Vegetarianism serves one purpose

[Tails]

I would say that there's one valid reason (and it's a very good reason) for being a vegetarian: health. If you can subtitute enough protein, vegetarianism is a fantastic idea for good health.

One reason for vegetarianism I can't stand is "to stop the slaughter of harmless animals." It's not that I'm a heartless bastard. It's just that vegetarian diets kill the same number of animals as meat-eating diets. Here's how:

Long story short, the process of harvesting grain requires the use of heavy machinery, such as tractors. Many wild animals get caught in this machinery or get run over and die a miserable death.

Article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97836&page=1

Amusing, yet harsh rant (warning: strong language):
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

[the_living_god]

Wild animals may get caught in machinery, and also get killed indirectly by the Industry, but it couldn't be anything near the amount of animals that get killed in livestock/meat agriculture.

[SquidDNA]

All those poor chickens, pigs, and cattle wandering into the threshers. And I can't help but wonder what the costs are in repair to the equipment.

[No Surrender]

Wasn't this a Maddox article ages ago? Anyway, agriculture helps live stock as a species. Imagine if we stopped farming chickens and we just let them out into the wild, they sure as hell arn't going to do very well on their own. That and we're making sure that their species won't go extinct.

[Tails]

Yeah, the Maddox article is pretty old, but it fits.

[Beelzebuddy]

http://www.magiclibrary.net/rarities/summer-gray-ogre.jpg

[the_living_god]

MTG........weird........

[Tails]

:lol:

[Nurizeko]

I would say that there's one valid reason (and it's a very good reason) for being a vegetarian: health. If you can subtitute enough protein, vegetarianism is a fantastic idea for good health.

Theres more to meat then just protein, and since its natural and the superior to any current fake substitute (why do we need substitutes if vegetarianism is so healthy and superior?) i cant really fall into the believer of "vegetariansm is healthy, the main good reason" option.

A meat and veg diet is healthy, but alot of people simply eat junk food and dont get enough of what really matters.

There's probably kids out there that have yet to enjoy a PROPER good meal, yorkshire pud, gravy, mash potato's...any fine selection of meat, fresh garden peas....sage stuffing.....man im hungry....

[Gyokuran]

Humans have evolved as omnivores, so I dont think it would be a far out guess that the most healthy diet possible would be one that included both plants and animals as a food source. However the avarage person in the western (and probably eastern) world most likely eats more meat then that optimal ballance would be. The optimal ballance would also vary from person to person.

I dont think a Vegitarian diet is silly, perhaps a tad on the extreme side but I really dont care. Veganism on the other hand I think is pretty silly. However so long as a vegitarian or vegan doesnt preach to me about the evils of meat(which I rarely see them do), I wont preach to them about how meat is perfectly healthy when eaten in the right quantities(Which I'm probably not folowing).

Edit: However I belive many people are very stupid when it comes to vegitarian and vegan diets, and many people unknowingly deprive their bodies of vital nutrients. Over my course of forum browsing I've read posts by several people who started a vegitarian or vegan diet while young (late middle school/junior high or early highschool) who didnt take the efford to research and plan out a proper diet, and ended up with life long health problems because of it. An Iceberg lettuce salad isnt 'healthy' because its stock full of oh so good nutrients, its 'healthy' because its 99% water and 0.9% indigestable material.

Also note I'm not using the word diet as it seems to be used lately, I mean it as simply "whatever you're eating".

Also I think fad diets are dumb. I'm about to go insane from all this atkins junk. Eating right and excercising is the best and only reliable way to reach and maintain a healthy body. The nation wide obsession with weight also drives me nuts, the goal should be being healthy not a number on a scale.

[LoCo]

You need meat. It's healthy for you. If you are not going to eat meat because it's not healthy for you and then you have to sit there taking protein pills/vitamins ... that's stupid.

Meat is NOT unhealthy.

[Moe]

It's just that vegetarian diets kill the same number of animals as meat-eating diets
(emphasis added by me)

So you're saying that there are as many rodents and other assorted wild animals on our corn fields as there are cows and chickens and pigs on our farms? And they all get run over by tractors? I'm having a really hard time believing that.

[Retroboy]

I'm not, Moe. A grain field is just LOADED with mice and small mammals. Numbers <> poundage.

I heard part of an interesting radio story on CBC the other day that talked about how much deliberately bad science has been conducted about eating fat, and just how inaccurate the general public's perception about animal fat in their diet is. Wish I'd heard the whole thing or could find a transcript for this thread.

-- Retro

[naradaman]

You need meat. It's healthy for you. If you are not going to eat meat because it's not healthy for you and then you have to sit there taking protein pills/vitamins ... that's stupid. Um, yeah... whatever. I can see you have no idea about what your talking about, so I'm not gonna bother addressing those points.

I'm with moe on that qoute. How the hell could you say that?

A bit unrelated, but still relevant:
I was browsing through a random vegetarianism book I found one day, and it had this little table in it. In one column, it had a collection of various physical traits found in predominantely [sp?] meat eating species. In another a collection of traits found in herbivores. In between the two there were human traits... everyone one of them matched up to the herbivore column.

There were things like (IIRC) teeth, bowel, stomach, intestines etc.

I'm not sure how this information would match up to other omnivores, but it was quite clear that we weren't made to eat mainly meat, which alot of people do.

EDIT: retro posted before me.

I see what you mean retro, but that doesn't stack up against the millions of tonnes of meat 'manufactured' for the world. You would've been right had we still been stuck in the hunter/gatherer period.

[Riess]

"I can see you have no idea about what your talking about, so I'm not gonna bother addressing those points."

Not only is this statement arrogant, it also helps your opponent in the discussion, because to the observer (me, until I started writing this) it seems like you don't really know anything either, but are too proud to admit. This is not to say that this is the case.
If you have a counter-argument, present it. I'm sure we all want to hear and debate it. But if you won't bother to participate in the discussion, why point it out at all?

Sorry if I'm not contributing to the discussion myself at the time, but I felt I had to point this out.

[naradaman]

Okay, I see no need, but fine.
You need meat. It's healthy for you. If you are not going to eat meat because it's not healthy for you and then you have to sit there taking protein pills/vitamins ... that's stupid. I know plenty of healthy and active vegitarians. Many of them more healthy than my meat eating friends. Many different cultures have survived natural selection for centuries with no, or sparing ammounts of meat, because of their environment or beliefs. I don't doubt that meat can be healthy, whether or not people in this day and age know how to use it in a balanced diet, is another thing.

Meat-eaters who maintain the idea that to not be a unhealthy vegitarian you have to use vitamin supplements, are just plain wrong. Sure you may have seen people who spur of the moment decide to be vegitarian become ill, or contract disease, whatever. But these people have no idea on how to balance a vegitarian diet, and you can do it without supplements!

[Moe]

teeth

Look at your front teeth, and the pointy ones next to them. Compare them to those of carnivores.
The ones in the back are more suited for grinding veggies, true, I'm not saying man is a carnivore - but we're certainly not herbivores either.

[Harmanoff]

If i was to become a vegetarian, which i am considering, it would be for ethical reasons and nothing else. When it comes to health i am convinced you can have a just as healthy diet that includes meat. The trick is having a little of everything and not too much of anything. And to get out of the house and move around. I think moving is more important to your health than any diet.

Veganism is an interesting phenomena. From what i've heard, ie from people who are vegans or are close to vegans, it is fully possible to build up a diet without supplements and still be healthy. It does however require you to be a full fledged nutrition expert so if you want to become a vegan you have your work cut out for you.

An interesting sidenote is that the one and only substance not found anywhere but in animal products is vitamin B12. That is apparently essential and will need to be supplemented. However, it appears as if it's an artificial need ie because we drink cows milk it has been introduced to our system and now we need vitamin B12. Theoretically if you brought up a child only on vegan food(how that would be done i don't know) it would not have any need for vitamin B12. Vegans like to use that one to prove that animal products(and probably cows milk in particular) is not really a natural part of our diet. Don't quote me on any of this but it made for an interesting but slightly drunken conversation once upon a time.

[edit] Edited to emphasize that we need vitamin B12(which i haven't really looked into), not milk in general.

[Nurizeko]

you dont NEED milk, you need the calcium and other nutrients in it.

[Retroboy]

Actually, naradaman, if you compare the traits of both herbivores and carnivores, our own bodies fall between them. For example, our small and large intestines are quite long, but we don't have the specialized stomachs of a grass-eater. And Moe's already mentioned teeth.

That is because we are omnivores. And an important part of our diet if we were using our bodies the way we were a hundred thousand years ago would be meat. Without the concentrated calories that meat provides, we'd never have had enough energy to power our growing brains, and our intelligence would never have evolved to its current levels.

It's only because our standard of living has changed so much that we can afford to consider elective vegetarianism.

-- Retro

[Beelzebuddy]

If i was to become a vegetarian, which i am considering, it would be for ethical reasons and nothing else.What'd the poor plants ever do to you? Did they kill your mother or something?

[Vijil]

The primary reason I've come accross for vegetarianism is that it seems morally wrong to kill animals. Veggies typically believe that animals have no more or less right to live than we do, and so we shouldn't kill them.

As Polly said, what about the plants? How dare we exploit them! lol it'll be funny if a kind of veganism appears one day who only eat totally synthetic food made from oil and dirt and stuff so nothing is hurt at all... would be very odd. Would be kinda cool too. When pushed, and I've pushed a few, it typically comes down to "Awww look at dee quooote animools *eeeeeeeeee* ^_^ !!1!!1one"

Anything beyond that in my experience is essentially justification of their emotionally held beliefs, which seems to be where most rational arguments have their roots. Speaking of those beliefs, they dont seem to add up to me. Darwinianly speaking, there is nothing wrong with killing other species as long as it's controlled (to ensure diversity and such). Also, it's clearly apparent that our teeth and digestive system are quite happily geared towards eating meat. We would never have started if they weren't...

Personally, I think most people eat too much meat. Especially those fat tubs of lard we like to call Americans (no offense, just stating fact here). But I also don't think the moral argument holds any real weight either. It normally comes from some traumatic experience vegetarians have had as a child. That said, I respect the descision. If you've been grossed out by something you once saw and can't bring yourself to eat meat then that's fine I guess, but part of me, perhaps the self confident naieve part, is thinking "just get over it and chill out".

[Beelzebuddy]

I'd also like to insert that Carrot Juice is Murder (http://www.eagle-wing.net/FunStuff/Goodies/images/Carrot%20Juice%20Is%20Murder.mp3) performed by Canada's finest, The Arrogant Worms. (http://www.arrogant-worms.com/)

[Nurizeko]

Lisa Simpson was the worst kinda vegetarian, if she had ruined my BBQ ide have smacked her with a pork chop, self rightious little punk kid.......

[Handarazuur]

I eat vegetarians.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I remember reading somewhere that the Appendix is supposed to have been to help with digesting raw meat. We don't eat much raw meat anymore, so..

Re: Meat. Realistically we're not eating the healthy parts of the meat (ie, the internal organs.) Those do have a better chance to transmit disease though, afaik. I'll stick to steaks for now.

Re: Vegetarianism. Surprised nobody brought this up, so to throw this out there; Plant farming is inherently far more efficient than animal farming, except in areas where plant farming is totally unfeasible. So more people can be fed per-acre with plants than with meats and things. Also, mass-farmed animals produce rather severe damage to the environment. (Of course, so does mass-monocultures of plants, such as the potato used for fast food fries.)

[Kaldaris]

yes you need to eat meat because the body has something like 20 amino acids of which you need to get from meat.

[Retroboy]

o/t

:luff: Apoplexyon, u r my hero!! :luff:

Arrogant Worms gets played to death in my car all the time. Love their stuff!

-- Retro

[TBS]

I remember reading somewhere that the Appendix is supposed to have been to help with digesting raw meat. We don't eat much raw meat anymore, so..

actually its completely the opposite: the appendix is a leftover from when we had to eat more plantlife. Its purpose was to help in the digestion of cellulose. Look here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html) for more info.

As to vegitarianism, I consider it to be a bit silly but Im not going to try and persuade anyone to eat meat if they dont want to - its a free world. It is possible to have a very healthy diet as a vegetarian...but its no more healthy than someone who has a good diet which contains meat. As such, Im going to carry on happily eating meat because it tastes good...Im certainly not going to worry about all the poor animals getting killed for their meat.

[Vaarok]

Well, all I can do to add to this argument is recycle a good point made in the last one:

I find it deeply offensive that people are so insulated from the realities of nature that tthey have the luxury to make the most fundamental necessity of life into a shallow political statement.

[naradaman]

Moe and Retro pointed out what I was kinda expecting. Like I said, I don't know how that information compares to omnivore species. It's probably true that the author of the book ommited some of the traits shared with carnivores, too.
I find it deeply offensive that people are so insulated from the realities of nature that tthey have the luxury to make the most fundamental necessity of life into a shallow political statement. I'm not quite sure what your getting at here. Vegitarianism being a shallow political statement? I didn't become a vegitarian to try and ceaze some kind of fanciful moral high-ground. I am vegitarian just because I don't need or want meat, just a simple choice, no political statement. I don't hold my friends meat-eating against them one bit, just like meat-eaters shouldn't have a problem with vegitarians.

Just as vegitarianism can be unhealthy when your diet is wrong, so can meat-eating. People in developed countries who stuff themselves with processed, nutrient-devoid meat-products, will make themselves unhealthier than any uninformed vegitarian. What makes me angrier than that though, are the people squirm at the idea of killing a live animal (even for survival), but will heartily chow down on their ready-dead steak at the dinner table. =/

[Tails]

I don't know, slaughtering livestock can be pretty intense. (In Lebanon, some people slaughter cows or goats on the streets...it's not exactly lovely.)

[Bonnet]

I REALLY wish this had been fixed before the damn obesity scare, http://washtimes.com/national/20050420-124451-2201r.htm...

[naradaman]

I don't know, slaughtering livestock can be pretty intense. (In Lebanon, some people slaughter cows or goats on the streets...it's not exactly lovely.) I admit that it is grizly, for sure. But people that have problems with witnessing/doing that ("Awwww, that poor defencelss animal") should also have problems with eating meat off an animal that has been bred for slaughter, skinned, hung up in an abatoir, and then cut up to get the good stuff. Then more 'unsavoury' bits being left for use in sausages and chicken wings. I see the path of a cow in Lebanon better than one bred in the Australia, how can people have a problem with one but not the other?

EDIT: This sounds like I'm trying to ceaze the high-ground, but I'm not. I'm just pointing out an anomaly. I feel like, if your going to eat meat, atleast be consistent in your thinking!

[Gyokuran]

I'm not quite sure what your getting at here. Vegitarianism being a shallow political statement? I didn't become a vegitarian to try and ceaze some kind of fanciful moral high-ground. I am vegitarian just because I don't need or want meat, just a simple choice, no political statement. I don't hold my friends meat-eating against them one bit, just like meat-eaters shouldn't have a problem with vegitarians.

I believe he meant that the reality of nature is kill and eat or be killed and eaten. Ultimatly the only reason we should do anything is because its in our own best interest.

[Mikk]

Meh, let them kill the animals, for I need to eat them. And then something that maddox said (something like "lemme eat every anymal there is").

Any sort of extreme diet can be harmful anyway... and any sort of balanced diet is probably healthy I'd concidered a balanced diet including meat healthyer since it's the natural way of eating for our species.

And yeah, aren't there like lots of non-replacable amino acids in meat that aren't in plants. IIRC that was the main reason meat is a must in our diet.

Btw, something I have yet to watch myself: www.meetyourmeat.com

Oh and slaughtering livestoc in the correct manner is the most humane one there is. Traditionally a long knife is stabbed in the throat and then the throat is cut open quickly, the animal dies swiftly, and then the blood can be drained. I'd hate to be one who by accident or lack of skill would be cut wrong and die a long bleeding to death ina gony :/

[Gyokuran]

Meh, let them kill the animals, for I need to eat them. And then something that maddox said (something like "lemme eat every anymal there is").

It was "For every animal you dont eat, I'll eat 3".

[Devran]

yes you need to eat meat because the body has something like 20 amino acids of which you need to get from meat.
Correction: All the amino acids can be taken by eating mushrooms.

However to be frank, I see no reason to be vegetarian. We evolved as omnivores, meat tastes good and isnt any less healthy than vegetables if you are careful about the meat you eat.

[LoCo]

I admit that it is grizly, for sure. But people that have problems with witnessing/doing that ("Awwww, that poor defencelss animal") should also have problems with eating meat off an animal that has been bred for slaughter, skinned, hung up in an abatoir, and then cut up to get the good stuff. Then more 'unsavoury' bits being left for use in sausages and chicken wings. I see the path of a cow in Lebanon better than one bred in the Australia, how can people have a problem with one but not the other?

Why should they have to watch it? or do it themselves? If you don't like to make your bed in the mornings, but like to sleep on a made one, and you have the money to get someone in cleaning your house ... why shouldn't you be able to pay them to make your bed? If you don't like to see animals killed, but you like eating meat, and someone else is willing to kill the animal for you ... why should you be able to eat meat?

[Moe]

I don't see why people always have to try and rationalize personal choices.
You don't eat meat because you don't like the taste, or maybe because those cows look too darn cute to kill, or because you don't want animals getting killed on your behalf.
That's all you need to say, it's a free world and this is perfectly acceptable. I hate it when vegetarians pull statistics out of their..behinds that "prove" how eating meat is unhealthy or wrong or against the bible, and I hate it just as much when non-vegetarians do the exact opposite. It's a choice you made, it's a choice that's not harming anybody, so why do you need to defend it so vehemently?

[Nurizeko]

Given the right incentive any vegetarian except the most hardcore elite of The Society Of Vegetables Plans on World Domination will eat meat.



Vegetarianism does you little good if the cosy society that keeps you alive collapses and you no longer have the option of soya and whatnot. Not disagreeing with a vegetarians right to be veggie, buddhist monks are vegetarian if i remember correctly and their alright, but we evolved being omnivores for a reason, and for the sake of energy conservation in times of low food resources, meat provides an easy efficient method of gaining alot of the things we need. Easy energy for a start.

Noble ideal saving the meat cows from their only calling in life, ironicly, the only real thing keeping cows in such good standing, because if we arnt eating cows or milking them or making leather from them, were probably causing their extinction =/ which is pretty sad state of affairs for life on earth but, humans and our livestock live in a nearly symbiotic relationship, by evolving the way we want them to be for our needs and providing them, at the cost of a slightly shorter lifespan, cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, are all ensured their continued existance, cosy barns and what-not, protection from otherwise dangerous wildlife (in britain theres liike nothing thats really a threat to cows now) and they are fed and watered.

I'de hardly call it a selfish one sided state of animal killing, ide call it a fair trade, we give time and resources to their continued existance as a species, and they provide us with food and clothing.

Of course from a human perspective living in a fenced in field and barn without freedom as we might think we know it seems awfully onesided but then A) their not human and B) humans cant provide what we want, unless we become some crazed cannibalistic man-herders =S.


So yeah vegetarianism, fair enough your life your rules, but meat-eating isnt so bad, its natural, and as much as the idea of a cow dying for meat can bother you, nature is about more then the life of a single creature, even ours, as its proved countless times throughout our history.


I don't see why people always have to try and rationalize personal choices.
You don't eat meat because you don't like the taste, or maybe because those cows look too darn cute to kill, or because you don't want animals getting killed on your behalf.
That's all you need to say, it's a free world and this is perfectly acceptable. I hate it when vegetarians pull statistics out of their..behinds that "prove" how eating meat is unhealthy or wrong or against the bible, and I hate it just as much when non-vegetarians do the exact opposite. It's a choice you made, it's a choice that's not harming anybody, so why do you need to defend it so vehemently?

Thats a pretty sensible and fairly on the mark post ill have to say, right on moe....i think i just made the justification booboo though =S

Ahwell, i didnt feel i was veggie bashing, just stating why i feel meat eating is as natural as it gets.

[Ammon Ra]

p.s. eskimos used have meat/fat only diets by hunting seals and narwhales(sp). They're rather healthy...that is, before junk food...

I'm not a vegitarian, but i dont eat certain types of meat, primarily red meats. childhood 'traumatic' experience. dont ask. I'm not too keen on preparing fresh meat either...Mostly i go for fish and chicken/turky. where do i get my iron from you ask? Parsly. and quite a bit of it aswell. Spinach you say? Meh, the person that did the iron-content testing on spinach mixed it up with parsley.

[SquidDNA]

Statistics, Ammon Ra? I'm finding life expectancy 10 years lower than the rest of the population, mainly from being piss poor in the middle of nowhere.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7176/133

[Ammon Ra]

the excessive use of alcohol

That explains it pretty much. They do have a history of low [none] alcohol consumption so that doesn't surprise me. IIRC native american have a similar problem.

Bleh...can't think straight. although alcohol isn't a junk food, it is part of western society. and that book talks about post 20th century health issues. find a link about original, pre-20th century inuit health and culture, which is what i was refering to. Source was probably countless ngc magazines and shows.

[Beelzebuddy]

Vegitarianism being a shallow political statement?He was saying that vegetarianism when used as a political statement is slightly inane. I dont think anyone should have a problem with people simply not liking meat (I avoid bell peppers myself), but people who avoid meat because of the cute widdle animals *and use every opportunity to proselytize* need two skipped meals and a medium-rare steak.

Btw, something I have yet to watch myself: www.meetyourmeat.comDon't bother. It's 50% footage of slaughter practices that were outlawed decades ago, 50% footage of the farms of people that were arrested for animal cruelty, and 100% implication that these conditions were par for the industry. That alone destroys any valid points they might have.

[Numenor]

Also to add, not just teeth but your eyes are also the mark of a meat eater. If you look at herbivores (eg, cows, horses, sheep, goats) they all have eyes on the sides of their head. Humans, being omnivorous, have eyes at the front of their head, the same a most carnivores - cats, dogs and goodness knows what else.

I LIKE meat.

[oneredpanther]

If we weren't supposed to eat them, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

[SquidDNA]

Ammon Ra, actually the abstract from the book says "It remains to be seen what effect increasing obesity, sedentary lifestyle, Westernisation of the diet, and smoking will have on [genetic factors, diet, and regular exercise]."
While alcoholism is listed as a possible conributor to lowering quality of health and life expectancy, it puts more emphasis on lack of access to health and education infrastructure. Thus, "piss poor in the middle of nowhere"-- poverty.

[ÜberJumper]

I saw the best signature on some forum recently... it went something like this...

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants".

[Nurizeko]

i like plants more then animals, bugger pets, give me a fern anyday :jig:

[Retroboy]

bugger petsEwwww..... ick :yech:

-- Retro, noting you'll find all sorts on the intreenet.

[Vaarok]

Apolyon, thank you for dismissing the Meet Your Meat video first, so that I can merely concur that a large portion of the video is of old or illegal slaughter practices, and that the on-farm clips are of establishments that are almost incomprehensibly mismanaged.

However, just to contribute, I'd mention that there are numerous outright lies in that video. We went over it in an agricultural marketing class point by point, and it crosses the line into defamation and slander in several incidences.

A short example is their claims about milk cows being milked by a milking machine. I can attest that the cows do not recieve electric shocks, and do not suffer horrendous injury, and are not in any way mistreated.

[Retroboy]

...and to further endorse Vaarok's position, I know of several people who would pay to get their nipples gently tweaked.

Oh, uh,... and :yech: again.

-- Retro

[Ammon Ra]

While alcoholism is listed as a possible conributor to lowering quality of health and life expectancy, it puts more emphasis on lack of access to health and education infrastructure

Sooo they had greater acces to health and education infrastructure in the 19th century? That seems like a typical excuse, blaming things on lack of education and helth infrastructures. Given, the book/author does leave the possibility open of it also being western society [smoke, drugs, alcohol, diet] ect, but that doesn't make much sense. If anything their acces to health and education infrastructure/institutions should have gone UP since the 20th century. It might not be en-par with the rest of europe, but assuming that those two areas increased and the rest of their lifestyle remains more/less the same, shouldn't their health and expected life times go UP, not down? :wtf:

/me is tired...

retro is strange...

[SquidDNA]

No, Ammon Ra, you're missing it. Statistics about life expectancy of Inuit in the 19th century aren't available.

[Ammon Ra]

... as a possible conributor to lowering quality of health and life expectancy, ...
...Statistics about life expectancy of Inuit in the 19th century aren't available

Which do i believe? Unless you/the book is refering to a decrease in life expectancy from the mid 20'th century...then i rest my case, otherwise i just trolled a mod ;)

[SquidDNA]

Lowering from what it would otherwise be. It's a guess.

[Stripe7]

Lets see, I eat meat every day. The clothes I wear, hmm, several pairs of leather shoes, leather belts, leather jackets. Some of protiens from the hair conditioner I use are probably animal based as well. What else? Well I drive to work and probably routinely crush a few snails, insects etc. daily. Have not run over any cats, dogs etc.. Killed a family of mice I found once. I have no qualms killing anything to survive.

[CCTSMaster]

So the mice tried to eat you?

:P

[/off-topic]

[Beelzebuddy]

It was preemptive survival. Even read those hypothetical situations where all the mice/insects gang up on humanity? He's just trying to even the odds a little.

[Starfisher]

Everyone seems to be mixing veganism with vegetarianism. Understandable, since there's no commonly accepted definition that everyone understands, so everyone just throws out the words... and to be honest, I don't even know how to define them. So here's what I've always thought.

Vegans do not eat any animal products. Vegetarians don't eat meat. There is a significant difference there. Eggs, milk, cheese... you know, the whole dairy section of the food pyramid, that's legit for a vegetarian. Some even eat fish - I have no idea what to call them, but that used to be the most healthy diet you could eat, before fish started sucking up the heavy metals and industrial pollutants. Dumb aqua-bastards.

Just because you evolved to do something doesn't mean it's good for you. You're only supposed to live to twenty five as a hunter gatherer, and I don't see many of you wandering the forests in hand-made deerskin clothing. All you "evolved" to do was survive long enough to get someone pregnant, not live a healthy, happy sixty or seventy years. It varies from individual to individual, but in general a fish/vegetarian diet is probably the healthiest you can pull off. Some poultry probably wouldn't hurt, and very lean free range red meat on occasion.

As has already been pointed out, the modern diet sucks, and few people ever even try to make informed decisions on what they put down their gullets until they are forced to by health issues. Problems that probably could have been prevented, but it's a free country. Can't force people to be healthy.

[Stripe7]

Umm, mice and rodents carry diseases. They may not threaten me directly but the bugs they carry would be a threat. I grew up with Cobra's in ceiling, scorpions wandering into my shoes, bats flying into my bedroom etc.. My father made me kill, dress, cook and eat an animal all by myself when I was 13 or so. So no, I have no qualms about killing stuff to eat. Eaten pythons, iguanas, Flying Foxes(large variety of bat) etc.. so not much qualms about what I eat either.

[No1lives4ever]

Ok, this might be a pretty stupid question..
But i have always wondered..
Is it true that carnivores have stinky droppings compared to herbivores? If thats the case, does it apply to humans as well?

(Like it sucks to step in dogshit, while not minding to much about horseshit for example)

[TBS]

I dont know about everyone else but I do rather mind treading in horseshit...ditto with cowshit.

[No1lives4ever]

well yes, true, but compared to dogshit it smells like heaven itself.

[Beelzebuddy]

More of it though. It's difference between treading on and treading in.

[TBS]

small mountains...not just one, but several going up the road.

[No1lives4ever]

You are evading the point here :fencing:
What about the actual smell?

(I am a omnivore myself, so no pun. intended)

[Moe]

Elephant poo is much larger than dog piles. Why are we talking about shit?

[No1lives4ever]

Sorry my fault.. :claw:

[TBS]

yeah did you have a point?

Assuming your right and eating meat makes your shit smell more/worse...thats not even close to being enough to stop me eating meat :p Its also not something Ive every heard vegetarians argue:

"haha you silly meateaters our shit doesnt smell as bad as yours - nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah"

[Stripe7]

We smell of what we eat except for surface bacterial infections or disease. Strong spices or garlic etc.. come out your pores. If you eat the same things as everyone else around you will not smell a difference. Your sense of smell is nuetralized because you smell the same as those around you.

[Beelzebuddy]

Does that mean Grandma eats mothballs?

[Gyokuran]

I've heard stories that in Vietnam the Vietnamise could smell american patrolls from great distances simply because the food they ate was so different from what the locals ate (aka we smell like cows).

[SquidDNA]

All you "evolved" to do was survive long enough to get someone pregnant, not live a healthy, happy sixty or seventy years.Explain menopause, then, smarty. Also, you're throwing everything we know about primate social structure and kin selection out the window.

Honestly. For shame. Your post fails.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Actually, current, 'legal' slaughterhouse practices can be pretty sickening. Inspection has been scaled back drastically and so have safety and cleanliness practices. Ignoring preferences on meat and whether you consider slaughtering to be right or wrong, this is disgusting.

Grabbed these from a top-rated Amazon review (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573921661/002-6650766-0186417?v=glance) of a book on the slaughtering industry. Most of the stuff I know on the subject, though, comes from "Fast Food Nation". All the dinner meats my family gets are from small-time butchers who slaughter animals themselves.


A) Taking the butchering of animals away from the smaller, pride-of-ownership slaughterhouses and moving virtually all of the animal product production to high-speed, high profit corporations was a deadly move, and it is up to the working-class people to stop it.

B) The US is the only industrialized country that cools their chicken carcasses in water instead of air cooling, creating a virtual disease pool filthier than a public toilet next to a crack house. Why? Because water adds weight, so you get the privilege of actually paying increased poundage for the putrid and infected water your chicken soaked in.

C) Going against the National Academy of Science recommendations, the USDA relaxed standards and cut back on inspections while allowing production to increase over 40%. The question is no longer "IF" there is fecal matter on your meat, but "HOW MUCH IS ACCEPTABLE". Feces has been reclassified from a "Dangerous Contaminant" to a "Cosmetic Blemish". So has hair, mucus, dirt, droppings, etc.

D) With greed and profit being the only driving force behind the industry now, they have tried to pass the buck to you, the consumer, by telling you that the process of decontamination is up to YOU; i.e. cook your meat before you eat it. When did the decontamination issue switch from containment BEFORE occurring to recovery AFTER they allowed the feces to literally pass under their noses?

E) Working conditions in these Flesh Factories are deplorable, with chances of injury or illness six times greater than working in a coalmine. Workers cannot leave the floor to take a bathroom break, and often urinate into the blood trench or on themselves. If a worker removes a carcass as "condemned", the Supervisors at the plant often put it back into production and reprimand the worker.

F) Slaughterhouses take advantage of immigrant labor, knowing they are too poverty stricken or scared to protest their working conditions. The USDA Veterinarians who oversee the Plant's Inspection Line are mostly Foreigners, who fear for their jobs more than American workers.

G) Animals go through the Kill Line ALIVE all the time, it is so common that slaughterhouse workers do not even see it as an infraction any longer, they are more worried for their own safety from dropped carcasses, flying hooves, slashing knives, faulty equipment, and inhumanely high speed Lines.

[LoCo]

TDS: I note that that is american. Do you have info on the rest of the world or do you consider what americans do to apply to the rest of the world? (Note this is not an "anti-american" thing.) Just pointing out that a sweeeping statement about how bad slaughterhouse practices are with only one source is rather limited in it's effectiveness, never mind it's truth.

Also if this information is true and there are these workers fearfull for their jobs/staying in the US then I would think that the US would have "raided" these places and sent the foreigners packing. I understand the US is strict on immigration laws.

Also I doubt that last part is very true. "Animals go through the Kill Line ALIVE all the time". I call your bluff. If you want to get me interested in the issue, give me facts. Not exagerations. If the facts are true they will have more of an impact, either way. That looks like it's just another loony running around trying to get sympathy and cash.

[Starfisher]

Explain menopause, then, smarty. Also, you're throwing everything we know about primate social structure and kin selection out the window.


Last I checked, menopause starts in the late 40s mid 50s range in women. Factoring in the grandmother hypothesis, then simply looking at historical mortality rates (hint: its widely believed the average lifespan 2000 years ago was in the mid 20s)and given that the majority of our evolution occured before the widepsread use of agriculture and our social structure blunting natural selection, I see nothing wrong with my post.

What's there to explain about menopause? Hows about andropause while we're at it? Not many of us would have surivived to ever feel the effects of those conditions, but when they did it would have been highly beneficial to not have kids at fifty, for a variety of reasons. How do the statistical outliers affect the general truth that most people didn't live past twenty-five? Especially in a thread about diet?

Your body only had to remain free of the various cancers and organ diseases until you managed to reproduce and rear your offspring. All you have to do is go to a beach to see what I mean: the under twenty fives will generally be in pretty good shape despite what they eat, nowadays with some paunch but still generally ok. Over twenty five, things go downhill, but by then your kid can take care of itself, or the others in the group will.

My post doesn't fail Squid. :P

[hisnOObness]

given that the majority of our evolution occured before the widepsread use of agriculture and our social structure blunting natural selection

I agree with Starfisher on this one... alhtough 25 years is a bit pushing it, his argument is rock-solid. There is little evolutionary benefit in a hunter/gatherers society to live past, say thirty-five.
Most present day health problems are heavily correlated with increasing average lifespan cause by protective social structures.
Blablablasmokingblablapollutionblablacausescancerblablabla.
Take those elements away and you would STILL see a similar percentage of cancer/cardiovascular related deaths.

but when they did it would have been highly beneficial to not have kids at fifty, for a variety of reasons
Another good argument. Nature knows not teh art of the 'emperor cut' and Pension funds.

[Starfisher]

The largest benefit is that they can teach and take care of kids. But once they started doing that we developed into a civilization capable of removing ourselves from the direct every day kill or be killed of the wild. My argument is that though we evolved as hunter gatherers way back when, we have since completely changed the environment we have to survive in, as well as what we have to do to survive. Using evolution as an argument for eating red meat, or really any meat, is foolish, since you can live to be twenty or thirty on just about any diet - which would be sufficient from a species survival point of view, and therefore satisfy the evolutionary argument. We want to live, healthily, into our sixties, so we need to find what our bodies can thrive on for the longest period of time, not what they can endure due to our evolved bodily tenacity.

[hisnOObness]

But once they started doing that we developed into a civilization capable of removing ourselves from the direct every day kill or be killed of the wild

Untrue. Pre Homo Sapiens the gender Homo has always been focusing on social groups. It is generally assumed that elderly survivors took care of children and sick tens of thousands of years before a fully sedentary lifestyle was accepted. It just so happens that this surviving to a higher age was probably very rare, so that it didn' t influence the group's habits in any consistent way.


Agree fully with the rest of the post however.

[SquidDNA]

20 -> 25 -> 35 -> where now?

Starfisher, the average lifespan of a horseshoe crab is a day or two, that obviously doesn't mean those that live past that mark are incapable of feeling selective pressure. Even if it's rare that a grandmother lives long enough to undergo menopause, she benefits by no longer participating in increasingly risky childbirths, contributes accumulated wisdom to the group, and thus nurtures her offspring who are genetically predisposed to menopause.

I'm not saying that we should all eat meat because we're designed to. I'm saying that your argument that we've only evolved to live to age 25 is crap.

[hisnOObness]

And I'm saying that he has his demographics right.
Neolithic humans generally did not live past their early thirties. This is after a rough 2 million years of evolution.
Human species had a virtually constant number on the planet. it is only after we develop agriculture and sedentary lifestyle that human population explodes (well, not really, but it becomes noticeably larger).
It is only thanks to sedentary lifestyle and organised infrastructure that we manage to get higher age on average. Which means this is NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY TRAIT, BUT A CULTURAL ONE.

Of course he does not mean that a human is destined by evolution to 'only' live until the age of 25. We both know that evolution does not work deliberately.
His point is that, for most of the time that humans have existed on the planet, it didn ' t matter what we ate, as long as we survived long enough to reproduce and guide children through the most vulnerabvle years of their life.

The evolutionary benefits of becoming older (where a bad diet might be showing it's effects) in such a society are ambiguous at best. Sure older people 'accumulate wisdom' but they are also a direct heavy load on the groups food economy, as likely they do not 'produce' food of their own. They also would require great care themselves, because of more frequently suffering from injury, generally hampering the flexibility of a nomadic group.
To prove or disproof either side of that argument is virtually impossible, as we lack the necessary data.

What IS obvious though, is that once you have a sedentary life where the environment becomes more 'age' friendly, that the 'accumulative wisdom' becomes a straight forward advantage. This is due to a cultural evolution though, not a biological one.

[SquidDNA]

And horseshoe crabs generally don't live for more than a few days, as larvae, and on evolution's clock that makes us look like you standing next to Uber in terms of post count. The point is that average age is not the golden standard by which you can measure the fitness contribution of phenotypes, especially when fitness begins to be averged over the social group.

Most horseshoe crabs don't live to develop past larvae. Those that do experience selection in the post-larvae bracket. That's why there are horseshoe crabs at all, incidentally.

Most people didn't live past 25. Some did. And those that did experienced selection in the past 25 bracket. That's where menopause came from. Christ.

[hisnOObness]

:Pirate: i'm not trying to attack your menopause argument, christ I agree with it fully.

I just think that you nullifying starfishers post is wrong. My reasons are posted above. You are a biology student right? Is cultural evolution a part of Biology studies? Just wondering wether it is a part of its domain, and where the one stops and the other begins.


THE ONLY THING I SAID ABOUT THE MENO PAUSE IS IN DIRECT AGREEMENT WITH YOU.

[Starfisher]

And I'm saying that while we evolved, we only tended to live to 25, so the argument that humans should eat meat because we evolved doing so is crap if you want to live past 25. I apologize for whatever wires got crossed to give you the wrong idea.

Basically, we are physically prime until about 25 or so, and after that we get older. Historically, our body only had to get us to 25 in good health with whatever we were eating. Then the group would help us along, and then we'd have all sorts of health problems before we died. Nowadays, you want to remain physically prime for as long as you can. What we ate while evolving (whatever would see us through the next few days) is not the best standard for what we should eat now.

[LoCo]

And yet before the world got filled with vegie lovers (Please, please at that as an insult.) people were still living (By eating meat ...) to the ripe old age of 70. You go ask some of the oldest people you know if they still eat meat. Chances are that, yes, they do.

Meat is not bad for you. But it is like anything else you consume. It CAN be bad for you if you have too much. Just like water CAN be bad for you if you have too much. Anything CAN be bad for you. But not everything IS bad for you. Saying that meat is bad for you is like saying water is bad for you. Or even air ...

[Paladin]

Ban dihydro-monoxide!

[troff]

I know this is common knowledge about veggies wrt resources, but as a primer for those who do not know check out this link (btw I am neither for or against Veggies but now and then I do go full Veggy):

http://www.ummo.cc/eco_death/harm.html

Quoted:
Eating meat leaves behind an environmental toll that generations to come will be forced to pay.

Land: Of all agricultural land in the U.S., 87 percent is used to raise animals for food—that’s 45 percent of the total land mass in the U.S.

Water: More than half of all the water consumed in the U.S. for all purposes is used to raise animals for food. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. A totally vegetarian diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, while a meat-eating diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water per day.

Pollution: Raising animals for food causes more water pollution in the U.S. than any other industry because animals raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the entire human population—87,000 pounds per second! Much of the waste from factory farms and slaughterhouses flows into streams and rivers, contaminating water sources.

Energy: Of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S., more than one-third is used to raise animals for food. Producing a single hamburger patty takes enough fossil fuel to drive a small car 20 miles and enough water for 17 showers.

Deforestation: Each vegetarian saves an acre of trees every year! More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow crops to feed animals raised for meat, and another acre of trees disappears every eight seconds. The tropical rain forests are also being destroyed to create grazing land for cattle. Fifty-five square feet of rain forest may be razed to produce just one quarter-pound burger.

Resources: In the U.S., animals raised for food are fed more than 80 percent of the corn we
grow and more than 95 percent of the oats. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth.

[EDIT] I do not support, credit or validate the info above, but I have seen similiar information and I am pretty sure if the info above is false (which I don't think so) that the real data does not lie too far away (ie. no smoke without fire and all that crap).

Apollo, don't go to the root of the site, it's a site for 'remote viewing' that normal people won't understand, but I assure you that veggie part was serious (my bad for posting that Url root but I posted the first site I could google up about cattle energy wastage facts)

[Beelzebuddy]

Land: Most of the land animals are raised on is unsuitable for agricultural farming - see Dust Bowl, The. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl)

Water: Fifty percent of US water falls on fifty percent of US land? Shockingly wasteful!

Pollution: glues two unrelated facts together - cows do not purposefully crap in the water table, although experience tells me they know exactly where you're not going to look in front of you.

Energy: I find this hard to believe - does this site have any relation to any credible source, or is it just there for fun? (http://www.ummo.cc/)

Deforestation: US - done for wood, actually. Rainforest - dirt poor countries trying to make a living anywhere they find it. Or do you want them to stay third world?

Resources: in a country where the poor are fat and the rich are thin, who really gives a damn about the energy usage of food? If we actually needed all the calories we could eke, corn and oats would be too expensive to feed cattle. But they're not, so we don't.

C'mon, people. I'm tired of reading this flimsy rationalization that gets spread around as honest truth. Think for thirty seconds before spewing the party lines your comrades are repeating. You might be surprised.

[Gyokuran]

C) Going against the National Academy of Science recommendations, the USDA relaxed standards and cut back on inspections while allowing production to increase over 40%. The question is no longer "IF" there is fecal matter on your meat, but "HOW MUCH IS ACCEPTABLE". Feces has been reclassified from a "Dangerous Contaminant" to a "Cosmetic Blemish". So has hair, mucus, dirt, droppings, etc.


This is a pretty obvious shock tactic that doesnt stand up to logic. EVERYTHING is a question ofhow much is acceptable, there is human fecal matter in probably everything we eat, but its within the accepted bounds and we dont even think about it.

[SquidDNA]

Wow. Googleads nailed this for once.
http://squiddna.hwcommunity.com/googlebeef.jpg

Anyway much apologies. Off to a bad start today. Friend woke me up with a text message a 3am. Whatever the content of the message was, the effect was to let me know I was sleeping through a migraine. Fast forward and I got home at 10:30pm.

Starfisher's message seemed to indicate that anything which came after 25 was useless, and I guess I really misinterpreted his attempt to explain it. I'm too tired to look much closer right now. Maybe I'll return with fresh indignation in the morning. ;)

Edit: Gyokuran, not so much, unless you're thinking more along the lines of restaurants. Washing-is-only-dilution, and all.

But I have to agree. Ideally, you would want to slaughter in such a way as to not contaminate the skeletal muscle with the contents of the abdomenal cavity (although there's a lot of good stuff in the abdomenal cavity, and you're kind of stuck washing fecal matter off of it.) Cost-effectiveness is not an appealing excuse for this. However, it's all the same to me, I guess-- I always cook my burgers all the way through no matter where they come from, and the inside of any cut of meat is sterile if it's fresh-- be sure to properly sear the outside and still enjoy your juicy interior. OH:157 can bugger off.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

apollyon.. don't be silly.

i'll just throw a few quotes out rather than starting a omnislash-war.


Their waste no longer serves to fertilize pastures a little at a time, since they spend much or all of their lives in factory sheds or feedlots. Wastes are often simply flushed away dangerously raising ammonia and nitrate levels in our drinking water.



The world's cattle alone (not including other livestock) consume food enough for 8.7 billion people. Over a hundred million of tons of grain go to animals while only 5 million tons of grain could adequately feed the 15 million children throughout the world who starve to death every year.



Over a billion cattle populate the earth, with a combined weight greater than the entire human population. They are sustained unnaturally in these numbers to satisfy demand for their flesh. They are a primary cause for the destruction of the environment. Beef cattle return only 1 pound of meat for every 16 pounds of grain and soybeans they are fed, causing huge inefficiencies in food utilization, while millions of people go hungry.



The typical egg factory may hold 80,000 hens per warehouse with 4 or 5 layer hens squeezed into a 12" x 18" cage. Poultry producers de-beak their chicks with hot-knife machines to prevent the crazed birds from killing each other in response to their intense confinement.


The hell of it is that most of these hellholes are government-subsidized.

Regarding the feed of cattles.


“Rendering plants perform one of the most valuable functions on Earth: they recycle used animals. Without rendering, our cities would run the risk of becoming filled with diseased and rotting carcasses. Fatal viruses and bacteria would spread uncontrolled through the population.

“The dead animals (the ‘raw’) are accompanied by a whole menu of unwanted ingredients. Pesticides enter the rendering process via poisoned livestock, and fish oil laced with bootleg DDT and other organophosphates that have accumulated in the bodies of West Coast mackerel and tuna.

“Because animals are frequently shoved into the pit with flea collars still attached organophosphate-containing insecticides get into the mix as well. The insecticide Dursban arrives in the form of cattle insecticide patches. Pharmaceuticals leak from antibiotics in livestock, and euthanasia drugs given to pets are also included. Heavy metals accumulate from a variety of sources: pet ID tags, surgical pins and needles.

“Even plastic winds up going into the pit. Unsold supermarket meats, chicken and fish arrive in styrofoam trays and shrink wrap. No one has time for the tedious chore of unwrapping thousands of rejected meat-packs. More plastic is added to the pits with the arrival of cattle ID tags, plastic insecticide patches and the green plastic bags containing pets from veterinarians.

“Skyrocketing labor costs are one of the economic factors forcing the corporate flesh-peddlers to cheat. It is far too costly for plant personnel to cut off flea collars or unwrap spoiled T-bone steaks. Every week, millions of packages of plastic-wrapped meat go through the rendering process and become one of the unwanted ingredients in animal feed.


^ the above is mostly turned into pet and animal food; --> unavoidably these products enter fast food and restaraunt meat.

[naradaman]

Why should they have to watch it? or do it themselves? If you don't like to make your bed in the mornings, but like to sleep on a made one, and you have the money to get someone in cleaning your house ... why shouldn't you be able to pay them to make your bed? If you don't like to see animals killed, but you like eating meat, and someone else is willing to kill the animal for you ... why should you be able to eat meat?
Your analogy makes sense, but the situation as it stands is still hypocritical in my eyes.
Deforestation: US - done for wood, actually. Rainforest - dirt poor countries trying to make a living anywhere they find it. Or do you want them to stay third world? Bullshit. You actually believe those countries are getting any money for their forest? Most of the money made from logging in 3rd world nations goes strait out of the country to the tycoons. The only money the country gets, is the kick-back the president/dictator/primeminister gets for waving tax costs.

[Moe]

Your analogy makes sense, but the situation as it stands is still hypocritical in my eyes.

Do you clean public bathrooms yourself? Have you ever used one? Isn't that the same thing?

[SquidDNA]

I guess all those loggers and sawmill operators are working for free.

[Beelzebuddy]

TDS: 1) I'm not saying there's no pollution, but like any other industry there are regulations on what, how much, and where. Like any other industry, these standards are broken on occasion. You can't condemn a practice because one phase of its production pollutes. Ever stand downwind of an ethanol plant?

2-3) "People are starving in China. Eat your sprouts." Didn't work then, doesn't work now. If those millions of starving people could afford food, it'd be more profitable to sell to them. Since they can't, farmers have to make a living with the market that's there. Why aren't you giving all your money to relief efforts to buy food, if you care so much?

4) Animal cruelty laws are regularly updated. I know nothing about chickens and what makes them happy, but if it's still legal, that's good enough for me.

Of course these industries are subsidized. Go look up the logic behind subsidation.

5) One of the most obvious lessons learned in food processing is that nasty shit of all kinds gets in everywhere. It's all regulated. Your cereal has a certain maximum percentage of weevils, rats, and other miscellaneous goodies. Most of what you mentioned is harmless indigestibles, and the rest is spurious logic. Bootleg DDT -> insects -> fish -> animal food -> animals -> us? I'm not too worried.

Naradaman: Squid's answer effectively stands.

[Homdax]

http://www.rainbowpizza.com/NY%20steak.jpg

:Pint: :buddies:

:clap:

:hide:

[SquidDNA]

Damn you, Homy.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

..You're kidding me, Apollyon. Seriously. Go read Fast Food Nation. I'm not making this up out of the blue, and there are multiple sources for this information. To throw out something else, sperm count in the average Western male has dropped significantly over the last 50 years. While it would be premature to assign this to any one factor, toxicity is an obvious cause.

[atuhalpa]

It's obvious that none of you are interested in facts. You only post in this forum to play the "oneupmanship" game. I see nothing but egos here, no heartfelt sincerity. Of course some of you who still don't get it will post and state that I too am here to play the oneupmanship game, well don't waste your time, it just won't impress me as it would your peers.

[SquidDNA]

"OMG, you don't believe the arguments I've parroted from my biased source? READ IT!"

Not a stellar argument, really.

Atuhalpa, it's obvious that you'd rather sneer than discuss. As such, don't post on threads with that attitude in the future, because you're not really adding anything.

[Homdax]

Please develop that, atuhalpa. It would be very selfish of us not to listen to what You may want to say.

Thus, by not saying it, You enhance our ego feeling, much in contrary of what Your post indicate You might want to do.

err...yes that... :wtf2:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Biased? Biased towards what?

You think maybe they are making this up? I expect the quotes I grabbed lean towards the cynical side and might overstate the problem; I just grabbed them off the first thing i googled. But that doesnt mean much, anything within an order of magnitude is a problem.

[SquidDNA]

Hippies! :lol:
Strike "biased" and my point stands. One shouldn't have to read your source to have a discussion with you about it. After all, you're taking the time to cite arguments from it. We can dissect those arguments as they stand.

"Anything within an order of magnitude" may not fully understand the "problem." Or, indeed, statistics, as summed up by Apollyon's "half of the rain in the United States falls on half of the land? Shocking!"

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Otherwise I would have to engage in point-by-point refutations (IE omnislashing). It just seems I'm not getting believed here. So I say read the book, because A.) It's a good one and B.) You don't need to believe me.

[SquidDNA]

Point by point refutations are allowed when you're arguing points. Omnislashing is a technique which dissects the opponent's post line by line to destroy the overall point.

Apollyon's numbering has been neat and orderly so far here.

You're the one we're talking to, though. I mean, if you're saying "I can't do an adequate job of arguing this, please refer to this source if you're interested in the topic" which, hell, I've done before, that's legit.

[Beelzebuddy]

atuhalpa, your comments are welcome but unnecessary, as your apathy is far exceeded by my own.

TDS: Biased or unbiased (it is, though), the book has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, here are the author's recommendations:

* Ban advertising of fatty, sugary foods to children under 8, much the same as it has done with tobacco.

* Pass tougher food-safety laws.

* Better protect US workers from workplace harm.

* Prevent the concentration of corporate power (13 slaughterhouses supply most of the nation's beef).

With the exception of the first one (which I discard as idiotic "Think of the children!" mentality), I entirely agree. None of them however are "Abandon meat in favor of a vegan diet," as the post which started us on our little talk tried to say. There are laws which regulate most of the biased semi-truths you hear, and guidelines for altering those laws. Use them instead of spreading stupid to reach your goals.

[Paladin]

* Ban advertising of fatty, sugary foods to children under 8, much the same as it has done with tobacco.
This would actually be irresponsible since prepubescent children have greater needs for fat and sugar than adults.

In fact it's one of the biggest idiocies out there that people are encouraged to feed their kids what would be a healthy diet for an adult. It's like, look, you as an adult may only need x grams of fat per day, but you're also in a rather static physical state. Your kids are growing. Hence they have higher requirements for such things.

Which should be fucking obvious... but...

[Starfisher]

America! FUCK YEAH!

[Vaarok]

'Shoe, while it's all presented in a suitably hackle-raising format, you're not doing research, you're spouting prewritten propaganda. Go look at the US CAFO regulations, and come back with sense, unless you're too busy being a proponent of the California Methane Emissions Survey.

As for Paladin and Fisher, yeah. Heh. I remember when I was in middleschool Health class, they made us catalogue what we were eating and how much we weighed over the course of a month.

I was eating three times the calories and something like five times the fats I was supposed to, and lost two pounds.

Health guidelines are specious things based off an average of sedentary and monosynaptic officeworkers eating largely pre-processed foods. God knows they couldn't figure out how find food components, much less cook...

[Tails]

It's fine that kids need extra nutrients, but in all honestly, things like donuts aren't the best source for those nutrients. A campaign for "Less donuts, more peanut butter", "Less Pixie Stix, more pasta", or "Less soda, more juice", I would consider to be healthy. That's the whole reason we created the food pyramid. Although it is correct that everyone's diet functions differently (my friend once ate 6,000 calories a day and still lost weight), there are some foods which are arguably unhealthy and some which are very healthy, despite being high in fat, carbohydrates, whatever.

A huge problem nowadays is refined sugar: the evil substance responsible for half the diabetes and obesity in the United States.

[Beelzebuddy]

Campaigning is fine. Legislation is not.

[SquidDNA]

"Less donuts, more peanut butter, Less Pixie Stix, more pasta, Less soda, more juice!
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE PEANUT FARMERS, WHEAT GROWERS, AND FRUIT PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION."

[Tails]

DEATHbar!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/barevaperjan/DEATHbar.jpg

The tasty sweet
with reinforced concrete!

[TheLoneKnight]

"More Tits, Less Teats."
- Brought to you by Pornographic Actors Against Cruelty During Milking.

PAACDM pwnz.


/me continues to be in the same bizarre mood he's been in for the past month

[Moe]

I will support a campaign that promises more pasta.

[naradaman]

Do you clean public bathrooms yourself? Have you ever used one? Isn't that the same thing? Okay okay, you proved your point. I still don't like it though. I feel like I need to go clean a bathroom now...
I guess all those loggers and sawmill operators are working for free. Perhaps they're from other countries? I saw a doco on foreign tycoons in South America, I'm trying to dig up a link now, but I can't find anything. It was more about the bigger picture, basically resource theft and stealing trade. Perhaps your right though.

[Ramrod]

Meat is good. Veggies are good. Meat tastes best with veggies. Veggies taste best with meat. Eat both, and you'll leave the table nice and full. Satisfaction guaranteed. =)

By the way, Fast Food Nation was written to catalogue the practices of American fast food suppliers. I didn't see the author cite a single non-US example of places that he actually visited and verified as fact. You can print anything nowadays, nobody will question its validity if it'll make money. Although the places he visited probably are that bad, did he go to every slaughterhouse in the world? No.

My bedroom is not the same as yours, so just because one of you guys might live like a pig doesn't make it impossible for me to be neat.

Not only that, but none of his statistics are from our decade. The only redeeming quality that book had was that I learned the history of McDonald's.

[A176]

i am an evolved omnivore. end of story.