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?
Options
Replies
-
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?
Do rape, murder and 'stealing' not happen in the animal kingdom? Did they not happen in uncivilized societies? That is what I mean by natural. I think it is unacceptable for animals to be eaten in a situation that is not life or death. If we can choose other options which overall cause less suffering in the world, then I think we are morally obligated to choose those options. I am specifically talking about humans who have the capabilities of making those types of higher-thinking decisions of what food choices to make. I'm not saying non-human animals should not kill and eat each other.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
Here's a thought. If you ever, ever, ever, remotely have the idea of comparing slavery, or humans, to animals don't. It just makes you look like you have some kind of racists view of people as subhuman that were slaves. It will never, in the eyes of anyone you're arguing with, make a decent argument that animals are on a level with people because, quiet frankly, they aren't. There are all kinds of compelling arguments for not eating animals, but denigrating other humans by even allowing the shadow of the implication that they are the same as animals, is not one of them.
If you choose to completely miss the point I was making about the flawed logic in the poster's argument, so be it. My analogy was spot on. And in no way was I comparing animals to slaves or vice versa. My point was that using the argument "people don't have a problem with it" as a reason to continue doing something is not a good argument.
I don't miss it, I ignore it because it comes off as horribly racist. A group of humans were bought and sold, and thought of as less than humans, and to add insult to injury, you're now awfully close to implying the sentiment is right because we do the same to animals.
There's a thousand other examples usable for appeal to tradition as fallacy. You had to pick the most distasteful one.
Actually YOU are the one implying the sentiment is right. I'm the one arguing that both are wrong, but you can't see through the chance at painting me as a racist to see the obvious point I'm trying to make.0 -
Humans aren't animals and animals aren't humans. Some don't think of them equally on the moral compass. Why is that a hard concept?
What? Of course Humans are animals...We are right right there in the good old taxonomy: Kingdom Animalia. So yes, all Humans are Animals.
Eat other animals or not....don't care. I do. My wife doesn't. Only thing I make sure is that 1) if we are going to eat meat, we don't waste and 2) my kids are fully aware that the animal was killed and what it was before it was packaged in a supermarket.
Yes, I knew the technical answer. I thought it was obvious by the very next sentence "some don't think of them equally on a moral compass."
I think your meaning was obvious, but "non-human animals are not persons" is probably a way to phrase the ethical/philosophical/legal distinction that some of us see, and why the comparison with human slavery is rather outrageous. I think reasonable people can differ as to the ethics of using and eating animals, and no reasonable people in this day and age can differ on slavery, period.
So I guess this thread isn't about health issues anymore?0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
You asked for a reason why we kill animals for meat. I gave you the reason.
Slavery was a human rights issue, in clear conflict with the U.S. Bill of Rights. So, we had a legal obligation to end slavery as a country, and eventually the political atmosphere to make it possible.
Killing animals for meat has no such legal issue and no clear moral/ethical issue to the vast majority of the world, either. Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious as to roughly what percentage of body weight does that protein intake work out to be for you.I keep protein to about 20% for blood glucose reasons.
I know eating almost like a carnivore seems odd but I think that is because it is uncommon, and because of the anti cholesterol and saturated fats messages (based on what i think was a lack of science to back it up) that became so widely accepted in the past 50 odd years. I think eventually that being a carnivore will be though to be about as unusual as a vegetarian or vegan.
I keep my protein around 65-75g or so per day with a caloric intake set at about 1500kcal. My weight is 150lb. I find my BG starts being affected once my protein gets above 25%, or over 80-85g.
If my BG starts creeping up, I lower protein a bit, and carbs a lot. I am not doing any consistent exercise, and since a ketogenic diet is muscle sparing, I am sure I am getting enough protein for my needs.
Odd, the one time bro science was (incorrectly) carbs can spare protein but I've never seen even bro science, let alone actual research that a ketogenic diet spares muscle, particularly without exercise.
Generally it is training, calories, and protein that spare muscle.
Ketogenic diets are muscle sparing, meaning they do not catabolize muscle. Someone who is keto adapted will be using fats for fuel so there is less need to use muscle protein to create glucose for energy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
Phinney and Volek go into it in their book, The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance. http://ketogains.com/2015/10/the-art-and-science-of-low-carbohydrate-performance-by-jeff-s-volek-and-stephen-d-phinney-a-summary/
Getting into the high fat oxidation rates of ketogenic athletes: http://www.ultrarunning.com/features/health-and-nutrition/the-emerging-science-on-fat-adaptation/lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious as to roughly what percentage of body weight does that protein intake work out to be for you.I keep protein to about 20% for blood glucose reasons.
I know eating almost like a carnivore seems odd but I think that is because it is uncommon, and because of the anti cholesterol and saturated fats messages (based on what i think was a lack of science to back it up) that became so widely accepted in the past 50 odd years. I think eventually that being a carnivore will be though to be about as unusual as a vegetarian or vegan.
I keep my protein around 65-75g or so per day with a caloric intake set at about 1500kcal. My weight is 150lb. I find my BG starts being affected once my protein gets above 25%, or over 80-85g.
If my BG starts creeping up, I lower protein a bit, and carbs a lot. I am not doing any consistent exercise, and since a ketogenic diet is muscle sparing, I am sure I am getting enough protein for my needs.
For anyone interested in this, I'd recommend also reading this: "http://anthonycolpo.com/why-low-carb-diets-are-inferior-for-strength-muscle-gains/" and the cited studies.
This doesn't appear to be a very good study. Perhaps I've read it wrong.
Three day studies won't tell you much of anything about someone on a ketogenic or low carb diet. It usually takes a few weeks for athletes to become fully fat adapted. After three days of having lower carbs (and over 200g of carbs per day is not really that low) people will just have depleted glycogen stores and feel tired, especially if sodium was not increased as well.
A long term study of keto adapted subjects would provide better data. Plus this was not really about muscle sparing abilities of diets.
In that there are multiple studies, I think you have.
The assertion that keto is better for muscle gain/sparing seems to me to be entirely unsupported and contrary to the evidence I've seen.
Also, people who don't have a keto diet are still able to burn fat and do.
Sorry. I did not type that very clearly. Multiple three day studies still doesn't prove much when it comes to keto adapted muscle sparing. I never brought up muscle gain at all. I simply said I was confident I was getting adequate protein for my needs, which can be safely low to moderate to address my insulin sensitivity, without worrying about lacking protein due in part to the muscle sparing effects of a ketogenic diet.
My supporting evidence (for people eating very low carb high fat over the long term - like me) that my ketogenic diet is muscle sparing was linked above.
First, these aren't keto diets, so the negative effects cannot be explained by ketosis not kicking in yet, and therefore I think the criticism of the length isn't convincing. And there are other important problems for muscle-building/repair, like amino acids not being as effectively transmitted to the muscles, which is likely an effect of the desired low insulin, since that is one of insulin's jobs. Colpo goes into the studies on keto specifically in his book and some of those are much longer-term studies.
Beyond that, of course, being more adapted to use fat than glycogen (and I agree that one can train oneself to be better at that, although I'd advise reading the various criticisms of the Volek studies too, and there are ways to do this short of low carbing, and again it's pretty striking that the vast majority of athletes even in endurance sports don't low carb or keto and that even the extreme endurance athletes use carbs for performance), saying nothing about whether you will also use muscle or have more issues maintaining muscle. It's simply a different subject.
In any event, for most people it may not matter much, and low carbing can be healthy (if one eats adequate vegetables).
That's an interesting point. What gets lost in low carb craze is that insulin is a anabolic hormone - it is often talked about in terms of building adipose tissue over muscle tissue, but is important for both. The low levels of it that a ketogenic diet are kind of erasing this effect.
On the off chance I found myself needing to do a muscle sparing ketogenic diet for some reason, I suppose the best way to spare muscle would be dairy heavy, particularly casein. The in-vogue thing seems to be coconut oil, but coconut oil mostly just acts as quick burning fat - I'd be looking for the potential IGF-1 increases dairy has some minor claims of increasing. It might spare some of the effects of the low insulin levels.
For someone like me (with insulin resistance) a ketogenic diet is helpful with insulin because it prevents insulin spikes because of lower carb, and slightly lower/moderate protein, intake. The insulin is still there, just not in excessive amounts, so BG is stable - similar insulin patterns to that of someone without the insulin resistance. I doubt I have lower insulin than average; I'm probably around average now.
Would you say then that being on a ketogenic diet might result in excessively low insulin in someone with insulin resistance then? That it would have less muscle sparing for such individuals?
I doubt it. I couldn't say it with absolute certainty. I think you just would not be getting insulin spikes as high after eating as those with a higher carb diet..
Except insulin is anabolic... So if one were not having it go as high, one would be getting less anabolic effect from it, wouldn't one?
Heck, the spikes are part of what cause protein to shuttle nutrients into muscles - though endogenous levels don't seem terribly manipulable - it is probably part of why modern pro body builders large "hgh guts", they take insulin to build muscle faster and one side effect appears to be increased central visceral adipose.
But you are not eliminating the spikes, just keeping them lower. High insulin levels are needed by the average Joe, or a top athlete, to increase their muscle mass.
Competitive body builders often have a reputation of taking or injecting substances they should not, or at least not at high levels. So, yes, I will experience weaker anabolic effects than the body builder who is using insulin and HGH. So will 99+% of the population. Probably a good thing.
If we continue this line of thinking, I suppose it means that if I have a regular soda and my insulin soars, I will have a muscle gaining advantage over healthy people. Is it then easier for diabetics (or those with demetia, PCOS, or NAFLD) to bulk?
I don't think that's how insulin resistance works. The problem is that you are resistant to insulin doing its job (transporting carbs and protein), which is why the insulin builds up. This goes against the idea that someone with IR has an extra ability to build muscle.0 -
Meat eater here who's in the process of trying to cut down / consume less meat & animal products. I doubt I'd cut anything out for good though.
I'm changing mostly for ethical reasons. There are other benefits but nothing else that would persuade me to actually make much of a change. I believe you can be healthy whichever lifestyle you are living - you certainly don't have to be veggie/vegan to be a healthy person, or vice versa!
0 -
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.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?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 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.0 -
I'm a foodie and love it all...It shows all over my waistline and scale.0
-
Depends on dietary needs of the person, but a lot of it comes down to ethical or mental issues. Healthy varies person to person what's good for me won't be good for you, though there is a general consensus of what you should eat and within reason it's not a bad framework.0
-
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.0 -
eating meat was usefull when we were hunters. Now we should know better and can have diffferent recourses. Eating meat is bad for the environment, you need to give those animals allot of water and food. It is just not efficient and polluting. Animals have also emotions and are mostly smarter then some people assume. Why it is any different to say it is not allright to eat dog like they do in China and it is ok to eat pig. Knowing that pigs are smarter then dogs. It is a cultural thing.
Please read about these stuff and make any conclusions after you have saw the facts. Don't just assume that it is natural to eat meat. The different between us and animals is that we have a choice.
If all china and India and sutch countries will start to eat meat like in the Western countries (which is the trend) the planet will not be able tu sustain it. Again it is perfectly posssible to replace meat by eating in a more educated and consious way.
I feel much better since I eat none to almost no meat.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
Here's a thought. If you ever, ever, ever, remotely have the idea of comparing slavery, or humans, to animals don't. It just makes you look like you have some kind of racists view of people as subhuman that were slaves. It will never, in the eyes of anyone you're arguing with, make a decent argument that animals are on a level with people because, quiet frankly, they aren't. There are all kinds of compelling arguments for not eating animals, but denigrating other humans by even allowing the shadow of the implication that they are the same as animals, is not one of them.
If you choose to completely miss the point I was making about the flawed logic in the poster's argument, so be it. My analogy was spot on. And in no way was I comparing animals to slaves or vice versa. My point was that using the argument "people don't have a problem with it" as a reason to continue doing something is not a good argument.
I don't miss it, I ignore it because it comes off as horribly racist. A group of humans were bought and sold, and thought of as less than humans, and to add insult to injury, you're now awfully close to implying the sentiment is right because we do the same to animals.
There's a thousand other examples usable for appeal to tradition as fallacy. You had to pick the most distasteful one.
Actually YOU are the one implying the sentiment is right. I'm the one arguing that both are wrong, but you can't see through the chance at painting me as a racist to see the obvious point I'm trying to make.
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.0 -
-
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.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.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 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.
I would imagine it would be because just like not everyone in the US or anywhere else eats the same way, neither do all Mediterraneans. The diet itself has been defined though so it keeps it clearer. Just my opinion.0 -
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.0 -
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.
I agree with this. We appear to have evolved to eat other animals. It's just the way it is.
I think a question to ask is why would eating animals be morally wrong? It's part of the web of life. All animals eat other organisms whether it is plant, fungi, animal, or whatever. It's eat other living things or starve. Why is a chicken more precious than a potato or a bunch of peanuts?
That's the is-ought fallacy. A lot of things happen in nature, but it doesn't morally justify them.
The difference in consuming a chicken versus a potato is in the capacity to feel pain. A chicken most certainly feels pain, not like a human does, but it feels something. A potato might have some kind of reaction, but definitely not something akin to what what a chicken or human does.
I don't think there are morals attached to eating animals. We evolved to eat meat. I didn't say it should be that way. I said it is that way.
Plants do react to being cut or eaten or harvested. It just isn't in a way that we identify with well. I feel bad for animals who suffer or are killed cruelly, but not for having fed me. I feel similar, to a lesser degree, for plants who are wasted, and damaged, but not for those I eat.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 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.
There's a slightly subtle dig in it because of the fact that people joke about the paleo diet not really resembling how paleolithic people actual ate.
The Mediterranean diet is a diet recommended based on a broad set of research that ended up called the Mediterranean because several of the recommendations line up with diets followed by several Mediterranean cultures.
There are a few differences between the two as ideas though. Paleo romanticizes cave-men as having better health than modern people when they didn't. It then constructs a diet it claims is based on their diet and hunts for evidence to support it. The Mediterranean diet takes dietary recommendations from actual studies of epidemiological data. Mediterranean cultures tend to be long lived, and as such, the shape of the recommendations ends up resembling a blend of several traditional Mediterranean cultures cuisine, which left the researchers with a somewhat easier name than "Compiled Epidemiological Data Advocating High Monounsaturated Fats, Whole Foods, Low Red Meat Intake" diet. The difference being that if new research showed large amounts of Mediterranean people smoked, the diet wouldn't advocate that because there isn't evidence, no matter how Mediterranean it would seem. Meanwhile, if new research uncovers cavemen fought each other with bone and flint blades more than previously thought, they would be paleo CrossFit gyms looking to have people sign waivers for knife-fight WODs.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.
It's problematic, because people today don't think a reasonable argument can be made for slavery (I agree), and realize that some of the old arguments for slavery (that certain classes of humans aren't really the same as other humans, are inferior in some important way or not entitled to human rights or to be considered a person under the law) are not only wrong but rely on really terrible beliefs about human differences. When you suggest that the question of animal husbandry is as obvious as slavery, that is offensive, as obviously there are more differences between non-human animals and humans than between different groups of humans, such that including all humans as persons should be obvious and including animals (or certain animals) as such requires more of an argument.
It's also quite possible to distinguish between animals. I would not feel the same way about killing an ape as I would about killing a snail or a fish.
I happen to agree with the point that distinguishing between pigs and dogs (or cats) is purely cultural, of course.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions