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?

1232426282938

Replies

  • candacet36
    candacet36 Posts: 353 Member
    As long as there is moderation is ALL things you can be healthy. If you have one cupcake that does not mean you are not healthy. If you have a steak SAME. I LOVE MEAT but I also know I need the balance of grains, veggies, dairy, fruit, etc
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    @senecarr if urban density were the factor, there should be a correlation. Let's take Texas.

    [snip]

    I would suggest also that people who live in suburbs and depend on personal vehicles to get to work and to shopping, are more likely to be sedentary than people living in dense urban areas where a lot of amenities might be in walking distance.

    As a prairie girl I was stunned to find out that in Manhattan, Broadway is a block off Times Square and the entire freaking island is walkable.

    This supports his point, doesn't it? Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio (and their suburbs) all appear to be seas of thinness, if the light blue is the thin end of the scale.

    What map are you looking at? Dallas County, Houston County are mid to dark blue as I'd expect. I've lived both places. Neither city is walkable (exception Houston Medical area and Rice University) - amenities are too far apart so you drive everywhere. On the other hand, Dallas has an pretty decent run/walk/bike trail system and it gets pretty good use.

    Austin County is light blue. It's a lot more walkable - University of Texas is huge, and there are a lot of arts and shopping districts with groceries, farmer's markets, etc. A decent population of casual walkers and bicyclists. Having a problem finding San Antonio for some reason, but I'd expect it to be between Austin and the rest. More walkable with the River Walk area, but the few times I've visited it seemed amenities were pretty spread out, too.

    It's not the population density that determines a city's walkability, it's the density of amenities - nearness of home to work to shopping, etc.

    Sorry, I should have specified "metro area." I don't know Texas, but I was expecting with the population boom in these cities that many of the transplants are spilling over into other counties. For Houston, I was looking at the 3 counties to the south, with the assumption that those include some bedroom communities; for Dallas, the counties marked TAR, DEN and CON; and the both Austin and San Antonio at the south end are encompassed by that swath of light blue. I don't know how the suburb situation actually lays out, however, and again, there is a lot of potential influence by race and class as well.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    I don't know if you noticed, @jmbmilholland , but light blue means "better".
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    edited March 2016
    @jmbmilholland here's a racial dot map of texas.
    zxa4y6f8hsbm.jpg

    http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/

    My Canadian sensibilities are tingling. We'd more likely call this ethnic origin here in Canada. And I'd rather look at poverty as being a factor rather than bone structure. Because "race" really, isn't more than skin deep is it? (Other than such things as sickle cell anemia).

    From this map I've got to say that Dallas and Houston are rainbows. Does this indicate a cosmopolitan society or dense communities side by each?
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Compare this to a zoomed up picture of New York. I oriented myself to Central park (the rectangle in the middle).
    jrwccm7y83n8.jpg

    I can see that most of southern Manhattan is white, the dividing line, and Hispanic and Black Harlem directly north of Central Park.
  • daynaxxanne
    daynaxxanne Posts: 77 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.
  • Gyp5y2
    Gyp5y2 Posts: 4 Member
    Been veggie for the last 2 years for ethical reasons and have to say I feel a whole load cleaner, plus not flossing dead animal out of my teeth is a bonus. Since being on MFP I've lost 20lbs though can't put that down solely to not eating meat, I do believe it's helped but it's more due to portion size and exercise.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Responding to the demographic stuff in the other thread.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?
  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,646 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Measurable cognition and reasoning skills as well as the ability to make decisions and rationalize.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited March 2016
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    I don't know if that is a question for vegans or a question for everyone.

    It isn't just vegans who expect humans to avoid certain types of behavior that are common among other species. Male lions will kill the young fathered by other males. It isn't just vegans who disapprove of humans who follow the same practice. In many species, mating appears to take place regardless of whether or not the female wants it to happen. But we're perfectly comfortable, most of us, in rejecting this type of behavior in humans (non-vegans too). We're already holding humans to a different standard -- even when veganism isn't part of the discussion.

    Since most of the people on earth who reject things like killing children and forced sex aren't vegan, I guess you could ask your fellow non-vegans that question. Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Measurable cognition and reasoning skills as well as the ability to make decisions and rationalize.

    So measureable cogniition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions and rationalize = holding a creature to an ethical standard?

    Does a chimpanzee have measurable cognition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions? I'm going to guess that it's difficult to determine whether the chimp can rationalize, but assuming it can make that leap, why would we treat humanity different from a chimp? Dolphins? Pigs? Whales? Dogs?
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    I do hold humanity to a different standard due to our ability to exercise moral reasoning and make decisions. I don't expect by that standard that everyone will reach the same conclusion -- we haven't done that in other areas of ethics, so expecting it around how we treat those of other species would be ridiculous.

    But my recognition of the fact that humans have moral reasoning and can make decisions (unlike animals, at least based on what we know of animal cognition today) isn't a vegan thing. Most of us understand that humans are capable of decisions that animals likely aren't -- that's why we punish humans who do certain things and we don't punish animals who do the same things.