dont eat meat ever again!

LiftAllThePizzas

I have often suspected my internet connection was going through a time portal and connecting to people in 1987. Good to see it's been confirmed.

ETA this makes me feel like I lost out on some great fun since back then I only got 300 baud with an acoustic coupler and was never able to connect to the internet with my Commodore 64 or Trash 80 CoCo.

Iron_Feline

if our population ate less meat, we'd all be better off. Americans eat 100% more meat today than they did 50 years ago, that's why factory farming began to boom. We're no healthier now than we were then, so why not cut back and give ourselves better health, protect the environment, and lower the amount of animal abuse going on? Not to mention the introduction of all sorts of extra hormones and antibiotics into our systems.

'Fraid you've got to get your facts right if you're going to argue such things. US meat consumption has risen steadily (with red meat now declining and white meat increasing) but hasn't even doubled since 1909 so 100% in 50 years is a wee bit of an exaggeration. In fact red meat consumption is fairly static with a fluctuation of 20 - 30 grams per capita over the century from 1909 levels, and chicken has increased to more than double (would that have anything to do with a Col. Sanders?) but still way below red meat levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/figure/F2/

100% IS doubling...

i've actually used that exact article in the past and a graph that goes with it to support this very argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/figure/F2/

from the low point after WW2, we have doubled our meat intake

150g to 250g is not doubling........

and it's white meat that has increased while red meat - considered the worst mean has remained about the same.

Not sure why I'm bothering tbh.

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

Really, because you said in last 50 years. Looking more closely that is 175 (1958) increased to 250. (2007)

Just saying.

TwiistedTwiin

Vegan here (grown up vegetarian)

CoachReddy

if our population ate less meat, we'd all be better off. Americans eat 100% more meat today than they did 50 years ago, that's why factory farming began to boom. We're no healthier now than we were then, so why not cut back and give ourselves better health, protect the environment, and lower the amount of animal abuse going on? Not to mention the introduction of all sorts of extra hormones and antibiotics into our systems.

'Fraid you've got to get your facts right if you're going to argue such things. US meat consumption has risen steadily (with red meat now declining and white meat increasing) but hasn't even doubled since 1909 so 100% in 50 years is a wee bit of an exaggeration. In fact red meat consumption is fairly static with a fluctuation of 20 - 30 grams per capita over the century from 1909 levels, and chicken has increased to more than double (would that have anything to do with a Col. Sanders?) but still way below red meat levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/figure/F2/

100% IS doubling...

i've actually used that exact article in the past and a graph that goes with it to support this very argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/figure/F2/

from the low point after WW2, we have doubled our meat intake

150g to 250g is not doubling........

and it's white meat that has increased while red meat - considered the worst mean has remained about the same.

Not sure why I'm bothering tbh.

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

Really, because you said in last 50 years. Looking more closely that is 175 (1958) increased to 250. (2007)

Just saying.

i apologize. last 70 years. happy?

Iron_Feline

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

Really, because you said in last 50 years. Looking more closely that is 175 (1958) increased to 250. (2007)

Just saying.

i apologize. last 70 years. happy?

Only if England win the Rugby tomorrow. :happy:

CoachReddy

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

Really, because you said in last 50 years. Looking more closely that is 175 (1958) increased to 250. (2007)

Just saying.

i apologize. last 70 years. happy?

Only if England win the Rugby tomorrow. :happy:

:drinker:

HollyHobbitToes

You mean you don't go around randomly telling people you eat meat? Oh wait....wrong topic

now_or_never13

Here is the problem. I do not think you are wrong and bad for wanting to eat nothing but veggies. You however do believe you are somehow better and more evolved than those of us who eat meat. (don't deny it) You are no better than the religious zealots that run around telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe exactly what the preacher says. You are wrong. You bought into a fad and you are wasting your time and mine by trying to convince any of us otherwise.

First off, not all vegetarians or vegans think they are somehow better than people who eat meat. There are some out there that do but don't generalize all vegetarians and vegans the same way. Whether you are vegetarian, vegan or eat meat you are not better than someone else who chooses to eat a different diet of foods. Your post makes you come off as thinking people who consome meat are better than people who choose not to.

Being a vegetarian is not always about buying into a fad. Do people who choose to eat vegetarian because of animal rights issues do so because being a vegetarian is a fad? Not a chance. Is being a vegetarian a fad? Some may think it is however it is a diet that has been around for years. A fad diet would be something like the 17 day diet, dukan diet, blood type diet, etc etc.

Your post makes you come across as very closed minded and someone who thinks they are better than someone else because they eat meat.

No single diet is better than another. A meat eater is not better than a vegetarian. A vegetarian is not better than a meat eater.

now_or_never13

Also, I don't understand why vegetarians have to declare they are vegetarians.

If someone offers you something, can't you just say "no." If you are out to dinner, can't you just say "I don't like meat". Why do you have to put a label on yourself and make it a big deal?

Just simply say "no." It's a lot easier. When I don't want chocolate at work, I say "no.", I don't say "I'm on a diet", "I'm counting my calories", "I'm overweight" etc.

Not all vegetarians declare to everyone they are.

When I stopped eating meat I only told people who asked other than my husband and my in laws (just because we eat a decent amount of meals at their house and they center their meals around meat... a lot of time with meat that cannot be picked out). If they offered me meat I did tell them "No thank you, I don't eat meat" at which point I didn't go any further unless asked. Why just say "no" as some will get offended that you do not want to consume their food.

ron2e

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

And 1937 is 50 years ago? Guess your maths is as bad as your nutrition stats.

moontyrant

In my experience, being a vegetarian means being "special." I had a friend who randomly went vegetarian- she was a fussy person most of the time, always whining about how awful her life was, blah blah blah. Being vegetarian was a way to make herself inconvenient. "Oh, I can't have that. Oh, meat's so bad. I can't eat anything that used to have a face." Being vegetarian means you can't eat at the same restaurants, have to have special meals prepared and all kinds of allowances made. It's attention seeking in the most roundabout way. I have family that decides that they can't have onions or green peppers or pickles randomly so that everyone else has to eat something blander. "Oh I can't have that. I'm allergic." Sound familiar? "Oh I can't have that. I'm vegetarian. Pay attention to me! Doesn't my diet make me more interesting? Huh? Anybody?" Cool story.
And it's always with an air of self righteousness. "My name is Malinda du Voir the fifth, esquire. And I do not eat meat." It makes me wonder if vegetarianism were mainstream if people would quit acting like their eating habits are a defining characteristic. Rant over. I hope that clears it up a little bit.

CoachReddy

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

And 1937 is 50 years ago? Guess your maths is as bad as your nutrition stats.

Who said Americans are the obnoxious ones? Read the thread. It's already been addressed.

Confuzzled4ever

I ask them if they can eat animal crackers *true story*

triciab79

Here is the problem. I do not think you are wrong and bad for wanting to eat nothing but veggies. You however do believe you are somehow better and more evolved than those of us who eat meat. (don't deny it) You are no better than the religious zealots that run around telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe exactly what the preacher says. You are wrong. You bought into a fad and you are wasting your time and mine by trying to convince any of us otherwise.

Ironic much?

also religious zealots don't base their decisions on real-world facts and science but on faith. there's no comparison.

Your science is junk and your faith in it is no different from the faith of the religious zealot. The meat eating crowed has millions of years of human survival and thriving to back its claims. You have 50 years of conflicting science. I would say you have the unfounded faith.

ron2e

I just think being a vegetarian is so self limiting. As opposed to having a preference for vegetarian meals. I deal a lot with Indian IT resources who work on projects in Europe, most of whom are strict vegetarian usually from a religious standpoint and have endless problems finding the food they like, bringing their own food to work because they can't eat in the canteen, etc. They are OK in the UK where there is a big Indian population and plenty of Indian restaurants but places like Poland, Romania, etc, are a nightmare for them. If I go to India I expect to have a good proportion of vegetarian curries and the like, so I'm flexible. They are not. This is my main objection to vegetarianism as a strict way of life. I also find any religion that defines what you can and cannot eat somewhat misguided. At one time there was a good historical reason for a code not to eat pork for example because of the diseases you could get that could not be treated, but this doesn't apply any more people, we're in the 21st century and have refrigeration!!. And can there be anything better, anywhere, than a bacon sandwich? I have nothing against vegetarian food, quite often I go for the vegetarian option on a menu as it tends to be lighter and not so high cal, but to eat nothing else and define yourself as a vegetarian is just creating barriers.

3laine75

I would never tell a vegetarian they should be eating meat.

I did once mention to one that it is obviously harder for them to get in all the amino-acids they need and must take a fair bit of research and juggling to find out what sources they need to use to get optimum nutrition. At this point some random girl started to rant about how she got all the protein she needed from broccoli - this kind of thing is frustrating, not to mention, stupid. I have stayed off of vegetarian threads since then but thought I'd add to this one just to give the other side of the story. There are some militant vegetarians out there who want me to give up my meat and dairy and replace it with only broccoli. I know that's not you but they are out there.

redraidergirl2009

Here is the problem. I do not think you are wrong and bad for wanting to eat nothing but veggies. You however do believe you are somehow better and more evolved than those of us who eat meat. (don't deny it) You are no better than the religious zealots that run around telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe exactly what the preacher says. You are wrong. You bought into a fad and you are wasting your time and mine by trying to convince any of us otherwise.

Ironic much?

also religious zealots don't base their decisions on real-world facts and science but on faith. there's no comparison.

Your science is junk and your faith in it is no different from the faith of the religious zealot. The meat eating crowed has millions of years of human survival and thriving to back its claims. You have 50 years of conflicting science. I would say you have the unfounded faith.

Again, no one, including myself, on this thread said they were better than someone else because they were vegetarian.

CoachReddy

Here is the problem. I do not think you are wrong and bad for wanting to eat nothing but veggies. You however do believe you are somehow better and more evolved than those of us who eat meat. (don't deny it) You are no better than the religious zealots that run around telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe exactly what the preacher says. You are wrong. You bought into a fad and you are wasting your time and mine by trying to convince any of us otherwise.

Ironic much?

also religious zealots don't base their decisions on real-world facts and science but on faith. there's no comparison.

Your science is junk and your faith in it is no different from the faith of the religious zealot. The meat eating crowed has millions of years of human survival and thriving to back its claims. You have 50 years of conflicting science. I would say you have the unfounded faith.

i eat meat.

feebz36

I figure, there is no way I could bring myself to take another creature, kill it, prepare it and then eat it. I therefore would not expect someone else to do it for me. I like to do things for myself. I also dont like it when food companies hide things in their products that have no purpose other than to lower production costs or make manufacture easier. If I want to eat a cake, I expect it to contain flour, butter, eggs, sugar... not some sort of ground up animal?! I therefore suppose am a little oldskool and like to bake my own goodies from scratch, I know exactly where my eggs and milk come from (down the road, not driven across europe) and you wont find any fish in my chocolate muffins, or pigs/cows in my cheesecake.

The whole vegetarianism "debate" is pointless anyways, there is no way that anyone is going to change the world's mind. People will do what they like when it comes to food. If I choose to chow down on apples from my garden and not the squirrel that lives in my tree... then thats my business

Thats my tuppence worth, have fun agreeing/disagreeing... it wont change a thing! heehee!

ron2e

look more closely - it's at about 125g right around the 1937 mark

And 1937 is 50 years ago? Guess your maths is as bad as your nutrition stats.

Who said Americans are the obnoxious ones? Read the thread. It's already been addressed.

Yep the usual ad hominem attack, you don't surprise me. If you find what I said obnoxious, you don't know obnoxious. I did read the thread, you tried to weasel out of it. No way did it drop to 125g, the figure you need to try and prove your statement, look at the graph again. And try to understand 1937 is not significant statistically,there was a recession in 1937/38 in the US, part of the great Depression, possibly that had something or a lot to do with the temporary fall? Read some Steinbeck. Follow the trend from 1909 and then tell me it rose 100% in the last 50 years. You seem to have an agenda beyond the debate as someone else identified, but I and others are not falling for it. Lie to try and prove your point and you will be found out. And you have been rumbled my friend!