Vegetarianism

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The point I saw you attempting to make was that he was a hypocrite -- and not that he was just plain wrong or ignorant. The latter is the correct point. You were trying to paint him as a hypocritical vegetarian. That charge can`t stick because he is NOT a vegetarian. Saying someone eats meat but is a vegetarian is like saying someone is pregnant but not expecting. Being wrong in a claim does not make one hypocritical. It just makes one wrong. Now, if he were a confessed flesh eater not claiming to be a vegetarian but said it is wrong to eat flesh and everyone should be a vegetarian, then that would make him hypocritical. As it is now, he is just a flesh eater ignorant on what it means to be a vegetarian.

He is a confessed flesh eater, telling the world his diet for shooting The Machinist. Yet he also claims to have been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old. Does hypocrasy require the hypocrite to understand their untenable position, or is ignorance an excuse?

[kubedawg]

Who follows celebrities outside of their movies or show anyway? Stop trying to be "cool" or "hip" and find some real reasons why being a vegetarian is better for one than eating meat. You know that eating certain types of fish is very good for you? You know that you can remove literally almost all fat from any specific meat you cook?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams He is a confessed flesh eater, telling the world his diet for shooting The Machinist. Yet he also claims to have been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old.

Adams, I am not sure what you are saying, or trying to say because your tenses don`t jive with each other. You first use present tense to say in fact what he is. Just due to that there is no reason to even use him as an example in the present. He is a flesh eater. Period.

Then you add "since he was 9" in an open ended style. You mean like --- until now? Until when? It is strange because you use the "simple present" tense of "to be" which means he would presently be a vegetarian which we know he is not.

Here look at this concerning a state or action related to the past but continuing to the present:

For example, "I have eaten lunch" implies both that a previous action happened ("I ate lunch") and that a current state resulted ("I am full"). This differs from the simple "I ate lunch", which implies only that an action happened, with no relevance to the present. The form "I have eaten" is referred to as a present perfect, meaning present tense, perfect aspect. (It is considered present tense, not past tense, since the resulting state is in the present.) Reference Source

Now, if you had used the past perfect such as:

... he also claims he had been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old until he gave it up.

or keep it how you stated it but to not leave it open ended. Look:

... he also claims to have been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old until he gave it up.[Still however, that makes the present irrelevant to the past in regards to hypocracy. This makes your use of the word "yet" stange as if it is an eclamation or revelation of some kind -- like a "Gotcha!" which it can`t be because he is NOT a vegetarian as stated and admitted to by you and him in the first sentence. See how awkward the whole thing is? Would have been best for you if you had never brought it up. Says nothing about vegetarians.]

or the simple past:

... he claims he was ...

then there would be no issue with you using him. But, that still does not make him a hypocrite, because he was not espousing the vegetarian lifestyle while he was consuming flesh.

I usually don`t use grammar against a person`s post. But in this case it is necessary because the time of his flesh eating and vegetarian lifestyles are relevant to him being seen as a hypocrite or not. You need to get your tenses jiving together to keep them consistant -- which they need to be in order to make the charge hypocrite to stick in regards to actions at the time of proclaiming something.

Does hypocrasy require the hypocrite to understand their untenable position, or is ignorance an excuse?

No, it only requires that they be in the state of something for which they are behaving in the opposite manner. Since he is not in the state of a vegetarian diet, his action of eating fish or whatever meat does not make him a hypocrite. What is required is that you understand how tenses are accurately and clearly used when arguements rest on time sequences. Ignorance of those grammatical rules is no excuse and cannot rescue your argument of putting him forth as a hypocrite.

Believe me. I am no grammar police and make mistakes myself at time. But again, "time" is very important to this point which you are not catching and therefore it is a must that you see how grammar affects this very technical and rightfully so deserving point of the argument or example you are putting forth.

[belverron]

That post didn't call for a grammar lesson, SHW. It is not your job to address the deficiencies you see in every poster. Why don't you try addressing the content of their posts? It'd make you so much more palatable.

[Kamehameha34]

I am an omnivore. I will never be a vegetarian, simply because there is NO other omnivore or carnivore that refuses to eat other animals based on morals. I believe that to not eat what your body was made for processing is unnatural, but that's just me.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: belverron That post didn't call for a grammar lesson, SHW.

I tried previously pointing out to him that using a flesh eater as an example of a hypocrite as a vegetarian was not correct. He kept pressing the point. Obviously he does not understand time sequence and that is a point that is clouded by the use of conflicting grammar structures he employed. It needed to be pointed out because "time" is essential in that example.

It is not your job to address the deficiencies you see in every poster.

I do not do so. I address the defficiencies of the arguments or the reasoning they employ in the threads I am interested in. There are many members here on Volconvo who I have not engaged.

Why don't you try addressing the content of their posts?

I do, and it would be possible to do so more with G. Adams had he been consistant with time structure. It is hard to address an incorrect usage of it when the point being put forth rests on time sequence. That needed to be pointed out because the correct time sequence gives up his example as an inadequate one for a point he is trying but failing to make. I have clearly addressed why that is so.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I am an omnivore. ... I believe that to not eat what your body was made for processing is unnatural, but that's just me.

That, along with your abilities to control your passions and being able to reason, means you can choose. If our species is naturally wired to choose and can live quite healthily in modern society on a vegetarian diet, then why would it be unnatural to choose to not eat flesh? The ability to choose with reason is a natural thing for us, isn`t it?

I will never be a vegetarian, simply because there is NO other omnivore or carnivore that refuses to eat other animals based on morals.

Do we simply base our decisions on what other animals do and not do or refuse to do? Dogs do not refuse to mate in front of others simply because others are around due to morals, but we control ourselves and do not act like dogs, thus do not hump on each other when the mood strikes us anywhere any time.

Check your reasoning to make sure it is not premised on prejudice and you may find things are not as simple as you imagine.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Adams, I am not sure what you are saying, or trying to say because your tenses don`t jive with each other. You first use present tense to say in fact what he is. Just due to that there is no reason to even use him as an example in the present. He is a flesh eater. Period. Then you add "since he was 9" in an open ended style. You mean like --- until now? Until when? It is strange because you use the "simple present" tense of "to be" which means he would presently be a vegetarian which we know he is not. Here look at this concerning a state or action related to the past but continuing to the present: For example, "I have eaten lunch" implies both that a previous action happened ("I ate lunch") and that a current state resulted ("I am full"). This differs from the simple "I ate lunch", which implies only that an action happened, with no relevance to the present. The form "I have eaten" is referred to as a present perfect, meaning present tense, perfect aspect. (It is considered present tense, not past tense, since the resulting state is in the present.) Reference Source Now, if you had used the past perfect such as: ... he also claims he had been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old until he gave it up. or keep it how you stated it but to not leave it open ended. Look: ... he also claims to have been a vegetarian on ethical grounds since he was 9 years old until he gave it up.[Still however, that makes the present irrelevant to the past in regards to hypocracy. This makes your use of the word "yet" stange as if it is an eclamation or revelation of some kind -- like a "Gotcha!" which it can`t be because he is NOT a vegetarian as stated and admitted to by you and him in the first sentence. See how awkward the whole thing is? Would have been best for you if you had never brought it up. Says nothing about vegetarians.] or the simple past: ... he claims he was ... then there would be no issue with you using him. But, that still does not make him a hypocrite, because he was not espousing the vegetarian lifestyle while he was consuming flesh. I usually don`t use grammar against a person`s post. But in this case it is necessary because the time of his flesh eating and vegetarian lifestyles are relevant to him being seen as a hypocrite or not. You need to get your tenses jiving together to keep them consistant -- which they need to be in order to make the charge hypocrite to stick in regards to actions at the time of proclaiming something. No, it only requires that they be in the state of something for which they are behaving in the opposite manner. Since he is not in the state of a vegetarian diet, his action of eating fish or whatever meat does not make him a hypocrite. What is required is that you understand how tenses are accurately and clearly used when arguements rest on time sequences. Ignorance of those grammatical rules is no excuse and cannot rescue your argument of putting him forth as a hypocrite. Believe me. I am no grammar police and make mistakes myself at time. But again, "time" is very important to this point which you are not catching and therefore it is a must that you see how grammar affects this very technical and rightfully so deserving point of the argument or example you are putting forth.

I was not the one claiming him to still be a vegetarian, therefore I am not going to speak beyond my knowledge and say he is currently a vegetarian. I can claim that at the latest interview I read on his diet he was a flesh eater, so I will use the present tense regarding that point. Thus, the tenses are split.

And for someone who claims not to be part of the grammar police, that was a hell of a post on grammar. Out of curiosity, do you lack the ability to interpret poor English, or are you new to the language?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams I was not the one claiming him to still be a vegetarian, therefore I am not going to speak beyond my knowledge and say he is currently a vegetarian. I can claim that at the latest interview I read on his diet he was a flesh eater, so I will use the present tense regarding that point. Thus, the tenses are split.

Then he is NOT and canNOT be a hypocrite in the sense you have offerered him up as one -- unless you find some quote of his proclaiming everyone should be a vegetarian while he continues to consume flesh. Splitting the tense does not rescue your use of him as a hypocrite -- it merely makes your constructed paragraph awkward and misleading about the past to the present. One is left to guess what you believe about his past to present dietary habit because you do not stay consistant.

And for someone who claims not to be part of the grammar police, that was a hell of a post on grammar.

I make mistakes on grammar all the time. But, when that grammar is important to a time sequence -- one in which an example or point I am putting forth rests on, I expect someone to point out that an example is wrong because the time doesn`t match up.

Out of curiosity, do you lack the ability to interpret poor English, or are you new to the language?

Adams, I don`t think you have poor English. I just think you used a poor example and you were trying for force a square peg in a round hole, which caused you to do a little backbending with tenses. I wouldn`t have pointed it out if "time" were irrelevant in the example you chose.

I am quite versed in English, comrade. <wink>

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin That, along with your abilities to control your passions and being able to reason, means you can choose. If our species is naturally wired to choose and can live quite healthily in modern society on a vegetarian diet, then why would it be unnatural to choose to not eat flesh? The ability to choose with reason is a natural thing for us, isn`t it? Do we simply base our decisions on what other animals do and not do or refuse to do? Dogs do not refuse to mate in front of others simply because others are around due to morals, but we control ourselves and do not act like dogs, thus do not hump on each other when the mood strikes us anywhere any time. Check your reasoning to make sure it is not premised on prejudice and you may find things are not as simple as you imagine.

First of all, I don't like your undertone of "you are a biased meat eater with no reasoning", so let's practice that control you were talking about, and stop with the passive-agressive?

Great.

Now, you misunderstood my post. I am not attacking vegetarianism, I am just saying why I am not one. If pre-humans had not eaten meat, we would not be here today. Infact, there is evidence to suggest that our vastly superior intelligence over all other species on this planet was contributed to the large amount of protein that our troglodytic ancestors consumed.

This may not apply to the present, but evolutionarily speaking, all of the evidence I see suggests that meat eaters will come out on top.

May be a little outlandish, but only because not many care to think about the evolutionary integrity (sp?) of our race.

Edit: Also, don't try to compare the societal bounds of humans to the natural world. The two are completely unrelated. These rules are needless human inventions. If you watched Seinfeld, you would know that

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: G. Adams So he's converted to vegetarianism in the last couple of years? It could be a phase, most likely is. Hell I support you on the raw thing 100%, cooking destroys massive amounts of the vitamens you find in your foods. I've been trying to get a regular supply of unpasteurised goats milk for years now. Out of curiosity, how much do you weigh? And how much is lean mass?

Lets just say that a picture paints a thousand words. Please check out my pics, the guy in the red & blue
Spider-Costumes-- The biggest collection of selfmade spider-man costumes!!!

I'm into body sculpturing & endurance athletics, recently ran a 1/2 marathon & biathlon.

Incidently the 2005 title holder & record holder of the Badwater Ultramarathon "the world's toughest foot race", Scott Jurek is a vegan. You can decide for yourself if consuming meat is a help or hinderance.

Seattle man amazes everyone in 135-mile marathon--including himself

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Spidey, what would you say was the first or most major event/thing that contributed to you going vegetarian? Was it a series of things that caused your diet to change over time or was it a sudden realization about something?

Hi StrongHeartWin, I was in the military in my twenties and attached to a unit that required it's members to be ultra fit (not necessarily healthy) we ran 7miles(10km) everyday, 5 days a week. My issue with meat came to a head when after reading up on nutrition in athletics I discovered that it wasn't necessary for 'endurance' to eat meat, as a matter of fact it was a hindrance to health. So I began to experiment & found this to be true, so I slowly eliminated meat from my diet to become vegetarian.
A significant trauma I had as a child was after being given a baby lamb by my farmer grandfather, I was given responsibility to care for it as it's mother had died, well like any normal kid, the little creature quickly became my friend. One day I returned from school and 'lambsie' was gone, I never saw my friend again, years later I found out that my grandfather took him back to be sold for slaughter. I believe if children had exposure to these wonderfully beautiful creatures they would connect the dots and also choose a veg*n lifestyle.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Do we simply base our decisions on what other animals do and not do or refuse to do? Dogs do not refuse to mate in front of others simply because others are around due to morals, but we control ourselves and do not act like dogs, thus do not hump on each other when the mood strikes us anywhere any time.

What's wrong with having sex in public or spontaniously? So this subject is about morals. It's bad to kill animals, just to consume them afterward? Do you think the animals being slaughtered have an opinion on the subject? No, because they are physically and mentally incapable of doing so. You compare us as humans to dogs like we're better than them. And we are, but that's where I think your confusion sets in. You think we're obviously better than all animals, because we can judge, use deductive reasoning to better our lives instead of being what we are, because we are able to think for ourselves, and make "moral" decisions? If we as an animal race are superior to dogs or any other animal, why is it then that we are the only species to kill itselves intentionally, why is it that we kill each other intentionally? There are many things that separate us from other animals, but other animals have things we don't have. A giraffe has a long neck, a dog has superior hearing and sense of smell. I could go on. So why does that make us better than your average dog?

Let me put it this way. I don't eat meat for pleasure, I don't eat veggies for pleasure. I eat to survive. Moderation and a combination of both meats and veggies are required to maintain a good diet, along with excersize. But by no means is choosing a plant over an animal a valid point for survival, nor is morality an issue either, because people always will feel a need to survive, be spontanious, and in some cases, feel the need to have sex in public. Stop focusing on the "big" issue, and focus on something more practical.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 First of all, I don't like your undertone of "you are a biased meat eater with no reasoning", ...

If your reason does not cut across issues then it is based on prejudice.

Now, you misunderstood my post.

No, I understood it quite clearly.

I am not attacking vegetarianism, I am just saying why I am not one.

I didn`t claim you were attacking vegetarianism. I haven`t scrolled up to look, but I think you may have stated something on the lines that meat is necessary for survival or we wouldn`t be where we are today, right? I addressed that telling you that meat is not necessary for survival and it is conjecture as to WHERE WE WOULD BE if we had not eaten meat during our history.

If pre-humans had not eaten meat, we would not be here today.

Here it is again, or perhaps this is the first time you have mentioned this. IN any event it is conjecture. What is to say we would not be in a better position than the present one? That, too, is conjecture. But, I don`t rest my arguments on conjecture so I won`t persue it.

Infact, there is evidence to suggest that our vastly superior intelligence over all other species on this planet was contributed to the large amount of protein that our troglodytic ancestors consumed.

Bring forth the evidence please. Surely you can post some excerpts and then some links to follow them up for verification, can`t you?

As for intelligence, we use ours to obtain what we value which in turn goes to satisfy not just our needs but a lot of vanity and ego. I don`t think it is very intelligent that we destroy our environment and can`t live in harmony with our own species or our ecological systems. Don`t recall reports of dolphins causing animals to go extinct or burning SUVs.

This may not apply to the present, but evolutionarily speaking, all of the evidence I see suggests that meat eaters will come out on top.

You`ve neatly divided the groups. I would say that the animal most able to reason will come out on top regardless of diet. Read Einstein`s quote in my signature. Are you suggesting you are more inciteful than he was?

As for your evidence, which animal is the most destructive to the Earth and to itself, always thinking of better and more efficient ways of destroying one another? Why do you think that animal will be around when the smoke clears?

Non-human animals will always eat each other. And those will always be at the top of the food chain within nature. I doubt though that we will be around longer than the resiliant cockroach -- or grasshopper or locust for that matter.

Edit: Also, don't try to compare the societal bounds of humans to the natural world. The two are completely unrelated. These rules are needless human inventions. If you watched Seinfeld, you would know that

Why don`t you give me a specific example of comparing the "societal bounds of humans to the natural world" which you do not accept, rather than make me guess, and if I have a thought on it as to whether I agree with you or not, I will reply to it. Don`t make me guess what examples you have as blacklisted.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin If your reason does not cut across issues then it is based on prejudice.

Not if I view it objectively, which I have :rolleyes:

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin No, I understood it quite clearly.

Don't get self-righteous on me. You conveyed that you thought I was attacking vegetarianism, you were wrong.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I didn`t claim you were attacking vegetarianism. I haven`t scrolled up to look, but I think you may have stated something on the lines that meat is necessary for survival or we wouldn`t be where we are today, right? I addressed that telling you that meat is not necessary for survival and it is conjecture as to WHERE WE WOULD BE if we had not eaten meat during our history.

I said meat is necessary for evolutionary integrity, as proven by our history.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Here it is again, or perhaps this is the first time you have mentioned this. IN any event it is conjecture. What is to say we would not be in a better position than the present one? That, too, is conjecture. But, I don`t rest my arguments on conjecture so I won`t persue it.

It is natural selection.. Man became a race of meat-eaters for the same reason that finches grew beaks that suited their eating habits: Evolution.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Bring forth the evidence please. Surely you can post some excerpts and then some links to follow them up for verification, can`t you?

During our troglodytic stage, we ate the marrow out of bones, which has a high protein-content. This is said to have triggered our evolution. Here's an article supporting this:

english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/14863_cannibalism.html

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin As for intelligence, we use ours to obtain what we value which in turn goes to satisfy not just our needs but a lot of vanity and ego. I don`t think it is very intelligent that we destroy our environment and can`t live in harmony with our own species or our ecological systems. Don`t recall reports of dolphins causing animals to go extinct or burning SUVs.

We are experience a dilemma that comes with technology. The very fact that we occupy the position of the race that CAN cause such destruction does say something in terms of intelligence. Intelligence is a tool. It won't always be used wisely.

You`ve neatly divided the groups. I would say that the animal most able to reason will come out on top regardless of diet. Read Einstein`s quote in my signature. Are you suggesting you are more inciteful than he was?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin As for your evidence, which animal is the most destructive to the Earth and to itself, always thinking of better and more efficient ways of destroying one another? Why do you think that animal will be around when the smoke clears?

You are turning this into an environment crusade, of which I don't see the connection to the aspects of vegetarianism.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Non-human animals will always eat each other. And those will always be at the top of the food chain within nature. I doubt though that we will be around longer than the resiliant cockroach -- or grasshopper or locust for that matter.

I don't get what you're saying here.. Are you saying that we don't need to worry about the future because we will die out eventually, anyway?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Why don`t you give me a specific example of comparing the "societal bounds of humans to the natural world" which you do not accept, rather than make me guess, and if I have a thought on it as to whether I agree with you or not, I will reply to it. Don`t make me guess what examples you have as blacklisted.

I would have thought that you would relate that to the remark I was responding to, about how humans don't "hump eachother when the feeling arises", like dogs.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
If your reason does not cut across issues then it is based on prejudice.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not if I view it objectively, which I have

You are viewing things from the status quo, of which you are a part and defending based on your diet and not proven comments you are stating on evolution.

Don't get self-righteous on me. You conveyed that you thought I was attacking vegetarianism, you were wrong.

Then cite where I specifically said that by quoting me. Don`t make me guess what you are referring to.

I said meat is necessary for evolutionary integrity, as proven by our history.

All my years of reading I have never come across that proven or published in a well respected peer reviewed journal. I guess you have and could provide me to a source here on the internet for me to verify what you say is accepted by the majority of mainstream evolutionary scientist.

It is natural selection.. Man became a race of meat-eaters for the same reason that finches grew beaks that suited their eating habits: Evolution.

Proof links, please? And before each link, a short excerpt in the words of the experts or reporters of the study would be nice.

Regardless of the past, man need not eat meat to survive and thrive in a modern world as ours is today. We need not eat opportunistically anymore or out of passion. I live and base my decisions on the present information and what we are capable of now. Why don`t you?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
Bring forth the evidence please. Surely you can post some excerpts and then some links to follow them up for verification, can`t you?

I'll need to see what this was in response to.

It is in response to this statement of yours:

Infact, there is evidence to suggest that our vastly superior intelligence over all other species on this planet was contributed to the large amount of protein that our troglodytic ancestors consumed.

We are experience a dilemma that comes with technology. The very fact that we occupy the position of the race that CAN cause such destruction does say something in terms of intelligence. Intelligence is a tool. It won't always be used wisely.

That would mean it would be of the utmost stupidity to use it unwisely, huh? -- perhaps like polluting our environment or spending untold recourses on plans and means at destroying ourselves.

I would say that the animal most able to reason will come out on top regardless of diet. Read Einstein`s quote in my signature. Are you suggesting you are more inciteful than he was?

You are turning this into an environment crusade, of which I don't see the connection to the aspects of vegetarianism.

You are the one who brought up intelligence, therefore, that is fair play to question in how that can be perceived. You need to learn that points brought up by you can smack you in the head if you are not sure where bringing them up may lead you.

I would have thought that you would relate that to the remark I was responding to, about how humans don't "hump eachother when the feeling arises", like dogs.

That remark still stands. I have not withdrawn it and you have not given any non-prejudicial reason to do so.