Is Meat Murder?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly, there's no point having this debate because you're just arguing
with ignorance. I'm sure someone will criticize you for eating raw because
well if god wanted us to eat raw he wouldn't have given us fire.



Tell that to lifelong vegans...

So where do they get their sources of B12?
Even the vegans say that plant sources are no good along with seaweeds once thought promising. Generally its just through vitamin tablets which are synthesised from bacterial cultures.

This is something only relatively recent - the ability to synthesise the vitamin. But hardly puts forward the vegan lifestyle as one which can be dependant only on the fruits of the land. Some advanced microbiology has had to be undertaken to allow this faux lifestyle to happen. And you can thank the countless lab rats which have laid down their lives to allow you to live yours, death free...

OutlawPete wrote: »

People eat more cooked meat than they ever would raw.

Cooking animal fats make them a thousand times more palatable than raw animal fats. Again, people would easily eat a plate of sausages, would they be so keen to eat a plate of raw sausages?

Cooking animal foods leads to people overeating.

People don't eat because eating cooked meat is better in many many ways that go beyond simple nutrition. It also preserves meat slightly. There's also many ways of preserving raw meat so that you get similar effects to cooking. It's also dangerous to eat a lot of meat raw.

I think your argument is coming at a completely different and modern stance. Your not looking at the overall picture and history of meat eating. You can choose not to eat meat and put in the work that not eating meat requires but that takes special effort. But asking people not to eat meat is like expecting a cow not to eat grass and instead eat nettles.

Trekmad wrote: »

How is it ironic? animals are currently born and raised in captivity only to slaughtered for our benefit and have no choice in the matter. Perhaps if roles were reversed you might see my point of view. And don't anyone give me the animals are dumb line, they know bloody well what's coming.

No they don't. Your giving these animals thought processes they simply don't have, this mental task is very rare in the animal kingdom only humans and a few others seem to show the ability to think ahead and imagine the future. Cattle can be nervous creatures, it's a side effect of being a prey animal but they have no idea what's in store for them.

At least with hunting the animal has a fairer chance of survival, and if they were to be driven into extinction because of that then that is humanities fault because of over population and also seeing that we have a natural tendency to rape every resource we get our hands on.

An animal being hunted by a human has little to no chance of survival. Humans will not go hungry just like no other animal would allow themselves to go hungry if they can help it.

If 6 billion humans where let lose to kill their own food you can be guaranteed they'd kill to many animals rather than meet a quota.

liah wrote: »

I think you're kinda missing the point of the B12 convo, though. Meat eaters are arguing that it's natural to eat meat and our bodies require meat by default because of various nutrients, vitamins, etc. Veggies are saying this isn't true and that you can live fine without meat by default.

This means that supplements and refined forms of B12 are out of the question as it's not the focus of the discussion. You cannot get B12 without involving some kind of animal byproduct. It is impossible to be a natural vegan and survive, you need assistance in the form of supplements and supplements are not natural.

Since when is taking supplements not natural? To deny the fact that your
body needs certain vitamins is the height of stupidity. Obviously to you
natural means just plain stupidity in your diet & I'd like for you to show
me where anybody argues for this type of diet & how this is what is
known as vegan... To you taking supplements in the form of pills is
supplementary but taking supplements in the form of meat is somehow
different, the whole point of eating is to supplement your body with
nutrients & vitamins but somehow doing it without killing animals is stupid...

I don't see the logical connective between a discussion on whether
or not you can live without meat & the lack of relevance of
supplementary B12 seeing as the latter requires the former in
many cases. As for vegetarians lacking B12 I mean one must
question how Native Americans, Indians, Buddhists etc... did it
throughout history...

There's also the implicit assumption that B12 deficiencies in non-vegans
is a scarcity when this is completely untrue. Just do a google & find out
how high it can be in some countries & find out the difficulties with
obtaining B12 as age progresses & due to overcooking etc...

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The first time I read this I though you wrote 'arguing from ignorance'. There are certainly ignorant opinions in this thread, they're not from me, I'm well informed and educated on the subject, Pete clearly hasn't got a notion about nutritional science. I would suggest anyone espousing a raw food diet is similarly ignorant of evolutionary and biological facts

I don't think a raw food diet is a good idea personally but I don't know
enough about it to argue against it nor do I really have any interest in it.
I just wrote that about your comment seeing as you said animals are the
sole source of B12 when in fact it's bacteria that do the work so I
apologise. Still, a statement like "vegan diets do not provide sufficient
Vitamin B12" from you hardly gives credibility to your claims when it's
just untrue & characteristic of the blanket assertions in this thread.

As for evolution dictating anything about raw food, I don't see how
that matters? It seems that evolution is basically insignificant on this topic
unless you think evolution is a rapid process but I could be wrong.
Still if you have some facts indicating it's bogus do share, similarly about
vegetarianism/veganism.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am someone that saved my own life by switching to a raw diet, so please don't make assumptions about me, just because what I say goes against your what you think you know.

We are at a time in the world where almost every single degeneartive disease is on the rise. You spout on about evolution but the truth is, if you knew what you were talking about, it's the last thing you would bring up.

Grains have only being part of the human diet for 12,000 or there abouts, despite some hilarious hypothesis. Do some proper research and you will find that out for yourself. Grains need to be heavily processed and then cooked to make them edible and regularly are linked to a whole host of illnesses but as diet is poorly understood by the medical profession and most of these studies are poorly funded, they run out of steam fast and the research never gets taken up again.

A great book on grains and the damage they can do was written back in the 1930's, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A Price and something newer, Dangerous Grains.

As for meat, we have been cooking meat for an unknown amount of time but studies show the negative effects of cooking meats also, you don't have to look far for them.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats

Who's talking about grains? I eat a largely primal diet with zero grains. I'm sure you have cured some health issues with a raw food diet, you probably could have done the same by removing processed foods (including grains)

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

we could not have evolved such large brains without a fatty, nutrient rich animal diet.

I've never understood these arguments about brain size when you look
at species like elephants who have comparable features & high intelligence.
If brain size was so important you'd think those species with bigger
brains would be more intelligent than us but that's obviously a
horrendous argument. So size isn't everything. In this context to answer
your argument I'd ask how an elephant has such a big brain based off
of a herbivorous diet? Your argument is simply an example of the fallacy
of correlation & causation. The way you put it one implies the other
yet there are examples contrary to your arguments so how does
one imply the other in one case but not in the other? In this example
the other is almost mirror opposite of your claim...

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well, the actual topic is whether meat is murder, given the definition of murder, the answer is, categorically, no.

I don't disagree, I think the title is just an exmple of the ignorance this
thread is full of. As I already said it's a waste of time debating this
beaten-to-death question here when everything is already answered in
great detail on many forums unfortunately harbouring that thing called
a contrary opinion.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Since the thread has evolved to diet, I can't see how evolution is either irrelevant or insignificant in this topic. We have spent millions of years evolving to our current state, the 'paragon of animals' as the Dane put it. I think it makes sense to have a diet which we have evolved to eat

If it does to you then that's great, I don't think it does & it seems many
others don't either but misusing science in this thread among people
who are more than open to anything semi-official to fuel their
confirmation bias is simply horrendous. You're the one who first put the
arguments out there about evolution & the detriment of B12 in a
vegetarian/vegan diet & I've just called you on that. Also if evolution
gave us X there is simply no mandate that we must keep X, in fact
the point of evolution is that if something can adapt and survive then
more the power to it. I simply believe that there is no reason why we
can't consciously choose to do this, to think for ourselves as to the
reasons why we shouldn't do something if it seems logical as opposed to
doing what was ingrained in us from children. This argument is convincing
to some & not others & that's fine, the only considerations that really
matter are health & seeing as there is no scientific basis for fears that
a vegan/vegetarian diet, when done properly, will lead us astray I don't
see the point in criticizing those who choose to go for it.

This is a real source of hypocrisy nowadays. So many people are all lovey dovey about animals and up their own arse with how considerate they are about the plight of the fucking pandas and then treat themselves to a Big Mac which contains the processed meat of about a hundred different cows. the bastards