So when will there be a referendum on criminalizing meat eating?

LoTR

Wibbs wrote: »

Who let the hippies in? Lock and load. In before the nonsense bro and sis science of "we're actually vegetarians by design" nonsense. If it wasn't for animal protein we'd be still swinging through the trees. And yep I can back that up with facts and figures and actual science.

I'm all for improving the living conditions of those animals we raise for food and we should be eating less meat(and stodgy carbs too while we're at it), but if you wanna go full veggie, knock yourself out, but maybe keep the tie dyed sandal wearing meat is murder guff to yourselves OK?

One must be a pretty evil person to believe that something very evil is going on and "keep it to yourself." I can not do that anymore than I can pass by a person dying on the street begging for help and just not do a thing. It's absurd.

And, once again - there are millions of healthy vegetarians. Including me. Or do you think we're all lying, all aliens from another planet, all not actually vegetarian - I mean I can't understand this argument at all, unless you are going for extreme conspiracy theories.

ThinkProgress

LoTR wrote: »

Vegetarians does not equal eating vegetables. I have been a vegetarian for over 7 years and eat very few vegetables. There is an incredibly large amount of choice, and more than enough sources of proteins and nutrients. I am a living example of being vegetarian and being healthy - so are millions of others.

And probably producing enough methane to melt the ice caps too! (or we could just blame your precious tortured livestock!)

folamh

Free Hat wrote: »

Is ethically more just to eat fish as opposed to animals do you think?

I think that definitive proof regarding animal rights is impossible insofar as we can only speculate about the richness of animal life. Any discussion of animal rights - what they feel, what they think and how they value things - will be anthropomorphic. I know that fish have very simple nervous systems compared to land animals and humans. Evidence (rather than proof) supports fish not valuing life, and not suffering much at all compared to land animals. This doesn't *necessarily* justify eating them, but justification can be formed based on a number of factors.

Saipanne

LoTR wrote: »

One must be a pretty evil person to believe that something very evil is going on and "keep it to yourself." I can not do that anymore than I can pass by a person dying on the street begging for help and just not do a thing. It's absurd.

And, once again - there are millions of healthy vegetarians. Including me. Or do you think we're all lying, all aliens from another planet, all not actually vegetarian - I mean I can't understand this argument at all, unless you are going for extreme conspiracy theories.

Wibbs has a penchant for writing pages and pages of waffle. Pay no mind...

Mickeroo

Would the referendum prevent all animals from eating meat or just humans? I don't see why the Fox should be the only one who gets to eat the delicious livestock.

bpb101

ahh ffs, Mods , just lock this.

pointless thread

Free Hat

bpb101 wrote: »

ahh ffs, Mod , just lock this.

pointless thread

Not at all, I've learned lots from Folamh on the intricacies of the subject.

blatantrereg

folamh wrote: »

I'd submit that, since fish is easier to digest for most people than pork and red meat, your health and digestion would perhaps thrive better on a paleo-pescetarian diet than either a purely veggie diet, or a meat-heavy omnivorous diet.

With regard to health the only issue I'm aware of with fish consumption is the possible presence of pollutants. There is a recommended maximum weekly consumption of tuna for example because of mercury content. Aside from that, generally fish is healthy. However I think a well planned vegetarian diet can be as healthy. Algae is a viable if slightly more expensive source of DHA than fish.

I don't think many people would argue that fish consumption is unhealthy (if it's safe from pollutants).

LoTR

Xeyn wrote: »

Your level of morality is not above others. Eating meat is not immoral to most people no matter how you dress it up. Killing animals inhumanely is immoral or killing without the intention of using it as sustenance is immoral in most minds. You 'harping' on using emotive language like 'eating the dead bodies of sentient animals' doesn't make you morally superior to anyone. If an animal is raised well and killed humanely most do not find their being used for food immoral. You may find it unethical but please spare the rest of us your sense that your opinion on the matter is fact.

1) I did not say my "level of morality" is above others. It should not be considered saintly to not engage in brutality, depravity, torture, and the horrific killings of other sentient beings. It should be the minimum default.

2) This is absurd. I haven't even scratched the surface of how animals in slaughterhouses are treated, and you think I'm exaggerating. Unless you really haven't seen the videos, it is absolutely absurd to believe the issue here is about the language used. If your testicles are ripped out of your body and you are screaming in pain - for example what happens to newborn piglets - exactly how much "emotive language" will you be allowed to use?

3) I don't find it unethical. I find stealing paper from the office supplies unethical. I find this absurdly, psychotically wrong to unbelievable degrees, and you really must have not seen anything to believe this can simply be "unethical." I am amazed by what you are saying here.

4) It is a fact. I mean, again, have you seen, read, heard absolutely nothing? This is incredible. You have more than enough resources to educate yourself, but I am sorry I cannot post links because of the forum restrictions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

^^

Xeyn was talking to me

LoTR

folamh wrote: »

OP, I believe that a diet which incorporates animal protein is optimal for human thriving. Not certain, but fairly convinced based on empirical research I've read, and also from personal experience. It doesn't follow from this that humans should therefore eat animals. Indeed, it's a fallacious inference. The ethical case for vegetarianism is separate from the health argument. "Bivalvitarianism" seems a good compromise. A vegetarian can meet their B12 and vitamin K2 requirements from eating a couple of oysters a week, and they have "negligible" sentience. Eating a variety of fish/meats will give you nutrient diversity, but getting diversity of nutrients arguably does not justify killing animals. What do you think of bivalvitarianism?

As a vegetarian, without animal protein, I am perfectly healthy. I do not know what is "optimal for human thriving," but if that includes engaging in brutality, depravity, torture, and the horrific killings of other sentient beings, then that is absolutely not something I can support. I would also probably be richer if I went around robbing people, doesn't mean it would be right to do.

folamh

blatantrereg wrote: »

With regard to health the only issue I'm aware of with fish consumption is the possible presence of pollutants. There is a recommended maximum weekly consumption of tuna for example because of mercury content. Aside from that, generally fish is healthy. However I think a well planned vegetarian diet can be as healthy. Algae is a viable if slightly more expensive source of DHA than fish.

I don't think many people would argue that fish consumption is unhealthy.

Fortunately, the adverse effects of mercury are counter-acted by selenium, and most fish is high in selenium! So this concern is somewhat overblown, but not completely dismissible. Some waters are healthier than others, just like some environments like free-range fields will produce healthier chickens than those awful cramped coops.

In general, wild fish is better than farmed fish because farmed fish are fed grains and ****e while wild fish eat their natural diet which gives them a higher vitamin D and omega-3 composition.

This is also why algae is good for vegetarians, because it absorbs all those wild nutrients from the sea.

LoTR

Saipanne wrote: »

Not sure if you are trolling, but I actually think this may happen one day, but not for a century. But, the same way we look back on people 150 years ago and wonder how people could have owned slaves. I think people in 150 years time will look back at us as barbaric for our treatment of animals.

And I say that as a voracious meat eater.

I hope so too. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." M.L. King Jr. said. But it needs to start somewhere, and it needs to start with people making these decisions and coming to these realizations.

ThinkProgress

LoTR wrote: »

One must be a pretty evil person to believe that something very evil is going on and "keep it to yourself." I can not do that anymore than I can pass by a person dying on the street begging for help and just not do a thing. It's absurd.

And, once again - there are millions of healthy vegetarians. Including me. Or do you think we're all lying, all aliens from another planet, all not actually vegetarian - I mean I can't understand this argument at all, unless you are going for extreme conspiracy theories.

Veg & vegan diets are not practical for sustaining the world's population - the logistics of it are near impossible. (Just consider how long it takes to grow / produce the food you eat)

It's a diet for people with more money - certainly not for the impoverished masses! Meat is also far more satiating (more bang for your buck basically)

And veg / vegan diets are typically very high carb - high sugar diets are not good for optimal health. They cause premature ageing! (there is plenty of science to back that up)

LoTR

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

We have evolved to be Omnivores , that's why we have incisors and canines for the ripping and tearing of meat, and molars and premolars for plants and such.But there's no way in foreseeable future that we can have a referendum on this. Imagine how many farmers, butchers,victuallers would be put out of business.

Also who the fúck wants too eat salad for the rest of their lives ?

The biggest loss will be to corporations, and if it happens globally, to the whole capitalist system. But regardless, if the majority of the population does realize how terribly wrong this all is, I don't see how in the hell anyone can protect it because many would be losing jobs involved directly in this nightmarish industry. If your job is (even if you don't mean in that way) doing something reprehensibly evil, you find another job. I fail to see how in any recognized criminal situation this would work otherwise.

folamh

LoTR wrote: »

As a vegetarian, without animal protein, I am perfectly healthy. I do not know what is "optimal for human thriving," but if that includes engaging in brutality, depravity, torture, and the horrific killings of other sentient beings, then that is absolutely not something I can support. I would also probably be richer if I went around robbing people, doesn't mean it would be right to do.

Well, you can't necessarily know whether you are perfectly healthy or not! But you value not killing animals over your health and that preference is valid.

Do consider these guidelines: http://rawfoodsos.com/for-vegans

Shellfish and bivalves are among the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet. And if you're brave enough, try bugs! The shellfish of the land, if you will.

LoTR

eviltwin wrote: »

Bring it on. I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years but would vote No. I don't think anyone should be told what to do. Live and let live.

Live and let live......but not for animals, who must be brutalized, tortured, and murdered by the billions. For your Happy Meal. That sounds just wonderful.

ThinkProgress

LoTR wrote: »

The biggest loss will be to corporations, and if it happens globally, to the whole capitalist system. But regardless, if the majority of the population does realize how terribly wrong this all is, I don't see how in the hell anyone can protect it because many would be losing jobs involved directly in this nightmarish industry. If your job is (even if you don't mean in that way) doing something reprehensibly evil, you find another job. I fail to see how in any recognized criminal situation this would work otherwise.

If the world ever decided en masse, that we were better off without meat (and it was actually economically viable - which I don't feel it currently is), corporations would shift toward that model... don't worry the juicy capitalist pig will still exist!

Dyr

LoTR wrote: »

who must be brutalized, tortured, and murdered by the billions. For your Happy Meal. That sounds just wonderful.

I insist that they must be murdered alright, the brutalizing and torture is'nt mandatory

LoTR

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Veg & vegan diets are not practical for sustaining the world's population - the logistics of it are near impossible. (Just consider how long it takes to grow / produce the food you eat)

It's a diet for people with more money - certainly not for the impoverished masses! Meat is also far more satiating (more bang for your buck basically)

And veg / vegan diets are typically very high carb - high sugar diets are not good for optimal health. They cause premature ageing! (there is plenty of science to back that up)

1) Not eating meat is less expensive than eating meat. The biggest populations on the planet are, or for the majority of history used to be, largely vegetarian - India, China.

2) I have type 1 diabetes, which means I can not have much carbs at all - and yet I make do perfectly on a vegetarian diet.

3) The human population is indeed out of control and spiraling to levels that will exhaust the planet's resources very rapidly. Surely the solution is not adding more fuel to the fire until everything collapses?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's a diet for people with more money - certainly not for the impoverished masses! Meat is also far more satiating (more bang for your buck basically)

Several hundreds of millions of people in India would disagree with you there. As would I, I can feed myself plentifully and healthily for €20 p/w easily

PucaMama

Nothing puts me off the vegetarian diet/ lifestyle quicker than the over bearing, egotistical attitude of people like the op.

stimpson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRfHlBk4Pcg

Dan_Solo

What are your canine teeth for? Oh yeah, that'd be tearing flesh.
Conversation over.

Wibbs

folamh wrote: »

The pervasive fallacy in nutrition (and I've encountered it in the paleosphere as well as the mainstream) is generalization. Everyone has unique physiological make-up deriving from their evolutionary heritage, which corresponds to varying dietary needs.

+1

That said, I think that there are very basic tenets which apply universally to most humans, such as that post-agricultural foods like grains and processed sugar aren't optimal.

There's something to that(especially when it comes to refined sugars), but on the other hand the biggest changes n the human genome have occurred since the agricultural revolution. Far more than occurred in the 50,000 years previously. Most of these change seem to be dietary driven. The ability to digest milk one of the more obvious ones, gluten tolerance another. Even the ability to process alcohol. All relatively recent adaptations. Your "caveman" would have been a lactose intolerant slight coeliac with little or no resistance to alcohol. A glass of milk and a ham sandwich would have him with the liquid sit downs.

Grains I don't think are an issue as such. Contrary to popular we have been eating them long before the farmers showed up. Neandertals, those hyper Atkins types were making biscuits 80,000 years ago. First ones to do it as far as we know. They were eating wild grains though, not the huge doughy gluten heavy obese seeds of the modern age.

MRnotlob606 wrote:

I have read it's healthier to subsist on a "Paleo diet" than a modern diet. Early humans ate a lot plants and grasses and only rarely ate meat.It's only when technology developed that we expanded our diets more and incorporated meat more.

Sure, your "paleo" diet is healthier than Maccy Dees and Chinner dinners, but there's an awful lot of BS around it.

For a start, which paleo diet? As Folamh pointed out even among modern humans our diets can vary hugely. Same with pre farming humans. A group living near a waterway would have a very different dietary profile to another group living far inland. Then there are the different climates going on.

Another major problem is the veg you see in your local shop quite simply didn't exist before we bred them by selection. Same for many fruits too. Ever seen a wild banana? It's basically a bag of seeds surrounded by skin. You'd not have a tooth left in your head if you ate one. Wild lettuce is puny, bitter as hell and has sedative herbal properties. Wild broccoli looks nothing like the farmed and you'd starve to death trying to eat wild carrots. Others are poisonous in their natural state as plants naturally don't fancy having their leaves eaten. Most such above ground plants we see as veg today would have either been avoided or used medicinally by our ancient cousins. The veg they did eat tended to be seasonal fruits, nuts and tubers. Big on tubers they were. They fashioned stone tools to dig em out(said tools have a different polish to ones they used for meat). A foot of water lily tuber would keep you in carbs for a week.

Two major parts of our early successes were switching to eating more meat and cooking. Cooking was as big a revolution as stone tools IMH. It physically changed our very body shape. It was essentially external predigestion(and our parasite load massively decreased). It's why we don't need the stronger stomach acids of pure predators, nor the multiple stomachs and long digestive tracts of pure herbivores. The tools are why we don't need the pointed canines and carnassial teeth of predators, or have to stand there munching our greens all day. Cooking also preserved food. Raw hazelnuts are very astringent, so our ancestors found that if you buried a stack of them in sand under your fire, the next day they'd be cooked, easy to eat and could last for many months without going off.

Exercise is another aspect to their lifestyle. Your stone aged modern human man and women had bone densities of your average world class athlete of today. Even your middle aged Cro Magnon was a bull of a man. Constant low level movement with the odd sudden burst of explosive energy seems to be the thing. They also had in many ways more relaxed lives funny enough. The early farmers spent most of their days in food production, your hunter gatherers don't(even today). They "work" an hour, maybe two per day. remember these guys had enough free time in the middle of an cold period to paint the caverns of Europe and elsewhere and fashion cultural items from ivory and stone(which takes huge man hours to do). Farmers are easy to spot in the archaeological record as they're usually shorter, weaker, lower bone density and tend to die younger.

The other thing is how much they ate. Portion sizes were small and they went without food for longer and usually by choice too. Neandertals ate like horses, but they were built like them and were a different (sub) species with very unique needs so we can rule them out as good examples for us today. They needed at least 3500 calories per day to survive, but that was to feed their massive musculature, if a modern human eats that amount he or she is doing an elvis and will likely end up flatlining on a jacks in the future.

TL;DR? eat smaller amounts, avoid refined sugars, grains in small quantities, more root veggies, nuts and fruit, meat in small amounts, preferably white meats and shellfish, walk more and lift heavy things every day.

catallus

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 There's something to that(especially when it comes to refined sugars), but on the other hand the biggest changes n the human genome have occurred since the agricultural revolution. Far more than occurred in the 50,000 years previously. Most of these change seem to be dietary driven. The ability to digest milk one of the more obvious ones, gluten tolerance another. Even the ability to process alcohol. All relatively recent adaptations. Your "caveman" would have been a lactose intolerant slight coeliac with little or no resistance to alcohol. A glass of milk and a ham sandwich would have him with the liquid sit downs.

Grains I don't think are an issue as such. Contrary to popular we have been eating them long before the farmers showed up. Neandertals, those hyper Atkins types were making biscuits 80,000 years ago. First ones to do it as far as we know. They were eating wild grains though, not the huge doughy gluten heavy obese seeds of the modern age.

Sure, your "paleo" diet is healthier than Maccy Dees and Chinner dinners, but there's an awful lot of BS around it.

For a start, which paleo diet? As Folamh pointed out even among modern humans our diets can vary hugely. Same with pre farming humans. A group living near a waterway would have a very different dietary profile to another group living far inland. Then there are the different climates going on.

Another major problem is the veg you see in your local shop quite simply didn't exist before we bred them by selection. Same for many fruits too. Ever seen a wild banana? It's basically a bag of seeds surrounded by skin. You'd not have a tooth left in your head if you ate one. Wild lettuce is puny, bitter as hell and has sedative herbal properties. Wild broccoli looks nothing like the farmed and you'd starve to death trying to eat wild carrots. Others are poisonous in their natural state as plants naturally don't fancy having their leaves eaten. Most such above ground plants we see as veg today would have either been avoided or used medicinally by our ancient cousins. The veg they did eat tended to be seasonal fruits, nuts and tubers. Big on tubers they were. They fashioned stone tools to dig em out(said tools have a different polish to ones they used for meat). A foot of water lily tuber would keep you in carbs for a week.

Two major parts of our early successes were switching to eating more meat and cooking. Cooking was as big a revolution as stone tools IMH. It physically changed our very body shape. It was essentially external predigestion(and our parasite load massively decreased). It's why we don't need the stronger stomach acids of pure predators, nor the multiple stomachs and long digestive tracts of pure herbivores. The tools are why we don't need the pointed canines and carnassial teeth of predators, or have to stand there munching our greens all day. Cooking also preserved food. Raw hazelnuts are very astringent, so our ancestors found that if you buried a stack of them in sand under your fire, the next day they'd be cooked, easy to eat and could last for many months without going off.

Exercise is another aspect to their lifestyle. Your stone aged modern human man and women had bone densities of your average world class athlete of today. Even your middle aged Cro Magnon was a bull of a man. Constant low level movement with the odd sudden burst of explosive energy seems to be the thing. They also had in many ways more relaxed lives funny enough. The early farmers spent most of their days in food production, your hunter gatherers don't(even today). They "work" an hour, maybe two per day. remember these guys had enough free time in the middle of an cold period to paint the caverns of Europe and elsewhere and fashion cultural items from ivory and stone(which takes huge man hours to do). Farmers are easy to spot in the archaeological record as they're usually shorter, weaker, lower bone density and tend to die younger.

The other thing is how much they ate. Portion sizes were small and they went without food for longer and usually by choice too. Neandertals ate like horses, but they were built like them and were a different (sub) species with very unique needs so we can rule them out as good examples for us today. They needed at least 3500 calories per day to survive, but that was to feed their massive musculature, if a modern human eats that amount he or she is doing an elvis and will likely end up flatlining on a jacks in the future.

TL;DR? eat smaller amounts, avoid refined sugars, grains in small quantities, more root veggies, nuts and fruit, meat in small amounts, preferably white meats and shellfish, walk more and lift heavy things every day.

What about chicken?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

catallus wrote: »

What about chicken?

If you're peckish

MRnotlob606

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 There's something to that(especially when it comes to refined sugars), but on the other hand the biggest changes n the human genome have occurred since the agricultural revolution. Far more than occurred in the 50,000 years previously. Most of these change seem to be dietary driven. The ability to digest milk one of the more obvious ones, gluten tolerance another. Even the ability to process alcohol. All relatively recent adaptations. Your "caveman" would have been a lactose intolerant slight coeliac with little or no resistance to alcohol. A glass of milk and a ham sandwich would have him with the liquid sit downs.

Grains I don't think are an issue as such. Contrary to popular we have been eating them long before the farmers showed up. Neandertals, those hyper Atkins types were making biscuits 80,000 years ago. First ones to do it as far as we know. They were eating wild grains though, not the huge doughy gluten heavy obese seeds of the modern age.

Sure, your "paleo" diet is healthier than Maccy Dees and Chinner dinners, but there's an awful lot of BS around it.

For a start, which paleo diet? As Folamh pointed out even among modern humans our diets can vary hugely. Same with pre farming humans. A group living near a waterway would have a very different dietary profile to another group living far inland. Then there are the different climates going on.

Another major problem is the veg you see in your local shop quite simply didn't exist before we bred them by selection. Same for many fruits too. Ever seen a wild banana? It's basically a bag of seeds surrounded by skin. You'd not have a tooth left in your head if you ate one. Wild lettuce is puny, bitter as hell and has sedative herbal properties. Wild broccoli looks nothing like the farmed and you'd starve to death trying to eat wild carrots. Others are poisonous in their natural state as plants naturally don't fancy having their leaves eaten. Most such above ground plants we see as veg today would have either been avoided or used medicinally by our ancient cousins. The veg they did eat tended to be seasonal fruits, nuts and tubers. Big on tubers they were. They fashioned stone tools to dig em out(said tools have a different polish to ones they used for meat). A foot of water lily tuber would keep you in carbs for a week.

Two major parts of our early successes were switching to eating more meat and cooking. Cooking was as big a revolution as stone tools IMH. It physically changed our very body shape. It was essentially external predigestion(and our parasite load massively decreased). It's why we don't need the stronger stomach acids of pure predators, nor the multiple stomachs and long digestive tracts of pure herbivores. The tools are why we don't need the pointed canines and carnassial teeth of predators, or have to stand there munching our greens all day. Cooking also preserved food. Raw hazelnuts are very astringent, so our ancestors found that if you buried a stack of them in sand under your fire, the next day they'd be cooked, easy to eat and could last for many months without going off.

Exercise is another aspect to their lifestyle. Your stone aged modern human man and women had bone densities of your average world class athlete of today. Even your middle aged Cro Magnon was a bull of a man. Constant low level movement with the odd sudden burst of explosive energy seems to be the thing. They also had in many ways more relaxed lives funny enough. The early farmers spent most of their days in food production, your hunter gatherers don't(even today). They "work" an hour, maybe two per day. remember these guys had enough free time in the middle of an cold period to paint the caverns of Europe and elsewhere and fashion cultural items from ivory and stone(which takes huge man hours to do). Farmers are easy to spot in the archaeological record as they're usually shorter, weaker, lower bone density and tend to die younger.

The other thing is how much they ate. Portion sizes were small and they went without food for longer and usually by choice too. Neandertals ate like horses, but they were built like them and were a different (sub) species with very unique needs so we can rule them out as good examples for us today. They needed at least 3500 calories per day to survive, but that was to feed their massive musculature, if a modern human eats that amount he or she is doing an elvis and will likely end up flatlining on a jacks in the future.

TL;DR? eat smaller amounts, avoid refined sugars, grains in small quantities, more root veggies, nuts and fruit, meat in small amounts, preferably white meats and shellfish, walk more and lift heavy things every day.

I'm not a vegetarian, nor am I endorsing it. I'm just stating facts about the earlier Paleo diet that the Neanderthals and Early modern Humans followed.Hope that clears some stuff up.

folamh

Boston Itchy Drug wrote: »

Several hundreds of millions of people in India would disagree with you there. As would I, I can feed myself plentifully and healthily for €20 p/w easily

I've been conventional vegetarian, vegan, raw vegan, fruitarian, gluten-free and paleo (been paleo for 3+ years now). In my experience, you can make *any* of those diets as inexpensive as 20 euro per week if you put your mind to it. Scouring the reduced section in supermarkets for perfectly fresh fruit & veg, growing your own, shopping at Aldi & Lidl, buying in bulk, going to Asian supermarkets for nuts, beans and tofu. There are many tricks

MRnotlob606

Recommend people watch some videos by Australian Philosopher Peter Singer, he helped found the Animal liberation movement.