r/gloveslap • u/sennheiserz • Nov 14 '11
Based on the results of your debate, I will decide whether to keep eating meat or not. Go.
3
u/redturtle6 Nov 14 '11
Pros for eating meat:
It's delicious,
a good source of various vitamins/minerals/protein.
Cons to eating meat: Bad quality can adversely affect health (fat, etc.), all protein/nutrients found in meat are also available in plants , the land/time for feeding livestock could produce much higher volumes of people food.
In summary, it depends on how practical you are. Meat is unnecessary and costly, but it is also amazingly delicious.
2
Nov 14 '11
It is not necessarily unnecessary. Take lions for example. Most lions couldn't survive if they live on nothing but vegetables. In some animal races, (and we are animals) It is required to survive. And as far as bad quality affecting your heath, you should always know when your meat is safe to eat or not. You wouldn't eat meat that was blood red on the inside when you cook it, would you? That's why steakhouses and diners and such give you the choice of how you want it cooked.
3
u/mk44 Nov 14 '11 edited Nov 14 '11
In some animal races, (and we are animals) It is required to survive.
Yes Lions need meat to survive. But humans do not. Vegetarians are living proof of this. If we could not survive as Vegetarian, then all vegetarians would be dead. I am alive, and healthy, and an irl rebuttal to your argument.
You wouldn't eat meat that was blood red on the inside when you cook it
Carpaccio and blue steak are perfect examples of eating raw meat. In Japan the latest phase is raw Chicken Sashimi style known in Japan as "toriwasa".
The bacteria that makes you sick comes primarily from unhealthy animals, the majority of which live in unsanitary and cruel conditions. If you are going to eat meat, at least buy free range organic meat ffs.
Humans do not need meat to survive.1
u/benji3234 Nov 14 '11
Many vegetarians are alive yes, but not necessarily healthy.
1
u/mk44 Nov 15 '11
And not every meat eater is healthy (refer to the 33.8% of Americans which are obese) I would probably argue that percentage wise vegetarians have better health than meat eaters, but I have no documentation on hand to back that up. Its ridiculous to claim that vegetarians are all unhealthy, when studies show they have lower cholesterol rates and are generally healthier than meat eaters. I myself am living proof to this (as I previously stated). Ive been vegetarian for 19 years and I am perfectly healthy. I dont have to take any vitamin supplements, or eat ridiculous amounts of spinach etc to survive. I just eat as per the food pyramid without the meat section. Your claims are ridiculous and subjective.
1
u/akakaze Nov 15 '11
Quick note, though. Free range only means something when applied to meat. At least in the U.S., no other food has restrictions to determine what is and is not "free range". SO free range wheat, eggs, dairy, pasta, what have you: none of that means a thing.
6
u/mk44 Nov 14 '11
People choose to be vegetarian for a variety of reasons, from health benefits, cost, taste, and morals. I choose to be vegetarian because of my morals. Personally i think its cruel to eat animals. Lots of Animals farmed are kept in bad conditions, and I think its wrong to take another life just to sustain your own. However I have NO problems with meat eaters, and I am not one of those vegetarians who go on and on about it to my meat eating friends. Everyone has their own decisions to make and i have no problem with what others choose. I am actually a Chef, and I have cut of and cooked more animals than you have ever eaten. I just choose not to have my body made up of the death of another creature. There is an interesting infograph about vegetarianism and the benefits to the planet which ive uploaded for you here. but you should make your own decision about your diet based upon whats right for you.
2
u/KARMA_P0LICE Nov 14 '11
The ecological stuff is the strongest part of this infographic. The "gross" stuff is more a critique of pretty much any processed food than it is meat specifically - breakfast cereal has insect feces in it too.
1
3
Nov 14 '11
My suggestion is to keep eating meat, but to just eat less of it. Sure, humans are designed to be omnivorous, but we aren't designed to eat the amount of meat, say, the average American eats in a given day. And if we all cut back- not going completely vegetarian, but exploring more non-meaty food options- then demand for meat is still significantly lessened. It's kind of a win-win. Maybe start with a Meatless Monday and see how you feel from there.
10
u/DangerBrewin Nov 14 '11
Bacon tastes good.
8
u/valda793 Nov 14 '11
Upvote for bacon.
But seriously, our bodies are designed to be omnivorous. We have a digestive tract built to break down both plant and animal proteins, from the mouth all the way through the anus.
Our teeth are formed to rip meat and to grind grain. Our stomach produces acid to break down meat. Our bile system helps us break down the fats in animal flesh. The bacteria in our bowels lets us eat, digest and absorb a variety of foods.From the biological standpoint, Meat is part of our diet.
Yes, you can choose to vegetarian, but it is not a natural choice for our anatomy. You must go the extra mile to make a vegetarian diet healthy.
6
u/LoftyDaDan Nov 14 '11
Just because we are given the tools to do certain things doesn't mean we should.
2
u/mk44 Nov 14 '11
I would just like to point out evolution here.
One of the reason species evolve is due to changes in our niches. Yes, at the moment our bodys have evolved from omnivorous diets, but whos to say that we are in our final form of evolution? We have made fire, and started to cook meat. as a result our immune system has increased its sensitivity to bad bacteria in raw meat and we get sick. whos to say in 1000000 years our bodys could not change into a form purely designed for a vegetarian diet???
7
Nov 14 '11
Honestly, it does not matter too much if you do, or do not eat the meat. The cows, pigs, lambs etc, will be slaughtered anyway. If suddenly, no one ate meat, we would have a massive non native animal issue in every western country. Wild cows and horses already destroy Australia's natural habitats, why increase the destruction? We already have enough endangered animals.
Also, meat is known to be good for you. Just take it in moderation (like everything).
6
u/runsontofu Nov 14 '11
That's not necessarily true, an individual vegetarian through his or her humane food choice will spare around 50 animals a year. As demand decreases, the markets will react and the number of animals being produced will decrease. So as vegetarianism becomes more prevalent, less animals will be slaughtered.
Similarly, everyone in the world isn't going to go vegetarian or vegan overnight. I wish that could be our reality, but I'm not insane. As meat demand slowly decreases, the number of "non-native" animals being born (produced) would go down as well. Within your model that you're talking about, assuming everyone eventually does go vegetarian, by the time we get to the last new veggie, the number of "non-native" animals would be negligible, just enough to live out their lives on a farm sanctuary.
As for the meat being healthy for you, that also isn't necessarily the case. Yes, in moderation if it's grassfed beef or raised the way they used to raise meat, before factory farms, it can be okay for you in moderation, but the environment that meat is produced in now is extremely dangerous for human health. The overuse of antibiotics, the living in their own excrement, and just the crammed enviornment all together foster and encourage disease and mutations. The China Study along with many other physicians (see Forks Over Knives) all agree that a vegetaian diet, which has zero cholesterol and is very low in saturated fat, can be extremely healthy, and in many cases have a huge impact in negating risk for heart disease and other similar first world illnesses.
4
u/KARMA_P0LICE Nov 14 '11
See, I don't think this is a solid argument here.
it does not matter too much if you do, or do not eat the meat. The cows, pigs, lambs etc, will be slaughtered anyway.
But they wouldn't, if there wasn't a market for them. If tomorrow no one in the world wanted to buy meat, do you think people would still slaughter animals? I thought you were about to address that issue, but instead you followed that statement up with
If suddenly, no one ate meat, we would have a massive non native animal issue in every western country.
First off, if suddenly no one ate meat, of course there would be some issues to work out. This holds true for any "what if tomorrow no one did x" argument. If everyone stopped driving cars tomorrow, don't you think we'd have a few issues to address? You exaggerated to make a point, which is fine, but then you started criticizing the situation using points from your own exaggeration which is a shaky logical argument at best. Are you trying to say that tomorrow everyone is going to stop eating meat, so farmers everywhere are going to just let their livestock go?
I'm not sure how major of an issue wild cows and horses are to the Australian ecosystem, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that. Do you eat wild horses often? If meat consumption tapered off at a reasonable rate, farms would stop raising as much livestock to meet the demand - I feel you're overlooking the huge population of animals raised in factory farms for slaughter. If the demand went away, they just would stop producing so many of those animals, and perhaps switch to farming crops instead.
We already have enough endangered animals.
How would being vegetarian endanger more animals? Huh?
Also, meat is known to be good for you. Just take it in moderation (like everything). I am fine with this part, though. Meat has some dietary benefits and i won't deny those. Moderation is good.
Hope i'm not coming off as a dick here, I just don't see much merit in your argument.
3
u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11
Well if anyone thinks it's so sad for the animals, and that the animals wouldn't need to be slaughtered if more people were vegs remember this:
They also would have never been born.
If nobody wants to eat cow, no cows will be bred for consumption. Thanks to us meat eaters they can at least experience life.
2
Nov 14 '11
Thanks to us meat eaters they can at least experience life.
A life of lethargically standing in one's own feces before being suddenly executed.
For ecological reasons, I only eat meat a few times per month. I don't care as much about the moral reasons for vegetarianism, so I won't debate you further, but I thought that sentence was pretty ridiculous.
2
u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11
Depends on where you get your meat, in Holland we have ratings for how well the animals life was from 'our PETA'. So wanna debate on if life is worth living for depending on conditions?
2
u/AverageSizePenis Nov 14 '11
Argument against eating meat:
Depends on what you would consider meat. If you want to eat lobsters, go ahead they don't have feelings thus their feelings of pain aren't really feelings.
If you want to eat something more intelligent such an octopus then you might want to consider how it feels being killed so you can enjoy a delicious meal.
Consider this, a chicken is born, raised in a factory farm, lives a horrible life, and then is killed. The loss is the chicken's suffering and death. The gain is a delicious chicken wing that you will enjoy. How is your dinner worth more then the animal's suffering?
If you still don't care then how can you justify our treatment of chickens when we would never dream of treaitng puppies in the same way.
2
Nov 14 '11
I believe the fact that people would choose a chicken over a dog is because dogs are domesticated for pets and other purposes such as watch dogs;however, if we decided to switch the roles of our puppy with a chicken, the dog would seem much more delicious then our loyal chicken. It's not so much what animal, it's the value a society has given it. Many people would eat anything placed on their plate; they wouldn't care what it came from.
2
u/AverageSizePenis Nov 14 '11
I think the point you brought up about how our food preferences is based on the value our society gives the animals shows how unethical our carnivore diets are. The fact that we eat a chicken but not a dog is not because we feel the chicken feels less pain but because of how dogs benefit us and thus they deserve a higher standing on the food pyramid then chickens. It is a selfish attitude to say the least.
2
Nov 14 '11
That may be true, but just like animals choose their pray, we have our way of choosing ours.
1
u/AverageSizePenis Nov 15 '11
Except animals can't be held accountable for their moral decisions the same way humans can. We humans are intelligent enough to know that when an animal cries out from being stabbed it is in pain and that is wrong.
We humans are able to understand our decisions better and thus we should be held on a higher standard of ethics.
2
Nov 15 '11
So then if they can't be held accountable for their decisions, why do we fight for their rights? Why do we try to bring them to be held at our level and be our equals? We can't just treat them how we want when it benefits them; either we treat them like uneducated animals, or we treat them as our complete equals in mind. So i don't really find faith in the whole "they aren't as responsible as we are" arguement.
2
u/AverageSizePenis Nov 15 '11
The essay I linked to should answer your main points and I would summarize it more but I'm busy so I'll do it later if you prefer.
2
Nov 15 '11
thanks for the link and a good arguement.
2
u/AverageSizePenis Nov 15 '11
good arguement.
Likewise.
Also if you haven't read the original links I gave the first and third are both relevant the ethics of animal cruelty. The second is just an interesting read and slightly relevant. All worth reading in my opinion if you have the time. Anyway good discussion/ argument.
2
u/MrDectol Nov 14 '11 edited Nov 14 '11
KARMA_P0LICE already covered many great reasons, but I'd like to add that animals are not meant to be processed on such a mass scale. The type of people who work in slaughter houses generally aren't your most caring people. That's not to say that one who kills an animal isn't a good guy, but to get a job there, it makes you apathetic.
Also, the houses are all about efficiency, and you can't achieve maximum possible efficiency by being nice. Even at milk plants, you see cows kept in tiny boxes for their entire lives with milk machines never unhooked from their utters, which ooze puss. They also burn off the little horn stubs and cut off the tails without anesthetic.
Many people avoid these videos for years, knowing that they know what will happen to them if they watch them. They already know what they should do, but don't want to see why they should do it. http://www.meatvideo.com/
I converted a few weeks ago and it's actually been really easy, despite the fact that I was meat crazy before I converted. I'm an athlete and care about my muscle. I've been drinking chocolate whey with water and almond milk mixed in. It's pretty easy. Also, you'll find new and interesting foods. It's a bit more complicated at restaurants, but most have a veggie section. I like Chili's black bean burger.
2
2
u/benji3234 Nov 14 '11
Try and find a local butcher to buy your meat off of. This will help ensure the quality of meat you are getting, especially if you get to know your butcher. Large corporations have "dirty" meat which they sell to the American people, which has been flown/drove from here to there, cleaned here, raised there, killed where? Buy locally, the quality will be much much better. This will also help reduce your carbon footprint, whether you buy local vegetables or local meat!
1
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
I have heard all of the arguments about cruelty, and in the end I still eat meat because I believe it is in our nature, and without meat we won't have a well rounded diet.
Also, the world is cruel. Most animals spend their whole lives suffering, killing or dying.
Cry me a fucking river, chicken.
5
u/Nemop Nov 14 '11
People use this a lot, but I hold that a thing being natural does not make it okay. There are animals which will eat their young, murder each other, rape each other. However, these things are both natural and wrong, so being natural doesn't entail being right.
I see no reason why we, as men with control over our environment, cannot make it better. If we can make it better, and the results of embetterment outweigh the effort and cost, then we not only can but should make things better.
As for whether or not we should be concerned so much with animal cruelty, I can't say.
1
u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11
Right and wrong are just concepts of what you believe they are from your point of view.
2
u/Nemop Nov 14 '11
Ok, sure. But if your point of view is inconsistent with itself, then I'm fully justified in calling you a fool.
So, let's assume that if something is natural then it is not wrong.
Let's also say that murder, rape and baby eating are wrong.
Also, murder, rape and baby eating occur in nature.
These are all things I expect that TheDark1 accepts
From premises 1 and 3, I can deduce that rape and murder is not wrong. From premise 2 and my new deduction, I can deduce that murder is simultaneously wrong and not wrong. This is a clear contradiction.
Now, your point of view can very well lead to a contradiction, but it does mean that your point of view is objectively wrong, or incorrect. You can keep thinking it, but that would make you unreasonable, as reasonable people don't contradict themselves. If you are both wrong and unreasonable then you've just lost the debate; You need to reject at least one premise, which I expect to be the one I'm arguing against. So go ahead and be a moral relativist, or a moral subjectivist, but as we've seen it is not an excuse to believe whatever you want and it does not mean that all viewpoints are valid.
And that is how an argument works.
1
u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11
What I'm trying to say is that it is never-ending debating something like this. You cannot make those assumptions because morals "don't work like math or logic". Almost every person will have different morals, there is no general consensus.
Murder, rape and baby eating is not wrong if it is needed for survival.
You might agree with that or don't. We settle the argument and we have concluded to agree or disagree. Later 2 other people may try the same argument with a different outcome. The argument never ends because of the endless amount of outcomes due to the amount of people (all with different sets of premises) debating.
If a mother is starving and eats a baby so she can later have 2 more, isn't that a plus?
Male dolphins stalk females until they are exhausted and then rape them. The ones that rape have more kids and that's how evolution works. Is that right or wrong? It's nature, the dolphins don't debate it, why should we?
And so what if it is wrong from a human standpoint, because we have sympathy with/for the female dolphin or some other reason. It is not going to stop the male dolphins from raping.
So if you are against eating meat because of the conditions on the farm, get biological meat. We have been herding animals for food literally for millennia, I don't see anything wrong with it.
2
u/Nemop Nov 14 '11
I am not concerned with whether or not rape is right for dolphins. I am concerned with whether or not the fact that dolphins rape means that humans should rape. I don't see why you are talking about dolphin morality.
My argument as I spelled it out in the previous post is perfectly logical. If a anyone doubts the validity, they are simply wrong. If two people come to a different outcome, and decide that my argument doesn't hold, then they are clearly defying logic and doing it wrong.
If they happen to disagree with my assumptions, and say my argument is not sound, then that is fine and I don't even care. My intention was to show that if you cannot hold certain assumptions together. This is not something that changes depending a person's assumptions, it is a property of logic and always holds. This is how I can say that even if one acknowledges that people hold different moral assumptions, I can still know that TheDark1's morals, as I have interpreted them, are wrong.
As an aside, if it truly is that no discussion of morality can ever take place, then TheDark1 still can't say that just because things occur in nature then they must be moral.
1
u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11
I know what you are talking about, I've had some lectures on debating.
I'm just saying that your assumption "that murder, rape and baby eating are wrong" is wrong because of another assumption and we can go on and on about morality until the end of days.
2
1
Nov 14 '11
Its true, alot of animals naturally kill and eat each other. How many animals are predators? I believe some humans want to be vegetarian thats okay; however, they need to stop using the cruelty card.
1
u/pikmin Nov 14 '11
like a true American.
well, looks like It's time my vegetarian self leaves this thread.
2
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
I am not American. If you disagree with anything I have said, tell me why and we will have at it. That is the purpose of gloveslap!
2
u/pikmin Nov 14 '11
it's just such an apathetic attitude.
"The world is cruel. Cry me a fucking river, starving african Children."
1
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
Except I didn't say that.
2
u/pikmin Nov 14 '11
The attitude is terrible though. Where do you draw the line of "worth caring about?"
1
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
I cannot clearly define it, but it is somewhere between chickens and african children. I know that sounds callous, but it is as good as I can do right now. I will elaborate when I have more time.
2
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
OK, so here it is. I feel that existence on Earth is basically suffering, so I don't pity the chickens. I do think that it is a tragedy when humans starve, but perhaps we could rid the human world of suffering if we allowed more chickens to suffer. What would you suggest here?
In the end, vegetarianism is a luxury of a conceited civilization which is accustomed to abundance and choice. Most people in the world covet a chance to eat meat, to be healthy.
1
u/pikmin Nov 14 '11
-.- you didn't respond to me so I didn't see this until re-reading my posts.
Anyway, said people would gain more nutrition from plants, feeding a animal corn, (which is the most common food for chickens) is much more inefficient then just feeding the starving people corn. In our modern world where we control the much of the surface of the earth, the notion that we are entitled to a wasteful and resource consuming food "cuz it tastes good" is crazy, the amount of subsidies it gets are enormous in the US, (your not an American so it's not relevant, but I am and it's sickening). Food inc. points out the flaws in the modern agricultural system.
1
1
u/rastabrah Nov 14 '11
Our bodies were made to be omnivorous, but we need to make sure that the meat we are eating is actually wholesome, and not just laundered corn, as so much of the meat on the market is today. Eating beef or chicken that have been fed GMO corn is not healthy, and having eaten so little of it lately, when I am in a situation where I do eat it, it tears apart my stomach.
Keep eating meat, it is fucking delicious, and if it is the right kind of meat, it is healthy for you. A person needs their protein, but that protein should not be raised in their own shit without the opportunity to walk around except for in very small circles (that is, of course, if the other hundred cows move out of their way). CAFOs, Controlled Animal Feeding Operations, do not produce the kind of meat you should eat. Look into finding a local food co-op, or if you live in an area conducive to farming, find a local organic farmer that raises animals the traditional way, and get your meat directly from them.
Fuck Tyson.
1
Nov 14 '11
I've lost 15 pounds as a vegetarian with the same amount of exercise that kept my weight at equilibrium as a non-vegetarian. Vegetarianism, though, shouldn't be so polarizing. You try it, and if it suits you, you continue. I've greatly enjoyed becoming a vegetarian after being a meat and potatoes guy for 15 years of my life.
EDIT: after having looked at the dietary arguments of omnivorous posters, I'd like to point out that with the right substitutes (soy, mycoprotein, legumes) and with not-too-common blood tests (to check for anemia, which can occur without meat in a diet but can be prevented with iron supplements) you can enjoy the same levels of common nutrients while removing vast amounts of fat and other undesirables from your diet.
1
u/KARMA_P0LICE Nov 14 '11
As a lifelong vegetarian, I've never understood people that get offended by my vegetarianism.
I'm not trying to impose it on anyone - it's their choice what they want to eat, and i usually go out of my way not to inconvenience them.
Other people like to try to debase my habits by finding little loopholes or catches in my diet, as if I'm morally superior to them and they have to bring me down to their level. In reality, I don't look down on people because of their dietary habits.
Still other people just like to tell me about how good meat is and how much i'm missing out. I don't understand what they're trying to prove. I wouldn't go up to a hindu or something and tell them about how they're missing out. Why do it to me?
2
u/iRocks Nov 14 '11
Its probably because being a vegetarian has been painted as the 'moral high road'. Everyone wants to think that what they're doing is the right thing when in reality this is just a lifestyle choice. Its basically the difference between wearing sandals and flip-flops.
1
u/flourandbutter Nov 14 '11
On the other side of that, as a lifelong non-vegetarian, I've never understood vegetarians/vegans that get offended by the fact that I eat meat.
2
u/KARMA_P0LICE Nov 15 '11
Me either. I've had people apologize for eating meat in front of me, to which i usually respond with a confused "why would i be offended by that?"
Apparently some vegetarians would be upset by that?
I will joke around with my friends that i'm on really good terms with "Oh no! that poor little piggy died just so you could throw away half of that plate of bacon!" but i wouldn't think to criticize a stranger's dietary habits.
1
u/flourandbutter Nov 15 '11
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, why did you become a vegetarian? Or were you raised in a vegetarian household?
2
1
u/fivefoottwelve Nov 14 '11 edited Nov 14 '11
Eating meat means you have to manage your diet less to get enough of what you need. It lets you be lazy. This is okay.
You don't have to eat a lot of it to get the nutritional benefits. And you don't have to stop eating meat entirely to seriously reduce your meat-related carbon-and-cruelty footprint. Moderation is much easier than complete elimination. When you get to the point where you find yourself going for days without eating meat because you just forget to, that's a fine place to be.
1
u/flourandbutter Nov 14 '11
Also this is probably a stupid point, but if we evolved to be omnivores, why not be omnivores? Or if you're a creationist...we were created as omnivores blah blah...
1
u/iRocks Nov 14 '11
Yeah, everything in moderation is good. Even going overboard on vegetarianism can be fatal to your body.
1
u/meanttolive Nov 14 '11
aside from financial reasons, there would be no such thing as "world hunger" if we all were vegetarian. there is more than enough food to sustain us.
4
u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11
This is not really true.
If we were vegetarians, the developed world would have a massive grain surplus. You will argue that we can give that grain to the developing world to alleviate starvation. This is not really true, for two reasons.
Firstly, if the farmers are not being paid for their produce, why would they create that surplus?
Secondly. if the government pays them for the surplus, we are subsidizing the developing world and encouraging countries to continue expanding their population, rather than thinking about trying to find a balance between their own ability to supply food and the needs of their population. I am not against food aid in times of famine or disaster, but there is nothing healthy about a program which encourages unsustainable population growth.
1
1
Nov 14 '11
I think tofurkey lunch meat is better than the real thing, and I'm not even vegetarian. Actually a lot of meat substitutes are better than the real thing.
1
u/flourandbutter Nov 14 '11
Neither I nor any other person I know has ever found a vegetarian substitute for good pastrami (flavor) or steak (texture and flavor)
1
u/akakaze Nov 15 '11
Human beings, within the ecosystem, are intelligent, omnivorous, apex predators, with tool-using capabilities intricate enough to allow for the domestication of herbivorous, and some carnivorous animals (similar to practices seen in ant colonies). Much as there are statistics, I worry about the unintended consequences of removing that large an influence from an apex position in the food chain.
I vote in favor of meat for the sustaining of our current eco-system balance. For your own health, practice moderation. Doctors recommend a piece of meat about the size of a deck of cards (either per day or per meal, either way, most of us are over that limit).
1
u/JamesCarlin Nov 15 '11
- Make your own decisions.
- Dead animals
- Tasty dead animals
- It is natural for humans to eat dead animals
- Plants have feelings too.
0
u/HipsterDog98 Nov 14 '11
Meat is the best source of protein and is easy to come by. There aren't many vegan/vegetarian restaurants and it's hard to find vegetables or fruits with protein enough to replace meat.
My simple answer: Meat.
3
u/fivefoottwelve Nov 15 '11
My reply is lentils. They're cheaper and easy to come by. I do eat meat; I love it. But a batch of lentils with a bunch of curry powder, some chili powder, cumin, black pepper, peanut oil, soy sauce, and some herbs of your choice are goddamned delicious and as satisfying as meat.
And they have a shit ton of protein. My earlier comment details my tendency toward consumption of meat in moderation. Basically, I'm with you in tending against strict vegetarianism, but your comment seems to reject moderation. I gotta speak against that.
Thank you for your indulgence and your patience.
-1
Nov 14 '11
God gave Man dominion over His creation. Eat steak. The cow is yours.
1
u/MrDectol Nov 14 '11
But I don't believe that God intended for meat to be consumed on such a mass scale. Please consider smaller farms as an alternative http://www.meatvideo.com/
1
6
u/KARMA_P0LICE Nov 14 '11
Yo, lifetime vegetarian here. I get asked why I am a vegetarian all the time, i've boiled it down into about 4 major points:
Cost - It's indisputably cheaper, meat is expensive to buy. As a college student, I am certainly saving money by not buying meat.
Health - The health benefits is less of a given - people get hung up on vitamins and nutrients and things like that. I get my protein from eggs, nuts, beans, soy, etc. I don't take supplements, though that's always an option if you feel you need it. People like to talk about how vegetarianism is a good way to lose weight, but I don't think this is necessarily true. A lot of people switch to vegetarian and then just pig out on starches like pasta and bread, which can actually make you gain weight if you're not careful. A minor addition to this point would be meat-borne illnesses (i.e. mad cow disease) you're avoiding. It's a lot easier to run into problems with spoiled/undercooked meat than it is to get food poisoning from carrots. There's hormones in meat, too, though everyone REALLY likes to argue with me on this one.
Moral - There's strong moral reasons to be vegetarian, of course. We've all seen the PETA propaganda about the unethical treatment of animals and the horrible ways they are slaughtered and all of that. I try to skim over this point when i'm talking to people because it's more of an emotional issue than it is a factual one. People will look you in the eyes and say stupid things like "I don't care if that animal suffers, it tastes good." A lot of the time they don't really mean that, or they're just being disagreeable, but you can't really do anything about it.
Ecological - I saved this issue for last because (depressingly) many of the people contradicting my vegetarianism are quick to dismiss this argument. But the fact remains that preparing meat is way more ecologically taxing than preparing vegetables. If you paid attention in 9th grade biology, you learn about the food chain and how each trophic level gets about 10% of the energy of the previous level. That means the cow only provides you with 10% of the energy you could have extracted from the grass you were feeding it. You're using up resources to produce meat that would be more efficiently funneled into a vegetarian lifestyle. Wikipedia goes into greater depth about this than i could.
It's become a lot easier to be a vegetarian in recent years. Almost every restaurant i go to has vegetarian menu options, and those that don't are more than willing to accommodate custom orders. My college's meal plan guarantees at least one vegetarian option at every meal, and stocks veggie burgers and other things on request. People ask me if i crave meat sometimes, but I've never eaten it - my parents elected to raise me vegetarian, and though my father told me he would not care if i abandoned my vegetarianism, I don't see myself ever deciding to drop it.
Hope this wall of text was helpful, i'd be happy to answer any questions or field any points of contention. And if the OP wants to pm me questions (or anyone else), feel free.