Vegetarians - why?

[Abengoshis]

Quorn tastes nicer than real meat. That's my reason. I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat a lot of vegetarian food. When I've run out of Quorn I'll eat whatever meat I have though, and if I go to a restaurant I always get the meat ones out of habit.

Plants? Meh
Meat? Meh
Fungus? Yes please!

 

[KorLeonis]

It's got nothing to do with copying the animals. It's to do with ethics. Other animals don't farm because they don't have the ability to. We shouldn't because it's wrong. So it's nothing to do with copying. I believe that animals should have the chance to live instead of being stuck in a small area of grass their entire lives, to be dragged away and shot or decapitated or however the particular abbatoir does it before ANY of them get ANY chance to live their whole lives. Entire species of animals imprisoned and butchered. The fact that you're assuming I want to stop farming just to copy other animals proves you haven't listened to anything I've said.

Firstly, animals do farm. Termite mounds devote large areas to cultivating fungus using collected plant matter. Ants keep flocks of aphids to "milk" for the sweet liquid they excrete. Farming is certainly not unique to humans.

Secondly, if keeping animals in pain, torturing them for their entire lives produced better tasting meat, I would buy nothing but Extra Cruelty Brand steak. But it doesn't work that way. Content, well-fed, painlessly killed animals produce the best meat, so that is generally the way the meat industry works.

Every last living thing on this planet thrives on the death of other living things. It is as plain and simple as that. You can justify and compartmentalize however you want. You can rate some deaths as more or less important than others, if you want. But none of that changes the simple fact that life depends on death. I revel in that, I kill everything I can, because sooner or later something is going to kill me.

Fungus is a plant. It has no emotion, feeling or thought. Which is why I'm a vegetarian, not starved. Ants don't keep every single living aphid in these farms, and they don't slaugher them quarterway through their life.

If you'd read my other posts, how they're killed isn't my point. As I said in my original post, would you rather every single human rounded up into small areas of grass and never again be able to live out anything close to their whole lifespan, to be taken to abbatoirs and slaughtered, or every now and then have one picked off from their home, with the majority of the population continuing as normal? These are lives, not resources to be used up. Living creatures with feelings and emotions. And it's not that we don't torture then and keep them in pain anyway, animal testing exists. Human superiority is what I'm against, not the taste of meat.

Yes, everything does thrive on the death of other living things. I really, really can't be bothered to go through every single thing I went through with that other guy for the fifth time, so just read the other things I've said for my response to that. And rating deaths as more or less important is what I'm against. It's what people like YOU do. And it's not the fault of the cows or pigs or anything else you get meat from that you're going to die someday. If that's your view on things, why don't you go out and kill everyone because someday one of them will probably start some kind of new holocaust?

If the humans let themselves be rounded up and slaughtered, then that is what they deserve. If the cows don't deserve it, let them revolt and fight back, which is what most humans would do in their place. There is no human superiority, because no life is superior. We are all just dying chunks of meat.

Some meat-eaters would posit that humans are superior and deserve to kill animals however they want. You would seem to claim that cows and pigs etc are equal to us, and deserve better treatment, but I bet you don't go out of your way to let insects and vermin have free roam. A plant is just as alive as anything else, but no one pleads that we stop the mistreatment of corn. Everyone draws a line somewhere, I simply say there is no line, no life is significant especially on a universal scale.

Not that I have anything against a good murderin' spree, but if I did set out to murder everyone, I wouldn't get very far before being gunned down. Its merely self-interest that keeps my killing confined to deer, birds, livestock and whatever darts out in front of my car.

 

[Sabinfrost]

So glad I only skim read this thread looking at some of the arguments happening.

Here is my two cents, each to their own, let individuals make individual choices, don't ridicule others beliefs. Justified or unjustified, lets agree to disagree.

 

[Sabinfrost]

Any opinion I have would be immediately shot down. So there's no point. I'm a vegan, that's my "problem" I suppose.

There is nothing wrong with being a vegan. If you believe it improves you life, you're welcome to your opinions and choices, as long as you don't push them on others, not that I'm claiming you do.

 

[Doomdiver]

I'm a vegetarian. My reasoning is that since science in the modern day is geared towards stopping suffering and making life easier I should embrace it. And in my personal opinion that should not be limited to humans. Science has given us knowlege of what we need for a healthy life and a variety of meat substitutes. If I can reduce the suffering for animals by stopping eating meat and therefore reducing demand for it, and I can still live a healthy lifestyle, then in my eyes that is what I should do (and for all those who say it's not possible to live a healthy lifestyle and be veggie I'm perfectly fine thank you).

I hear the "It's only natural" argument a lot however this means nothing to me. The medicine that will most likely one day save your life isn't natural. Does that mean you won't take it?

As for the argument that it limits your diet, yes, it might do but not as much as many people seem to think. At university from my personal experience it's the vegetarians, not the meat eaters, that have a greater variety in their diets. I enjoy this food, I live healthily and there will always be something new and interesting I haven't tried yet. That's enough variety for me.

Sorry if that came across a bit preachy (not intended that way) but I'm more used to giving this point of view in defence when being preached at by a meat eater than when someone is genuinely asking me my view. Unless being told that I am wrong in being vegetarian I will never intend to preach about it.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

I know someone who's reason for being a vegetarian is, as she put it, politeness: She doesn't particularly like meat, and when she went over to her friends' houses, they would prepare meat for her. So, she became a vegetarian to avoid making her friends waste food. At least, that's what I remember her saying.

My opinion: I really could care less about what someone eats. If they prefer tacos to nachos, plants to meat, hot dogs to bratwurst, then that's their choice. In many cases, I accommodate for such preferences, when possible. But that won't stop me from eating meat in the presence of a vegetarian. Or tacos in front of someone who likes nachos... you get the point.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

Any opinion I have would be immediately shot down.

Not if you come bearing facts. I have no problems at all with people who chose a veg*n lifestyle. what I have a problem with is the static noise like the PCRM echochamber provides. Had they just been promoting a vegan diet, power to them, but these people dont stop there. They slither their way into advisory positions and will lobby and try anything to force their ideologies and habbits down the throat of everybody. With succes too.

One thing is trying to convince someone to your point of view another is to use violence by proxy which is what happens if it turns into law and you refuse to comply. Then its battering time. Ofcourse veg*ns being ever so peaceful can take comfort in the fact that just like the killing their farming causes, they wont have to look, deal or take responsability for it.

 

[JasonKaotic]

If the humans let themselves be rounded up and slaughtered, then that is what they deserve. If the cows don't deserve it, let them revolt and fight back, which is what most humans would do in their place. There is no human superiority, because no life is superior. We are all just dying chunks of meat.

Some meat-eaters would posit that humans are superior and deserve to kill animals however they want. You would seem to claim that cows and pigs etc are equal to us, and deserve better treatment, but I bet you don't go out of your way to let insects and vermin have free roam. A plant is just as alive as anything else, but no one pleads that we stop the mistreatment of corn. Everyone draws a line somewhere, I simply say there is no line, no life is significant especially on a universal scale.

Not that I have anything against a good murderin' spree, but if I did set out to murder everyone, I wouldn't get very far before being gunned down. Its merely self-interest that keeps my killing confined to deer, birds, livestock and whatever darts out in front of my car.

Cows don't have the ability to fight back. Their intelligence isn't high enough to realise they can (but as I said in an earlier post, intelligence doesn't make them lesser). Humans would fight back, but only because they have the ability to, as well as more means of doing so.
I have nothing against insects or animals people call vermin. If I see an insect crawling up my wall, I leave it be. I'm a bit scared of spiders, but I wouldn't kill them. And animals most people see as vermin I don't have a problem with at all. And plants are indeed alive, but differently. Plants are incapable of emotions, feeling or thought, so no life is really being wasted when we take them. Nor are they in any kind of distress when we do so. They do exactly what they would if they were in the wild when we farm them, and no difference is made at all to their state of mind (seeing as they have no mind).
I threw in that last bit because I thought you were backing human superiority (sorry 'bout that). I just don't see farming animals any different to farming humans. If humans were farmed there would be mass riots and all that, but people accept animal farming as normal and acceptable. Both are just as alive as each other.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I was a vegetarian for a couple of years, for ethical reasons (to do with the treatment of the animals etc.) I'm not anymore because actually, I really like steak. But I now try to look very carefully at the sourcing of meat and related products, and there are still some types of meat I avoid completely.

 

[Liudeius]

I never said you have to eat meat now but it was stated that humans were not biologically adapted to eat meat and that is blatantly false. Maybe you should go back and read the comment that started this whole argument and it will make a little more sense to you.

You should go back and re-read that comment too. Humans evolved from primates, we evolved from herbivores. The OC wasn't saying that humans can't eat meat, he was saying that humans have evolved to be capable of eating meat while initially we were herbivores and therefore are no where near as adapted as carnivores are to eat meat.

 

[Liudeius]

what sciuentific research is that? Dont tell me. PCRM studies? yeah thats what I thought too. F#%& PCRM. They are not medical professionals or real researchers they are animal rights activists parading as and abusing science.

What these kinds of studies show time and time again is that;

1.Most of the meat is processed. meaning, its more likely to be Mcdonalds patty or balogna than fresh cut sirloin
2.Vegetarians are more likely to be non smokers and physically active.
3.chicken counts as "vegetarian" in many of the studies.
4.The amount of wheat wheat flour and sugar eaten is not considered.
5.Only balony is concidered and that makes these kinds of trials....well

balogna?!

Do one at a crossfit center which would represent active (majority) meat eaters. get back to me.

I have no clue what PCRM is, but if you would get your information on studies directly from scientific journals rather than biased sources that are either trying to prove meat is good or meat is bad, you will have a far clearer view point.

Clearly this argument will be going no where though because I don't feel like spending a few hours scouring abstracts to get enough studies for a conclusive proof, so fine. You can be right, meat is "not bad" for you.

 

[Canid117]

I never said you have to eat meat now but it was stated that humans were not biologically adapted to eat meat and that is blatantly false. Maybe you should go back and read the comment that started this whole argument and it will make a little more sense to you.

You should go back and re-read that comment too. Humans evolved from primates, we evolved from herbivores. The OC wasn't saying that humans can't eat meat, he was saying that humans have evolved to be capable of eating meat while initially we were herbivores and therefore are no where near as adapted as carnivores are to eat meat.

A) Just because a species ancestors did not posses an adaptation does not mean that the adaptation is invalid and unusable and B) even if that were the case, the ancestor species of humans have all been omnivores since before they became exclusively bipedal.

 

[Liudeius]

I tried stuff like tofu and couscous once. They tasted like hair and were not filling in the slightest. I even tried a full vegetarian lunch and it was not filling(Paella I think is how you spell it. It was some Spanish thing and salad). I have no problem if people like vegetarian food I just want to put in my two cents there that it is extremely unfilling.

I think you mean polenta, paella is a very omnivorous dish with shrimp, chicken, and sausage.
Trying things once isn't enough though (and polenta isn't a very good choice for that once, it is corn meal and water, not a very good meal for anyone). Most vegetarian cooks are admittedly horrific because they are either trying to copy meat or add way too much salt.
Maybe you just don't like tofu (although I would find it hard to believe as tofu's flavor and texture is extremely easy to manipulate if the cook has any competence), but you certainly must like some fruits or vegetables?
Meat is good too, but there are plenty of vegetarian foods that can be eaten, many people who dislike them only do because of our culture and what they were raised to eat. Men are even told that if they don't eat meat (or even touch tofu) they are effeminate.

 

[Lerxst]

Any opinion I have would be immediately shot down.

Not if you come bearing facts. I have no problems at all with people who chose a veg*n lifestyle. what I have a problem with is the static noise like the PCRM echochamber provides. Had they just been promoting a vegan diet, power to them, but these people dont stop there. They slither their way into advisory positions and will lobby and try anything to force their ideologies and habbits down the throat of everybody. With succes too.

One thing is trying to convince someone to your point of view another is to use violence by proxy which is what happens if it turns into law and you refuse to comply. Then its battering time. Ofcourse veg*ns being ever so peaceful can take comfort in the fact that just like the killing their farming causes, they wont have to look, deal or take responsability for it.

You're talking about a double-edged sword. I, personally, have no issues with people eating meat. I do have an issue with consumer advocacy groups that lobby the government to promote their meat-eating goods and lifestyles. Wonder what I'm referring to? Just think if these two simple words "Got Milk?" It goes even deeper than that.

The USDA's food pyramid is based on anything but actual nutrition. It's based on these groups (ranchers, meat councils, dairy industry, etc.) throwing millions of dollars at the government. Years ago, how do you think eggs went from something people were terrified of eating for cholesterol reasons to returning as a staple of people's diet?

The meat and dairy industries are such deep rooted political lobby groups that all the funds of PETA and PCRM can't even come close to touching them. For that matter, all the smear campaigns you hear and read against PETA and other groups are all funded, backed and supported by groups like The Center For Consumer Freedom. I looked that group up years ago when people were talking about their "PETA Kills" campaign and saw them list some of their supporters (they have since hidden that list) and it stated corporations such as Pizza Hut, OSI Restaurant Partners (Outback Steakhouse and others) and Taco Bell. So who should I believe? A non-profit organization, funded by small groups and individuals speaking for a cause, or a non-profit funded by multi-billion dollar organizations trying to sell me their products?

Don't ever think the Animal Rights/Vegetarian groups out there are the ones taking advantage of the public. The others have just been doing it for so long that it's become a fact of life we don't even question at this point.

As for my reasons... I'm a vegan. No dairy, no meat, nothing that's within my power to control in modern society that came from an animal. Yes, rubber, cars, electronics, all contain animal products of some form. The intent isn't to cut out all animal products of the sake of cutting out all animal products. The intent is to do as little harm as possible; the fastest, most direct ways to do that ? stop eating and wearing them.

I'm a Buddhist. I don't condone the taking of a life or stealing from another creature. If it's within my power to do so, I avoid products that came from an animal. If something had to die or suffer in order for me to sustain myself, then there's a karmic debt that needs to be paid off; the greater that creature's ability to have karma, the greater the debt become. A fly, for instance, produces much less karma in their lives than a dog.

Not every Buddhist is vegetarian, but it's not our place to judge those who aren't. Some people live in regions that simply can't grow crops and need to rely on animals for food. Others have hundreds of years of culture guiding them, such as fishing communities do. Others simply aren't at a stage in their lives where they're ready to make the commitment even if they see the link between sentient being and food on their plate.

I was an ardent Animal Rights and Vegetarian critic years ago. I've heard all the jokes and made a few up myself. Yet every time I would sit down and pet a dog or cat, I knew I was being a hypocrite. So the seeds were sown.

PS - I'm also friends with a doctor who works for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM for those who don't know what it meant). He is one of the most sane, practical-minded people I've met. I've also been best of friends with cattle ranchers and used to talk with them about this all the time.

 

[Liudeius]

I'm not from the U.S.A. and nor are a number of the posters on this forum. The way things are done in the States doesn't affect simple truths. If it's illegal to do something in one country it doesn't make that a universal truth that this act is illegal, the act is only illegal in that country. You can't say "this act is illegal" without qualifying where you're on about. This applies not only to laws but to conventions and societal norms, like the way food's prepared.

Just because meat sometimes has to be cooked does not mean that meat has to be cooked. It might mean that meat usually has to be cooked, but it doesn't mean that is has to be cooked.

I'm just going to go right ahead and assume that you've never eaten raw meat, it tastes delicious. It's common to eat uncooked meats in some countries. Therefore it's safe to assume I'm not the only one who enjoys it.
So the claim you made that cooking meat is the only way to make it taste good is in fact false.

In regard to vegetables not needing to be cooked. I could go on to argue about the way humans have evolved to have small, almost non-functional, appendixes making most raw plant matter indigestible to humans and that the other commenter's claim is not utterly incorrect. But it's a waste of time, because a large amount of plant matter is edible raw, and like you said, there's almost nothing in the produce section of a supermarket/greengrocers that can't be eaten raw.

Regardless of context, you made a claim which was untrue. I was simply pointing it out.

Also, while we're on the topic of reading posts and replying out of context, I did mention that I can't be bothered arguing with vegetarians about being a vegetarian. It's not worth it.
That's why I didn't comment on whether or not veggies can be eaten raw.

I never said anything about legality...
But as I've said many times, it was a generalization that was clearly not meant to refer to the entire world, and it's irrelevant anyway, why does it matter that some meat doesn't need to be cooked? The OC was claiming that all vegetables needed to be cooked, so I replied that all meat is cooked. (Yes, I shouldn't have made such a generalization, but in most cases, meat is cooked no matter what country to are in.)

A large amount of animals can't be eaten raw (by humans) either, let's say bones.

I'm actually not a vegetarian just trying to say to the OC that many plants commonly eaten by humans can be eaten raw.

 

[Liudeius]

A) Just because a species ancestors did not posses an adaptation does not mean that the adaptation is invalid and unusable and B) even if that were the case, the ancestor species of humans have all been omnivores since before they became exclusively bipedal.

That's not the point, all the OC said was that humans were not biologically required to eat only meat, you responded that four of your thirty two teeth being canines and a need for protein (which is in a huge number of plants) meant you were REQUIRED to eat meat without not eating meat as a valid choice.

 

[Canid117]

A) Just because a species ancestors did not posses an adaptation does not mean that the adaptation is invalid and unusable and B) even if that were the case, the ancestor species of humans have all been omnivores since before they became exclusively bipedal.

That's not the point, all the OC said was that humans were not biologically required to eat only meat, you responded that four of your thirty two teeth being canines and a need for protein (which is in a huge number of plants) meant you were REQUIRED to eat meat without not eating meat as a valid choice.

Read it again.

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat.

He said we aren't biologically designed to eat meat. As in, we were not meant to eat meat. We have specific adaptations meant to make eating meat easier and it was the easiest source of necessary proteins back when we were developing our dietary habits. I'm not saying you HAVE to eat meat. I am saying we were and are adapted to do it.

 

[Chased]

Yes, but a lot of what humans can eat is simply due to the fact that we take time to cook our food. We really couldn't eat many greens otherwise. Our bodies aren't built for it as a main/only source of nutrition (raw of course).

It's really only detrimental nowadays though, because we have to mass produce it, and that is costly and dirty. Seeing it from say, an old fashioned hunter-gatherer society, and things change quite a bit there.

Human's aren't biologically designed to eat meat. Our saliva has been evolving over time to become more acidic to break down meat but it is nowhere nearly as effective as the saliva that carnivore's have. Our intestines are also the same as herbivores and considerably much larger than a normal carnivores. Also our so called "canine teeth" are also the same teeth shared by plant eaters such as primates. We do not have the same sharp teeth that a carnivore would have, such as the frontal teeth of a lion or wolf.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

I know that a lot of people like for posters to cite a source for their arguments, but couldn't you find a source anywhere that isn't taken directly from a web site dedicated to promoting your point of view? You're citing a persuasive essay as a source. He also cites persuasive essays as sources. The further you get from the primary scientific evidence, the less sense you make and the more full of shit your opponents are allowed to accuse you of being. (You are, by the way)

I can't get over how you decided to attack the one poster who cited a source whilst we have a 13 page discussion with no one else providing any kind of research other than their own opinions (not to mention you haven't provided an argument of your own in regards to the actual thread topic). Get off your high horse.

 

[Luke Barclay]

Coz meat smells like balls, probably tastes that way too but as I A. Haven't eaten meat since I was 10 and B. have never tasted balls, it's kinda hard to tell. It does smell rank tho. plus the cruelty thing.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

The USDA's food pyramid is based on anything but actual nutrition. It's based on these groups (ranchers, meat councils, dairy industry, etc.) throwing millions of dollars at the government.

Then how come it is primarily touting agricultural products which interrests groups like conagro, monsanto etc have invested billions in telling us we need for food stuffs even if the data does not really support it. we get better shits apparently.

Years ago, how do you think eggs went from something people were terrified of eating for cholesterol reasons to returning as a staple of people's diet?

The real data came in and the cholesterol/CVD hypothesis was put to bed. How did a mainstable in human food become demonized for 40 years all of a sudden?. There is a billion dollar low fat/"light"/statins industry present. Could they have been interrested in promoting such a stupid idea?

The meat and dairy industries are such deep rooted political lobby groups that all the funds of PETA and PCRM can't even come close to touching them.

Which in turn are dwarfed by companies like Monstanto and Conagro.

For that matter, all the smear campaigns you hear and read against PETA and other groups are all funded, backed and supported by groups like The Center For Consumer Freedom.

Me and many others do it for free because Peta is an obnoxious terrorist organisation.

I looked that group up years ago when people were talking about their "PETA Kills" campaign and saw them list some of their supporters (they have since hidden that list) and it stated corporations such as Pizza Hut, OSI Restaurant Partners (Outback Steakhouse and others) and Taco Bell. So who should I believe?

you mean all the companies that Peta regularly targets for picketings and random vandalism has an interrest in trying to create a counterweight to Petas propaganda. Whod have thunk?! F them and F Peta.

A non-profit organization, funded by small groups and individuals speaking for a cause,

Speaking? if only they just stuck to that.

Don't ever think the Animal Rights/Vegetarian groups out there are the ones taking advantage of the public. The others have just been doing it for so long that it's become a fact of life we don't even question at this point.

I do.

most direct ways to do that ? stop eating and wearing them.

entirely untrue and I have clearly outlined what the moral catch22 is in earlier posts on this thread.

PS - I'm also friends with a doctor who works for the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM for those who don't know what it meant). He is one of the most sane, practical-minded people I've met

If he is so sane, why would he work for such a scumbag organisation?