The Vegetarian Poll

<div>
(nipponbiki @ Feb. 04 2007,01:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(ChrisHouston @ Feb. 03 2007,23:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's very simple to be a vegetarian: Don't kill animals in order to eat. That's all. You don't have to go into any deeper philosophy than that.</div>
Yeah, but what's the point?  Like I said, the only thing that makes logical sense is because it is a living thing.

At any rate, I don't need sarcasm or insults.

I am not asking for justification, I am sincerely interested in the reasoning because I would like to understand it, even if I don't agree with it.

By the way, as to whether is natural or not, weren't humans originally hunters?
rock.gif
???</div>
It doesn't look like anyone wit bite. My guess is that it's all about feelings.
 
Did some investigating... way wrong about the forest land stat. What I did find is 1% decrease in forest land in the last 100 years.

I found a paper on a vegtetarian web site entitled &quot;Humans are Omnivores&quot;

Here's a comment on primates:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The Great Apes
There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates).
</div>

Here's a nice on to dispute what has been posted here:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.
Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.</div>

Here's a link to the full paper:http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
 
Since this was deleted, I'm reposting it to comment on it:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Facial Muscles
Carnivore Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Omnivore Reduced
Herbivore Well developed
Human Well developed
Jaw Motion
Carnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Omnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Human No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore Short and pointed
Omnivore Short and pointed
Herbivore Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped
Human Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore Long, sharp, and curved
Omnivore Long, sharp, and curved
Herbivore Dull and short or long (for defense) or none
Human Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore Sharp, jagged, and blade-shaped
Omnivore Sharp blades and/or flattened
Herbivore Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface
Human Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Human Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore No digestive enzymes
Omnivore No digestive enzymes
Herbivore Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes
Human Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach
Omnivore Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Human pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore 3 to 6 times body length
Omnivore 4 to 6 times body length
Herbivore 10 to more than 12 times body length
Human 10 to 11 times body length
Nails
Carnivore Sharp claws
Omnivore Sharp claws
Herbivore Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Human Flattened nails
</div>

This is from a document called &quot;The Comparative Anatomy of Eating&quot; by Dr. Milton Mills. Milton Mills sits on the board of the PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE, or PCRM. With a little digging, I learned that this is a group which has received $1.3m from PeTA. There former spokesman, Jerry Vlasak, once said, &quot;I don't think you'd have to kill too many researchers. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.&quot;

Make your own judgements, but don't be afraid to Google this stuff!
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fausto, you can’t expect everybody to buy the biblical arguments, but I appreciate them and thank you for the witness.</div>

I guess not Ruthenian,but as I said I was just rambling and got a bit miffed because people were making fun of vegetarianism and vegetarians without first trying to know why people make that choice.

Anyway, I see you are Ok and have at least found some.

and...happy anyversary!
biggrin.gif
 
I like to eat animals. I will kill them myself and eat them in order to survive. I am an omnivorous animal, much like a bear.

If someone else doesn't want to eat animals, cool.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Being vegetarian is a religious or philosophical decision, not a scientific or health based issue. So... </div>

Tot - you could not be more wrong, it is mostly an health based issue.

The phylosophy of not wanting to kill animals is an added disencouaragement (I don't know if you've ever seen the inside of an abatoir before, the killing is just off putting to say the least).

But...I think that between Jake and ruthenian they can defend themselves pretty well indeed.
wink.gif
without me joining in, mind you I still eat meat but understand the vegetarian approach quite thouroughly!
cool.gif
 
Here's something else, animal protein amino acid composition have a Sulphur molecule which is converted to sulphuric acid, the body then to counterbalance this uses Calcium from the bones to buffer the acidity.

Our body is alkaline by design and acidic by function, some even argue that the source of all diseases is acidity.

There are some claims of cancers being cured by an alkaline diet, apparently cancer cells do not survive an alkaline environment but thrive in an acidic one!

Here's just a small reason to go veggie!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Feb. 05 2007,01:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here's something else, animal protein amino acid composition have a Sulphur molecule

Here's just a small reason to go veggie!
wink.gif
</div>
Not as small as you might think. Sulfur content in the diet from the meat protein along with the beans and rice to fire things off tend to make us...well...err...unpleasant to be around at times.

I just remembered that one. A &quot;fart special&quot; on the discovery kids channel of all things.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A &quot;fart special&quot; on the discovery kids channel of all things. </div>

Apparently this nauzeous effect is rather diminished amongst vegetarians, don't forget the puterfying effect of excess protein in the gut makes it rather &quot;deadly&quot; to say the least
laugh.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics</div>

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this answers the issue of comparative anatomy at all.  It is a blanket philosophical statement that does not address the specifics of the case and really only says that there is some overlap in biological classifications.  Regardless, the GI anatomy of herbivores and carnivores is different because they are adapted to different diets -- this was the specific issue at hand.  The other stuff about facial characteristics, etc, was not really part of the discussion, it just happened to be in that referenced paper.  Still, it is obvious to anyone that humans do not have the natural weapons needed (claws and fangs) to take down prey.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I learned that this is a group which has received $1.3m from PeTA</div>

This is a case of an ad hominem attack and does not get to the question of the facts. I didn’t bother to find who was the source, as it is irrelevant if the facts are correct.  If the facts are not correct, that is a different matter.   I am not asking if the conclusions are correct (as you say, draw your own), but are the facts incorrect? Sure, PCRM is a left-liberal group and you are free to question their facts – I tend to be conservative and I would, as well.  But if the facts are correct, the source doesn’t matter.

I think that it would be hard to argue that humans under “natural” conditions were not mostly herbivorous.  Again, the equipment is not naturally there to eat and capture prey in any meaningful way.  The invention of tools allowed them to become opportunistic hunters and society later developed to make this a regular part of the diet.  

OK, here is a quasi philosophical/scientific thought:  Contrary to the assertions of some “Deep Ecology” types, humans are dramatically different from other animals and our ability to manipulate our environment has progressively largely removed us from natural/evolutionary pressures.  Whether you believe this is due to the Imago Dei, or some quantum evolutionary jump, it is the fact.  This makes it hard to argue anything about humans’ natural conditions after the invention of tools, so I have a hard time buying statements that we physically evolved as hunters when the anatomical evidence is so obvious.  That we later prospered and became so dominant (in some ways 
wink.gif
 ) due to this tool-making ability is a different matter, however.

Sheesh, did I really write all that? (ok, the debate is kinda fun, after all)
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This makes it hard to argue anything about humans’ natural conditions after the invention of tools, so I have a hard time buying statements that we physically evolved as hunters when the anatomical evidence is so obvious.</div>

Which makes the whole theory of evolution quite useless IMO, we could not possibly come from an unknown &quot;BANG&quot; of some kind, no way Jose! Our design is too fantastic to come from a soup of chemicals, come on....
laugh.gif
 
I've been a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 21 years now, since I was 14. It's not really a choice I've ever regretted or seen much consequence of. You can get all the protein you need from non-meat sources if you've half a brain to try.

At age 21 I won the national powerlifting champs here as a junior having lifts like...

Squat 250Kg
Bench 140Kg
Deadlift 280Kg

I'm 5ft 8 and these were in the 90Kg class. I've got average genetics.

Don't let anyone tell you that vegetarianism and sport generally aren't compatible.

Live and let live
smile.gif


(Kudos to the other 13.8% of HST vegetarians out there)
 
Please don't start talking about evolution, especially when some of you guys don't understand the actual current theory of evolution. It's not &quot;we came from a BANG&quot; or anything dumb like that. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution anyway.

Anyway, no one has proven why meat is unhealthy. Sulfur molecule? Excess protein putrifying in the gut, etc etc? That seems to only show that excess is bad... not a very good argument against eating meat - and I would hope that we all know that ANYthing is excess is bad. A vegetarian of any flavor can still be unhealthy if they are eating an excess.
I'm sure you could come up with science to back up either point, but not to prove either point, which takes us back to it being a personal, philosophical choice.

Just out of curiosity - if eating meat is bad for your health, then how come so many meat eaters are in good health? Seems counterintuitive, if you assume that being vegetarian is more healthy than following a more balanced diet that includes meat. As far as I know, eating too many plant fats can be just as bad for you as eating too many animal fats.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is a case of an ad hominem attack and does not get to the question of the facts.</div>

It's been a while since I've taken logic classes, but if I remember correctly, as hominem refers to attacking the person rather than the issue. One critical issue here is credibility, and showing that the PCRM is a lackey to a far left wing, fanatical organization is critical.

Here's why credibility is so important. Although you assert that the document I re-posted is &quot;fact,&quot; it is indeed a lie. It is propaganda at it's finest (worst) and you have either fallen for it, or you knowingly perpetuate it.

Let's talk about the &quot;facts.&quot;

I have not checked everything in that list, and I don't have to. For the sake of argument, let's say the good doctor is spot on.

First, the doctor uses physical anatomy to show that humans are naturally herbavores. As I posted earlier, although anatomy is used in taxonomy, it is NOT used as a criteria for establishing the dietary characteristic of a species -- beit carnivore, herbavore, omnivore, etc. You seem to have missed this when you posted:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this answers the issue of comparative anatomy at all. It is a blanket philosophical statement that does not address the specifics of the case and really only says that there is some overlap in biological classifications.</div>

In other words, the anatomy argument is out the window.

Becides this deception within the doctor's paper, there is more to show that it is merely propaganda. The doctor cites numerous similarities between humans and herbavores while simultaneously showing differences between hunmans and carnivores/omnivores. This is a lie of omission. The doctor does not include in his list the similarities between humans and carnivores/omnivores, nor does he include differences between humans and herbavores.

Using such a tactic, on could prove that humans are fish, birds, or whatever else you want. Use the &quot;phd&quot; in your title for credibility, and hide the fact that you are an arm of a fanatical group, and you have a textbook example of propaganda.

Finally, you bring up the GI anatomy of humans, herbavores, carnivores, and omnivores. This is an area in which the good doctor prpetraits one of his biggest lies of omission.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.
</div>

This is a HUGE difference between herbavores and humans, yet no mention of it in the doctor's list.

Again, look at the nature of the document, bring into account the credibility of the source, and you see that it in no way proves that humans are &quot;Naturally Herbavores&quot; or anything else.
 
Eto, frankly I regretted that last post almost as soon as I made it.  Not because I thought it was wrong, but because I knew it would continue to perpetuate an endless round of argument.  I could answer what you post, maybe even agree with some, but at this point I have to think that neither of us is likely to convince the other, so I choose to resist the temptation to argue further. There are plenty of scientific arguments on both sides of the issue and we may never really know the answer unless there is some sort of afterlife where all is revealed to us (hope so!).  

Let's just leave it as an issue of personal choice.  I happen to believe that it is the better choice not to kill animals if it is not necessary. But society as a whole has made a different choice and I have to accept that I could be wrong, just as I hope you would.

Right now, I 'd rather use this board to learn how to get bigger and stronger.  
smile.gif
 
 
Hey Ruthenian, if we were together right now, I'd treat you to a Boca Burger!!

I'm a hunter, have lots of relatives and friends who are farmers, and I'm a Christain. I feel that there is no problem with killing an animal.

I also love the whole &quot;internet debate&quot; thing that occurs from time to time on message boards. Nothing personal, just a good mental exercise ... I usually learn from the experience, as I have here.

No knocks against your choice. Heck, I married a vegetarian!!! She has converted, though
biggrin.gif


Keep on keeping on, Ruthenian!!
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Heck, I married a vegetarian!!! She has converted, though </div>
Ah, the insane things women do for love!  
wink.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Still, it is obvious to anyone that humans do not have the natural weapons needed (claws and fangs) to take down prey. </div>

Ummm...that is a ridiculous statement.  My pet cats have claws and fangs, but everyday they look to me as the alpha-hunter who brings home the kill to feed them.  Humans have the most powerful natural weapon of any animal on the planet.   BRAINS and the ability to fashion and use tools.  I have confronted a large, male black bear in the wilderness, and he backed down.  He FEARED me and I was bare-handed.  He could have taken me in a hand-to-hand fight, but I easily could have picked up a large, sharp stick and speared him in the gut or cut out his eye.  He wasn't about to try me.  And I consider the ability to fashion and utilize weapons a natural human predatory ability.  I have seen small children catch and kill fish with very simple tools.

As a species we have been spearing and eating animals since the ice ages at least!  Homo Sapiens are the most opportunistic omnivores on the planet.  The argument that we are SUPPOSED to be pure herbivores is wrong.  We are omnivores which can exist on plant life only or on only meat.  The native eskimos of the arctic eat almost nothing but meat.  Over 90% of their diet is animal flesh and they are a very healthy culture, with a much lower risk of heart disease than your average person.

I was vegetarian for a period of time.  I was under-weight, frail and my good cholestoral was too low.  Now I am muscular, strong and overall healthy.  I had a difficult time not eating meat and getting all my nutrients.  Of course some people manage to do it, it is possible to get all nutrients and be healthy without meat.

I have no problem with vegetarians...people can live healthy on this type of diet.  But I strongly disagree with people who think it is unhealthy or unnatural for us to eat meat.  It is a choice.....because we ARE omnivores.
 
Perhaps I can muddy the issue a bit to the delight of all. I lived for a year on an &quot;Intentional Community&quot;, what we know as a &quot;commune&quot; in Missouri. They are part of the International Federation of Intentional Communities, which means basically an alternate lifestyle (new age, humanist) that must be self-supporting. About half of the members were vegetarians and the other of us sadistic, fuzzy animal slaughtering, neanderthal meat-rippers.
The ONLY difference I noticed between us (the meals were served on two counters, veggie and meatie, so two lines) was the amount of ticks that we meaters attracted and the vegetarians did not. There were fat, skinny, semi-muscular, anorexic, energetics of all kinds on both sides. Admittedly, milk and cheese were used copiously amongst all since we had our own dairy herd and cheese factory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top