Veggie or Not?

tribble

Couple of Questions for U

Is a person who eats fish but not other meat a veggie or not? + Why?

If you are a veggie what moral governs whether you eat something or not (ie. it's an animal i don't eat it, it's intelligent i don't eat it, you get the idea)

Cheers,



b

Meh

Originally posted by tribble
Is a person who eats fish but not other meat a veggie or not? + Why?

No. Vegetarian = doesn't eat flesh.

If you are a veggie what moral governs whether you eat something or not (ie. it's an animal i don't eat it, it's intelligent i don't eat it, you get the idea)

Depends on the vegetarian. Some vegetarians eat cheese, eggs and other animal products. Some of them ("vegans") only eat vegetable products. Some vegetarians don't wear leather/wool/fur.

SheroN

I wasn't pulled out of the womb kickin and screaming to eat grass and wear cheap leather look plastic....

Washout

I always though the definition of a vegitarian was some1 who didnt eat anything that resulted in the death of an animal.

now i know that plants have life too but we gotta eat something right? goes down to an indian tradition that plants have a less life force than other living things.

so its the least karma build up to eat rabbit food

Guy Incognito

As soon as those crazee genetics people make carrots that taste as good as sausages etc, I'll eat more vegetables.:p

koneko

Vegetarian is someone that doesn't eat something that was/is an animal, I suppose. That includes Fish and chicken. It's a tad annoying when people say they're a vegetarian but still eat fish and chicken. You're not a vegetarian then, you just choose not to eat *certain* types of meat. A chicken is as much as an animal as a cow ever was.

A vegan is someone that doesn't eat any animal products. That includes dairy products.

I can't see it as being healthy, humans are supposed to eat meat.

I've talked to different people who give different reasons. Some say they think it's cruelty to animals. Some say they don't think meat is healthy. My uncle's a veggie and he hates animals, heh.

bonkey

Originally posted by tribble

Is a person who eats fish but not other meat a veggie or not? + Why?

Not.
I've heard many people saying "Im a vegetarian, but I eat fish", which always cracks me up. I always ask them which branch of the vegetable family does fish belong to and they tell me "but its not meat".

Meat, apparently, covers birds, animals, and probably insects and slugs, but doesnt cover fish in these peoples books. My guess is that their thinking is not too uinrelated to "thou shalt not eat meat on Fridays" resulting in Catholics eating fish on Fridays.

Maybe its me - maybe I'm foolish to believe that "vegetarian" derives from "vegetable" as opposed to "not an animal, bird, insect, slug, or other creature, other than fish".

As to reasons - I've never met two vegetarians with the same reasons. My favourite was the militant veggie who gave out to people for killing poor animals to eat their flesh, while he sat there in his leather shoes, wearing jeans with a leather belt, and wearing a leather coat. When I pointed this out to him, he said "but they killed the animal for you to eat - Im just making use of the rest of it". Uh-huh. Thats logical.

jc

Saruman

Fact is a human in Evolutionary terms has always been a Carnivore.. In more recent times though.. i mean modern man (homo-sapien) we are more like omnivores, we dont hunt like before we mass produce and more and more people add vegetables etc to their daily meals.

Vegetarians and Vegans are fine as long as they replace what meat and dairy products provide and vegetables do not like protein.

Washout

i wonder about the carnivorous aspect of humans...i mean its said that a humans teeth arent really designed to eat meat.

bonkey

Originally posted by Washout
i wonder about the carnivorous aspect of humans...i mean its said that a humans teeth arent really designed to eat meat.

I would have said the opposite. Sharp front cutters, tearing incisors, and then the back teeth for mastication. Most herbivores have much more "crushing" surface, and little/no tearing ability.

jc

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by bonkey

My guess is that their thinking is not too uinrelated to "thou shalt not eat meat on Fridays" resulting in Catholics eating fish on Fridays.

I though Catholics weren't supposed to eat red meat on a Friday!?? Anyone confirm this?
Aside from that I agree with you, there's an awful lot of veggies out there who are basically hypocrits... if you're gonna do somethin do it right FFS

Saruman

who says they are not designed to eat meat.. im no dentist but I know they are perfectly designed for just that.. if humans were meant to be veggies only we would have teeth like cows... but we have incisors.. ok small but they are canine and sharpish.. not needed much any more but they are more designed to chewing meat than grinding down vegetables...

Im curious... Lettuce and other green vegetables etc.. can we digest them? Any biology experts out there? I mean we cant digest grass and stuff with chlorophyll in it so what about lettuce.. and if we cant digest it do you think there is any reason to eat it?

neuro-praxis

I'll only eat meat from animals that died of natural causes. For example, the burger I'm chewing on right now came from a cow that fell down the stairs.

Meh

Originally posted by Washout
i wonder about the carnivorous aspect of humans...i mean its said that a humans teeth arent really designed to eat meat.

If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them taste so good.

seamus

Humans are omnivores. Always have been. Anyone who did Biology for the LC (or indeed in college) will know about dental structures of animals. Dogs(carnivores) have teeth specifically designed for tearing fleshing and breaking bone. Sheep (plant-eaters) have a structure for grinding down plant matter, but couldn't tear flesh to save their lives. Us humans have evolved with a nice in-betweeny set of gnashers that wil allow us rip meat and tear flesh, but also nicely grind up all but the most leathery(I'm aware of the pun) plants. Omnivores. We were never carnivores.

I became a pseudo-veggie for a number of reasons:- I don't see the need to eat animals, and by eating them, keeping them and killing them in inhumane conditions. I also never really liked pork or beef products anyway. Unfortunately, the penetration of animal products is so huge it would take years, and tonnes of investment to find suitable replacements, that most companies/governments would not be willing to put up the funding. Yet. However by not eating them, I believe a tiny difference can be made, and every little helps. People say, 'But we have been eating them for years, it's in our instinct'. Rape and beastiality are in our instincts too, do you go out and do that like it's no big deal? We have the benefit of judgement - right and wrong, which sets up apart. It's all part of a world which is becoming increasly self-centered, and caring for nobody, nothing but ourselves. It sickens me .

Ok, to pull me back on-topic, yes I am a hypcrite. I eat tuna. I eat tuna in sandwiches because I am probably the only vegetarian on earth who doesn't like salad, and tuna + mayo + sweetcorn is about the most sexual thing in a sandwich. I hate fish. I hate their smell, their look, and watching them on TV gives me shivers up my spine. Tuna is the only one I can eat without puking my ring. I'm not gonna justify it, I am a hypocrite. But for the reasons above, I am not even slightly inclined to pity them for being killed. There's also furious debate over whether they can feel pain, but they probably can. (still stirring )

Jaden

Not eating meat is a choice.
Eating meat is an instinct.

Would all the vegetarians in the room, please raise their hands, or, if you don't have the strength to, just moan feebly, so that we can identify you.

Veggie bashing is fun.

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by seamus

Rape and beastiality are in our instincts too, do you go out and do that like it's no big deal?

What?? :eek: rape ain't in my instincts bud, after a rake opf beers on a Friday night I ain't thinkin about rape, I'm thinkin about a bacon double cheeseburger, and I sure as fúck am not thinkin about hoppin off home and doin' my dog! Are you nuts??

Really... are you insane?

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
People say, 'But we have been eating them for years, it's in our instinct'.

I've never heard people say that.

What I have I heard was that there are no class A protein sources in plant-life, and it is next to impossible to have a fully balanced diet without either supplement tablets or animal-sourced products (which would include dairy).

Personally, I dont know if its true or not, but I'd be interested in knowing?

Yes - this does obviously raise the point that we could survive off vegetables and dairy produce. No killing of animals (specially if you cut out eggs, just for the real hard-liners) and still have a balanced diet.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey


I've never heard people say that.

What I have I heard was that there are no class A protein sources in plant-life, and it is next to impossible to have a fully balanced diet without either supplement tablets or animal-sourced products (which would include dairy).

Personally, I dont know if its true or not, but I'd be interested in knowing?

Yes - this does obviously raise the point that we could survive off vegetables and dairy produce. No killing of animals (specially if you cut out eggs, just for the real hard-liners) and still have a balanced diet.

Well, I've never heard people say my exact phrase either, but all the usual phrases, 'If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them so tasty', 'We're top of the food chain, it's our duty', fundamentally imply that imo.

I don't know about the class-A thing either. I don't drink milk, except in tea, detest the stuff, due to being raised on soya milk (for allergy reasons), but I eat plenty of tuna as I've said, so I'm probably not lacking in animal proteins. But that said, I feel fine and have always had more energy since going psuedo-veggie 2 1/2 years ago. I'm no nutritionist tho, maybe Occy should get involved here?

I really have no problem with most animal farming nowadays. Modern farmers (in most places) seem to realise that a happier, healthier animal produces more and healthier milk/eggs than one kept cooped up in a cage, and I don't think I could ever go fully vegan - it's just unbelievably difficult, especially in Ireland, and for someone on a budget, like me. Governments seem to be getting more pressurised on the situation of animal treatment, and according to a recent study, there are 1,000 new veggies globally every week. That said, the Irish Gov., havent a clue, considering there is no nationally funded animal protection society.(The ISPCA gets funding from donations)

[Oh and Dr. Loon, I'm afraid so. Think of how horny you are for most of the day (assuming you're male of course). Now think of what you'd get up to if you had no rules or boundaries and no proper sense of right or wrong. You'd just take what you want and shag it. Plenty of those cave paintings depict men having sex with animals.....it only came to light recently because the Church had covered them up

flyz

Originally posted by Dr. Loon


I though Catholics weren't supposed to eat red meat on a Friday!?? Anyone confirm this?

Catholics aren't supposed to eat red meat on fridays, especially on good fridays and on ash wednesday.
I think they're meant to eat fish cos it's what Jesus ate.

They're also meant to fast on good friday and holy saturday, i.e. only eat 3 meals each day and black tea /coffee.
Also you weren't meant to fast for 12 hours before going to mass on sunday too

Draco

Vegatables are what food eats.

I'm an out and out carnivore. I don't like the taste of vegatables, but give me a rare steak and I'll devour it.

I don't have a prblem with veggies that don't eat meat 'cause they don't like the taste. However I would piss myself laughing at anyone who does the "it's wrong to eat animals 'cause they're alive thing" while happily wearing clothes made from various animal parts.

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
But that said, I feel fine and have always had more energy since going psuedo-veggie 2 1/2 years ago.

Oh - dont get me wrong. Most non-veggies eat too much meat, and not enough veg - which is probably worse for you overall.

I'm not saying that omnivores have a good diet. In fact, I would go so far as to say that veggies in general actually eat healthier, but cannot (to my knowledge) eat as healthily as an omnivore on a well-balanced diet.

Plenty of those cave paintings depict men having sex with animals.....it only came to light recently because the Church had covered them up

Did they paint over them, or just put some sort of covering on them?

jc

Meh

Originally posted by flyz
Catholics aren't supposed to eat red meat on fridays, especially on good fridays and on ash wednesday.
I think they're meant to eat fish cos it's what Jesus ate.

I thought they got rid of the "no meat on Fridays" thing (God must have changed his mind)...So what happened to all the people who ate meat on Fridays before the rule change? Are they in hell now?

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Did they paint over them, or just put some sort of covering on them?

lol, you forgot your sarcasm device there I think afaik, they church just used their divine intimidation to make the discoverers of said paintings keep schtum, but I remember hearing of a couple that had actually been painted over/scraped off.

tribble

First off thanks people for the input everybody.

... one further question...

Most animals (incl. humans) feel a great deal of pain through out their lives (some voluntary, some not).
Surely it should be the effect on those surrounding the animal that should dictate whether it's pain/death is warranted, no?
I mean the pain of death is not/doesn't have to be all that great but the effect one those arround will cause far more long term pain - even the pidgeon i saw a few months ago displayed what must only have been sorrow as one of her offspring was flattened (literaly) by a lorry. The baby felt nothing the mother was the one suffering - okay this was an act of god but you see my point.
Fish on the other hand feel no emotion (well most, 'cept some of the bigger ones) so therefore the killing of fish is hardly as objectional as the killing of a more developed animal.


Feel free to rubbish, amend and take the piss of what is above, i want to hear your views.


b

ps excuse the spellling

bonkey

Originally posted by tribble
Fish on the other hand feel no emotion (well most, 'cept some of the bigger ones) so therefore the killing of fish is hardly as objectional as the killing of a more developed animal.

I'm really interested in how you figure that fish have no emotions.

We can see pigeons in the sky, and cows in the field, but exactly how much time have you spent studying fish in their natural habitat? Also, exactly what are your qualifications in analysing fish behavioural patterns?

Could it be that you simply dont see fish enough, and dont know enough about them that leads you to your conclusion, or do you have some actual proof that fish have no emotions.

jc

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by Draco
I don't have a prblem with veggies that don't eat meat 'cause they don't like the taste. However I would piss myself laughing at anyone who does the "it's wrong to eat animals 'cause they're alive thing" while happily wearing clothes made from various animal parts.

Thats really comforting to know.
I'd hate to be seen to causing you a problem:rolleyes:

As a vegetarian for 8 years, one tries to do their best to avoid using animal based products in any form. Obvioulsy, there are certain areas where this is impractical. Personally I do as much as I can. Why then should people be criticsed for making genuine efforts to minmise the perceived need to kill animals for the sake of nutrition.
[So You can start pissing yourself now!]

In response to others, there are various levels of vegetarianism, some condider it humane to eat fish others not, others will not eat Dairy products for instance. Thats what may be causing some confusion. Its a personal decision, I guess!

Jaden
Would all the vegetarians in the room, please raise their hands, or, if you don't have the strength to, just moan feebly, so that we can identify you.
Veggie bashing is fun.

Good combination of Ignorance and total Bullshít there Jaden. When you learn more about the lifestyle choice, then post back with something that resembles sense;)

Jaden

I tried the vegitarian lifestyle once, and in hindsight, it was a mistake, at least for me. Still, we were all 15 once, and trying to make the world a better place.

Firstly, it is fun to slag veggies. The majority of them deserve it. There is nothing more irritating than some leaf-eater pontificating at you from his self-held moral high ground.

"Bleet bleet, meat is murder, blah blah."

Yeah Yeah, tell someone who cares.

However, being veggie did teach me one thing. Anyone who takes the attitude of "I'm a meat eater, you lentil-gobbling weenie", would probably faint if they had to kill what they consume. It is slightly hipocritic to call youself a carnivore, but not be prepared to kill something to eat it. Most people are like this. I have killed and eaten my own food several times, and by this, I don't mean just fish. In some ways, it makes for a more satisfying meal. I think everyone should try it.

Take it you nut-munchers.

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by Jaden
it is fun to slag veggies. The majority of them deserve it. There is nothing more irritating than some leaf-eater pontificating at you from his self-held moral high ground.
"Bleet bleet, meat is murder, blah blah."
Yeah Yeah, tell someone who cares.

Heres one I prepared earlier...

Originally posted by 80project
Good combination of Ignorance and total Bullshít there Jaden. When you learn more about the lifestyle choice, then post back with something that resembles sense

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by seamus

[Oh and Dr. Loon, I'm afraid so. Think of how horny you are for most of the day (assuming you're male of course). Now think of what you'd get up to if you had no rules or boundaries and no proper sense of right or wrong. You'd just take what you want and shag it. Plenty of those cave paintings depict men having sex with animals.....it only came to light recently because the Church had covered them up

Seamus... I hope you're trying to pull the píss outta me. Agreed, men think about sex alot during the day, and if we were cavemen we'd probably take what we can when we chose to do so... but boundaries and rules came into play because of people becoming civilised, so whether we're all repressed in some way now (which I don't think) or else just plain civilised, in that we have ethics and morals is another debate, but no I still don't have an instinct to rape anything, be it human or animal.

I imagine I have an instinct to eat when I'm hungry, it's inbuilt, I have an instinct to duck when I sense something is coming at me, they are instincts, rape is not. We ain't cavemen anymore is my point. If we were back in the dark ages, we could argue this one out in the manner of "Aggghkk, gruk um da vlaka dadum"
Get my point?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

An interesting thread to be sure.

Well, I was raised a vegetarian from childhood, and still am a vegetarian. Why you might ask? Well, I used to be a vegetarian because that's what mom gave me to eat, and I ate it. I'm still a vegetarian for a number of reasons, and none of them involve cruelty to animals. I'm slightly ashamed of this, because having been raised a Hindu, I've been taught to abhor the practise of harming living animals in any way. Nevertheless, that's not the main reason why I'm still a vegetarian.

The reasons are:

1) Blind habit - Having been raised one, it would seem odd, strange, or out of place if I just started eating meat.

2) Global sustainability - This is the shaky one, but a reason I strongly cling to. A hundred acres of land, can feed a thousand times more people planted with grain, than it could if grazed with livestock. Now before all you smart-a$s demographers start saying 'There's enough food to feed the world already', that certainly is true. However, it isn't being grown in the right places and in the right proportions.

Millions of tonnes of grain rots in European, American and Canadian storehouses every year, while slash & burn cattle farmers in South America are having to get by on a plantain leaf a day while growing thousands of cattle to be turned into McDonald's burgers. Suffice to say, I feel I'm making a small difference by refusing to consume the final product.

3) Health - Yes, health. The vegetarian diet is a far more healthy one than an omnivorous diet for several reasons. For one, every animal product contains LDL cholesterol in copious amounts compared to our RDA. Another reason is low consumption of dietary fiber, omnivores generally are 40% more likely to contract some form of colon/bowel/gastric cancer after the age of 50 than vegetarians are. A balanced intake of dietary fiber has been shown to reduce this to practically nil, but most omnivores fail to take it, vegetarians acquire it naturally.

Another important health factor is the design of our GI tract. It is neither morphologically, nor enzymologically designed for the consumption of meat. In fact, the various turns and increases in surface area (villii, microvilii, permonae) suggest that a long and slow digestive process involving large amounts of unprocessed bulk fiber are what it is best designed for. In plain terms? Our gut is designed to digest vegetables far more than it is for meat. Don't believe me? I invite you to look at a diagram of the human GI tract and compare it to that of any predatory carnivore. Then go look up a college biochem textbook and compare the lists of digestive enzymes carnivorous species have with ours. It makes for some very interesting speculation as to how much of the meat one eats actually constitutes reasonable nutrition.

As for the contention that jc made, that it isn't possible to enjoy a fully balanced diet as a vegetarian- that's not true. It may be a little more work for the vegetarians to get their RDA protein, but I'll take that over an average of 40mg/L less of LDL blood cholesterol over 20 years of consumption. There is no essential nutrient that requires the consumption of animal products. However, that doesn't mean to say I'm a vegan. I don't eat any kind of animal, but I enjoy milk, cheese and the occasional (free range unfertilized) egg. The point does need to be made however, that it is completely unnecessary for a fully balanced diet to consume meat. In addition, the consumption of excessive amounts leads to indigestion, constipation, bowel cancers in later life, high LDL cholesterol levels, and dystopic syndromes of the large intestine.

I have no problem with other people eating meat, it's their choice, and their bowels, I just personally refuse to put myself at risk of these disorders.


Now, to address some of the more farcical arguments in this thread:

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them taste so good

I reject the argument of Christian mythology for defiling one's own health and aiding global suffering/hunger. I also find it incredibly arrogant to think that human beings were meant to defile this planet and their own bodies because it was ordained in some book, most of whose moral philosophies are long obsolete. However, I'll meet you on your own ground just for fun on this one.

By your reasoning, if God didn't want us to kill, he'd have made us incapable of it. Or not allowed guns, swords, armies, wars, poverty, etc. So by your reasoning, these things could be here for God to test us. And the idea that animals are all here for us to eat, might just be a cleverly worded test, like the apple in the Garden of Eden. That's the problem with static religious texts, you can make the words dance a merry meaning for you if you so choose.


Now, on to this amusing statement:

posted by Dr. Loon
I imagine I have an instinct to eat when I'm hungry, it's inbuilt, I have an instinct to duck when I sense something is coming at me, they are instincts, rape is not. We ain't cavemen anymore is my point. If we were back in the dark ages, we could argue this one out in the manner of "Aggghkk, gruk um da vlaka dadum"

Ah, the argument of instinct. Well, when I see a cow making faces at me over a fence Dr. Loon, my instinct is to make faces back at it. Not to run over and start gnawing on its leg. This would be very different to a wandering puma (humor me :P) who happened to lay eyes on this cow making faces at it. It's instinct would probably be to think(in puma) "Mmm, lunch", and it *would* certainly run over and start gnawing on the cow's leg. Of course, I might go over and start gnawing on its leg if I was hungry enough, but by then I reckon I'd probably be willing enough to eat my own socks. See my point Loon? It relates to what Jaden said somewhat. But we as a species don't have an predatory instinct to hunt and kill our prey.

Out of interest, as human men it is innately in our instinct to: rape, commit bestial acts, steal, kill in defense, leave our spouses. All of these serve a broad evolutionary purpose, but thankfully, due to the civilized structure of society these days, we suppress these instincts given that they are no longer necessary to be competitive for mates(biological mates, not the ones down at the pub :P)

This is an interesting thread, I look forward to reading it for a bit more.

Occy

Trojan

I've been considering trying it for a month or , main reasons would be health too.

Al.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
As for the contention that jc made, that it isn't possible to enjoy a fully balanced diet as a vegetarian- that's not true. It may be a little more work for the vegetarians to get their RDA protein, but I'll take that over an average of 40mg/L less of LDL blood cholesterol over 20 years of consumption.

I sit corrected.

For further enlightenment :

1) When you say vegetarian, are you including vegans? (I'm not trying to trip you up or catch you out - just to enlighten myself)

2) I assume that it is possible to have a healthy diet which includes meat - its just that we shouldnt eat anywhere near as much of it as we do?

3) What, typically, does a vegan need to eat to meet the typical RDA of protein?

h, the argument of instinct. Well, when I see a cow making faces at me over a fence Dr. Loon, my instinct is to make faces back at it. Not to run over and start gnawing on its leg
<snip>
Out of interest, as human men it is innately in our instinct to: rape, commit bestial acts, steal, kill in defense, leave our spouses. All of these serve a broad evolutionary purpose, but thankfully, due to the civilized structure of society these days, we suppress these instincts given that they are no longer necessary to be competitive for mates(biological mates, not the ones down at the pub :P)

Doesnt the same apply to our eating of meat? You make funny faces at the cow, because it is no longer necessary (in a competetive survival sense) for you to hunt n gather food? In the same sense that we have somewhat supressed our more violent tendencies, have we not also supressed our "eat to survive" instincts, and so will happily turn up a free meal like said face-making cow?

jc

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
.


Ah, the argument of instinct. Well, when I see a cow making faces at me over a fence Dr. Loon, my instinct is to make faces back at it. Not to run over and start gnawing on its leg. This would be very different to a wandering puma (humor me :P) who happened to lay eyes on this cow making faces at it. It's instinct would probably be to think(in puma) "Mmm, lunch", and it *would* certainly run over and start gnawing on the cow's leg. Of course, I might go over and start gnawing on its leg if I was hungry enough, but by then I reckon I'd probably be willing enough to eat my own socks. See my point Loon? It relates to what Jaden said somewhat. But we as a species don't have an predatory instinct to hunt and kill our prey.

Out of interest, as human men it is innately in our instinct to: rape, commit bestial acts, steal, kill in defense, leave our spouses. All of these serve a broad evolutionary purpose, but thankfully, due to the civilized structure of society these days, we suppress these instincts given that they are no longer necessary to be competitive for mates(biological mates, not the ones down at the pub :P)

This is an interesting thread, I look forward to reading it for a bit more.

Occy

If I saw a cow looking at me in a field, of course it's not my instinct to go and start eating it. If I was hungry/starving and had no other means of food I would of course, kill the fúcker and eat it's cooked meat
I still do not believe it's in our instinct to rape, but it is in our instinct to procreate, now in neanderthal times, we were so uncouth that we'd probably just leap on anything that we could succesfully rod in order to bear a child. Nowadays, as you say, we're civilised, so we get them drunk and then we do that
Bestiality?? Where are you all getting this idea from? There's some fúcked up people on these boards. If someone can get me a link which says that humans are/were/have the instinct to rape/commit bestiality then I'll become a vegetarian

bonkey

Originally posted by Dr. Loon
If someone can get me a link which says that humans are/were/have the instinct to rape/commit bestiality then I'll become a vegetarian

/me starts preparing a website with this statement in it, justturn Loon into a veggie
jc

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by bonkey


/me starts preparing a website with this statement in it, justturn Loon into a veggie
jc

Seriously though, I'd like to lear more about human instincts, but I can't believe bestiality is or was one of them, so if anyone turns up any results, post it up

Kix

First, thanks Occy for putting the case so well.

I'm a vegetarian and I've been one for the last five years or so and I imagine I will be one until I die.

It's not something I really consciously thought about doing. A lot of my friends were veggies - none of them pushy about it, one of them a vegetarian from birth like Occy (she's a Jain) - and I guess the idea was just slowly working itself into my brain.

I found that I was eating less and less meat. One day I noticed that I'd been three days without it and decided to keep it up for a while to see how it felt. I immediately knew that it was the right decision for me. I craved peanuts for about two weeks and then my body got used to it.

I don't eat animals because I think that it's unnecessary.

I will not kill an animal to feed myself when I can feed myself perfectly well in other ways.

I don't believe that I am succumbing to anthropomorphism when I say that I believe that most larger animals have a level of emotions not that much less than our own. Anyone who's ever owned a dog should be to attest to that.

They are sensient beings. I don't want to be the one to decide which creatures are aren't clever enough or evolved enough so that killing them doesn't matter. If that logic was applied to mentally and physically retarded humans the outcry would be almost universal.

Anyhow, just my 2c. I don't really believe in pushing my beliefs on other people. I cook meat regularly for my girlfriend, for instance. Still, I feel some defence of my life choice is in order here.

K

neuro-praxis

Originally posted by Occy:
There is no essential nutrient that requires the consumption of animal products.

Is it not true that there are some essential amino acids that can only be obtained from dairy products? Aren't eggs the only type of food that has 100% biological value? Can you get all of the essential amino acids from combinatins of plant foods?

tribble

bonkey

We can see pigeons in the sky, and cows in the field, but exactly how much time have you spent studying fish in their natural habitat? Also, exactly what are your qualifications in analysing fish behavioural patterns?

Could it be that you simply dont see fish enough, and dont know enough about them that leads you to your conclusion, or do you have some actual proof that fish have no emotions.

Well actually, (and i'm not trying to be smart) but i worked in a petshop for several years and have kept fish in an aquarium for over 7 years. While i don't claim to be a fish biologist, i do know a fair bit about them and can judge their habits well enough to provisionally(no pun intended) conclude that they (the smaller fish) do not feel emotion. I have also worked with a wide range of other animals and kept them as pets - however i have never kept a fish bigger than a strugeon ('bout 1 foot) so i cannot vouch for their emotional intellect (and no, i don't eat them either).
I am open to argument and correction on this and would have absolutly no problems in never again eating another fish if proved (provisionally or otherwise) wrong.

Kix

They are sensient beings. I don't want to be the one to decide which creatures are aren't clever enough or evolved enough so that killing them doesn't matter. If that logic was applied to mentally and physically retarded humans the outcry would be almost universal

I absolutly agree with you, this was one of the arguments i considered when making my decision to become a veggie (well, i'm still hashing out the fish question, your input is welcome).
However, most of the mentally and physically retarded humans (and animals) i know are perfectly capable of emotional thought. Therefore i would never consider them as a food source.

I tried the vegitarian lifestyle once, and in hindsight, it was a mistake, at least for me. Still, we were all 15 once, and trying to make the world a better place.

I'm a 21 year old male and have never before even considered becoming a veggie - hardly typical i know but better late than never


Hypocritically I write this while clad in a full lenght leather trench coat - i see no point dumping it seen as it's been dead and on my back for some years now... that said i will never buy a replacement

Bring on the arguments - should i eat fish?


b

Kix

Originally posted by tribble
However, most of the mentally and physically retarded humans (and animals) i know are perfectly capable of emotional thought. Therefore i would never consider them as a food source.

I didn't mean to be crass of course, I was just trying to illustrate a point.

As regards the fish thing, you'll have to make up your own mind. To be honest, I think that they're pretty thick in general but I still don't want to eat them. Besides, there are other good reasons for not eating fish.

1. They taste horrible.
2. Commercial hunting our oceans is madness because is it fundamentally unsustainable. If we still hunted the land we'd have all starved centuries ago.

On the leather side, I still wear leather shoes, but I'd never buy a leather jacket. I don't see a practical alternative for formal/work wear. I console myself that it's only once a year or so that I buy them.

I'm reminded of a Finnish girl I used to know who was a practising vegan all the time except for once a year. She's go to her grandfather's cabin, fish and eat what she caught. I must admit that I don't have a great problem with that. It's a world away from the industrial mass slaughter of abatoirs which I find so dishearting.

Good luck with making your decision. I'd suggest just trying it for a week. You'll know if it feels right for you then. Oh, I'll just say as well that I never gave it much thought until I was in my mid 20s, 21's far from being old.

K

SheroN

Nothing beats waking up on a sunday morning after a night on the beer to smell cooking roast beef, those who have not experienced this have thus failed to experience life.

life == roast beef.

swiss

Interesting points everyone.

I for one can see the arguments why one may wish to become a vegetarian. From what I gather the main objection against eating meat is the fact that people are subjugating and imposing their will upon the animal population simply because it is useful for them to do so, and they have the power to do so.

I have a different perspective on this matter. I was born and grew up on a farm, where my father was involved in rearing cattle for slaughter. The animals were bought at a mart as 'yearlings' (they were one year old) and kept varying periods of time at the farm, cared for and fed until they were sent to an abbatoir such as Slaney or Kepak for slaughter.

As people who have cared for these animals (and no sick jokes please) it is sometimes difficult to let them go. I have always considered the fact that many of those same cattle would not have lived in the first place were it not due to the fact that it was/is useful for us to keep them. Secondly, they enjoyed stress and hunger free times during their (admittedly brief) lives. That is more than can be said for most wildlife, who have to struggle to survive in a darwinian survival of the fittest.

During the last two summers between college, I managed to get summer work in a tannery. Each week about 10,000 cattle hides were processed. This is an offspring of the meat industry, there is little doubt about that, and many vegetarians feel uncomfortable that sentient animals (and from my experience I would have to agree that most large animals certainly appear sentient) should be used for profit in this way.

Directly and indirectly, the meat and dairy industry is an extremely large and important constituent of our economy. For proof of this one should look no furthur than the recent foot and mouth crisis and it's effect on this country. By rejecting the practice of killing for food and other economic provisions, vegetarians are espousing a standard of living far beneath that which we enjoy today.

Perhaps that is being somewhat overly melodramatic in an agricultural context, as economic activity can switch to less 'objectionable' practices, such as tillage, (ignoring the economic tenets of supply and demand) thus maintaining an income for farmers. The same, however could not be said for the myriad of industries that are dependant on the products obtained exclusively through animals.

If people still consider that it would still be better to place what they perceive as 'moral' obligations above their own comfort and financial security - then that's fine, they may certainly choose to do so. If people do so for health reasons then that is certainly laudable. Bob the Unlucky Octopus maintains that it is easier for a vegetarian to maintain a well balanced diet than their carnivorous counterparts. While I am loath to argue with a doctor who doubtlessly knows a good deal more about this matter than I, I would venture to say that meat consumption in modest quantities is one of the best sources of essential amino acids and proteins available to humans.

In relation to the point that many people would choose to turn vegetarian if they had to hunt and kill their own food, I would have to agree. Human society has progressed far beyond the need for individual members to do so. It is also unnecessary for humans to dispose of their own waste (both in terms of human waste and garbage) as there are support services in place to deal with many of the activities that do so for us. Similarly we have cleaners, gravediggers etc. that take care of any other unpleasant activity we do not wish to undertake. My point is that what may seem gut-wrenchingly disgusting for some is a profession for others. As Hamlet put it

the hand of little employment hath the dantier sense"

I am not accusing people of being lazy. I am just demonstrating that it would be impractical for all humans to hunt and kill their food, thus making it's prospect undesirable to many who are not inured to it's admittedly unpleasant nature.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by neuro-praxis


Is it not true that there are some essential amino acids that can only be obtained from dairy products? Aren't eggs the only type of food that has 100% biological value? Can you get all of the essential amino acids from combinatins of plant foods?

No, it's not true that there are essential amino acids obtained from dairy products. The fact that several racial societies are milk intolerant and lead extremely healthy lifestyles (Native Americans) show that it is nowhere near necessary to consume dairy products in order to eat a balanced diet. Personally as stated, I do consume them, because I like cheese and chocolate milk...but it is by no means necessary.

As for eggs having 100% biological value, what do you mean by that statement? If you're saying they have 100% nutritive value, that's incorrect, LDL cholesterol in egg yolk is roughly 60% of content, and serves no nutritive value except to metabolize into plaques that block our coronary arteries.

To your last question, yes, absolutely. It is entirely possible to acquire essential amino acids from plant food combinations. In fact, the nutrient source with the highest glycaemic and amine content is the bannana. Second is the lima bean, and third is red lentil. Eggs and lean red meat are numbers seven and eight on the list. It's just that most people consume a lot more meat than lentils or lima beans, so it has become western society's main source of arginine and lysine.

Originally posted by bonkey:
1) When you say vegetarian, are you including vegans? (I'm not trying to trip you up or catch you out - just to enlighten myself)

2) I assume that it is possible to have a healthy diet which includes meat - its just that we shouldnt eat anywhere near as much of it as we do?

3) What, typically, does a vegan need to eat to meet the typical RDA of protein?

1) When I say vegetarian, I include all vegetarians save fruititarians (those who say that root vegetables are attached to the Earth and that ripping them out murders them, therefore only eating things that fall to the ground). All save those. The distinction is an important one however, you're not trying to trip me up I know, just getting the distinction out in the open

2) It is not only possible, it is eminently and easily achieved, meat is not unhealthy in itself when consumed in moderation, much like alcohol. In excess over a period of twenty years though, the cholesterol intake plus the increase in other risk factors I've outlined makes it important to control your consumption if you do choose to eat it. If you look at the healthiest athletes and examine their diet, you will find that only 12-18% of it is meat(most of it lean red meat), and that 70% of their protein comes from either dairy or plant sources. This shows that meat can be very successfully incorporated into a healthy diet. However, I choose not to take that risk, it is very hard to control one's intake of something so readily available, especially when in most western cuisine, meat forms the central dish (steak, lamb chops, pork ribs, chicken baskets), with a few vegetables on the side. Healthy eating dictates that the position be reversed.

3) A vegan would need to increase their intake of ferrous products (spinach, celery, zucchini, avocado) and lysine-containing root vegetables (turnips, lima beans, lentils, husked rice). If they managed to do these things, then not only would their diet be healthy, it would be a damn slight more healthy than ovolactovegetarians like myself, and worlds apart from the standard western meat-based diet.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus maintains that it is easier for a vegetarian to maintain a well balanced diet than their carnivorous counterparts. While I am loath to argue with a doctor who doubtlessly knows a good deal more about this matter than I, I would venture to say that meat consumption in modest quantities is one of the best sources of essential amino acids and proteins available to humans.

First off, being a medic doesn't mean I'm a nutritionist Although I was lucky enough to be lectured by Dr. David Bender (his middle initial is A for arthur, spot the student's joke for a gold star), a global expert on the subject of nutritional biochemistry. That aside, to say that meat is a source of essential amino acids and basic peptides is correct. You said it is one of the best sources. To my mind that is incorrect, it is not the most efficiently processed source of peptides, as previously stated in this post, it is barely in the top 10. The average person in western society simply consumes it in such bulk that it makes up the majority of their protein intake. Also consider that a large amount of unsaturated fat and LDL cholesterol is consumed along with these peptides, and it becomes a lot more undesirable. It is a source of these nutrients, I simply argue it is not the best source by a long way, for reasons stated.

Swiss then goes on to argue the economic impacts of meat products on our economies, this is indisputable. I argue firmly that it is not a good thing for this to be the case. Here's a simple, but often overlooked example- milk. What sort of milk do we in fact drink? Biologically, the only milk we're designed to consume is human milk. Yet the vast machine behind marketing, publicity, distribution and collection of milk from the dairy to the carton loudly proclaims its necessity to healthy living. Guess those 120 million milk-intolerant folks we share this planet with lucked out huh? :P Or could it just be, that milk is by no means necessary, but is just a simple means of an infant to consume food that doesn't require mastication. That certainly makes more sense biochemically. And the meat industry has us all convinced that our main source of protein intake should be animal flesh.

Not only is such consumption wholly energy inefficient (pyramidal structure of the energy chain), it encourages investment in a market area that seems designed to degrade human health. Now I don't doubt that my colleagues in cardiology would dearly looooooove to see this continue for the huge and lucrative private cardiothoracic clinics they run, but I personally would like to see the burden reduced on a global health service overburdened by diseases of affluence relating to cholesterol consumption.


The argument that consuming meat is morally wrong, is certainly supportable, but unconvincing. Human beings are a pragmatic race, moral obligation is often the last concern on our minds when dealing with most situations. We don't hesitate to don uniforms and peform legal killings and term it 'war'. Neither would we hesitate to use animals for clothing, shelter, glue, fashion tacking, or decorations on a hunting lodge wall, even if we didn't eat them. I argue that global sustainability of health and food production cannot be achieved in the long run if the current trend continues. Furthermore, I believe that my contribution, however small, serves to further that goal.

Occy

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Occy,
Fair play to ye;)

You're doing the Vegetarian Lobby proud

[PS We must swap some recipes;)]

Meh

1) When I say vegetarian, I include all vegetarians save fruititarians (those who say that root vegetables are attached to the Earth and that ripping them out murders them, therefore only eating things that fall to the ground).

When I read this, I thought you were taking the piss. But according to google, they do exist. OH NO! SAVE THE LETTUCE! CELERY IS MURDER!

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I argue that global sustainability of health and food production cannot be achieved in the long run if the current trend continues. Furthermore, I believe that my contribution, however small, serves to further that goal.

Occy

Fair play to ye mate, ye really do know your shít, but I think it's a little bit OTT, now that's just my opinion... I'm not digging ye, but I sort of half agree/half disagree.... you've confused me
What exactly are you saying? Because people eat meat, and kill animals in a controlled way, we will not be able to sustain ourselves for long??

bonkey

Originally posted by Dr. Loon
Fair play to ye mate, ye really do know your shít, but I think it's a little bit OTT, now that's just my opinion... I'm not digging ye, but I sort of half agree/half disagree.... you've confused me

I think he's a little OTT in the risks he chooses to avoid as well, but its a personal choice which is hard not to respect.

What exactly are you saying? Because people eat meat, and kill animals in a controlled way, we will not be able to sustain ourselves for long??

As Occy pointed out earlier, the world has enough food to feed itself today, but this food is vastly mismanaged. As world population continues to increase, however, there will soon come a day when efficiency will become an issue - and my guess is that effects of this will be seen in our lifetime. At the end of the day, medicinal science puts a lot of effort into prolonging the human lifespan. Sooner or later, our eating habits will "clean up" somewhat in response to this type of argument.

As a slight aside, I found it interesting that there is relatively ltitle junk food here in Switzerland. McDs is not prevalent, and they are the only multinational fast-food purveyor over here. While I still eat too much meat, I can honestly say my diet has massively improved since coming over here. Hopefully that trend will continue.

Occy - thanks for the info. Most enlightening. One question however - a vegetarian friend of mine over here has two kids. She was warned by her doctor that it may not be the wisest decision to bring them up vegetarian-style until they were about 5 or 6 years old. Bearing what you've said in mind, this seems a bit unusual, no? Is this a legacy of traditional western diets influencing western medicine "dogma", or is there anything more scientific about it?

jc

Kix

Originally posted by 80project
Occy,
Fair play to ye;)

You're doing the Vegetarian Lobby proud

[PS We must swap some recipes;)]

I second that, and I'd like to be included in the recipie swaping!

Might be time to have a little revival of the Roof & Drink board. Vegetarian style.

K

neuro-praxis

Originally posted by Occy:

As for eggs having 100% biological value, what do you mean by that statement? If you're saying they have 100% nutritive value, that's incorrect, LDL cholesterol in egg yolk is roughly 60% of content, and serves no nutritive value except to metabolize into plaques that block our coronary arteries.

When I said that eggs had 100% biological value, no, I didn't mean nutritive value. In nutritional studies, the term "biological value" refers to the percentage of essential amino acids that are in the food.

I have read that eggs have 100% biological value - i.e. they are the only single food that contain all of the essential amino acids that the body is unable to produce by itself. Apparently it is the only food that does not need to be combined with another to provide all of the protein (amino acids) that the body requires.

The essential amino acids are tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, leucine and isoleucine. Anyway, eggs have all of 'em.

The non-essential acids which the body produces by itself without the aid of food are argentine, tyrosine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, taurine, cystine, histidine, proline and alanine. So there isn't really much point in people eating any kind of food (plant or animal based) to try and obtain those, as it is unnecessary.

The fact that you mentioned that the food with the highest glycaemic and amine content is the banana is kind of irrelevant, seeing as these are not essential amino acids. Your argument was a little misleading there, Occy. Not that I don't agree that bananas are great - they're full of potassium which isn't the easiest nutrient to obtain.

Thanks for answering my questions, but I'm not quite sure that you're right.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Thanks everyone for your kind words, my point of view however, is just a point of view, and it can certainly be contended that a number of assertions are OTT in some respects. Just to respond to a few things:

Originally posted by neuro-praxis


When I said that eggs had 100% biological value, no, I didn't mean nutritive value. In nutritional studies, the term "biological value" refers to the percentage of essential amino acids that are in the food.

Evaluating a food based on its amino acid content alone will get you into trouble neuro. Our main source of energy is not derived from protein, but from carbohydrates, which are made up of simple sugars. Protein should be obtained from a variety of sources, not a single source, histidine and tryptophan, as well as lysine can be metabolized in several different ways depending on source. This is especially true of lysine, being a basic amide, which can be consumed in 4 different ionic states.

The essential amino acids are tryptophan, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, leucine and isoleucine. Anyway, eggs have all of 'em.

The non-essential acids which the body produces by itself without the aid of food are argentine, tyrosine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, taurine, cystine, histidine, proline and alanine. So there isn't really much point in people eating any kind of food (plant or animal based) to try and obtain those, as it is unnecessary.

Correct, however, an intake of non-essential amino acids is not only efficient in many cases, it allows one to decrease intake of glycaemic content required to power amino acid synthesis. AA synthesis is amazingly energy-ineffecient. A simple experiment whereby 2 sets of rats are fed with (respectively) a full complement of AAs and only the required AAs, shows that the latter are sluggish, unresponsive and require a far higher intake of grain-based foods. As such, simplifying nutritive intake of AA's to "essential" and "nonessential" is more than a little specious.

The fact that you mentioned that the food with the highest glycaemic and amine content is the banana is kind of irrelevant, seeing as these are not essential amino acids.

Not misleading at all, amines are constructs of amino acids. Amines are a form of nutritive peptide (proteins) which involve stringing amino acids together. Amide synthesis is ribosomal and intracellular in nature, but foods like bananas that provide both a high amount of energy (glycaemic content) and raw peptides (amine content) allows for a very efficient maintenance of nitrogen balance. Amines are proteins, nutritively speaking, and as such, the only misleading thing about my argument was the terminology used

Thanks for answering my questions, but I'm not quite sure that you're right.

The facts are as stated neuro, but as to my point of view...try not to see it in terms of right and wrong, black and white(I know you're a christian...but try :P) The arguments I have made for a vegetarian diet concern me personally, and as such, whether I am right or wrong in making that decision isn't an issue. I'm convinced I am doing the right thing. If others are convinced that I am doing the wrong thing, then so be it. I was raised as a Hindu, the foundations of my faith are tolerance and understanding of differences, and not to respect differences leads to unneccesary friction. I have never once told a friend that 'meat is murder' nor chastized them about their health when they bite into 500mg worth of cholesterol-filled burger meat, because it's not my place to do so.

Originally posted by bonkey:
<snip>I think he's a little OTT in the risks he chooses to avoid as well<snip>

Certainly, that can be argued. However, I've seen too many lives destroyed by a lifetime's worth of unhealthy eating and a callous disregard for what people put into their own bodies and in what proportion. No one disputes the fact that meat can form a very important contribution to a well-balanced diet, but it should be no more than that- a contribution. Not one's staple food.

To answer your friend's question- it is entirely possible to raise a baby from birth to young adulthood on an entirely vegetarian diet. My brother and I were both raised that way, and neither of
us is malnourished, stunted, defective as a result. Western medicine in truth, has historically never looked at diet and its effect on health until very recently. Carcinogens in food were not acutely monitored until just over a generation ago. Many physicians I know, prescribe their own diets to their patients without seriously considering nutrient intake. Also consider that most of the baby-food available currently on the market is not vegetarian. There are any number of reasons for why she was advised not to raise her children as vegetarian in their infancy, all of them are flawed.


And to Dr. Loon- yes, you're probably right, it is an OTT argument I've made there. But no more OTT I'd wager, than global warming, climate change, air pollution, free radical dispersion and nuclear contamination. These are all long-term difficulties which we as a race have a responsibility to deal with. Granted, they may not be around the corner, but we'll have to deal with it some day. My argument is that mismanagement of agricultural land, especially in deprived nations, isn't a long-term problem. We are seeing the fearsome effects of that starvation now. I think it not only likely, but certain, that if less land were used to farm livestock in the third world, there would be less desperate hunger. I agree that the main current problem is distribution and needs-based subsidy, but if the market took the lead, nations would follow. And the market begins and ends at the consumer. If a few of us decided to make a small difference, perhaps the market would take notice.

In case it isn't obviously apparent from what I've already said, this is an issue that I feel very strongly about, and have looked into personally in great depth. Two thirds of the world's children currently go to bed hungry(and sleepless) at night. Imagine that for a moment if you would. Not hungry meaning they need a bed-time snack, hungry becase they're lucky to get one meal a day, growing children. Having worked in parts of North Africa and seen some of the destitute poverty abundant in some places there, I can tell you I find it difficult to sleep at night thinking about it. And to imagine that some of that could be alleviated by a minimal and overall healthy change in our diet, is something that both staggers and frustrates me at times. Yes, this argument is OTT, unrealistic, lacking in pragmatism, but it's something I feel strongly about, judge me as you will.

Occy

NeRb666

I've been a vegetarian since I was 9 (I'm now 23), I don't suffer any ill-health as a result, I'm not anorexic, I do not look like I'm dead (that's a matter of opinion I suppose ) , blah blah blah. People who eat fish then claim to be vegetarian are clearly dumb. SO go ahead and flame me you bunch of CJD infected bungholes.