Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Vegans

Vegans (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 08:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Soy milk also contains denatured proteins, anti-nutrients, lysinealine (cancer-causing), and reduces the amount of some of our amino acids.
Actually, I've always wondered about soy milk because it's highly processed. What exactly do you mean by "anti-nutrients" and what is lysinealine? Got articles or studies that examine that nutritional content of soy milk?
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 08:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
Actually, I've always wondered about soy milk because it's highly processed. What exactly do you mean by "anti-nutrients" and what is lysinealine? Got articles or studies that examine that nutritional content of soy milk?
My brothers actually grow soybeans so I guess I should be pro soy milk.

but it is just soooo grosss.

give me cow's milk anyday..preferably chocolate.

     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 08:50 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
Actually, I've always wondered about soy milk because it's highly processed. What exactly do you mean by "anti-nutrients" and what is lysinealine? Got articles or studies that examine that nutritional content of soy milk?
lysinealine is a carcinogen created by the alkaline soaking (search google for "lysinealine") anti-nutrients make it more difficult to digest plants in their raw state (cooking them seems to get rid of many of them), they include: alkylrescorcinols, alpha-amylase inhitors, protease inhibitors. They are toxic and can encourage atopic diseases (asthma, eczema). Google "anti-nutrients". If you check the links I made on page 4, they include some of this information.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 09:16 PM
 
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/infant.html

here's something about soy milk. includes the stuff you were asking about.
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 09:24 PM
 
Stradlater,

Interesting articles on soy milk. I found a couple of articles and studies that contest those claims. I guess more studies will have to be done

But that's an example of why I've always thought that dietary health is not a good enough reason to become a vegetarian or a vegan. Clearly, you can be healthy on a omnivorous diet.

And even though a vegetarian diet can reduce your risk of cancer or heart disease, it doesn't eliminate it. If you've got bad genetics, no diet will help you.

As for carcinogens in soy milk, it won't surprise me if that turns out to be true. BBQ meats contain carcinogens. So does single-malt whisky. Many foods contain pesticide residue which are suspected of being carcinogenic.

And one day medical science may produce a pill that allows us to eat whatever crap we want without suffering harmful effects.

That's why ethical arguments for vegetarianism are much, much stronger than health-based arguments.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 10:46 PM
 
I think the soy milk issue is only tangentially related at best. I've never had it, and it's certainly not a necessity for a vegetarian diet.

Since Stradlater hasn't restate his arguments yet, let me try.

1. A vegetarian diet is less moral than a meat-eating diet, since more animals are killed in the field to produce vegetables than are killed for meat.
I've already debunked this fairly thoroughly, but I'll do it again. Stradlater's "proof" of this claim seems to be entirely based on this theory, stating that more wild animals (mice etc) are killed when wheat and vegetables are harvested than when the same land is used for the grazing of cows and the like.

The problem with this (aside from the fact that there is no way too know how many animals are accidentally killed during a harvest) is that he ignores the same amount of land will feed 10 times as many people when used for growing food than for raising animals for meat. This means that using the land for meat actually kills many more animals for the amount of food produced. Either Davis doesn't realize this or he is being intentionally dishonest in trying to support his point.

In addition, he only defines "harm" to animals in one way -- by counting the number of deaths. A comparison of the life of a field-mouse with that of an animal bred for meat will reveal some major differences in the quality of life and the amount of suffering experienced.

Finally, one must surely recognize a difference between accidental death and intentional killing.

No one is blameless, and I have never said that a vegetarian diet removes all animal death or cruelty, but it is by far the more humane option when compared with the average American diet.

(This page sums up the problems pretty well: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm)

Care to respond to this?
( Last edited by icruise; Aug 13, 2003 at 11:17 PM. )
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 11:05 PM
 
2. Vegetarian children lack the proper nutrition for development of the brain.
Let's examine this premise. What is the message here? That the vegetarian diet will make you less intelligent than if you were to eat meat. But is there ANY proof that vegetarian children are less intelligent than meat eating children? Are their IQs any lower than the average?

from here

"Not only do vegetarian children demonstrate equal or higher intelligence in some cases, they grow up to be just as tall and as strong as children raised on the Standard American Diet. The only real difference between vegetarian children and non-vegetarian children is that vegetarians are not overweight.
from here

Myth: My children will not develop properly without some meat in their diet.

Fact: Numerous studies have shown that vegetarian children grow at rates similar to non-vegetarian children. In one study in the European Journal of Nutrition, vegetarian children were actually somewhat taller than their classmates. Moreover, a comparison of vegetarian and non-vegetarian school children published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association showed the vegetarian children to have higher intelligence quotients (IQs).
There are a number of similar articles, but the point is that I haven't yet found one to indicate that vegetarian children are in any way less intelligent than omnivores.

Conclusion: this argument is just so much hot air. I will certainly admit that vegetarians should watch their diets (just as anyone should) and that vegetarians may be prone to certain deficiencies. But then again, so is the average American child. But all of this "vegetarianism shrinks your brain" nonsense is just stupid.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 12:47 AM
 
"vegetarianism shrinks your brain" nonsense is just stupid. [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm not sure that Vegetarianism will shrink your brain... what is scientifcally proven is that Vegetarian/Vegan diets result in less brain growth in vegetarian/veganist children compared to normal children on a normal diet.

The damage to babies is especially severe so much so that even Veganist literature warns of the dangers of the Veganist diet on new born babies.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 02:21 AM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I'm not sure that Vegetarianism will shrink your brain... what is scientifcally proven is that Vegetarian/Vegan diets result in less brain growth in vegetarian/veganist children compared to normal children on a normal diet.
And my point was that even if this were true, there is NOTHING to indicate reduced intelligence in vegetarian children. So even if they had smaller brains, it's sure doesn't seem to be hurting them any.

The damage to babies is especially severe so much so that even Veganist literature warns of the dangers of the Veganist diet on new born babies.
By all means, show us some of this "Veganist" literature.
     
phantomdragonz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
here

that gets scary when the mother is still breast feeding their children when they are 6 or more years of age! I have seen many storys on the news about this... By the way I work at a "natural foods retail chain/grocery store" and i see some interesting things...

<random tidbit>One coworker of mine was (somehow) talking about how she had to mail order condoms because normal condoms have some animal bi-product as a lubricant.. I laughed, but was not that surprised... she later quit because she was disgusted by how popular our meat department was... she was militant... We sell TONS of soy milk and soy products (It' scary how there is LITERALLY (not really) everything made out of soy... soy meat, soy cheese, soy milk, soy snacks(nuts etc.)) there seems to be a soy variant of every product... soy mayo,tofurkey (yeah i know tofu)..... it's endless.

one of the funnyist products we sell is a re-usable cotton menstrual pad...$13.95 i have only sold this to lesbian women with dredlocks and dirty clothing. this is my personal observation... i enjoy my work... i get to see some INTERESTING people.... i wish i had my digi cam when this HUGE hippy bus was in the lot, they had chopped off the top of a VW bus and put that on top, you could see hammocks hanging inside the bus... it was painted with HUGE murals and a website URL...

back on topic...
The ONLY gripe i have about veggys and vegans is if they force their pets/children to be vegans or veggys... more so on the pets... people can eat whatever the hell they want as far as i am concerned (within reason, people for one) but when they try to tell me what to do I will probably tell them to "shut the f*ck up" and i am not a person to be like that, but if they try to mess with my eating habits then they enter a whole new level... i will tell them how i feel... "SHUT THE F*CK UP! i dont care what you eat leave me the f*ck alone, go eat some sprouts... "

off topic ::warning rambling::

there was this one lesbian couple that tried to convince a female co worker of mine that the fact that she was standing in front of the scanner that the lazer light might effect her ovaries, Etc. I actually was like... it's just photons, the same stuff you see right here (raising my hands looking at the light above us) they proceeded to say something... they left... I laughed... of and that does not even come close to the customers who wont let you scan any of the items because it will "mess up the vibrations of the food" I have heard of customers bringing in geiger counter looking things to measure these "vibrations" IT A GODDAMN LAZER>>>> IT"S ONLY PHOTONS! i would be more worried about radio waves and EM fields.... not a goddamn LAZER!!! goddamn boulder hippies. If anyone has been to Boulder Colorado be sure to stop by arapahoe and baseline... take a visit to my work and see the odd things we have on our shelves... and the odd people walking between them... it makes it FUN!


Carry on nothing to see here.... go back to the topic....

P.D.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I've already debunked this fairly thoroughly, but I'll do it again. Stradlater's "proof" of this claim seems to be entirely based on this theory, stating that more wild animals (mice etc) are killed when wheat and vegetables are harvested than when the same land is used for the grazing of cows and the like.

The problem with this (aside from the fact that there is no way too know how many animals are accidentally killed during a harvest) is that he ignores the same amount of land will feed 10 times as many people when used for growing food than for raising animals for meat. This means that using the land for meat actually kills many more animals for the amount of food produced. Either Davis doesn't realize this or he is being intentionally dishonest in trying to support his point.

In addition, he only defines "harm" to animals in one way -- by counting the number of deaths. A comparison of the life of a field-mouse with that of an animal bred for meat will reveal some major differences in the quality of life and the amount of suffering experienced.

Finally, one must surely recognize a difference between accidental death and intentional killing.

No one is blameless, and I have never said that a vegetarian diet removes all animal death or cruelty, but it is by far the more humane option when compared with the average American diet.

(This page sums up the problems pretty well: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm)

Care to respond to this?
First of all, I never claimed it to be proof, it just shows that a lot of animals may die because of large-scale farming and harvest. You just take your argument-for-argument from the rebuttal...here goes with mine: First of all, animal farming is far more efficient than vegetable farming. It may be impossible to feed the world solely on vegetables, there are too many people and too little space to grow enough food. Many humans may die starving if it weren't for the amount of meat you can raise in a given area. So I'm not sure that rebuttal is completely fair in saying that land with veggies feeds more than land with ruminants. Yes, he defines harm as killing, because it is the only constant factor. Some animals are raised in poorer conditions than others, and this is what you really should be fighting, rather than meat as a whole (as meat is quite important in our diets, if you'd like me to get into that aspect again). Some factory-farming conditions are awful, but free-range has the potential to be better. Maybe some farmers dishonestly claim to be free-range, but not all do, and this little argument could be propaganda on the part of vegetarians. The lives of free-range cattle can be perfectly fine; kept safe from predators during their lives, trees in the field offering shade, walking space, socializing space. Fight for better conditions if you want to make an impact, you're not going to change a thing by buying more veggies (just maybe increase the demand of large-scale harvests). So yes, at least the number of deaths can be (for the most part) quantified, while it would be much closer to impossible to quantify harm in every little sense of the word. Now accidental vs. intentional. Again, what precautions are made to prevent the animal deaths during harvest, et cetera? That's right, none. And the deaths may be numerous.

Do you realize your plant eating is still relatable to our animal eating? Animal-farming is good for the fields that grow veggies you eat; they fertilize fields naturally. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians drink milk, but cows cannot produce milk until they produce offspring...and what's to be done with the offspring? Many are killed for meat because otherwise we'd have a lot of cows overcrowding, are lacto-vegetarians responsible or not?

And soy milk IS a factor for vegans, perhaps not all vegetarians. Regardless, mothers that have low B12 levels (vitamin from animal products) and low fatty acid levels (fats available from animals only) produce children of lower birth weight. Lower birth weight is linked to ill-health in later life, heart disease, obstructive lung disease, asthma, and so on. Under-nutrition during infancy is also related to stunted brain growth and yes, CAN have quite an effect on intellectual development. Some babies of vegan families have died due to B12 deficiency in the breast milk of their mothers (http://www.cyc-net.org/today/today020610.html). I already went over other arguments against soy milk earlier.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 04:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
First of all, animal farming is far more efficient than vegetable farming.
How is animal farming much more efficient if it takes many times as much land and resources to create the same amount of food? Why is it that many have suggested vegetarianism as a possible solution to world hunger? I don't see where you are getting this from.

See here for some statistics:
http://planet-hawaii.com/gentleworld...vironment.html

It may be impossible to feed the world solely on vegetables, there are too many people and too little space to grow enough food.
from: http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsveg5.html
A Population Reference Bureau report stated, "If everyone adopted a vegetarian diet and no food were wasted, current [food] production would theoretically feed 10 billion people, more than the projected population for the year 2050."
And soy milk IS a factor for vegans, perhaps not all vegetarians. Regardless, mothers that have low B12 levels (vitamin from animal products) and low fatty acid levels (fats available from animals only) produce children of lower birth weight. Lower birth weight is linked to ill-health in later life, heart disease, obstructive lung disease, asthma, and so on. Under-nutrition during infancy is also related to stunted brain growth and yes, CAN have quite an effect on intellectual development. Some babies of vegan families have died due to B12 deficiency in the breast milk of their mothers (http://www.cyc-net.org/today/today020610.html). I already went over other arguments against soy milk earlier.
That is a sad case, but the fact is that there are vegetarian sources of vitamin B12 (some kinds of yeast and B12 fortified cereals, as well as vitamin supplements). Just because this boy's parents were negligent does not mean that the vegetarian diet is inherently bad.
( Last edited by icruise; Aug 14, 2003 at 04:53 AM. )
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
How is animal farming much more efficient if it takes 10 times as much land to create the same amount of food? Why is it that many have suggested vegetarianism as a possible solution to world hunger? I don't see where you are getting this from.
Much of the land on the surface of the earth is not suitable for farming. Some 10% of the earth's surface is probably suitable for various kinds of vegetable farming. Many places, animal farming is the only feasible use of the land (efficiency-wise for feeding the 6 billion+ humans of this earth). Outside of land is water, and PLENTY of fish are eaten each year... Are you trying to tell me that if human beings didn't eat meat, they'd survive just fine? It seems like more humans would starve than the great number that already does.

Originally posted by Icruise:
That is a sad case, but the fact is that there are vegetarian sources of vitamin B12 (some kinds of yeast and B12 fortified cereals, as well as vitamin supplements). Just because this boy's parents were negligent does not mean that the vegetarian diet is inherently bad.
It goes to show you that humans DO need animal products for development, and while we can escape that through artificial means (cereals and vitamins), can you tell me a natural way for vegetarians to avoid these deficiencies and problems?

EDIT: Here's to your PETA quotation: The eventual projection of what the human population may level out to be is 15 billion, so that wouldn't work so well in the far future. Oh, and that's saying if no food was wasted? I doubt you always consume everything on your plate, and if you do I doubt many others do...it is an impossibility, an ideal. Also: not all of the plants harvested make it to the market, some harvests don't make it due to weather conditions, et cetera. A lot of food is wasted...
( Last edited by Stradlater; Aug 14, 2003 at 05:07 AM. )
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:14 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
It goes to show you that humans DO need animal products for development, and while we can escape that through artificial means (cereals and vitamins), can you tell me a natural way for vegetarians to avoid these deficiencies and problems?
I personally don't have a problem with eggs and milk products, as long as they are arrived at through human means. But what's so special about something being "natural"? People use medicines and vitamins all the time to improve their health and to cure sicknesses. What's wrong with vegetarians doing it? And apparently B12 does occur naturally in some vegetarian foods.

EDIT: Here's to your PETA quotation: The eventual projection of what the human population may level out to be is 15 billion, so that wouldn't work so well in the far future. Oh, and that's saying if no food was wasted? I doubt you always consume everything on your plate, and if you do I doubt many others do...it is an impossibility, an ideal. Also: not all of the plants harvested make it to the market, some harvests don't make it due to weather conditions, et cetera. A lot of food is wasted...
But that quote was only about the amount food that is being produced *right now*. If we actually gave up animal farming and converted to vegetable farming, we would have considerably more available.

from the PETA article:
For example, a cow grazing on one acre of land produces enough meat to sustain a person two and a half months; soybeans grown on that same acre would nourish a person for seven years
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:15 AM
 
I covered the child health issue in more detail than this, but the post was lost to MacNN downtime and an unexpected quit... Here goes:

You say there is no link between brain development an the intelligence because a few studies showed vegetarians to be quite intelligent. First of all, vegetarians have to be somewhat intelligent, this can be seen by their compassion for other animals, et cetera. This does not mean, however, that the children would not be smarter if they were on a regular diet. Vegetarian babies have been shown to have lower birth weight and poorer development (especially that of the brain and nervous system). Low birth weight is scientifically linked to an increased risk in poor health later in life, as well as heart disease, obstructive lung diseases, asthma, and more. Intelligence has been seen to depend on brain development, which seems obvious enough.
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:18 AM
 
B12 is produced in your body by your skin being exposed to sunlight. 1/2 hour a day especially on the backs of your forearms (more absorption there) is all you need.

You can also receive B12 by not washing and sterlizing your vegetables. Lots of B12 in the soil - which is where it was originally obtained. The reason for B12 being added to fortified cereals and such is because people started washing their food!
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I personally don't have a problem with eggs and milk products, as long as they are arrived at through human means. But what's so special about something being "natural"? People use medicines and vitamins all the time to improve their health and to cure sicknesses. What's wrong with vegetarians doing it? And apparently B12 does occur naturally in some vegetarian foods.

But that quote was only about the amount food that is being produced *right now*. If we actually gave up animal farming and converted to vegetable farming, we would have considerably more available.

from the PETA article:
[/B]
That last PETA quotation is misleading, far more than one cow could graze on an acre. And I'm betting they exaggerate how much grain is there by doing a best-case-scenario and rounding up. B12 is an animal product, I'm pretty sure that it's appearance in vegetables is minimal. One example of unnatural things being worse: Pesticides, and avoiding them. Genetically-engineered vegetables are now grown with boosted natural toxins so that pesticides won't be necessary. These natural toxins aren't very good for us, though. Showing that vegetarian diets have to be somewhat artificial shows that it's not really a natural thing for our species to do. We CAN do it, we're very adaptable, but it doesn't mean it's the healthiest thing for us. And yes, while you personally have no problems with eggs and milk, vegans DO, and there are some moral issues with both of those products...
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:21 AM
 
My point about the child health issue is this: if you cannot demonstrate any ill effects from their diet (none of this "well...they might have been even more intelligent if they ate meat" nonesense) then I don't think it's a valid point to make. You and NYCFarmboy implied that vegetarians were less intelligent than meat eaters because of their diets, and yet there is no empirical proof that points to a difference in intelligence. Assuming the parents take care to feed their children a balanced diet with the proper nutrients, there's no reason to assume that there will be any ill affects on the child. Indeed, I would say the effects of the average American diet (chronic obesity for starters) pose far greater risks.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:25 AM
 
Originally posted by screamingFit:
B12 is produced in your body by your skin being exposed to sunlight. 1/2 hour a day especially on the backs of your forearms (more absorption there) is all you need.

You can also receive B12 by not washing and sterlizing your vegetables. Lots of B12 in the soil - which is where it was originally obtained. The reason for B12 being added to fortified cereals and such is because people started washing their food!
Raw vegetables and their toxins is not the healthiest way to consume them. Cooking vegetables is healthier as it eliminates anti-nutrients and other natural plant toxins. B12 is in dirt why? Because of fertilization, it's an animal product. You're getting it from the dirt, and not a whole lot of it. You COULD eat manure, I guess, but then again, vegans are probably against that ;D

As for the sun giving you B12...source please! I'm pretty sure you're mistaking it for vitamin D. If I'm not mistaken, sunlight actually destroys B12 in your body.
(http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_ad...mins_which.htm)
B12...Destroyed by: water, sunlight, alcohol, oestrogen and sleeping pills.
OH, and people wash their food for a reason
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
My point about the child health issue is this: if you cannot demonstrate any ill effects from their diet (none of this "well...they might have been even more intelligent if they ate meat" nonesense) then I don't think it's a valid point to make. You and NYCFarmboy implied that vegetarians were less intelligent than meat eaters because of their diets, and yet there is no empirical proof that points to a difference in intelligence. Assuming the parents take care to feed their children a balanced diet with the proper nutrients, there's no reason to assume that there will be any ill affects on the child. Indeed, I would say the effects of the average American diet (chronic obesity for starters) pose far greater risks.
You put words into my mouth quite often, don't you? I never implied vegetarians were stupider than meat-eaters, I implied that they are probably less intelligent than they could have been on an individual basis. And yes, there are ill effects, they're at higher risk for a lot of ailments, some of which I JUST listed (and as far as intelligence goes, they may very well be less intelligent than they could have been). And I am not praising the average American diet, as it's worse than vegetarianism (in different, perhaps more severe ways, of course). But I'm pretty sure that the healthiest is a nice balance.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:51 AM
 
I'm not putting words in your mouth, just following your argument to its natural conclusion. You are saying that being vegetarian stunts brain growth and thus limits intelligence. Unless you seriously want to argue that all vegetarians have above average intelligence at birth that is then brought back to average by their diets, the only way I can interpret your stance is that vegetarians as a whole are stupider than meat eaters.

However, the studies that I have read indicate that this is not the case. Hence, your argument does not hold water.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 09:28 AM
 
the only way I can interpret your stance is that vegetarians as a whole are stupider than meat eaters.
[/B]
Yes.. that is obvious, especially if veganists are forcing the Vegetarian diet on newborn children and inhibiting their brain growth.

I think that is an obvious definition of being stupid.
     
itomato
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
it's ALL subjective. it's all data that easily manipulated. Some vegetarians are probably responsible for more deaths than some meat-eaters with their particular food, and some meat-eaters are probably responsible for more deaths than some vegetarians... but as a whole, the argument stands. All I'm trying to say is that vegetarians are not inherently better people than meat-eaters, as some vegetarians morally claim to be.
Claiming to be "morally better" is something I reserve for Christians. As for vegetarianism, ethically better is more appropriate. I can't think of many serious vegetarians that consider themselves morally better in that sense.

Try again, prep-school boy.
-- | T () /\/\ /.\ T () --
     
itomato
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Raw vegetables and their toxins is not the healthiest way to consume them. Cooking vegetables is healthier as it eliminates anti-nutrients and other natural plant toxins.
Nope. Most plants don't have the "toxins" you claim to be so harmful. In fact, more harmful compounds are produced during the cooking process. There are chemical reactions that take place when it is cooked. French fries are far more toxic than a raw potato. Why? Heat.

It's true that the cooking process is nice for some vegetables, like garlic and onions, that contain starches that break down and turn to sugars when cooked, and that's why the odors mostly go away after you cook them.

The notion that raw vegetables are somehow unhealthy boggles my mind.

How many millions of years do you think our ancestors were cooking food?
-- | T () /\/\ /.\ T () --
     
philzilla
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 12:38 PM
 
Stradlater, if you don't particularly like the idea of vegetarianism, can't you see that other people actually do and step away from the scene? you're just making a complete idiot out of yourself, frankly.

feel free to carry on, though.
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 12:57 PM
 
Originally posted by philzilla:
Stradlater, if you don't particularly like the idea of vegetarianism, can't you see that other people actually do and step away from the scene? you're just making a complete idiot out of yourself, frankly.

feel free to carry on, though.

Its not an issue of what you choose to do yourself. But that the imposition of the Veganist/Vegetarian diet on small children results in lower brain size.

Its very simple.

Veganist/Vegetarian diets for infant and small children results in smaller brain size and in some cases even death.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:04 PM
 
Originally posted by philzilla:
Stradlater, if you don't particularly like the idea of vegetarianism, can't you see that other people actually do and step away from the scene? you're just making a complete idiot out of yourself, frankly.

feel free to carry on, though.
I'll stop commenting on vegetarianism when vegetarians stop commenting on meat-eaters

I'm making an ass out of myself? Please point out where; I've tried to be objective, admitting the weak ends of my arguments but pointing out that there is room for debate.
     
philzilla
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Veganist/Vegetarian diets for infant and small children results in smaller brain size and in some cases even death.
sorry. that's just wrong. i know people who have been vegetarian (and vegan, in one case) since the day they were born. they are very much alive, and healthy.

where is your proof of this? care to share your source?
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I'm not putting words in your mouth, just following your argument to its natural conclusion. You are saying that being vegetarian stunts brain growth and thus limits intelligence. Unless you seriously want to argue that all vegetarians have above average intelligence at birth that is then brought back to average by their diets, the only way I can interpret your stance is that vegetarians as a whole are stupider than meat eaters.

However, the studies that I have read indicate that this is not the case. Hence, your argument does not hold water.
Different people draw different conclusions, I guess. I've explained to you on several occasions where conclusions can be led. First of all: when the brain is already fully-developed (or close to so), many vegetarians jump on the band-wagon, so the majority would not have under-developed brains. These are compassionate people that on the average have above-average intelligence. Their children, inheriting their genes, should be quite intelligent as well, but inheriting the lifestyle potentially limits their intelligent peak. So while they're still smart, they may not be as smart as they could be. So yes, on the average, I'm guessing children in vegetarian families DO have genetic potential for above-average intelligence...

And look, the underdevelopment of brains IS minimal when taking proper vitamins (without vitamins, it's apparent what happens to the children), but there are increased risks for other diseases brought on by low birth weight (listed above). Meat-eaters CAN be just as healthy as vegetarians (if not more so), but of course, it is easy to be unhealthy with a meat diet in American society.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by itomato:
Nope. Most plants don't have the "toxins" you claim to be so harmful. In fact, more harmful compounds are produced during the cooking process. There are chemical reactions that take place when it is cooked. French fries are far more toxic than a raw potato. Why? Heat.

It's true that the cooking process is nice for some vegetables, like garlic and onions, that contain starches that break down and turn to sugars when cooked, and that's why the odors mostly go away after you cook them.

The notion that raw vegetables are somehow unhealthy boggles my mind.

How many millions of years do you think our ancestors were cooking food?
Apologies for being so general. Yes, not all vegetables contain these anti-nutrients, but many do: beans and legumes contain protease inhibitors, starchy foods (like you mentioned, plus yams, cassava, etc.), as well as cereals should be cooked. These veggies are usually cooked for a reason.

Oh, and in the fries you're referring to acrylamine, a very weak carcinogen. The fat and calories from those deep-fried fries is almost definitely more harmful. Acrylamine shows up in a ton of if not almost all food (many before they're cooked, cooking just often releases more from the original amino acid): unbrewed coffee, bread, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Your mileage will very, fries are cooked at much higher temperatures in fast food places, your home fries will contain a much smaller quantity of the carcinogens. Potatoes is a bad example, anyways, I have yet to see a positive reason for eating them. It's like eating pure starch.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:45 PM
 
Originally posted by philzilla:
sorry. that's just wrong. i know people who have been vegetarian (and vegan, in one case) since the day they were born. they are very much alive, and healthy.

where is your proof of this? care to share your source?
You jumped a little late into this thread, some sources were given earlier. With supplements, yes, the difference is minimal, but on its own, a vegetarian or vegan diet opens up the potential for many deficiencies that can lead to brain problems and usually lead to higher risk of certain ailments. Potential for these risks and deficiencies are eliminated with a balanced diet.
( Last edited by Stradlater; Aug 14, 2003 at 01:53 PM. )
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 01:52 PM
 
Originally posted by itomato:
Claiming to be "morally better" is something I reserve for Christians. As for vegetarianism, ethically better is more appropriate. I can't think of many serious vegetarians that consider themselves morally better in that sense.

Try again, prep-school boy.
Vegetarians often judge people based on action and behavior (that of eating meat). Vegetarians have a sense of what's right and wrong and believe that eating meat is wrong. These things have to do with morals as well as ethics. Ethics, after all, are a set of principles of what a group believes to be morally right.

Oh, and I hope the prep-school jab was a joke, because it was on my part.
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 02:35 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Aug 17, 2004 at 04:33 PM. )
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 02:57 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes.. that is obvious, especially if veganists are forcing the Vegetarian diet on newborn children and inhibiting their brain growth.

I think that is an obvious definition of being stupid.
And what about the idiots that force their children to eat meat? I have read through this whole thread and it is obvious that you don't have a f-ing clue what you are talking about, you don't back up your claims and make wild generalization. Go away already you are not contributing anything at all to discussion except flame bait.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:00 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Its not an issue of what you choose to do yourself. But that the imposition of the Veganist/Vegetarian diet on small children results in lower brain size.

Its very simple.

Veganist/Vegetarian diets for infant and small children results in smaller brain size and in some cases even death.
Prove it and don't bring up a story about a veggie that starved their children that is negligence ant the parents fault no that of the diet. Man you suck.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:05 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
And what about the idiots that force their children to eat meat? I have read through this whole thread and it is obvious that you don't have a f-ing clue what you are talking about, you don't back up your claims and make wild generalization. Go away already you are not contributing anything at all to discussion except flame bait.


Children wouldn't eat meat if it didn't taste good.

Children wouldn't eat ice cream if it didn't taste good.

Children that eat meat and ice cream have bigger brains than children who are on an imposed Veganist diet.

I think its best to let people decide what they want to eat. But please let children eat what they want as there are natural genetic reasons that children crave certain foods which are required for normal brain development.




I'm sorry if that upsets you.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:07 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
And what about the idiots that force their children to eat meat?
They're just as bad. You call them idiots, does that mean that you think that vegetarians forcing their children to adopt the lifestyle are idiots, as well? Anyways, most children like the taste of meat.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 03:33 PM
 
I think it's obvious that Stradlater will never change his mind, but I hope he will at least admit that vegetarians are not just mindlessly following an ill-advised diet. We have given these things a lot of thought, and there are many experts and scientific studies that back up our choice.

Being a vegetarian in America is not always easy -- if it weren't important to us, we would just give up and go to McDonalds like everybody else. You don't have to agree with us, but at least respect our beliefs and not call us nutcases or child abusers.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 04:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
They're just as bad. You call them idiots, does that mean that you think that vegetarians forcing their children to adopt the lifestyle are idiots, as well? Anyways, most children like the taste of meat.
No it doesn't, I was just using the same rhetoric as farmboy just to get my point across. If this whole argument is about one feeling morally superior to the other I would suggest that farmboy gets off his high horse and STFU
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Children wouldn't eat meat if it didn't taste good.

Children wouldn't eat ice cream if it didn't taste good.

Children that eat meat and ice cream have bigger brains than children who are on an imposed Veganist diet.

I think its best to let people decide what they want to eat. But please let children eat what they want as there are natural genetic reasons that children crave certain foods which are required for normal brain development.




I'm sorry if that upsets you.
Children wouldn't eat meat if you didn't put it in front of them

Children wouldn't eat ice cream if you didn't put it in front of them.

Not all children think meat tastes good.

Your generalizations are pure crap, start using your superiorly developed brain and back up your statements.
Natural genetic reasons? Please point me to some literature on which you base your claim of taste=natural genetic reasons.

There is no scientific evidence that proves children who are given well rounded vegetarian diets are in any way harmed, their intelligence doesn't suffer nor does their physical development. How many times do I have to ask you the same freaking question? Perhaps your development has been stunted at some point because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I think it's obvious that Stradlater will never change his mind, but I hope he will at least admit that vegetarians are not just mindlessly following an ill-advised diet. We have given these things a lot of thought, and there are many experts and scientific studies that back up our choice.

Being a vegetarian in America is not always easy -- if it weren't important to us, we would just give up and go to McDonalds like everybody else. You don't have to agree with us, but at least respect our beliefs and not call us nutcases or child abusers.
I have nothing against vegetarians, I understand that their intentions are good. I think you can be just as active and still eat meat, though. And I think the human body can benefit a great deal by consuming animal products in their diet. Some vegetarians are nut-cases (as are some meat-eaters), and some vegetarians probably aren't the best parents. Parenting is another thing altogether. Vegetarians can try to impose their beliefs onto others, but with their children they can force. I'm much more respectful of parents that try to guide their children with suggestions, but ultimately let them make their own decisions. You'll find scientific support for both sides, it's up to you to decide which is right for you. You CAN raise healthy children as vegetarians by being careful, but it's easier to raise a child with meat in their diet, and there's no saying that the child would not be better-off as an omnivore (scientific studies would say so here).

I'm not trying to convert adult vegetarians here, I'm just showing them that a diet including meat is not unhealthy and does not necessarily have to be much ethically different than a vegetarian diet. More people would probably be willing to buy free-range meat, eggs, milk, etc. than no meat at all. You should be making suggestions like this rather than a drastic change in lifestyle. Don't you see that you're attacking too broad a category? Fight factory-farming, fight poor living conditions and your pollution from pig farms, don't fight the meat-eater (he needs to exist for lacto-ovo-vegetarians to receive those eggs and milk in the first place).

EDIT: IN ADDITION: Change my mind about what? I AM opposed to the unethical treatment of animals in certain situations, but can't you admit that it's possible to fight these things WITHOUT giving up meat? If more and more people bought free-range products, demand would go up on those, and demand would go down on factory farming, making a slightly bigger impact than just becoming a vegetarian (where a smaller number of people are willing to become vegetarians than buy free-range products, and where you're only slightly decreasing the demand for meat in general and MAYBE increasing (although it is doubtful) the demand for vegetables and large-scale farming, which can be harmful, as well. Mass-production always has the potential to be harmful, and not much is done to prevent the harms in this overpopulated and capitalist world...
( Last edited by Stradlater; Aug 14, 2003 at 04:33 PM. )
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 04:27 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
No it doesn't, I was just using the same rhetoric as farmboy just to get my point across. If this whole argument is about one feeling morally superior to the other I would suggest that farmboy gets off his high horse and STFU
Admittedly, it seems that FarmBoy isn't arguing as civilly as he perhaps could. But this is getting into an entirely different issue (parenting). Parents could give their children the facts, suggestions, and ultimately leave the decision up to them. Kids need to make mistakes and learn from them.

Originally posted by shmerek:
Children wouldn't eat meat if you didn't put it in front of them

Children wouldn't eat ice cream if you didn't put it in front of them.

Not all children think meat tastes good.

Your generalizations are pure crap, start using your superiorly developed brain and back up your statements.
Generalizations are usually generalization for a reason. Sure, not all children think that meat tastes good, but MOST do. And no, they won't eat it if you don't give it to them. As far as genetics go, humans ARE biologically omnivores. It takes something more for them to decide it's in their best interest to follow a different path.
( Last edited by Stradlater; Aug 14, 2003 at 04:34 PM. )
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
[B] Parenting is another thing altogether. Vegetarians can try to impose their beliefs onto others, but with their children they can force. I'm much more respectful of parents that try to guide their children with suggestions, but ultimately let them make their own decisions.
I would agree with that, but you can't exactly let an infant or toddler, or even older children "make their own decisions." The parents have to choose what the children eat until they are old enough to do so. And since there is no evidence that a vegetarian diet is harmful to children, there's no reason to suggest that people who are ethically opposed to eating meat feed it to their children. Parents ALWAYS "force" their children to do what's best. They raise them in their own culture and religion. When the children get older, they can choose for themselves, but I think you're not being fair to suggest that having your kids be vegetarian is any different than any other decision made for a child by a parent.

You'll find scientific support for both sides, it's up to you to decide which is right for you.
That's what I've been saying all along.

Don't you see that you're attacking too broad a category?
Actually I'm not attacking anything. I'm defending something.

EDIT: IN ADDITION: Change my mind about what? I AM opposed to the unethical treatment of animals in certain situations, but can't you admit that it's possible to fight these things WITHOUT giving up meat?
I've never said otherwise. I'd love it if meat-eaters would make more of an effort to buy free-range food and cruelty-free products.

You seem to be the one putting words in my mouth now... My point in this whole thread is that vegetarianism is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice, and that it does, in fact, lead to a reduction in animal death and suffering. That's all. I'm not really out to convert anyone, but I would like people to understand my reasons for doing what I do, and maybe give a little more thought to what they put on their dinner table.
     
philzilla
Occasionally Useful
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Being a vegetarian in America is not always easy -- if it weren't important to us, we would just give up and go to McDonalds like everybody else.
damn straight! i've been to a lot of countries, and the US was easily the worst, from a vegetarian point of view. Singapore was better, and they like deep-fried dog. it was almost as if vegetarianism didn't exist, in the States. even the frickin' salads all had meat in them, in some places! NOT ACCEPTABLE!
"Have sharp knives. Be creative. Cook to music" ~ maxelson
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Admittedly, it seems that FarmBoy isn't arguing as civilly as he perhaps could. But this is getting into an entirely different issue (parenting). Parents could give their children the facts, suggestions, and ultimately leave the decision up to them. Kids need to make mistakes and learn from them.

Generalizations are usually generalization for a reason. Sure, not all children think that meat tastes good, but MOST do. And no, they won't eat it if you don't give it to them. As far as genetics go, humans ARE biologically omnivores. It takes something more for them to decide it's in their best interest to follow a different path.
Icruise's statement sums up my ideas on parenting and choice and with that I think this conversation has run its course (for me). I am out I have to give credit to some of you guys for keeping it civil this thread did not degenerate into a flame fest, could be a MacNN first
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2003, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I would agree with that, but you can't exactly let an infant or toddler, or even older children "make their own decisions." The parents have to choose what the children eat until they are old enough to do so. And since there is no evidence that a vegetarian diet is harmful to children, there's no reason to suggest that people who are ethically opposed to eating meat feed it to their children. Parents ALWAYS "force" their children to do what's best. They raise them in their own culture and religion. When the children get older, they can choose for themselves, but I think you're not being fair to suggest that having your kids be vegetarian is any different than any other decision made for a child by a parent.
I guess...but many of those decisions are mental and not physical (religion). A vegetarian diet will allow a child to develop differently, perhaps for the worse, but maybe not that much worse. I guess it's up to the parents, and they can take responsibility if anything bad happens.

Originally posted by Icruise:
Actually I'm not attacking anything. I'm defending something.
Many vegetarians, however, DO attack the concept of meat-eating.

Originally posted by Icruise:
I've never said otherwise. I'd love it if meat-eaters would make more of an effort to buy free-range food and cruelty-free products.

You seem to be the one putting words in my mouth now... My point in this whole thread is that vegetarianism is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice, and that it does, in fact, lead to a reduction in animal death and suffering. That's all. I'm not really out to convert anyone, but I would like people to understand my reasons for doing what I do, and maybe give a little more thought to what they put on their dinner table.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth (sorry for the misunderstanding), I was asking if you agreed, and it seems like you do to an extent. Vegetarians aren't going to convince many meat-eaters to change their ways; some conversions will be made, sure, but why not recommend your meat-eating acquaintances to buy free-range products (at LEAST for home-consumption) instead of random meat that probably comes from factories? They have much less of a chance to defend their reasons for buying factory-farmed meat than they do to defend their meat in general.

I understand why you do what you do, and I don't have anything against vegetarians just because they're vegetarians. Many, however, DO try to convert other people in one way or another, and I find this to be a little annoying. You're defending vegetarianism, I'm defending the eating of meat. I think we both have some decent arguments, but in the end I think both have the potential to be pretty equal on the ethical plane.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2003, 05:16 PM
 
Originally posted by philzilla:
*apart from one. and you know i always hate saying that. jeez, i'll be agreeing with zim soon. is hell freezing over?



I've always wanted a excuse to use that.
     
TheDisaster
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2003, 09:54 PM
 
I'm not bothering to read all the pages before this, but I did skim most of it, it's just mostly the same crap I've heard and been told every where else. Most people don't understand why I would choose to be a vegetarian and a lot of people tell me that it's natural to eat meat. It's really hard to get people to understand that being a vegetarian is a choice I made for me, not a punishment on myself or anything else, a simple decision like one's sexual preference, religious beliefs or political party. I have several friends that are full blown Vegan, straight edge and vegan actually, and it's not really that big of a deal taking them somewhere because they are used to a life style that they have chosen. One thing that I am sick of is the "What about if you were stranded in the wild with no food but could hunt to survive, you'd have to, so why not just eat meat now?" crap. Yes, if I had to eat meat to survive I would, but I don't. If I had to hunt to live I would. But I don't, very few people have to catch their own dinner any more. That's actually what made me stop eating meat, years ago I was working at a Burger King, for three years actually, I started to get really bored with eating dinner there every night. Looking into the kitchen from the stock room on my break I watched as about 35 meat patties went into the broiler, came out the other end cooked, and were sold off with in minutes. As I watched this I thought about how in most cultures food was always a sacred thing that had to be earned, respected, and eaten to stay alive. But now, here in America, food is not sacred, when you buy 3 hamburgers at the drive-thru you don't have any recognition that something else gave it's life for you to eat dinner, because a cow was raised in a box, killed, cooked, and wrapped in a happy looking piece of paper. Most people are fine with that kind of an industry as they are used to it, or see it as how the world works now, or they don't have morals, or whatever (that last one is not serious, I would never suggest that somebody eats meat only because they have no morals, or that eating meat means you have no morals. I include it because one of my friends tells me that's why he likes meat so much ) But as I stood there watching my coworkers make sandwiches I thought to myself "If we life in a society that can mass produce meat, and deliver it to the masses at such a high rate with out them ever having to think about it, then I can surely live my life happily without being a part of it". I didn't eat meat from that moment on, and I was no longer working there by the end of the month, left on good terms with the boss too.

That's just what I have chosen for me, and I don't expect people to want that for them just because I chose so, but I wish I could live my life as I see without people thinking vegetarianism and veganism are such alien concepts, or at least not get all funny around me when I mention it. Me and my girlfriend drove 8 hours to visit her father's side of the family a month ago, and he insisted on taking us out to dinner. We tried to convince him that we should just make a meal at home and have a family dinner but he wouldn't listen. So where does he take us to? Jim's Crab Shack he takes us to. He told us to get anything we wanted, it was on him, money's not an object. We both had a 99 salad and ate when we got home. He knew that neither of us ate meat, including seafood, but he takes us to a place called Jim's Crab Shack.
|wishing is for suckers|
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,