Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Murder is murder, it's cruel, regardless of how you try to dress it up, especially as meat is not essential to our diet.
    Animals killing animals is a fact of life. I don't see why humans should be excluded from this because some people claim it's 'cruel'. If you're going to play the moral capacity card then fair enough, but again, I disagree with your reasoning on what's cruel and what isn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    Animals killing animals is a fact of life. I don't see why humans should be excluded from this because some people claim it's 'cruel'. If you're going to play the moral capacity card then fair enough, but again, I disagree with your reasoning on what's cruel and what isn't.
    Animal's killing animals is a fact of life. However, those animals need to kill others to survive. Humans don't and are generally healthier without meat, even without entering the debate on whether we are actually herbivores or omnivores. We also kill far more animals than we will ever eat, so we are doing a lot of it pointlessly. The idea that it is "humane" is bull****, as if the cutting of the throat is a humane way to kill anything.

    Put it this way, would you be calling it humane and okay if you were the one at the receiving end, or would you call it slavery, cruelty, inhumane and all the rest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Last time I checked, there wasn't a wealth of research showing direct links between apples and cancer. As you also seem to have ignored, I pointed out that humans stop producing the enzyme if they don't eat meat for a long period of time, that does not mean their entire life. It's usually a few years of no meat in your diet at all. Have you been vegetarian for that long? Were you vegetarian for a long time before you had meat again? It does not vary on individual basis, the time it takes for the production to stop might, but it will invariably stop.

    Why isn't it a question? I've seen plenty of people, scientists, vegetarians and random weirdos, say that we are actually herbivores, so clearly it is a question. As someone pointed out in a lecture, our teeth mean nothing, as plenty of herbivores have canines and sharp teeth.

    As for essential amino acids, a short hop to google shows that you can get all the essential amino acids in non-animal products, without supplements: http://www.tandurust.com/diet/essent...cids-list.html for instance.

    People who dislike what research tells them often attempt to hide behind it by attacking the source. Of course we must always question the source, but you should question the source of your preconceptions as well and not dismiss research out of hand just because you dislike what it tells you or it goes against something you've been brought up on.
    I was being completely sarcastic about the apple comment. My point is that you can say virtually anything is bad for you and paranoia leads to people making assumptions that it is very easy to get sick if you're exposed to too much of a particular food or activity (yes I recognize I'm being vague, but I'm just trying to make a generalized statement).

    I have been a vegetarian for over three years now. I know people who have been vegetarians for longer than that and went back to eating meat. Off the top of my head I can name two people who were vegetarians for seven and nine years and went back to eating meat without a problem. On the other hand, I know a woman who was a vegetarian growing up and tried to eat meat as an adult and can't process it. I still believe it varies on a case by case basis. Another way to put it is that there are always exceptions to the rule.

    As someone coming from a biology background and having studied this for years, it makes no sense to me that one would argue we're herbivores. From an evolutionary standpoint, both plants and animals have always been in our diet.

    I find it humorous that you think I reject something simply because it goes against my beliefs. For one, I am a vegetarian arguing the importance of meat. You have also assumed I was brought up with the beliefs I currently carry, but do you have any idea how I was brought up? I grew up in a Russian family, where meat is largely part of every meal. I believed it was essential for health reasons. Now my belief system has changed greatly. I think it is vital to look at both sides of every argument and to formulate an opinion only after you have taken the time to understand both sides. Many people have a belief and then search for everything that fuels it, but that is blind thinking. I became a vegetarian because of what I've learned over the years. My beliefs are based on research and knowledge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Animal's killing animals is a fact of life. However, those animals need to kill others to survive.
    OK, fair point. But what about, for example, chimpanzees - our closest living relative - they don't 'require' meat, but they will hunt when they want to. Same with any omnivore really.

    We also kill far more animals than we will ever eat
    I agree with this.

    The idea that it is "humane" is bull****, as if the cutting of the throat is a humane way to kill anything.
    Unless you're choosing Halal/kosher meat, then the animal is stunned before the throat is cut. It's instantly brain dead. It's probably a nicer way to go then when an animal is hunted in the wild.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Monkey)
    I'm confused, you're disagreeing with there being few vegetables that have a strong enough taste to be the focus of a dish, by saying about blending things together?
    I should have been more explicit. I disagree with the implication that vegetarian food can't be as flavoursome in general. And I think the issue is that you're talking about vegetables in the singular, when they're often mixed, which is mis-leading.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I should have been more explicit. I disagree with the implication that vegetarian food can't be as flavoursome in general. And I think the issue is that you're talking about vegetables in the singular, when they're often mixed, which is mis-leading.
    That's kind of the point I was making. They're mixed because they don't work too well alone as a focus like meat can. Which is why fake meats sell, new vegetarians aren't used to cooking that way for the most part.

    Though I'm not quite sure where you got that implication from, I didn't say anything like it.

    (Original post by Cybele)
    Unless you're choosing Halal/kosher meat, then the animal is stunned before the throat is cut. It's instantly brain dead. It's probably a nicer way to go then when an animal is hunted in the wild.
    It's probably way nicer to be pickpocketed than mugged, that doesn't rationalise being a pickpocket though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Monkey)
    That's kind of the point I was making. They're mixed because they don't work too well alone as a focus like meat can. Which is why fake meats sell, new vegetarians aren't used to cooking that way for the most part.

    Though I'm not quite sure where you got that implication from, I didn't say anything like it.
    The fact that you compared the taste of meat to the taste of a lone vegetable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a male vegetarian. :woo:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The fact that you compared the taste of meat to the taste of a lone vegetable.
    Yeah I pretty much explained why we rarely have lone vegetables.

    You've just taken what I said out of context and it's given it completely new meaning. I was saying that because you can't compare the taste of a lone vegetable to meats is why fake meats sell to changed vegetarians but not life-longs so much.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Monkey)
    Yeah I pretty much explained why we rarely have lone vegetables.

    You've just taken what I said out of context and it's given it completely new meaning. I was saying that because you can't compare the taste of a lone vegetable to meats is why fake meats sell to changed vegetarians but not life-longs so much.
    I'll be honest, I'm not really seeing that context laid out here:


    Meat's kind of a hard habit to get out of. When you don't grow up on a vegetarian diet you're used to having meat as a centre to the meal and everything else being something to add to the taste.
    There's not really many vegetables with a strong enough taste to do that though, there's some types of mushroom, but that's about it for the most part.
    They don't taste the same, but they work in that place well enough.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Monkey)
    It's probably way nicer to be pickpocketed than mugged, that doesn't rationalise being a pickpocket though.
    Pointless, irrelevant analogy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'll be honest, I'm not really seeing that context laid out here:
    I'm struggling to see how you can't, so we should probably drop this as it's not going anywhere.


    (Original post by Cybele)
    Pointless, irrelevant analogy.
    Explaining the possibility of a worse situation not justifying the current one in more relatable terms? Nope that's pretty relevant.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evil Monkey)
    I'm struggling to see how you can't, so we should probably drop this as it's not going anywhere.
    Simply because it isn't set out in the post. There are comparisons, but it looks as if the comparison of meat to a lone vegetable is one that is common to everyday life. Now we've agreed it isn't, but that's only after clarification on the matter.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    Animals killing animals is a fact of life. I don't see why humans should be excluded from this because some people claim it's 'cruel'. If you're going to play the moral capacity card then fair enough, but again, I disagree with your reasoning on what's cruel and what isn't.
    Humans rape humans...does that mean I get to.

    Look up the is ought gap.

    And how do you respond to someone who does respond with the moral capacity card (for the sake of other readers, that the vast majority of animals show no sign of understanding the general idea of morality).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    "killing animals is wrong"
    Is this a retarded reason? I'm not necessarily saying it is or isn't correct, but either way, I think that it's a perfectly valid reason for somebody to be vegetarian.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arcanen)
    Is this a retarded reason? I'm not necessarily saying it is or isn't correct, but either way, I think that it's a perfectly valid reason for somebody to be vegetarian.
    Bare in mind the OP has done no research into the topic at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    Saw an episode of Come dine with me earlier and it got me thinking; anyone else notice the majority of "vegetarians" our age (17-23) are usually females just merely trying to be hip/cool/different? With completely retarded reasons for being vegetarian, such as "we don't have a necessary enzyme that digests meat" and "killing animals is wrong", all the while wearing leather and more often that not eating fish "because they're not as smart".
    I'm male, vegetarian, don't eat fish or wear leather...
    As has been said before, people who eat fish aren't vegetarian.
    nice one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    OK, fair point. But what about, for example, chimpanzees - our closest living relative - they don't 'require' meat, but they will hunt when they want to. Same with any omnivore really.
    You are confusing "want" with need. At best our ancestors would have been scavengers of meat in desperate times. Without good tools (which would have been rare) the hunt would have consumed too much energy to be a viable option anyway.

    It is only with the advent of technology and domestication that mass production of meat has been possible. The way animals are treated in these industrialised situations is very poor though and people should do more to stop the unnecessary suffering.

    I presume you advocate the consumption of meat?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    OK, fair point. But what about, for example, chimpanzees - our closest living relative - they don't 'require' meat, but they will hunt when they want to. Same with any omnivore really.



    I agree with this.



    Unless you're choosing Halal/kosher meat, then the animal is stunned before the throat is cut. It's instantly brain dead. It's probably a nicer way to go then when an animal is hunted in the wild.
    ^completely disagree with this, an animal hunted in the wild has lived a free life, which there is absolutely no comparison with to a farmed animal, who has never had a chance. That's what put me off eating meat.
    Also you should know it isn't humane, that's what people tell themselves to justify it, when of course the meat feels pain, it is the way they're programmed and there is no way around it. For example chickens are hung upside down on by their legs for the last 5 minutes of their lives on a machine, and their neck is cut by a rotating blade. This isn't 100% efficient as the chickens swing, if they are partially cut they are put right back at the front of this machine to go round for another 5 minutes whilst slowly bleeding to death only to be cut again. There's no way you can justify that as humane.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Humans rape humans...does that mean I get to.

    Look up the is ought gap.

    And how do you respond to someone who does respond with the moral capacity card (for the sake of other readers, that the vast majority of animals show no sign of understanding the general idea of morality).
    Which argument in favour of animal rights bridges the is-ought gap?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.