Vegetarianism

penguinbloke

The problem with eating an animal that died naturally is the animal would have either been sick or old, (or hit by a truck,fell down a hole, freak boating accident but these are less likely to happen so can be ignored.)

If the animal is old the meat tends to be tougher,and personally if an animal was sick I wouldn't want to eat it.

Personally I love meat, can't get enough steaks, served very rare.

That said most of the vegetarian stuff around is pretty good and if you put a bit of effort in to start with you can easily find non meat foods you like.

--Kaiser--

I think i'd go mental if i didn't eat meat, to me meat is the main part of a meal

Blisterman

True, I mainly eat chicken, which is low fat and a good source of protein, so giving that up, wouldnt make me healthier, other than I wont be eating any growth hormones or antibiotics.

Dades

Blisterman wrote:

Too bad they dont sell meat, from animals that die naturally. Couldn't see any problem with that.

Yeah I'd say there's a big market for roadkill.

:rolleyes:

Blisterman

I mean of old age. Roadkill's not natural causes.

jor el

Blisterman wrote:

Too bad they dont sell meat, from animals that die naturally. Couldn't see any problem with that.

Isn't that what they make Chicken McNuggets from, old animal carcases and leftover chicken heads? Mmmmmm, yummy.

I don't see any problem with killing animals for food, it's the natural order of things. I'd like to see someone convince a crocodile that a quarn burger is a tasty alternative to flamingo.

I hate when vegetarians try to force their views on me though (not saying that anyone here is doing that or anything), trying to guilt trip about slaughtering poor defenceless animals and so on. I know someone who does that and it's damn annoying. Everyone has a choice about what they would like to eat. Some choose meat, others don't and that's grand. Some try to force their opinion on others, whereas others simply try to inform.

Me, I think I'll stick with the steaks and chicken and a bit of fish for another while anyway.

Stark

I'm being completely hypocritical here as I eat meat myself, but having animals rounded up and slaughtered in conveyor belt fashion is a detraction from the natural order of things.

StupidLikeAFox

I eat what i want when i want!

Take that vegetarians!!
MOOHA!!

ferdi

http://www.hedweb.com/campaig/bb_lamb.jpg

penguinbloke

One of the greatest ideas ever

Saruman

lol Thats good actually

I have no problem with people eating meat.. in fact if im cooking for friends who eat meat i will go get them a steak etc and cook it.. pretty damn good too... I remember cooking a steak for a friend and Swordfish for myself and wife. I did them the same way, same marinade etc. He admitted after i let him taste mine that he would have preferred the swordfish.

Ibviously the above has nothing to do with vegetarianism since its fish.. i just point out there are alternatives and a friend who loves his steak found he would have preferred fish instead.

I have cooked food for people with Quorn in it and the only reason they know it was not meat is because i told them.. they say its lovely but seem confused that im eating chicken.. i tell them then its not chicken.

Or i cook without meat or any substitute either (i dont use quorn much actually). So make a vegetarian mexican dish for instance and they love it. Dont miss meat at all.
Its all down to perception. Before i gave up meat i was a pure meat eater. Loved my steak!! I did not like vegetables at all, only potatoes, sprouts and cabbage. thats it.. now i love Veg as i learned how to cook it right.

Tar.Aldarion

id like to be a vegetarian but i absolutely hate nearly every time of food but meat and potatoes.last time i ate cabbage i just puked it up,thats how much i hate it.....damn parents....

Hugh Hefner

Well I've never been much of a meat freak. I'm not especially partial to red meat. In fact, I'll rarely choose it on a menu. My Dad cooks red meat like 5 nights a week which to me seems very unhealthy and unnatural. I sometimes want to punch a wall.

My biggest problem would be to give up white meat. I don't despise vegetables. I just stuff them down the hatch and leave the rest to my digestive system.

I have an objection to the treatment of animals but I'm just to detatched from it that it doesn't really effect me. When I started researching vegan/vegetarian-ism I couldn't resist all the health benefits. I know I could do it and I probably will go vegetarian soon enough but my Dad (the main cooker in the house) is being needlessly difficult so.......... *punches wall*


SUPPORT THE VEGAN/VEGETARIAN FORUM!

--Kaiser--

Saruman wrote:

I did not like vegetables at all, only potatoes, sprouts and cabbage. thats it.. now i love Veg as i learned how to cook it right.

That's a good point, the last time I ate out I had a Steak dinner, but the best part of the meal was the Veg; turnips, carrots and peas (and i HATE peas), because they were cooked to perfection (the place won 7 food awards and it showed)

The Corinthian

People eat too much meat. And poor quality meat at that. And in this regard vegetarianism is a positive thing in that it does encourage a more healthy diet.

Ideologically however it’s pure idiocy. Arguing that “I don’t eat meat but I eat fish” borders on the moronic if done so on the basis of philosophy rather than health. As such, unless it is a genuine dislike of the taste of red meat, the refusal to eat any red meat makes no logical sense in the case of an ideologically motivated vegetarian who will happily eat fish.

Personally I like red meat. I’m even partial to stake tartar. But I also enjoy fish, white meats, mushrooms (of various strains) and vegetables. I will happily eat tofu too. But not every day. This is because my primary interests in my diet are quality and health, not some middle-class distaste at eating something because it looked all cute and fluffy once.

bonkey

Saruman wrote:

Salad??? please if thats what you think we eat then feck off somewhere else. Salads are the same as what meat eaters eat... an appetiser or side dish... very few people would eat as a main course unless they are not hungry!!

Ummm, what do you mean "as a main course", incidentally?

Most people don't eat any single item as a main course, unless you generaically lump a load of different things together as "stew" or "pie" or somesuch.

The only reason I'm pointing it out is because during the summer, my typical meal consists of some meat or fish (typically marinaded and slapped on the BBQ) accompanied by one or more salads. Does that make it a side-dish? if so, then what is the main course? Just the meat/fish? does that mean then that a vegetarian is eating nothing but a selection of side-dishes when they have the same as me only without the meat/fish?

See...salad doesn't equate with lettuce. Indeed, all of the following can be (and are) followed with the word salad...

rice
potato
lentil
pasta

And....given that someone mentioned that we didn't get to the top of the foodchain to eat salad....

cervelat (cervelas)
warm chicken

and so on.

Yes...yes...I know its somewhat off topic, but it was Corinthian's post there that made me think of it.

I know so many self-professed "vegetarians" who eat fish...and even self-professed "vegetarians" who eat chicken...and that set me off.

Salad is not necessarily vegetarian, nor necessarily anything less substantial than other dishes.

And getting back to the "driving around for 2 hours to find somewhere that does a good meat-substitute" narkiness....has anyone else met vegetarians will tell you they would rather not eat in restaurant X because it has crap vegetarian food....but generally wouldn't accept your refusal to eat in a vegetarian joint on the grounds that it does crap non-vegetarian food.

I fscking hate that. Especially if you find out afterwards that they are the fish-or-chicken-eating "vegetarians".

I should qualify that by saying that most vegetarians (and non-meat- / non-red-meat eaters) I know are actually very, very accomdating...but there are some to whom their eating habits are sacrosanct and important, but everyone else's don't matter.

jc

Saruman

I agree bonkey! Some vegetarians are too picky... maybe i am but usually more to do with price or how nice the food sounds... not because they dont have much non meat.

What i meant by salad as a main course was lettuce and other cold veg etc and thats all.. nothing else. I did not mean (and did not clarify) that i was not uncluding a big rice or pasta dish in that. I was just pointing out to that poster that Vegetarians do not just have to eat salad, there are more non-meat dishes we can eat than there are meat dishes of any kind.

I will happily go to a steakhouse like TGI fridays etc with friends and watch them eat a juicy steak. I will be conent with whatever im eating like Jack daniels Salmon or even a vegetarian Fajita or something.

rsynnott

Ultimately, disregarding the ethical and moral perspectives for a moment, eating animal products is a dramatically inefficent way to get energy (the plant absorbs roughly 1-2% of the energy from the sunlight, the cow absorbs 1% of the plant's energy, the human absorbs 1% of the cow's energy), and ultimately, it will probably become impractical sooner or later, as the population rises and available land falls.

There are also health issues attached to eating excessive amounts of animal products. You don't see that many fat vegans...

if you're taking the ethical view, then pescatarians (sp?) who eat wild fish might make sense; fish aren't though to be particularly aware, and they do die fairly quickly (asphixiation using nitrogen is now also the ethically prefered way of killing chickens). However, using dairy products and eggs but not eating the animals which produce them DOESN'T make a lot of sense; the two industries are inextricably linked.

Then there's the 'yuk' factor; both just the idea of eating bits of something that was wandering around a field a few days ago, and the 'yuk' that comes from knowing just how poor hygene in the average meat-processing plant is (this is somewhat of an issue here, and a HUGE issue in the US, where regulation is very weak). Contaminated meat is a big source of food poisoning. And there's a huge irrational yuk factor to discovering that something inoccous looking like gelatin or some soap or some candles contain processed or melted dead animal. People tend to strenously avoid thinking about that one. Most wine contains egg albumen or blood... it goes on.

Myself, I don't eat meat much, but do sometimes; not doing so is just too inconvenient right now. Usually feel vaguely uncomfortable about it tho. Never really liked dairy products anyway; the only dairy derived thing I really eat is milk chocolate, which I'd have difficulty giving up.

Wibbs

rsynnott wrote:

Ultimately, disregarding the ethical and moral perspectives for a moment, eating animal products is a dramatically inefficent way to get energy

I would have to disagree with you there. If you look at pure herbivores, they require a much larger food intake than pure carnivores. They even have(in the case of ruminants) extra stomachs to extract as much nutrient as possible from the plant foods they eat. Carnivores eat much less frequently than herbivores who pretty much eat all the time. In fact, it has been well argued that the development of the human brain accelerated when we became more carnivorous. The first recognisable human tools were made to butcher the meat of animals.

There are also health issues attached to eating excessive amounts of animal products. You don't see that many fat vegans...

The health issues that you speak of are highly contentious. It could be argued just as strongly that heart disease, diabetes and obesity are far more linked to excessive consumption of grains(bread/pasta etc) and processed carbohydrates than meat consumption. If you look at hunter gatherer societies, all of which have a diet high in animal fats and proteins these diseases are almost unknown. We produce hydrochloric acid in our stomachs, which herbivores do not. We possess an atrophied appendix which plays little or no part in our digestive process as we are unable to metabolise cellulose like herbivores. We are omnivorous, with a bias towards animal products. The success of the atkins diet in reducing weight and other health problems would bear this out(I'm not espousing the atkins diet BTW as I would feel it's far to restrictive, but when compared to the equally restrictive vegan diet it would seem to be better).


http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm Mostly concerning the disadvantages of veganism but worth a read(myth 7 is a beaut)

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/vegemyths1.html Long but worth a read.

if you're taking the ethical view, then pescatarians (sp?) who eat wild fish might make sense

Wild fish? With stocks of same at an all time low and massive habitat destruction occurring in pursuit of existing stocks, recommending wild fish would be ecological madness IMO.

The population of large fish stocks has dropped by 90% since 1950. 90% Just something to think about the next time you chomp down on swordfish or tuna(don't get me wrong, I love fish too(and not in a bad way either )).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3856573.stm
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/newsletter/May96/5ifpri.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030515/030515-1.html

From the veggie perspective for balance

http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/myths-humans-not.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/myths-humans-earlydiet.html
The bit about our closest relatives is a bit silly to say the least, and wrong to boot. Anybody see the program about chimps hunting smaller monkeys? It also points out that we're not designed to catch or eat animals. That's why we made tools to do it for us. We're not designed to be herbivores either as we don't have 3 stomachs, a functioning appendix and huge flat teeth either.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

There are also health issues attached to eating excessive amounts of animal products. You don't see that many fat vegans...

You don't see many fat concentration camp prisoners either - they must have a very healthy diet... :rolleyes:

rsynnott

Wibbs wrote:

I would have to disagree with you there. If you look at pure herbivores, they require a much larger food intake than pure carnivores. They even have(in the case of ruminants) extra stomachs to extract as much nutrient as possible from the plant foods they eat. Carnivores eat much less frequently than herbivores who pretty much eat all the time. In fact, it has been well argued that the development of the human brain accelerated when we became more carnivorous. The first recognisable human tools were made to butcher the meat of animals.

.

You don't have to agree with me; it's a simple case of an energy budget. To get 1 joule by eating a cow requires 1,000,000 joules sunlight, to get 1 joule by eating plant matter requires 10,000. Yes, you're correct, many natural herbivores have to eat all the time. A human eating a balanced vegetarian diet doesn't, tho.

Wibbs

Taking your point that energy conversion from the sun is more efficient for plants than animals. Fair enough but energy budgets/sun aside, where do you get your original figures for this argument from?

the plant absorbs roughly 1-2% of the energy from the sunlight, the cow absorbs 1% of the plant's energy, the human absorbs 1% of the cow's energy

links outlining this would be helpful, as from your figures the whole thing seems incredibly inefficient. If by energy you mean the carbohydrates/fats from food surely the conversion rate is much higher than 1-2%? If I eat an apple and the sugars it contains you contend I only get 1% of the calorie content of said apple? You should call that the "one percent diet", you're in line for a fortune if you're right.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is not fat(animal or plant), gram for gram, higher in calories than sugars and other carbohydrates. Therefore would I not have to eat quite a lot of vegatable matter to get the same amount of energy/calories that I would get from an average sized steak. On that basis animal products would give me a higher bang for the buck than a fruit/veg. EG. I could drink olive oil(plant fats) but how many individual olives would I have to ingest to equal the energy I would get from the steak. My contention would still stand that carnivores are more efficient outside of the energy required to produce the food in the first place.

As for your contention that meat production will

probably become impractical sooner or later, as the population rises and available land falls.

, may I refer you again to one of the links I posted before,http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/vegemyths1.html wherin this is discussed and largely dismissed in myth 1 of the aforementioned article.

As for the "yuk" factor you speak of, I agree but if you look into anything long enough "yuk" rears it's head. Ordinary flour contains traces of insect. Fruit and veg contain residues of pesticides etc. Even organic fruit and veg would have traces of manure/fertiliser.