Honestly, I don't have anywhere near the discipline necessary to be a Vegetarian. I don't want to have to take a bunch of vitamins just to make up for necessary elements(Vitamin B, Calcium, Omega-3, etc) that I can get just from eating the things that I like.
And also, I agree with Chris. Man has been eating meat for millions of years, and some of our teeth are obviously intended for this, or at least have evolved to accomodate it.
Because the quote tags are long and tedious, I'm going to use the non-bold to indicate the quoted text, and we'll take this bit by bit.
Lastly, maybe the libraries in Australia are just VASTLY different than in the US, but, a library here is NOT a business. The libraries here(the 6 different ones I've been to in AZ, plus the few I visited in IN when I lived there) don't sell things. Some of them have gift shops in the same building, but it's not part of the actual library.
Brian never said that they were a business. They said they were effectively a business, thus why he included a qualifier to his statement ("the fact that libraries are basically businesses"). No, they aren't businesses, but they share a GREAT many things in common with them. Inventory and stock, responding to shifting market demands, advertising, staffing, customer retention, etc., etc., etc.
@BD: If you look at the list(s) of participants for Clan mafia for the last couple of years, I don't think any clan had any repeating members. I replaced in for HKKID for our Clan at the very end 2 years ago, but that's pretty much it.
This doesn't invalidate my point that there is precious little intraclan participation in the contest. The contest hasn't even been officially announced yet and we're basically just two or three posts away from needing to talk about it on this thread until it's over.
Mostly, I enjoy eating meat and dairy products.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with this. Please take nothing I say and misconstrue it to imply that I do.
I disagree with the notion that I wouldn't miss eating meat.
You probably would. But if you read what I wrote carefully, I said that the state where you don't miss eating meat comes with the mindset that would make someone become a vegetarian, not before. Clearly, you don't have said mindset, so it's unlikely that you wouldn't miss meat. Again, to beat the point even further to make sure you get it, I made an "if-then" statement. You clearly don't satisfy the if, so of course the then won't apply to you.
If I don't eat meat for a couple of days(sometimes it happens on accident), I find myself craving a cheeseburger or chicken.
That's likely because you weren't replacing the protein you normally get from meat with other sources. I know that if I've been light on protein for a while, I also crave it, only I tend to do so in the form of a nutty granola with soy milk or maybe some quinoa.
Good job reinforcing the social notion that vegetarians are snobby douchebags. I mean honestly. People are weak-willed because they like meat?
I never said that. To be pedantic, I never said that I thought anything about omnis at all; I made statements about how a typical veg*n might view an omni. That distinction aside, the statement wasn't that someone is weak-willed because they like meat. The statement was that someone is weak-willed if their enjoyment of eating meat is the sole, or primary, reason for them not becoming a vegetarian. This is no different than saying that an obese person is weak willed if they say that they only reason they haven't lost weight is because they like eating. See, the statement of "the (only) reason that I'm not X is because of Y" already presupposes that all other obstacles to X have been eliminated save for Y, and that X is either a desirable or default position. In that situation, if Y is a mere statement about liking to do something that precludes X, then one is weak-willed for not overcoming Y to attain X.
I like that you're attacking Kpaca here for what you view as having a ******** justification,
I wasn't attacking Kpaca. I was pointing out, from his list of reasons given, the one that I'm fairly sure is the real one for why he's not a vegetarian, saying that the others aren't really good reasons, and are in all likelihood (whether he realizes or not) are just manifestations of a reaction of rationalization. I then went on to give him advice on how best to explain his meat eating habits around other veg*ns. I'm intellectual enough that I don't really put much emotion into these things, so I don't really care about what his claimed reasons are or aren't, but not everyone else is, and my advice is valuable in dealing with others. But most importantly, I never attacked Kpaca. I never said he was a bad person, or was stupid, or whatever it is apparent you thought I said.
Not liking meat doesn't make you better than everyone else, no matter how much you want it to. It just makes you different.
Again, I never said this. At this point I have to question if the post you read and the post I typed were indeed one and the same. First, there is a difference between not liking meat (and I do like meat, indeed I've always loved the taste) and choosing never to eat it (a decision which can, and does, exist independently of one's opinion of it. So please, please don't misrepresent my position by stating that it's something it's not.
But while we're on the topic, I think that my decision not to eat meat (remember, this is different than not liking it) does make me better. Just as my decision not to lie, or shoot people in the street, or rape pretty girls I see in the park makes me better than people who do these things. I bet you think not not raping girls in the park makes you better than people who do too. I'd go as far as to suppose that most everyone thinks, for every positive moral choice they make, that they are better than the people who made the opposite choice. This is even evident in prisons, where child molesters are especially hated by the population, even though the members or that population might be otherwise reprehensible people. The key isn't to not think you are better than others for your ethical choices, because you should. The key is to realize that everyone's on the same path as you, and you'd do well to help them get as far as you have, and that you strive to continue onward.
Everyone posted a bunch of stuff while I was typing that last post. Now to reply to those.
I'm curious Blod, You're largely ethically oriented. Why then is it acceptable for the destruction of habitat for farming? I'm thinking about habitats like the Palouse prairie, which has had about a 95% conversion to wheat and may be considered as one of the first extinct habitats; and the tall grass prairie of the great plains which has had about 80% or so converted to agriculture? Vegetarianism doesn't eat those animals that lived in those habitats, but they'll go extinct nonetheless...
I can only speak for myself here, but I personally subscribe to a moral theory in which only current and future (but not potential future)* sentient lifeforms have ethical weight. Ecosystems etc. do not fall in this category, and thus under my moral theory, there is no "bad" from their destruction/lack of continuation. In the same way, I don't have consideration for a species, merely for the individuals of a species.
*Future life would be life that doesn't exist, but is likely to. In this way, we are morally responsible to our next generation, and the one after that, etc. Potential future life is life that could exist, but won't given some action. So no moral accountability towards the baby that might have been formed if I didn't use a condom, or they potential offspring of a forced breeding program, etc.
Well, some of our teeth actually are designed for meat consumption.
That's a common misconception. Our teeth did not evolve to be able to eat large amounts of meat. Indeed, if you want a good understanding of the diet we evolved to eat, take a look at the diet of chimps or such. You'll notice the common theme of either being herbivorous, or herbivorous with small amounts of animal food an addition in the primates.
That said, I don't understand why if I enjoy meat, I shouldn't eat meat. Don't try to tell me I just "think I enjoy meat because I'm weak minded". I actually enjoy meat, it tastes different than some broccoli or a summer salad, and I defy you to find me a soy bean product which tastes as good as a filet mignon. Just like I may eat a slice of chocolate cake because I enjoy it, I eat meat because I enjoy it, and I don't see what's wrong with that.
In general, doing something because you like it, within reason of course, is perfectly fine. Where this is different is that there are ethical considerations as to why eating meat is wrong. If I were to say that I don't see what's wrong with raping a three year old girl, because I enjoy doing it, you'd look at me like I was a monster. Vegans and most vegetarians think very similarly when they hear that someone doesn't see anything wrong with killing an animal and then consuming it.
Honestly, I don't have anywhere near the discipline necessary to be a Vegetarian. I don't want to have to take a bunch of vitamins just to make up for necessary elements(Vitamin B, Calcium, Omega-3, etc) that I can get just from eating the things that I like.
Good news. You don't have to take a bunch of vitamins if you don't eat animals. Aside from being overweight, I'm quite healthy, with all my vitamin, iron, etc levels at proper levels. Hell, even my blood pressure is a very healthy level, despite my obesity which generally always causes hypertension. I've never taken a vitamin, nor do I need to. It's quite easy for me to get enough in the foods I eat.
And also, I agree with Chris. Man has been eating meat for millions of years, and some of our teeth are obviously intended for this, or at least have evolved to accomodate it.
As for the moral/ethical imperative of being a vegetarian vs. eating meat, please just give it up. For one thing, all of the examples that you provided are terrible. Shooting people/raping people/molesting children are so outrageously different than eating meat(even if you have to make the pretentious 'eating meat is murder' leap). They are animals, and that's it. Human life has significantly more value than animal life. There is not even a comparison.
The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed completely, is that veg*ns don't think that there is a difference, or that if there is one, that the difference is inconsequential. Of course you don't think that animals deserve the same moral consideration that humans do. That's apparent a priori because if you did think it, you would find yourself completely unable to eat meat no matter how good it tasted. But I wasn't making a statement about what you think, or should think. I was explaining how veg*ns think. We see the decision not to eat meat as a very important moral decision on par with any of the other moral decisions I mentioned.
I like my life, and my lifestyle choices. I don't feel compelled to peddle them to anyone else. Maybe you should stop and wonder why you feel the need to do this? Who are you really trying to convince?
Are you trying to imply that I am trying to rationalize my veganism to myself? If that is indeed the case, then I lol at it. A great hearty lol. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, nor has anything I have typed implied that I am, trying to force my choices on others. I've not said that you should become a veg*n, so why does it seem like you think I did?
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
That's a common misconception. Our teeth did not evolve to be able to eat large amounts of meat. Indeed, if you want a good understanding of the diet we evolved to eat, take a look at the diet of chimps or such. You'll notice the common theme of either being herbivorous, or herbivorous with small amounts of animal food an addition in the primates.
No, It's actually a common fact. Incisors are designed to tear meat. As the child of a dental hygenist, I am somewhat learned on such things.
In general, doing something because you like it, within reason of course, is perfectly fine. Where this is different is that there are ethical considerations as to why eating meat is wrong. If I were to say that I don't see what's wrong with raping a three year old girl, because I enjoy doing it, you'd look at me like I was a monster. Vegans and most vegetarians think very similarly when they hear that someone doesn't see anything wrong with killing an animal and then consuming it.
I personally think the idea that there is something morally wrong with consuming animals is preposterous, but feel free to explain to me why this is true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
This is my problem with some vegetarians. Some choose this lifestyle because, as JJ described, they feel it is more healthy, and are willing to take the necessary dietary supplements(and you are kidding yourself if you say that they're not necessary). That is fine. Honestly, they're probably right. I just don't care enough to bother with it, and like I said, I like the taste of meat.
Then there are others. People that feel that society has stepped on them, and do whatever they can to rebel. Eventually they often end up at this point, where they give up eating meat, and feel empowered by it. Rather than simply face their own shortcomings and insecurities, they take comfort in suddenly being 'better' than their fellow man, because they've made a lifestyle choice that means some animals don't die. But seriously, only you care. The idea that you are morally superior here is just nonsense pandering, that people in this category feel necessary to put forth because it helps them mask their own personal shortcomings and insecurities. Animals eat other animals; people eat animals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, only the delusion of such.
Animals eat other animals; people eat animals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, only the delusion of such.
QFT!
While I respect other’s choice not to eat meat, I don’t really understand it myself. If someone thinks they feel better when they don’t eat it, then don’t. More for me! I’ve never tried soy milk because I like cow milk fine.
I swear, these days it is harmful to even breathe.
Dux likes librarians! But I don’t think Ria would look sexy in glasses. Plus, aren’t libraries becoming less significant in the paperless world?
I went and signed the papers Friday, handed in the keys and picked up my check. The condo is gone! I almost cried it was such a good feeling: I am 30 with no debit and uber $ in the bank. I am single, fairly happy, all my parents and grandparents are still alive and together. I have a steady job. It all kind of got to me and I got choked up. I just don’t feel like I deserve all the blessings I’ve got.
I can only speak for myself here, but I personally subscribe to a moral theory in which only current and future (but not potential future)* sentient lifeforms have ethical weight. Ecosystems etc. do not fall in this category, and thus under my moral theory, there is no "bad" from their destruction/lack of continuation. In the same way, I don't have consideration for a species, merely for the individuals of a species.
You're going to have to quantify your definition of "sentient lifeform" here. As I recall, you were against me eating that gnat that was eating me.
I don't see how an individualistic approach to ethical considerations is at all ethical. Individuals are largely inconsequential when compared to the entire species or the habitat they dwell. It doesn't matter how kindly and humanely you treat the individual, once the habitat is destroyed their existence as a species is doomed. Case in point, the Sonoran Pronghorn. It's habitat is so degraded that there is little hope of survival in the wild. And without habitat restoration there is little hope that the species restoration program will succeed. However there are a handful of individuals existing in zoos. This individualistic morality of which you speak seems to imply that there's nothing wrong here, as long as these last individuals are treated humanely in the last throws of their species existence then all is well in the world. Is this understanding accurate?
Quote from kpaca »
No, It's actually a common fact. Incisors are designed to tear meat. As the child of a dental hygenist, I am somewhat learned on such things.
I'm going to have to side with Blod here. Sure incisors can be used to tear meat, but there are plenty of herbivores that have some pretty nasty incisors. Point is, the presence of incisors is not nessisarily proof of meat eating.
@Dux...where have you been.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
No, It's actually a common fact. Incisors are designed to tear meat. As the child of a dental hygenist, I am somewhat learned on such things.
I don't want to spend forever hunting down actual things to cite (though I will if you really want me to and I won't feel my efforts will just be in vain), but I'll direct you to look at any of a large number of herbivorous animals that have very similar teeth to humans, incisors, canines, and all, and hopefully you can realize that even though our teeth can chew a steak, that it doesn't mean they were designed for us to do so.
It's all fairly moot anyway, as even if there were to come out some indisputable proof that that humans evolved to eat a meat based diet, it wouldn't change the moral implications of doing so. Which brings us to the next point.
I personally think the idea that there is something morally wrong with consuming animals is preposterous, but feel free to explain to me why this is true.
This is tricky. In the interest of not typing for the next hour on this post, I'll briefly outline some of the basic axioms of my moral theory, from which the conclusion that we should not eat meat will clearly follow. You, of course, are welcome to disagree with any of the axioms, in which case we have a situation in which we have two incompatible moral theories. Note, this list of axioms is not complete, only the relevant ones are included.
Axiom: All sapient lifeforms have moral responsibility (ie, this theory applies only to their actions).
Definition: A sapient life form is one who has the capability of making informed judgments. So far as we know, only non-(insert scientifically defined, technical term for mentally-challenged but is stupidly censored because some 13 year olds can't be civil to one another term here), non-infant humans are sapient.
Axiom: All sentient lifeforms are to be given moral consideration.
Definition: A sentient life form is one that is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
Axiom: An action is immoral if it causes pain or reduces pleasure of another sentient life form (this is a simplified form of the axiom, which, due to existence of conflicting interests whenever two or more sentient lifeforms are present, it gets a little more complicated, but this is good enough of a gist).
By accepting those axioms, logic forces one to accept that killing an animal (or paying for it to be killed for you) is an immoral act.
If you are interested, philosopher Peter Singer has written about this FAR better than I ever could. In particular is this essay.
This is my problem with some vegetarians. Some choose this lifestyle because, as JJ described, they feel it is more healthy, and are willing to take the necessary dietary supplements(and you are kidding yourself if you say that they're not necessary). That is fine. Honestly, they're probably right. I just don't care enough to bother with it, and like I said, I like the taste of meat.
Then there are others. People that feel that society has stepped on them, and do whatever they can to rebel. Eventually they often end up at this point, where they give up eating meat, and feel empowered by it. Rather than simply face their own shortcomings and insecurities, they take comfort in suddenly being 'better' than their fellow man, because they've made a lifestyle choice that means some animals don't die. But seriously, only you care. The idea that you are morally superior here is just nonsense pandering, that people in this category feel necessary to put forth because it helps them mask their own personal shortcomings and insecurities. Animals eat other animals; people eat animals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, only the delusion of such.
And with this post I declare you off the deep end, and admit that trying to hold a conversation with you based on logic and reason would be as fruitless as the only one of a species of an allogamous plant in the region. If you feel like being reasonable, please let me know and we can pick back up from a few posts ago.
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
I was meaning to do this yesterday, but time has been escaping my grasp as of late.
I would like to officially congratulate [Called], excellent job on the contest, many great image submissions came from you gentlemen, well done with taking the gold by a large lead!!!
@BD: I think that your definition of 'reasonable' needs work. You assert that you are better than people that eat meat, because you choose not to eat meat, based on moral standards(moral standards that I may not even necessarily agree with), and this is your idea of 'reasonable'? Yeah sure.
I don't want to say what I really think here, so we'll just have to leave that part be.
What I really don't understand is how you are arguing that humans are naturally herbivores. Humans cannot digest/process cellulite. Our intestines are roughly 23 feet long, whereas the intestines of other herbivores, ranging from 36-60 feet in length. Etcetera.
Honestly, I am surprised to be having this argument with someone that I consider to be in possession of high intelligence. Humans are ominvores, and always have been.
I also don't understand the 'moral high ground' argument when it comes to dairy products. Cows don't die in the act of producing milk.
@BD: I think that your definition of 'reasonable' needs work. You assert that you are better than people that eat meat, because you choose not to eat meat, based on moral standards(moral standards that I may not even necessarily agree with), and this is your idea of 'reasonable'? Yeah sure.
Nah, he hasn't done that...well kinda....but not really. You see when an X and a Y meet and thus either or there's a hypotenuse and quadrangles therefore not quite. I think that made sense. Anywho he's not really saying he is being all superiority and what knot...just why some have that superiority complex. which does exist.
What I really don't understand is how you are arguing that humans are naturally herbivores. Humans cannot digest/process cellulite. Our intestines are roughly 23 feet long, whereas the intestines of other herbivores, ranging from 36-60 feet in length. Etcetera.
I can answer this one. First off, not all herbivores can process cellulose. Sometimes it's not processed at all and is excreted as waste...sometimes we're talking about fruitivores and there isn't much cellulose. Sometimes it's just not there.
Second, even animals that can "process" cellulose can't. It's bacteria and fungus in the gut that that process it. This gut flora differs from species to species and is very important. We have some ourselves that we can't live without. Besides it doesn't make it unattainable...gut flora inside termites eat the cellulose and we eat the termites. (Termite poison targets the cellulose eating bacteria and the termite starves to death despite eating all the wood in the world)
Third. You can't compare some herbivores with us. Ruminants, like cows for instance, have a rather complex gut system that require large rumins for digestion and so bacteria can break down the cellulose...that's why they chew their cud because the more you chew the smaller the particles get and you have a larger surface to volume ratio...which is important if you are using gut flora for important things. Long intestines allow for longer retention time for a greater amount of nutrient absorption. Some herbivores, like rabbits, don't have a long intestines or large rumin so they loose nutrients...they have a neat process where they have two different types of poo....a soft form that still retains nutrients that they can eat and reprocess...and a harder form that has been depleated of nutrients. These are specific for strict herbivores who's diet comprises a lot of lignin and cellulose...there are plenty of vegetarian foods that do not possess such high quantities and thus are readilly available to eat. Thus you should always eat your veggies.
I wonder....gut flora can be manipulated by diet. In fact some plants have been proven to be lethal to individuals of the same species due to differences in gut flora. The same animal, if given time for the gut flora to become accustomed to a diet, can later eat that otherwise lethal food with impunity. At least as long as it doesn't eat to the point that the gut flora can't compensate. This is where one of the ethical issues with cows come in. They are fed a strict diet of corn...which is not what they typically eat...and this corn messes with the gut flora in a way that the stomach becomes acidic...which is the preferred environment for a nasty form a e-coli that's particularly deadly to humans. The beef industry has to spray the skinned and gutted cow with harsh chemicals to make sure the toxic e-coli is removed. But that's not where I was going with this train of thought. Since gut flora can be manipulated with diet I wonder if cellulose digesting bacteria/fungus can be promoted to grow in the human gut. Sure hold times wont be as large as the typical Grass eating grazer...but you'd still get a higher nutritional content than without.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Edit: I typed this up in haste....missed some things...
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
I also don't understand the 'moral high ground' argument when it comes to dairy products. Cows don't die in the act of producing milk.
Not to wade into this, but you don't have to dig very hard to find questionable practices with regards to the dairy industry. I mean, look at the posts above - they'll let anybody have a chook, + it's pretty obvious that one guy hasn't even gone into the barn in like weeks (eds - oh, token effort! Way to be, Dairy Guy! )
Not to wade into this, but you don't have to dig very hard to find questionable practices with regards to the dairy industry. I mean, look at the posts above - they'll let anybody have a chook, + it's pretty obvious that one guy hasn't even gone into the barn in like weeks
To be fair, you don't have to dig very hard to find questionable practices in any industry. People would much rather talk about the negative aspect of things, even if the negative actions are in the minority.
To be fair, you don't have to dig very hard to find questionable practices in any industry. People would much rather talk about the negative aspect of things, even if the negative actions are in the minority.
Very true. Bastard guerrilla farmers slash + burning rainforest to grow soy illegally. . . but the Dairy Industry in particular has some rather unsavoury habits.
A)Even if they can't entirely process it, their bodies have methods of coping with it, whereas the human body simply does not.
We're talking eating plants here in general right? The human body is perfectly capable of digesting vegetation. There are also plenty of animals that have a pure diet of vegetation in which the vegetation doesn't have enough lignin or cellulose to get in the way. It's too simplistic to say otherwise. Anything meat provides you can get from fruits and vegetables, of which there is an almost endless supply and variety. It is actually a travesty that our society is so hung up on certain things that our vegetables are restricted to only a handful of staples.
But I think it is abundantly obvious that people are omnivores.
Why is that abundantly obvious? People don't have to be, proved so every day. Historically? Sure. Morphologically? Why not. But they don't have to be. Even if you don't believe that they don't need to take additional supplements their addition doesn't delineate from this fact. Besides, omnivores and carnivores would do good with supplements anyway. Like I said before, the average American doesn't know a good diet worth spit.
Industrialized process of meat, dairy, and poultry are horribly unethical. Cramped cages and pens, pumped full of hormones to grow fast on an unnatural diet that makes them sick...pumped full of anti-bodies to keep them alive just long enough to be slaughtered. Cannibalizing each other in a bizarre food web of cow eating chicken leftovers and chickens getting cow leftovers. Used to be Cow leftovers were fed back to the cow...protein you know...but that practice ended half a decade ago when it was discovered that this form of cannibalism promoted mad cow disease. Whats worse is that growth hormones are conserved between species...that is evolutionarily speaking they haven't changed...I really think that early development of people can be attributed to the growth hormones. The industrialization process was conducted just a generation ago...we don't know what these practices will do to us in the long run.
There are a lot of reasons to become a vegetarian...ethically and especially for health...or at the very least to avoid industrialized food processes.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
There are unsavory practices in every industry, that doesn't mean that said industries should just be cut out of our lives. Should we stop buying houses just because the finance industry spent a few years being crooked?
@Daggs: I was just specifically referring to cellulite with that first bit. When I said supplements, I was referring to things that you can't get naturally if you don't eat meat. Like Omega-3. Actually, even most people that eat meat don't eat much fish, so they should take Omega-3 capsules anyway, but w/e.
I'm not as educated in the specifics of this as any of you guys, and I would never try to say otherwise. But I do know a little bit. And I know how to look things up. And I have never found any objective evidence supporting the notion that humans are, or ever were, herbivores.
Uh, travesty of the housing industry does not equal travesty of the processed food industry, + I think you're smart enough to know that, + know we're smart enough to as well. Save the weak sauce for mafia, Cyan
What does us never being herbivores have to do with the fact that we have the know-how to be ones now? It's not long before someone brings up the fact that the grainbelt produce of the US that is fed to livestock could feed the entire population of the US, as well as another billion people. . . hm, guess I did.
What I really want to argue about is how awesome growing your own food is. We constantly consider getting some chickens to supplement the numerous veggies we grow (eggplant, zucchini, tomatoes, carrots, beans, etc). . . + we live in the suburbs, by the beach! Obviously not an option for apartment living, but it's great, not to mention the tidiness of reprocessing all of our food waste back into the garden.
Now if only we could get the ants + sapsuckers to leave the peach tree alone!
I really don't think that there is much of a difference. In both cases, it was a willful ignorance towards proper ethical standards. Why does it matter which industry is involved?
Also, if it is in our nature to be omnivores, why would we ever want to not be them? That argument doesn't make sense to me at all. That would be like arguing that, even though it is in people's nature to be homosexual, they should force themselves into a heterosexual lifestyle, because it is safer and less detrimental to them. We are what we are.
I know people that grow their own veggies, but honestly, I could never do so. It is simply not in my personality. I am thoroughly a city kid.
On a lighter note, don't think that I missed that slight on my mafia play. How rude! :sadpanda:
Why does it matter? Because the dairy industry continues to thrive on its practices on a scale far beyond the housing industry, + because the dairy industry shows no signs of changing its ways since people will continue to prefer to remain in the dark about how their milk is produced? There's never going to be cheese-induced financial crisis, + if there hadn't been a housing one, those unethical practices would still be going strong.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, + I'm fairly confident that you're not genuinely interested, you just like to argue. So I'll say - you know how to look things up. Educate yourself.
Why would *we* not want to eat animals? There's a laundry list of reasons, + you know how to look things up.
For me personally, it's gross. Eggs I can tolerate sometimes, but sometimes not. Fish, same thing except much less often. Add to that the knowledge I have of the burden the industry places on the world + it is very easy to say 'no thanks.' I'm not forcing myself to not eat meat. It is a natural + easy choice for me.
I think the more people become educated about the subject, + the more real choices people are presented with, then the more people will choose the sustainable option. The more I learn, the more I am interested in my diet, in global well-being, + in a sustainable lifestyle. *paints we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children on his chest*
Quick aside for a personal request: please stop arguing like grakthis. Comparing unrelated issues to try to 1-up a discussion is the nut low. Diet is not like sexual preference, + again, it is insulting to both of our intelligence when you try to make that sort of comparison.
+ dude, you totally blew the last clan mafia game, come clean
It's true, I do like to argue. I also have no interest in being a vegetarian.
However, more than both of those things, I like to learn things, and I'm learning stuff here.
If the dairy industry thrives on poor/substandard practices, then of course something should be done about it. I'm nothing if not an idealist.
I don't get the Grakthis reference. I don't think that my analogy was bad. Our nature is our nature, whether it is regarding what we eat, whom we have sex with, or anything else. Life is full of generalities.
As for the last Clan Mafia, what is there to come clean about? I admitted that I blew that one a long time ago. It happens sometimes.
I dunno, I guess I've just never seen you shine in a mafia game. You got that trophy somehow, but to me, it is a mystery
Regarding our nature: some natures it behooves us to tame. It is in our nature to rage, but does that mean we should accept that + let civilization regress to territorial pissing? Endless war in the Middle East! It's just How We Are, Learn to Love It.
Of course not. I hope that reads as idiotic to you as it does to me.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Yes, there is a vague comparison there, but you're honestly trying to argue that it's as hard to change your diet as it is your sexual preference? Or as important to Who You Are?
eds - look at it a little more in depth - does homosexuality have the same kind of impact on the world as the meat industry? Questions like that reveal the comparison for what it is, flimsy + ridiculous.
To be fair, I got the trophy mostly for my scum play; I'm really hit or miss as town. Like in Kung Fu Mafia, I was town, and for the first couple game days I was spot on about everything, correctly tagging a mafioso AND the SK(on Day 1 even). I let that get to my head though, and ended up strongly pushing a plan that cost the town a game that should have been a cakewalk.
I don't agree that it is 'our nature' to rage. I think that people are, by nature, peaceful. Sometimes they get corrupted into not being peaceful; but I concretely believe that humanity, at it's basic level, strives for peace.
And I think that diet is *extremely* important, much moreso than some people realize, or than others admit. So many of the problems that plague societies involve poor dieting. Honestly, I think that proper dieting(which unfortunately, is not something that I can say that I have) is almost of the utmost importance.
I don't like the comparison specifically between homosexuality and the meat industry though, I was speaking in larger terms than just 'don't eat meat'.
I said in our nature, I think that's an important distinction. I wasn't saying ^rar!^ I was saying, people get angry. People are passionate! Though I too agree, we all share the buddha nature. If we choose to listen to it.
And I think that diet is *extremely* important, much moreso than some people realize, or than others admit.
Absolutely. Up nutrition
I was speaking in larger terms than just 'don't eat meat'.
I know, you were telling BD that people are omnivores, + I agree. That flexibility is one of the greatest assets we have. You'd better believe I have my lizard tail jerky recipe committed to memory for when the apocalypse comes!
Quote from PBPA of Cyan »
Anyway, I'm still down to play Clan Mafia. Last time we needed 2 entrants, Kpaca. If that's not the case this year, I'll let you play this time.
Didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. Just 1 player + 1 replacement from each clan this year. I'd like to give kpaca a shot, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And also, I agree with Chris. Man has been eating meat for millions of years, and some of our teeth are obviously intended for this, or at least have evolved to accomodate it.
Lastly, maybe the libraries in Australia are just VASTLY different than in the US, but, a library here is NOT a business. The libraries here(the 6 different ones I've been to in AZ, plus the few I visited in IN when I lived there) don't sell things. Some of them have gift shops in the same building, but it's not part of the actual library.
Brian never said that they were a business. They said they were effectively a business, thus why he included a qualifier to his statement ("the fact that libraries are basically businesses"). No, they aren't businesses, but they share a GREAT many things in common with them. Inventory and stock, responding to shifting market demands, advertising, staffing, customer retention, etc., etc., etc.
@BD: If you look at the list(s) of participants for Clan mafia for the last couple of years, I don't think any clan had any repeating members. I replaced in for HKKID for our Clan at the very end 2 years ago, but that's pretty much it.
This doesn't invalidate my point that there is precious little intraclan participation in the contest. The contest hasn't even been officially announced yet and we're basically just two or three posts away from needing to talk about it on this thread until it's over.
Mostly, I enjoy eating meat and dairy products.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with this. Please take nothing I say and misconstrue it to imply that I do.
I disagree with the notion that I wouldn't miss eating meat.
You probably would. But if you read what I wrote carefully, I said that the state where you don't miss eating meat comes with the mindset that would make someone become a vegetarian, not before. Clearly, you don't have said mindset, so it's unlikely that you wouldn't miss meat. Again, to beat the point even further to make sure you get it, I made an "if-then" statement. You clearly don't satisfy the if, so of course the then won't apply to you.
If I don't eat meat for a couple of days(sometimes it happens on accident), I find myself craving a cheeseburger or chicken.
That's likely because you weren't replacing the protein you normally get from meat with other sources. I know that if I've been light on protein for a while, I also crave it, only I tend to do so in the form of a nutty granola with soy milk or maybe some quinoa.
Good job reinforcing the social notion that vegetarians are snobby douchebags. I mean honestly. People are weak-willed because they like meat?
I never said that. To be pedantic, I never said that I thought anything about omnis at all; I made statements about how a typical veg*n might view an omni. That distinction aside, the statement wasn't that someone is weak-willed because they like meat. The statement was that someone is weak-willed if their enjoyment of eating meat is the sole, or primary, reason for them not becoming a vegetarian. This is no different than saying that an obese person is weak willed if they say that they only reason they haven't lost weight is because they like eating. See, the statement of "the (only) reason that I'm not X is because of Y" already presupposes that all other obstacles to X have been eliminated save for Y, and that X is either a desirable or default position. In that situation, if Y is a mere statement about liking to do something that precludes X, then one is weak-willed for not overcoming Y to attain X.
I like that you're attacking Kpaca here for what you view as having a ******** justification,
I wasn't attacking Kpaca. I was pointing out, from his list of reasons given, the one that I'm fairly sure is the real one for why he's not a vegetarian, saying that the others aren't really good reasons, and are in all likelihood (whether he realizes or not) are just manifestations of a reaction of rationalization. I then went on to give him advice on how best to explain his meat eating habits around other veg*ns. I'm intellectual enough that I don't really put much emotion into these things, so I don't really care about what his claimed reasons are or aren't, but not everyone else is, and my advice is valuable in dealing with others. But most importantly, I never attacked Kpaca. I never said he was a bad person, or was stupid, or whatever it is apparent you thought I said.
Not liking meat doesn't make you better than everyone else, no matter how much you want it to. It just makes you different.
Again, I never said this. At this point I have to question if the post you read and the post I typed were indeed one and the same. First, there is a difference between not liking meat (and I do like meat, indeed I've always loved the taste) and choosing never to eat it (a decision which can, and does, exist independently of one's opinion of it. So please, please don't misrepresent my position by stating that it's something it's not.
But while we're on the topic, I think that my decision not to eat meat (remember, this is different than not liking it) does make me better. Just as my decision not to lie, or shoot people in the street, or rape pretty girls I see in the park makes me better than people who do these things. I bet you think not not raping girls in the park makes you better than people who do too. I'd go as far as to suppose that most everyone thinks, for every positive moral choice they make, that they are better than the people who made the opposite choice. This is even evident in prisons, where child molesters are especially hated by the population, even though the members or that population might be otherwise reprehensible people. The key isn't to not think you are better than others for your ethical choices, because you should. The key is to realize that everyone's on the same path as you, and you'd do well to help them get as far as you have, and that you strive to continue onward. Because the quote tags are long and tedious, I'm going to use the non-bold to indicate the quoted text, and we'll take this bit by bit.
Everyone posted a bunch of stuff while I was typing that last post. Now to reply to those.
I can only speak for myself here, but I personally subscribe to a moral theory in which only current and future (but not potential future)* sentient lifeforms have ethical weight. Ecosystems etc. do not fall in this category, and thus under my moral theory, there is no "bad" from their destruction/lack of continuation. In the same way, I don't have consideration for a species, merely for the individuals of a species.
*Future life would be life that doesn't exist, but is likely to. In this way, we are morally responsible to our next generation, and the one after that, etc. Potential future life is life that could exist, but won't given some action. So no moral accountability towards the baby that might have been formed if I didn't use a condom, or they potential offspring of a forced breeding program, etc.
That's a common misconception. Our teeth did not evolve to be able to eat large amounts of meat. Indeed, if you want a good understanding of the diet we evolved to eat, take a look at the diet of chimps or such. You'll notice the common theme of either being herbivorous, or herbivorous with small amounts of animal food an addition in the primates.
In general, doing something because you like it, within reason of course, is perfectly fine. Where this is different is that there are ethical considerations as to why eating meat is wrong. If I were to say that I don't see what's wrong with raping a three year old girl, because I enjoy doing it, you'd look at me like I was a monster. Vegans and most vegetarians think very similarly when they hear that someone doesn't see anything wrong with killing an animal and then consuming it.
Good news. You don't have to take a bunch of vitamins if you don't eat animals. Aside from being overweight, I'm quite healthy, with all my vitamin, iron, etc levels at proper levels. Hell, even my blood pressure is a very healthy level, despite my obesity which generally always causes hypertension. I've never taken a vitamin, nor do I need to. It's quite easy for me to get enough in the foods I eat.
See my above response to Kpaca.
The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed completely, is that veg*ns don't think that there is a difference, or that if there is one, that the difference is inconsequential. Of course you don't think that animals deserve the same moral consideration that humans do. That's apparent a priori because if you did think it, you would find yourself completely unable to eat meat no matter how good it tasted. But I wasn't making a statement about what you think, or should think. I was explaining how veg*ns think. We see the decision not to eat meat as a very important moral decision on par with any of the other moral decisions I mentioned.
Are you trying to imply that I am trying to rationalize my veganism to myself? If that is indeed the case, then I lol at it. A great hearty lol. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, nor has anything I have typed implied that I am, trying to force my choices on others. I've not said that you should become a veg*n, so why does it seem like you think I did?
A Webcomic of math, physics, and life as a geek in college.
Official Insomniac/Physics Addicted Uber Geek of The Called
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
I personally think the idea that there is something morally wrong with consuming animals is preposterous, but feel free to explain to me why this is true.
This is my problem with some vegetarians. Some choose this lifestyle because, as JJ described, they feel it is more healthy, and are willing to take the necessary dietary supplements(and you are kidding yourself if you say that they're not necessary). That is fine. Honestly, they're probably right. I just don't care enough to bother with it, and like I said, I like the taste of meat.
Then there are others. People that feel that society has stepped on them, and do whatever they can to rebel. Eventually they often end up at this point, where they give up eating meat, and feel empowered by it. Rather than simply face their own shortcomings and insecurities, they take comfort in suddenly being 'better' than their fellow man, because they've made a lifestyle choice that means some animals don't die. But seriously, only you care. The idea that you are morally superior here is just nonsense pandering, that people in this category feel necessary to put forth because it helps them mask their own personal shortcomings and insecurities. Animals eat other animals; people eat animals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, only the delusion of such.
QFT!
While I respect other’s choice not to eat meat, I don’t really understand it myself. If someone thinks they feel better when they don’t eat it, then don’t. More for me! I’ve never tried soy milk because I like cow milk fine.
I swear, these days it is harmful to even breathe.
Dux likes librarians! But I don’t think Ria would look sexy in glasses. Plus, aren’t libraries becoming less significant in the paperless world?
I went and signed the papers Friday, handed in the keys and picked up my check. The condo is gone! I almost cried it was such a good feeling: I am 30 with no debit and uber $ in the bank. I am single, fairly happy, all my parents and grandparents are still alive and together. I have a steady job. It all kind of got to me and I got choked up. I just don’t feel like I deserve all the blessings I’ve got.
Pistol packin’ Daggs!
.
.
Homebrew is creating Magic.
Are you a pilot or a creator??
You're going to have to quantify your definition of "sentient lifeform" here. As I recall, you were against me eating that gnat that was eating me.
I don't see how an individualistic approach to ethical considerations is at all ethical. Individuals are largely inconsequential when compared to the entire species or the habitat they dwell. It doesn't matter how kindly and humanely you treat the individual, once the habitat is destroyed their existence as a species is doomed. Case in point, the Sonoran Pronghorn. It's habitat is so degraded that there is little hope of survival in the wild. And without habitat restoration there is little hope that the species restoration program will succeed. However there are a handful of individuals existing in zoos. This individualistic morality of which you speak seems to imply that there's nothing wrong here, as long as these last individuals are treated humanely in the last throws of their species existence then all is well in the world. Is this understanding accurate?
I'm going to have to side with Blod here. Sure incisors can be used to tear meat, but there are plenty of herbivores that have some pretty nasty incisors. Point is, the presence of incisors is not nessisarily proof of meat eating.
@Dux...where have you been.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
I don't want to spend forever hunting down actual things to cite (though I will if you really want me to and I won't feel my efforts will just be in vain), but I'll direct you to look at any of a large number of herbivorous animals that have very similar teeth to humans, incisors, canines, and all, and hopefully you can realize that even though our teeth can chew a steak, that it doesn't mean they were designed for us to do so.
It's all fairly moot anyway, as even if there were to come out some indisputable proof that that humans evolved to eat a meat based diet, it wouldn't change the moral implications of doing so. Which brings us to the next point.
This is tricky. In the interest of not typing for the next hour on this post, I'll briefly outline some of the basic axioms of my moral theory, from which the conclusion that we should not eat meat will clearly follow. You, of course, are welcome to disagree with any of the axioms, in which case we have a situation in which we have two incompatible moral theories. Note, this list of axioms is not complete, only the relevant ones are included.
Axiom: All sapient lifeforms have moral responsibility (ie, this theory applies only to their actions).
Definition: A sapient life form is one who has the capability of making informed judgments. So far as we know, only non-(insert scientifically defined, technical term for mentally-challenged but is stupidly censored because some 13 year olds can't be civil to one another term here), non-infant humans are sapient.
Axiom: All sentient lifeforms are to be given moral consideration.
Definition: A sentient life form is one that is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
Axiom: An action is immoral if it causes pain or reduces pleasure of another sentient life form (this is a simplified form of the axiom, which, due to existence of conflicting interests whenever two or more sentient lifeforms are present, it gets a little more complicated, but this is good enough of a gist).
By accepting those axioms, logic forces one to accept that killing an animal (or paying for it to be killed for you) is an immoral act.
If you are interested, philosopher Peter Singer has written about this FAR better than I ever could. In particular is this essay.
And with this post I declare you off the deep end, and admit that trying to hold a conversation with you based on logic and reason would be as fruitless as the only one of a species of an allogamous plant in the region. If you feel like being reasonable, please let me know and we can pick back up from a few posts ago.
A Webcomic of math, physics, and life as a geek in college.
Official Insomniac/Physics Addicted Uber Geek of The Called
"I want to be a complete nerd with extra nerd sauce on top. I'm a nerd. Infinite nerd!"
-rancored_elf
:teach:If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.:teach:
-Fred Menger
Fleeting is this world
Growth and decay its very nature
Things spring to being and again they cease
Happy the marvel of them and the peace.
-Nidana Vagga
I would like to officially congratulate [Called], excellent job on the contest, many great image submissions came from you gentlemen, well done with taking the gold by a large lead!!!
First Place!
I don't want to say what I really think here, so we'll just have to leave that part be.
What I really don't understand is how you are arguing that humans are naturally herbivores. Humans cannot digest/process cellulite. Our intestines are roughly 23 feet long, whereas the intestines of other herbivores, ranging from 36-60 feet in length. Etcetera.
Honestly, I am surprised to be having this argument with someone that I consider to be in possession of high intelligence. Humans are ominvores, and always have been.
I also don't understand the 'moral high ground' argument when it comes to dairy products. Cows don't die in the act of producing milk.
Nah, he hasn't done that...well kinda....but not really. You see when an X and a Y meet and thus either or there's a hypotenuse and quadrangles therefore not quite. I think that made sense. Anywho he's not really saying he is being all superiority and what knot...just why some have that superiority complex. which does exist.
I can answer this one. First off, not all herbivores can process cellulose. Sometimes it's not processed at all and is excreted as waste...sometimes we're talking about fruitivores and there isn't much cellulose. Sometimes it's just not there.
Second, even animals that can "process" cellulose can't. It's bacteria and fungus in the gut that that process it. This gut flora differs from species to species and is very important. We have some ourselves that we can't live without. Besides it doesn't make it unattainable...gut flora inside termites eat the cellulose and we eat the termites. (Termite poison targets the cellulose eating bacteria and the termite starves to death despite eating all the wood in the world)
Third. You can't compare some herbivores with us. Ruminants, like cows for instance, have a rather complex gut system that require large rumins for digestion and so bacteria can break down the cellulose...that's why they chew their cud because the more you chew the smaller the particles get and you have a larger surface to volume ratio...which is important if you are using gut flora for important things. Long intestines allow for longer retention time for a greater amount of nutrient absorption. Some herbivores, like rabbits, don't have a long intestines or large rumin so they loose nutrients...they have a neat process where they have two different types of poo....a soft form that still retains nutrients that they can eat and reprocess...and a harder form that has been depleated of nutrients. These are specific for strict herbivores who's diet comprises a lot of lignin and cellulose...there are plenty of vegetarian foods that do not possess such high quantities and thus are readilly available to eat. Thus you should always eat your veggies.
I wonder....gut flora can be manipulated by diet. In fact some plants have been proven to be lethal to individuals of the same species due to differences in gut flora. The same animal, if given time for the gut flora to become accustomed to a diet, can later eat that otherwise lethal food with impunity. At least as long as it doesn't eat to the point that the gut flora can't compensate. This is where one of the ethical issues with cows come in. They are fed a strict diet of corn...which is not what they typically eat...and this corn messes with the gut flora in a way that the stomach becomes acidic...which is the preferred environment for a nasty form a e-coli that's particularly deadly to humans. The beef industry has to spray the skinned and gutted cow with harsh chemicals to make sure the toxic e-coli is removed. But that's not where I was going with this train of thought. Since gut flora can be manipulated with diet I wonder if cellulose digesting bacteria/fungus can be promoted to grow in the human gut. Sure hold times wont be as large as the typical Grass eating grazer...but you'd still get a higher nutritional content than without.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
Edit: I typed this up in haste....missed some things...
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
And I'm not saying that people should ONLY eat meat. Vegetables have plenty of nutrients that meat does not.
But I think it is abundantly obvious that people are omnivores.
As for the other part, to quote BD exactly:
So, I have to disagree with you there, Chris.
Damn it, Chris, become my neighbor on Farmville. :mad1:
I assume you mean me.:p I keep forgetting Farmville. I've been playing the hell out of Cafe World, though.
*edit*
We're neighbored. You had a gopher problem; I took care of it. * Silent Prophet struts.
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
BD, Mafia is awesome so nya
To be fair, you don't have to dig very hard to find questionable practices in any industry. People would much rather talk about the negative aspect of things, even if the negative actions are in the minority.
* Silent Prophet agrees.
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
We're talking eating plants here in general right? The human body is perfectly capable of digesting vegetation. There are also plenty of animals that have a pure diet of vegetation in which the vegetation doesn't have enough lignin or cellulose to get in the way. It's too simplistic to say otherwise. Anything meat provides you can get from fruits and vegetables, of which there is an almost endless supply and variety. It is actually a travesty that our society is so hung up on certain things that our vegetables are restricted to only a handful of staples.
Why is that abundantly obvious? People don't have to be, proved so every day. Historically? Sure. Morphologically? Why not. But they don't have to be. Even if you don't believe that they don't need to take additional supplements their addition doesn't delineate from this fact. Besides, omnivores and carnivores would do good with supplements anyway. Like I said before, the average American doesn't know a good diet worth spit.
I stand corrected.
Industrialized process of meat, dairy, and poultry are horribly unethical. Cramped cages and pens, pumped full of hormones to grow fast on an unnatural diet that makes them sick...pumped full of anti-bodies to keep them alive just long enough to be slaughtered. Cannibalizing each other in a bizarre food web of cow eating chicken leftovers and chickens getting cow leftovers. Used to be Cow leftovers were fed back to the cow...protein you know...but that practice ended half a decade ago when it was discovered that this form of cannibalism promoted mad cow disease. Whats worse is that growth hormones are conserved between species...that is evolutionarily speaking they haven't changed...I really think that early development of people can be attributed to the growth hormones. The industrialization process was conducted just a generation ago...we don't know what these practices will do to us in the long run.
There are a lot of reasons to become a vegetarian...ethically and especially for health...or at the very least to avoid industrialized food processes.
Cheers,
Daggertooth
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
@Daggs: I was just specifically referring to cellulite with that first bit. When I said supplements, I was referring to things that you can't get naturally if you don't eat meat. Like Omega-3. Actually, even most people that eat meat don't eat much fish, so they should take Omega-3 capsules anyway, but w/e.
I'm not as educated in the specifics of this as any of you guys, and I would never try to say otherwise. But I do know a little bit. And I know how to look things up. And I have never found any objective evidence supporting the notion that humans are, or ever were, herbivores.
What does us never being herbivores have to do with the fact that we have the know-how to be ones now? It's not long before someone brings up the fact that the grainbelt produce of the US that is fed to livestock could feed the entire population of the US, as well as another billion people. . . hm, guess I did.
What I really want to argue about is how awesome growing your own food is. We constantly consider getting some chickens to supplement the numerous veggies we grow (eggplant, zucchini, tomatoes, carrots, beans, etc). . . + we live in the suburbs, by the beach! Obviously not an option for apartment living, but it's great, not to mention the tidiness of reprocessing all of our food waste back into the garden.
Now if only we could get the ants + sapsuckers to leave the peach tree alone!
Also, if it is in our nature to be omnivores, why would we ever want to not be them? That argument doesn't make sense to me at all. That would be like arguing that, even though it is in people's nature to be homosexual, they should force themselves into a heterosexual lifestyle, because it is safer and less detrimental to them. We are what we are.
I know people that grow their own veggies, but honestly, I could never do so. It is simply not in my personality. I am thoroughly a city kid.
On a lighter note, don't think that I missed that slight on my mafia play. How rude! :sadpanda:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, + I'm fairly confident that you're not genuinely interested, you just like to argue. So I'll say - you know how to look things up. Educate yourself.
Why would *we* not want to eat animals? There's a laundry list of reasons, + you know how to look things up.
For me personally, it's gross. Eggs I can tolerate sometimes, but sometimes not. Fish, same thing except much less often. Add to that the knowledge I have of the burden the industry places on the world + it is very easy to say 'no thanks.' I'm not forcing myself to not eat meat. It is a natural + easy choice for me.
I think the more people become educated about the subject, + the more real choices people are presented with, then the more people will choose the sustainable option. The more I learn, the more I am interested in my diet, in global well-being, + in a sustainable lifestyle. *paints we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children on his chest*
Quick aside for a personal request: please stop arguing like grakthis. Comparing unrelated issues to try to 1-up a discussion is the nut low. Diet is not like sexual preference, + again, it is insulting to both of our intelligence when you try to make that sort of comparison.
+ dude, you totally blew the last clan mafia game, come clean
However, more than both of those things, I like to learn things, and I'm learning stuff here.
If the dairy industry thrives on poor/substandard practices, then of course something should be done about it. I'm nothing if not an idealist.
I don't get the Grakthis reference. I don't think that my analogy was bad. Our nature is our nature, whether it is regarding what we eat, whom we have sex with, or anything else. Life is full of generalities.
As for the last Clan Mafia, what is there to come clean about? I admitted that I blew that one a long time ago. It happens sometimes.
Regarding our nature: some natures it behooves us to tame. It is in our nature to rage, but does that mean we should accept that + let civilization regress to territorial pissing? Endless war in the Middle East! It's just How We Are, Learn to Love It.
Of course not. I hope that reads as idiotic to you as it does to me.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Yes, there is a vague comparison there, but you're honestly trying to argue that it's as hard to change your diet as it is your sexual preference? Or as important to Who You Are?
eds - look at it a little more in depth - does homosexuality have the same kind of impact on the world as the meat industry? Questions like that reveal the comparison for what it is, flimsy + ridiculous.
I don't agree that it is 'our nature' to rage. I think that people are, by nature, peaceful. Sometimes they get corrupted into not being peaceful; but I concretely believe that humanity, at it's basic level, strives for peace.
And I think that diet is *extremely* important, much moreso than some people realize, or than others admit. So many of the problems that plague societies involve poor dieting. Honestly, I think that proper dieting(which unfortunately, is not something that I can say that I have) is almost of the utmost importance.
I don't like the comparison specifically between homosexuality and the meat industry though, I was speaking in larger terms than just 'don't eat meat'.
Absolutely. Up nutrition
I know, you were telling BD that people are omnivores, + I agree. That flexibility is one of the greatest assets we have. You'd better believe I have my lizard tail jerky recipe committed to memory for when the apocalypse comes!
Didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. Just 1 player + 1 replacement from each clan this year. I'd like to give kpaca a shot, too.