|
Post by Tiffany on May 10, 2010 19:44:00 GMT -5
Personally, I'm not a vegetarian. I like meat. I don't support how people kill animals inhumanely to get that meat, but I like the meat and eat it for protein (and yes, I know as mentioned before that you can get protein from non-meat sources, but they're usually foods that I don't like, and you have to eat a lot of them. Not a good combination).
[This paragraph specifically regards the reason why I don't think it's wrong to eat meat from the argument of "Killing Animals is Wrong." Note that this isn't refering to the way they're killed.] From a Catholic (and quite possibly a little biased) standpoint, God made animals for our use. Either way, if we kept the animals around and didn't use them, they would overpopulate and end up dying anyways. I don't support the way they're killed (we could probably find a better, more humane way), but I don't think that killing them is wrong. Also, animals supposedly have no soul.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on May 10, 2010 20:18:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry if this has already been addressed as I only read about half the first page, but this is incorrect. Protein gives you access to the essential Amino Acids. You are able to get these amino acids through vegetables, but you have to be aware of them and plan multiple meals or very large meals almost always consisting of beans to get them. If you practice temperance then you can eat enough vegetables to get the benefits they offer as well as enough meat to get the benefits that meat offers. There really is no dietary reason to be vegetarian, just moral reasons. You should read a book called, "Eat to Live" Good Day After a quick google search it seems that Eat to Live is written primarily for losing weight and written secondarily for actual health benefits. I once again say temperance and would venture to say that you can be far healthier if you eat meat alongside vegetables in a balanced diet. You can get your essential Amino Acids as well as all of the nutrients you need. All the symptom's I am seeing that the diet in Eat to Live is supposed to cure can be avoided if you don't overeat.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 10, 2010 21:58:50 GMT -5
You should read a book called, "Eat to Live" Good Day After a quick google search it seems that Eat to Live is written primarily for losing weight and written secondarily for actual health benefits. I once again say temperance and would venture to say that you can be far healthier if you eat meat alongside vegetables in a balanced diet. You can get your essential Amino Acids as well as all of the nutrients you need. All the symptom's I am seeing that the diet in Eat to Live is supposed to cure can be avoided if you don't overeat. I thought it was just a book about weight loss, too. I was wrong. I was given an education!
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 5:32:49 GMT -5
One of the key arguments that isn't based on "Oh noes teh animalzz" is one of climate change and land use. There are two arguments against faming animals when it comes to climate change. Firstly, animal farming uses around times times as much land per unit mass of food created as farming plants does. In a world with a growing population, to know that we can free up nine tenths of every cattle, sheep and pig farm but not actually do it just because we like the taste seems silly. Secondly, there's the cow farts. Sounds silly I know, but cows create a lot of methane and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. 25 times more powerful.
I gotta dash, but I think those are the best arguments.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 11:35:58 GMT -5
One of the key arguments that isn't based on "Oh noes teh animalzz" is one of climate change and land use. There are two arguments against faming animals when it comes to climate change. Firstly, animal farming uses around times times as much land per unit mass of food created as farming plants does. In a world with a growing population, to know that we can free up nine tenths of every cattle, sheep and pig farm but not actually do it just because we like the taste seems silly. Secondly, there's the cow farts. Sounds silly I know, but cows create a lot of methane and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. 25 times more powerful. I gotta dash, but I think those are the best arguments. THESE are the valid arguments for global vegetarianism. Meat farming is all-in-all an environmentally irresponsible business. Excess land use, greenhouse gases, etc. The argument that vegetarianism is inherently healthier is only partially true. It all just depends on how you do it. An omnivore could be just as healthy as a vegetarian, given the proper dietary choices. As long as we can agree on that, we can agree that health concerns are not in and of themselves a valid argument for vegetarianism. The moral dilemma is, however, to an extent, valid. The problem is, it is only valid on a personal level, not on a global level. You can't rightfully argue that eating meat is wrong when we are decidely creatures whom were designed to eat meat. This isn't to say that I agree with the biblical interpretation of animals that states that they were placed here solely for our use. I believe we have the right to eat a cow the same way a wolf has the right to eat a human. If it is humane and for dietary purposes, animals are fair game. In that vein, we have some work to do, as the current meat production industry is less than wholesome. The problem they face is acheiving a balance between efficiency and kindness to animals. Most modern executions are carries out by air bullet, which is extremely humane. However, often times the living conditions are the major issue, as the animals are kept in cramped cages for their entire lives, pumped with supplements and hormones. If you dislike this treatment method to the point where you give up meat for it, then more power to you. I, however, will continue to eat meat and instead advocate food industry reforms regarding the matter. (I apologize for the lack of coherent formatting; phone post)
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on May 12, 2010 15:04:25 GMT -5
After a quick google search it seems that Eat to Live is written primarily for losing weight and written secondarily for actual health benefits. I once again say temperance and would venture to say that you can be far healthier if you eat meat alongside vegetables in a balanced diet. You can get your essential Amino Acids as well as all of the nutrients you need. All the symptom's I am seeing that the diet in Eat to Live is supposed to cure can be avoided if you don't overeat. I thought it was just a book about weight loss, too. I was wrong. I was given an education! You're not even making an argument. Instead of addressing the points I made with your knowledge from the book you supposedly read you instead referenced said book. When I did research on the book and commented on that you made a straw man ad hominum argument. On the other issues, those are definitely more valid. However, we are greedy creatures, as human beings. We do not need that extra land as it would serve no purpose. We currently have the resources to end global hunger, we just don't want to spend the money or effort. Having more land would only accomplish an overproduction and inflation of the farming market which is definitely not what we want. Also, on the methane, it will still occur weather or not we breed them, although it could be argued that our breeding produces more cows and, therefore, more methane, but hardly enough to make a noticeable difference I'm assuming, especially since methane isn't actually as bad as people think. It is bad, definitely, but water vapor traps more radiation than methane.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 15:57:56 GMT -5
I thought it was just a book about weight loss, too. I was wrong. I was given an education! You're not even making an argument. Instead of addressing the points I made with your knowledge from the book you supposedly read you instead referenced said book. When I did research on the book and commented on that you made a straw man ad hominum argument. On the other issues, those are definitely more valid. However, we are greedy creatures, as human beings. We do not need that extra land as it would serve no purpose. We currently have the resources to end global hunger, we just don't want to spend the money or effort. Having more land would only accomplish an overproduction and inflation of the farming market which is definitely not what we want. Also, on the methane, it will still occur weather or not we breed them, although it could be argued that our breeding produces more cows and, therefore, more methane, but hardly enough to make a noticeable difference I'm assuming, especially since methane isn't actually as bad as people think. It is bad, definitely, but water vapor traps more radiation than methane. In short, no it doesn't. In cows alone, we slaughter over 850,000,000 cows annually worldwide. The large amount of methane cows produce has 72 times more greenhouse effect per liter than CO2. Water vapor does indeed mediate radiation, but the amount of water vapor in the air is relatively constant, and based solely on atmospheric temperature. By releasing more water vapor into the air, we do not contribute to global warming. If cows roamed naturally, there would not be 8.5 billion cows over the course of a decade. As a matter of fact, if the modern dairy cow roamed naturally, it would probably be wiped out rather quickly, as it is not adapted to survive the apex predators that would inevitably share its habitat. Therefore, our intense cattle farming does contribute in a very noteworthy manner to global warming. As to the matter of the land we'd free up, who said it has to be used for farming expansion? We have a population density crisis on our hands globally, and that land could be converted to a residential area, or even back into the forests from which it was originally converted. To make it clear, I am a meat lover, and do not think we should wipe out the cattle industry, I just think ethical/environmental vegetarians legitimate concerns should be recognized.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 18:16:03 GMT -5
The 72 times more powerful per litre is a scare tactic figure. More accurate would be per unit mass, which is 30. Still, more than enough reason to switch to Llama farming.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 18:19:14 GMT -5
Yes, when we're talking in 10's of times more powerful than CO2 in retaining radiation, the exact amount is superfluous, clearly an alternative would be preferable. XD
EDIT: Where do you find that it's a scare tactic figure? All research I can find gives Methane gas a GWP of 72, which is our only standardized baseline for greenhouse gases that I'm aware of.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 18:24:59 GMT -5
Swings and roundabouts really. Given that we measure most of our emission in mass I figure it would be more prudent to give their potency in a related measurement. Also I wanted to kick-start a discussion with you since you're quite a good sparring partner.
EDIT: Not sure where I got the idea from that 30 was per unit mass. It's the number I'm getting from all the populist science articles and seemed the only alternative measurement to volume. Plus with methane being a denser gas than carbon dioxide, seems logical.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 19:11:54 GMT -5
Yeah, maybe my jump to "liter" wasn't exactly appropriate. I did that mostly because that is an easily conceivable measurement of a gas, but more specifically its 72 times more potent per equivalent "unit" of methane to CO2.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 12, 2010 20:12:39 GMT -5
Did you guys know that 60 percent of statistics are made on the spot?
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 20:47:38 GMT -5
72%, actually. ;P
|
|
jaw
Moon
Oh yeah!
Posts: 154
|
Post by jaw on May 12, 2010 20:56:43 GMT -5
From a religious point of view: In Genesis God told us to eat meat, so if you're Christian or Jewish, as most North Americans are, you can't say you think it's wrong. Those two ideas totally contradict eachother. You may be grossed out by it, or not like it, or just don't want to eat it. But it bothers me when people point to the Bible as a reason for their vegetarianism. Extremely false. Originally God made just Adam and the Garden, so they were actually supposed to be fruitarians. God made animals to cheer up Adam because Adam was feeling lonely, he did not make animals to eat. Eventually he made Eve from Adam's rib, which then stopped him from being lonely. I've been vegetarian for about 2 months or so (No chicken, steak, or fish). It's great actually. I've noticed that I'm falling asleep in class less often lol, and I'm losing a little bit a weight (I kinda need to haha). I went vegetarian for animal cruelty, health benefits, and I honestly wanted to try something different. Why eat meat when there's a substitute that tastes exactly the same, is healthier, and does not require you to kill an animal? Just thought I'd throw it in there (Sorry if I sound like one of those asshole vegetarians thinking they're better than other people, it's not intentional, and I honestly don't care what you personally eat.) I Forgot to add that being a vegetarian is actually very environmentally friendly. It takes 300 gallons of water a day to make vegetarian food, but it takes 4,000 gallons of water a day to make meat-eater food. ( www.alternet.org/water/134650/the_startling_effects_of_going_vegetarian_for_just_one_day/) Great facts in there. Here are some "Globally, we feed 756 million tons of grain to farmed animals. As Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer notes in his new book, if we fed that grain to the 1.4 billion people who are living in abject poverty, each of them would be provided more than half a ton of grain, or about 3 pounds of grain/day -- that's twice the grain they would need to survive." "According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads"
|
|
|
Post by Tiffany on May 12, 2010 21:18:16 GMT -5
From a religious point of view: In Genesis God told us to eat meat, so if you're Christian or Jewish, as most North Americans are, you can't say you think it's wrong. Those two ideas totally contradict eachother. You may be grossed out by it, or not like it, or just don't want to eat it. But it bothers me when people point to the Bible as a reason for their vegetarianism. Extremely false. Originally God made just Adam and the Garden, so they were actually supposed to be fruitarians. God made animals to cheer up Adam because Adam was feeling lonely, he did not make animals to eat. Eventually he made Eve from Adam's rib, which then stopped him from being lonely. It's not extremely false, but you can argue it. It says in the Bible: "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image and likeness. And let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the tame animals, over all the earth, and over all the small crawling animals on the earth.'" Genesis 1:26 So basically God gave us rule over animals (which means he's fine with us eating meat), but I don't think he wants us to torture the poor creatures
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 13, 2010 6:14:45 GMT -5
All valid points. Yes, meat harvesting is not incredibly ecologically friendly. And also true is that often times the animals are not treated very respectfully before we slaughter them.
I CANNOT however agree that meat substitute is just as good as meat. My girlfriend is a vegetarian, so I've encountered more than my fair share of pseudo-meats, and I've never encountered one that I enjoy nearly as much as good ole beef. XP
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 13, 2010 9:13:55 GMT -5
What about animal-less lab meat? What do you all think of that stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 13, 2010 9:54:47 GMT -5
What about animal-less lab meat? What do you all think of that stuff? Expensive "Meat" is expensive. Why can't we just eat as vegetarians the natural way? Also, Morning star burgers = AWESOMELY DELICIOUS FAKE BURGERS
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on May 13, 2010 10:14:14 GMT -5
??????????????????????
|
|
kshults
Meteor
Teach me what you can
Posts: 73
|
Post by kshults on May 13, 2010 10:15:17 GMT -5
Extremely false. Originally God made just Adam and the Garden, so they were actually supposed to be fruitarians. God made animals to cheer up Adam because Adam was feeling lonely, he did not make animals to eat. Eventually he made Eve from Adam's rib, which then stopped him from being lonely. It's not extremely false, but you can argue it. It says in the Bible: "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image and likeness. And let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the tame animals, over all the earth, and over all the small crawling animals on the earth.'" Genesis 1:26 So basically God gave us rule over animals (which means he's fine with us eating meat), but I don't think he wants us to torture the poor creatures I'd just like to point out that just because we rule over something doesn't mean it's okay for us to eat them. A king rules over their subjects, but start cannibalizing and i'm pretty sure a few lines have been crossed. We may rule over animals, our superior intellect allows for that, but that also comes with a bit of responsibility. You are right though, torturing food is definitely a bad idea... forgot where if first heard this but "A happy cow is a tastey burger" Listen, you can argue it into the ground, but no matter what is said, some people will always be meat eaters, and others will always be vegetarians. There isn't any point in discussing how much could be saved by eliminating cow farms or redistributing that grain, or any of that. It's simply not going to happen.
|
|