to see better.
An eye disease called macular degeneration, which is deterioration of the retina leading to blindness, occurs less frequently in vegetarians.
Vegetarians tend to be leaner than meat eaters, even those who skin their chicken and trim the fat off their steak; and, in general, leaner persons tend to be healthier. Being lean does not mean being skinny. It means having a low percentage of body fat. Muscular weight-lifters tend to be lean, though no one would call them skinny. You don't have to "beef up" at the dinner table to make muscle. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines recommend eating more vegetables and grains and less meat, despite pressure from the politically-connected meat industry to promote meat.

[Satira]

Most vegans and vegetarians feel very strongly about their practices. When people ask questions into the subject, they usually aren't looking for someone to explode facts and opinions on them. In other words, yeah, changing the subject is the best idea in most cases.

[Sean]

something similar: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=8999

[Jenisi]

I'd say it's as touchy of a subject as trying to discuss religion.

[CrystalTears]

IMO, vegetarians are as bad as the bible-thumper. Vegans can be just as bad, if not worse, about expounding how meat is bad for you and that you're going to die first.

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a burger hanging out of my mouth.

[Necromancer]

I don't think anyone comes out blazing with studies and facts. I can't speak for anyone else, but I always just say something like "Oh you know, the usual BS. Animal cruelty, environmental sustainability, and sort of health reasons though that was never a huge deal. Oh look, that man is wearing a blue shirt!"

But what I find interesting is that if things turn into a war (I mean, discussion), it doesn't matter how many studies or facts you present...all anyone has to say is "That's a load of BS", and they feel like they've 'won'. There are very few subjects where discussion is fought so predominantly in rhetorical terms as is the case with pro-meat/dairy sentiment in the 'food debates'. I guess my big question is...why?

[Celephais]

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with meat hanging out of my mouth.

I'm going to quote it like this... only changed it a little but it'll look so much better out of context. (In line w/ your previous post I'm sure you saw this coming)

[Tea & Strumpets]

No one got my "normal people" joke. :(

If you are going to copy/paste studies, could you link the source? For all I know, that study was done by vegans and vegetarians.

[Some Rogue]

IMO, vegetarians are as bad as the bible-thumper. Vegans can be just as bad, if not worse, about expounding how meat is bad for you and that you're going to die first.

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a burger hanging out of my mouth.

Bingo.

People getting in your face, pushing their "facts" at you, telling you how wrong you are and somehow touting how superior they are to you pisses people off.

[War Angel]

I dont argue with people about their choices. I assume they have a reason for doing what they do and leave it alone.
I admit that I feel horrible when I find out someone eating dinner at my home or out with us is a vegetarian, because I am afraid to make/serve something inedible to them, as there are several variations of vegetarians, and I am never sure what the guidelines are.
I would never think of trying to convert a vegetarian into a meat eater, and at the same time, I would hope that the vegetarian would be just as respectful of my choices.
That is all. :)

[Celephais]

There are very few subjects where discussion is fought so predominantly in rhetorical terms as is the case with pro-meat/dairy sentiment in the 'food debates'. I guess my big question is...why?

This is entirely a percieved position due to the fact that you're on one end of it. Being on the pole* of any side of a very passionate issue makes you think it's that much more extreme. I'm sure ProChoice/Life arguements think the exact same out their opposition.

*oh I went there.

[CrystalTears]

I once met this girl who didn't eat fruit that came from trees because when they fall, they "bruise" so they must feel.

In my experience, no amount of facts given on either side will convince the other.

A friend of the family, when she was pregnant and for 10 years after that, became a vegan when she realized that her child came from an egg, and couldn't stomach eating eggs anymore, as well as anything else animal related. She was a good sport and always fed her family meat anyway because it wasn't their decision to change. One day at a BBQ she actually craved meat. She ate one of the ribs. She hasn't gone back since.

And yes Celephias, I had a feeling that would happen. I'm okay with that. :D

[Necromancer]

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a burger hanging out of my mouth.
__________________

I think you just hit the nail on the head for me, in terms of the problem. Accepting that meat and dairy are bad for you and cruel industries isn't the same thing as accepting that you have to change your eating habits. It's just accepting reality. If I can accept that vodka is bad for me and still go grab drinks with friends, other people can accept that meat and dairy are bad for them and still eat a hamburger.

That's just what it boils down to for me. We can accept that so many of the things we do are wrong and unhealthy, and we still will do them. I don't know anyone without 'sin' (and apparently the last one was strung up on a cross and stoned, so I'm not even sure *that's* healthy). Don't get me wrong, of course I'd love to see us living in a world where we're not torturing animals, poisoning ourselves and our kids, and ripping our environment to shreds. But I'd also like to live in a world where people aren't paid 5 cents an hour and locked into factories for 24 hours at a time to make the shirts that I bought.

I don't feel the need to call anyone who talks about sweatshops a liar and an idiot just to feel okay about my shirt. Why do people feel the need to do so when it comes to their food?

[CrystalTears]

I'm not going to call you a liar or an idiot [about this discussion] because it's not going to accomplish anything.

Not all the meat is attained by brutal means. There are organic and safe meat factories out there that are good to animals. So you can eliminate that out of the equation.

I also can't really understand how you can say eating meat is the same as drinking alcohol.

[Latrinsorm]

I can only ask you the same thing I asked you on PsiNet, Querthose, when this was brought up. One of your claims was that meat is not digestible by humans; instead, it lodges in the intestines and "rots". Clearly humans derive some nutrients from meat and no biological system is 100% efficient, so my question is: what are the different rates of efficiency (thermodynamically speaking) for the generic human digesting the generic vegetable and the generic meat? I'd prefer for the entire human system, but if you only have stuff for the stomach that would be an ok start.

That said, it seems that your query is more about why meat/dairy are (sociologically speaking) sacred when so many other things that seem like good candidates aren't. I suggest that all the topics you list are held sacred but apparently not by the community you reside in. Here's what I mean: there are absolutely places where you'll be called an idiot and worse for zealously defending religion or zealously attacking religion; this in no way indicates that "everyone" holds religion (or anti-religion) as sacred dogma. By the same token, that the communities you exist in have no such sensitivity to religion in no way indicates that they are in no way sensitive; they're just sensitive in a different way. Everyone has sacred ground.

Finally, to the ironheadedness: One of the great misfortunes of the current age is the subjectivity associated with expert testimony (along with subjectivity in general, of course). There are many who believe that no amount of training or research supercedes common experience, whether in the scientific or religious senses. For an illustration of this in a more leisurely context, look at how people argue about the existence of clutch hitting in baseball. Thus, in everyday conversation it can be very unlikely for scientific findings to prove convincing for those not trained in science. Of course, this is nothing essentially new: history is littered with disrespect for scientific proceedings. I would posit that only the motivation for this disrespect has changed.

[Latrinsorm]

I also can't really understand how you can say eating meat is the same as drinking alcohol.I'd say meat is way more addictive than alcohol, what with meat actually tasting and smelling really really good. If it actually is harmful, it seems an apt comparison.

[Sean]

It'd be much easier to discuss if you'd get off your high horse.

[Methais]

Since milk is a dairy product, and mothers produce milk to feed their babies, that kind of contradicts the whole dairy is bad for you thing, doesn't it? Or does something like raw milk have to go through some sort of process before it's considered a dairy product?

EDIT: You're an idiot and a liar.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I think you just hit the nail on the head for me, in terms of the problem. Accepting that meat and dairy are bad for you and cruel industries isn't the same thing as accepting that you have to change your eating habits.

You are taking your beliefs and assuming they are facts, and then you become baffled when people ignore the "facts".

Personally, I don't think there is anything "cruel" about killing a cow to eat it. Do you think the only time it is OK and natural to kill a cow is if you are a lion?

[Celephais]

I think you just hit the nail on the head for me

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about smoking. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a butt hanging out of my mouth.

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about drinking. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a bottle hanging out of my mouth.

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about stem cell research. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a dead fetus hanging out of my mouth.

People don't listen to facts about things that they feel strongly about, you might want to learn to state your reasons in a manner that won't strike a choord (saying "animal rights" or "enviroment" WILL strike a choord). You might even be better off saying something like "I haven't eaten meat for so long now I just can't tolerate it anyway" if it's some random asshole at a party/bar whatever.

[Sean]

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about stem cell research. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a dead fetus hanging out of my mouth.

HACKMAN!!!!

[CrystalTears]

I can't say I'd compare a physical dependancy like alcohol with a craving for meat.

I have so many innuendos floating in my head that I don't know how long I can contain them.

[Miss X]

I'm quite happy getting my protein, iron and amino acids from meat thanks. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to ignore the fact that too much red meat is bad for you but a varied diet with everything in moderation is favourable.

Also, in my experience within tissue viability, we always advise patients with complex slow healing wounds to eat meat. It helps.

As for dairy... Milk is THE best source of calcium and it's also yummy! There's nothing that would stop me eating meat and dairy, I just try to limit my red meat intake to once a week or less. Chicken is my staple food!

[Celephais]

I'm quite happy getting my protein from meat thanks.

Aaaaaaaaah, I feel like that episode from the Office where carel promised not to say "That's what she said"

[Stealth]

A lot of people (including me) make lots of assumptions based on "facts" about nutrition. Most nutritional beliefs that we have are very different than those even a few years ago.

My personal thoughts and observations run something like this:

I have never ever, not once, seen a "healthy" looking vegetarian. I don't say that such a creature doesn't exist, but from many many long head butting arguements as a personal trainer with vegetarians..I still never saw one who was the picture of health.

By the same context I haven't seen too many meat and potatoes types who fit that bill either.

Humans eat meat, plain and simple. From a biological standpoint, we are NOT vegetarians. We are not total carnivores either. We need a balance of meat and vegetables with lower amounts of starchy/sugary fruits and vegetables.

To boil it down simply...vegetarians, especially vegans do not get the requisite amounts or types of protein and essential amino acids. Many vegetarians (not all) eat too much carbohydrates.

The meat eaters on the other hand generally don't get the vitamins, minerals and other substances they need from plants to stay healthy.

Personally the only "valid" reasons I would nod my head to a vegetarian or vegan and understand are philosophical or ethical ones: meat is murder...etc, bad for the environment. Oh and in the odd event that they just don't LIKE the taste of meat. I can understand these but I do not share the beliefs. I dislike most vegetables but I eat them because my body needs them.


So....in closing.

Vegetarian: An old American Indian word that means "Lousy Hunter".

[Necromancer]

Latrin- Actually, I said we can't digest it efficiently. The human body can digest a LOT of things. But, as I stated on psinet, why do you think we have colonics? To clean out your intestinal tract.

Meat is very addictive, by the way. As is all food. The brain creates specific dopamine channels to keep you coming back for more- which is why it's hard to break dietary habits and why totally 'new' and 'foreign' foods are often treated with a grimace initially. To my knowledge, though, only casein in dairy products is chemically addictive.

As far as the meat industry being cruel...I'm not sure that's really a far-fetched 'opinion'. I suppose it depends on how you define cruel, but any industry whose conditions are, on the whole, so bad that they have to use 50% of the country's production of antibiotics to keep their livestock alive is probably not on a stairway to heaven. The FDA did an internal study of several slaughterhouses, and approximately 90% of people reported witnessing or partaking in illegal animal cruelty acts without reporting them.

But sure, you could argue that. I guess this sort of hits the point too. Why is the counter argument a vague "Oh your definition of cruelty is subjective" as opposed to, "X, Y, and Z things are not actually cruel except in your mind"? Or even, "Yes, these are inhumane conditions, but they're not human so there's a different standard"? I'm legitimately curious.

It actually reminds me of arguing gay marriage with gay people (Oh god, I'm never invited to any dinner party involving a long-term gay couple again). People present a case and the majority opinion often fails to interface with that case at all, arguing instead on rhetorical grounds. (NOT that the strategic deployment of facts isn't comprised of rhetorical elements too, mind you)

I could toss out several studies and objective organizations that make it clear that meat and dairy are not good for you. But here's the big issue: why do the people arguing one side have to throw out studies (which are normally dismissed on vague grounds) while the other side needs none? I mean, if people are so sure that meat and dairy are good for you and that anything claiming otherwise is psueo-science and belief wrapped in science then where's the evidence?

And why is a study done by vegetarians and vegans highly suspect but one done by meat-eaters isn't?

Don't get too caught up in the details here, I am pointing this out as sort of evidence of a trend in discussion and perception. I'm less interested in hearing someone actually argue why certain conditions aren't cruel (though that'd be interesting in another thread) than I am in hearing why vague responses are adequate in this discussion where they would never be in another?

[Necromancer]

Actually, the idea that you can't get all of your amino acids and proteins from a vegan or vegetarian diet is completely incorrect and a common misconception. Soy is a 'complete' protein. It's absorption index is also 1.0, tying with whey and beating out everything else. Spirilina added to soy will give you every nutrient you need except B12. B12 is commonly fortified in soy milk and other soy products and is available in most once-a-day vitamin supplements which everyone would do well to be taking anyway.

There is absolutely nothing else 'missing' from a vegan diet. And a vegetarian standardly gets B12 through their diet without any need for supplements.

The whole 'soy is incomplete' myth came from some studies done years and years ago on rats. As it turned out, rats needed MUCH more protein than human beings, so the studies were thrown out for not being analogous to human dietary needs. Even the UN finally came out with a study proving that soy was complete in and of itself as a source of protein.

[Blazing247]

You're an encyclopedia of drama huh? Meat is good. It tastes good, it smells good when BBQ'd, and there is nothing quite as primitively satisfying as ripping the meat off of bone with my teeth, like I'm a fucking lion. If you don't like meat, fine. Not eating meat doesn't make you immortal. In fact, it makes the time you spend on this earth pretty bland. You're a bore to be around, nobody likes having you at dinner parties cause they have to make a 'special dish' for you, and inevitably you are armed with some anti-meat propaganda that defines your very existence as a person.

There are people who live on red meat and live to be 105. There are people who live on lettuce and live to be 40. Genetics and exercise > meat or lettuce. I don't want to live to be 120, why the hell do you? I'd rather have 70 good years of fucking awesome BBQ, IMO.

[Satira]

Like I said, I think it's a matter of people not looking at it as the same sort of topic as religion or politics.

Most people wouldn't ask what religion you were over dinner. If they DID, and you had conflicting religions, both parties wouldn't start spouting scriptures to prove the other wrong. You would simply say, "Oh that's nice." AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

[CrystalTears]

Because of this thread, I really want a steak now.

I just think he just came here to pick a fight and expound on his intellect with this topic out of ADHD boredom. If he was getting heat from friends, not sure what else he was expecting from the PC crew.

[Methais]

What exactly is the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan?

[Miss X]

Necro - You are clearly very keen on research. I am sure you will be aware then, that there is a wealth of up to date research that states vitamin supplements are virtually useless. Getting your vitamins and minerals from food is MUCH more effective.

[Trinitis]

Why would one need a case study to prove the counter point? It's simple logic. We have different sets of teeth as humans. Some for grinding plants, others for ripping meat. It's been shown and known for years that meat is a major factor of our health (Food groups anyone?). It's one of the basic foods we as a people have been eating since before science was known.

The reason you don't see major case studies on it, is because it has nothing to prove. The studies you read and quote are those trying to prove something. Meat is like the food war Vet. It was there. It has nothing to prove.

[Satira]

Vegetarians still eat eggs and dairy, but no meat. Vegans don't eat ANY ANIMAL PRODUCTS WHATSOEVER. No eggs, no meat, no dairy, no honey. And usually don't wear leather or use anything with animal products in them either.

[CrystalTears]

Vegans are actually more strict. Vegetarians will eat eggs and such for the protein. Vegans stick only to plant products and are the ones most likely to pitch a fit about fur and leather.

[Celephais]

What exactly is the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan?

By the time I post this someone will likely have beat me but... generally it means that vegetarians do not eat animal products, whereas vegans do not use animal products... so a vegetarian can wear a fur coat, and a vegan cannot... a vegetarian can wear a leather jacket or a wool sweater, a vegan cannot.

I forget if vegetarians can have skittles or not, but vegans cant :(

[Trinitis]

What exactly is the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan?

Vegetarian does not eat meat, but will eat cheese and eggs and such.

Vegan will not eat any animal byproduct (meat, eggs, cheese, milk, etc)

[Celephais]

It's been shown and known for years that meat is a major factor of our health (Food groups anyone?). It's one of the basic foods we as a people have been eating since before science was known.

I agree. It's a fucking scientific FACT!
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/taco-bell-melty-crunchy.jpg

[Satira]

HAHHAAHAHAHA OMG. FOURTHMEAL TO THE RESCUE.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I think the reason that a lot of people call you a liar or tell you that you're full of shit is your condescending, "holier than thou" attitude about veganism.

I don't think I agree with a single thing you've said; you've provided zero facts to back your argument, and then wonder why people are ignoring the "facts". I'd guess it's not so much that veganism is a polarizing issue where people barriers go up, but more that you make outlandish statements, insist they are facts, and provide not a shred of proof.

I also sincerely doubt that are desperate to change the subject when veganism is brought up, considering you are pontificating about it on Psinet while playing GS. I'd guess you don't have a single friend or even casual acquaintance that isn't aware of your veganism, but again, that's just a guess.

[Trinitis]

I've got a good friend who is Vegan, and for the most part, it don't effect me at all. She deals with it in her own way. It don't effect our (my friends and I) ways of doing things. She can find something to eat just about everywhere we go.

The only issue she has problems with is concerns on where the food is made. (I.E. Was her salad stuff just chopped on the same board as the chicken strips?). Which seems a bit odd to me, but hey, not my problem, not my life. :)

[Trouble]

IMO, vegetarians are as bad as the bible-thumper. Vegans can be just as bad, if not worse, about expounding how meat is bad for you and that you're going to die first.

I dunno about that, I've known quite a few vegetarians/vegans over the years and only one was 'militant' about it. The others were very cool with it as long as you didn't pester them about it. I'm mostly vegetarian myself and I tend to avoid the subject if people ask why since I did it for many reasons, the most important of which was just to see if I could do it (heh).

[DeV]

Vegetarians aren't anywhere as bad as bible thumpers. Sorry.

[Jessaril]

I eat meat because I like it, not because it's good for me. Vegans don't bother me, one of my good friends is a Vegan, I feel bad that they miss out on some of lifes most wonderful things though. ribs? brisket? steak? Anyone?

[Trouble]

I eat meat because I like it, not because it's good for me. Vegans don't bother me, one of my good friends is a Vegan, I feel bad that they miss out on some of lifes most wonderful things though. ribs? brisket? steak? Anyone?
The things I missed the most the first year or so (when I was real strict about it) were bacon, pepperoni, and ball park hotdogs. I was surprised because I thought I'd miss steaks the most. The main nuisance for me in going vegetarian/vegan was the lack of fast food choices. It's really nice to be able to hit the drive-thru when you're in a rush or whatever.

[Stealth]

Actually, the idea that you can't get all of your amino acids and proteins from a vegan or vegetarian diet is completely incorrect and a common misconception. Soy is a 'complete' protein. It's absorption index is also 1.0, tying with whey and beating out everything else. Spirilina added to soy will give you every nutrient you need except B12. B12 is commonly fortified in soy milk and other soy products and is available in most once-a-day vitamin supplements which everyone would do well to be taking anyway.

There is absolutely nothing else 'missing' from a vegan diet. And a vegetarian standardly gets B12 through their diet without any need for supplements.

The whole 'soy is incomplete' myth came from some studies done years and years ago on rats. As it turned out, rats needed MUCH more protein than human beings, so the studies were thrown out for not being analogous to human dietary needs. Even the UN finally came out with a study proving that soy was complete in and of itself as a source of protein.


Mind citing some references for Soy being complete?

The other point is, most vegetarians I have known don't eat that much Soy. Being ABLE to get more protein from non-meat or dairy substances != ACTUALLY EATING those substances.

[Trouble]

Mind citing some references for Soy being complete?

The other point is, most vegetarians I have known don't eat that much Soy. Being ABLE to get more protein from non-meat or dairy substances != ACTUALLY EATING those substances.


Most true vegans I know use the Spirulina algae powder to get their full protein intakes. It is a complete protien source for humans.

[Alfster]

Why do they make soy burgers that look like real hamburgers? Doesn't that bother vegans? It still looks like they're eating a cow...just tastes like shit instead of cow.

[Stanley Burrell]

All I've gotta say is:

http://www.3dchem.com/imagesofmolecules/linolenic-acid.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Vegetarians aren't anywhere as bad as bible thumpers. Sorry.
For me they are (not sure why I bother putting IMO in my posts anymore, sheesh). I'd rather have someone explain to me the whys and how's of religion ad nauseum, than to have someone say to me when I'm going to bite into a burger "a cow died for you to have that". Fucking hate it.

[Jessaril]

Here is how I see it playing out:

*bible-thumper picks up a hamburger*
Vegan: "You know a cow died to make that hamburger."
Bible-thumper: "God gave us dominion over the animals to sustain us."
*bible-thumper beats vegan with leather-bound bible*
Vegan: "You know a cow died so you could bind that bible"
Bible-thumper: "You dare question God's word?! BLASPHEMER!"
*bible-thumpber clubs vegan with the thigh bone of an ass*
Vegan: "You know that an ass..."

Sounds like a stalemate.

[DeV]

For me they are (not sure why I bother putting IMO in my posts anymore, sheesh). I'd rather have someone explain to me the whys and how's of religion ad nauseum, than to have someone say to me when I'm going to bite into a burger "a cow died for you to have that". Fucking hate it.My bad, I do see the point you're making and it's probably why I didn't directly quote you. It's also what I get for not elaborating.

Bible thumpers have the potential to impact my and so many others entire way of living... vegetarians, not so much or even close for that matter. That's pretty much all I meant

[Keller]

I don't laugh at Veggie's arguments, I laugh at the fact that they can't eat meat.

Poor bastards.

I'll just quote Anthony Bourdain on this one:

"Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living. Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. The body, these waterheads imagine, is a temple that should not be polluted by animal protein. It's healthier, they insist, though every vegetarian waiter I've worked with is brought down by any rumor of a cold."

[Latrinsorm]

Since milk is a dairy product, and mothers produce milk to feed their babies, that kind of contradicts the whole dairy is bad for you thing, doesn't it?I would assume he's referring to cow milk and not human milk.
why do you think we have colonics?You must have said that after I left or something, I don't really remember that. In any event, that doesn't really address my question: you say we can't digest it efficiently, I asked what the efficiency actually is. (I did speak rather loosely in quoting you, true.) I think we have colonics because we have abandoned the ancient Peruvian gods in our modern dog-eat-dog world. They will knock us down!!

The rest I addressed in my first post; apparently you found it inadequate or unsatisfying (to keep with the trend of innuendo). It's a little puzzling that you missed it, as I seem to have been the only person who addressed it at all. :S

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm not even going to read the posts in this thread, but rather respond to the original one:

Meat isn't unhealthy. STFU.

[Kyra231]

In my experience most people will drop the topic of why I'm a vegetarian if I continue to be vague and try to change the topic, however there are always the douche bags who insist on pursuing the topic and then trying to debate your choices with you.

Best bet, smile wide and tell them "I don't discuss sex, politics or why I'm a vegetarian with people so lets change the subject."

Worked everytime for me so far.

~K.

[Necromancer]

Vegetarian = Lousy Hunter

That cracked me up.

I guess this thread is completely off-track and back into the squabbling "You're an idiot!" "No, YOU'RE an idiot!" "I hate person X" "I like turtles" phase. So I abandon my original query since very few people bothered talking about it (Still pondering your post though Latrin- had to skim it before I ran off to the bank)

Soy reference? Wikiipedia had a good synopsis.

Soybeans are considered a "complete protein" source in that they provide all the essential amino acids for human nutrition.[2]

Tada. I told you, the earlier studies were based on rats, and they were thrown out. You don't actually need spirulina for full aminos, but it does have B12. CrystalTears's point about supplements is correct, of course. This is also why anything that says "fortified" or "enriched" should be translated as "Overinflated nutritional value" since your body can't process it as well. But the B12 listed in meat sources is also overinflated. Between about 23-94% of B12 in meat sources is lost during cooking. Fortunately that still leaves enough for the body. The use of B12 supplements also seems to adequately address B12 deficiencies in people, even if it's inefficient absorption.

And, as to the humerous comment that every one of my good friends and family knows I'm vegan...clearly that came from someone who isn't a vegetarian or vegan. As others have attested, you cannot go out or eat anything without having to ask the age-old question, "Um, is this vegan/vegetarian? Can I get it without X?". It's the most irritating part about veganism, always being 'that person' at the table. It also means that anyone you're close enough to share a meal with knows you're vegan/vegetarian almost by default (I'm trying not to tack on, "You idiot" at the end of this...)

And no, none of my family members (I don't live in the same state as any of them) nor my friends whom I don't live nearby have any clue. I dont see why they would.


As per the incisor comment...several species of herbavores have prominent incisors, particularly primates. Hippos, of course, have notoriously large incisors and are complete herbavores. There's an awesome article on the human digestive anatomy in relation to standard herbavores, carnivores, and the few omnivores out there (bears, raccoons, canines, etc.). It's far more comprehensive than anything else I've found on either "side". The only real hole I see is that it selects bears as representative of omnivores, and the author didn't spend enough time justifying why they were selected except to comment that they were representative of omnivores in general in terms of digestive trends. It's actually just really interesting stuff in general.

http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

[Latrinsorm]

re: the article

I recall you talking about this on PsiNet as well: I'm utterly unconvinced. Have you ever seen how taxonomy used to work when people just went by superficial resemblances? I'd much prefer efficiency percentages across various animals over stomach volume and jaw muscles and so on. All that matters is how well we turn various stuff into nutrients (and, of course, if anything is actually toxic).

[CrystalTears]

I didn't say anything about supplements, that was Miss X, although I completely agree with her.

I enjoy eating meat. I don't eat red meat very often, the occasional burger. It's really only when I crave it, and that happens once a month. I mostly eat chicken.

Not sure where you felt the conversation turned into calling you an idiot. Some just don't agree with not eating meat. Can't you just accept that you like plants (which is what my food eats) and we like animals and move on? Not sure what kind of debate you were looking for.

[Necromancer]

psssst I hate vegetables. Hating meat had nothing to do with me being a vegetarian <g>

(The truth comes out)

[Tsa`ah]

Just skimming as I'm cramped for time ... but have we approached the point of this discussion where we point out how much innocent wildlife is butchered and not eaten just to make bean juice, tofu, and veggie burgers?

[Jazuela]

I think it's because you turn it into a "you" thing instead of a "I" thing. They aren't asking why people should be vegetarians. They are asking why YOU are a vegetarian. The most non-aggressive way to answer that, while telling the truth, is:

"Because I feel a vegetarian diet is more healthy for me."

Saying "because meat is bad for you" or "vegetarian diet is good for you" is putting the person asking the question on the defensive. You're "accusing" them of something. Of COURSE they're going to get up in your grill about it!

When vegetarians ask me why I choose an omnivorous diet, my first response is "Because I enjoy both vegetarian and meat foods." When they tell me it's bad for ME while I'm munching on my cheeseburger - I'll tell them the same thing I tell strangers who walk up to me while I'm having a smoke outside and tell me smoking is bad for me. I tell them - "telling me what's bad for me, while I'm doing that thing, is bad for YOU. I suggest you run along and bother someone else."

People who ask you the question don't want to be told what's good or bad for THEM. They want to know why YOU have made that decision for yourself.

[Jazuela]

Soy is often fortified with Vitamin B-12. Of course, the B-12 they fortify it with, comes from meat. So whether they like it or not, they're eating meat byproducts. Nya nya nya.

Fact is, the human body MUST have Vitamin B-12 for good health, in particular, good mental health. Depression and anxiety disorders are some of the most common illnesses caused by a deficiency. Fortunately, vegans cheat by using soy fortified with a vitamin that comes strictly from animal sources. But I guess that makes them not vegans, huh.

:)

Also, I agree with Stealth. Humans are omnivorous. It means our teeth and digestive systems are capable of handling both. We aren't as efficient eating meat as carnivores, and we are not as efficient eating strict vegetarian diets as strict vegetarian animals. A diet containing lean meats in small quantities with primarily vegetables, legumes, and fruits, is the most efficient mix for the human species. It's been that way since we were neanderthals, and it doesn't look like it will change all that much during our present existence as homo-sapien.

[Necromancer]

Um, B12 doesn't have to come from animal sources...

As is the case of spirulina, B12 can be found in various microorganisms and is harvested that way for vegan supplements.

Oh, and I don't say "Meat isn't healthy for you" unless pressed on the subject, and in fact I downplay the health issues because they weren't really important to me when I switched. But I definitely see your point in the rhetorical shift. Having said that, does a culture of ignorance around food really start and end with that moment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECOeXDEfog8&mode=related&search= (DO NOT WATCH THIS IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH)

I find the above far more controversial to bring up in conversation. (Yes, I threw that in for effect. I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF. I threw it in for the person earlier who said that it's 'opinion' that the meat industry is inhumane)

[Stanley Burrell]

I still stand firmly by my other assertion in this thread :nodnod:

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I threw it in for the person earlier who said that it's 'opinion' that the meat industry is inhumane>>

That video demonstrates undeniable proof that the meat industry is inhumane? Fuck.

[Jazuela]

Microorganisms are animals. What's worse, they're grown, and then harvested, specifically for B-12. Kinda like how cows are grown, then harvested, for food.

Personally I'd much rather be a "whole foods" eater than a "fortified with microorganism dung" eater. But that's just me.

[Necromancer]

Latrin-

Now to your last two responses.

I agree there is an element of skepticism that is brought to many conversations that involves 'expert opinion' or 'studies' (as there should be), but I think you circle a phenomenon without quite addressing it: why is it so selectively applied? Afterall, gravity is pure theory but is easily accepted. Of course, you also hit on the other issue that I think strikes it home for me: basically common sense. (to use a term another posted brought up)

But why does common sense trump some situations and not others? Common sense tells me that whales are fish who get their oxygen from water like the rest of the creatures they inhabit the ocean with. But my common sense (i.e. personal perception) is accepted as incorrect. We know better. Common sense tells me that since I see people eating meat all around me, it must be what I was 'meant to do' (which really is just drawing on odd cultural notions of what one is 'meant to do' and why one has to be 'meant to do' something in order for it to be authentic), but when presented with science that says "Oh actually your body isn't doing a great job of digesting this meat", skepticism abounds. To merely state that it's been human habit doesn't quite tell us why it works the way it works.

I see the skepticism as not the start, but, rather the consequence of a greater anxiety. Earlier I asked why it was that we could accept sweat shops and their goods but not the reality of meat consumption and its goods. I wonder to what extent is has to do with the ease through which I can dissasociate myself from sweat shops. Afterall, I don't know how to make my own clothing, and we all know that 'all' clothing comes from sweat shops. So I am able to absorb more of the horrific realities of sweat shops because I'm removed from any day-to-day responsibility. Wherever I go, it feels like, I am forced to consume those goods. But when it comes to diet, it's not so clean cut. I cannot remove myself from my dietary choices because vegan and vegetarian lifestyles are realistic and wholly attainable. So if I fully absorb the reality of diet and the industry and do not act accordingly, I may find myself feeling forced to view myself in a way that isn't favorable.

But, I have to admit predisposition to this idea. It's precisely why I became a vegetarian in the first place. I LOVED meat (hello, I'm from a filipino family!), but I hated feeling like a hypocrite. The more I learned about the realities of meat consumption the worse I felt about myself, and finally one day I strained under that feeling and finally, for my own sense of self, had to at least 'give it a try' (figuring it wouldn't last a month- I can barely keep a cell phone plan that long). I feel like that's a common belief among vegetarians and vegans, but that's not exactly a wholly representative group of people.

So maybe I'm waaaay off. But...maybe I'm not?

Discuss.

I'll get back to you on the arguments against the article I posted in a bit.

[Necromancer]

microorganisms don't feel pain and aren't subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions?

harvesting microrganisms doesn't obliterate our environment?

we can digest plant-based microorganisms just fine, on the whole?

It's not a suitable analogy. You don't have to accept any of the above statements as entirely accurate to see the logic of comparison doesn't hold.

[Flurbins]

how many insects die to make some salad, I wonder. And so inhumanely, too! Poisons or crushing to death in a loud violent machine, etc. At the very minimum, devastation to their habitats, that must be real traumatic.

[Jazuela]

I like bacon. I like cheeseburgers. I like cheese. I especially like cheese in my salads. And I especially like lettuce on my cheeseburgers. I like bagels, but only with lox (smoked salmon) and cream cheese, with raw red onion and capers. I do -not- even like the -thought- of eating microorganism dung, and I will never waste my time asking one if it feels pain when the chemist murders it. I will also never ask the bacteria that thrives on microorganisms, if starving them is hurtful to them. Because frankly, I don't give a shit. Just like I don't care if the cow hurts when the butcher slices its neck. It's a cow. It's meat. Or - it's cheese. Either way, as long as I get to eat it, I'm happy.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Microorganisms are animals.>>

Obviously you don't know the definition of the word animal. Not all living things are animals.

[Tsa`ah]

how many insects die to make some salad, I wonder. And so inhumanely, too! Poisons or crushing to death in a loud violent machine, etc. At the very minimum, devastation to their habitats, that must be real traumatic.

Fuck insects. They're not cute, they're not furry, and people just don't like them. We produce chemicals and flat plastic objects just so the every day person can play exterminator.

I'm talking about mice, deer, raccoons, squirrels, wolves, coyotes, various migratory birds ... pretty much anything and everything you can think of that wonders from wood to field and back again ... mutilated in combines during harvest, poisoned during planting, and then those that starve to death when the most plentiful food source they have ever knows suddenly disappears with half of their family.

For what? Bean juice and tofu?

Don't fucking lecture me on the livestock slaughter when every veg head out there is as responsible for the wasteful destruction of hundreds if thousands of furry metric tons of wasted wildlife flesh .... just so they can feel better about what they eat and to feed the superiority complex they've been nursing since their "holier than though" dietary conversion.

[Satira]

Out of curiosity are there any articles or studies that you know of on that type of thing Tsa'ah?

[Tsa`ah]

Other than the heap of corpses we pick out of the combines each year, or the hours we spend at the auger picking out rodent bits before they hit the crib?

Try a google search. The last time I looked for statistics on google there were no less than 50 university studies on the subject in the first 3 pages.

[Satira]

Oh good! Thanks!

[Artha]

Try a google search. The last time I looked for statistics on google there were no less than 50 university studies on the subject in the first 3 pages.
I'd bet there weren't more than 30 ;)

[Tsa`ah]

I'd bet there weren't more than 30 ;)

Only if you're easily pwnd by the advanced settings.

[Necromancer]

I'm talking about mice, deer, raccoons, squirrels, wolves, coyotes, various migratory birds ... pretty much anything and everything you can think of that wonders from wood to field and back again ... mutilated in combines during harvest, poisoned during planting, and then those that starve to death when the most plentiful food source they have ever knows suddenly disappears with half of their family


Erm...you DO realize that the amount of land used to raise livestock is far greater than that needed to raise crops, right? Approximately 1/3 of the world's grain production goes to feeding livestock- which is an inefficient conversion (you're putting in far more grain than you're getting out in meat). In countries like the US, the percentage skyrockets to about 70% (Yes 70% of that land used for grain is going right back into keeping the livestock fed). According to the Worldwatch Institute, if we reduced that amount of grain going to livestock by 10% and gave it to people instead, we could sustain 225 million people on it (10% would amount to about 67 million tons a year). If people reduced meat intake by 5% in the US, the grain saved would feed 25 million people, which is about the number of people who go hungry every day here.

Additionally, livestock produce about 130 times the waste that humans do, which decimates the water supply in areas. You want to talk about the furry woodland creatures who lose out because of crops? How about the ones who die from the water pollution caused by raising livestock?

Sorry, but that one definitely needed to be corrected. Raising livestock wrecks havoc on ecosystems and is an INCREDIBLY inefficient use of land and space. If someone is to be labeled as 'selfish' in this situation, it's not the ones who are cutting livestock out of their diets.

[FinisWolf]

While all your text has interesting numbers in it, I can't eat text, so pass me the A1 for my steak.

On a slight side note, DID YOU KNOW that statistics can be manipulated to mean anything you want it to mean?

Finis

[Bobmuhthol]

100% of people polled either are alive or believe that God hates women.

[Tolwynn]

If people reduced meat intake by 5% in the US, the grain saved would feed 25 million people, which is about the number of people who go hungry every day here.

Of course, that makes it sound like it's entirely the fault of folks who eat meat that there are people going hungry in this country. And you wonder why people often want to tell self-righteous veg(etari)ans to eat a big helping of stfu?

If you're truly concerned about the plight of those hungry people? Sell the computer you make time-inefficent posts on a message board with, or whatever thermally-inefficient vehicle you use for transportation, or the spatially-inefficient place you reside in and buy them grain with the proceeds.

[Latrinsorm]

That's a little bit of a ridiculous thing to say. For one thing, Necromancer was responding to an attack, and even then every potentially accusatory statement is phrased conditionally, e.g. "If someone is to be labeled as 'selfish' in this situation, it's not the ones who are cutting livestock out of their diets.". I eat plenty of meat, and I didn't feel that he was blaming me personally for anything.

For another, cutting meat intake to 95% is hardly the same as selling your house. You're comparing eating one less hotdog out of every twenty to liquidating major possessions, don't you see how preposterously hypersensitive that is?

Although I don't think this was his intent, at least this thread has provided striking examples of the phenomena in question; from overdefensiveness to ascientificity.

[Tolwynn]

The concern presented was that people are going hungry. Forgoing meat could ostensibly help these people - if the people paying for the land, feed, etc. used to raise the meat in the first place chose instead to give it to those in need. Living more austerely could also accomplish the same ends, save that it would require sacrifice on the part of the individual rather than that of those involved in the production of meat.

Is either solution more preposterous than the other? It's just a difference of where in the chain of consumption that you're asking for someone to give things up.

[Sean]

That's a little bit of a ridiculous thing to say. For one thing, Necromancer was responding to an attack, and even then every potentially accusatory statement is phrased conditionally, e.g. "If someone is to be labeled as 'selfish' in this situation, it's not the ones who are cutting livestock out of their diets.". I eat plenty of meat, and I didn't feel that he was blaming me personally for anything.

For another, cutting meat intake to 95% is hardly the same as selling your house. You're comparing eating one less hotdog out of every twenty to liquidating major possessions, don't you see how preposterously hypersensitive that is?

Although I don't think this was his intent, at least this thread has provided striking examples of the phenomena in question; from overdefensiveness to ascientificity.

Another ridiculous idea is that you could take grain gained by a reduction of meat intake and get it to all the individuals going hungry in the US everyday. It's a garbage statistic because its completely unfeasible. It also completely didn't address Tsa`ah's point that for those who take the animal cruelty platform how do they cope with the idea that the thrasher harvesting their crops is also ripping animals apart in the process. Unless the response is yea but meat eaters are worse nyah!

[Methais]

Plants have feelings too you cruel bastard!
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r264/mrsuniverse2012/hug.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

You can't not eat animals if you intend to have H2O intake from any non-DDH2O resource.

And I do mean kingdom animalia: There are loads of microorganisms, that are already at the arthropod/crustacea phylum/subphylum, which have the probability of existing in any food that has been rinsed with water that you can concoct. And you've definitely eaten them and will continue to do so.

Don't even get me started on vinegar eels.

[Meges]

I'd say it's as touchy of a subject as trying to discuss religion.

I think he should combine the two subjects for more popularity. Let me help you get started:


Daniel 1:8-16
8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, "I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you."
11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 "Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see." 14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead. New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

I purposefully left out other references that would seem to call vegetarians weak in their faith, but perhaps this can be used as more fact to throw at people. Yeah, that should do it, bible thumping and vegan/vegetarian. I'll be rooting for you! Heh.



Meges

[Latrinsorm]

Is either solution more preposterous than the other? It's just a difference of where in the chain of consumption that you're asking for someone to give things up.If you seriously can't see how reducing consumption of meat to 95% and not having a car or a house are qualitatively different, you're an excellent example of what Necromancer was talking about.
Another ridiculous idea is that you could take grain gained by a reduction of meat intake and get it to all the individuals going hungry in the US everyday. It's a garbage statistic because its completely unfeasible.He didn't say the grain would get to them, he noted that they were the same amounts. Don't be so hasty, dang!

[Tolwynn]

If you seriously can't see how reducing consumption of meat to 95% and not having a car or a house are qualitatively different, you're an excellent example of what Necromancer was talking about.

Ownership of a car, while a substantial investment, is merely a choice one makes, and not actually a requirement to live. I actually went some thirty years before I bought my first car. Prior to that, I walked, bicycled, carpooled or used public transportation as much as I possibly could. In doing so, I made a choice that bettered the environment by some small fraction and kept me healthier as well.

The big difference? I didn't make a point of acting smug or self-righteous about it, nor did I try to convince anyone that they should forgo their cars as well.

[Sean]

He didn't say the grain would get to them, he noted that they were the same amounts. Don't be so hasty, dang!

Whats the significance of the statistic if you don't have a method of dispersal?

[Methais]

Just for the record, this is one of the gayest threads in PC history.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/Thread20Failed.gif

[Latrinsorm]

Whats the significance of the statistic if you don't have a method of dispersal?I don't know what Necromancer intended for it to signify; I only know what he didn't say.

[Necromancer]

Actually Tolwynn, while I see your point, the point of the study was that if we simply diverted 10% of that grain already being grown to direct food consumption (If we have programs that purchase meat for low income people, and most countries do as well as several international relief organizations, they could use that same money and purchase grain to feed even more) as opposed to livestock consumption, we'd be feeding even more people. So we're really talking about a relatively easy step.

Well Latrin, now that you see the phenomonenon I'm talking about, any new ideas? Notice vague responses like "Statistics can be manipulated" (blanket rhetorical device- are *these* statistics manipulated? Is the UN objective? Is the EPA objective? Do we know Worldwatch has a history of bad science? Do we have counter-statistics to posit?) and reactionary statements (Hot dog v car example you pointed out). Yet you can decry purchasing SUVs without coming across as militant and rude, but if you decry purchasing hamburgers you're both things.

Perhaps I'm right in my instinct? This represents an issue where it's fairly clear that there are substantial benefits to refraining from a particular activity and no buffer to dissassociate one's self from their role in it? Or is there something else going on?

[Alfster]

I totally hit a deer on the way home. I was thinking of this thread and swerved at the fucker.

[Jayvn]

Tesla was a vegetarian, but not for any scientific reason, because he thought killing animals was barbaric and shouldn't be eating meat when other parts of the world were starving.
I'd kill a cow with my bare hands if I were hungry.

[Nieninque]

I would eat meat again if we were closer to the killing.

I eat fish when I catch them (I only catch mackerel though, too impatient to catch fish that arent stupid).

[Meges]

...In doing so, I made a choice that bettered the environment by some small fraction and kept me healthier as well.


Is that actually true though? I don't think so. Perhaps such a decision allows less negative impact on the environment than others, but electing to forego some of the conveniences does not actually better the environment. I think that's where the term "carbon footprint" comes from. Simply being alive has a negative impact on the environment according to many.


Meges

[Sean]

I don't know what Necromancer intended for it to signify; I only know what he didn't say.

If thats the arguement your going to take, I never made the claim that Necromancer said the grain could get to the people either. I stated what I considered another ridiculous idea and why i'd consider it a garbage statistic.

[Nieninque]

Is that actually true though? I don't think so. Perhaps such a decision allows less negative impact on the environment than others, but electing to forego some of the conveniences does not actually better the environment. I think that's where the term "carbon footprint" comes from. Simply being alive has a negative impact on the environment according to many.


Meges

BS.

MacDonalds are one of the worlds nastiest companies ecologically.
If people dont buy their shit, it dont get sold. If it dont get sold, it dont get made.
Carbon footprint that shit.

[Jayvn]

I would eat meat again if we were closer to the killing.

I eat fish when I catch them (I only catch mackerel though, too impatient to catch fish that arent stupid).

It's why I buy meat from the piggly wiggly (dont laugh they do exist) I swear I think they bring cows into the back door of their meat dept, and you can get any cut you want...as well as those nasty parts like feet and others (cultural food) Rather than wal mart...

[Latrinsorm]

If thats the arguement your going to take, I never made the claim that Necromancer said the grain could get to the people either. I stated what I considered another ridiculous idea and why i'd consider it a garbage statistic.To be wholly you accurate, you said it is a garbage statistic, not it would be. That said, it's become clear that Necromancer did in fact intend for some of that food to get to "more people", so this discussion no longer appears necessary.
any new ideas?No. :( The only other thing I can think of is that eating meat is something people do that feels "natural", and in general people don't take kindly to clinical or detached (in a word, scientific) explanations as to why a certain "natural" habit is destructive in some way. Science that agrees with personal habits, of course, is generally not subjected to much (some) [any] scrutiny. Driving an SUV is clearly artificial, as is purchasing clothing in a supermarket. The problem is that certainly sex is both natural and considered natural, but you suggest that you don't find these sort of problems in discussions about sex. Perhaps this has more to do with the "side" you're on in each discussion; by this I mean that I recall you are not particularly Puritanical in your outlook on sex (at least on PsiNet). This still doesn't explain why people are so vigorously defensive when the slightest criticism is applied to one of their choices, but maybe it's a start.

[Necromancer]

Yet things don't just magically 'appear' to be natural, it takes work to make them believable as such. And generally speaking, they become 'natural' after we decide to make them habit, not before. Remember, the 'past' is just a political construction of the present. One of the things I liked about the article I posted was that the author began the discussion by pointing out how irrelevant it was to even be discussing anatomy as some clue as to what we are 'meant to be': there is no distinct divide between culture and biology. Biology adapts to environment, but culture have a great deal to say about what our environment is. The stories about what our 'ancestors' used to do, the images of hunters and gatherers, invocations of 'time immemorial', are all part of a process of naturalization. Even if we didn't come up with those stories while embroiled in our current cultural contexts, and even if we somehow believed that our biology is no way, shape, or form went through complex processes of change due to cultural influences (it's no coincidence that the areas of the world that have made dairy a substantial part of their diet are the ones that are most likely to retain some of the enzymes necessary for diary digestion- enzymes that are almost completely lost in individuals in other cultures), we'd *still* be left with the question: why does it matter what some distant species a millenia ago was eating? Why does it have the kind of cultural status that it holds, as a rhetorical ideal?

[Alfster]

Why do you care...if we care...that you don't eat meat?

[CrystalTears]

Haha, what awesome timing!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/CAD/vegan.jpg

[Asha]

When I was a student I was vegitarian becouse I couldn't afford meat. I didn't buy and still don't buy / eat shite meat (Mc Ds) etc.
Although when I'm hungover I admit I do. So I suppose that was a lie.

[Nieninque]

it's no coincidence that the areas of the world that have made dairy a substantial part of their diet are the ones that are most likely to retain some of the enzymes necessary for diary digestion

It's the blog culture.

[Necromancer]

That was pretty funny.

I remember telling my ex I was vegetarian. He was like "Oh!...."So do you eat Pork?"

"Uh, no"

"Oh!...beef?"

"Um, nope, no beef"

"Huh. But you eat chicken, right?"

"No..."

"So you just eat fish?"

"We can we just make out now? I think it'll be a better use of our time"

[CrystalTears]

Which brings the discussion around full circle.


I'm having such a hard time believing a gay man has a problem with meat.

That's right, I went there.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yep, this is just like when John Corbett tried to explain his dietary inhibitions to Nia Vardalos' parents in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."

God, did I hate that movie. Ugh. Ugh-ugh.

[CrystalTears]

"He doesn't eat meat."
"What do you mean he don't eat no meat?!"
"I don't eat meat."
"That's okay, that's okay.. I make lamb."

Stanley hating that movie makes me love it that much more.

[Stanley Burrell]

Godammit I smiled.

[Meges]

BS.

MacDonalds are one of the worlds nastiest companies ecologically.
If people dont buy their shit, it dont get sold. If it dont get sold, it dont get made.
Carbon footprint that shit.

Heh, I will and I'll take duplicates and use it as toilet paper too. However, I'm talking more about the individual and not corporations or other entities that feed off of our fellow human.

AND...I understand what you're saying, but what I said still holds true. Just because McDonalds decides that their bottom line is down and they need to decrease production, they're simply reducing the negative impact they have on the environment. The only way a corporation ceases to make a negative impact is to cease existing. Even then, they're not bettering the environment, they're simply no longer having a negative impact on it because they no longer exist to consume nature in whatever manner they will.

You don't make a pristine spring better by not throwing a quart of oil in it. It's just a spring and it's fine on its own.


Meges

[Daniel]

You talk alot about studies. So, I'd like to see a study that measures people who take equal care of their bodies but eat meat, versus those who don't.

I'd venture a guess that most of the studies that measure the positives of vegetarianism simply compare "Normal" people vs Vegetarians. However, this doesn't take into account the fact that people who are willing to go to such extremes for their health probably have other healthy habits and avoid unhealthy ones that do not involve meat.

If you can supply that study then maybe I'll listen to what you are saying.

[Valthissa]

I assume you are talking about conversations with people you consider friends and would like to continue associating with as friends.

If that's the case then you, your friends, or both have a lot to learn about the art of conversation.

Discussing your eating habits would seem to be a reasonable subject as vegetarians are in the minority. So a friend might be curious to learn from you about why you have chosen this path, is it difficult, what are some of the pros and cons, etc. In responding your responsibility would be to enlighten without lecturing, listen to replies without objection, and to provide insights into vegetarianism that your friend might find interesting. You would be expected to do this by talking about your own experiences and feelings, leaving out any judgments about your omnivorous friend.

Having asked a personal question about you, your friend should feel even more constrained in the conversation (this is where I suspect the problem arises as many people seem totally oblivious to this particular form of etiquette). Their responsibilities are to listen with an open mind, encourage you to expound upon the virtues of being a vegetarian, and only challenge any assertions that you might make about their habits, not your own. Anyone that would bring up your eating habits in order to engage you in an argument should be dropped from your social calendar.

That's what is required of both parties when engaging in polite conversation.

Stereotypes to follow:

Many/most Europeans understand how to engage in conversation.

Many/most Americans prefer arguments where there is a 'winner'.

People who will argue until they feel they have won are rarely, if ever, invited back to dinner parties.

Ideally a topic like this (your vegetarianism) can lead anywhere and two or more people could spend quite some time learning about each other.

Good luck in the future as this is one topic you will be discussing as long as you fail to conform, I mean as long as you are a vegetarian.

C/Valth

[Satira]

Valthissa FTW.

[Celephais]

Many/most Americans prefer arguments where there is a 'winner'.


Valthissa FTW.

Is this topic still going? I thought I won this conversation way back near the beginning... you can't argue against fourth meal.


I agree. It's a fucking scientific FACT!
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/taco-bell-melty-crunchy.jpg


... Nicely put Valth, fully agree.

[Necromancer]

While I get your point Valth, you've clearly not been in the position before. The people who will engage you for argument are always going to be acquaintances. I doubt most vegetarians and vegans have any problem talking about their reasons, but most of us can relate to being 'baited'. And, as this thread demonstrates, even people who don't intend to bait often end up having extreme reactions to what you say. For the sake of the rest of the dinner party, one learns to avoid the subject beyond its implications for immediate practical needs (i.e. does this pudding have any beef head in it?)

As far as studies on health measures...clearly you haven't looked at any. There are two major types of methodologies employed when it comes to establishing group comparisons in these studies. The first, which is the most common, is to take a randomized group of people who are vegetarian and/or vegan (most studies differentiate but some do not, depending on what they're looking at) and those who are not and match up individuals. Thus you match people by age, race, weight, etc and do comparisons between the matches, which are then extrapolated as group comparisons. As an interesting side note, 7th Day Adventists have found new popularity in science because of this. As one can imagine, they're used in several studies because they're a large population that doesn't eat meat. Studies that are looking into long-term health benefits tend to employ this methodology.

The second popular methodology is to take the same individuals, those who don't have dietary restrictions, and to vary their diets over periods of time. They'll be given meat diets for six weeks then soy diets for six weeks, and blood tests will be run at various points to see how they're affected. This is most popular for studies that are attempting to study very specific digestive issues. Studies comparing soy protein versus meat protein, for example, will often employ this.

While I know there's a pop culture notion of vegetarianism and veganism being forms of extremism, the reality is that major organizations like the UN, the EPA, the WHO, NIH, and even the FDA (whose research and policy are often suspect as they are HEAVILY influenced by the meat and dairy industries and have had several major officials kicked out for accepting bribes over the decades) as well as major universities are where most of the research is coming from, particularly the 'base' research that many other organizations and think tanks will analyze and extrapolate upon to apply to new situations (for example environmental concerns).

[Celephais]

I would be willing to bet a million dollars you bait more than any of these acquaintances do.

"Oooooh... you're serving... steak ::scoff:: I think I'll pass."

Otherwise you never would have made this thread to "demonstrate" how people have extreme reactions.

[Necromancer]

Actually kiddo, I made the thread to discuss it, the audience demonstrated it.

People hijacked it and began tossing out a barrage of attacks and misinformation, and I replied to them. But this thread was never meant to be a discussion about whether or not veganism or vegetarianism is a good idea, it was the audience that pushed it in that direction, and I went with it.

It's an amusing phenomenon on PC. Someone will post something, 5 people will come in with inflammatory posts to stir up trouble, and if the original poster replies they get pegged for creating a scene. The bottom line is: if you're going to post something critical, particularly if it's incorrect, then expect a reply. And if you're going to be a third party to that, you need to anticipate it and not treat the reply as an independent post. The dissenters pick the direction of a thread more than anyone else, as often as not.

[Nieninque]

Actually kiddo, I made the thread to discuss it, the audience demonstrated it.

People hijacked it and began tossing out a barrage of attacks and misinformation, and I replied to them. But this thread was never meant to be a discussion about whether or not veganism or vegetarianism is a good idea, it was the audience that pushed it in that direction, and I went with it.

It's an amusing phenomenon on PC. Someone will post something, 5 people will come in with inflammatory posts to stir up trouble, and if the original poster replies they get pegged for creating a scene. The bottom line is: if you're going to post something critical, particularly if it's incorrect, then expect a reply. And if you're going to be a third party to that, you need to anticipate it and not treat the reply as an independent post. The dissenters pick the direction of a thread more than anyone else, as often as not.

Advice from a fellow non-meat eater: STFU you pompous twat.

[Gelston]

I love how studies come out from random places and say eating meat is bad, although Homo Sapians have been eating it for the last 200,000 years. Or 4,000 years if you are a creationist.

[Valthissa]

While I get your point Valth, you've clearly not been in the position before.

I turn 50 in September. We have hosted an open party on Friday nights since 1984. It grew from a few friends to around 20 or so for most of the 90's. It's declined back to around 5 or so over the last few years. The purpose of the party is to engage in conversation on issues of the day, and play various games (diplomacy, settlers, magic, and bridge). Attendees ranged from a trailer park drug addict (brilliant but with an issue) to several professors from William & Mary.

I've been in this position literally hundreds of times and that's why I posted in this thread.

In my post I suggested you do two things - sharpen your skills on polite conversation and shed friends that turn your vegetarianism into a reason to argue with you. I stand by that advice - and good luck.

Obviously a whole new dynamic is in play on internet message boards....

C/Valth

[Sean]

Actually kiddo, I made the thread to discuss it, the audience demonstrated it.

People hijacked it and began tossing out a barrage of attacks and misinformation, and I replied to them. But this thread was never meant to be a discussion about whether or not veganism or vegetarianism is a good idea, it was the audience that pushed it in that direction, and I went with it.

It's an amusing phenomenon on PC. Someone will post something, 5 people will come in with inflammatory posts to stir up trouble, and if the original poster replies they get pegged for creating a scene. The bottom line is: if you're going to post something critical, particularly if it's incorrect, then expect a reply. And if you're going to be a third party to that, you need to anticipate it and not treat the reply as an independent post. The dissenters pick the direction of a thread more than anyone else, as often as not.


Probably because you go out of your way to be equally as inflammatory. The only exception is you try and hide behind the guise of being smarter than everyone else. I mean honestly how did you expect people to respond to statements like "Don't get me wrong, of course I'd love to see us living in a world where we're not torturing animals, poisoning ourselves and our kids, and ripping our environment to shreds."

[Necromancer]

Wait...that was followed up with a comment that pointed out some of the horrors of sweatshops and my personal involvement in it in a paragraph whose sole purpose was to point out that we're all involved in horrible practices and that it's inevitable. If THAT'S your idea of inflammatory, not to mention 'equally inflammatory', I'll pass on your opinion.

And if scouring through various posts, that's the best you could come up with for inflammatory, you've obviously been skipping over a good 50% of the posts that weren't mine.

[Latrinsorm]

I love how studies come out from random places and say eating meat is bad, although Homo Sapians have been eating it for the last 200,000 years. Or 4,000 years if you are a creationist.Homo sapiens had unprotected sex for 200,000 years, are you going to say that's healthy too?

[Blazing247]

Like I said in my first post in this thread Necro, you and drama seem to go hand in hand. Every day it's a different condition, squabble, or Dear Anne. Are you a chick at least?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Homo sapiens had unprotected sex for 200,000 years, are you going to say that's healthy too?>>

Are you going to say it's unhealthy? You can have 100% healthy unprotected sex (else where all these babies coming from?) just like you can eat 100% healthy meat. Likewise, you can eat meat that kills you, just like you can have sex that kills you.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not going to make a blanket claim without some sort of science to back me up. :)

[Celephais]

Latrin wasn't stating a fact one way or another, he was just pointing out that the reasoning used of "for 200,000 years we've been doing it" is ridiculous.

It's pretty clear that you instigate necro, and when you start saying things like "people on the PC take topics out of context" it just shows you knew this was coming all the more. Obviously you can't have posted your original post, knowing what you do about the PC, and not expected this topic to explode.

Enjoy your non-meat sludge, but I hope you leave enough room for my fist because I'm going to ram it into your stomach! (sorry... watched running man last night... the theme music of that movie was so ripped off by FF7)

[Necromancer]

I accept no responsibility for the trolls who lurk on the unofficials with the sole purpose to flame and instigate. "You knew the topic was going to explode" is the kind of logic that works when you're talking about stealing candy from a group of children, NOT when you're dealing with adults who have the ability to restrain themselves. Don't hold me accountable for them, they're their own people.

And Bob, do you have any kind of facts on the digestion of meat to back yourself up? The UN recently did a study of developing nations looking into food consumption and health problems. Rising affluence in several developing nations has yielded a large increase in meat and dairy consumption, and, lo and behold, rates of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, etc. skyrocketed in these countries in comparison to developing nations who have not seen that same increase in dairy and meat consumption. Countries like Japan and China who have seen segments of the population adopt styles of diet reflecting increased meat and dairy along side segments that have not have shown the same differential health problems between the groups.

Don't confuse the fact that any given individual can consume meat and dairy for the rest of their life without any serious health complications with the fact that meat and dairy are healthy for you. An individual can eat ten twinkies a day and end up just fine. An individual can smoke two packs a day and never die of lung cancer. Does that mean that smoking and twinkies aren't unhealthy? No. It means individual body chemistry and, more importantly, behaviors differ. One person may exercise constantly, helping to offset the damage done while another may not, giving them no fighting chance.

Yes, you can have unprotected sex forever and never have a disease to show for it, but that's more an issue of lottery chances than any evidence of the health and safety of the practice.

[Blazing247]

Again, who wants to live forever? I bet you're a bore in the sack. "NO WE CAN'T DO THAT IT COULD BE UNSAFE!!!"

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And Bob, do you have any kind of facts on the digestion of meat to back yourself up?>>

I'll stick to the argument that humans have done it for 200,000 years at this point.

[Necromancer]

Read my posts. My first arguments were precisely that we're all doing unhealthy things. Just because you admit something is unhealthy doesn't mean you are honor-bound to stop doing it. The entire purpose of this (horribly off-topic at this point) thread was to question why it is we can admit that alcohol, cigs, high fructose corn syrup, cars, sweat shops, etc. are unhealthy, cruel, and/or bad for the environment without getting up in arms and getting instantly defensive while any mention of meat or dairy as these things turns some people into Pinhead from Hellraiser.

Only Latrin bothered really talking about it. A few others were busy turning into Pinhead.

[Bobmuhthol]

Carnivorism is pretty natural and is not unique to humans. Animals are supposed to eat animals. Animals don't have to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, drive cars, or consume high fructose corn syrup to survive. If you can live off of only vegetables (and microorganisms, apparently), then that's fine, but humans have always been and will always be omnivores.

[Nieninque]

Read my posts. My first arguments were precisely that we're all doing unhealthy things.

OHMYGODWEKNOWYOUREGAYALREADY!!!!

[Necromancer]

Humans are omnivores by choice. One of the marvelous things about having a human brain is that we're free to decide our own fates. I'm not actually pursuaded by arguments about what we were or were not meant to do, you may as well tell me "Cuz the Bible says so!". But if you're going that route, we don't have the digestive systems of carnivores or the few omnivores out there. As the article I linked to in a previous post clearly demonstrates, from our jaws to our teeth to our musculature to our internal organs, we're clearly built to digest plant material and not well suited for meat. Just because we can do it doesn't mean we're set up for it. The only real argument one ever hears is "We have incisors", but most herbavore primates have slightly enlarged encisors. Our incisors are jokes compared to carnivore or even omnivore incisors.

Cats and dogs that have been domesticated eat primarily cornmeal nuggets, but that's not really what their digestive tract is good at. Just because they're able to survive doing it and have been doing it for decades doesn't mean it's somehow 'meant to be'.

[Artha]

Just because they're able to survive doing it and have been doing it for decades doesn't mean it's somehow 'meant to be'.
Couldn't you say the same thing about vegetarianism?

[Gan]

Vegetarian: An old American Indian word that means "Lousy Hunter".
LOL

Meat is good. It tastes good, it smells good when BBQ'd, and there is nothing quite as primitively satisfying as ripping the meat off of bone with my teeth, like I'm a fucking lion.
A-Men

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a burger hanging out of my mouth.
Ditto.

I enjoy eating meat.
This deserved to be preserved. ;)

If you can supply that study then maybe I'll listen to what you are saying.
/Agreed

Read my posts. My first arguments were precisely that we're all doing unhealthy things. Just because you admit something is unhealthy doesn't mean you are honor-bound to stop doing it.
Being EMO is also proven to be unhealthy...

[Jenisi]

Honestly, I just think of why we DO eat meat. I'm going on a limb to suggest it's from when before times of "super transportation" and the seasons. Before you could import your veggies from god knows where, we had winters where vegetation didn't grow and we of course had to then choose meat. Our stomach's and other physical parts of us aren't designed for meat, no. But we can handle it, sure. Just try to promote small portions of meat and lots of veggies, grains etc (which is OBVIOUSLY better for your diet) but most lack self control to eat that because we're a nation of "taste" and what tastes good we eat.

If you want to eat purely vegetation, that's awesome, it takes a lot of self control to start a lifestyle like that. I wouldn't say that eating occasional bits of meat (fish, chicken etc) it such a TERRIBLE thing that we should all try to stray away from it. People are easily offended, and most people don't like to think about what they're putting on their plate, so it's a pretty touchy subject and we are all about defending our personal lifestyles (just as you are about being vegan). So ease up and don't talk about it if it gives you so much stress and just say "I just really like my veggies" instead of a rant about how no one should eat meat cuz it r bad. <3

[Gan]

Food for thought:



The Human Body is Not Designed for
Meat Consumption

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (61). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee (who have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates) [62].
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-body-digestion.htm


Not that this is a scientific source, but I find it kind of funny coming from the source its posted on... :whistle:

[Bobmuhthol]

I actually frowned when I read 'HCL' because of the capitalization.

Also, as much as hydrogen chloride 'activates protein-splitting enzymes,' it straight up dissolves shit, which is just cool.

[Jenisi]

Has anyone ever tried chocolate soy milk? Never thought I'd personally like soy milk, but damn, that shit is good.

[Artha]

I have to say I hate most soy things but chocolate soy milk is really good.

[Necromancer]

Chocolate Soy Milk rocks. So does "Very Vanilla" Soy Milk by Silk. I can drink regular soy milk, but I normally just use it for cooking.

Glad someone posted a counter article! But the article has some serious problems.

First, and foremost, the assertion that herbavores do not release HCl in their stomachs is factually incorrect. Many herbavores do in fact utilize HCl in digestion (many marsupials, for example). The release of HCl is common in monogastric animals, which includes many herbavores. Monogastric is a fancy way of saying "One stomach", so that also completely defuncts the article's assertion that herbavores have multi-chamber stomachs. Some certainly do (cows anyone?), and others do not (humans, rabbits, horses, etc.).

If you want to really compare stomach acids, the average Ph of a carnivore's stomach is 1-2 while humans develop serious digestive problems for anything below 4-5. This is common among herbavores who don't need the lower Ph to aid in digestion. Also, humans, like other herbavores, have digestive enzymes in their saliva to begin the process of digestion quickly. Carnivores do not. The few omnivore species out there (raccoons and bears, for example) show primary carniverous anatomy (they all have a carnivore's basic jaw and tooth design, for example, with the exception of flattened back molars and can make only limited side-to-side motion) with slight modifications to allow for some plant consumption. They retain small intestinal tracts, do minimal chewing of their food, have very acidic stomach acids, and retain sharp nails/claws as well as scissor-like tooth structure (which we do not have) for primary meat digestion.

In terms of intestinal tract length...that one is an iffy statistic on both sides. Human intestinal tracts are about 6x their height if laid out, but a big part of that is that human intestines are comprised of folds. If you stretched out the folds, there'd be enough surface area in the small intestine to cover a tennis court. At that point, human intestinal tracts are about the same ratio to their bodies as most herbivores. Though it's also important to note that species that rely on fast digesting foods, like the fruits that humans enjoy, have smaller digestive systems, more closely resembling the relative sizes of carnivores. Meanwhile, omnivores all have digestive tracts that are sized like carnivores. So it's kind of a wiggly area for everyone involved.

It's interesting that they bring up Gorillas and Chimpanzees. Jane Goodall's work demonstrated that meat-eating incidents were incredibly rare, and they generally occurred during during settings that were foreign to the species. We do resemble many herbivore primate species in our digestive anatomies.

[Satira]

I like rice milk about twelve thousand times better than soy milk, personally.

[Necromancer]

Anyone ever tried "Rice Dream" icecream? It's made from rice milk instead of cow milk, and it's shockingly good. It kind of weirds me out really.

[Satira]

I've had it. I think it's disgusting. But then again I had the green tea flavor.

[Necromancer]

Ewww

I had vanilla and neopolitan. Both excellent.

[Alfster]

This thread is hilarious

[Methais]

we're clearly built to digest plant material and not well suited for meat.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/bullshit.jpg

[Daniel]

Read my posts. My first arguments were precisely that we're all doing unhealthy things. Just because you admit something is unhealthy doesn't mean you are honor-bound to stop doing it. The entire purpose of this (horribly off-topic at this point) thread was to question why it is we can admit that alcohol, cigs, high fructose corn syrup, cars, sweat shops, etc. are unhealthy, cruel, and/or bad for the environment without getting up in arms and getting instantly defensive while any mention of meat or dairy as these things turns some people into Pinhead from Hellraiser.

Only Latrin bothered really talking about it. A few others were busy turning into Pinhead.


Still waiting on my study.

[Methais]

The entire purpose of this (horribly off-topic at this point) thread was to question why it is we can admit that alcohol, cigs, high fructose corn syrup, cars, sweat shops, etc. are unhealthy, cruel, and/or bad for the environment without getting up in arms and getting instantly defensive while any mention of meat or dairy as these things turns some people into Pinhead from Hellraiser.

Because you are
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/lex-luthor-wrong.jpg

[Numbers]

But if you're going that route, we don't have the digestive systems of carnivores or the few omnivores out there. As the article I linked to in a previous post clearly demonstrates, from our jaws to our teeth to our musculature to our internal organs, we're clearly built to digest plant material and not well suited for meat.

Have you ever in your life taken some sort of human anthropology, biology, or prehistoric history class?

Because if you have, you'd realize how astoundingly wrong that statement is.

Humans evolved as omnivores. Our digestive system exists primarily to digest meat and plants. Ever heard of the appendix? Know what it used to be for? When we were furry little monkeys and apes hanging out in jungles eating leaves, berries, and fruit, the appendix was responsible for breaking those down. As humans evolved and started eating more meat and less plants, the appendix has shrunk and is now completely vestigial, like our tailbones.

Have you noticed that fruits and vegetables don't keep that well? Unless you specifically dry them out or make preserves out of them, they'll rot within a few days. Humans were a migratory animal. Nomads. It was much more convenient for humans to kill whatever animals where they were, cook it, salt it, dry it, and take it with them. Sure, they'd pick whatever berries and vegetables they could, but they weren't exactly growing carrots and potatoes back then. In fact, the earliest signs of agriculture was around 12,000 years ago, a blip in our history.

[Methais]

Have you ever in your life taken some sort of human anthropology, biology, or prehistoric history class?

Because if you have, you'd realize how astoundingly wrong that statement is.

Humans evolved as omnivores. Our digestive system exists primarily to digest meat and plants. Ever heard of the appendix? Know what it used to be for? When we were furry little monkeys and apes hanging out in jungles eating leaves, berries, and fruit, the appendix was responsible for breaking those down. As humans evolved and started eating more meat and less plants, the appendix has shrunk and is now completely vestigial, like our tailbones.

Have you noticed that fruits and vegetables don't keep that well? Unless you specifically dry them out or make preserves out of them, they'll rot within a few days. Humans were a migratory animal. Nomads. It was much more convenient for humans to kill whatever animals where they were, cook it, salt it, dry it, and take it with them. Sure, they'd pick whatever berries and vegetables they could, but they weren't exactly growing carrots and potatoes back then. In fact, the earliest signs of agriculture was around 12,000 years ago, a blip in our history.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/pwned-3.jpg

[Jenisi]

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6a.shtml

Good link for this discussion.

[Necromancer]

Humans evolved as omnivores. Our digestive system exists primarily to digest meat and plants. Ever heard of the appendix? Know what it used to be for?

We'll ignore the fact that I did my graduate work in Anthropology...

I'm afraid it's time you did more of your homework. You're correct, the human appendix is considered to be an evolutionary derivative of the distinct appendix that is found *only* in herbivores. Generally the purpose of the appendix is fermentation digestion of cellulose- something carnivores have no need for. In primates, as you move up what we consider to be the evolutionary ladder, you find an evolving digestive tract that has smaller and smaller appendixes and cellulose digestion becoming less and less common- the appendix structure we have is the norm among our herbivore primate cousins. Humans have not lost the ability to digest cellulose, we've gotten better at it. The evolutionary change wasn't away from plant eating, it was towards more efficient use of cellulose. Our intestinal tracts now use cellulose actively for their functioning as opposed to less evolved herbivores who spend a lot more time and energy trying to digest cellulose for nutrition. Hence low cellulose diets for humans result in constipation as opposed to many other non-primate herbivores where it results in malnutrition.

. So everyone is aware, herbivores are considered to be more advanced than carnivores, so the animal kingdom used to be primary carniverous but has, over the millenia, begun to evolve to produce plant-eaters. So humans aren't evolving towards meat eating, the evolutionary process always occurs in the exact opposite direction. This is why true omnivores are primarily carnivores with small adaptations to their digestive tracts- the ability to digest plant matter is newer, and that process of change is slow.

In summary:
Species do not evolve towards eating meat, they evolve towards eating plants. That includes us.

[Necromancer]

I should be more clear. By saying "Humans haven't lost the ability to digest cellulose, we've gotten better at it", I was referring to the fact that we stopped digesting it and started finding a more energy efficient use for it.

[Numbers]

As an interesting footnote to my last post, I should mention that dogs were domesticated long before any form of agriculture. Aside from pets and companionship, why do you think dogs were domesticated in the first place? I'll give you a hint... dogs are descended from wolves, some of the most effective and efficient hunters in the animal kingdom.

As for livestock, that arrived only a few hundred years after agriculture.

[Necromancer]

Again, humans have complex brains that allow them (us) to make decisions and to engage in behaviors that their anatomy would otherwise frown upon. And digestive tracts are made to be flexible to some extent. Part of that is simply that digestive processes don't discriminate much- there are simply things a body can digest and/or use and those it cannot. If you want proof of that, we've been feeding the cattle we eat ground up chicken, beef, bonemeal, cardboard, and chicken feces in addition to their grain diets as a low-cost way of keeping them fattened up. Cows are undeniably herbivores, but they are able to digest the meat, cardboard, bone, and feces we give them, albeit with an increased health risk for them and the people who eat them. Likewise, cats and dogs will eat grass and other plants in small quantities (and indeed should eat a little), which they can digest. Does that mean they're herbivores?

Just because people decided to hunt doesn't mean that it was done on consultation with their digestive systems. And just because a digestive system has evolved to digest one thing doesn't mean it is incapable of digesting other things.

[Keller]

we've been feeding the cattle we eat ground up chicken, beef, bonemeal, cardboard, and chicken feces in addition to their grain diets as a low-cost way of keeping them fattened up.

Is that why they taste so fucking good?

If you figure out a way to feed soy-fields chicken shit to make it taste good, maybe you'll be convincing.

If not, then I'll sacrifice 10 years of my life (assuming that meat is unhealthy compared to a veggies diet) to enjoy my food at a level you never will.

That, in a nutshell, is why I give fuckall about what is good for me and what isn't. It's a calculation of risk/benefit. I'm just less risk-averse than you.

[TheEschaton]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

Meat = good.

Soy = crap.

I'm speaking solely in terms of taste. I could never be a vegetarian (let alone a vegan) because it's BORING and all tastes the same. Unless, of course, I married an Indian woman who could cook a vegetarian diet, since Indians actually know how to make vegetables taste like something.

-TheE-

[Gan]

In summary:
Species do not evolve towards eating meat, they evolve towards eating plants. That includes us.

Can you provide some examples? I would like to see a species that started off as a pure carnivore thats now evolved into a pure herbivore.

I mean, I cant think of any wolves who eat plants for sustinance. I cant think of any sharks that dine on kelp as sustinence. And those are two of the longest evolved species I can think of.

[Gan]

...we've been feeding the cattle we eat ground up chicken, beef, bonemeal, cardboard, and chicken feces in addition to their grain diets as a low-cost way of keeping them fattened up.

In your obviously slanted depiction of how meat product is raised, you forgot to mention how cheap it is to use human sewage product as a crop fertilizer for vegitables and fruits.

[CrystalTears]

Aside from one Vegs R Us link, he hasn't sited any sources to backup his claims.

You're so full of vegan shit your eyes are green.

[Tea & Strumpets]

In summary:
Species do not evolve towards eating meat, they evolve towards eating plants. That includes us.

So you're more evolved than meat eaters, or just more intelligent?

[Necromancer]

Gain, the entire point of that line was that animals can eat and digest things they're not 'meant' to digest, NOT that the use of waste is necessarily bad. Though, go ahead and look up the comparative health risks. It's laughable that you compare the two.

I've cited quite a few sources, sorry if you can't follow links. Also sorry if you're too lazy to look any of this up yourself. But okay, here you go. Let's give you a list of links that you won't follow, with information you'll disregard or refuse to believe, and then you'll have to come up with some other insult to serve as a proxy for a reasonable opinion. When you're done you can go practice your lower case letters. <g>

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN8_04%2FS136898000500 0492a.pdf&code=abb7b004673159ab6ca4bcf617ba24df

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html

http://www.health101.org/art_osteo.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/05/05/1360704.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

[CrystalTears]

Yeah okay, I can play this game too.

http://www.beef.org/documents/ACF3A.pdf

http://www.handbag.com/healthfit/diet/veggievsmeat/

http://www.beefnutrition.org/uDocs/ACF30.pdf

[Gelston]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956 - How bad meat is for the Environment and it destroys our planet!

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...a4bcf617ba24df - Doesn't work.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html - Milk is EVAL

http://www.health101.org/art_osteo.htm - Milk is still EVAL

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...05/1360704.htm - A raptor evolved into a bird.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html - Learn about the waste of cells inside your body.

http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm - BLASPHEMY AGAINST GOD. THERE IS NO EVOLUTION.

[Gelston]

Again, humans have complex brains that allow them (us) to make decisions and to engage in behaviors that their anatomy would otherwise frown upon. And digestive tracts are made to be flexible to some extent. Part of that is simply that digestive processes don't discriminate much- there are simply things a body can digest and/or use and those it cannot. If you want proof of that, we've been feeding the cattle we eat ground up chicken, beef, bonemeal, cardboard, and chicken feces in addition to their grain diets as a low-cost way of keeping them fattened up. Cows are undeniably herbivores, but they are able to digest the meat, cardboard, bone, and feces we give them, albeit with an increased health risk for them and the people who eat them. Likewise, cats and dogs will eat grass and other plants in small quantities (and indeed should eat a little), which they can digest. Does that mean they're herbivores?

Just because people decided to hunt doesn't mean that it was done on consultation with their digestive systems. And just because a digestive system has evolved to digest one thing doesn't mean it is incapable of digesting other things.

So, going by that, homosexuality IS a choice.

[Necromancer]

No, sexuality is discursively constructed, not biologically located. The ability to eat is biology, the choice of what to eat is culture. Same for sex.

By the way, Crystaltears, did you REALLY post links from two different beef organizations to back up assertions? That's scary if that's where you had to find your info.

[CrystalTears]

LOL, like you have room to talk. Your past links were from pro-vegetarian sources as well as pure blog material from nobodies. What is the difference if it's supporting my views, right?

[Necromancer]

Actually, those links were all non-veggie links. And I only ever posted one article from the soy industry in the entire thread. There's a huge difference between quoting a corporate interest's research (especially when they've been lambasted several times for selective research findings) and quoting sites that do research on environmental and health issues.

[CrystalTears]

The bottom line is that a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables is the best way to eat. There will always be studies that will prefer one over the other, but the truth is that no one sided way of eating is healthy and requires both for adequate nutrition.

If you want to make it about the cow and human meat-eater farts causing climate problems, or because the way the animals are harvested as barbaric, so be it. But I'm no longer buying the part of which is better, when it comes down to preference.

[Gan]

Still waiting on my study.

This needs repeated.

[Some Rogue]

http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/050207/D8OSG0281.shtml

:whistle:

[Gan]

Gain, the entire point of that line was that animals can eat and digest things they're not 'meant' to digest, NOT that the use of waste is necessarily bad. Though, go ahead and look up the comparative health risks. It's laughable that you compare the two.

I've cited quite a few sources, sorry if you can't follow links. Also sorry if you're too lazy to look any of this up yourself. But okay, here you go. Let's give you a list of links that you won't follow, with information you'll disregard or refuse to believe, and then you'll have to come up with some other insult to serve as a proxy for a reasonable opinion. When you're done you can go practice your lower case letters. <g>

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN8_04%2FS136898000500 0492a.pdf&code=abb7b004673159ab6ca4bcf617ba24df

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/dairy.html

http://www.health101.org/art_osteo.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/05/05/1360704.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

Unfortunately these links are pretty unimpressive. I liked the article on vestiges; however, its still not conclusory. Mostly it all appears as a nice theory but without absolute proof. :(

[ViridianAsp]

Being straightedge, I run into some militantly vegan people...usually they are women. I actually have a friend who is, in fact vegan. Personally, I don't think she's stupid, I don't think she's a liar.

I think it's all a matter of how you talk about it. When a vegan starts telling me I'm stupid for eating dairy and meat, I tend to take offense and fire the same thing back.

My friend has never made me feel stupid for what I choose and that is most likely why we are friends.

[Gan]

http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/050207/D8OSG0281.shtml

:whistle:


May 2, 2007Vegan couple found guilty of killing malnourished babyThe Associated Press ATLANTA - A Superior Court jury convicted a vegan couple of murder and cruelty to children Wednesday in the death of their 6-week-old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31, will receive automatic life sentences for starving the boy, who weighed just 3 1/2 pounds when he died.Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.But prosecutor Mike Carlson told the jury Tuesday during closing arguments: "They're not vegans. They're baby killers!"The jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts. Word.

[Celephais]

How come when I poop my corn is undigested?

[Necromancer]

The bottom line is that a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables is the best way to eat.

Try the Cambrige Journal Article again, or look for the UN's reports on the subject. Though you're still running under the assumption that everything I've stated, directly verified or not, is untrue. Frankly, that's statistically improbable. But here are just a few more.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/05/13/beef.2.t_1.php?page=2

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/health/webmd/main1837927.shtml

journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN8_04%2FS136898000500 0492a.pdf&code=32181f97e793c39b1e3a1a9fe14560df (Trying this one again, but PC seems to keep cutting out the middle)

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jnL3TDba30EJ:unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN022564.pdf+United+Nations+Health+Risks+of+Mea t+Consumption&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E1DC1339F932A15752C1A9639582 60&sec=health&pagewanted=print (good article with built-in methodological critique of the report in question)

[Necromancer]

Don't be ridiculous. A vegan diet is not what made a baby 3 and a half pounds. It was clearly negligence on the part of the parents who are now using veganism as their excuse for starving their child. They were also white. You may as well say that being white is bad for children.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/WELCOME/treatmentguides/veganchildren.html

Look an article with actual facts instead of legal meandering!

[Necromancer]

I agree 100% Hadya. I'll generally follow up any comment about meat or dairy being bad with some line like "Damn, I need some booze" to 1. lighten the mood and 2. to make it clear that I do unhealthy things too without feeling hypocritical.

In the context of this thread, it's a different tone. It's basically 5 or 6 people throwing out insults, angry posts, and information I believe to be inaccurate, so I feel no such social obligation at this point. Anyone who expects that behavior in response is fooling themselves, of course.

[Nieninque]

May 2, 2007Vegan couple found guilty of killing malnourished babyThe Associated Press ATLANTA - A Superior Court jury convicted a vegan couple of murder and cruelty to children Wednesday in the death of their 6-week-old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31, will receive automatic life sentences for starving the boy, who weighed just 3 1/2 pounds when he died.Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.But prosecutor Mike Carlson told the jury Tuesday during closing arguments: "They're not vegans. They're baby killers!"The jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.

starve (st&#228;rv)
v. starved, starv&#183;ing, starves
v.intr.
1. To suffer or die from extreme or prolonged lack of food.
2. Informal To be hungry.
3. To suffer from deprivation.
4. Archaic To suffer or die from cold.
v.tr.
1. To cause to starve.
2. To force to a specified state by starving..

Word.

[CrystalTears]

You know, if you specifically do a search on health risks of meat consumption, of course you're bound to find studies to support it.

On the same vein, if you do a search on health risks of strictly vegan consumption, you come up with the following:

http://chetday.com/vegandietdangers.htm

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060403.htm

[Meges]

Don't be ridiculous. A vegan diet is not what made a baby 3 and a half pounds. It was clearly negligence on the part of the parents who are now using veganism as their excuse for starving their child. They were also white. You may as well say that being white is bad for children.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/WELCOME/treatmentguides/veganchildren.html

Look an article with actual facts instead of legal meandering!

Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE article. Facts?

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/WELCOME/treatmentguides/veganchildren.html

"Editor's Note and Disclaimer:

Although not for everybody, a vegan diet does indeed have many health benefits, and if planned appropriately, it can be a healthy diet for children. Parents, especially if they are vegans, can feel reassured that they can raise their kids to be vegans too. The article mentions that children raised on a vegan diet are 'sick less often' and that the breast milk of women on a vegan diet is 'void of many toxins and pesticides,' and that this may give 'a vegan baby an even better chance for short and long term health.' These comments are the opinions of the author and have not been confirmed by medical or scientific studies. The purpose of this article is more to teach parents on how to safely raise a child as a vegan and not to convert all parents to this type of diet." [emphasis mine]


Meges

[CrystalTears]

I thought this guy's article was rather funny.
http://www.conservativebookstore.com/cookbook/beef/beef06.htm

[Celephais]

.

Starving doesn't mean not feeding... the boys body didn't get proper nourishment. They were feeding him, just food that didn't sustain him, hence his body starved.

Main Entry: starve http://www.meriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?starve01.wav=starve'))
Pronunciation: 'stärv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): starved; starv·ing
Etymology: Middle English sterven to die, starve, from Old English steorfan to die; akin to Old High German sterban to die, and probably to Lithuanian starinti to stiffen -- more at STARE (http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/stare)
intransitive verb
1 a : to perish from lack of food b : to suffer extreme hunger
2 a archaic : to die of cold b British : to suffer greatly from cold
3 : to suffer or perish from deprivation <starved for affection>
transitive verb
1 a : to kill with hunger b : to deprive of nourishment c : to cause to capitulate by or as if by depriving of nourishment
2 : to destroy by or cause to suffer from deprivation
3 archaic : to kill with cold

You're from across the pond aren't you? so you probably think they killed him via exposure to the elements

[Celephais]

You've now edited in the definition of starving, but failed to note the deprivation portion... starving doesn't mean no food, just not enough of the food you require (You can eat glass all day long and still starve).

Unless you're backing up gan, but then I don't see why you would highlight starving.

[Necromancer]

The first article, by the way, was pure opinion (the person admitted himself) and the only thing he found was potential B12 deficiency *which was the product of a study of a small group of people on the Halleluja diet*, NOT a methodologically sound study of vegans but a small sample size of a particular subset of vegans, not only that, but a subset of vegans who had histories of poor eating habits that are inevitably carried over to any new diet.

The second article is in direct contradiction to published NIH, UN, and WHO studies. In particular:

Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are deficient in the sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Fact: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html (Even the FDA says soy is a complete protein with all essential amino acids and a large range of potential health benefits)

[Nieninque]

You've now edited in the definition of starving, but failed to note the deprivation portion... starving doesn't mean no food, just not enough of the food you require (You can eat glass all day long and still starve).

Unless you're backing up gan, but then I don't see why you would highlight starving.

A 3 and a half pound baby didnt die from not being given the correct nutrients, he died from not being given enough food.

On a seperate note, do you not have health visitors or similar things in the US?

[CrystalTears]

Necro, some of yours have been pure opinion as well, so I think we can rule out that neither one of our links is going to "prove" anything beyond reasonable doubt.

That being said, I just ate grilled chicken with bacon and cheese melted on top and it was the bomb.

[Celephais]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/FoodChain.gif

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Steak.gif

[Necromancer]

Well, my link was from the FDA which is VERY cautious about its health claims, and it cited numerous studies. I'd say that one is less speculation.

What do you mean health visitors? You mean health inspectors? People who check the quality of the food that is stocked in US shelves? Or are they people who check up on children?

[Celephais]

A 3 and a half pound baby didnt die from not being given the correct nutrients, he died from not being given enough food.

What the hell do you think food is?

[Necromancer]

That's a standard disclaimer clause (read all the way at the bottom- it's necessary for legal purposes to make it clear that they're not giving medical 'advice' but are giving mere 'opinions'- any website like that makes similar disclaimers to stay out of court). In fact, you'll find many of the health benefits claimed in that article backed up by the Cambridge Journal article, the FDA article, and the UN articles I've posted.

[Necromancer]

The Gravy Article WAS really funny

[Nieninque]

What the hell do you think food is?

he wasnt given ENOUGH food.

Soya milk would have been fine for a 6 week old baby unless he was allergic.
he couldnt have been eating at all to be 3 and a half pounds at 6 weeks, it wasnt that he wasnt getting any nutrients, because he could not have lost that amount of weight in that space of time unless he had chronic diahorreah (I cant spell that) if he had been taking in any food at all.

He wasnt being fed glass, grass or cardboard...he was being fed a reasonable food, just clearly not in enough quantities.

He didnt die because he wasnt being fed the right food. He died because he wasnt being fed.

[CrystalTears]

Here's a NYT Op piece on the vegan parent story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?ex=1337400000&en=37878847a13bd4bc&ei=5090

[Celephais]

he wasnt given ENOUGH food.

I'm curious where you got that info? The article clearly states:


who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.

It doesn't say he wasn't given enough soy milk and apple juice. He was 6 weeks old, they're not going to give him a veggie burger. So in order to derive the nutrients the baby needed they should feed him 13 gallons of apple juice a day?

And with a diet of soy milk and apple juice, I wouldn't be surprised if he had diarheia (I can't spell it either). I guess you can say he wasn't given enough food, but that'd be like saying I didn't have enough energy because I didn't eat enough 1.5 calorie tictacs.

[Kranar]

I think discussing this on the basis of health is irrelevent. Vegetarianism could be the healthiest way of eating known to humankind and it wouldn't make a difference. Considering that being overweight is now the norm in pretty much all parts of the Western world, trying to convince people to become a vegetarian because of health reasons when you can't even get people to simply reduce their junkfood consumption is a stretch.

I wouldn't be surprised if people who are vegetarians, are on average healthier than those who are not. Not because of its nutritional value, but mostly I feel that if a group of people have the will and discipline to not eat something as delicious as beef or other animal products, then they probably won't be found stuffing themselves full of candy, soda, and other junk.

[Keller]

Soy milk and Apple juice to an infant?

Ipso facto, that is horrid parenting.

Even if that kid hadn't died, he would be a social outcast his entire life. As if it wasn't bad enough that his parents are complete wack-jobs, now he's got to internalize eating hummus and peppers at pizza parties, never playing contact sports, always having terrible body-odor (vegans either (a) don't shower, (b) smell terrible as a result of their diet, or (c) all of the above), and wearing hemp shirts to his third grade school picture.

And please don't even get me started on his parents basically deciding for him that he'll never eat meat/meat-product. By the time he's old enough to decide for himself, his body will have quit producing the requisite enzymes such that he'll be a freak the rest of his life.

I am stunned that anyone can begin to defend this couple. What they did, aside from malnourish their baby, is indefensible.

[Keller]

I wouldn't be surprised if people who are vegetarians, are on average healthier than those who are not. Not because of its nutritional value, but mostly I feel that if a group of people have the will and discipline to not eat something as delicious as beef or other animal products, then they probably won't be found stuffing themselves full of candy, soda, and other junk.

This bears repeating.

[CrystalTears]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/IM-IN-UR/hasaherb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/IM-IN-UR/karot.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/IM-IN-UR/hastoshare.jpg

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Necromancer
Wait...that was followed up with a comment that pointed out some of the horrors of sweatshops and my personal involvement in it in a paragraph whose sole purpose was to point out that we're all involved in horrible practices and that it's inevitable. If THAT'S your idea of inflammatory, not to mention 'equally inflammatory', I'll pass on your opinion.

And if scouring through various posts, that's the best you could come up with for inflammatory, you've obviously been skipping over a good 50% of the posts that weren't mine.

Whether or not you value my opinion doesn't really hurt me. That being said I didn't really scour hard I looked back at a few handful of serious posts in the 1/2 half of the 1st page. Clearly I omitted things like CTs gay guys like the beef posts because they weren't serious posts on the topic but yea they're inflammatory too. The reason I pegged that specific post as being equally inflammatory is that your more or less taking the position that meat eaters are "wrong" or "with sin". Do you consider people who drink to much to be "sinners", or people who smoke, etc.? I don't know too many people who while they may disagree with the vegan platform think that vegans are inherently "wrong" in not eatting meat or dairy.

[Gan]

That being said, I just ate grilled chicken with bacon and cheese melted on top and it was the bomb.

RIGHT ON!

[Nieninque]

I'm curious where you got that info? The article clearly states:

"who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice."

True...although if he was given a drink of soy milk with some apple juice once a week and nothing else, that statement would still be true.



It doesn't say he wasn't given enough soy milk and apple juice. He was 6 weeks old, they're not going to give him a veggie burger. So in order to derive the nutrients the baby needed they should feed him 13 gallons of apple juice a day?

Soy milk (or a formula based upon soy milk) is a suitable alternative food for babies that are lactose intolerant. We know that children can and do thrive on Soy diets as babies. It isnt suitable for all children, but what is? So we can probably quite safely assume that if this child was only 3 and a half pounds at 6 weeks, he was either allergic to the soya (in which case the problem was not that he was being given soya, it was that his parents were not responding to symptoms of health problems as a result) or that they just werent feeding him regularly enough.

I would go with the latter personally, though either of them is a reasonable assumption imo.


And with a diet of soy milk and apple juice, I wouldn't be surprised if he had diarheia (I can't spell it either). I guess you can say he wasn't given enough food, but that'd be like saying I didn't have enough energy because I didn't eat enough 1.5 calorie tictacs.

Not really...you could only say that if 1.5 energy tictacs was a reasonable source of food.

Im not sure where the apple juice comes in, other than the sweetening of the milk which I sometimes see. In which case, it looks like the parents were feeding the child milk straight from a carton of soya milk, rather than a formula of soya milk.

If that is what happened, then the child died because the parents were idiots, not because the parents were vegan and were wanting to raise their child on a vegan diet. Their views on meat eating are no more relevant than the parents in the news here a while back who killed their baby by giving it a diet of sausage and mash (and far too much salt).

[Celephais]

Eh, the baby died of lack of nutrients, how isn't to our knowledge (could be either way... not enough soy or the wrong kind).

Anyway the important thing to note is that...
http://www.efriends.pnet.pl/pulpfiction/pulpfictiongallery2/pic27.jpg
Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.

[CrystalTears]

"Well, if you like hamburgers give 'em a try sometime. Me, I can't usually eat 'em 'cause my girlfriend's a vegetarian. Which more or less makes me a vegetarian, but I sure love the taste of a good burger."

[Tsa`ah]

Erm...you DO realize that the amount of land used to raise livestock is far greater than that needed to raise crops, right? Approximately 1/3 of the world's grain production goes to feeding livestock- which is an inefficient conversion (you're putting in far more grain than you're getting out in meat). In countries like the US, the percentage skyrockets to about 70% (Yes 70% of that land used for grain is going right back into keeping the livestock fed).

The problem with your percentages would be two fold (more really, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll just cover two for now).

1. Logistics.

We currently produce enough food to feed every mouth in the US and then some. We just don't have the policies, systems ... or what have you in place to see that food goes where ever it is needed. In fact, we waste so much food it's really scary.

The EPA estimated in 2005 that 11.7% of the 245 million tons of municipal waste in the US was food waste. Commondreams.org suggests that 100 billion pounds of food is wasted annually across the board.

We produce more than enough, we also produce so much needless waste that could go toward feeding everyone and alternative fuels.

2. Production per acre and edible food for human consumption.

Your statistics may have made sense if, and only if, every fruit and vegetable under the sun produced the same yields as feed corn. The reality, that you missed, is that this is far from true.

While you suggest that it's inefficient to produce grain for feed, the reality is that it's more efficient than you would like everyone to believe.

Corn, on average within traditional US farmlands, averages around 140 - 160 bushels per acre. That's a range of 6642.8 - 7571.2 lbs per acre of feed. This is not grain humans would want to eat in any form unless you're suggesting an early harvest and massive amount of energy required to harvest, process, store, and distribute.

What do propose we feed everyone with the acreage we're not using for feed? Green beans at 50-60lbs per acre? I'm sorry, but the human digestive track can't handle a constant stream of milled grains and those are about the only plants that will provide enough of an annual harvest to make the impact you suggest.

Grains and legumes ... nice balanced diet.


According to the Worldwatch Institute, if we reduced that amount of grain going to livestock by 10% and gave it to people instead, we could sustain 225 million people on it (10% would amount to about 67 million tons a year). If people reduced meat intake by 5% in the US, the grain saved would feed 25 million people, which is about the number of people who go hungry every day here.

Again, we already produce more than enough. Converting farmland from a dry staple feed to fresh produce will ensure you pay 20 bucks per gallon of gas ... let's not get into the sheer labor involved. Then again, Worldwatch is suggesting grain ... which we produce enough of to the point of spoilage in reserves.


Additionally, livestock produce about 130 times the waste that humans do, which decimates the water supply in areas. You want to talk about the furry woodland creatures who lose out because of crops? How about the ones who die from the water pollution caused by raising livestock?

Waste is waste, be it from humans, livestock, or machinery used to plant, maintain, and harvest.

Fresh produce requires, on average, 5x the water a staple feed crop does. It also requires constant monitoring for other things such as fungus, pests, molds, nutrition ... so on and so forth. This requires people, food, chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, chemical herbicides ... and a huge amount of cooperation on the part of mother nature.

Animal waste is one of those things we can find alternative uses for outside of fertilizer ... such as fuel ... and it's pretty easy to gather, store, and refine into various usable, beneficial, products.


Sorry, but that one definitely needed to be corrected. Raising livestock wrecks havoc on ecosystems and is an INCREDIBLY inefficient use of land and space. If someone is to be labeled as 'selfish' in this situation, it's not the ones who are cutting livestock out of their diets.

Sorry, but it doesn't. You wish to trade one problem for another ... go check up on crop type yields, costs and materials ... so on and so forth. Your argument is a joke.

On the subject of milk ... and it's pretty sad I have to say this again.

Plants don't lactate, which is a requirement for "milk". You're using juice.

If the vegan lifestyle is so fucking appealing, stop using omnivorous terms for food normal people wouldn't bother to feed a prison inmate.

[Methais]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is Necromancer hoping to accomplish with this thread anyway?

[Tea & Strumpets]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is Necromancer hoping to accomplish with this thread anyway?

LOOK AT ME, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

[Sean]

May I partake in your tasty beverage?

[Some Rogue]

Once again, Dennis Leary said all that needs to be said about this topic:

I love to smoke. I love to smoke and I love to eat red meat. I love to eat raw fucking red meat. Nothing I like better than sucking down a hot steaming cheese burger and a butt at the same time. I love to smoke. I love to eat red meat. I'll only eat red meat that comes from cows who smoke, ok!? Special cows they grow in Virginia with voice boxes in their necks.

I tried eating vegetarian. I feel like a wimp going into a restaurant. "What do you want to eat sir? Brocolli?" Brocolli's a side dish, folks. Always was, always will be, ok? When they ask me what I want, I say, "What do you think I want!? This is America. I want a bowl of raw red meat right now. Forget about that. Bring me a live cow over to the table. I'll carve off what I want and ride the rest home! [Making riding noises]"


I gonna open up my own place. Open my own restaurant and get away from you people. I gonna open up a restaurant with two smoking sections; Ultra and Regular, ok? And we're not gonna have any tables or any chairs or any napkins. None of that pussy shit. Just a big wide open black space. And all we're gonna serve is raw meat, right on the bone! And only men are going to eat there, naked men, sitting around a big giant camp fire, and no men's room either. You have to piss, you mark your territory like a wolf! And if some guy has a heart attack from eating too much meat, fuck him, we throw him in the fire! More meat for the other meat-eaters! Yeah!

Red meat, white meat, blue meat, meat-o-fucking-rama. You will eat it. Because not eating meat is a decision. Eating meat is an instinct! Yeah!
And I know what it's about. "I don't want to eat the meat because I love the animals. I love the animals." Hey, I love the animals too. I love my doggy. He's so cute. My fluffy little dog.. He's so cute- There's the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don't we?

Yeah. Why don't we just have animal auditions. Line 'em up one by one and interview them individually. "What are you?" "I'm an otter." "And what do you do?" "I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands." "You're free to go." "And what are you?" "I'm a cow." "Get in the fucking truck, ok pal!" "But I'm an animal." "You're a baseball glove! Get on that truck!" "I'm an animal, I have rights!" "Yeah, here's yer fucking cousin, get on the fucking truck, pal!"

[Some Rogue]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is Necromancer hoping to accomplish with this thread anyway?

I'll cover the pics on this one...


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/attention-red.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/negative10.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

Interestingly enough I'm making Arroz con Pollo tonight and the fresh vegatables, which take up a total weight of 1/4 of the dish, cost more than the other two main components of chicken and rice.

I'm sure everyone would be thrilled to convert to veganism, pay 5-10x as much as they do noe for gas and food.

[Tsa`ah]

Humans are omnivores by choice.

Shows what happens when I continue to read a thread after responding to a post a million pages prior.

This is an assumption on your part. The human physiology suggests that humans are omnivorous. Human history and evolution suggests that humans are omnivorous.

We're omnivorous so that we have alternatives during scarcities. We could live on insects and moss if need be, but we do not chose to carnivorous, omnivorous, or herbivorous. That's about like saying someone chooses to be gay.

In some cases sure, but only the rare cases. Humans are omnivorous. One makes the conscious choice to limit themselves to an herbivorous lifestyle, just as one would have to make the conscious choice to live a carnivorous lifestyle ... normal people just eat the way they were intended to eat.

[Skeeter]

handstand thong chick is still hot.

[Necromancer]

At this point I'm just replying to other posts, posts from people who have asked specific questions and raised counter arguments *addressed to me and in response to posts I've made addressed to them*. You may as well ask what the people who keep posting their own objections and information are hoping to accomplish. Hey, it's a public forum, feel free to read and comment and interject at will. But good lord, just because no one's talking to you doesn't mean they should be.

If you want a good example of an attention whore, look up a few posts at someone who uses up a huge amount of space to post big graphics that are completely irrelevant to the topic. I'm sorry you feel so left out, but hypocracy is no way to remedy that situation. "Look at me, look at me, I don't have any information to share nor cogent arguments to make, but HEEEEEEYYY lemme remind everyone I'm reading this thread!"

[Numbers]

For a people whose diet subsists entirely of meat, with no vegetables whatsoever, the Inuit seem to be doing pretty well.

[Alfster]

Necro really doesn't understand

ROFL

[Hulkein]

You're NEVER going to get me to change my mind about meat. I don't care if I die tomorrow, I'll die with a burger hanging out of my mouth.
__________________

I think you just hit the nail on the head for me, in terms of the problem. Accepting that meat and dairy are bad for you and cruel industries isn't the same thing as accepting that you have to change your eating habits. It's just accepting reality. If I can accept that vodka is bad for me and still go grab drinks with friends, other people can accept that meat and dairy are bad for them and still eat a hamburger.

That's just what it boils down to for me. We can accept that so many of the things we do are wrong and unhealthy, and we still will do them. I don't know anyone without 'sin' (and apparently the last one was strung up on a cross and stoned, so I'm not even sure *that's* healthy). Don't get me wrong, of course I'd love to see us living in a world where we're not torturing animals, poisoning ourselves and our kids, and ripping our environment to shreds. But I'd also like to live in a world where people aren't paid 5 cents an hour and locked into factories for 24 hours at a time to make the shirts that I bought.

I don't feel the need to call anyone who talks about sweatshops a liar and an idiot just to feel okay about my shirt. Why do people feel the need to do so when it comes to their food?

You are such a loser.

[Daniel]

The bottom line is that a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables is the best way to eat.

Try the Cambrige Journal Article again, or look for the UN's reports on the subject. Though you're still running under the assumption that everything I've stated, directly verified or not, is untrue. Frankly, that's statistically improbable.

I'd like to see your numbers that show that it is statistically improbable for you to be full of shit.

The bottom line is, eating healthy, is better for you than eating unhealthily. Stating that people who undergo a diet that cuts out fatty, superflous, are more healthy than people who don't is not really saying much.

Show me a study where people who are healthy and take care of their bodies are better off if they don't eat meat.

And yes, it is your problem if I'm not willing to listen to the hyperbole that spews out of your keyboard. Why? Because I don't give a shit when I eat a nice steak, but you obviously do. So, if you truly want to convince me of the evil of my ways then you have to provide the *evidence* that supports it.

[Daniel]

I think discussing this on the basis of health is irrelevent. Vegetarianism could be the healthiest way of eating known to humankind and it wouldn't make a difference. Considering that being overweight is now the norm in pretty much all parts of the Western world, trying to convince people to become a vegetarian because of health reasons when you can't even get people to simply reduce their junkfood consumption is a stretch.

I wouldn't be surprised if people who are vegetarians, are on average healthier than those who are not. Not because of its nutritional value, but mostly I feel that if a group of people have the will and discipline to not eat something as delicious as beef or other animal products, then they probably won't be found stuffing themselves full of candy, soda, and other junk.

Nice try Kranar. I said the same thing like 9 pages back and it still hasn't been referenced.

[Latrinsorm]

I mean, I cant think of any wolves who eat plants for sustinance. I cant think of any sharks that dine on kelp as sustinence. And those are two of the longest evolved species I can think of.This is actually backwards: sharks are one of the best examples of non-evolved species; those that have stayed roughly the same for many years (even longer than PB has been alive, if you can believe that).
The bottom line is that a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables is the best way to eat. There will always be studies that will prefer one over the other, but the truth is that no one sided way of eating is healthy and requires both for adequate nutrition.Truth unverified makes for a poor bottom line. (Apparently I'm the only one who caught that one of Necro's links describes primates as omnivores, btw.)

This really isn't that hard. All we need are thermodynamic percentages for how efficient humans are at digesting meat and digesting plants. No "AH LIKE MA STAKE RAYUR", no economic calculations regarding farmland, no "I reckon our digester looks like that there herb-a-vores", and for God's sake no looking back into the origins of human history to tell us "why" we're omnivores, Tsa`ah. It astounds me that you could even post that.

edit: ETA = ????

[CrystalTears]

Latreene and Necro being on the same side of the fence doesn't surprise me at all.

[Latrinsorm]

lol

Doesn't it embarrass you to say things like that? Did you miss the part in my last post where I point out that one of Necromancer's own citations contradicts him? How about the part where I disagree (for the second or third time) with his physiological comparison? It wasn't even that big a post, sheesh.

[Tsa`ah]

lol

Doesn't it embarrass you to say things like that? Did you miss the part in my last post where I point out that one of Necromancer's own citations contradicts him? How about the part where I disagree (for the second or third time) with his physiological comparison? It wasn't even that big a post, sheesh.

That's because you're a one pitch pitcher ... how do you expect people to react when you actually deliver a pitch across the plate.

[Nieninque]

Necromenger reminds me of how I was in the first week that I turned vegetarian.

OHMYGOD MEATIZBAD.

Of course, I grew out of it. I cook meat for people when they come round for dinner too.

[Necromancer]

If you read the article carefully, some primates are herbivores and some subsist on a diet that includes insects. The ones considered to be 'closest' to humans are herbivores with some documented incidents of them eating meat (albeit incredibly rare incidents). Some people have erroneously stated this makes them omnivores, but it's hardly the case. If that were true, again, household pets eating cornmeal would make them omnivores. Though clearly, they are not.

If I'm full of shit, then the FDA, UN, WHO, and a whole lot of University faculty are full of shit. More likely you're just obtuse.

[Necromancer]

Tsa- you stating that humans are 'clearly' omnivores with little or no backing doesn't make it true. Blanket statements don't do anything, use some evidence please. Saying most people live on an omnivore diet means nothing except that...most people live on an omnivore diet. It doesn't mean their bodies are well prepared for that diet nor does it mean it's healthy. We could list tons of things that 'normal' people do that qualify as neither.

[Necromancer]

And Tsa, as per your previous comment on inefficient land use, you've managed to argue nothing except that we don't have adequate systems to get food where it needs to be. It does not change the fact that raising livestock is environmentally hazardous and far more inefficient than raising crops, it just means that we've put our resources into making sure that meat gets where it needs to go and not grain and produce. It not only effaces the point of the post but it uses one existing problem to justify another. It's bad rhetoric at best.

[TheEschaton]

Errr, chimpanzee troops regularly hunt.

-TheE-

[Celephais]

Tsa- you stating that humans are 'clearly' omnivores with little or no backing doesn't make it true. Blanket statements don't do anything, use some evidence please. Saying most people live on an omnivore diet means nothing except that...most people live on an omnivore diet. It doesn't mean their bodies are well prepared for that diet nor does it mean it's healthy. We could list tons of things that 'normal' people do that qualify as neither.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Teetch.jpg

Humans ARE physically omnivores.

The fact that some choose to be vegetarians is fine, but human bodies are omnivorous.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, and Necro would have us believe that our body evolved to better chew meat as we "culturally decided" to eat more meat, that we were really herbivores until we made such a choice.

And not the currently accepted anthropological theory that hunting meat was an easier way to feed a troop-based society than gathering, and agriculture didn't rise until feasible irrigation was figured out.

-TheE-

[Sean]

Necromenger reminds me of how I was in the first week that I turned vegetarian.

OHMYGOD MEATIZBAD.

Of course, I grew out of it. I cook meat for people when they come round for dinner too.

Stop that you're supposed to be his ally. If you don't back him up he might create yet another account to back his position.

So hath Kreon declared.

[Numbers]

If I'm full of shit, then the FDA, UN, WHO, and a whole lot of University faculty are full of shit. More likely you're just obtuse.

That right there is the problem many people have with vegetarians. Inevitably, they display a holier than thou attitude, pull a bunch of random facts out of random articles and studies written by random people that nobody has ever heard of, and strut and preen about as if they're better than "the norm" because they choose not to eat meat.

It reminds me of a feminist I once met who, without blinking an eye, told me she would only say "herstory" instead of "history," because "history" meant "his story."

In other words, you'll believe what you want to justify your decisions, just like creationists believe that humans lived among dinosaurs and fossils are actually dragon bones.

The fact is, for as many articles as you throw out as us, and for all the studies done by the UN and the FDA and the WhoGivesAFuck, there are just as many articles and studies that state the exact opposite.

So, I hope the weather's nice up there on your high horse, but you might want to climb down before you hit a branch.

[Tsa`ah]

Tsa- you stating that humans are 'clearly' omnivores with little or no backing doesn't make it true. Blanket statements don't do anything, use some evidence please. Saying most people live on an omnivore diet means nothing except that...most people live on an omnivore diet. It doesn't mean their bodies are well prepared for that diet nor does it mean it's healthy. We could list tons of things that 'normal' people do that qualify as neither.

Eh ... I wasn't aware that fossil records all the way to current anatomy didn't count as backing.

While I'm all for bucking convention, there are times when convention is on the mark. We don't have multiple stomachs, nor do we have many of the systems in place that your standard run of the mill herbivore has to digest plant matter to the fullest. We do have traits in common to either side of the food chain .... which makes us omnivorous by nature.

Please feel free to skip back and check my statement ... and then open a book not written by a vegan with an agenda.


And Tsa, as per your previous comment on inefficient land use, you've managed to argue nothing except that we don't have adequate systems to get food where it needs to be. It does not change the fact that raising livestock is environmentally hazardous and far more inefficient than raising crops, it just means that we've put our resources into making sure that meat gets where it needs to go and not grain and produce. It not only effaces the point of the post but it uses one existing problem to justify another. It's bad rhetoric at best.

Oye ... do you selectively read or something?

We produce enough, more than enough with our current systems. Your argument that feed crops for livestock is inefficient is wholly incorrect ... flat out false.

If it takes 600lbs of feed to produce 100lbs of edible beef, one acre of feed corn will produce 1100lbs on the low end. If us omnivorous eating US citizens over indulge on our daily intake of beef, one acre of feed helps produce enough beef to feed 1100 people ... let's not get into all the bi-products.

Is it AS efficient as producing 6600lbs of corn meal? Not at all. However, much like any meat ... too much processed grain is also bad for you.

There isn't a vegetable or fruit crop that rivals a grain crop ... but we produce more than enough grain as it is ... for any purpose.

What crop do you propose we replace feed with? Unless it's another grain (which we have enough of) it is not nearly as efficient as feed for stock ... prove me wrong otherwise.

You also touch on waste. As I pointed out, waste from livestock can be harnessed, just as waste from grain crops can (hulls, cobs, stalks ... etc). Chemical waste is a bit trickier ... if not currently impossible to do with current technology. Essentially you're on the podium of one environmental hazard is better than the other. I'm sorry, but that's just not the case.

Your argument about the infrastructure is completely off as well. Every system that is in place to deliver meat to the market is also in place to deliver produce. Produce requires much more care, simply because once it's harvested .. it's on a timer. Produce isn't able to self transport anywhere. You have to travel to plant, you have to travel to maintain, you have to travel to harvest, you have to travel to store, travel to process, travel to distribute.

Livestock does a portion of traveling on its own. Two legs or four, doesn't matter. They're born, they're fed, they walk/stampede to transport and off to market, the same to process, then to the market. There's very little required in comparison to produce. Eggs and dairy are the only real exceptions ... and they still don't come close to what is required of produce.

The deciding factor at the end of it all is energy ... and it requires more energy on the part of nature to sustain a population wholly dependant upon produce than it does a culture that depends on both meat and produce.

Do us all a favor and read some ag reports via state ... and maybe farm either side of the spectrum for a few years and then come back to tell me I'm wrong with a straight face.

Hell, we're going to be short handed this season ... I'll loan you the lumbar buster and even let you look at the books October.

[Gan]

It does not change the fact that raising livestock is environmentally hazardous and far more inefficient than raising crops...

Read: COWFARTING IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!!!

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/button5.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

Read: COWFARTING IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!!!

I would agree that it definitely has a large hand in the problem. The claim isn't off base at all. A reduction in livestock would reduce the total amount of gases released ... but that's just a doom and gloom take on a problem easily solved by conversion.

These gases rise ... collect them and use them ... livestock will always make more.

The same goes for piss and shit ... it has uses. The arguments of reduction to prevent continued environmental damage is pretty pointless. Come up with ways to use it and give direction for that technology and farmers will use it.

[Stretch]

Steak > Boca burger

[Gan]

There needs to be a constitutional amendment to ban all farting from any animal or person. Because it traps greenhouse gasses. Imagine the damage caused by the Pizza & Bar down the street on Friday and Saturday nights...

That just lends to the lunacy that has been associated with the global warming campaign from the start.

On the flipside, I think that attempting to harness some of the gas produced by said animals, reasonably through the actual fecal waste, is a very viable energy possibility.

I'm feeling the need to photoshop something, so I'll be back with an edit in a moment.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/methanesolution.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Yes, let's do away with livestock because it's bad for the environment. HERE is where I start calling you an idiot.

[Jazuela]

Where do you think they get organic fertilizers needed to produce organic crops? Answer, for those who can't handle checking it out: They get it from the animals raised to produce meat. Farm-raised, grain-fed cows and chickens, primarily. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship.

[Methais]

Wait...people don't seriously think farts are destroying the planet do they?

[Sean of the Thread]

Red meat, white meat, blue meat, meat-o-fucking-rama. You will eat it. Because not eating meat is a decision. Eating meat is an instinct! Yeah!


Woot.