Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Replies
-
meat eater and chocoholic ..
We eat:
Red meat about twice a week
Fish once a week
Veg meal once to twice a week
"White meat" about 2-3 times a week
0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I'd rather get as many nutrients as I can from food without supplementing (except in the case of vitamin D).janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
I think that's a much better argument than "We can" and "we've always done it." Which nutrients are you thinking of? I can't think of anything that I can't easily obtain from food and cheap, easy-to-source supplements. For me, that means I have no compelling reason to end an animal's life for meat for the "better source" rationale.
If someone is unable to meet their dietary needs from food and supplements without meat, this rationale would apply for them.
If one felt a moral obligation to avoid harming another, I don't think a personal preference for avoiding supplements would override that.
I think the issue is that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid harming animals. I think everything else ("We can do it, so we do it," "We've always done it," "I prefer not to take supplements except for vitamin D") is just an attempt to explain that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid exploiting animals (which is understandable, most people don't).
If avoiding supplements except for vitamin D truly is the reason why it's okay to eat meat, let me ask you: do you limit your meat consumption to the amount needed to meet your nutritional needs without supplements? If someone was truly only eating meat to avoid supplements, this would be the course they would take. If they're eating more than this, or if they aren't sure what their exact needs are, then it isn't the reason.0 -
Well, I'm glad I stuck a nerve. For many vegetarians, this is a moral issue. This needs to be brought home before the nutritional fluff disguises it again.
The goat farmer I talked to who was raising meat had come to a moral certainty in his line of work, and he took great pride in not causing any unnecessary suffering to the creatures in his care.
We don't ask a cheetah, wolf, or lion to put aside their natural urges in sympathy of their chosen food source. And the ruminants in turn don't offer themselves, in sympathy, as easy meat. In the brutal cycle that is nature, the youngest, oldest, and weakest are taken, which in the long run of things, strengthens the herd.Well, I'm glad I stuck a nerve. For many vegetarians, this is a moral issue. This needs to be brought home before the nutritional fluff disguises it again.
The goat farmer I talked to who was raising meat had come to a moral certainty in his line of work, and he took great pride in not causing any unnecessary suffering to the creatures in his care.
We don't ask a cheetah, wolf, or lion to put aside their natural urges in sympathy of their chosen food source. And the ruminants in turn don't offer themselves, in sympathy, as easy meat. In the brutal cycle that is nature, the youngest, oldest, and weakest are taken, which in the long run of things, strengthens the herd.
But, as humans, we frequently expect our fellow humans to put aside natural urges in certain situations because we acknowledge that humans are capable of moral reasoning.
There may be an argument that it is morally justified to express our natural urges against all animals but humans. Is that what you're arguing? I would guess that you are opposed to "the brutal cycle that is nature" when it involves a human against another human.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Thank you. I did not mean all vegans when I used the term echo chamber, but I see now it could be taken that way. I'm aware that a number of vegans and vegetarians disagree strongly with many of the more problematic arguments against eating animals such as comparing it to slavery, rape, human infanticide, etc. My own personal stance (even though I'm not even vegetarian) is that being vegan is not a moral necessity, but it is a moral good - similar to say human acts of charity: I wouldn't expect anyone to give up all their worldly possessions to others, but someone that does so, I consider as someone doing good. I think people that view vegan as a moral necessity are the ones more likely to make analogies that tend to be problematic because they start with the assumption of morality.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would say that of course we are, and many things that are natural (such as the strong dominating the weaker, or prejudice/animosity toward outside groups) are not necessarily good or just or ethical. War seems to be natural, even among some of our close relatives, like chimps.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would like to think not.
When I hear these arguments, I often think of Jared Diamond's anecdote about it from his time in Papua New Guinea. When two New Guinea people come across each other, it is common for them to start sharing their names, and family relations. They will try to see if either one has a relative in one way or another to the other. The reason for this is that killing the other person when they share kin would be in bad taste and rude to the relative. If they do not have such an inhibition however, they will commonly begin fighting each other to the death. Hard to say if this reflects a true state of human nature that is Hobbesian brutish, or if it reflects the New Guinea culture, but given the only animal more dangerous to humans than humans is mosquitoes, I think it might reflect general human tendency.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would like to think not.
When I hear these arguments, I often think of Jared Diamond's anecdote about it from his time in Papua New Guinea. When two New Guinea people come across each other, it is common for them to start sharing their names, and family relations. They will try to see if either one has a relative in one way or another to the other. The reason for this is that killing the other person when they share kin would be in bad taste and rude to the relative. If they do not have such an inhibition however, they will commonly begin fighting each other to the death. Hard to say if this reflects a true state of human nature that is Hobbesian brutish, or if it reflects the New Guinea culture, but given the only animal more dangerous to humans than humans is mosquitoes, I think it might reflect general human tendency.
In my area family members are usually the ones that are killed.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Thank you. I did not mean all vegans when I used the term echo chamber, but I see now it could be taken that way. I'm aware that a number of vegans and vegetarians disagree strongly with many of the more problematic arguments against eating animals such as comparing it to slavery, rape, human infanticide, etc. My own personal stance (even though I'm not even vegetarian) is that being vegan is not a moral necessity, but it is a moral good - similar to say human acts of charity: I wouldn't expect anyone to give up all their worldly possessions to others, but someone that does so, I consider as someone doing good. I think people that view vegan as a moral necessity are the ones more likely to make analogies that tend to be problematic because they start with the assumption of morality.
I was pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but I hate people thinking that all vegans think that way . . . so I wanted to make sure.
I do think these conversations get out-of-hand a lot of times because people do start them thinking everyone shares certain base assumptions. But when it comes to discussions of morality, we can't assume everyone is working from the same assumptions.
I do think humans are unique among animals (although new findings about the inner lives of animals like dolphins or whales could certainly challenge that) and I can understand how people can conclude that we have an obligation to avoid harming other humans unnecessarily but that obligation doesn't carry over to other animals (I wouldn't agree with that argument, but I do understand it). When that is where someone is coming from, it's counter-productive to compare how we treat animals to slavery (and it's incredibly tone-deaf to the terrible historical realities of how black people have been talked about and demeaned over the years.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would say that of course we are, and many things that are natural (such as the strong dominating the weaker, or prejudice/animosity toward outside groups) are not necessarily good or just or ethical. War seems to be natural, even among some of our close relatives, like chimps.
I read a book called "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson a few years ago. Other than the attention-baiting title, it was a fascinating read about violence in primates (specifically male violence). There's little than is more "natural" than violence.0 -
Well, we obviously don't view animals the same way. I personally believe that we were created to have a high degree of superiority over animals. If that means killing it for (what I think) is a good reason, then that's the way I see it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I'd rather get as many nutrients as I can from food without supplementing (except in the case of vitamin D).janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
I think that's a much better argument than "We can" and "we've always done it." Which nutrients are you thinking of? I can't think of anything that I can't easily obtain from food and cheap, easy-to-source supplements. For me, that means I have no compelling reason to end an animal's life for meat for the "better source" rationale.
If someone is unable to meet their dietary needs from food and supplements without meat, this rationale would apply for them.
If one felt a moral obligation to avoid harming another, I don't think a personal preference for avoiding supplements would override that.
I think the issue is that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid harming animals. I think everything else ("We can do it, so we do it," "We've always done it," "I prefer not to take supplements except for vitamin D") is just an attempt to explain that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid exploiting animals (which is understandable, most people don't).
If avoiding supplements except for vitamin D truly is the reason why it's okay to eat meat, let me ask you: do you limit your meat consumption to the amount needed to meet your nutritional needs without supplements? If someone was truly only eating meat to avoid supplements, this would be the course they would take. If they're eating more than this, or if they aren't sure what their exact needs are, then it isn't the reason.
0 -
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.0 -
ForeverSunshine09 wrote: »I am a meat eater because I have always suffered from low iron and it helped stabilize that. Plus meat is delicious!lemurcat12 wrote: »I think they can all be equally healthy.
There are ethical reasons that someone might choose to be a vegan or vegetarian.
I have a low iron problem, too, and that's why my ethical foray into vegetarianism in the 90's was a bad idea for me. I force my meat and potatoes family into at least one non-meat dinner per week, though.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I don't understand the last part of your post. What is the "defined" Mediterranean Diet? And how do "personal" diets of people living in that region not enter into it? Sorry, but the idea of the Med diet comes from diets of the people living there--it evolved from them and their traditions. How can you exclude them? Clarify.
It's not about excluding anyone. It's about a diet that is well established and well documented. And was established before a good many people living in the Med region today were born. It's based on foods that are found in the Mediterranean region and were historically eaten there.
Here are some resources if you are not familiar with it.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801
http://www.epicurious.com/archive/healthy/news/diet_mediterranean
http://oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid
A quick internet search will get you plenty more information. It's one of the most touted and studied diets around.
I don't need a study hon, I live there. I live in Rome, Italy and know more about the Mediterranean diet than you do--that's for sure. I've lived here for 30 yrs and learned to cook from my mother-in-law and her two older sisters. 3 little old ladies in black.. just like the films. I make pasta or risotto everyday for my family and my husband says he eats better at home than in a restaurant. I study and buy quality foods, and discussions at meals are frequently about cooking. And something being discussed constantly here is that the Mediterranean diet has been chosen by UNESCO as something to protect--for the good of humankind.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, we obviously don't view animals the same way. I personally believe that we were created to have a high degree of superiority over animals. If that means killing it for (what I think) is a good reason, then that's the way I see it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I'd rather get as many nutrients as I can from food without supplementing (except in the case of vitamin D).janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
I think that's a much better argument than "We can" and "we've always done it." Which nutrients are you thinking of? I can't think of anything that I can't easily obtain from food and cheap, easy-to-source supplements. For me, that means I have no compelling reason to end an animal's life for meat for the "better source" rationale.
If someone is unable to meet their dietary needs from food and supplements without meat, this rationale would apply for them.
If one felt a moral obligation to avoid harming another, I don't think a personal preference for avoiding supplements would override that.
I think the issue is that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid harming animals. I think everything else ("We can do it, so we do it," "We've always done it," "I prefer not to take supplements except for vitamin D") is just an attempt to explain that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid exploiting animals (which is understandable, most people don't).
If avoiding supplements except for vitamin D truly is the reason why it's okay to eat meat, let me ask you: do you limit your meat consumption to the amount needed to meet your nutritional needs without supplements? If someone was truly only eating meat to avoid supplements, this would be the course they would take. If they're eating more than this, or if they aren't sure what their exact needs are, then it isn't the reason.
That's pretty much my point -- everything else is like a "smokescreen" (I'm not meaning that in a critical way, I'm just having trouble thinking of a better word). Your belief that we were created to have superiority over animals (including deciding when they live or die) would be the justification, not that they're a better source of nutrition for us or that we've always done it.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I tend to think the biggest argument against eating animals (for food seems redundant, do we eat them for not food?) is helping other humans - there is an environmental impact of eating animals on the scale most, if not all, nations on this planet do.0 -
If animal products had little to nutritional benefit to humans, I doubt that I would eat anywhere near as much of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, we obviously don't view animals the same way. I personally believe that we were created to have a high degree of superiority over animals. If that means killing it for (what I think) is a good reason, then that's the way I see it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I'd rather get as many nutrients as I can from food without supplementing (except in the case of vitamin D).janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
I think that's a much better argument than "We can" and "we've always done it." Which nutrients are you thinking of? I can't think of anything that I can't easily obtain from food and cheap, easy-to-source supplements. For me, that means I have no compelling reason to end an animal's life for meat for the "better source" rationale.
If someone is unable to meet their dietary needs from food and supplements without meat, this rationale would apply for them.
If one felt a moral obligation to avoid harming another, I don't think a personal preference for avoiding supplements would override that.
I think the issue is that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid harming animals. I think everything else ("We can do it, so we do it," "We've always done it," "I prefer not to take supplements except for vitamin D") is just an attempt to explain that you don't feel a moral obligation to avoid exploiting animals (which is understandable, most people don't).
If avoiding supplements except for vitamin D truly is the reason why it's okay to eat meat, let me ask you: do you limit your meat consumption to the amount needed to meet your nutritional needs without supplements? If someone was truly only eating meat to avoid supplements, this would be the course they would take. If they're eating more than this, or if they aren't sure what their exact needs are, then it isn't the reason.
That's pretty much my point -- everything else is like a "smokescreen" (I'm not meaning that in a critical way, I'm just having trouble thinking of a better word). Your belief that we were created to have superiority over animals (including deciding when they live or die) would be the justification, not that they're a better source of nutrition for us or that we've always done it.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I don't see the connection between the two. Refraining from using an animal for food doesn't increase or decrease one's ability to help other humans. And you stated above that you believe we were created to have superiority over animals and that includes eating them. Are you saying that if human suffering was eradicated it would then become okay to defy the will of your creator? I thought I understood that there were no circumstances in which you felt it was appropriate to minimize animal exploitation, but now I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure how to respond to your personal belief that you could not thrive on a diet without animal products. There is no data there, so it isn't really something that one can engage with. I don't think there is any evidence that many people can't thrive on a diet without animal products. What data are you basing that statement on?0 -
I'm an omnivore - It was how I evolved. My teeth are designed for both vegetables and meat. My digestive system works quite well at pulling nutrients from both. I don't have a double chamber stomach to pull the maximum nutrients from veggies, so I stick to eating fruits, veggies and meat.
I'm also a person with a conscious, so I try to get all of my meat from local farms where the animals are raised humanely and allowed to roam and eat grass and seed as nature intended. I also try to make sure they are killed in as humane way as possible. I also prefer they are processed in as clean and proper way possible, so they can be eaten, safely and guilt-free by me...as nature intended.
That being said, I respect everyone's opinion and I do not feel that a vegetarian or vegan diet is "wrong", just wrong for me.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I don't understand the last part of your post. What is the "defined" Mediterranean Diet? And how do "personal" diets of people living in that region not enter into it? Sorry, but the idea of the Med diet comes from diets of the people living there--it evolved from them and their traditions. How can you exclude them? Clarify.
It's not about excluding anyone. It's about a diet that is well established and well documented. And was established before a good many people living in the Med region today were born. It's based on foods that are found in the Mediterranean region and were historically eaten there.
Here are some resources if you are not familiar with it.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801
http://www.epicurious.com/archive/healthy/news/diet_mediterranean
http://oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid
A quick internet search will get you plenty more information. It's one of the most touted and studied diets around.
I don't need a study hon, I live there. I live in Rome, Italy and know more about the Mediterranean diet than you do--that's for sure. I've lived here for 30 yrs and learned to cook from my mother-in-law and her two older sisters. 3 little old ladies in black.. just like the films. I make pasta or risotto everyday for my family and my husband says he eats better at home than in a restaurant. I study and buy quality foods, and discussions at meals are frequently about cooking. And something being discussed constantly here is that the Mediterranean diet has been chosen by UNESCO as something to protect--for the good of humankind.
Well, um, congratulations, I guess?? But again, my post was not about any person diet. I was talking about a documented named diet and even made sure to be specific of the topic in my post. Sorry it seems to bother you that they use your region in the name but I didn't name it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For some nutrients, meat is a much better source than plant based foods.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The way I see it, we do this because we are basically at the top of the food chain, and for practically all of mankind humans have found that animals can be used as fuel for us.buzz28camaro wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »I visited our latest Farm Fair and my daughter chatted up a goat breeder for some time. Her retirement dream is to have a Merino goat farm. We talked about humane slaughter and we got a graphic description on how this can be done humanely. Step one, knock the animal out. Death occurs before it even hits the ground.
Killing an animal many years before its natural life would have ended when you could easily make other food choices doesn't sound humane to me, regardless of the method.
Animals that die naturally rarely have a quick and easy death. They typically either starve, die slowly of a disease or parasite or are eaten alive by a predator. Quick and as painless as possible is about as humane as it gets.
I agree with you, but I don't think that justifies voluntarily killing animals just to spare them a potentially "worse" natural death. We would never apply that same logic to humans and kill 15 years old who might get cancer and have a painful death, so why should it apply it the killing of young animals? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.
We do it because we can and because we've always done it?
I can accept that might be *why* we do it, but neither of those are particularly good arguments as to why we should *continue* doing it when there are other options available.
So it is justifiable to slaughter billions of animals a year so we can potentially better absorb certain nutrients? That seems like a stretch.
It's natural. Omnivores kill and eat other animals. Whether it's done barbarically or humanely, it's what we naturally do.
So if something is "natural" then it is automatically acceptable?
Not sure what you mean. Acceptable to whom? It's natural whether you or anyone else accept it or not.
My point was, its irrelevant if something is natural. You were arguing that eating meat is natural, and that was your justification for why it was acceptable. I was making the point that just because something is natural (i.e. rape, murder, stealing) doesn't make it acceptable. That's not a good litmus test for how we should act.
I find it a little disconcerting that you think rape, murder and stealing are natural. But ignoring that, do you think it is unacceptable for any animal to be eaten, or only for man to eat them?
You don't think they're natural? Do you think humans in their "natural state" (whatever that is) aren't violent?
I would like to think not.
Well, we are. Evolution has made our brains more developed than other mammals so we are capable of reasoning, ethics, etc., but the cortex doesn't fully develop until age 12. Kids can naturally be pretty violent- outwardly or inwardly. We all have to teach our young ones that hitting isn't okay. But brain development can be impaired if they're not nurtured well (neglect, abuse and so on) and that can cause them to become violent adults.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I tend to think the biggest argument against eating animals (for food seems redundant, do we eat them for not food?) is helping other humans - there is an environmental impact of eating animals on the scale most, if not all, nations on this planet do.
There is also an environmental impact to eating non-animal food on the scale we do.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part. That's why I asked for a clarification.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.0 -
Regarding the first point, I'm more so thinking about the overall vegan lifestyle - avoiding using/consuming everything that is animal related. I'm not sure mentally I could do that without going insane, which would affect my ability to help others.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I don't see the connection between the two. Refraining from using an animal for food doesn't increase or decrease one's ability to help other humans. And you stated above that you believe we were created to have superiority over animals and that includes eating them. Are you saying that if human suffering was eradicated it would then become okay to defy the will of your creator? I thought I understood that there were no circumstances in which you felt it was appropriate to minimize animal exploitation, but now I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure how to respond to your personal belief that you could not thrive on a diet without animal products. There is no data there, so it isn't really something that one can engage with. I don't think there is any evidence that many people can't thrive on a diet without animal products. What data are you basing that statement on?
If I understand your second question correctly, I don't believe it's ethical to just go killing animals for the fun of it.
Again, when I refer to eating a diet without animal products, I mean without supplementing (which is of course a modern invention). If you're supplementing, then I would imagine your success eating a vegan diet would possibly be very different than 200 years ago. I just got my B12 level tested, and based on the result I think it's very reasonable that I'd be very deficient if eating a vegan diet without supplementing that vitamin.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.
I'm not at all offended, I was just curious as to what personal diet of a person living in the Mediterranean region, you are familiar with. This comment makes no sense to me. The diet is characteristic of the people that live in the region. I've come across alot of people making up their own Mediterranean diet--one recipe had soy sauce as an ingredient.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Regarding the first point, I'm more so thinking about the overall vegan lifestyle - avoiding using/consuming everything that is animal related. I'm not sure mentally I could do that without going insane, which would affect my ability to help others.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I don't see the connection between the two. Refraining from using an animal for food doesn't increase or decrease one's ability to help other humans. And you stated above that you believe we were created to have superiority over animals and that includes eating them. Are you saying that if human suffering was eradicated it would then become okay to defy the will of your creator? I thought I understood that there were no circumstances in which you felt it was appropriate to minimize animal exploitation, but now I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure how to respond to your personal belief that you could not thrive on a diet without animal products. There is no data there, so it isn't really something that one can engage with. I don't think there is any evidence that many people can't thrive on a diet without animal products. What data are you basing that statement on?
If I understand your second question correctly, I don't believe it's ethical to just go killing animals for the fun of it.
Again, when I refer to eating a diet without animal products, I mean without supplementing (which is of course a modern invention). If you're supplementing, then I would imagine your success eating a vegan diet would possibly be very different than 200 years ago. I just got my B12 level tested, and based on the result I think it's very reasonable that I'd be very deficient if eating a vegan diet without supplementing that vitamin.
If you mean that it would personally take mental effort for you to refrain from animal exploitation and that this mental effort would make you less able to help other humans because it would lead to your insanity, I understand what you're saying. Would I be correct in assuming that you have reduced your level of animal exploitation to the amount that you can comfortably avoid without inducing mental illness? Or do you engage in more than this? If you haven't reduced it to the level that you can sustain without having stress, I don't understand the argument.
If it isn't ethical to kill animals for the fun of it, do you believe that people have an ethical obligation to limit their animal exploitation to the level necessary to sustain health (we'll include mental health in this, as it seems like some people -- like yourself -- feel their mental health would be in danger if they avoid animal exploitation)? Every act of animal exploitation that isn't necessary to sustain physical and emotional health would be for "fun" (or "pleasure"), so you would consider these unethical?
Supplementation is a modern invention. I'm not sure what the relevance of that point is. I'm not arguing that people have an obligation to go vegan 1,000 years ago or even 200 years ago. I'm talking about today, where supplementation is cheap and easy (at least for people like us, people who are on computers). And again, if the desire to avoid supplementation (except for vitamin D) gives one an ethical justification for animal exploitation, we have to address the ethics of exploiting animals beyond what is needed to secure B12 needs. Would you consider any consumption of animal products above and beyond what is needed to secure B12 needs unethical? If not, then the supplementation argument is kind of a red herring.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.
I'm not at all offended, I was just curious as to what personal diet of a person living in the Mediterranean region, you are familiar with. This comment makes no sense to me. The diet is characteristic of the people that live in the region. I've come across alot of people making up their own Mediterranean diet--one recipe had soy sauce as an ingredient.
The clarification was an effort to prevent the comments from MFP members living the Med region that often follow mention of the Mediterranean Diet claiming it does not reflect their diet. Kind of amusing that the disclaimer elicited objection for the opposite reason, but I don't care what any person living in the Med region eats. It's irrelevant to my post.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.
I'm not at all offended, I was just curious as to what personal diet of a person living in the Mediterranean region, you are familiar with. This comment makes no sense to me. The diet is characteristic of the people that live in the region. I've come across alot of people making up their own Mediterranean diet--one recipe had soy sauce as an ingredient.
The clarification was an effort to prevent the comments from MFP members living the Med region that often follow mention of the Mediterranean Diet claiming it does not reflect their diet. Kind of amusing that the disclaimer elicited objection for the opposite reason, but I don't care what any person living in the Med region eats. It's irrelevant to my post.
You may not care--but lurkers do, and there are alot of them. That's why I asked, and I'm not surprised with the answer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions