Thoughts On Vegetarianism

[marksfish]

Heh...

Funny you should say that. After seeing the inside and outside of so many roos, it's the one meat I refuse to eat. If certified organic roo meat means it comes from a mangy old roo that was full of tapeworms and liverfluke, give me the hormone chicken any day...

It still makes me wonder when I see the vendors at the farmers market spruiking about 100% organic beef and lamb. First thing I ask them is if they drench...

nah i was just throwing out a couple of the new buzz words, however i do eat roo as well as other game i murder.

 

[technoicon]

I eat meat, but it also does annoy me when there is nothing vego on the menu..

 

[pk.sax]

@pcmfisher, re dog fed lettuce

lol, my cousin did that at a point and the dog absolutely loved cucumbers and mangoes, go figure. And it was a happy dog too, a german shepherd. I don't believe they are made to be pure veggos, but if the household is veg, the cruelty factor can be eliminated. The owner would have to be quite pro active about it, dogs aren't exactly as intelligent as us, it's almost like a mom feeding her young kid meat, he/she has no choice in the matter, isn't exactly built to be a dedicated meat eater, not much of a choice, can't really decide for themselves, but somehow, a choice is made for them and it also tends to stick with most of us for life.

 

[Ronin]

I could have sworn I read that you said it was absolutely ridiculous for anyone to eat meat if they were not prepared to pull the trigger.

Yep I do think that people should be aware that a steak actually came from somewhere. I fully recognise that people can do whatever they want and that the vast majority of people don't care and are happy living in ignorance as to how their steak arrived at their table.

I simply believe that if you are going to eat meat, show some empathy, respect and care to the creatures that you have killed. If you aren't the sort of person that can kill an animal, why are you eating it?

And regarding tradition, I don't believe tradition to be a good enough reason to do anything. Think for yourself dammit.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the first thing you do every morning at work is kill some rats for your days activities and then take the stand you have on not eating meat. Oh thats right you can rationalize it because you believe its truly essential.

You breed rats for experiments, sheep and cattle get bred for food.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up, and I did biomedical research for years before becoming vegetarian. It really does come down to what I consider to be more important, what is more necessary. More than that though, i know what I do at work every day. I have control over how the animals are treated, when the experiments end and how they die. I can tell you it is much more humane than some of the practices I have seen elsewhere. So yes I do rationalise it that way.

Is it more important that this society has antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants, chemotherapy, surgery, virtually any medical treatment that you can think of, or that I get to eat a steak?

It also comes back to what I was discussing earlier about minimising my impact. What would cause more deaths, my work combined with eating meat, or my work and being vegetarian. Making a small effort is much better than making no effort at all.

So yes, I believe one is necessary, and that one isn't. Call it ridiculous, call it hypocritical. Until the research is unnecessary then I'll try and reduce the deaths in my name any way I can.

Without our intervention none of these animals would have existed. We created them, we dispatch them. Not very warm and fuzzy but thats how it is.

Yes farming practices could be more humane and efficient and yes we should all eat less meat.

Guess what? It's a consumer driven market. They only are farmed because people eat meat. And they are only farmed intensively because people want the cheapest meat possible.

If you must eat meat, then at least buy the best meat you can, from people that you know are treating the animals well. Eat less of it if it costs more.

The last thing on my mind when I pick up a nice lump of t bone at the supermarket is whether I have the right to eat it just because I don't have the guts to kill it.

Maybe there is something to saying "grace" or "thanks" or whatever before a meal. Makes you just stop and think that you are lucky to have what you have and where it came from.

And you are killing it, whether you have the guts to or not. Consumer driven market.

As an aside,
A friend of a friend of mine is a vegan after being a huge meat eater all their life.
They have decided in their infinite wisdom that so should their dog be.
So the dog's diet now consists of lettuce, tomato, and the rest of the greenery that the owner eats.
Is that cruel??

yes, and stupid. A dog has a completely different digestive system to humans. They are optimised to eating meat with their short digestive tracts. We aren't.

James

 

[pk.sax]

Ps: aussies are almostntraditionally drinking VB and xxxx

Why are you brewing then!? lol, to put a fine point on it. And it's bought from the store by 'tradition', not home brewed. Mate, ur breaking with some traditions and never realising it. Get ur car keys by 'that' logic.

 

[technoicon]

i'm sorry but i have never, ever killed any animal. because i eat it does not mean i did. i means i accept that someone does, but i didnt. i'm fully happy with this.

*shit storm*

 

[schooey]

If you aren't the sort of person that can kill an animal, why are you eating it?

This is a statement that I have a problem with. It is not illegal. It's their choice. Me judging them for their choice would be no different to me judging your choice of employment and the ramifications of it.

Justify each however you like, but in essence it's the same thing...

 

[Ronin]

James, please take your seat mate and relax.

You start out arguing nutritional science and wind up lamenting animal mistreatment - obviously nobody wants that.

I'm talking eating animal product, nothing more.

Now I'm not about to do your homework for you, but I'll get you started with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

There's about 163 references to click on at the bottom from various non-partisan sources so you can get an idea where I'm coming from.

C'mon that was the most insulting post that someone could've posted. There's a difference between insulting and ribbing. Other people get it. Besides, entering a discussion with that sort of post hardly makes people take you seriously.

I almost always shudder when people quote wikipedia.

Anyway...I'm not sure what the paleolithic diet has to do with anything. ""there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."

I actually downloaded some of the cited journal articles (I can post some if you don't have access to them). Several of the diets had extremely low consumption of meat, several only including fish as a meat source (I'm talking about the islander diets) and they showed much lower levels of heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer.

I thought it was interesting that the genes for digesting lactose and salivary amylase (for digesting starches for those who are unsure) started appearing quite quickly (evolutionarily speaking) after the changes towards agrarian society.

There seems to be quite a bit of biologically solid criticism of the diet. Evolution happens from the moment that the environment changes. It is completely irrelevant how long the environment was stable before a change. 400-500 generations is more than enough time for genetic adaptations to occur.

And the paleolithic diet stops you drinking beer...that's out for me right there.

 

[Ronin]

i'm sorry but i have never, ever killed any animal. because i eat it does not mean i did. i means i accept that someone does, but i didnt. i'm fully happy with this.

*shit storm*

Lol :blink:

 

[JonnyAnchovy]

At the local taphouse in darlo. Guess who has their meeting here?

 

[AndrewQLD]

It was probably a small gathering of 3.

Do they have any friends?

I can understand their feelings but not their actions.

Andrew

 

[manticle]

Manticle. Is A Fuckwit.....someone who would say something like "I don't care, they're sheep"? I thought so.

But I never called anyone such, let's make that clear.

Articulate enough?

I'm a meat-eater who is moving on from this drivel.

My point was not about your opinion on whether someone else is a fuckwit - it was about civil discourse and disagreement as opposed to typing tough words.

Someone who considers people of different perspectives discussing their beliefs 'drivel' might think I'm wrong. Maybe you can add something useful to another discussion?

 

[bum]

Lucky you're here to tell everyone how they should conduct themselves.

 

[Dave70]

I actually downloaded some of the cited journal articles (I can post some if you don't have access to them). Several of the diets had extremely low consumption of meat, several only including fish as a meat source (I'm talking about the islander diets) and they showed much lower levels of heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer.

Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.

If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

 

[Dave70]

And the paleolithic diet stops you drinking beer...that's out for me right there.

Oops, let me address that one.

**** that.

 

[manticle]

Lucky you're here to tell everyone how they should conduct themselves.

Is that what you think I'm doing?

 

[manticle]

Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.

If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

I know this constitues ad hominem argument but from the bottom of that page we have this quote

"

Bible Life Healing Ministries
Our Nutritional Program Has Performed Healing Miracles
The proper diet for healing and health preservation is argued fiercely because this is a spiritual battle. Poor health and disease can be caused by believing the worldly myths, distortions, and lies about nutrition which have deceived most people. The following information should be studied carefully to reduce your risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and inflammatory bowel diseases. This information is healing people worldwide. You can also be healed. Please let us know about your success.​

Jerry S. from Augusta, Georgia writes, "Thank you for such a wonderful web site.... the nutrition pages opened my eyes to the truth - and saved my life!"​

Credibility is not high.

 

[Ronin]

Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.

If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

yep fish is meat, but it also made up a small part of their diet, much smaller than the typical westerners meat intake.

I did do a bit more than a quick skim of that wiki page.

OK, despite the fact that the reference cited was from biblelife.org which immediately makes me suspicious. "bible life healing ministries - Our Nutritional Program Has Performed Healing Miracles". Interesting...

But at face value, that doesn't impress me too much, especially when that article is on the same site as "doctors are the third leading cause of death", "why most published research findings are false" and "pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs. That as well as the massive medical disclaimer at the bottom of the page suggests this is not the most reputable source in the world.

Got any peer reviewed scientific journal articles from, say, this decade? Generally when trying to make a point with scientific literature it is recommended to use the most recent articles possible.

James

EDIT: Manticle beat me to it lol. yes credibility isn't the highest.

 

[Fourstar]

A dog has a completely different digestive system to humans. They are optimised to eating meat with their short digestive tracts. We aren't.

kinda on the same topic. i suggest anyone who thinks we should not be eating meat because our bodies are not designed for it or who think a raw food diet is an awesome idea... you might want to think again.

http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/program...-Human-Full-Ep/

One of the best docos ive seen in a long while. i so wish i could show this to my old housemate who was on a raw food diet and watch her backpedal into oblivion about how great a raw food diet* still is.

In a nutshell for me, fair treatment of animals is a must. A quick and instant death and a lifestyle that of which you would treat your own pets. Celebrate the animal by eating anything and everything you can. As manticle pointed in his first post, rearing your own animals for meat and taking only that of what you need is also one of my ultimate goals.

I cringe everytime i have to throw out a pack of free range chicken thighs i purchased on special becuase i didnt want it to go to waste. Then there are chickens that have been bred in cages smaller than a 30 block of VB only for their excessive breast size. Consequently this is what i ususally see next to my free range chicken in droves with special stickers all over them destined for the bin. Thats the upsetting part.

Also AFAIK hormone chickens dont exist in this country due to it not being legal. I think this is also why all chicken farm orgs such as ingham, lionica etc ride on the back of their 'hormone free' statements as its an industry misconception. Also, the breasts of these checkens are not big becuase of hormones, its because its an engineered chicken from x-breeding.

I suggest you all watch food inc, everyone will take something away from it.

Cheers.

* if i still had to listen to the sound of a f*cking blender at 6 in the morning every freakin morning to make her gawd-forsaken 'super food' smoothies^, im sure she would be in a shallow ditch on the side of the Hume Hwy by now.

^ because of her, i now have a strong aversion to the word... smoothie. *shudder* Its no longer in my vocabulary except for referencing it in this story.

 

[Dave70]

Got any peer reviewed scientific journal articles from, say, this decade? Generally when trying to make a point with scientific literature it is recommended to use the most recent articles possible.

James

EDIT: Manticle beat me to it lol. yes credibility isn't the highest.

Yeah, the God bothering adjunct is a worry, but as far as I know, the article is legit.


I'm sure you are clever enough to do your own research on the topic, I'll assume it's sparked your interest otherwise you would have dismissed it out of hand.

Anyway, here you go

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=sch...amp;oi=scholart

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en...o=&as_vis=1