Debate: vegetarianism

re.mark.able

Looking to debate vegetarianism.
I'm not vegetarian myself, although I limit my meat consumption to about a quarter kilo a week so i'm vegetarian around 5 days of the week so i know what it's like on the other side.
Looking for civilised debate with others as to why they go full vegetarian - not looking to convert people but looking to exchange criticism with people's opinions on meat consumption.

boomshakalaka

Good job OP, for cutting out a huge chunk of meat consumption in your diet. It will benefit you and the environment
I'll be the first one to put myself in front of the firing squad so.
I was a full veggy up until about a year ago. Due to heart issues I had to start eating fish again which I have been doing since. I feel much better (physically) now that I eat fish, even though morally I can't quite justify it. I'd rather be a full veggy again, but it just isn't an option.
I don't eat any other type of meat and honestly believe that, after not having it for 6 years, it would make me feel sick to have a steak for example.

My main reason for not eating meat is that I simply don't need to. No animal has to die (except for fish, so it turned out) for me to live a healthy lifestyle. Six years ago I could no longer justify eating meat for myself. And I was the biggest meat lover there was! I'm well used to it at this stage as there are loads of lovely veggy recipes and the possibilities (especially now that I've reintroduced fish in my diet) are endless. I have other moral reasons that are based on environmental concerns.
I have never tried to convince anyone to become a vegetarian and will never do so. It is your own choice and I respect that. I usually don't like it when people ask me about it because a lot of people carry judgements and feel that every vegetarian (or pescetarian in my case) is trying to push their ideas onto them.

When asked I always give the same answer: It's not necessary for an animal to die to serve as my food, so I can't justify it to myself to eat one.
The things I miss most are a McChicken Sandwich and a Pepperoni pizza

re.mark.able

Awesome, some to discuss with!

The idea of 'it would make me sick' seems to be with a lot of vegetarians I've spoken to and only recently have I thought of a possible solution to this possible problem - try some organic chicken or turkey, especially if you can get some that wasn't prepared in a factory - factory meat have up to 10 times more harmful bacteria within them from all the feces, blood and dirt that is passed around in those slaughterhouses.
Red meat is very hard on the digestive system and I agree with you - I don't eat red meat because there is an upsettingly large amount of land devoted to cattle who are treated poorly and as a result are polluting the atmosphere more than any other industry.
When you eat a piece of organic chicken: it's cleaner, as mentioned above, and it isn't rife with extra hormones and antibiotics that are force fed to commercial chickens to make them grow at an alarming rate which their legs can't cope with resulting in some of them having a maximum walking distance of 1 or 2 feet, and antibiotics that fend off any disease (for now).

It may be these characteristics of store bought meat that makes you feel ill at the thought.
I'll give my opinions on the morality of eating meat a little later

boomshakalaka

Seems to be just you and me so far... Wonder why that is? Usually boardsies are not shy of giving their opinion (grounded or otherwise).

I agree that the thought of organically produced meat does not make me feel so 'sick', unfortunately the price usually does.
I was talking more specifically about red meat and the way I 'think' (I don't know because at this stage I'm not willing to try it) it would make my stomach feel ill. It is fact that human intestines are too long to digest meat properly and I have noticed that mine are particularly sensitive (low intake of dairy products cures that for the most part, if only I didn't love cheese so much ...:p). I imagine a steak would sit like a brick in my stomach whereas now I can stuff my face and still not feel the slightest sensation of brick stomach. I remember well how a steak used to make me feel, and I was never a big fan of them for that reason. Maybe I'm wrong in assuming all meat will do that to me now.

If I were to start eating meat again I would definitely start with chicken, I find that is something I just cannot replace with anything else, yet it is something I miss the most.

boomshakalaka

Your solution, however sound it is, will not bring 'cure' to me or other vegetarians you spoke to. Simply because it is usually not our main reason for not eating meat. I can only speak for myself though.

re.mark.able

I agree with you, simply knowing the meat is produced to a different standard usually doesn't change much as deciding not to meat entirely is often an intensely personal decision.
And i'd agree with the the fact that dairy and red meat always seem to give the feeling of digestive difficulty, which is why i've cut them both out of my diet. and when eating meat, I believe (at least at the moment) that people eat far too much meat anyway - simply because of it's value in society as a sign of upper class status. There is protein and vitamins and oils in other foods apart from meat, if there wasn't protein in vegetables they wouldn't stand tall and be crunchy! So 1 quarter kilo amounts to 2 lean chicken breaks over the course of a week so sometimes i might spread that out and have half of a breast each day for 4 days.
So to moral side, before posing my argument I have to ask - how strongly do you believe in evolution?

boomshakalaka

It's really good to discuss this without any judgement at all. It's very refreshing to me because as I said, most people do not really want to hear about it/have an opinion formed before they hear any arguments (that goes two ways!)/...
It is true that meat has an (in my opinion wrong) main role in peoples diet. For some it's just because it's all they know, for others it's a statement of wealth, for others it's something else again. Just like my grandparents, who are very religious, will never eat meat on fridays, it's always fish on fridays. They resent the idea of me not eating meat, though. They simple don't understand it because it's not their way.

I have to applaud you for your efforts, even though a little red meat would not do any harm. If more people cut out even just one day of meat eating per week, it would do the environment the world of good.

As to my opinions on evolution: I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. I haven't got enough knowledge to form a strong opinion of it though, something I should really look into. Because now that I think of it, it does really interest me. Maybe you can educate me?

Zombienosh

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Seems to be just you and me so far... Wonder why that is? Usually boardsies are not shy of giving their opinion (grounded or otherwise).

Vegetarianism just can't be debated here, every few weeks a thread is started either here, health and fitness or after hours and it ends in the same old tired back and forth.

To me Vegetarianism is a belief and beliefs are best kept personal. Most of the time the rest of the society won't agree with your beliefs and you wont agree with them, so why bother discussing it.
The only person you have to answer to is you.
I don't need everyone else trying to convince me I'm wrong because I have certain beliefs when it comes to the idea of killing.

boomshakalaka

Zombienosh wrote: »

Vegetarianism just can't be debated here, every few weeks a thread is started either here, health and fitness or after hours and it ends in the same old tired back and forth.

To me Vegetarianism is a belief and beliefs are best kept personal. Most of the time the rest of the society won't agree with your beliefs and you wont agree with them, so why bother discussing it.
The only person you have to answer to is you.
I don't need everyone else trying to convince me I'm wrong because I have certain beliefs when it comes to the idea of killing.

Yes I've noticed that too, it seems like the OP is looking for an honest debate though. He is asking for your personal beliefs. If you do not wish to share them, that is of course your choice. But when I'm asked for my beliefs, something that I stand for, I will not shy away from sharing them. As I said before I'm not into convincing anyone and I do not like to be convinced.
We're just debating, the point of debating is the actual debate. It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing.

greenpilot

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Yes I've noticed that too, it seems like the OP is looking for an honest debate though. He is asking for your personal beliefs. If you do not wish to share them, that is of course your choice. But when I'm asked for my beliefs, something that I stand for, I will not shy away from sharing them. As I said before I'm not into convincing anyone and I do not like to be convinced.
We're just debating, the point of debating is the actual debate. It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing.

I like meat, and I shall explain why, I live in rural Ireland and am a smallholder, we kill our own chickens, lamb and pigs. Nothing is wasted and, because we reared the animals, we know where the meat comes from. Most if the fanatical veggies I encounter are urbanites who, quite frankly haven't a clue what happens beyond their little shells when it comes to food. Next time you brush your teeth, notice those beautiful meat chewing teeth, they are there for a reason you know. I'm all for a veggie who grows their own produce and puts an effort in, but not those sickly, nutrient starved waifs who ram the ideal down our necks...no thanks. Roast chicken tonight...my roast chicken. Yum!

boomshakalaka

greenpilot wrote: »

I like meat, and I shall explain why, I live in rural Ireland and am a smallholder, we kill our own chickens, lamb and pigs. Nothing is wasted and, because we reared the animals, we know where the meat comes from. Most if the fanatical veggies I encounter are urbanites who, quite frankly haven't a clue what happens beyond their little shells when it comes to food. Next time you brush your teeth, notice those beautiful meat chewing teeth, they are there for a reason you know. I'm all for a veggie who grows their own produce and puts an effort in, but not those sickly, nutrient starved waifs who ram the ideal down our necks...no thanks. Roast chicken tonight...my roast chicken. Yum!

I think it's safe to say that I don't fall under the category you describe. I don't ram my opinions down anyones neck. Not only that, I highly disagree with anyone trying to force their opinion onto some one be that to be a veggie or not. Maybe I'm just not a fanatical veggie, and I do not wish to ever be one.
I appreciate your decision to eat meat an applaud you for the way you are doing it. You know what you're putting in your mouth and you do it consciously, that I can only respect.
On the 'teeth' thing, it has been discussed on numerous occasions whether or not humans are designed to eat meat or not. There have been studies supporting supporting theories that we are, and theories that we aren't. I, however, have chosen to disregard all of that because I simply do not need to eat meat to survive even if our ancestors did. That is my point of view and I would expect you to show me the same respect as I show you. (you being anyone, really)

greenpilot

boomshakalaka wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that I don't fall under the category you describe. I don't ram my opinions down anyones neck. Not only that, I highly disagree with anyone trying to force their opinion onto some one be that to be a veggie or not. Maybe I'm just not a fanatical veggie, and I do not wish to ever be one.
I appreciate your decision to eat meat an applaud you for the way you are doing it. You know what you're putting in your mouth and you do it consciously, that I can only respect.
On the 'teeth' thing, it has been discussed on numerous occasions whether or not humans are designed to eat meat or not. There have been studies supporting supporting theories that we are, and theories that we aren't. I, however, have chosen to disregard all of that because I simply do not need to eat meat to survive even if our ancestors did. That is my point of view and I would expect you to show me the same respect as I show you. (you being anyone, really)

Fair enough.

eviltwin

I'm a veggie 20 years now, I eat eggs and other dairy but avoid meat, fish and poultry. There is no real reason to it, I just don't like the taste. Its a personal issue and I never force my opinions on others, each to their own. Health wise I am fine, never had any issues and I'm not a weakling, I need to lose weight if anything I'm a runner too and my diet has never been an issue with that.

re.mark.able

Sorry about the delay

Boomshakalaka: I know, it's great to be able to debate opening and honestly and not just be shouted down or shut out. I personally wanted to start this debate because I have opinions and it's not I want to force them onto others - I want to have them criticised to see whether that changes what I think and, if not, I can learn to defend and argue them and see how other people react to them.
I agree completely that people's ideas of meat eating are completely trangled - they see the building blocks of a meal: a meat, a complex carb and then some vegitables on the side 'for colour'. It's taken me a while but I've learned to base my meals on one key vegetable, add two or three others that suit, make sure I have enough starch and then add a little meat on the side if I want some. If anything, I would appear I treat meat as most people treat vegetables - eating very few varieties and in small quantities.

A quick word to Greenpilot: I agree with you that fanatic vegetarians are an annoyance but you don't have to stereotype them so strongly - fanatics are annoying regardless of what they are preaching, vegetarian fanatics probably just seem more so because what they are talking about IS something everyone is interested in - what they put on their plates.

Back to Boomshakalaka: regarding evolution: haha I don't know if this is really the place for an explaining of the theory(scientific theory - there's a difference) of evolution but I will illustrate what part of it I focus on to justify to myself that it is ok to eat animals (and insects, but I'm sure we'll get to that later).
Evolution begins when cells came into existance in the water of prehistoric earth and when those cells came into existance they had one goal and one goal only - survive. photosynthesis was great for getting by but consuming other cells gave you a far better chance and gave you so much more raw materials to maintian yourself with. then can complex life and 'beings' were being made of more and more cells that ate one another to grow and reproduce.
Fast forward to now and in my eyes - I am just a large collection of cells, all working together and in harmony in the form of my body as it the best way to survive. Animals are just large collections of cells too, and following on from that - so are vegetables: living cells working together to grow and survive. Thusly, i treat vegetables and animals with equal respect - I would not kill either of them pointlessly, when eating them I make sure i use every last bit (example: eating a chicken leg - every bit of meat to the bone is eaten; eating an apple - every last bit is eaten leaving only the stalk - core is eaten, seeds and all - no cells go to waste)
I'm still a spiritual person but I'm tending towards instead of me being a 'conscious soul' inside a body, my body is made up of cells that kind of each have their own tiny soul. So with that thinking, I don't see killing a 'conscious' animal as any worse than uprooting a vegetable from the ground.

--Kaiser--

boomshakalaka wrote: »

On the 'teeth' thing, it has been discussed on numerous occasions whether or not humans are designed to eat meat or not. There have been studies supporting supporting theories that we are, and theories that we aren't. I, however, have chosen to disregard all of that because I simply do not need to eat meat to survive even if our ancestors did. That is my point of view and I would expect you to show me the same respect as I show you. (you being anyone, really)

Nope, not letting you get away with this one. Your beliefs are your beliefs and it's you prerogative if you want to eschew animal products, but it is a scientific fact that humans are omnivores. This is not opinion, and your (or my) opinion on the subject does not matter as science is not based on opinion, it's about what you can prove. You'll find 'scientists' who'll use comparative anatomy (which is of limited use) to try to 'prove' we're herbivores while ignoring literally millions of years of fossil records and known facts about human biology

re.mark.able

i do not think boomshakalaka is saying we are not omnivores/made to eat meat, they are simply saying there are two arguments and that they do not wish to take either into account or decide for them whether or not they should be eating meat.

boomshakalaka

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nope, not letting you get away with this one. Your beliefs are your beliefs and it's you prerogative if you want to eschew animal products, but it is a scientific fact that humans are omnivores. This is not opinion, and your (or my) opinion on the subject does not matter as science is not based on opinion, it's about what you can prove. You'll find 'scientists' who'll use comparative anatomy (which is of limited use) to try to 'prove' we're herbivores while ignoring literally millions of years of fossil records and known facts about human biology

Fair enough, I might simply not be educated enough on that matter. But it is fact that people are looking for reason (not) to eat meat in these 'factual' and 'not so factual' researches. I just noted that there has been a lot of discussion about it.
I know humans are omnivores, I was merely pointing out to greenpilot that even though our teeth were originally designed for meat eating among other things, that does no longer matter, at least not to me.

re.mark.able:
I thought you were going to put a total spin on evolution theory as I know it, but the first bit on it you wrote out, I was aware of (thank god ).
I follow your logic in that plants, animals, humans, we're all the same since we're all made up from cells. It's just that, for me, there is a big difference between a conscious animal and a plant. A plant does not feel pain, a plant does not have emotions because plants do not have a central nervous system. But that in itself is a completely different discussion. I have read research about whether or not plants feel pain, and I have come to the same conclusion every time; plants have survival tactics, such as retracting to touch or a specific chemical reaction. They do not, however, have a consciousness. Therefore I can justify to myself that I eat them and I can't justify killing an animal for food.

And I know that some animals have questionable consciousness (for example a horse does not believe anything it doesn't see exists), but that is beside the matter.

re.mark.able

I agreed with the logic up until not too long ago but this is how I see it now:

It is widely agreed that plants do not have a consciousness, and it is agreed that plants are alive - they can be dead or full of life.
We ourselves have these survival tactics that go on without our conscious knowledge. I don't believe that there is a clear line having consciousness and not - we are at a different level of consciousness to horses but I do not believe that consciousness just suddenly stops as brain size decreases. Our higher consciousness is due to our proportionately large brains but it has also been said that there are enough responsive and decision making cells in our stomachs to be classified as a sudo-brain - how do we know our stomachs aren't themselves partially conscious?
But the point I'm getting to would be to think of a hypothetical situation - take an ordinary human and reduce them down to equal playing field of a vegetable - take away their ability to feel emotion: does this justify killing them? if not then take away their ability to feel pain, their ability to see and walk - at what level have you taken away the essential element that turns a human into just a bunch of cells that survive the same as a plant and it is then ok to kill them without remorse but other living organisms are off limits?

I just want to make sure that I'm not coming across as someone trying to put some kind of blood on your or anyone's hands. I prefer to think of myself as taking on the imaginary role of a 'vegetable ambassador' looking for equal rights, as ludicrous as that may sound

boomshakalaka

I would define consciousness as having a brain. Plants have no brain and neither do our stomachs. This of course is touching the unknown as we simply do not know enough (yet) to completely rule out plant-consciousness.

Interesting hypothesis to say the least. For myself I would say the level at which a human is decreased to a hump of cells is when it cannot consciously do anything; see, walk, think, feel, ... I would not say that me, personally, would kill the human. I wouldn't feel comfortable because it still ' looks ' human. That has more to do with my conditioning of what a human is than it does with the actual being.
I will answer your hypothesis with a discussion I had with a friend not too long ago. We saw a video on youtube of a 'frog baby'. You can look it up, although I would not suggest it as it is a bit f'cked up. Basically it's a newborn that looks a bit like a frog; huge eyes, greenish skin colour, froglike sounds, ... The disorder is called Anencephaly and a human born with this disorder would kind of be like the hypothetical human you have described. The baby is born with only a fore-brain, and therefore has no cognition whatsoever. It does not feel, see, nothing. Logically very few babies born with this disorder survive their first day. There are cases, however, where the baby lives up to a couple of years. My friend found it totally normal for the parents to care for a baby like this. I have a different opinion on the matter, I find it cruel to parents and baby to keep it alive. It will never experience anything, neither will the human in your hypothesis. Therefore I would feel the same towards at as I would towards a plant. (God this sounds awfully crude, but thinking about it, yes, this is how I feel about it)


P.S. I like the term 'vegetable ambassador' , you should keep that one around

Ludikrus

boomshakalaka wrote: »

It's not necessary for an animal to die to serve as my food, so I can't justify it to myself to eat one.
p

Except fish, they can die (because you need them to die so that makes it okay

re.mark.able

I want to say 'thank you' for your explanation of how you define consciousness and such but honestly, thank you doesn't seem enough as I don't think I've ever had someone paint their opinion so bluntly (not in a bad way), just 'this is what I think'. It makes for great thinking and debate.

Well, i draw on a very brief experience of mine when it comes to this idea of 'line between conscious and not'. I was walking home at night and a car drove past, the passenger of the car made a really loud noise right as the car was passing me. of course, i was very startled, stepped back, raised one arm in defence and made a noise myself.
What makes me remember that experience is the thought I had directly after the car passed - I did not consciously make any of those decisions. My fight/flight mode kicked in, I gave myself what i've heard called a 'DIY lobotomy' in which most of my brain is shut off leaving only my basic instincts to keep me alive. What i realised from that was that, to me, it seemed the only thing keeping me from being 'unconscious' was my ability to actively remember. If you think of when you (or someone you know) has been out drinking heavily one night and then cannot recall the events that happened - you were conscious during those events but cannot remember them, what were making the decisions for you on the night were basic instincts.
I cannot think of one off hand that i believe in but you should be able to think of an animal that you think works purely on instinct - it cannot think or remember but what can be seen as remembering (doing this thing gets me food) is purely instinct working to help the animal survive - but is that not what you described plants as - having survival mechanisms? is the brain not just a hub of...information for what to do in order to survive? so our survival instincts are stored all in one place while perhaps a plants (or our stomachs) is spread throughout their entire body?

P.S. i thought that too the second I wrote it, I'm going to hold onto it for sure

boomshakalaka

Ludikrus wrote: »

Except fish, they can die (because you need them to die so that makes it okay

We eat to survive, no? So for me, it's damaging my health if I don't eat fish. I wouldn't eat fish if I could help it. But fact is that I have a weak heart, and am unable to do much physical exercise if I don't eat fish. I have experienced the consequences of not eating fish, and doing so now has dramatically improved it. So yes, I can justify that for myself. You're entitled to your opinion but in the end it's all about how we live with ourselves, I think.

boomshakalaka

Well I suppose 'you're welcome' is in order. It is refreshing that, however blunt my opinions are put, you are able to contest them. I think this is the most mature discussion I've had on Boards.ie without getting a little bit angry. I thank YOU for that.

Back to the matter. I have to honestly admit that I have never thought about survival instinct as something that links all organisms. It seems so obvious now.
A survival instinct is something that is passed on through our genes. I think the a good example of your theory would be an amoebae or other one-cellular animals. They do things because it is in their genes - so do plants. But when I'm drunk, even though I might be acting on basic instinct, I still need my brain to control my motorotive skills, even though my cognitive skills might be temporarily switched off. I'm not living purely on my genetic instinct, neither did you when you were passed by that car.
I don't think instincts manifest themselves in plants as they do in humans. Of course, I could be wrong, as I am no biology professor. I tried looking up a bit there about instincts in plants and humans, but the only conclusive answer I could find is that we both have them. How they manifest differs from species to species.

re.mark.able

you are welcome too. I was afraid that what I was looking for was not suited to boards but i've luckily been proved wrong.

Honestly, I could walk away from this debate right now, knowing i've opened someone's eyes to something is a great source of satisfaction - my job has been done.
Now, I know we're encroaching on the territory of biology and we could be entirely wrong but we'll push on regardless. Perhaps it is that our survival instincts (motoritive, cognitive) as so much more advanced and fast acting that we need the brain to house them rather than in the various cellular parts of our body. It seems to make sense if you think about it - if you find yourself in danger you react in loads of ways very quickly: running, releasing adrenaline, tapping into energy reserves, increasing heart rate, etc. When plants are put under stress they release anti-oxidants to help prolong the life of their various parts - if they had a brain like ours wouldn't they act in a more active and rapid way? the basic action is the same, only our tools are more advanced. At this point I could make the analogy of aliens coming to earth and killing and eating us as their level of consciousness is so much more advanced than ours, but feel free to ignore that since it's a bit removed from what we're discussing.

boomshakalaka

I plants had a brain I most definitely think they would do the same, but to me the fact still is that they have no consciousness, because they do not have a brain. It's the difference in those tools we have and plants don't that make all the difference for me.
With this you have shown me that we are a lot more like plants than I initially thought, yet we are still totally different organisms, one type that I feel comfortable eating and one type I do not feel comfortable eating.

Entirely hypothetical situation of aliens coming to earth: Yes I do believe they would eat us, as you said, they would be of higher intelligence/higher consciousness/more advanced. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to get here in the first place. The fact that I think they would eat us (or discard us in any way) comes from the idea that most humans have: animals are there to eat. Aliens would see us as 'lesser' beings, just like most humans see animals as 'lesser' beings (not saying they are or aren't)
For some reason I don't expect the aliens to have different* moral standards than us humans. I'm just guessing here obviously.

It's basically all guesswork at this stage, so I will stick to what I believe in and you will probably do the same.
If at some stage in my life it is proven that plants are consciously the same/similar as animals, I will reconsider and adapt my beliefs accordingly.

In fairness we've taken the veggie-discussion to an extraterrestrial level, I'm sure a lot of veggies and non-veggies have never thought this far (and in all honesty neither had I, but you started asking questions and you definitely got me thinking...)So yes, your mission is accomplished. It's a pity it's just you and me, though. I think there are other boardsies who would've been able to give us an intelligent input but they chose not to.



* I had higher moral standards here first, but on re-reading: I don't think of myself as someone of a higher moral standard because I don't eat animals. Just different.

re.mark.able

I'm glad you've been given things to think about and are now in a position that you feel you will no longer judge people based on your own morals, I only learned to do that recently - everyone has their reasons for doing things and just because you wouldn't do them doesn't make them a bad person, but i digress.

Perhaps you are right - they would come a do just what we seem to do. But what's important, how would you feel about that? killed and eaten or left to biodegrade just because you are of a lower consciousness? is it not unfair when you are put in the same position as the vegetable is? abused and disrespected for your biological short comings. Whether a higher level of consciousness in aliens would lead to a more pacifist morality or not is a very unrelated topic.

I know what I'm asking of you is very demanding - looking past the social and philosophical constructions of humans and non-humans, something that engrained into us from birth, the older you are the harder it can be to experiment in.

I know, only once or twice have I really stopped to think of the massive system of decisions and expressions contained in just one meal. The thread has only been up for a couple hours, give it time and who knows where it could go

El_Dangeroso

Can I ask a respectful question to the vegetarians on here (great debate BTW).

Why don't you eat bi-valves? i.e. oysters, mussels, clams. They have no central nervous system, they are more like plants than animals, they are super sustainable and local and grow like plants, great article here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html

It seems it would plug a nutrient gap that a lot of vegetarians need, namely zinc. Vegetarians with tendencies toward depression are especially vulnerable to this deficiency.

seamus

Thanks for that El_Dangerous, I wasn't aware of oyster/mollusc anatomy, definitely worth more reading.

I still wouldn't eat them, because they're gross, but it definitely provides some interesting fodder for reading & thought, if not for the stomach.

eviltwin

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Can I ask a respectful question to the vegetarians on here (great debate BTW).

Why don't you eat bi-valves? i.e. oysters, mussels, clams. They have no central nervous system, they are more like plants than animals, they are super sustainable and local and grow like plants, great article here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html

It seems it would plug a nutrient gap that a lot of vegetarians need, namely zinc. Vegetarians with tendencies toward depression are especially vulnerable to this deficiency.

No I couldn't eat them, they just look awful don't they, like a giant snot or something.

El_Dangeroso

seamus wrote: »

Thanks for that El_Dangerous, I wasn't aware of oyster/mollusc anatomy, definitely worth more reading.

I still wouldn't eat them, because they're gross, but it definitely provides some interesting fodder for reading & thought, if not for the stomach.

They are definitely an acquired taste, but you feel soo good after eating one, they are especially good for hangovers. Just drain the seawater from them well (bleugh), put on a bit of hot sauce and lemon juice and down the hatch!

seamus

The smell of any kind of seafood completely destroys my appetite, so I don't see myself ever trying it, but it's definitely an interesting one to bring up in discussion.

boomshakalaka

I do actually eat fish and seafood. I love mussels but I'm not a fan of oysters. Unfortunately on my current budget I can't include in my regular diet. I should though, because I take zinc supplements sometimes.

boomshakalaka

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Can I ask a respectful question to the vegetarians on here (great debate BTW).

Why don't you eat bi-valves? i.e. oysters, mussels, clams. They have no central nervous system, they are more like plants than animals, they are super sustainable and local and grow like plants, great article here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html

It seems it would plug a nutrient gap that a lot of vegetarians need, namely zinc. Vegetarians with tendencies toward depression are especially vulnerable to this deficiency.

Very interesting article and, again, something I did not stand still to think about. Maybe I should eat more oysters?
Have you any links on how zinc deficiency in vegetarians is harmful to those with depressive tendencies? Would like to read about that a bit as I do consider myself part of that category

El_Dangeroso

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Very interesting article and, again, something I did not stand still to think about. Maybe I should eat more oysters?
Have you any links on how zinc deficiency in vegetarians is harmful to those with depressive tendencies? Would like to read about that a bit as I do consider myself part of that category

People with depression tend to have lower serum zinc, it's almost a biomarker for depression and considering that increasing zinc in combo with an antidepressant seems to help, I think the relationship is somewhat causal, ie I would ensure adequate zinc intake if I were prone to depression as insurance.

More info here: http://www.if-pan.krakow.pl/pjp/pdf/2005/6_713.pdf

I'm not a fan of supplementing zinc as it can be easy to throw your copper levels out of balance this way, and I'm not impressed with the bioavailability of supplements. There is never any supplement that comes close to the potency of food.

boomshakalaka

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

People with depression tend to have lower serum zinc, it's almost a biomarker for depression and considering that increasing zinc in combo with an antidepressant seems to help, I think the relationship is somewhat causal, ie I would ensure adequate zinc intake if I were prone to depression as insurance.

More info here: http://www.if-pan.krakow.pl/pjp/pdf/2005/6_713.pdf

I'm not a fan of supplementing zinc as it can be easy to throw your copper levels out of balance this way, and I'm not impressed with the bioavailability of supplements. There is never any supplement that comes close to the potency of food.

Yes I am aware of the 'sideeffects' of taking zinc supplements. That's why I only take them after consulting my GP. He tests my blood every few months to see what is needed. He has never given me an option besides zinc tablets. Maybe I should get over the snotty ness of an oyster and do it that way.
How regularly would you say I should be eating them? Daily? Weekly?

El_Dangeroso

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Yes I am aware of the 'sideeffects' of taking zinc supplements. That's why I only take them after consulting my GP. He tests my blood every few months to see what is needed. He has never given me an option besides zinc tablets. Maybe I should get over the snotty ness of an oyster and do it that way.
How regularly would you say I should be eating them? Daily? Weekly?

1 oyster is 100% of your rda of zinc. So maybe 4-5 once a week in combo with a varied diet would see you right.

You don't need to eat them raw, they can be cooked and are nice in paella.

re.mark.able

That's awesome about the oyster stuff, I'm not gonna forget that one!

Since we're on the subject of 'gross' alternatives - what are people's opinions on eating insects? so long as they were producers for human consumption

boomshakalaka

re.mark.able wrote: »

That's awesome about the oyster stuff, I'm not gonna forget that one!

Since we're on the subject of 'gross' alternatives - what are people's opinions on eating insects? so long as they were producers for human consumption

Don't think I would to be honest. Then again, I also don't like eating Oysters but am now seriously considering them.
I looked up a bit there about food that contains high amounts of zinc, to get around having to eat oysters. Peanuts, pumpkin seeds and dried watermelon seeds are apparently very high in zinc. I do eat a lot of nuts anyway because they are nutritious and tasty. But as I'm not mad into oysters I might just add them to my diet.

Humans eh!

Hi everyone, nice to see an intelligent and thoughtful discussion on vegetarianism for a change. This year is my 21'st year of being veggie, I don't talk about it at all and simply decline meat if offered and don't mention my dietary choice.

Most people I meet are so completely brainwashed by the meat industry into thinking that going for a day without flesh will render them feeble pale and impotent.

Does anyone find it odd that many carnivores seem threatened by vegetarianism, I have seen people get inexplicibly irate and quite agressive when the topic is discussed. Also I find it baffling that it is somehow linked to manliness to buy a piece of a cows arse in a supermarket, wtf?

I grew up on a farm and have killed many animals for food growing up, I have also shot my own dinner and hooked my supper on many occasions and would again should the need arise. But I came to realise that It was not necessary for my survival and causing death and suffering was merely my own selfish gratification and was encouraged by those who profit from death.

It makes me smile when I hear macho carnivores snigger at veggies being somehow squeamish and sentimental about slaughter.
In a mountain plane crash scenario.... this veggie will have no hesitation in cutting and eating your carnivourous backside...........with some fava beans and a nice chianti...

boomshakalaka

It seems that many carnivores/meateaters feel threatened in some way by anyone expressing that they choose not to eat meat. I think that has everything to do with the traditional view on ' a dinner ' : meat, spuds and veg. Anything other than that is 'odd' and they feel it would not make them feel well fed. I've even heard people say that a bowl of pasta is not a 'proper dinner', I find this a bit narrowminded.
But in fairness, most people I hang around with are not vegetarians (actually now that I think of it, none of my friends in Ireland are) but they are all very understanding about my point of view. They just love their meat too much to consider changing their habits. And that's perfectly fine with me.

But obviously there's fanatics on both sides. I think it's safe to say that everyone considers a fanatic veggie who pressures their views onto somebody a huge annoyance. The same can be said for fanatic meat-eater, even when they are more common.

I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. If I had no other option than to scavenge and hunt for my own food, I would. Self preservation is still our instinct and for me morality comes second to survival. In the situation of that plane crash I would not think twice about eating another passenger if there's nothing else around.

Humans eh!

boomshakalaka wrote: »

Don't think I would to be honest. Then again, I also don't like eating Oysters but am now seriously considering them.
I looked up a bit there about food that contains high amounts of zinc, to get around having to eat oysters. Peanuts, pumpkin seeds and dried watermelon seeds are apparently very high in zinc. I do eat a lot of nuts anyway because they are nutritious and tasty. But as I'm not mad into oysters I might just add them to my diet.

Oysters are just little salty spittoons, :eek:

You are correct about pumpkin seeds they are nature's prozac.

Irish people traditionally ate very little meat in their diet and were lucky to have meat once a week. The meat they did eat was very varied in that offal was widely consumed providing high levels of iron, zinc and b vitamins. Also the traditional Irish method of cooking vegetables (aka, boiling the ****e out of them) thus rendering them nutritionally deficient probably helped the notion that vegetables couldn't sustain life on their own.

Traditional Irish vegetarian cooking in 3 easy steps:
(1). Wash, peel and chop vegetables
(2). Boil the ****e out of them
(3). Eat but don't enjoy unless smothered in salt and butter.
:pac:

boomshakalaka

Ah now, I've had oysters baked in the oven with garlic butter and breadcrumbs and they were friggin fantastic. The raw product, not so much. I wonder, if you boil the oysters and use the liquid to make a soup or chowder, would that contain the zinc originally in the oyster?
But the fact remains they are pricey, and on my current budget I just would not be able to fit them in regularly. If you know of any other foods that have a high level of zinc, do let me know!

I have to admit I do love a bit of salt and (irish) butter on my veg, depending on the dish. Still getting used to the tastiness of all your dairy products as where I am from (the Netherlands) butter is usually a plasticlike substance as far away from butter one can get.

Humans eh!

I'm just being a bit facetious and simplistic (Irish self deprecating humour) about Irish cooking, :pac:
In fact a well made Colcannon made with floury potato and fresh curly kale lightly seasoned with real butter is the culinary equivalent of a warm cuddle by a fire on a frosty night. Delicious.

Can't agree on oysters though, I'd have to have run out of humans before I'd crack open an oyster. :pac:

boomshakalaka

The humour of the Irish is something that I am very familiar with. It has caused many a misunderstanding and funny situations (sometimes resulting in me being offended over something that was a joke...OOPS). Most people that hear me speak forget that I am not Irish, I have perfected my impostor skills and often have people asking me for ID as proof of my nationality. But I love you all, I hold ye all very close to my heart.

I've never had or made Colcannon. It's mash with cabbage, isn't it? Have you a good recipe for that? Sounds tasty (and cheeeeeep).

Zombienosh

Humans eh! wrote: »

Most people I meet are so completely brainwashed by the meat industry into thinking that going for a day without flesh will render them feeble pale and impotent.

Does anyone find it odd that many carnivores seem threatened by vegetarianism, I have seen people get inexplicibly irate and quite agressive when the topic is discussed. Also I find it baffling that it is somehow linked to manliness to buy a piece of a cows arse in a supermarket, wtf?

Always come across this. I know people that won't consider something a real meal unless there's meat on a plate.

El_Dangeroso

Humans eh! wrote: »

Hi everyone, nice to see an intelligent and thoughtful discussion on vegetarianism for a change. This year is my 21'st year of being veggie, I don't talk about it at all and simply decline meat if offered and don't mention my dietary choice.

Most people I meet are so completely brainwashed by the meat industry into thinking that going for a day without flesh will render them feeble pale and impotent.

Does anyone find it odd that many carnivores seem threatened by vegetarianism, I have seen people get inexplicibly irate and quite agressive when the topic is discussed. Also I find it baffling that it is somehow linked to manliness to buy a piece of a cows arse in a supermarket, wtf?

I grew up on a farm and have killed many animals for food growing up, I have also shot my own dinner and hooked my supper on many occasions and would again should the need arise. But I came to realise that It was not necessary for my survival and causing death and suffering was merely my own selfish gratification and was encouraged by those who profit from death.

It makes me smile when I hear macho carnivores snigger at veggies being somehow squeamish and sentimental about slaughter.
In a mountain plane crash scenario.... this veggie will have no hesitation in cutting and eating your carnivourous backside...........with some fava beans and a nice chianti...

See.. it's statement's like this that get people's back's up in these types of debates. No-one reacts well to name calling and generalisations.

No one is 'brainwashed' by the meat industry. They literally don't have the marketing budget for that. Did you ever think that maybe it's in food manufacturer's interest to make us go vegetarian? The profit margins on processed vegetarian food are much much higher as they are generally more shelf stable, in fact 99% of processed food in a supermarket has no meat in it, the only exceptions I can think of are some the chilled cabinet and frozen foods aisle.

Some people don't feel that killing animals for food is wrong. They have seen slaughter and it doesn't bother them. I think I'd see it the same way as giving birth, not particularly pleasant to watch while eating your dinner, but a necessary part of the life cycle nonetheless.

I don't necessarily want to inflict pain on creatures for no reason as I don't believe I'm a sociopath, but I have no problem with something non-human dying so I can eat a nutritious food that I enjoy.

Besides, the killing of one grass-fed cow arguably kills less creatures than an equivalent amount of vegetarian food. Agriculture kills living beings, whether directly in a slaughterhouse or indirectly by being killed by pesticides or the blade of a combine.

Having said all that, there are definitely people out there who get on better eating less meat. I count some of them amongst my friends. I also like the way that vegetarian food has to get creative to replace the umami flavours in meat so always enjoy a well cooked veggie meal from time to time.

Zombienosh

So does it just boil down to an us and them mentality in regards to animals.
humans > animals?
And then veggies who see only us and animals included in the us.

El_Dangeroso

Zombienosh wrote: »

So does it just boil down to an us and them mentality in regards to animals.
humans > animals?
And then veggies who see only us and animals included in the us.

Well now if you're honest you don't include all animals. You draw your own line in the sand and I draw mine. For example insects, or if you want to be really facetious, bacteria.

So really it's not that black and white.

seamus

Zombienosh wrote: »

So does it just boil down to an us and them mentality in regards to animals.
humans > animals?
And then veggies who see only us and animals included in the us.

Simplistically, that would probably cover a lot of both groups both in the meat-eating and non-meat-eating camps.

But even at that most people would differ quite specifically. Some veggies will believe that humans are superior to other animals but endowed with some kind of "protector" status (in the way that the cow is sacred in India, for example). As pointed out above, people will also draw their own arbitrary lines in what they consider to be "equal" animals versus non-equal animals.

Equally plenty of meat eaters would consider humans to be just another animal, but also recognise that animals eating each other is the natural order of things and so feel no guilt or inherent wrongness in eating meat.

So while you can make some very high-level groupings, you will find the vast majority of people in all camps, differ in their outlook and reasoning on the eat/don't eat issue.

I completely buy into the "I'm a vegetarian because of my interest/love for animals". or the "Mum was a vegetarian, I've effectively inherited it". or "I used to eat a lot of meat, but I got fed up" reasons.

That's fine, that's a non-nutrition based reason for choosing vegetarianism. They're not really compelling reasons for another person to change their mind either way though.

From a nutritional / scientific aspect though. I'm perplexed at the idea of vegetarianism. Supplementing dietary requirements with "orga-meat" and meat substitutes doesn't make sense to me. I'd love to hear what kind of support that it has from the scientific viewpoint.

The debate on vegetarianism from a psychological aspect isn't really a fair debate. It's a choice made for non-scientific reasons. Who am I to question another's opinions and interests? When your beliefs make your choices, that's your business (so long as you're making those choices for yourself and not pushing them on others - see Religion)

The debate on vegetarianism from a scientific aspect seems (to me) to be only interesting to the "carnivores" though.

re.mark.able

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Did you ever think that maybe it's in food manufacturer's interest to make us go vegetarian? The profit margins on processed vegetarian food are much much higher as they are generally more shelf stable,

...

Besides, the killing of one grass-fed cow arguably kills less creatures than an equivalent amount of vegetarian food. Agriculture kills living beings, whether directly in a slaughterhouse or indirectly by being killed by pesticides or the blade of a combine.

If it is in the food industry's interest then why is 70% of all the world's agricultural land devoted to livestock raising? not to mention the massive amounts of corn and soya crops that are devoted to (poorly) feeding these animals and the massive slaughterhouse and processing networks that have been set up to distribute this meat? The profit margins could be higher but the investment in meat and meat products is in the billions and it's not like they can repurpose those assets to be of use in vegetarian food.

A grass fed cow kills slightly less other organisms yes, but how many cows in the world are grass fed?
Those pesticides are used on the crops that are used to feed those cows so the pesticides kill the organisms, the combine kills the plant and then the cow is killed on top of that.
I don't believe in pesticides, I only eat organic vegetables the growers of which either make it impossible for pests to get to the plant or use nature's natural pest control systems - ladybirds, crickets etc. And since these plants aren't super-artificially fertilised, less pests are attracted too them anyway. So in good conditions, an organic vegetable could be grown and harvested with only one life lost - the plant's.
I know not all plants are grown organically but it's a rapidly growing industry.

Deleted User wrote: »

From a nutritional / scientific aspect though. I'm perplexed at the idea of vegetarianism. Supplementing dietary requirements with "orga-meat" and meat substitutes doesn't make sense to me. I'd love to hear what kind of support that it has from the scientific viewpoint.

Those dietary supplements aren't always necessary, I don't think they are necessary at all. Most vegetarians I know are just really bad at it! People I see around me just seem to comfort eat 100% of the time (which is why I think some people are so adamant on eating meat every day for every meal) so they eat breads and pastas and confectionaries and meat substitutes and processed rice and potatoes - tonnes of complex carbs - they don't up their intake on dark coloured vegetables and vegetables in general.
Unprocessed brown rice has fibre and protein and minerals, and so do most whole vegetables with their skin on them. If you do it right and actually eat fruits and vegetables like everyone expects you to, you don't need to take supplements (which mostly end up in your pee rather than absorbed into you when you ingest them naturally).
I take the same opinion to gluten-free, sugar-free, dairy-free and meat-free diets - if you're going to give it up, use substitutes (gluten free bread, dairy alternatives, soya made to taste and look like meat, artificial sweeteners) as a stepping stone, but ultimately accept the fact that you've chosen not to eat these things any more.
Cutting any or all of these things out of your diet does not limit you as much as people think - there are more varieties of nuts, seeds, grains, vegetables, fruits, herbs and spices (and insects) than your highest guess-timate.

I apologise if any of this comes across as tainted with anger