Vegetarians - why?

[Homo Carnivorous]

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

Am I on your Ignore list. I have posted several direct links to studies. Not someones interpretation of them or an echochamber of opinion on them. No. links directly to the studies themselves. This includes the largest ever conducted on the link between saturated fat and cardio vascular disease (CVD) controlled by Harvard (Protip: There is no link to be found). But that didnt live up to your high standards or?

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

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.

thats why I post links to precisely that. But perhaps the forum doesnt paste links or? Am I the only one who can see my links directly to the papers. Or that is, the abstracts and then you can access them by paying a symbolic fee if you genuinely want to know and read them.

You can be right, meat is "not bad" for you.

It's good for you!

 

[EvilPicnic]

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

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.

James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, before the House of Representatives, addressing eco-terrorism:

"During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars." http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282260/peta_when_animal_rights_becomes_terrorism.html?cat=9

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

no idea, but i didnt climb the top of the food chain to eat rabbit food

Bears, sharks, and many more animals can easily kill and eat humans. I don't think we're at the top of the food chain

OT: I don't eat meat and it started with cows, because I can't help but think of cows as huge animals that eat grass all day and remain fat. With that thought, it doesn't make sense for me to put it in my body.

Not to be too confrontational, but we are the Earth's dominant species because we are at the top of the food chain. Our specialty is not in physical strength, but in intelligence. Our tools are our ways of besting those lions and sharks.

 

[Liudeius]

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.

The exact words were

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.

While reading only the first sentence, it is questionable whether the commenter is saying we can't eat meat or we just don't need to eat only meat, but the following sentences make it clear that the commenter is saying we can eat meat, we just don't NEED it.

We have adapted to eating meat, but that commenter and myself have both been trying to say that meat is not a necessity to live so why should someone not eat it if it's their choice? Just like you choose to eat meat.

 

[Liudeius]

thats why I post links to precisely that. But perhaps the forum doesnt paste links or? Am I the only one who can see my links directly to the papers. Or that is, the abstracts and then you can access them by paying a symbolic fee if you genuinely want to know and read them.

You can be right, meat is "not bad" for you.

It's good for you!

I didn't see any links in your post, but I'm only reading direct responses to my comments. It is well proven by good science that mammal meat is bad for you (even ignoring the environmental impact of meat), but I really don't care. If you want to die young, that's your choice.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I didn't see any links in your post, but I'm only reading direct responses to my comments. It is well proven by good science that mammal meat is bad for you (even ignoring the environmental impact of meat)

well proven. By whom? You talked about journals. Lets see the them.

The environmental impact is largely due to the way we handle animals. Not the animals themselves or the amounts of them. http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/operation-hope-meat-is-medicine-for.html

 

[Liudeius]

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.

I'm starting to think that you might be getting your information from meatassociationofamerica.meat. PCRM may get contributions from PETA, but they do seem to be quite respectable. The question is, are they getting donations from PETA to manipulate research, or are they getting donations from PETA because the research (done properly) shows that vegetarianism is healthier?

I liked the good old days when not just any idiot could act like a scientist and everything wasn't drowning in bias and bribes. (Like all that Corn Growers Association of America crap about high-fructose corn syrup.)

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I'm starting to think that you might be getting your information from meatassociationofamerica.meat.

I am an avid journal reader. But I also have a few blogs i frequent written by people I know also likes to look at the data themselves.

PCRM may get contributions from PETA, but they do seem to be quite respectable.

What criterion did you use to come to that conclusion? I too think that a guy like Mcdougalls come of as entirely likeable. But I have to look at how this organisation operates. What methods they use etc.

 

[StBishop]

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.

I was more drawing parallels between differences in laws based on country and differences in the way other things are done (like preparing food).

Everyone knows there's different laws in different places, it might be less obvious about difference in food prep. Don't worry it's not a big deal.

 

[Canid117]

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.

While reading only the first sentence, it is questionable whether the commenter is saying we can't eat meat or we just don't need to eat only meat, but the following sentences make it clear that the commenter is saying we can eat meat, we just don't NEED it.

We have adapted to eating meat, but that commenter and myself have both been trying to say that meat is not a necessity to live so why should someone not eat it if it's their choice? Just like you choose to eat meat.

A) Saliva does almost jack shit anyway in digestive terms. Slicing meat up via the sharp teeth at the front of the mouth (not just the canines) and stomach acid is easily capable of digesting raw meat. B) We are omnivores like a vast majority of other primates. This means we were "designed" to eat plants AND meat and it was a necessity when our species was first starting out and our digestive systems are not nearly hardy enough to eat raw plants in a sustainable manner. C) The OC states that we were not meant to eat meat and never clarifies need from capability. I have no idea where you got that idea but it is not in the comment. Give up already. Humans were and are adapted to eat meat and the original comment is blatantly wrong. Why do you insist on defending someone who was clearly talking out of their ass? This skips past devils advocate entirely and goes right into simple stubbornness.

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

Are their stunts over-the-top? Yes. Are their shock tactics detrimental to the animal welfare cause? Possibly. Are they a 'terrorist organisation'? No. This is hyperbole, and possibly an untruth.

They themselves do not engage in violent terrorist activities but they have been know to supply funds to known arsonists and vocally support radical terrorist organizations.

 

[Chased]

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

Am I on your Ignore list. I have posted several direct links to studies. Not someones interpretation of them or an echochamber of opinion on them. No. links directly to the studies themselves. This includes the largest ever conducted on the link between saturated fat and cardio vascular disease (CVD) controlled by Harvard (Protip: There is no link to be found). But that didnt live up to your high standards or?

Ah sorry, I also discovered a bunch of other links from some other posters on the same page.

People of the Escapist: my bad.

On another note, this thread is totally ridiculous, I love meat and am going to go eat some Jack Links.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

Ok well my mistake for name. I don't do Spanish so there is no chance of me remembering it. Well it was a well regarded vegetarian/vegan restaurant where I got it. I think I eat big lunches so that probably contributed. Tofu just tasted like air. Although it was in Miso soup(which was kinda crap) so it wasn't a proper Tofu portion if you know what I mean. Just a small block at the bottom.

I have no problem with eating fruit and vegetables. I am more talking about pure vegetarian meals. From my experience of vegetarian meals so far they are ridiculously unfilling. Although I do plan to keep trying the odd time to see if I can find something I like. Haven't had a great first experience.

 

[Treblaine]

Wow, that's a lot of long words you used there buddy, did you bust out the thesaurus to write that one?


The reason I'm not going through proper source citations is because I'm arguing with you on the internet, not writing a dissertation. You know exactly where your meat comes from do you? That's great. It seems strange that you haven't mentioned that up till now. If you're so big on source validity, it would seem prudent to practice what you preach because I'm frankly not inclined to take your word for it.
I was wrong by the way. Based on census data from the US department of agriculture, 99% of all meat is factory farmed, and even that's based on data from 2004. If you think factory farming is ok, then that's really your choice. If you're ok with torturing animals, then that's fine. you may even "lol" if it does you pleasure. There's no way you'll ever convince me to join you and I will always look upon your kind with disdain. Not that you require my respect, obviously, being entirely consumed with ego and gluttony. This isn't just an animal rights issue because it also reflects on the individual that would be ambivalent towards the torture of animals for food.
I was talking with a tea party member the other day and she reacted exactly the same way you are. She accused me of insulting her whilst calling me things like "filthy communist", she turned every accusation of racism back on me and then she ignored what I was posting and just focused on dissecting insignificant lines of my argument. So, after delighting in patronising me and my very reasonable beliefs, accusing me of disregarding animal life and then ultimately failing to discuss anything I brought up, I conclude that this is all cognitive dissonance. I know how it feels, believe me. I used to eat meat and I regret every bite of it. So, after hearing arguments from people like dr. Gary Francione, I changed and I feel amazing for it.

Now, I frankly don't give a shit what you do. I thought we might have something in common, but it seem as thought we're from different planets. Apparently it's acceptable for you to passively take part in a frivolous expense of pain and waste of life if you want something for yourself, and then call me the extremist for trying to escape from that sordid industry.

I can see clearly the string of contorted rationalisation as you conflate one with another, then another to say that all Meat Production is Torture. Then accuse me of guilt in this concocted reality.

That is nonsense. That is cognitive dissonance. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself, this tirade is for your own benefit.

Factory farming (by the broad definition that catches 99% of American agriculture) is not torture. It is not. Stop piling exaggeration on top of exaggeration.

You continue to ignore the distinction between beliefs and the rationale behind them. THAT is what I dispute with you, your reasoning and justification. You can go on being vegetarian but you must end this delusion of torture, or it may drive you to do something crazy.

Your petty personal attacks are completely unjustified: Comparing me to a tea party activist... patronising me for using "big words"... calling me egotist and consumed by gluttony.

You twist my words, to imply I called you an extremist "for trying to escape from that sordid industry" when I called you an extremist for taking humility towards animals too far and losing sight of the virtue of humility in general. I must respond to that, you may call it nit-picking and it may be a throw away remark for you, but it is still defamatory and deceptive.

You should take those comments back.

I don't want you to start eating meat again, not unless you really want to.

 

[Lerxst]

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?

You've done research, but not enough: (From http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html)

Corn: The United States is, by far, the largest producer of corn in the world. Corn is grown on over 400,000 U.S. farms. In 2000, the U.S. produced almost ten billion bushels of the world?s total 23 billion bushel crop. Corn grown for grain accounts for almost one quarter of the harvested crop acres in this country. Corn grown for silage accounts for about two percent of the total harvested cropland or about 6 million acres. The amount of land dedicated to corn silage production varies based on growing conditions. In years that produce weather unfavorable to high corn grain yields, corn can be ?salvaged? by harvesting the entire plant as silage.

According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production. The crop is fed as ground grain, silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). It also has a wide array of industrial uses including ethanol, a popular oxygenate in cleaner burning auto fuels.

Soybeans: Approximately 2.8 billion bushels of soybeans were harvested from almost 73 million acres of cropland in the U.S. in 2000. This acreage is roughly equivalent to that of corn grown for grain. Over 350,000 farms in the United States produce soybeans, accounting for over 50% of the world?s soybean production and $6.66 billion in soybean and product exports in 2000. Soybeans represented 56 percent of world oilseed production in 2000.

Soybeans are used to create a variety of products, the most basic of which are soybean oil, meal, and hulls. According to the United Soybean Board, soybean oil, used in both food manufacturing and frying and sautéing, represents approximately 79 percent of all edible oil consumed in the United States. Soybean oil also makes its way into products ranging from anti-corrosion agents to Soy Diesel fuel to waterproof cement. Over 30 million tons of soybean meal are consumed as livestock feed in a year. Even the hulls are used as a component of cattle feed rations

The sales of corn equal $15.1 billion
The sales of Soybeans equal $12.5 billion.

Those are the two major crops grown in the USA and the vast majority goes towards feeding livestock and being used in industry. Businesses like Monstano rely on the meat industry, it's their #1 customer.

You're entire argument is completely moot with this bit of information.

This also means those multi-billion dollar agricultural companies you think are "vegetarians' friends" are just another contributor to pro-meat & dairy lobbyists... who are the ones dictating what we should eat.

(And... um... you do realize that Monsanto was the company responsible for Agent Orange... and we now trust them with our food?!)

I was also in college when that "egg scare" occurred. We studied it because it was a major PR campaign and that was my major (Recall "The Incredible, edible egg"?) Funny how no one in the public looked at the boxes that closely. They actually increased our daily recommended dosage of cholesterol, therefor making the % in eggs go down - problem solved, eggs are now healthy for us again! There wasn't any miraculous scientific breakthrough involved, it was all marketing.

 

[PhiMed]

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.

It's not research. It's a persuasive essay written by a proponent of your point of view. He cites other persuasive essays written by proponents of his point of view as "sources". You have to go at least 4 layers deep to find anything objective or scientific. You might as well cite the mission statement of the North American vegetarian society as "proof" of something.

As for a position, you made a statement that suggested that we have verifiable evolutionary data on the pH of human saliva (we don't. In fact it varies from person to person based on diet).
You then implied carnivores invariably have more acidic saliva than herbivores (they don't).
You then said we have "the same" intestines as an herbivore, when the length of the human alimentary tract is actually variable from person to person and can change in a person's lifetime based on diet (also... you know... we can't digest cellulose, which is something that pretty much every dedicated herbivore on the planet can do).
You also completely neglected the fact that there are nutrients required for human life for which there are no natural vegetable sources, such as cobalamin (aka vitamin B 12)
You then said our canines are the same as those of other "plant eaters such as primates". We are primates. Most other species of primates are omnivorous, as well, and pretty much any anthropologist on earth will tell you so. Even the essay you cited admits that, but says "most of the meat they eat is termites." Most? Most? Most?

Here's a video of our closest animal relatives eating "mostly termites".

<youtube=KTPkmH4hWCs>

I'll get off my high horse as soon as you make sense. Until then, it's too much effort, and I can see better from up here.

 

[Chased]

I'll get off my high horse as soon as you make sense. Until then, it's too much effort, and I can see better from up here.

Dude you just ranted about how I used a poor source and the only thing you cited was a video of monkeys eating bugs.

????

 

[PhiMed]

I'll get off my high horse as soon as you make sense. Until then, it's too much effort, and I can see better from up here.

Dude you just ranted about how I used a poor source and the only thing you cited was a video of monkeys eating bugs.

????

They weren't eating bugs, dude. You should probably watch it. It pretty much destroys your notion of primates as "plant eaters". And a video of them behaving this way is what's known as a "primary source". It's considered a much more powerful piece of evidence than anything you presented.

 

[Chased]

I'll get off my high horse as soon as you make sense. Until then, it's too much effort, and I can see better from up here.

Dude you just ranted about how I used a poor source and the only thing you cited was a video of monkeys eating bugs.

????

They weren't eating bugs, dude. You should probably watch it. It pretty much destroys your notion of primates as "plant eaters". And a video of them behaving this way is what's known as a "primary source". It's considered a much more powerful piece of evidence than anything you presented.

there ya go dude