Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink > Vegetarian and Vegan Food
 [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 01-27-2015, 11:11 AM
 
8,005 posts, read 7,170,420 times
Reputation: 18165

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
^^^this^^^ I know the argument has been presented that this is a myth, but I disagree about that. If you take "in shape" people from a large variety of genetic backgrounds, Men will be larger/taller, stronger, and heavier in most (if not all) situations. There is a difference between the sexes, it's undeniable. Those differences result in different protein requirements all other things remaining equal.

I'm an in shape guy who appreciates the idea of eating vegetarian as much as anyone else, but I don't have the time nor energy to eat that way. I know that I can cook up a tiny piece of organic grass-fed free-range bison, lamb, or chicken and with some vegetables and fruit (and some daily supplements) I obtain everything my body needs to not digest itself for a whole day or two.

That's huge for me; I'm active, I like to weight-lift, and I like remaining strong. I cannot spend an hour or two making or consuming each meal and my perception (whether right or wrong) is that to eat vegetarian I would have to make and consume pretty large quantities of food to get everything I need to keep myself the way I am. I see myself someday cutting meat out of my diet (or minimizing it even more), but for now it just isn't practical.
You can be meat free without spending a lot of time preparing meals. It's about what you're not eating anyway. I've been a fishatarian, (I know, pescatarian but fishatarian is self explanatory) for over 25 years and am a big strong guy with no strength or mass loss from 25+ years of missing land animal pieces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2015, 12:33 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,969,192 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1insider View Post
You can be meat free without spending a lot of time preparing meals. It's about what you're not eating anyway. I've been a fishatarian, (I know, pescatarian but fishatarian is self explanatory) for over 25 years and am a big strong guy with no strength or mass loss from 25+ years of missing land animal pieces.
You are right if you accept the premise that Fish aren't meat. Honestly, I never accepted that (even if I am going against the flow of the majority) as they are animals with organs and life requirements so similar to mammals I think the line of distinction has been drawn just for convenience. As a child that correlation came natural to me, as an adult I am amazed to see how otherwise intelligent adults would call themselves vegetarian or non-animal eating but still eat fish.

Life obviously begets life - as least in terms of animals and plants and life as we know it today. We know that plants emit signals when they are about to be killed and thus they can sense things and communicate (whether that demonstrates "intelligence" is of course arguable). Plants also consume and grow and die with a lifecycle appearing similar to the animal kingdom. That stated, drawing lines of distinction between the cruelty of my hunting and then eating an animal (which would have been killed by another predator anyway) vs going and then killing (aka harvesting) plants is thus difficult to me. I think the right approach to this thread is to assume that we accept the premise that a plant heavy diet is a healthy one... we know it, the studies prove it, and really that issue should be settled. I said plant-heavy though... I didn't say "meatless" or "without animal." I think the jury is still out on whether or not going completely without animal flesh (be it mammal or other) leads to a longer healthier life for anyone.

Why am I not a "vegetarian" today?... It's because of ease and other constraints on my life. Will I be a vegetarian in the future? Perhaps... as I get older I am finding that I am consuming less and less meat (just not in the mood for it) and I'm learning to listen to my body and it is telling me I don't need much of it at all which is why I do what I do. I don't feel like I need to make a firm stance to be anything but an omnivore right now. I question why can't people just eat what they want to eat without making a big stink about it and trying to convert others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 12:57 PM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,679,221 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
Honestly, I never accepted that (even if I am going against the flow of the majority) as they are animals with organs and life requirements so similar to mammals I think the line of distinction has been drawn just for convenience.
I think that conclusion is not well supported by a couple of critical realities: First, nature abhors step functions. Everything in nature is arrayed in smooth curves. The reality is that different species of fish differ with regard to the criteria that is being used to differentiate celery from pigs. Second, even though nature abhors step functions, decisions, by their very nature, are step functions - binary yes/no determinations. For example: I'm going to type the letter 'x'. Once that decision is made there is no middle ground - either I did type 'x' or I didn't. Trying to decide whether to "accept" whether a decision in consistent with nature, without factoring in the reality that the decision is binary, while the facts on which the decision is made are points on a smooth curve doesn't make "sense". It is important to acknowledge the binary nature of the decision. Consistency means only that, along the smooth curve, the determination should bounce back and forth between "in" and "out" but rather should be "in" until it become "out" and then should stay "out".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
As a child that correlation came natural to me, as an adult I am amazed to see how otherwise intelligent adults would call themselves vegetarian or non-animal eating but still eat fish.
Again I think you're missing some critical realities. In this case, it is important to factor in the effect of living in society with others. Practically no one in society cares to sit through a five minute description of someone's determination of where the threshold is, and practically no one other than a portion of the minority of people who are "non-animal eating" at some level are willing to bother trying to keep different words, like "vegan", "vegetarian", and "pescatarian" straight, much less getting into "ovo", "lacto" and "ovo-lacto". Since language is a human construct meant to communicate with other people, what's important is not some dogmatic view but rather what is the best way for people to interact with others in society. And even if you don't like it, the reality is that people who put the dividing line, between fish on one side and mammals and birds on the other side, are best served by calling themselves "vegetarians who eat fish" - again, not because they necessarily want to but because the people they're talking to are more likely to understand well enough what they're saying, if they describe themselves in that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
I question why can't people just eat what they want to eat without making a big stink about it and trying to convert others?
I'm sorry but again I think you need to factor into your considerations more than you are: One of many examples that answer this question is this: The more people who eat just like I do, the more the institutions of society will be inclined toward compatibility with my decision. People who like a certain less popular brand of beer like others to start liking that brand of beer because the more people who like that brand of beer the more likely the local bottle store will carry that brand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 02:29 PM
 
8,005 posts, read 7,170,420 times
Reputation: 18165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
You are right if you accept the premise that Fish aren't meat. Honestly, I never accepted that (even if I am going against the flow of the majority) as they are animals with organs and life requirements so similar to mammals I think the line of distinction has been drawn just for convenience. As a child that correlation came natural to me, as an adult I am amazed to see how otherwise intelligent adults would call themselves vegetarian or non-animal eating but still eat fish.

Life obviously begets life - as least in terms of animals and plants and life as we know it today. We know that plants emit signals when they are about to be killed and thus they can sense things and communicate (whether that demonstrates "intelligence" is of course arguable). Plants also consume and grow and die with a lifecycle appearing similar to the animal kingdom. That stated, drawing lines of distinction between the cruelty of my hunting and then eating an animal (which would have been killed by another predator anyway) vs going and then killing (aka harvesting) plants is thus difficult to me. I think the right approach to this thread is to assume that we accept the premise that a plant heavy diet is a healthy one... we know it, the studies prove it, and really that issue should be settled. I said plant-heavy though... I didn't say "meatless" or "without animal." I think the jury is still out on whether or not going completely without animal flesh (be it mammal or other) leads to a longer healthier life for anyone.

Why am I not a "vegetarian" today?... It's because of ease and other constraints on my life. Will I be a vegetarian in the future? Perhaps... as I get older I am finding that I am consuming less and less meat (just not in the mood for it) and I'm learning to listen to my body and it is telling me I don't need much of it at all which is why I do what I do. I don't feel like I need to make a firm stance to be anything but an omnivore right now. I question why can't people just eat what they want to eat without making a big stink about it and trying to convert others?
You quoted me without reading my post apparently. I called myself a "fishatarian" and said that I've not had any "land animal pieces" for 25 years. I kill life very time I brush my teeth but not eating land animals or sea animals from outside sources puts me in control of and directly responsible for the suffering that my meal causes. Ease and constraints of life don't prevent me from trying to reduce the amount of suffering my journey causes to others. I can't eliminate my footprint but I can consciously walk softly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,611,102 times
Reputation: 18503
[quote=rishi85;37972560]This is a question I've asked on a few forums on varied boards including philosophy and sociology.
I love studying and observing societies and people. And after much travelling and observing I feel like 7 out of 10 people who are vegetarians are women. Regardless of religion, location or race.
[quote]

Let's go back to the beginning. I would start by asking you to produce data on the sexual distribution of vegetarians.

Once you establish your asserted fact then we might have something to talk about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 02:36 PM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,679,221 times
Reputation: 8798
Let's move past the obvious, Jack.

Quote:
59 percent are female
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/artic...sm-in-america/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,611,102 times
Reputation: 18503
Oh look, evidence. That's all I was asking for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:02 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,250 posts, read 42,706,245 times
Reputation: 20198
This seems more like a sociology question than a food question, to me. A corresponding question would be: Why are most hunters male?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 04:35 AM
 
Location: zooland 1
3,744 posts, read 4,075,224 times
Reputation: 5531
I break the model
Vegan...45 plus years
Conservative
Policeman
Male
Lifetime athlete

Don't believe in harming any living being... (exception ..humans who harm others).. I do everything I can not to wear leather...although its always been a struggle for a duty belt

Being vegan in my profession really hasn't ever been an issue.. I get lots of questions


I wish my brethren were more conscious....

Finding a wife who was vegan and was compatible with me took half a lifetime... it was the hardest life journey for me.. I found most vegan women were liberal or nuts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,035,115 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adi from the Brunswicks View Post
There are several religious Indian people who are vegetarians, which perhaps exceed the number of american women who are vegetarians.
More than perhaps, there are around 300 million vegetarians in India.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Even factoring in all such religious groups and other equivocations regarding the gender of vegetarians, there are still substantially more women (7%) than men (4%) who are vegetarians.
This seems to be for the US, if you look around the world you don't see the same. For example in India, the number of male and female vegetarians is around the same.
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 > Food and Drink > Vegetarian and Vegan Food
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top