3 of 12
3
Red Meat Is Good For You!
Posted: 26 February 2011 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  491
Joined  2008-02-25
BFH - 26 February 2011 10:20 AM
brightfut - 25 February 2011 07:33 PM

Vegans have to be careful not to sound sanctimonious.  If they do, they are setting themselves up as targets for mockery.

That could be said about anybody. Skeptics. Atheists. Non-smokers. Anybody who has a cause, anybody speaking against a status quo.

Geez, is that what I sound like when as a skeptic I speak out against the status quo?  I might have to stop.  I don’t think I would sound sanctimonious if I was attacking creationists because evolution vs creationism is not a strong moral issue.  To sound sanctimonious one needs a strong tone of moral righteousness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
Phi- - 26 February 2011 01:03 PM
BFH - 26 February 2011 10:35 AM
Phi- - 26 February 2011 10:29 AM

We drink their milk because we feed them, and we have the right to do it. It’s a relationship based on give-and-take, they call it a Symbiotic relationship in Biology.

No, we do not have a right, and symbiosis implies a relationship based on either survival or essential benefits. Cow milk is not an essential benefit for human beings, and cows do not need human intervention to survive. Being harvested is not their natural state.

I think it’s sir , where do you suggest human beings will get their daily dose of Calcium from? . In addition , cows can survive on their own but when they rely on human intervention then it’s our own right to take their milk.

Tofu, soybeans, some leafy greens have some calcium.  As I said, I do drink milk and eat cheese, but you can get calcium from other sources.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2011-02-20
brightfut - 26 February 2011 01:29 PM

Geez, is that what I sound like when as a skeptic I speak out against the status quo?  I might have to stop.  I don’t think I would sound sanctimonious if I was attacking creationists because evolution vs creationism is not a strong moral issue.  To sound sanctimonious one needs a strong tone of moral righteousness.

No! Not you! Just saying that being sanctimonious, kind of like iron deficiency, isn’t anything exclusive to vegans. Yes, the definition of sanctimony has to do with piousness, but also being devout. One could be so devout a skeptic that they are overbearing, just like a militant vegan, or a fundamentalist Christian. Humans, man. Humans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
BFH - 26 February 2011 05:21 PM
brightfut - 26 February 2011 01:29 PM

Geez, is that what I sound like when as a skeptic I speak out against the status quo?  I might have to stop.  I don’t think I would sound sanctimonious if I was attacking creationists because evolution vs creationism is not a strong moral issue.  To sound sanctimonious one needs a strong tone of moral righteousness.

No! Not you! Just saying that being sanctimonious, kind of like iron deficiency, isn’t anything exclusive to vegans. Yes, the definition of sanctimony has to do with piousness, but also being devout. One could be so devout a skeptic that they are overbearing, just like a militant vegan, or a fundamentalist Christian. Humans, man. Humans.

Well, as I tell my furry children, who are cats, there are good humans and bad humans, but not everyone who ascribes to a curtain philosophy is militant.  I go out to eat with my meat eating friend and even have dinner at their homes.  They know I do not eat meat and try to cater to my diet, some even know and accept why I am a vegetarian, but I do not believe in imposing my views on anyone.  I don’t sit there, while we eat dinner together and tell them why they are wrong to eat meat.  I don’t sit there and tell them they killed a sentient lifeform that was just as much a part of the earth as they are.  I keep my thoughts about it, if they occur, to myself and allow them to enjoy their meal with good intellectual conversation other than the meat they are eating was once living etc.  It serves no purpose to ruin a perfectly good meal with friends by condemning them for eating meat.  Now, if they start saying stupid stuff like the Bile says not eating meat is a sin and other crap like that… well they just ended a potentially good friendship and a good meal, not to mention that I may very well give them a piece of my mind also.  There’s a difference in that approach and if they start something stupid, then that’s it.  I get along very well my friends who eat meat, despite the fact that I don’t.  Part of my philosophy is not to impose my views on others.  Which leads me to the question, BFH, although you didn’t exactly start this thread, but don’t you think it is a bit imposing to say things like “No, we do not have the right” and alike?  Of course, there are those who have made snide remarks such as “Vegans smell funny”, which I thought was out of line also, so I won’t pick on just you, given those things.  The fact is, we as vegetarians or vegans are not going to change the minds of those who truly believe they need meat in order to live and they are not going to change our minds either.  Those who make snide remarks about us, don’t want to hear why we don’t eat meat, so it’s not going to do us any good to fight back with similar comments.

The way I see it, if they were to ask the right questions in an honest and inquisitive manner, truly wanting to know why we do not eat meat, then that is the time to share with them in a polite manner as to why we do not eat meat.  However, not every vegetarian and vegan is going to give the same answer as to why anymore than every humanist is going to give the same definition as to what humanism is.  Our responses may overlap in some areas, but they will not be exactly the same and your personal and passionate reasons for being a vegan are not going to be exactly the same as mine or Brennen’s. Even Brennen and I have our areas of differences and similarities when it comes to our vegetarianism.  There is one thing we do share, and quite passionately, I might add, and that is our love and compassion for other animals.  However, I am willing to bet there are meat eaters who would be just as repulsed as we are about eating animals in general, if someone were to suggest to them eating Bonobo meat.  So there you go.  Once they understand why they are repulsed by the suggestion of eating Bonobos, then maybe they will have some understanding of us, but I do not think we should hit them over the head with it.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4297
Joined  2010-08-15
BFH - 26 February 2011 10:35 AM

cows do not need human intervention to survive. Being harvested is not their natural state.

I don’t mean to take one side or the other but after hundreds, thousands of generations of breeding and domestication ~ cows do depend on us and would not last in a natural state, if that natural state included predators and other natural hazards.

Mckenzievmd, our vet, can correct me if I’m way off on that.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20
BFH - 26 February 2011 10:20 AM
jump_in_the_pit - 25 February 2011 02:15 PM

Ethically, that’s just favoring the animal species over the plant species which is just cherry-picking in my eyes…

Plants are not sentient.

Oh that old thing!  I haven’t seen that argument in years.  I gave up on it so long ago.  I don’t nit-pick the difference between intelligent life, sentient life, what is life called if it isn’t either of those?  What do those words mean anyway?  To use words like those you’d first have to define them, please.

Instead of dealing with that mess I just act broad-minded instead.  I respect all life.  Whether broccoli, cow, insect, bacteria, or else.  Respect them, defend their eisistance, and never act wastful or unappreciative of them.  Some creatures that I don’t think have their own life are: viruses, fetus, and the Free Market, the god of Abraham.  Without life, I don’t defend them.  There is also a food chain, where life feeds on life.  This sustains us, and I don’t believe in the George Jetson fantasy of popping pills for dinner, so I don’t expect this to change.  I accept the food chain beneath me, fight the food chain above me.  I struggled with respect for all life balanced against the need for food and came to that conclusion as a child.  I respect the creaters below and want them to have a decent life, and a quick and humane kill.

I don’t have much respect for the intelligence, or sentient divisions, that’s just cherry-picking in my eyes.  All life matters.

BFH - 26 February 2011 10:20 AM
jump_in_the_pit - 25 February 2011 02:15 PM

...but the nutrition isn’t quite there… B-12, iron, and others are low or absent.

This is a myth.

Can you give me a source for that?  What do you think of Pollan’s books?  My source was user Occam, I was just repeating him.  Yeah I notice that when I’ve failed the iron test at the blood center they recommend many vegetable sources… I don’t remember seeing meat mentioned.

BFH - 26 February 2011 10:20 AM

A better question would be, what’s the point of drinking [milk]? Humans are the only species who drinks milk from other mammals.

Basically taking milk from animals is stealing food from babies.  At its heart it is a dirty practice.  The milk is hard to keep fresh without refrigeration.  But it is a very old practice that some humans have evolved to eat as adults.  On the good side, it is a good source of protein and calcium.  It gives us a food that we don’t have to kill for.  We have methods of pulling lots of milk from cows which compounds the benefits.

——————————————————————-

citizenschallenge.pm - 26 February 2011 06:17 PM

... after hundreds, thousands of generations of breeding and domestication ~

... domesticated pigs were brought to America, released to the wild, and evolved into boars, mean attitude with tusks.  They live on in the wild, why can’t cows?

——————————————————————————————

A couple of women told me they prefer vegetarian men because they teaste better (sweeter) in the bedroom.

[ Edited: 27 February 2011 05:43 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2011 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

One big flaw in the meat eater’s logic is the moment of departure.  How many of you eat meat?  How many have provided for an animal’s departure?  We all know that comparing the number of meat eaters to those departure providers (DPs), the numbers would be severely imbalanced.  wink  There’s something wrong with that, to say the least.

On the plant side of the bush of life, people usually think nothing of providing their departures.  But they are such an important and foundational part of life, that branch gives us our oxygen.  Nonchalant departures for something like a broccoli is ordinary.

On the bacteria side of the bush, I doubt we even aware when those depart, but we know enough science to say that we’re providing their departure by the thousands regularly.

I suppose that science has tried to test sentience, they have the mirror test where they show an animal a mirror to see if they recognize themselves, to see if they are self-aware.  If anyone wants to make the mirror test the standard of sentience, where all sentient are off limits and the rest are fair game, I doubt that that would pan out very well in the end.

[ Edited: 28 February 2011 08:14 AM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2011 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2011-02-20

I have to make one concession - B12 deficiency is a risk for vegans. However, as long as they’re getting it in fortified foods or a vitamin supplement, then they’re not more at risk than meat-eaters.

http://www.veganhealth.org has some great articles.

Vitamin b12 - are you getting it?
Whate very vegan should know about b12

Here is the info on iron: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/iron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

And so if the vegetarians likely won’t get all their nutrients, an inferior diet, having the need to make the drastic move from relying on food to relying on food with supplements, and they continue to eat vegetarian style…

And so if the meat-eaters likely aren’t willing to do their DP responsibilities for all the animals that they want as food, including fish, chickens, sheep, pigs, cows, etc., and they continue to eat broadly…

Then we can all join together, moving forward with eating our meals, attempting to gather complete variety of nutrients, each and every one of us being less than logical, less than reasonable, hungry, and happy that we are together.  smile  LOL  Is that reasonable enough for everyone to get together and be friendly?

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2011-02-20

Sorry, Jump, but no… that first part just isn’t true. Vegetarians and vegans really aren’t in a position where they’re more likely to get less nutrients than meat-eaters. They’re more likely to eat foods that are good for you, seeking out those nutrients, than meat-eaters. Which isn’t to say there aren’t healthy meat-eaters, but that the Western diet - really, the American diet - is making people obese and unhealthy.

I’m not really willing to be happy about people killing animals and consuming their flesh. I find it barbaric and cruel. I am going to continue to be open about my veganism, whether it’s in an internet post where appropriate, or going out as part of a vegan outreach to speak to people.

[ Edited: 05 March 2011 11:46 AM by BFH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

Good response, Jump_in_the _Pit.  Perhaps we can agree that the considered diet is, if not the best by some universal measure, is the most valid. 

I eat a little meat, I try to be very conscious of it.  In my younger days I killed cattle and poultry, and raised hogs for slaughter.  I agree, vehemently, with the idea that people can not eat meat ethically or without hypocrisy unless they are at least fully aware of the process involved, and, optimally, have participated in it. If I got to be god, I’d make everyone who wanted to be able to eat meat work on the killing floor of a slaughter house for a day or two, but not long enough to be desensitized, only then they’d get their meat eating license, (if they still wanted one). 

Having said that, I think the choice of a carnivorous or vegetarian diet marks a fascinating point in our development.  There is clear evidence that we evolved from meat eating ancestors. I’ve even seen it argued that a carnivorous diet made it possible for for us to develop our larger brains.  Mriana’s cats, to exist in a natural, or wild, state must eat meat.  Their digestive systems can’t function without it.  It would be ridiculous to suggest it was immoral or unethical for them to chew on chipmunks. So, I think it would be hard to defend the idea that it’s “unnatural” for us to eat meat.  But, while eating other animals may have made it possible to rise to our current level of sentience, (let’s hope we haven’t peaked), the resulting intelligence has made it possible and important to evaluate the ethical issues. 

This is wonderful.  This is the point where we can depart from the raging,“red in tooth and claw”, battle for survival in a “natural” world.  If we can make choices about the misery our “natural” diet causes other life forms, can’t we try and make choices about how we exercise our other “natural proclivities”?  If we can decide what we want to eat, and have the technology to create a diet that is complete and healthy without causing misery to other life forms, can we apply that same mindset to defending ourselves, or managing essential resources, or reproduction.  I’m going to embarrass myself by being ridiculously optimistic and say that, figuratively speaking, we may be coming in sight of the gates of Eden.

Tear me up.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20
Jeciron - 05 March 2011 09:17 AM

In my younger days I killed cattle and poultry, and raised hogs for slaughter.  I agree, vehemently, with the idea that people can not eat meat ethically or without hypocrisy unless they are at least fully aware of the process involved, and, optimally, have participated in it.

I didn’t want to use the H word, but there it is, glaringly bright.  I was trying to be delicate about the DP responsibilities, someone has to do it!  If you want that burger, then someone must go go commando on old Bessy.  It’s sad but true.  I’m just trying to give the issue some more air, it gets swept under the rug so readily. 

And I’m no exception, I think cows are cute, DP duty sounds appauling to me.  I’ve only served DP duty for the little ones, insects, fish, etc.  Uuggh, I feel awful, having enjoyed all those chops and breasts and having never visited the ol’ slaughter house, while young people take the responsibility like Jeciron did.  Its the big H for me, just to be honest here.

BFH - 05 March 2011 08:31 AM

[Vegetarians and vegans are] more likely to eat foods that are good for you, seeking out those nutrients, than meat-eaters. 

I doubt that vegetarians are more likely to have complete nutrition than meat-eaters, I’ve seen them eat the junky pastries, frozen foods, soy burgers, etc.  And keep the vitamin issues above in mind.  I’ve been quite honest, now Brodie will you be honest?  The vegetarian diet has some limits, you agreed to that earlier. 

Sentience, I used to believe as a child, but had to give it up.  There is still no testable definition of sentient, and so drawing a line between sentient and non-sentient creatures is invalid.  The mirror test won’t work for… say… a green onion.  Without a test, sentience is just a belief, like a religion.  Without that sentient religion and its line, then we just have a wide variety of life-forms, equal rights to them all.  DP duty for one creature becomes no different than DP duty for another.  So, a seed’s departure and a calf’s are morally equal,  Hummus and burgers are morally equal.  Just be honest, Brodie.

[ Edited: 05 March 2011 12:01 PM by jump_in_the_pit ]
 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2011-02-20
jump_in_the_pit - 05 March 2011 11:53 AM

I doubt that vegetarians are more likely to have complete nutrition than meat-eaters, I’ve seen them eat the junky pastries, frozen foods, soy burgers, etc.

You’ve seen some vegans eat “junk food.” But that’s anecdotal.

jump_in_the_pit - 05 March 2011 11:53 AM

And keep the vitamin issues above in mind.  I’ve been quite honest, now Brodie will you be honest?  The vegetarian diet has some limits, you agreed to that earlier.

No, I did not say it has some limits. I agreed that vegans are susceptible to B12 deficiency, but with fortified foods and vitamins, not any more so than omnivores.

Animal fats and proteins lead to obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer. A plant-based diet is healthier.

jump_in_the_pit - 05 March 2011 11:53 AM

Sentience, I used to believe as a child, but had to give it up.

The argument that vegans are murdering plants and grains is completely absurd. Plants are not sentient. That is not a matter of philosophical debate, it is a scientific fact. Common sense should help you make the distinction between slaughtering a pig and eating a peanut. It actually wouldn’t matter since veganism is about not eating animals, it’s not about not eating “sentient life.” Fetuses and the brain dead aren’t sentient, but I wouldn’t eat them, either.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

While using the term “slaughtering” is completely correct it somehow seems a little prejudicial in this discussion.  The term is so often associated with the idea of rape and pillage.  It carries a suggestion of malice.  I’d rather use some other term,” harvest”, comes to mind, but even” kill” works better for me. 

I can understand the how sentience is an important, but very fuzzy issue.  I’d casually smash a mosquito that draws a tiny droplet of my blood, but think it would be a monstrous over reaction to treat a cat that gave me an equivalent scratch the same way.  I’d guess that in making that decision I’m drawing on my intuitive understanding of sentience.  And while my knee jerk, unresearched, definition of sentient would have to do with the ability of an organism to understand and react to its environment, the plants in my yard pretty clearly, in a vegetative sort of way, understand and react to the conditions of the soil in a way I never would be able to.

Until we’re synthesizing our food directly from the periodic table of elements, we’re going to be killing organisms to survive, (although I understand that some people try to exist solely on fruit*).  I’ve less reservations about eating the flesh of an animal, raised and killed in the most humane, sustainable manner that we are capable of, than eating a potato grown in some soil depleting, environmentally toxic way.

*So, for a fruitarian to eat an apple ethically, shouldn’t they eat the seeds, being careful not to crush any of them, and then carefully excrete them, (after an appropriate passage through their digestive system), in a potentially fertile setting?  Trying to eat totally consciously could raise some potentially embarrassing issues.  What are the neighbors going to think? My yards not all that big and I think there may be an ordinance.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2011 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I can see valid arguments (based on different personal premises) on both sides, but what fascinates me is that many people act the same way as do theists and nontheists. They put down what the others eat, one side calls the other, kooks and the other side responds that the others are unethical. One side prosletyzes and the other tries to get the first to eat, “just a bit” of meat or slips it into food.

Interesting human behavior.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 12
3