Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams So vegetarianism is not any more or less moral, just a matter of scale?

Huh? If there is a scale that means there is weight or direction on a spectrum, doesn`t it? Don`t "scales" measure "more" or "less"? You tell me. You are the one who chose the word "scale." Perhaps you are confused a little by your word usage. I am.

Tell me, when we have to turn most of the worlds land over the agrarian production, what will happen to cattle?

If a vegetarian/vegan society is ever realized, I don`t think anyone would envision a scenario where it would happen at one time how you put it as a "turn over". Diminishing demand for the product would incrementally caused by economics to make the farmer breed animals less and less.

Cows, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs - any animal that's current existence is largely now based upon human rearing? They would be put on the endangered species list, if not the list of extinct creatures.

So what? What individual animal which is suffering cares about their species if their only purpose is to be forced to live for exploitation or under tyranny? If we become a veg world there is no need for them as they disappear with the economic forces that erase them. Surely the ecology of the world won`t suffer from their absence, since like you said they are not natural to it and as we all know offer no benefit to it as part of the eco-system.

Being omnivores means we have to ensure a species survival, or else we lose a food source.

We have no pressing need to ensure the survival of domesticated animals for the survival of our own species. Our survival no where near rests on that. It is already known that man can meet ALL his dietary needs from a plant based diet in this modern world. That is fact. Scroll up and read the American Dietetic Society`s position paper on vegetarianism and nutrition.

Being vegetarian means that plant production will take precedence. The industrialised means of production also means that we will also wind up desertifying a great deal of land, making it unusable.

Would you happen to have any official studies to back up that far out assertion?

This doesn't happen with pastoral farming, pastoral farming typically enriches the soil.

LOL!

Pastoral farming is a source of nitrate contamination of the soil and waterways. In addition overgrazing and herd animals such as cows and sheep increases soil runnoff.

Excerpt:

The impact of livestock and agricultural practices

Animals themselves can have a major impact on the quality of water in a catchment, principally through faecal contamination and through disturbance of watercourses and surrounding land, both of which contribute to downstream contamination. Such downstream effects have a significant impact on water quality and, potentially, on animal productivity. A number of studies in New Zealand have shown that increased farming intensity will, or is likely to, result in greater nutrient enrichment of waterways. Many of these are outlined below.

Microbes and nutrients from manure enter streams or watercourses by several pathways (Gary et al. 1983; Tiedemann et al. 1988; Larsen et al. 1994) including direct deposition from animals; via runoff or overland flow, where deposits of manure, along with organisms and nutrients in the manure, are transported to the stream; and via other pathways including sub-surface transport and filtration, and artificial drainage.

Bacterial densities in run-off from agricultural lands often exceed water quality standards (Baxter-Potter and Gilliland 1988). This is not surprising given concentrations of 100 million coliforms per litre in bovine faeces (Thelin and Gifford 1983). Several studies have shown that the extent of, or levels of, bacterial indicator organisms in streams in the US are proportional to cattle numbers, and inversely related to the area of pasture (Darling and Coltharp 1973, Gary et al. 1983).

SOURCE

You would pick one over the other to live under[tyranical systems]? I would fight to the death to overturn which ever I happened to be under, because they are immoral and oppressive, irrespective of scale. If something is quite so certainly wrong, as you argue animal suffering is, you should oppose it at all turns, not just pick the lesser evil.

I am not devoid of reality, RickSP. Even Jews who were fortunate enough to escape from Germany during the early years of persecution knew that they may also see some forms of anti-semitism in there new homes as well. However, the practical do make choices. Not everyone is a Spartan like you are, beating your chest at the injustice of tyranny. Many are pacifist to the bone. Would you expect a very elderly lady or man or young child, or handicap person to fight any tyranical regime as you would? or would you afford them the choice to make between what lesser evil there was without belittleing them or cajoling them?

And for anecdotal evidence, ...

I can`t comment on your aunt`s situation. There is no way for me to verify that, surely as there is no way for you to verify a family member or acquaintance example of my own that perhaps had the opposite reaction to your aunts -- if I were to offer one.

Moreover, it was the shift from vegetarian diet to omni diet that gave ostrolapithicus (sp?)the protien content to become a superior ape, to set itself on the evolutionary path to homo sapien. I can't see how something that is not only natural but was crucial to our development can be immoral.

Again with history, huh? Past history is in the past. Using it for logic to continue something into the future just because it was beneficial in the past is weak reasoning. Like I said, slavery was beneficial to man in the past as well, but we do not continue it. We are not ostolapithicus any more. We are modern man and we no longer need to consume meat.

We have evolved in modern society to be able to live without it. It is unecessary.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: strongheartswin Huh? If there is a scale that means there is weight or direction on a spectrum, doesn`t it? Don`t "scales" measure "more" or "less"? You tell me. You are the one who chose the word "scale." Perhaps you are confused a little by your word usage. I am. If a vegetarian/vegan society is ever realized, I don`t think anyone would envision a scenario where it would happen at one time how you put it as a "turn over". Diminishing demand for the product would incrementally caused by economics to make the farmer breed animals less and less. So what? What individual animal which is suffering cares about their species if their only purpose is to be forced to live for exploitation or under tyranny? If we become a veg world there is no need for them as they disappear with the economic forces that erase them. Surely the ecology of the world won`t suffer from their absence, since like you said they are not natural to it and as we all know offer no benefit to it as part of the eco-system. We have no pressing need to ensure the survival of domesticated animals for the survival of our own species. Our survival no where near rests on that. It is already known that man can meet ALL his dietary needs from a plant based diet in this modern world. That is fact. Scroll up and read the American Dietetic Society`s position paper on vegetarianism and nutrition. Would you happen to have any official studies to back up that far out assertion? LOL! Pastoral farming is a source of nitrate contamination of the soil and waterways. In addition overgrazing and herd animals such as cows and sheep increases soil runnoff. Excerpt: The impact of livestock and agricultural practices Animals themselves can have a major impact on the quality of water in a catchment, principally through faecal contamination and through disturbance of watercourses and surrounding land, both of which contribute to downstream contamination. Such downstream effects have a significant impact on water quality and, potentially, on animal productivity. A number of studies in New Zealand have shown that increased farming intensity will, or is likely to, result in greater nutrient enrichment of waterways. Many of these are outlined below. Microbes and nutrients from manure enter streams or watercourses by several pathways (Gary et al. 1983; Tiedemann et al. 1988; Larsen et al. 1994) including direct deposition from animals; via runoff or overland flow, where deposits of manure, along with organisms and nutrients in the manure, are transported to the stream; and via other pathways including sub-surface transport and filtration, and artificial drainage. Bacterial densities in run-off from agricultural lands often exceed water quality standards (Baxter-Potter and Gilliland 1988). This is not surprising given concentrations of 100 million coliforms per litre in bovine faeces (Thelin and Gifford 1983). Several studies have shown that the extent of, or levels of, bacterial indicator organisms in streams in the US are proportional to cattle numbers, and inversely related to the area of pasture (Darling and Coltharp 1973, Gary et al. 1983). SOURCE I am not devoid of reality, RickSP. Even Jews who were fortunate enough to escape from Germany during the early years of persecution knew that they may also see some forms of anti-semitism in there new homes as well. However, the practical do make choices. Not everyone is a Spartan like you are, beating your chest at the injustice of tyranny. Many are pacifist to the bone. Would you expect a very elderly lady or man or young child, or handicap person to fight any tyranical regime as you would? or would you afford them the choice to make between what lesser evil there was without belittleing them or cajoling them? I can`t comment on your aunt`s situation. There is no way for me to verify that, surely as there is no way for you to verify a family member or acquaintance example of my own that perhaps had the opposite reaction to your aunts -- if I were to offer one. Again with history, huh? Past history is in the past. Using it for logic to continue something into the future just because it was beneficial in the past is weak reasoning. Like I said, slavery was beneficial to man in the past as well, but we do not continue it. We are not ostolapithicus any more. We are modern man and we no longer need to consume meat. We have evolved in modern society to be able to live without it. It is unecessary.

Actually, I'm going to be lazy. I can spend the next 30-40 minutes arguing my points, and it's not going to convince you, but then I don't need to convince you. As your trying to break the norms however, you do. So why don't you explain why I, or any meat lover, should convert?

[shield772]

Quote by: strongheartswin Do you keep dropping in to follow it? We shouldn`t care if there is no suffering involved.

Who is suffering?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams Actually, I'm going to be lazy. I can spend the next 30-40 minutes arguing my points, ...

That is what a debate site is for, isn`t it? -- to argue your points or to offer rebuttals. You don`t have to do a marathon 30-40 min session. Choose one or two points and get to the others when you have time. I would prefer you choose direct questions I address to you.

and it's not going to convince you, but then I don't need to convince you. As your trying to break the norms however, you do.

G. Adams, debate is not merely for those who are participants, and in most cases participants are not swayed by their opponants' arguments during the debate. Debates are usually for the benefit of the on-lookers who are not decided on the issue and for the participants to become familiar with new arguments and techniques for how they should put forth their arguments or how to rebutt oponents' arguments. It is almost a kind of ongoing form of education that can evolve differently for each person. I value that. Don`t you?

From the very beginning I have had no illusion of changing the opinions of the participants' views. In fact, I would guess there are few controversial issues for debate on this whole forum where major participants just all of a sudden changed their minds because they were "convinced", are there? In that case I and you are in good company -- or at least the majority when it comes to debates.

I do imagine, though, that new ideas from debates get lodged in particpants' minds, as well as the onlookers', and after days, weeks, or months, people begin to change, no matter how slow or imperceptible it is at first. I often think about the things said during debates later in my free time.

So why don't you explain why I, or any meat lover, should convert?

I have been doing just that! I have recently joined this forum. I still have few posts on the topic. Why don`t you just go back 2 or 3 pages to where I came in and read my posts, rather than asking me to repeat myself, in which case a certain other person will ding me for it. I don`t mind reiterating my view, but since it is only a few pages back, I really think it is a little early to do it now.

[belverron]

"Veggie Blues"

I'm all for not including meat in every meal--I don't think there's any idea more foolish when it comes to diet. But I don't think that cutting out all meat is the best dietary option, and I would hope that people would look into their dietary needs thoroughly before doing so.

[RickSp]

Undoubtedly, vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle choice. And, as doctors point out, it protects its followers from a slew of lifestyle-related disorders like cardiac ailments, hypertension, cancer, gallstones and obesity. In fact, the US-based World Cancer Research Fund says that cancer risk plummets by almost 40 per cent if one sticks to plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits and whole grains, and limits the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish. But herein lies the rub. A lot of vegetarians - whether converts or not - are so restrictive in their diet that they end up suffering from nutritional deficiencies and immunity-linked disorders. According to Delhi-based nutritionist Dr Shikha Sharma, this restrictive diet lies at the root of many problems that vegetarians encounter. Many complain of anaemia, osteoporosis and low bone mineral density - which makes the bones weak and vulnerable to fractures. "I get many vegetarians at my clinic who live on potatoes, white flour and polished rice day in and day out. Nothing could be worse. A healthy diet ought to have a lot of variety from all food groups."

So after starting with the potentially questionable assertion that "undoubtedly" vegetarianism is healthy, the article goes on to describe the risks of malnutrition and immunity linked disorders encountered by many vegetarians. Amusing.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp So after starting with the potentially questionable assertion that "undoubtedly" vegetarianism is healthy, the article goes on to describe the risks of malnutrition and immunity linked disorders encountered by many vegetarians. Amusing.

We agree, RickSp, it is amusing, and it would also be so had the order of the para been reversed. The thing I find most amusing about it is the use of the phrase, "a lot of vegetarians" without giving any fixed reference or ratio in proportion to flesh eaters. After all, 10,000 people are "a lot" to some.

One thing for sure, flesh eaters do not have a monopoly on bad/imbalanced eating habits and nothing is perfect. But, the data is clear, and you are free to scroll up and take a more indepth look again at the position paper referencing over a hundred sources by well respected and reknown health orgs published in respected journals on the benefits of vegetarianism in comparison to consuming animal products.

[Osborn F Enready]

Never saw this post, but I have voted now.

I am no vegetarian.

[nm420]

I'm not a vegetarian, though I'm in the process of becoming a pseudo-vegetarian. I like meat, and would never give it up. However, I am troubled by the meat industry and the horrible atrocities inflicted by it. Animal factories literally devastate their surrounding environments and the health of nearby communities, they are destructive to the health of the greater human societies consuming their product. But then most any mega-industry is guilty of similar misdeeds. My main opposition to the meat industry is its horrible treatment of sentient beings. There are much more humane ways to bring meat to the marketplace, but the profits wouldn't be as great and we all know that profit is king of this world.

I had a friend who was mostly a vegetarian, though he would eat meat if it were something hunted or fished by actual people going out into the actual wilderness. That's about where I'd like to be, even including eating meat produced from (preferably local) farmers who I know don't use practices I would consider disgusting. Of course, it's one thing to say that, but when practically everywhere you go there is an abundancy of meat, it takes a bit more than talk to overcome the temptation.

[kubedawg]

I'm not a vegetarian because I love the taste of juicy beef and pork. Chicken can be good, but only if it's fried.

People who think we should stop killing animals to eat them are completely pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. Animals eat other animals... To survive... I eat animals... Because lettuce tastes like shit and so do tomatos, and all those other yucky veggies.

Don't get me wrong, I still eat vegetables by choice(not some premade chili with onions in it) because some veggies taste good.

But people should be pointing their fingers at people who actively abuse animals for a feeling of pleasure or to get rid of anger or some stupid fucking reason like that.

The ALF is complete hypocrisy, it's just another elitist group angry @ the wrong people.

Woudl you kill a snake if it tried to strike you? I would, for self defence, but look @ why the snake is striking @ you. You've invaded it's territory or caused it to believe it might be attacked, so it defended itself.

What about a crocodile?

A turtle?

A grizzly bear?

If you are gonna stand up for animals, don't do it for just the cute and loving ones like dogs and cats and birds etc, do it for the animals around us.

If we didn't have meat to eat, we would eventually die off as animals. We cannot survive on just plants to eat. Some might be able to, but we are omnivores. We eat both meat and plants.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: nm420 I'm not a vegetarian, though I'm in the process of becoming a pseudo-vegetarian. I like meat, and would never give it up. However, I am troubled by the meat industry and the horrible atrocities inflicted by it.

mm420, you sound exactly like I did. My slide was a slow one and I, too, thought I would never give meat up. But I did, because the morals of supporting a system which causes sentient beings to suffer became more and more repugnant the more I learned about it. How could I let my pallate lead me around when as a human I know we have the fortitude to resist temptation for the higher good.

Animal factories literally devastate their surrounding environments and the health of nearby communities, they are destructive to the health of the greater human societies consuming their product.

You seem well informed on the issue.

My main opposition to the meat industry is its horrible treatment of sentient beings.

Yes. You are right. Be sure to take a look at the link "Free Me" I posted in the General section under "Getting To Know You." You can view it by clicking HERE.

The horrible treatment you know of is put to music by Goldfinger.

[Chris]

SHWin,

I did see that Free Me video, and it is quite sad and appaling what they do in the slaughterhouses. It is cruelty. People should be ashamed.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg People who think we should stop killing animals to eat them are completely pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. Animals eat other animals... To survive... I eat animals... Because lettuce tastes like shit and so do tomatos, and all those other yucky veggies.

Animals need to eat animals to survive. We do not -- and that includes you, too. Animals are captive to their passions. We are an animal that has evolved to be able to make choices that do not have to give way to our passions.

If you eat animals because of the flavor, then you are supporting cruelty to animals based on the pleasure of the pallate.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Woudl you kill a snake if it tried to strike you? I would, for self defence, but look @ why the snake is striking @ you. You've invaded it's territory or caused it to believe it might be attacked, so it defended itself. What about a crocodile? A turtle? A grizzly bear?

How are you tying this into vegetarianism? Killing cows, pigs, and chickens for eating them is no where near "self-defense."

In an immediate life or death struggle, everyone retains the right to self preservation. Vegetarians have never said that is forfeited. What is your point?

[Chris]

Quote by: kubedawg People who think we should stop killing animals to eat them are completely pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. Animals eat other animals... To survive... I eat animals... Because lettuce tastes like shit and so do tomatos, and all those other yucky veggies.

Yeah thhis is all very well, but you can't deny whats going on in the slaughter houses. This is more than just hunting to survive, its taking animals and practically manufacturing them, using them like parts on an assembly line.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Chris ... its taking animals and practically manufacturing them, using them like parts on an assembly line.

The only difference is, it is a hideous process of DIS-assembly.

Many of the animals remain concious even after the stunning or poker and are cut up alive.

[kubedawg]

Yeah I totally agree. We need to just put them completely to sleep before that process begins...

[Chris]

No death needs to be quick so they don't suffer, no need for smart-assism.

[kubedawg]

I'm not being a smart ass. I think all animals used for feeding humans should be killed before the disassembly process.... That is what I truely believe. What other way would you do it?

[Chris]

OK I guess I misunderstood you -considering your previous posts on the matter. It isnt practical or realistic to "put them to sleep" before killing them. I was talking more along the lines of quick deaths instead of them being be