U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2015, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,390 posts, read 37,702,114 times
Reputation: 22529

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy View Post
What on earth are you talking about? Where do you get this kind of garbage? If you don't care about the environment, suffering of other sentient beings or suffering of other people on the planet, I cannot help you. However, don't come up with garbage "science" to support your position.
Interesting that you immediately jump to the assumption that because I don't agree with your dogma, I don't care about the environment, the suffering of other sentient beings (by the way, that includes the two-legged kind, something people with an agenda like yours most often tend to forget in their rush to judgment), or the suffering of other people on the planet, as long as they believe just like you do, apparently).

All of which could not be further from the truth.

Humans are part of the great circle of life - we have our place on it, as omnivores. (We also have canines and an appendix that is atrophying.) I am not so disrespectful of the other animals who do not try to step out of their place in that circle and then tell themselves how superior they are as to do that.

You do realize that if everyone on the planet suddenly "poof!" went vegan as you would prefer, that we would be in competition for the land that we would need to grow enough food to sustain everyone, but that the wildlife needs for their own survival, and thus we would be condemning entire species to long, slow starvation, don't you? Or didn't you think about that?

Animals can be raised, and slaughtered, humanely. This I know for a fact. (In fact, if an animal is frightened or in pain when it dies, adrenaline is released, tainting the meat and thus lowering the bottom line for those who don't care about anything but that.) Are there farms that do it badly? Absolutely, and they should be stopped. Are there farms that do it well, with great care for the creatures? Yes, there are, and they should be rewarded - and they should be listened to when they speak of what is the best thing for the animals rather than PETA/HSUS and their ilk (who have, the headquarters at least, acknowledged to me that no one there knew anything about a particular species or had been to the places they were condemning but "we just KNOW it's true" and "we said it, that's our documentation" - those are direct quotes - interspersed liberally with "how much do you want to donate?"). Even if that doesn't agree with your notions, unless you have personal experience in ranching. Do you? How close have you been to the farms, how often have you gone to a slaughter house and which ones? How much time do you spend up close and personal with the folks who raise the animals for a living?

It's interesting how your perspective can change when you are asked to believe someone's dogma rather than the evidence of your own eyes. I prefer to believe the latter, myself.

Oh, and the Inuits who you just flat ignored? They probably would, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2015, 11:26 AM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,199,331 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Interesting that you immediately jump to the assumption that because I don't agree with your dogma, I don't care about the environment, the suffering of other sentient beings (by the way, that includes the two-legged kind, something people with an agenda like yours most often tend to forget in their rush to judgment), or the suffering of other people on the planet, as long as they believe just like you do, apparently).
If you support the meat industry by consuming meat then you cannot care about the environment or suffering that much. By doing so you are saying that your taste buds are more important than the environment and the happiness of over 2000 sentient beings in your life. You don't care, give me a break. The is no dogma in my beliefs. All my beliefs follow logic that I have spent years working out.


Quote:
Humans are part of the great circle of life - we have our place on it, as omnivores. (We also have canines and an appendix that is atrophying.)
Yes we are omnivores but our population is about 1000 times too big. I'm not sure if you know what omnivore means because it really has very little to do with this discussion. An animal that eats plants and insects is a omnivore and that is much closer to an ideal human diet than the American diet.

Quote:
I am not so disrespectful of the other animals who do not try to step out of their place in that circle and then tell themselves how superior they are as to do that.
What are you talking about?

Quote:
You do realize that if everyone on the planet suddenly "poof!" went vegan as you would prefer, that we would be in competition for the land that we would need to grow enough food to sustain everyone, but that the wildlife needs for their own survival, and thus we would be condemning entire species to long, slow starvation, don't you? Or didn't you think about that?
You do realize that you have no clue what you are talking about? You do realize that it would take MUCH less land to feed everyone on a vegan diet? You do realize that the animals we eat also eat as well?

Quote:
Animals can be raised, and slaughtered, humanely. This I know for a fact.
Surely that depends on your definition of "humane". If that is true of all animals, it must be true of humans as well, do you support humane slaughter of people for food?

Quote:
Are there farms that do it badly? Absolutely, and they should be stopped.
There goes 99% of the meat in the US.

Quote:
Are there farms that do it well, with great care for the creatures?
Less than 1% and meat is still unnecessary.

Quote:
Yes, there are, and they should be rewarded - and they should be listened to when they speak of what is the best thing for the animals rather than PETA/HSUS and their ilk (who have, the headquarters at least, acknowledged to me that no one there knew anything about a particular species or had been to the places they were condemning but "we just KNOW it's true" and "we said it, that's our documentation" - those are direct quotes - interspersed liberally with "how much do you want to donate?").
Can you try to communicate better?

Quote:
Even if that doesn't agree with your notions, unless you have personal experience in ranching. Do you? How close have you been to the farms, how often have you gone to a slaughter house and which ones? How much time do you spend up close and personal with the folks who raise the animals for a living?
I have been on ranches, yes. However, that is entirely irrelevant. It makes no difference. I don't need to witness domestic violence, rape, theft, murder, etc. to have the opinion that they are wrong.

Quote:
It's interesting how your perspective can change when you are asked to believe someone's dogma rather than the evidence of your own eyes. I prefer to believe the latter, myself.
I don't think you know what dogma is. Here is the definition Dogma | Definition of dogma by Merriam-Webster

As all of my beliefs come from serious questioning and philosophising, they are certainly not dogma. Your beliefs on the other hand are dogmatic, as are the beliefs of almost all meat-eaters. What would it take for you to give up all meat? How much suffering would the average animal have to face? How much environmental destruction would have to happen?

Quote:
Oh, and the Inuits who you just flat ignored? They probably would, too.
What are you talking about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 01:14 PM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,914 posts, read 4,036,577 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Thank you for pointing that out.

Then there's the fact that a human is not a human is not a human, as far as diet is concerned. There are people, like my late best friend, who do fine on a vegetarian diet (I'm not blaming her early demise on her vegetarianism, note). There are people like me who have conscientiously tried a vegetarian diet only to get sick as a dog. I am naturally towards the other side of the bell curve and need higher levels of animal protein. Most people fall somewhere in the middle; problems only arise when someone with an agenda decides that everyone is just like them and what works best for them just MUST work best for everyone else, when nothing could be further from the truth. Humans are omnivores, they adapt to what's available. Otherwise Inuits would not be able to survive and be healthy (and to have done so for generations).

Unless you're saying, Iaskwhy (interesting name, given your pronouncement), that Inuits aren't humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
.....

Oh, and the Inuits who you just flat ignored? They probably would, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy View Post
What are you talking about?





What are you talking about?
The Inuits she mentioned earlier that you ignored. That's what she's talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 01:41 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,199,331 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa View Post
The Inuits she mentioned earlier that you ignored. That's what she's talking about.
The Inuits are notoriously unhealthy. However, it is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. How certain indigenous groups in very specific environments ate, has no bearing on how we should eat now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,390 posts, read 37,702,114 times
Reputation: 22529
Iaskwhy, you have NO idea what you're talking about beyond dogma. That's why I used the term.

You're parroting over and over and the real issue here does not appear to be the environment, the welfare of animals, or any of the other buzz words. It's appears to be more about "I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE MUST MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS I DO", when it comes right down to it. I know many vegetarians - my late best friend was one for the last years of her life - and the vast majority are not like this. It's the very loud ones who are that give the rest, and vegetarianism itself, a bad name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 04:07 PM
 
Location: I am right here.
4,914 posts, read 4,036,577 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Iaskwhy, you have NO idea what you're talking about beyond dogma. That's why I used the term.

You're parroting over and over and the real issue here does not appear to be the environment, the welfare of animals, or any of the other buzz words. It's appears to be more about "I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE MUST MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS I DO", when it comes right down to it. I know many vegetarians - my late best friend was one for the last years of her life - and the vast majority are not like this. It's the very loud ones who are that give the rest, and vegetarianism itself, a bad name.
So very true. Very very true.

Those shrill ones always remind me of a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 05:47 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,199,331 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Iaskwhy, you have NO idea what you're talking about beyond dogma. That's why I used the term.

You're parroting over and over and the real issue here does not appear to be the environment, the welfare of animals, or any of the other buzz words. It's appears to be more about "I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE MUST MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS I DO", when it comes right down to it. I know many vegetarians - my late best friend was one for the last years of her life - and the vast majority are not like this. It's the very loud ones who are that give the rest, and vegetarianism itself, a bad name.
It is much easier for you to shift the blame onto me as opposed to challenge your own dogmatic views. I understand that. Personal attacks are a very clear indicator that someone has no argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 06:03 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,199,331 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa View Post
So very true. Very very true.

Those shrill ones always remind me of a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.
And I am supposed to be a loud one? I live with a meat eater, not once have I discussed vegetarianism with him unless he has asked. I have never been to a protest. I have no bumper stickers on my car. I don't have any vegan/vegetarian t-shirts. I have never confronted someone about what they are eaten when they eat meat. All I do is post comments online about how meat eaters are being illogical and inconsistent with their own beliefs and how eating meat is clearly wrong. That is it. NOBODY I have talked to on this forum has had a logical argument supporting their position that meat is ethical. NOT ONE. On other forums, I have received logical arguments but almost nobody holds the premises of these arguments. Nearly every meat eater I have ever debated with online exhibits a classical case of rational irrationality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
7,236 posts, read 6,428,013 times
Reputation: 8281
Eating meat is not ethical but we are going to do it anyways. That's the bottom line. We certainly evolved over a couple hundred thousand or more years to enjoy it's taste and clearly are able to digest it. Some need protein more than others. There's a large variation genetics wise over what people's nutritional requirements are. Just because YOU can live without any meat of any kind does not mean that another person particularly a very athletic one is going to thrive.

You are asking the whole of planet earth to give up all meat, poultry, fish, and dairy and those who have issues with wheat basically just have fruits and vegetables to eat...

I would argue that wheat and gluten are far less 'natural' for the human body than meat and it shows by just how many people have sensitivity to gluten, not to mention other types of grains. So far as I know, an allergy to meat pretty much doesn't exist. Some people may have lost their gallbladders and cannot handle a lot of fat but that's a different medical issue.

There's a huge growing problem of type 2 diabetes and non alcoholic fatty liver disease caused by excess carbohydrate consumption in this country along with refined industrial seed oils... in particular excess fructose consumption from sweets and soda. These items are more harmful than meat. However in the end you will not get people to give up either because good food makes life worth living.

If you argue about what is more 'natural' to eat, as in a paleo style diet, clearly it's meats, fruits, vegetables, and seeds.. those were the most basic foods we evolved on.. only later on did we take up agriculture and have grains, much less tofu and other unnatural items, or even dairy for that matter outside of mother's breastmilk.

It's a moral argument. We are the top of the food chain. We eat meat, as do many other animal species. Does it matter we may not 'need' meat to survive? No. Instead of this merely being about factory farming vs. grass fed graze farming it's become a big vegan debate thread which was not it's intention. In any case doesn't matter much to me. Carry on!

I've got my brats and ground beef for grilling on a charcoal grill, increasing my cancer risk due to the smoke and charring. Wish me the best in shortening my lifespan.

Last edited by stockwiz; 05-24-2015 at 06:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 07:46 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,199,331 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
Eating meat is not ethical but we are going to do it anyways.
Good for you for being a big enough person to admit that.


Quote:
That's the bottom line. We certainly evolved over a couple hundred thousand or more years to enjoy it's taste and clearly are able to digest it. Some need protein more than others. There's a large variation genetics wise over what people's nutritional requirements are. Just because YOU can live without any meat of any kind does not mean that another person particularly a very athletic one is going to thrive.
That's not really true at all. Anyone and everyone could live on a vegetarian or vegan diet. I used to be quite athletic and I had no problems. Look up vegetarian and vegan atheletes. There are many.

Quote:
You are asking the whole of planet earth to give up all meat, poultry, fish, and dairy and those who have issues with wheat basically just have fruits and vegetables to eat...
This illustrates exactly part of the problem of the typical first world diet. There are so many foods humans can eat but we only eat a very small number of them and then when someone suggests not eating meat, people freak out and say "what on earth are we going to eat?"

15 species of plants provide 90% of the world's calorie intake. However there are 15 THOUSAND species of edible plants in the world. We could have a much more varied diet if we chose to branch out.

Quote:
I would argue that wheat and gluten are far less 'natural' for the human body than meat and it shows by just how many people have sensitivity to gluten, not to mention other types of grains. So far as I know, an allergy to meat pretty much doesn't exist. Some people may have lost their gallbladders and cannot handle a lot of fat but that's a different medical issue.
Why did they lose their gallbladders in the first place? Gallstones are MUCH less common in vegans and vegetarians.

Quote:
There's a huge growing problem of type 2 diabetes and non alcoholic fatty liver disease caused by excess carbohydrate consumption in this country along with refined industrial seed oils... in particular excess fructose consumption from sweets and soda. These items are more harmful than meat. However in the end you will not get people to give up either because good food makes life worth living.
Vegans and vegetarians eat more carbs yet have half the risk of diabetes. Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes

Quote:
If you argue about what is more 'natural' to eat, as in a paleo style diet, clearly it's meats, fruits, vegetables, and seeds.. those were the most basic foods we evolved on.. only later on did we take up agriculture and have grains, much less tofu and other unnatural items, or even dairy for that matter outside of mother's breastmilk.
Meat was a very small part of ancient human's diets. Here is a video that discusses what a true paleo diet looked like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

Quote:
It's a moral argument. We are the top of the food chain. We eat meat, as do many other animal species. Does it matter we may not 'need' meat to survive? No. Instead of this merely being about factory farming vs. grass fed graze farming it's become a big vegan debate thread which was not it's intention. In any case doesn't matter much to me. Carry on!
We cannot produce the amount of meat that people eat with grass fed, free range meat. It is simply impossible. I think it is clear to most rational people that factory farming is wrong, yet it is the only way to feed the people of the first world the amount of meat they want to eat. Therefore, this discussion is about eating less meat and only eating grassfed meat.

If all 7 billion people ate the same amount of meat and it was to be raised in an "ethical" manner (not factory farms, free-range and grass fed). The average person in the first world would have to decrease their meat intake to about a tenth of what it is now. Even then, the meat industry would still be quite taxing on the environment. So because the average American eats 470 calories of meat per day now, that means they would have to drop that amount to about 50 calories per day, or about ONE hamburger a week. That means that if the average person eats 21 meals a week, one would be meat and the rest vegetarian.

This is a great article. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

Last edited by Iaskwhy; 05-24-2015 at 07:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top