Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Rev Hellfire · 22-07-2012 7:11pm

The only meat I've a slight problem eating is fish, it just seems such a wasteful industry. If the animal can be raised and disposed of in a humane manner then I've no problem with their consumption.

Macha · 22-07-2012 7:42pm

Yes, because of the god-awful regulation of our meat industries and the negative environmental impacts.

Setun · 23-07-2012 10:00am

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, an aversion to sexual intimacy, they also may consider it not to be an unhealthy mental condition. Indeed, most people with unhealthy mental conditions are convinced they're perfectly normal.

Haha, I must say I do enjoy reading your posts!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I feel that an overinflated sense of empathy for animals, to the point whereby you begin to 'humanize' them, is abnormal. And only certain animals, I've noticed, because you'll not have to go far to find someone who will refuse to eat rabbit, but will happy squash (or more likely get someone else to squash) a spider. Rabbits are cuter.

Did you recently meet a hip youngster who wore vegetarianism like a vintage scarf, and the whole unpleasant experience has just coloured your view negative? Or do you really think all vegetarians are damaged from a childhood experience with animals? :pac: In any case, I don't see why an empathetic connection with another living thing is undesirable - we all feel this way about our pets. The example you gave above is more relevant for meat eaters in general no? Most will eat beef, or bacon, but how many will eat a "cute" rabbit, as you say? Or how many would eat a pig if it was their pet? In general, meat is conceptually disconnected from its source in the minds of most people: it is an object, and this is what enables them to eat it. When most people no longer see a disconnection between what it is, and what it was, and what happened in between, this is when a conflict arises. The conflict can result in feelings of guilt, or perhaps take the form of a general distaste for meat. I don't think it has anything to do with a childhood experience for the majority, to be honest.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To me, it all smacks suspiciously of neurosis that has become somehow largely acceptable in modern Anglophone society.

But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Anyway, for a moment let's forget the so-called "childhood empathy complex" that apparently all vegetarians are suffering from. As I outlined previously, the meat-heavy diet generally consumed in the west is simply unsustainable in the long-term. New York Times article, and also this in the Guardian from 2010. An over-indulgence in meat would appear to be just another issue where we're acting irresponsibly.

Jester252 · 23-07-2012 10:06am

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 10:48am

Daddio wrote: »

Did you recently meet a hip youngster who wore vegetarianism like a vintage scarf, and the whole unpleasant experience has just coloured your view negative?

Not at all, although I did once get an ALF leaflet handed to me by a chap wearing a nice calf-skin jacket.

Personally, I've known a few vegans, but oddly no 'vegetarians' where it comes to the definition that's been given here as any 'vegetarian' I've met still ate some form of meat; be it fish or even chicken. If this has coloured my opinion is that if 'animal rights' were cited as the reason for their 'vegetarianism', it seemed inconsistent and more akin to a fashion than a principle.

Nonetheless, none of this has anything to do with what I believe to be the psychological reasons for aversion to any meat.

Or do you really think all vegetarians are damaged from a childhood experience with animals? :pac: In any case, I don't see why an empathetic connection with another living thing is undesirable - we all feel this way about our pets. The example you gave above is more relevant for meat eaters in general no? Most will eat beef, or bacon, but how many will eat a "cute" rabbit, as you say? Or how many would eat a pig if it was their pet? In general, meat is conceptually disconnected from its source in the minds of most people: it is an object, and this is what enables them to eat it. When most people no longer see a disconnection between what it is, and what it was, and what happened in between, this is when a conflict arises. The conflict can result in feelings of guilt, or perhaps take the form of a general distaste for meat. I don't think it has anything to do with a childhood experience for the majority, to be honest.

I disagree. My other half cannot eat rabbits because she had some as pets as a child, yet she has no problem with other forms of meat, including some that most Anglophones could never bring themselves to eat, such as horse (a much healthier alternative to beef, BTW).

It does seem clear that aversion to eating meat is for many more a psychological than practical concern. As such the roots of such an aversion will oft come from childhood experiences and upbringing. Why else will Anglophones have issues eating certain foods, such as squid and octopus, when Mediterranean have no such qualms?

Anyway, for a moment let's forget the so-called "childhood empathy complex" that apparently all vegetarians are suffering from. As I outlined previously, the meat-heavy diet generally consumed in the west is simply unsustainable in the long-term. New York Times article, and also this in the Guardian from 2010. An over-indulgence in meat would appear to be just another issue where we're acting irresponsibly.

I do not at all disagree with with the practical arguments against meat consumption, at least in so far as we eat far too much meat. I've already stated this and also stated that, whatever about a vegan diet, a (true) vegetarian one is perfectly viable.

However, this does not appear to be why vegans (or most 'real' vegetarians) don't eat meat, but a reason adopted to support a psychological inclination, after the fact.

Procrastastudy · 23-07-2012 2:28pm

Personally I do feel a bit guilty - its not because I'm chomping on a nice juicy cute lamb or bessie the cow. It comes down to globally how we manage food. I won't derail the thread by going into it but that's my own personal prangs og guilt sometimes.

Have to agree that the 'because its so damn tasty' element does seem to get me over that quite quickly.

Animal welfare is a choice currently. Every time you buy, or don't, organic / free range you vote on how you think meat should be produced. Ironically cost is the answer - the reason we have an obesity problem is because of the cost of food. A happy meal should not be cheaper than a bag of carrots.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 2:57pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not assuming it, I'm taking it from what the OP has written. Brussels sprouts turn my stomach too, because of the taste and smell, but I don't feel guilty about eating them. It's pretty clear from even the title of this thread, that the OP's position stems from a largely psychological reaction to meat that invokes feelings of guilt and of a sense of over-exaggerated empathy with livestock that appears to have been developed during childhood.

But why is that something that would require therapy? I think a lot of Irish people would have serious issues with eating dog meat or cat meat or horse meat etc., something which is not uncommon in other parts of the world. Should people get therapy to get over their negative psychological response to eating those types of meat?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm clearly not a familiar with the various sub-groupings of 'vegetarianism', only that I've met very few (if any) who identify as such without eating some form of meat in reality.

The main issue is the people who claim to be vegetarian without understanding what it means, despite it being quite simple. If you are vegan it means nothing at all from any animal - be it food based or clothes based etc. If you are vegetarian, it means nothing from dead animals - you can eat dairy products, but not fish or chicken or beef etc (pescetarians can eat fish). Everything else is just omnivorism with taste/distastes for particular types of meat. If you only eat chicken, then you are an omnivore who only eats chicken, there is no special word for it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I can understand the health benefits and even I have now limited myself in terms of meat intake (I write as I finish off a nice Cannellini bean, tomato and mozzarella salad). I just never got this largely Anglophone preoccupation with humanizing farm livestock; perhaps I'm probably too continental.

For me its not so much humanisation, its recognising that humans are animals too, and our avoidance of eating each other is a social construct rather than a biological necessity.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I actually addressed that.

With the sentence that came after it? I responded to that too.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 3:34pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why is that something that would require therapy? I think a lot of Irish people would have serious issues with eating dog meat or cat meat or horse meat etc., something which is not uncommon in other parts of the world. Should people get therapy to get over their negative psychological response to eating those types of meat?

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

For me its not so much humanisation, its recognising that humans are animals too, and our avoidance of eating each other is a social construct rather than a biological necessity.

So cannibalism is a taboo for social reasons? Tell me, how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet?

With the sentence that came after it? I responded to that too.

No, I specifically addressed technology and how it can allow us to ignore the limitations of evolution. Just because we can, doesn't always mean it makes sense that we should.

Macha · 23-07-2012 3:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

We eat meat because it provides us with nutrition. But we can get nutrition from other sources. Not eating meat isn't 'abnormal'.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 4:11pm

Macha wrote: »

We eat meat because it provides us with nutrition. But we can get nutrition from other sources. Not eating meat isn't 'abnormal'.

Not what I argued.

I've said repeatedly that there are good biological why we eat meat and other animal products. If we choose not to do so for ideological or health reasons and are able to fulfil those needs in other ways, then fine, even if it means eating supplements for the rest of your life.

It is when you cannot fulfil a normal biological function because of 'guilt' that it becomes 'abnormal' and in need of therapy.

Macha · 23-07-2012 4:26pm

Or you can acknowledge that your sense of unease is based on genuine reasons and is not a cause for therapy.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing cultural and biological normality. Culturally there are variations on the types of meat we eat, but ultimately we eat meat because we are biologically designed to do so. An aversion to a biological desire for animal products is abnormal in the same way as an aversion to the biological desire for sex, because there are very good reasons why those biological desires are there in the first place.

There are cultures that don't eat meat (Buddhists).
Just because an act is "abnormal" doesn't automatically equate to requiring therapy to "fix" it. Abnormality is defined by context and popularity, not by validity. Going purely by numbers, homosexuality is abnormal.
Also saying the we are designed to eat meat implies that something did the designing. Evolution is blind, we evolved to eat meat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So cannibalism is a taboo for social reasons? Tell me, how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet?

Quite a few animals do, including insects, fish and chimpanzees.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I specifically addressed technology and how it can allow us to ignore the limitations of evolution. Just because we can, doesn't always mean it makes sense that we should.

And it doesn't mean we shouldn't, its a moot point.

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 4:49pm

Only when I eat too much.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:52pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can't be that many 'real' vegetarians, I suppose.

Or you just don't know any.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, an aversion to sexual intimacy, they also may consider it not to be an unhealthy mental condition. Indeed, most people with unhealthy mental conditions are convinced they're perfectly normal.

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, a preference to sexual intimacy with members of the same sex, would you consider them to have an unhealthy mental condition? Seems to me you are just defining those with unpopular tastes as unhealthy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I feel that an overinflated sense of empathy for animals, to the point whereby you begin to 'humanize' them, is abnormal. And only certain animals, I've noticed, because you'll not have to go far to find someone who will refuse to eat rabbit, but will happy squash (or more likely get someone else to squash) a spider. Rabbits are cuter.

This happens with meat eaters too. How many people have no problem with eating pig but would nearly commit at the thought of eating dog.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:53pm

Jester252 wrote: »

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

According to who/what?

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 4:55pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not what I argued.

I've said repeatedly that there are good biological why we eat meat and other animal products. If we choose not to do so for ideological or health reasons and are able to fulfil those needs in other ways, then fine, even if it means eating supplements for the rest of your life.

It is when you cannot fulfil a normal biological function because of 'guilt' that it becomes 'abnormal' and in need of therapy.

So we should be slaves to our biological functions?

tayto lover · 23-07-2012 5:04pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to who/what?

My taste buds.
#
I dare any vegetarian to go for a 20 mile hike in the mountains on a cold day and to refuse a big steak, onions and chips on return and opt for a salad.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 5:36pm

Macha wrote: »

Or you can acknowledge that your sense of unease is based on genuine reasons and is not a cause for therapy.

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are cultures that don't eat meat (Buddhists).

If Ireland was a predominantly Buddhist country or you were brought up as one, then you might have a point. Or not; after all, many of the psychological hangups that Roman Catholicism in our culture has given us, for example, can hardly be referred to as normal either.

Just because an act is "abnormal" doesn't automatically equate to requiring therapy to "fix" it.

I never suggested that.

Also saying the we are designed to eat meat implies that something did the designing. Evolution is blind, we evolved to eat meat.

Now you're seriously nit picking. I am in no way promoting Intelligent Design, just because you didn't like my turn of phrase.

Quite a few animals do, including insects, fish and chimpanzees.

I asked "how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet". Of mammals the answer is none. Many will kill members of the same species, but actual cannibalism is actually relatively rare, even amongst chimps, leopards and lions. If you actually read your link, you'll see this.

Especially amongst mammals, a number of taboos have developed that are evolutionary in origin, such as cannibalism and incest. This doesn't mean that the taboos are not broken, only that they are the exception rather than the rule and thus typically aberrant behaviour.

And it doesn't mean we shouldn't, its a moot point.

But if the reason we shouldn't is due to an environmentally acquired phobia or complex, then I hardly think this is a good reason to buck nature.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or you just don't know any.

Perhaps, but given I know a few vegans, whom I have otherwise presumed would be fewer in number than 'true' vegetarians, I suspect that there are in reality fewer such 'true' vegetarians than vegans. As there aren't that many vegans out there, then I would conclude that there are very few 'true' vegetarians. QED.

And if someone had, due to even non-traumatic childhood experiences, a preference to sexual intimacy with members of the same sex, would you consider them to have an unhealthy mental condition? Seems to me you are just defining those with unpopular tastes as unhealthy.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a product of nurture and not nature?

This happens with meat eaters too. How many people have no problem with eating pig but would nearly commit at the thought of eating dog.

I totally agree.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we should be slaves to our biological functions?

Would you prefer to be a slave to your psychosis's?

Macha · 23-07-2012 5:52pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Why are you talking about nausea? I have strong feeling of guilt because I understand the reality of what has to happen for me to eat meat. I also feel guilty because I fully understand how much resources are wasted for a meat-heavy diet compared to a diet lower in meat or without any meat at all.

That is just reality. As Carl Sagan said: "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." There are natural tensions between what humans want and reality. To dismiss any negative emotions that arise from considering that as some sort of mental problem seems strange.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 5:54pm

tayto lover wrote: »

My taste buds.
#

You think cannibals eat people despite the taste?

tayto lover wrote: »

I dare any vegetarian to go for a 20 mile hike in the mountains on a cold day and to refuse a big steak, onions and chips on return and opt for a salad.

Onions and chips are vegetarian.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 6:15pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure. But if that 'unease' is at a level where it invokes strong feelings of guilt and even nausea, then you've a problem. Most should be able to accept that.

Why is the solution to have therapy so you can eat meat rather than just don't eat meat?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If Ireland was a predominantly Buddhist country or you were brought up as one, then you might have a point. Or not; after all, many of the psychological hangups that Roman Catholicism in our culture has given us, for example, can hardly be referred to as normal either.

Exactly. Whether something is normal or not is simply a measure of how popular it is, not how valid it is.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now you're seriously nit picking. I am in no way promoting Intelligent Design, just because you didn't like my turn of phrase.

Your turn of phrase seems to be, at least partially, your justification. We should eat meat because we where designed to eat meat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I asked "how many animals, and specifically mammals, commonly engage in cannibalism as part of their diet". Of mammals the answer is none. Many will kill members of the same species, but actual cannibalism is actually relatively rare, even amongst chimps, leopards and lions. If you actually read your link, you'll see this.

Rare, but not unheard of, and not because it's taboo amongst those animals. I never said it was common. My original point was that there is nothing, biologically, stopping people from eating humans. We are as edible as any farm animal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Especially amongst mammals, a number of taboos have developed that are evolutionary in origin, such as cannibalism and incest. This doesn't mean that the taboos are not broken, only that they are the exception rather than the rule and thus typically aberrant behaviour.

Which just adds to my original point, doesn't it? Humans don't eat other people (animals don't eat other animals of the same species) because of social reasons, not biological ones.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if the reason we shouldn't is due to an environmentally acquired phobia or complex, then I hardly think this is a good reason to buck nature.

Every human taste is an environmentally acquired complex, how could we ever justify doing anything with your argument? We use technology to improve our productivity because of a number of phobias and complexes which drive us to do so (desire for security, social status etc.).

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but given I know a few vegans, whom I have otherwise presumed would be fewer in number than 'true' vegetarians, I suspect that there are in reality fewer such 'true' vegetarians than vegans. As there aren't that many vegans out there, then I would conclude that there are very few 'true' vegetarians. QED.

Argument by facebook friend count? Vegans are usually rarer than vegetarians, but maybe your social groups are skewered towards them more.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a product of nurture and not nature?

No, I would expect that its both nature and nurture. Doesn't matter though, replace "members of the same sex" with "redheads" and you will get the same point. Every specific taste everyone has results from some serious of events in their upbringing. You seem to be arbitrarily labelling the unpopular ones as unhealthy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would you prefer to be a slave to your psychosis's?

I would prefer people to be slaves to neither. We have strong biological urges to reproduce, doesn't mean that we have to mount the nearest fertile woman whenever we get an erection.

The Corinthian · 23-07-2012 7:03pm

Macha wrote: »

Why are you talking about nausea?

Because the OP brought it up:

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I don't know, the smell, the blood when you're cooking it, it makes most people's mouth water but turns my stomach.

Remember, the direction that this discussion took did so as a result of my response to him/her?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is the solution to have therapy so you can eat meat rather than just don't eat meat?

Sure, let's adopt that policy for all neuroses then.

Exactly. Whether something is normal or not is simply a measure of how popular it is, not how valid it is.

You missed the point I made.

Your turn of phrase seems to be, at least partially, your justification. We should eat meat because we where designed to eat meat.

You're over-analysing.

Rare, but not unheard of, and not because it's taboo amongst those animals. I never said it was common. My original point was that there is nothing, biologically, stopping people from eating humans. We are as edible as any farm animal.

Again you've missed the point. These taboos are a product of evolution, just as our omnivorous diet is. You can go against it, but if you do, that is an aberration - which may not be a bad thing, but I do think you need to at least show this first.

Which just adds to my original point, doesn't it? Humans don't eat other people (animals don't eat other animals of the same species) because of social reasons, not biological ones.

Incorrect. If so, then most animals don't for 'social' reasons either, which is of course nonsense.

Every human taste is an environmentally acquired complex, how could we ever justify doing anything with your argument? We use technology to improve our productivity because of a number of phobias and complexes which drive us to do so (desire for security, social status etc.).

Sorry, I should have said neuroses.

Argument by facebook friend count? Vegans are usually rarer than vegetarians, but maybe your social groups are skewered towards them more.

Perhaps, but given my age and fairly wide acquaintance, I doubt it. No biggie; either way, it's anecdotal evidence.

No, I would expect that its both nature and nurture. Doesn't matter though, replace "members of the same sex" with "redheads" and you will get the same point. Every specific taste everyone has results from some serious of events in their upbringing. You seem to be arbitrarily labelling the unpopular ones as unhealthy.

Actually, there's nothing arbitrary about how I've labelled anything. I've clearly and repeatedly said that if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy. And if your aversion to meat is such that you feel ill just being around it, then honestly you have a bit of a problem, regardless of whither you eat it or not. If you are forced into a vegan diet by such a condition that forces you to take supplements simply to stay healthy, then you have a problem.

I would prefer people to be slaves to neither. We have strong biological urges to reproduce, doesn't mean that we have to mount the nearest fertile woman whenever we get an erection.

No, but if you can't eat a burger because something in your upbringing has made you so averse to meat that you'll feel ill or racked with guilt at the thought of it, then you are a slave as it is no longer a choice.

Jester252 · 24-07-2012 12:14am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

I dont feel bad eating meet. Its what were ment to do.

According to who/what?

Evolution

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 1:25am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, let's adopt that policy for all neuroses then.

Or we could look at them on a case by case basis. If someone doesn't like doing something, if they don't actually need to do it (thanks to modern technology) then why exactly should they do it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You missed the point I made.

Which is?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're over-analysing.

If you say so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again you've missed the point. These taboos are a product of evolution, just as our omnivorous diet is. You can go against it, but if you do, that is an aberration - which may not be a bad thing, but I do think you need to at least show this first.

Evolution means change. Every change along an evolutionary course is an aberration on what came before. There are many good reasons for not eating meat, not least of which is that we don't need to and animals don't want to be eaten.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect. If so, then most animals don't for 'social' reasons either, which is of course nonsense.

Well they dont do it because of biological reasons, as we see they are biologically capable of doing it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, I should have said neuroses.

My point would have been the same.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, there's nothing arbitrary about how I've labelled anything. I've clearly and repeatedly said that if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy.

So homosexuality is unhealthy? What about the compulsion for equal rights for women (in places like Saudi Arabia)? The thing about "needless and often extreme problems" is that they usually arise from human environments being intolerant to evolution. Me not liking meat doesn't, in of itself, cause me any problems - I just don't eat it. What causes me problems is food in the west secretly containing meat (think gelatine or carmine or rennet) and the manufacturers, and society at large, not giving a crap about it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if your aversion to meat is such that you feel ill just being around it, then honestly you have a bit of a problem, regardless of whither you eat it or not.

Why? Meat is disgusting, its bits of dead animals. If I don't eat it, and I'm not around it, then how would I have a problem?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you are forced into a vegan diet by such a condition that forces you to take supplements simply to stay healthy, then you have a problem.

no problem, if you take the supplements.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but if you can't eat a burger because something in your upbringing has made you so averse to meat that you'll feel ill or racked with guilt at the thought of it, then you are a slave as it is no longer a choice.

Of course its a choice, its a choice to not feel sick or feel guilty about it.

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 1:35am

Jester252 wrote: »

Evolution

If evolution "means" we are supposed to eat meat, does that mean gravity "means" we are supposed to fall?

Evolution is a blind, impersonal biological process. We aren't meant to do anything we evolved to do, we simply have the ability to do it because a lucky ancestor had a random mutation in a random environment that combined to give him/her a better chance of reproducing.

Jester252 · 24-07-2012 8:39am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Evolution

If evolution "means" we are supposed to eat meat, does that mean gravity "means" we are supposed to fall?

Evolution is a blind, impersonal biological process. We aren't meant to do anything we evolved to do, we simply have the ability to do it because a lucky ancestor had a random mutation in a random environment that combined to give him/her a better chance of reproducing.

and that why we have the tooth structure we have because the veggie was too weak

Mark Hamill · 24-07-2012 11:35am

Jester252 wrote: »

and that why we have the tooth structure we have because the veggie was too weak

BraziliaNZ · 24-07-2012 11:57am

God, psychological issues? I don't like the smell or look of blood, whether it be human or animal. When you cook beef a lot of it comes out sometimes. I've never had any trauma as a child. I could eat beef now and enjoy it probably but there's a certain guilt associated with it because I feel like I'm hurting a living creature. I don't think feeling sympathy for animals requires therapy, surely if we all started to think like this it would be evolution on our part, we don't really need much meat or any at all to live healthily.

The Corinthian · 24-07-2012 12:53pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

God, psychological issues? I don't like the smell or look of blood, whether it be human or animal. When you cook beef a lot of it comes out sometimes. I've never had any trauma as a child. I could eat beef now and enjoy it probably but there's a certain guilt associated with it because I feel like I'm hurting a living creature. I don't think feeling sympathy for animals requires therapy, surely if we all started to think like this it would be evolution on our part, we don't really need much meat or any at all to live healthily.

I think you need to read up on what neurosis's are. To begin with it does not require a trauma to form. Secondly, empathy is not a bad thing, however over-empathizing can be, especially when it can adversely affect one's life.

Finally, I completely agree that we eat too much meat nowadays and that we could and should eat far less. I also concur that we can also live perfectly normal live normal lives without eating meat at all, although we do still need animal products (e.g. dairy, eggs), without which we would end up with nutritional issues.

@Mark Hamill
I don't think we're going to come to any conclusions in our dialogue and, TBH, some of the arguments you're coming out with at this stage are a bit too nutty for me; I've neither suggested support for ID or homosexuality is unhealthy anywhere, and I certainly do not think that 'choosing' something because you are compelled to do so is a real choice.

Presently, I don't really have time to respond to all the different discussions I'm on in Boards, so I do need to cull a few of the one's I'm on, and given that this is a topic I don't really care that much about, I'll leave it at that.

Mark Hamill · 25-07-2012 10:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I also concur that we can also live perfectly normal live normal lives without eating meat at all, although we do still need animal products (e.g. dairy, eggs), without which we would end up with nutritional issues.

We don't need animal products. We need nutrients that most people only get from animal sources, but its possible to source them elsewhere, even synthetically, if we have to.

The Corinthian wrote: »

@Mark Hamill
I don't think we're going to come to any conclusions in our dialogue and, TBH, some of the arguments you're coming out with at this stage are a bit too nutty for me; I've neither suggested support for ID or homosexuality is unhealthy anywhere

You said: "if a compulsion, or whatever you prefer to call it, causes needless and often extreme problems, then it's most likely unhealthy". Well homosexuality is a compulsion. And it certain parts of the world it can cause a lot of problems for those who feel the compulsion (be it from the pain of rejecting the compulsion to the social stigmas associated with acting on it), problems which many would describe as needless (they wouldn't have these problems if they just stopped being gay).

Your entire argument is to label something you don't agree with as a form of mental distress, requiring of therapy, based on some bizarre assumption that avoiding meat causes people unhealthy, problems. Most people who don't eat meat don't actually have any health issues from it (you need to be aware of what you eat, but thats somethign which meat eaters really need to do to). Even vegans only take a few suppliments, how can taking a couple of pills a day be a problem? The only issue I have as a vegetarian, and the main one for most vegetarians/vegans, is in not knowing if a specific food is actually suitable for vegetarians, because most food makers hide as much of their ingredients as possible. And that problems isn't vegetarains fault, its societies fault for not giving enough of a crap what goes into their food. If there is somethign wrong with me because I don't eat meat because it turns my stomach, then what the hell is wrong with meat eaters who complain at being told that their food actually contains animal bones or crushed bugs because they want to able to eat it in ignorance?

The Corinthian wrote: »

and I certainly do not think that 'choosing' something because you are compelled to do so is a real choice.

Every choice is based on some sort of compulsion (or usually a mixture of multiple compulsions), be it a choice to avoid a certain food because of how it turns your stomach or a choice to watch a specific film because you love scif-fi or a choice to only date redheads because the first topless woman you saw was Kate Winslet in Titanic.

Do you feel any guilt from eating meat?

Comments