"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[Ingjald]

If you're not into zoophilia, you don't REALLY love animals. [/inflammatory counter-statement]

On a more serious note: I love meat, this year I finished the half-year course required by law to engage in hunting. I also lay claim to being a great lover of animals, edible and otherwhise. Not directly eating meat might make you feel better about yourself, but does little to nothing to reduce the killing and suffering of animals, lest you grow your own food locally (with no fertilizer or insect-repellant, and certainly no machines).

Fields are made from the natural habitats of animals, animals are killed protecting said fields, animals are poisoned by chemicals used to fertilize and de-bug said fields. And if you buy a lot of soy or other replacement-meat, know that most soy-based food is likely to be imported from asia (soy is grown elsewhere, but primarily used as feed for cattle), meaning it arrived by ship or plane: hello pollution!

I'll agree that there is probably room for improvement in the welfare of animals in the meat industry, but whoever made that statement strikes me as the kind of person who broke into the mink farms here in Sweden to release them into the wild; a particular wild that up until that point had no native population of mink. I'm sure the minks had no problem with this, but given that the mink is a voracious raider of birds nests, as well as an efficient fish-eater, it wreaked havoc on bird and fish populations where it settled. But the animal activists, no doubt vegetarians the lot of them, don't see that, or understand the ramifications. They get to continue seeing themselves as rebellious defenders of animals. And lest we forget; minks are a lot cuter than birds and fish!

 

[BNguyen]

I find it amusing that so many vegans and vegetarians say it is perfectly okay to only have a plant diet but there are limits to this:
1) there is simply not enough land to grow the crops in sufficient quantities for everybody to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle, one cow can feed more families than an entire field of grain can, because one, practically only a small portion of the grain plant is actually edible for us whereas nearly the entire cow can be eaten
2) even if we did go solely plant, it would take entirely too long to produce enough food for the human population which would cause mass amounts of us to starve just because you think it's morally right to save a cow over a human, this and coupled with the fact that we have to produce the necessary chemicals, clean water, and fuels in order to grow, protect, and harvest these crops
3) if we did decide to grow plants only, we would need to destroy millions of acres of animals' homes in order to grow sufficient amounts of crops, so in the long run, we would be rapidly increasing the rate at which animals are dying in order to supply the demand for food
4) without utilizing animals for food, we would essentially allow them to procreate without worry and cause population booms which would lead either to mass starvation of these animals or wide-spread damage to our crops due to the animals' need to feed
5) we are only now capable of understanding where and how to produce the vitamin and nutrient suppliments we could get from meat by (for thousands of years) steadily getting smarter by eating meat which helps our brains grow. If we did not eat meat, our brains would not have developed as far as they have and we'd still be a bunch of colonies of primitive humans, we wouldn't even have developed farming yet
6) the chemicals we need to produce to ensure a healthy crop as well as a bountiful harvest have chemicals that destroy animal habitats and even kill animals, if we were to switch over entirely to plants, the sheer amount of chemicals would pollute the environment and kill many more animals than the meat industry currently does.

And lastly (which is mere opinion) every vegan and vegetarian in the First World needs to get off their moral high horse and understand that poorer, Third-World countries cannot survive on a purely plant diet due to their economies and lifestyles rely on animal products. You, here in the US and other advanced nations, are only capable of living as you do because our modern society provides enough for you to do so, wanting poorer peoples to take up your, quite frankly, expensive lifestyle is insane.

Myths:
1) Cows are fed soybeans, not inedible bits of plant.
2) The argument isn't to instantly switch the world over to vegan (I wish I had that kind of power). If you become vegan today, I'm sure the market will adapt.
3) You do realize we use more farmland to feed farmed animals than we could ever use by eating it directly, right?
4) No. We'd just stop breeding them into short lives of suffering. The animals we have in farms are the product of artificial insemination by farmers.
5) Even if that didn't totally misunderstand how the process of evolution works (Eating meat will not make you smarter - if it did the USA would be the smartest country in the world because of KFC...) what does that have to do with going vegan now? Nothing.
6) Again, if we weren't feeding farm animals we'd be producing far less plants.
7) When did I make demands to anyone in a third-world country? If you have the means to go vegan, your argument doesn't apply.

1) you only proved my point, we feed cows pretty much what we can eat. For cows to not starve, we'd be competing for the same food source, although we do have other options, cows still eat much more than we do and their diet could spill over into our food sources.
2) the market may adapt but the processes are not so quick as to just shut down and that'd be it, first, you have to create the market and introduce it in such a way as for everyone to want to switch over, to do so would take years
3) plenty of the animals we raise for food do not consume what we do, pretty much what we leave over from the plants, but what we are capable of eating and digesting from plants is so little that we would have to produce crops on a much larger scale to be able to feed everyone. You don't seem to grasp that we are not herbivorous and cannot completely digest entire plants, only a small portion of that is edible and even then we can't completely digest it.
4) I'm not just talking about farmed animals, I'm talking about every animal we work to control to prevent such events as population booms and starvation from occurring. Vegans and vegetarians want animals to live long and relatively comfortable lives (I use the word comfortable because we all know not every animal is born completely healthy and capable) and that's a fine notion, but if we were to let these animals continue on without control, we would be competing with them and ultimately having to remove them (possibly causing them to starve) in order to meet society's demands for an all plant diet.
5)again you missed my point that we evolved into what we are with the aid of our diet, which consisted of meat. It means that 1) we are capable of changing now due to the evolutionary changes we made in the past, 2)without those changes made in the past, we could not make the changes now. It is only a point, not truly an excuse
6) do you even check prices at the store? High quality vegetables and fruits cost way more than a package of meat. And with the economy as it is, not everyone can afford to just switch over like you would want them to do, so yes, this argument can apply to First World countries as long as there is a poor class which can't make enough money to feed their family.
Growing a garden (with all that entails) or picking up enough greens at the store costs way more than a package of meat.

Take into fact that growing crops is not as easy as raising animals.
You have to worry about disease, pests, fungus, rot, the fact that the earth might not have enough nutrients to produce quality and edible food.
You also have to supply fertilizer, supplimental nutrients for better growth (aside from fertilizer), sufficient amounts of water, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to prevent destruction of the crop, and sufficient amounts of land to produce enough food.

Raising animals on the other hand doesn't require as much since 1) the animals (not always) eat parts of plants and even whole plants that humans cannot, too many plants have silica in their foliage that would wear down human teeth
2) raising a flock or herd of animals is less time consuming and overall takes less effort to ensure a good end product than a crop

Most of the time, you have to wait several months to get food from a crop and it is not always guaranteed that the produce will be good, free of damage or poison, or even that the plant might produce at all

 

[dyre]

Well, I love dolphins, dogs, kittens, hamsters, and raccoons

I don't particularly love pigs, cows, and chickens

Don't really see a problem here...

Problem: Do you think that pigs are less intelligent or conscious than, say, dogs?

Nah, pigs are pretty smart. Smart enough to actually lose sanity from being penned up in those tiny cages (which means they had sanity to begin with). Sucks, really. The meat industry needs some, uh, humanitarian (animalitarian?) regulations.

I'm still going to eat them though :|

captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
(albeit it was a Kellogg's cereal captcha ad)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Well, I love dolphins, dogs, kittens, hamsters, and raccoons

I don't particularly love pigs, cows, and chickens

Don't really see a problem here...

Problem: Do you think that pigs are less intelligent or conscious than, say, dogs?

Nah, pigs are pretty smart. Smart enough to actually lose sanity from being penned up in those tiny cages (which means they had sanity to begin with). Sucks, really. The meat industry needs some, uh, humanitarian (animalitarian?) regulations.

I'm still going to eat them though :|

captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
(albeit it was a Kellogg's cereal captcha ad)

So you do care about pigs on the level of their psychological wellbeing, but don't mind utterly destroying them because you'd rather eat pork for dinner than lentils (which can taste awesome in their own right)? Don't you find that to be inconsistent?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It doesn't occur in natural levels high enough to be considered enough - vegetations usually show a deficit in creatine. All meat contains creatine, so are you saying most health professionals tell you to not eat meat? Sounds like more pseudo-science.
Okay, if we ignore soya, what other sources of protein are there that have the same protein content, or higher, then meat, without high levels of carbs or fat? Answer: none.
Why the hell has everyone become so obnoxious on this site? Have you thought about what you use to farm? Heavy machinery. Also I'm guessing your level of education isn't sufficient to have learnt about the issue with carbon storage and how many plants aren't actually a solution to CO2 as when they die, CO2 is released, and if we consider the waste from things like soya, then you haven't solved shit. So no, I'm not high, just more educated on this topic thankyou very much.

I think you made a mistake, actually. Carnitine does occur in plants.

Also: if, for some reason you're trying to avoid carbs but want protein there's seitan, nuts, avocado, and plenty other plants-based foods that are very, very low in carbs yet high in protein. In fact, pretty much anything edible that isn't pure sugar or alcohol contains some protein.

As for CO2 emission, again, you do realize that animal agriculture requires feeding the bred animals (which release CO2) far more plants than humans could ever eat?

None of what you're saying meshes with reality.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Growing a garden (with all that entails) or picking up enough greens at the store costs way more than a package of meat.

Are you suggesting that meat is a substitute for... greens? That's the most fucked up thing I've ever heard. If you substitute all your carrots and broccoli for beef, you're going to have a nutritional deficiency. While people can live entirely on a plant-based diet, you can't live entirely on meat. You'll die.

That reminds me of that scene in Food Inc where this family was comparing the cost of broccoli to Pepsi, marveling at how much cheaper Pepsi is than vegetables. It's fucking sugar water.

If you want a fair comparison, compare the cost of meat to legumes. Look at how cheap lentils are. Being a vegan can be very inexpensive.

 

[RoBi3.0]

1) you only proved my point, we feed cows pretty much what we can eat. For cows to not starve, we'd be competing for the same food source, although we do have other options, cows still eat much more than we do and their diet could spill over into our food sources.
2) the market may adapt but the processes are not so quick as to just shut down and that'd be it, first, you have to create the market and introduce it in such a way as for everyone to want to switch over, to do so would take years
3) plenty of the animals we raise for food do not consume what we do, pretty much what we leave over from the plants, but what we are capable of eating and digesting from plants is so little that we would have to produce crops on a much larger scale to be able to feed everyone. You don't seem to grasp that we are not herbivorous and cannot completely digest entire plants, only a small portion of that is edible and even then we can't completely digest it.
4) I'm not just talking about farmed animals, I'm talking about every animal we work to control to prevent such events as population booms and starvation from occurring. Vegans and vegetarians want animals to live long and relatively comfortable lives (I use the word comfortable because we all know not every animal is born completely healthy and capable) and that's a fine notion, but if we were to let these animals continue on without control, we would be competing with them and ultimately having to remove them (possibly causing them to starve) in order to meet society's demands for an all plant diet.
5)again you missed my point that we evolved into what we are with the aid of our diet, which consisted of meat. It means that 1) we are capable of changing now due to the evolutionary changes we made in the past, 2)without those changes made in the past, we could not make the changes now. It is only a point, not truly an excuse
6) do you even check prices at the store? High quality vegetables and fruits cost way more than a package of meat. And with the economy as it is, not everyone can afford to just switch over like you would want them to do, so yes, this argument can apply to First World countries as long as there is a poor class which can't make enough money to feed their family.
Growing a garden (with all that entails) or picking up enough greens at the store costs way more than a package of meat.

Take into fact that growing crops is not as easy as raising animals.
You have to worry about disease, pests, fungus, rot, the fact that the earth might not have enough nutrients to produce quality and edible food.
You also have to supply fertilizer, supplimental nutrients for better growth (aside from fertilizer), sufficient amounts of water, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides to prevent destruction of the crop, and sufficient amounts of land to produce enough food.

Raising animals on the other hand doesn't require as much since 1) the animals (not always) eat parts of plants and even whole plants that humans cannot, too many plants have silica in their foliage that would wear down human teeth
2) raising a flock or herd of animals is less time consuming and overall takes less effort to ensure a good end product than a crop

Most of the time, you have to wait several months to get food from a crop and it is not always guaranteed that the produce will be good, free of damage or poison, or even that the plant might produce at all

I support the eating of meat just so we are clear. What I can't stand is misinformation.

1)Um cows are feed mainly corn by the beef industry cause it make cows extra fat. This is not the food source the evolved to eat. Cows are meant to eat grass, Humans can not eat grass because you lack the physiology to do so. Therefore, humans would not be competing with cows over the same food source.

3) Uh what? This is just crazy talk. The main food source of hunter gathers was plant matter. We are capable of eating a stunning amount of plant matter. I could write a list a mile long of all the shit we can eat. The simple fact is growing vegetables for human consumption more effectively feeds people than growing food for livestock that is a fact. It takes 6 pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef. That is a horribly ineffective use of resources.

4) This is true. Goats are a great example of livestock that eats all kids of crazy plants that people can not eat. Unfortunately in the United States anyhow they are horribly under underutilized. It is also true that Human are not Herbivores, but you are completely and totally underestimate human ability to eat plants, and lack understanding of farming in general.

5) Fat obtained from animal products was what was important to early hominids. It provided the calories needed to fuel larger brains. The need for fat was a result of evolution. Eating meat did not make Hominid grow bigger brains. We are evolved to eat certain things I just don't think you understand how that process occurred.

6) I am not sure you check the prices at the store. At local stores high quality ground beef is around 4 dollars a pound. I can by quite a few more vegetables for the same cost. Now beef is actually high in my area but even at a more reasonable price of around 3 dollars a pound vegetables are still cheaper. Even whole chicken at a 1 or 1.50 dollars a pound are still not the cheaper option. Unless you have developed a way to eat bones 15 to 25% of a whole chicken is wasted.


Your closing statement is also utter nonsense. With a increase a mechanized farming it has become ridiculously easy to grow crops. It only takes 1 person to drive a combine harvester.

Also you claim that eating a lot of plants is bad for your teeth this is simple not true. There have been several studies that show that dental health is way worst in American and western European cultures then it is in Cultures that adhere to traditional hunter gather lifestyles. Diets of which contain mostly plant matter and is supplemented with animal product when available. This has to do with more then just the consumption of plant verse meat as western population also consume a lot of refined sugar and heavy processed food not avail to the tribal people surveyed, but it was concluded that tooth wear was actually beneficial as the process that causes it also keeps teeth naturally clean.

In conclusion it my opinions on eating meat verse not is simple. Eating meat is beneficial to humans but being a vegetarian has its perks as well. Doing one of the other is not better and doesn't make you morally superior.

My only problem with the current meat culture is that there is entirely way to much importance placed on meat. It is often seen as the cornerstone to a decent meal. This is a problem. In fact the modern dependance on fat salt and sugar is leading to several major health problems in the United Stated. Diabetes, Obesity, Heart Diseases are relatively new problem in the scope of human evolution. They are directly related to our overuse of meat and processed foods.

 

[corvuscorrax]

I actually prefer to beat and torture the animals I intend to eat before actually killing them. I look deep into their eyes and I see fear and betrayal, you can't cook those expressions off you know.

I then use their blood to paint runic sigils on my chest and attempt to summon demons.

No success yet but will let you know when there is a break through.

On topic though vegatarians and vegans are just like any other hipster clique. They try and structure their life around some fairly unimportant life decision and then try to convince you that they're better than you for it.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Not avoid carbs but simply eat a realistic amount that will be part of a balanced diet. Nuts and avocado are rammed with fat. Some protein just isn't enough with plant products.
The grain mountains is more to do with subsiding farmers rather then producing lots of food. I'm no farmer but I would be curious to know the land coverage required for grain and cattle vs soya.

What I'm saying meshes with reality just fine...why the bitchy comment? I will admit I stupidly forgot the cattle feed but if we consider the density of meat vs soya (100 grams of meat is a lot smaller then 100g of soya), I would have thought soya coverage would have to be phenomenal in order to replace meat.

Food goes into a cow. Not all the mass of the food stays inside the cow. Energy is burnt, vegetable protein does not magically all turn into cow mass, and cows produce bullshit. Much like the majority of your post.

How much food do you think vegans require? The RDA for protein is 56-70 grams a day. That's not a lot.

Here's a sample day that results in 73 grams of protien, not including protein obtained from amino acids in other vegetables eaten throughout the day.

Breakfast:
1 cup Oatmeal
1 cup Soymilk
1 Bagel
Lunch:
2 slices Whole Wheat Bread
1 cup Vegetarian Baked Beans
Dinner:
5 oz firm Tofu 11
1 cup cooked Broccoli
1 cup cooked Brown Rice
2 Tbsp Almonds
Snack:
2 Tbsp Peanut Butter
6 Crackers

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm


You claim to be really concerned about how allegedly unsustainable veganism is, but I'm going to throw out a guess that you're wasting quite a few more resources in animal protein above the RDA.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Why the aggression? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have to flip-out.

The RDA for protein is laughably low. If you were to eat that enjoy being overweight if you eat the recommended calories. Try eating a 40-40-20 diet of 2k, and then make it 3k. Vegetables aren't enough.

Funny. I don't know many overweight vegans. In fact, in 7th day adventists studies, vegans are consistently within healthy weights while vegetarians and meat eaters are on average over weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

Find me a study that shows that vegans are fat.

 

[dyre]

Well, I love dolphins, dogs, kittens, hamsters, and raccoons

I don't particularly love pigs, cows, and chickens

Don't really see a problem here...

Problem: Do you think that pigs are less intelligent or conscious than, say, dogs?

Nah, pigs are pretty smart. Smart enough to actually lose sanity from being penned up in those tiny cages (which means they had sanity to begin with). Sucks, really. The meat industry needs some, uh, humanitarian (animalitarian?) regulations.

I'm still going to eat them though :|

captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
(albeit it was a Kellogg's cereal captcha ad)

So you do care about pigs on the level of their psychological wellbeing, but don't mind utterly destroying them because you'd rather eat pork for dinner than lentils (which can taste awesome in their own right)? Don't you find that to be inconsistent?

I care in a "that's rather distasteful (no pun intended)" sort of way, not in a "omg I'm offended" sort of way. Also, lentils taste like shit. I'd rather have tofu or eggs (you're not against eggs, are you?).

In the end, I only really have moral concern for human problems. I'm not saying vegetarians don't have a sound moral argument; it just doesn't have any internal appeal to me. Sort of like act utilitarianism sounds wonderful on paper, but in practice it is utterly unappealing and often disturbing.

You know what would be kind of funny though? If in a few decades or so, only-humans-matter attitudes no longer exist, and the word "humanist" takes on the same sort of connotation as "racist" does today

PS: I think torture is worse than murder, so it's not completely inconsistent!

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Why the aggression? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have to flip-out.

The RDA for protein is laughably low. If you were to eat that enjoy being overweight if you eat the recommended calories. Try eating a 40-40-20 diet of 2k, and then make it 3k. Vegetables aren't enough.

Funny. I don't know many overweight vegans. In fact, in 7th day adventists studies, vegans are consistently within healthy weights while vegetarians and meat eaters are on average over weight.

Find me a study that shows that vegans are fat.

No need to try to be a smart-ass...is this something you are even aware of?
As for the vegans how much are they eating in terms of calories a day?

How am I being a smart ass? Try reading your own posts.

I'm easily getting more than 2000 calories a day and I'm not gaining weight. Maybe your trendy weight loss program isn't the only healthy diet? It's certainly not a sustainable one.

 

[AngloDoom]

How has the thread gotten this far and hovered around this long?

Some people want to eat meat, such as myself.
Others do not wish to eat meat, such as my friends.

We still talk to each other civilly and we manage to get along just fine: now why is it that you have the same elements and you simply add "on the internet" and everything becomes a gigantic fireball in seconds?

All these sarcastic remarks, smarmy retorts, and aggressive rebuttals aren't going to make the other person go "gee, I was wrong" any more than my banging on about how much I hate [insert band here] is going to make a fan turn away from their preferences.

Can we just learn to get civil and get on? Bake some cakes or something? That's vegetarian, lets have some cake together, guys:

Spoiler: Giant cake for everyone!

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I care in a "that's rather distasteful (no pun intended)" sort of way, not in a "omg I'm offended" sort of way. Also, lentils taste like shit. I'd rather have tofu or eggs (you're not against eggs, are you?).

In the end, I only really have moral concern for human problems. I'm not saying vegetarians don't have a sound moral argument; it just doesn't have any internal appeal to me. Sort of like act utilitarianism sounds wonderful on paper, but in practice it is utterly unappealing and often disturbing.

You know what would be kind of funny though? If in a few decades or so, only-humans-matter attitudes no longer exist, and the word "humanist" takes on the same sort of connotation as "racist" does today

In most cases, it'd probably be less cruel to cut to the chase and eat chickens instead of confining them for their eggs. It's truly gruesome stuff.

Luckily you have a world of other options: avocado, seitan, tempeh, tofu, and a fucking rainbow of legumes. Lentils aren't compulsory, though I'm puzzled that you don't like them.

As for the utilitarian bit, how's being a vegan disturbing? I don't use animal products and... there isn't a ethical downside here. It's not like I'm letting a baby drown so I can sell my expensive suit (instead of ruining it while rescuing the drowning baby) in order to save more babies.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

"Funny. I don't know many overweight vegans."
Anecdotal and condescending.
What's your diet? Care to give me the caloric breakdown? Trendy weight loss? No, just watching what I eat and actually knowing what I eat rather then guessing.
How is it not sustainable?

You missed the part where I mentioned the Adventist Health Studies which measured the weight of vegan adventists on a large scale? I'm also not sure how that was condescending. Glib, maybe?

And dude, if you're getting most of your calories from meat, that's going to be unsustainable because you're using more resources than if you were getting calories from plants.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes you can.

You just love the animals you don't eat.

Cats = love

Lambs = eat

Humans = ambivilance

 

[dyre]

I care in a "that's rather distasteful (no pun intended)" sort of way, not in a "omg I'm offended" sort of way. Also, lentils taste like shit. I'd rather have tofu or eggs (you're not against eggs, are you?).

In the end, I only really have moral concern for human problems. I'm not saying vegetarians don't have a sound moral argument; it just doesn't have any internal appeal to me. Sort of like act utilitarianism sounds wonderful on paper, but in practice it is utterly unappealing and often disturbing.

You know what would be kind of funny though? If in a few decades or so, only-humans-matter attitudes no longer exist, and the word "humanist" takes on the same sort of connotation as "racist" does today

In most cases, it'd probably be less cruel to cut to the chase and eat chickens instead of confining them for their eggs. It's truly gruesome stuff.

Luckily you have a world of other options: avocado, seitan, tempeh, tofu, and a fucking rainbow of legumes. Lentils aren't compulsory, though I'm puzzled that you don't like them.

As for the utilitarian bit, how's being a vegan disturbing? I don't use animal products and... there isn't a ethical downside here. It's not like I'm letting a baby drown so I can sell my expensive suit (instead of ruining it while rescuing the drowning baby) in order to save more babies.

Ok, but I already eat avocado and tofu...it's just that having some grilled chicken or sweet and sour pork too is really...appealing >_>

I haven't heard of seitan and tempeh, but google images makes it look like some kind of vegetable-made meat substitute, which already makes me not want to eat it, lol. I'll try it sometime though, and I promise you, if it tastes better than steak, I'll cut down my animal consumption by 50%.

Sorry, I didn't mean the disturbing bit about vegetarians (utilitarians are disturbing, but not vegetarians). I mean, in some scenarios the utilitarian answer seems "right," but I still wouldn't do it. As in, I just don't care enough about other people (relative to how much I care about myself) to give away all my discretionary income. It probably makes me a bad person, but hey, I live on a planet in which 100% of people are bad, so w/e.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Hmm, it seems like a fair thing to say you can't love something you'd have someone kill for you to eat for dinner. Doesn't mean you can't love some animals, but I'd say I don't see how it works for you to say you love animals in general. If you'd have chickens killed for you just so you can enjoy their flesh I don't think it'd be fair to say you love chickens. (Also the chicken cooking in my house smells good and is making me hungry...)

Well, on the other hand you can't love nature if you've ever eaten plants.
So this makes for an absolutely reasonable argument.

Not particularly comparable given the nature of plants vs that of animals. Plus of course that loving nature is different than just loving plants.

You eat animals for the nutrition they provide - "love" does not come into it. You eat meat for a balanced diet and as long as the animals are treated humanely, then what's the issue? Denying the nature of man and nutritional requirements just isn't realistic.

Why bother posting such drivel? Next time don't make stupid assumptions and save us both time. I did not say there was an issue. Nor did I suggest denying any sort of nutritional requirement. The reason I mention love is because anyone who has actually bothered to read what thread they're in might notice that it's what the thread is about. And I am saying it indicates a lack of love to be cool with killing those animals. But I didn't say people had to love animals.

Jees chill out, what's wrong with people here...
All you have done is insult what I said, and then repeat what you said without addressing anything I said. I said love does not come into the equation as meeting nutritional requirements has nothing to do with love therefore you can love chickens but still eat them as the latter part is a necessity. I didn't say people had to love animals either...

Maybe it's worth thinking about the question a little differently. Is it possible to love all animals, or love animals in general and also eat animals? Not love the way they taste or love them for the sustenance they provide, but truly care for, respect, and feel genuine concern for the well-being of all animals and also consume them?

Can you love something and also want it to die? Can you love something you need to consume to survive? Can you love something that you do not treat as an equal?

It has been scientifically proven and accepted that human beings do not need to eat animals to--not just survive, but thrive. The USDA and other respected agencies have stated that vegan diets are adequate at all stages of life for males and females and in many cases, provide significant health benefits. Therefore, eating a chicken is not a necessity, it is a choice.

Can you still love chickens then?

Humans are clearly predators - eye location, teeth and nails. Comparing humans to herbivores shows a failure in understanding science.

Anyone saying human teeth are herbivore teeth is talking pseudo-science.
Carnivores, and humans, have sharp cusps with conical roots as carnivores are vertical chewers and herbivores chew side-to-side (think how a cow chews). If a herbivore ate vertically, it'd break it's teeth. Sadly, just like flat earthers and conspiracy theorists, there is a lot of bullshit floating around out there to argue against the true genuine science.

Lots animals that aren't predators have eyes in front. And some that are have eyes on the side (sharks). Early humans ate a variety of food, gathering most of what they ate--not hunting. And human nails...? They don't seem particularly useful for trapping and killing fast prey. Also, humans chew both vertically and horizontally, like an herbivore. If they could only move their jaw side to side, their mouths wouldn't open.

We most closely resemble which wild animals? Apes maybe? They eat a mostly plant diet.

You're right, comparative anatomy doesn't tell us much. I was just pointing out that humans are anything but carnivores. And as humans are biologically omnivores, it is as reasonable to compare humans to herbivores as it is to compare humans to carnivores... which you've just done in the exact same way I did.

Protein and creatin. Eating them from soya is unrealistic for three reasons:
1)Creatin is meat-only.
2)The carb content of meat is low in contrast to soya, meaning meat is better for a balanced diet.
3)There is not enough land to feed everyone on non-meat products, not to mention the CO2 produced by such a vast amount of plants. I know cattle produce a lot of CO2 and methane, but beef isn't the only animal. This is just speculation but nevertheless a worthwhile potential issue to mention.

1) Creatin, if it shows up short in bloodwork, is easy to supplement and almost half of what humans need is produced by their own bodies.
2) Soy is not the only reliable source of protein from plants. Even if it were, your statement is only true in terms of a weight-loss program.
3) The first part is not accurate and if the second part were true, cutting down the rainforest would be a good thing for global warming.

Soy or soya is not the only "meat substitute." An ideal omnivore human diet requires very little meat, but requires a great deal of variety in foods--none of it processed. Anyway, most vegans and vegetarians are not following their diets only for health reasons. It is largely about not taking part in an industry that maintains many practices they find upsetting, disturbing, and wrong.

The best thing you can do for your body and the environment with your diet, veggie or not, is eat as many locally grown, in-season foods as possible.

Loving all animals specifically is ridiculous as no one has met them all and you would never say "i love all humans".
You can care & respect them as well as consuming them - it's about being accepting of our place in the food chain. I would like all cattle to have a good upbringing and so on and see no need for mindless suffering even if it costs me a little more in money. Is it out of guilt? No, but out of respect and I would like there to be better ways to kill the animals to be honest.

It's not about wanting an animal to die, it's about realising it needs to die and that is nature. Fighting nature at this moment in time is pointless. If there were cheaper, better sources of protein then yes, I personally would not eat meat, or certainly eat less, but currently there is no such thing. Vegan diets are low in protein and pretty crappy. If you want to get into shape (read not ripped, but also big), good luck.
Sharks are aquatic so don't compare them to land dwelling predators. Humans are born carnivores and to deny that is to deny reality. What humans eats horizontally? Rednecks? I've never seen someone eat like a cow...Herbivores cannot eat vertically and humans are designed to do so. Those are facts and they clearly point to humans being designed to eat meat so either you accept that or drop the point if we aren't going to agree on reality.

~45% isn't 100% and supplementation also surely shows how unnatural a vegetarian diet is? What other good sources of protein are out there that are equivalent to meat?
Actually trees are not a solution to CO2 as when they die their CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. O2 is increased but CO2 isn't permanently reduced. Also what's the mpg of a combine harvester?

I would also add eat as much truly organic meat as possible. Watch Food Inc - very interesting and eye opening whilst showing that eating meat doesn't have to be barbaric or immoral.

You couldn't be more incorrect about vegan diets. There is protein in almost every plant--quinoa is one great example of a reliable source of plant based protein--for others, see: http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/top-6-plant-based-proteins - the protein to calorie ratio is usually better in plants and plant based protein is cheaper than meat protein, at least before subsidies. Plants also have 0 cholesterol.

There are many vegan athletes and even weight-lifters (see Arian Foster for one, see this article for others: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/sports/vegans-muscle-their-way-into-bodybuilding.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )

Humans are not not not carnivores, they are omnivores.

Shake your jaw left and right--in other words, horizontal. Humans can move their jaws both ways.

Supplementation is common and recommended for most modern diets. I have not claimed vegan diets are more natural than an omnivorous diet. I am claiming that the ideal omnivore's diet consumes minuscule amounts of meat (read the China Study). If, for reasons based on personal beliefs a person wishes to forgo that small amount and supplement instead, it is no less healthy--in many cases, it is healthier than average modern diets.

What is natural or not is entirely irrelevant because either everything human beings do is natural--we're all doing it, after all, how can it not be natural? It's like saying you could ever be anywhere but "here" from your own point of view. Or, everything humans do is unnatural and judging any behavior based on a scale of "natural" versus "natural" is absurd.

I have watched food inc. Plants are carbon neutral. More plants are grown now to feed the animals humans eat than are grown to feed human beings, so if it would be a problem, it already is. What do you think the mpg is of every cooled shipping truck that distributes meat from mass farm to all corners of a country?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Ok, but I already eat avocado and tofu...it's just that having some grilled chicken or sweet and sour pork too is really...appealing >_>

I haven't heard of seitan and tempeh, but google images makes it look like some kind of vegetable-made meat substitute, which already makes me not want to eat it, lol. I'll try it sometime though, and I promise you, if it tastes better than steak, I'll cut down my animal consumption by 50%.

Sorry, I didn't mean the disturbing bit about vegetarians (utilitarians are disturbing, but not vegetarians). I mean, in some scenarios the utilitarian answer seems "right," but I still wouldn't do it. As in, I just don't care enough about other people (relative to how much I care about myself) to give away all my discretionary income. It probably makes me a bad person, but hey, I live on a planet in which 100% of people are bad, so w/e.

I don't see tempeh, tofu, or seitan as meat substitutes, despite the fact that they're often marketed as such. Culinarily speaking, it's better to look at them as distinct foods in their own right, instead of an attempt to replicate something they're not.

In answering your comments about tempeh and tofu, tempeh's from India, made of beans (often, but not always soy) that has more texture to it than tofu. Seitan's pure wheat protein, often marketed as a substitute for chicken.

As for being a bad person, there is a difference between actions and people. However, the way I see it is 'why do something you don't support if you can do something else?' I know I ultimately can't bargain with myself on what I understand to be right.

Anyway, I don't think I can convince you to become vegan, this isn't really an attempt at it, but it's cool to have a dialog on the internet about it without one of us attempting to burn the other at a steak.

 

[RoBi3.0]

I care in a "that's rather distasteful (no pun intended)" sort of way, not in a "omg I'm offended" sort of way. Also, lentils taste like shit. I'd rather have tofu or eggs (you're not against eggs, are you?).

In the end, I only really have moral concern for human problems. I'm not saying vegetarians don't have a sound moral argument; it just doesn't have any internal appeal to me. Sort of like act utilitarianism sounds wonderful on paper, but in practice it is utterly unappealing and often disturbing.

You know what would be kind of funny though? If in a few decades or so, only-humans-matter attitudes no longer exist, and the word "humanist" takes on the same sort of connotation as "racist" does today

In most cases, it'd probably be less cruel to cut to the chase and eat chickens instead of confining them for their eggs. It's truly gruesome stuff.

Luckily you have a world of other options: avocado, seitan, tempeh, tofu, and a fucking rainbow of legumes. Lentils aren't compulsory, though I'm puzzled that you don't like them.

As for the utilitarian bit, how's being a vegan disturbing? I don't use animal products and... there isn't a ethical downside here. It's not like I'm letting a baby drown so I can sell my expensive suit (instead of ruining it while rescuing the drowning baby) in order to save more babies.

You know it is entirely possible to keep chickens for their eggs without caging them up right?

Furthermore lentils do taste like shit, sorry but that is the truth.

Also rather then quote you twice I will just comment on you Adventist study of Vegan. Yes, Vegans are not over weight, typically, and are in reasonable better health then the average American. This does not indicate that Vegan-ism is the most healthy lifestyle in existence. All it does is showcase how terribly shitty the average America diet really is.

Vegans tend to watch their diets very carefully and also tend to stay away for most processed foods. If meat eating individuals payed as much attention to their diets, they would experiences similar results. That is a guarantee.