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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Okay, I'll amend my statement, why do we need to cook it to be properly digestable? Inuits, for example, tend to be very unhealthy people with digestive tract problems. That we eat it raw doesn't mean we can digest it properly or that it's good for us.

    For instance, consumption of meat has been traced to colon cancer, because it gets stuck down there and starts rotting because we can't digest it properly.
    Again, we don't 'need' to cook those things. Raw meat, like steak tartar, is a delicacy. Potatoes are also potentially toxic if eaten raw.

    And with respect, that's not what causes colon cancer. Many, many different factors cause colon cancer whether you eat meat or not - if there is a link to meat, then it's only red meat, specifically processed meat which are treated with carcinogenic chemicals. There's no link between white meat and increased risk of colon cancer. But evidence on this in general is sketchy, there was a study published a few years ago in the journal of Cancer Science which outright said eating red meat does not increase your risk of colon cancer, and that eating fish will actually decrease this risk.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    At least you're consistent in your bid to fail.

    On your first argument, that would require people to make as many animals as possible. If you can find me one person who holds that view that isn't thick as pig ****, I'll give you a cookie.
    Wanting animals already in existence to suffer the least amount possible =/= wanting as many animals to exist as possible.

    Many people have stopped eating meat. Whether the whole of a society does or not, depends on what happens with that society. Once upon a time people said slavery would never end, okay so we have 'free' people in sweatshops abroad, but that's not our society, it's effected by our society, it's another thing I disagree with, but we don't have the power to stop it without bringing about worse consequences at the moment.

    Are you honestly claiming that because some vegetarians wear leather it means there can be no point in vegetarianism? Some humans break laws, that doesn't mean there can be no point in having laws.

    "Surely the fact that you have to take unnatural supplements prove that you're supposed to eat meat?"
    You're right, we should definitely ignore the naturalism fallacy, and the manner in which we treat farm animals, what we feed them, how they're bred, that's "natural".

    You should read what Homles Rolsten III (epic name) wrote about the term 'The Environment'.

    "Why should people go out of their way to accommodate you?"
    Gee, it's almost as if I hang around with people who I'm friends with...
    ...you realise people accommodate each other constantly in almost every part of daily life?

    "I'm merely saying that it clearly hasn't harmed people for thousands of years, it's clearly what we're evolutionarily supposed to do"
    How are we using the term person?
    Are we just taking it to be synonymous with human? If so look up speciesism.
    Moreover that presuposses the argument for someone being vegetarian is about health. For some it is, but you keep making these sweeping statements as if every vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, have come to the conclusions they have because of the same reasons as other vegetarians, vegans and pescatarians.

    to put it more simply for you:
    P -> Q
    P
    Q

    R -> Q
    R
    Q

    Same conclusion, different cause.

    "Pescatarians that think fish are less worthy, i've even heard a claim about no CNS, "
    See above statements.


    "
    basically, they're only animals, they serve no other real purpose, we may as well eat them, get off your self-righteous vegetarian high horse"
    I'm responding to you, I'm not being self-righteous, but you're being thick.

    The meaning over the world I'd argue comes from us. Whatever meaning we project. This is also known as a social constructivist point of view.
    I don't see where a need for animals to serve our purposes comes from.
    I do see that I think unnecessary pain is bad.
    I don't like being in pain.
    Others don't like being in pain (apart from what I call 'positive pain, in the cases of things like BDSM, although that doesn't necessitate pain).
    why should we view animals in pain as arbitrary whilst viewing humans being in pain as important?
    Or are you all for us beating each other up, raping and sexually assaulting one another?


    Lastly, if we may as well eat them, why is it any different for me to kill and eat you?
    What is this quality in humans you seem to see that isn't in any other animal?
    Or are you just being speciesist?
    Probably, yes, but like it or not they are a lesser species, they don't possess conscious thought for a start
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)

    I reckon we could, if we put the money into it, which we aren't. I am okay with dairy farming, though I'd prefer it to be without the whole rape and taking away of calves. Dairy farming can be ethical and I look on it as a prototype of "work for stay". The cows get looked after, they give something in return. Obviously we need to change the system, and utterly remove the meat industry, but dairy farming is not necessarily that bad. At the moment, however, it is.



    I disagree. My mother was a farm-vet for a while, and she did it to help all animals, regardless of what the farmer thought.
    Your mum is one of the very rare ones then.

    Dairy farming is terrible.

    Firstly look at the diseases and infections that many cows get as a result such as mastitis and lameness. These are very common and prevelant in dairy farming.

    Then, rape is one thing, and I wouldn't use that word here, but forced pregnancy? That's incredibly traumatic. Then most calves are taken away, because if they weren't they'd drink too much milk and the farmer wouldn't be able to make ends meet like that.
    That in itself is a bad thing, even on the best of farms.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alison1992)
    Probably, yes, but like it or not they are a lesser species, they don't possess conscious thought for a start
    <insert value laden bull**** claims about something being a less species, ignore anything to do with speciesism and act as if the term wasn't used, and make some arbitrary comment about conscious thought which has no baring on the scientific evidence put forward for many animals>
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    At least you're consistent in your bid to fail.

    On your first argument, that would require people to make as many animals as possible. If you can find me one person who holds that view that isn't thick as pig ****, I'll give you a cookie.
    Wanting animals already in existence to suffer the least amount possible =/= wanting as many animals to exist as possible.

    Many people have stopped eating meat. Whether the whole of a society does or not, depends on what happens with that society. Once upon a time people said slavery would never end, okay so we have 'free' people in sweatshops abroad, but that's not our society, it's effected by our society, it's another thing I disagree with, but we don't have the power to stop it without bringing about worse consequences at the moment.

    Are you honestly claiming that because some vegetarians wear leather it means there can be no point in vegetarianism? Some humans break laws, that doesn't mean there can be no point in having laws.

    "Surely the fact that you have to take unnatural supplements prove that you're supposed to eat meat?"
    You're right, we should definitely ignore the naturalism fallacy, and the manner in which we treat farm animals, what we feed them, how they're bred, that's "natural".

    You should read what Homles Rolsten III (epic name) wrote about the term 'The Environment'.

    "Why should people go out of their way to accommodate you?"
    Gee, it's almost as if I hang around with people who I'm friends with...
    ...you realise people accommodate each other constantly in almost every part of daily life?

    "I'm merely saying that it clearly hasn't harmed people for thousands of years, it's clearly what we're evolutionarily supposed to do"
    How are we using the term person?
    Are we just taking it to be synonymous with human? If so look up speciesism.
    Moreover that presuposses the argument for someone being vegetarian is about health. For some it is, but you keep making these sweeping statements as if every vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, have come to the conclusions they have because of the same reasons as other vegetarians, vegans and pescatarians.

    to put it more simply for you:
    P -> Q
    P
    Q

    R -> Q
    R
    Q

    Same conclusion, different cause.

    "Pescatarians that think fish are less worthy, i've even heard a claim about no CNS, "
    See above statements.


    "
    basically, they're only animals, they serve no other real purpose, we may as well eat them, get off your self-righteous vegetarian high horse"
    I'm responding to you, I'm not being self-righteous, but you're being thick.

    The meaning over the world I'd argue comes from us. Whatever meaning we project. This is also known as a social constructivist point of view.
    I don't see where a need for animals to serve our purposes comes from.
    I do see that I think unnecessary pain is bad.
    I don't like being in pain.
    Others don't like being in pain (apart from what I call 'positive pain, in the cases of things like BDSM, although that doesn't necessitate pain).
    why should we view animals in pain as arbitrary whilst viewing humans being in pain as important?
    Or are you all for us beating each other up, raping and sexually assaulting one another?


    Lastly, if we may as well eat them, why is it any different for me to kill and eat you
    What is this quality in humans you seem to see that isn't in any other animal?
    Or are you just being speciesist?
    oh and i meant 'probably' as in, yes i am being speciesest, and what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilnikkita)
    I LOVE Quorn chicken! My whole stance on "fake meat" is that it helps for those of us who used to be avid meat eaters and are now vegetarians. I have been a vegetarian for a little over three years now, but I still crave meat from time to time. Given my current living situation, I'm also surrounded by it a lot, so I feel tempted often. The other thing about this specific company is that they don't put a bunch of crap into the product, just a few vegetables. Morning Star, on the other hand, who knows what is in it?
    I've been a veggie for 14 years, and I don't eat quorn as a replacement, I just eat it because it's damn tasty
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I intend to become a vegetarian soon. I think if more people saw the horrific suffering animals go through just to be turned into a cheap burger for some fat hairy nerd to swallow without chewing then more people would be vegetarians.

    I'm not going to tell others to be vegetarian, but I feel that IMO it is a virtuous choice.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Your mum is one of the very rare ones then.
    Psh, I doubt my mum would want to, but the point stands. If she chose to, it's her right.


    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Dairy farming is terrible.
    Like all things, the majority of it is, yes. I freely admit this. That's why I'd like to see it changed.


    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Firstly look at the diseases and infections that many cows get as a result such as mastitis and lameness. These are very common and prevelant in dairy farming.
    Very true, it's horrible. And then there's the pus, blood, mucus and piss that gets mixed in with the milk when they're milking the cows. Disgusting.


    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Then, rape is one thing, and I wouldn't use that word here, but forced pregnancy? That's incredibly traumatic. Then most calves are taken away, because if they weren't they'd drink too much milk and the farmer wouldn't be able to make ends meet like that.
    That in itself is a bad thing, even on the best of farms.
    My point exactly. We need to institute a better, more ethical style of dairy farming. We need to reduce dairy consumption anyway, as we really do not need to be drinking anyone else's milk or eating their cheese, butter, etc. Reduce production, raise prices, institute more ethical practices, give farmers incentives, etc. There are ways around it.


    (Original post by Cybele)
    Again, we don't 'need' to cook those things. Raw meat, like steak tartar, is a delicacy. Potatoes are also potentially toxic if eaten raw.
    Oh, and something being a delicacy doesn't mean it's good for us or healthy. What kind of logic are you working with there?


    (Original post by Cybele)
    And with respect, that's not what causes colon cancer. Many, many different factors cause colon cancer whether you eat meat or not - if there is a link to meat, then it's only red meat, specifically processed meat which are treated with carcinogenic chemicals. There's no link between white meat and increased risk of colon cancer. But evidence on this in general is sketchy, there was a study published a few years ago in the journal of Cancer Science which outright said eating red meat does not increase your risk of colon cancer, and that eating fish will actually decrease this risk.
    You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say that colon cancer was caused by meat, I said that meat has been linked to it because we don't digest it properly and it starts rotting in our gut. That last bit has been attested to repeatedly and I grew up hearing about it. Of course there are carcinogens in it, but the point was the whole, "we don't digest it properly" part.


    (Original post by Alison1992)
    Probably, yes, but like it or not they are a lesser species, they don't possess conscious thought for a start
    Care to prove that?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alison1992)
    oh and i meant 'probably' as in, yes i am being speciesest, and what?
    So you won't say what quality it is humans have, you'll just say being human is in itself brilliant. But not what we have that other animals don't, that makes us better?
    Just like being black is better than being white etc.. And being female is better than being male or a hermaphrodite etc.?

    Don't you just love mindless bigotry!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    words
    I thought you didn't have as big an issue with dairy farming, those are pretty big issues that you've agreed with, please can you expand on your point?
    I know you might make the claim "I said the majority", but those issues are in the best of dairy farms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    my sister is a vegetarian and her reasons for being one have nothing to do with being different/cool/hip, in fact the majority of our friends and family have tried to convince her to stop being a vegetarian..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So you won't say what quality it is humans have, you'll just say being human is in itself brilliant. But not what we have that other animals don't, that makes us better?
    Just like being black is better than being white etc.. And being female is better than being male or a hermaphrodite etc.?

    Don't you just love mindless bigotry!
    yes, why don't you go and strike up a conversation with that magpie over there?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alison1992)
    yes, why don't you go and strike up a conversation with that magpie over there?
    So you're not going to back your speciesism up regardless of my put downs?
    Being human can't in itself be the quality. If there is a quality that is in all humans that isn't in any animal, or at least a quality that is just exclusive to humans (so not all humans have to have it) can you state what it is as well as it's relevance in discussions on what the moral thing to do is?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I thought you didn't have as big an issue with dairy farming, those are pretty big issues that you've agreed with, please can you expand on your point?
    I know you might make the claim "I said the majority", but those issues are in the best of dairy farms.
    I don't have as big an issue with dairy farming in that I am not as active about getting it removed as I am about the meat industry. Like I said, I think we could change the dairy-industry so that it treats animals in the proper way. The meat industry, there is no way to change it so it treats animals properly. It's not "work for stay" by any stretch of the imagination.

    I would love to change the dairy industry, but we've got to tackle the big one first, then move down to the smaller issues. It's only by changing people's conceptions of animals that we can even start to properly discuss the animal industry as a whole.

    You're also right about all the best farms having such issues, but the better farmers also take pains to do something about it, whilst the majority don't. I know one farmer who tries his best to keep his cattle healthy, etc. and he looks after them as well as can be expected given the current technology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So you're not going to back your speciesism up regardless of my put downs?
    Being human can't in itself be the quality. If there is a quality that is in all humans that isn't in any animal, or at least a quality that is just exclusive to humans (so not all humans have to have it) can you state what it is as well as it's relevance in discussions on what the moral thing to do is?
    no, i'm not going to back up my speciesism because at the end of the day, you sound like a moron suggesting that animals have the same level of intelligence as humans, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING, also, you're the one missing out, MEAT TASTES GOOD
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)

    You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say that colon cancer was caused by meat, I said that meat has been linked to it because we don't digest it properly and it starts rotting in our gut. That last bit has been attested to repeatedly and I grew up hearing about it. Of course there are carcinogens in it, but the point was the whole, "we don't digest it properly" part.
    I've never heard of meat 'rotting' in our guts. Are there any medical sources for this? What is it about meat exactly that we can't digest, or that makes it 'rot'? Other non-animal foods will also start to rot/decay/ferment in our bodies, surely.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alison1992)
    no, i'm not going to back up my speciesism because at the end of the day, you sound like a moron suggesting that animals have the same level of intelligence as humans, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING, also, you're the one missing out, MEAT TASTES GOOD
    Ho ho ho!
    Please show everyone where I made any claim that compared two species like that! Quote it, where I said animals and humans have the same intelligence!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alison1992)
    no, i'm not going to back up my speciesism because at the end of the day, you sound like a moron suggesting that animals have the same level of intelligence as humans, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING, also, you're the one missing out, MEAT TASTES GOOD
    So, you're saying all that information showing various animals to be as smart as, if not smarter than, us is just all lies? Oh my gods, the Illuminati are run by dolphins, it's a conspiracy!


    (Original post by Cybele)
    I've never heard of meat 'rotting' in our guts. Are there any medical sources for this? What is it about meat exactly that we can't digest, or that makes it 'rot'? Other non-animal foods will also start to rot/decay/ferment in our bodies, surely.
    If you're willing to wait until my essays are all done, I'll happily go on a hunt for the sources?

    The big issue with meat is that our digestive tract is too long. Even in carnivores it rots, obviously, and you're right that other foodstuffs start to rot inside us. Unfortunately, meat starts to break down far quicker than plantlife and so carnivores, and other omnivores, have shorter intestines, etc. to make sure it's passed before that happens. The human intestinal tract has the same proportions as a herbivore's, so food takes longer to pass through us. This means things like meat, even white meat, get caught in it at the worst moments, leading to illness, possibly cancer, etc.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asha_patel)
    in fact the majority of our friends and family have tried to convince her to stop being a vegetarian..
    Wow, how loving. Doubtless they'd also be among the idiots that moan vegetarians and vegans are egotistical and try convert everyone too.

    Did you never say anything in defence, it's kind of cruel to try persuade people beliefs they hold close enough to change their lifestyle.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people get so annoyed with vegetarians??
 
 
 
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.