Meat is Burger

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

ahaha i love that last part

 

You're going to go far in this life. Thanks for bridging the gap between vegos and carnys. Now lets all have a beer.

 

Okay- I unfairly lumped you in with some of the intolerant extremists and for that I apologize- but only to you. Forgive me that my dander got up for being refered to as a murderer simply for my dietary choices. Indeed I misunderstood your contributions based on a couple posts.

 

What makes vegetarian activism any different from anti-war activism? War is natural too, y'know.

 

You may say that "between humans, it's different" but competition within a species drives evolution, too. We naturally are part of a tribe, and put our own tribe before others. That is the root of racism and nationalism. Furthermore, other animal species wage war on one another, so it's something that's been around for millions of years. And even if you say "within a species is different", the fact is that you are discriminating based on species. That's exactly what many vegetarians are against in the first place.

 

Wow everyone is free to have their own opionion. I eat meat but i think about the animal.. not in a bad way. whatever/

 

U R whu U eat.

 

1. You're discriminating against plants
2. Where the hell did you get the idea that species wage war on each other? they don't, they eat each other That is completely false, I think you need to learn more about biology.
3. Humanity is the only species to essentially wage war on another species, however this doesn't justify changing our diets. It rather infers that we should adapt a healthy respect of our environment and the animals we consume. Like most pre-historic cultures

 

1) Plants do not have a brain, therefore they lack the ability to value their own lives. You are discriminating against animals because you know that an animal will fight to protect its own life, yet you reject changing your habits because meat-eating is "natural".
2) No, I meant that intra-species war exists in the animal world. Still, other species have driven one another into extinction. You know that oxygen was the first pollution?
3) Why not change our diets? Organic plants are the most earth friendly foods.

I think that the core issue is that we never want to think of ourselves as the bad guy. We simply take what we do and rationalize it, hence meat-eater irritability.

 

meat is tasty.

For every vegan meal you eat, I plan to eat a bowl of calf liver.

 

That is a low and assumptuous argument. I never use it for the simple reason that its impossible to get into someone elses mind and know their motives. It also assumes moral superiority in saying that for one thing, what we are doing is wrong, and for another, that we should feel guilty about it. The point i'm trying to make with this thread is that the worst form of rationalisation of all is that one gives for their own 'bashing' of someone elses beliefs. The source of my irratibility is not to hide the shame of what i am doing, nor giving me an excuse not to think, it comes from my idea that we should be free to practice what are quite traditional and 'natural' behaviours without someone telling us that we're murderers. I dislike fundamentalism. I have no desire to persuade vegetarians to believe otherwise, I do have a problem however with others trying to persuade me.

The idea that the burden of changing one's diet for morality reasons lies on humans, just because they are conscious beings, is entirely humanocentric. That is why pre-historic, and still nature based tribal cultures of today who feel more a part of their environment as opposed to superior beings generally eat meat. They take their cues from the animals because they after all, are animals. Now telling us that we should change our diet for health reasons is a valid thing, but tell me all you want, of the scientific evidence i've read and observed, i'm not convinced.

As for your discrimination argument, why should we assume Animals and humans are one in the same? That is, that animals have some sort of right to escape our wrath in the food chain because they are somehow the dame race as us (i know thats not what your saying but your argument wouldn't make any sense otherwise). Please explain this further.

Sorry i misread and misunderstood what you said about intra species competition.

 

Surely you're not against all attempts to pursuade? Using calm and rational argument is a long, long way from chasing someone down the street with PETA flyers.

 

du du az yoh old rich meatshitterz tell U.

 

Of course not I was doing some thinking last night and I am very appreciative of the presence of vegetarians in this world.

However, meat is murder is hardly a rational statement, and I am against all forms of fundamentalism, trust me, I am pathetic die hard lefty, you'll see me over in the christianity forums trying to defend homosexuality against the ignorant attacks of some of the posters, or maybe just one. This whole thing mostly stems from that anger. I have decided to calm down, we're not in any threat of losing our rights to eat meat so I shouldn't get so riled up about this.

Anyway, some of your points really influenced me and i went outside last night and had a good think about it...I'm still a carni sorry. I looked at it in terms of evolutionary theory. Maybe some time we can have a discussion about it, but at the moment i'm tired from bashing fundies in the religious forum.

 

The article you cited was authored by Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation. I actually did read this piece, and I only noticed one peer-reviewed journal (cited twice). The rest of the references cited their own literature, and for the most part opinions.

The hunter gatherer period was not a successful time for the history of man. It was not until we became agricultural that human beings truly became successful and healthy. The hunter gatherers lived in the extremes of climate, and diets high in fat and animal foods gave them osteoporosis and severe atherosclerosis. If you look around the world today the healthiest people eat a starch-based (plant based) diet, not a meat and grease-based one. The few hunter gatherers still around today who live on their native diets have the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world, so Fallon's argument does not hold water, and it never has.

I don't care what you eat, but don't try to convince people that animal foods are healthy because they're not.

The success of your friend's family does not disprove my point because you cannot prove that their diet is the reason for their success, and you cannot prove that there is no harm in their dietary choices. All I know about this family is what their son's best friend is telling me on an internet message board. Am I and everyone else to believe that typical results of eating lots of eggs and meat will give us a youthful appearance and make us champion rowers? Peer-reviewed studies ARE scrutinized, hence the name. Family experiments are fine for a grade school science project, but not for giving advice on diet and nutrition. I'm not saying your homeopath isn't smart, but when it comes to nutritional advice the diet you say she recommends is not well supported by evidence.

My approach to nutrition is just based on the available evidence, and western medicine does not necessarily share my view. (You make more money as a doctor when you prescribe drugs and perform surgeries rather than telling people to eat vegetables). I am not very familiar with homeopathy as a practice, but I do know that if she keeps up with nutritional studies than I do not see how she could have come up with her ideas about proper diet. You said earlier that she recognizes meat as "a valuable source of protein and amino acids"; this may be true for rats and cats but not for human beings. The vast majority of evidence shows animal protein to be harmful in many ways, so I cannot see how she came to this conclusion. Likewise, I cannot see the health benefits of eating eggs when each one is high in animal protein (sulfur containing amino acids), contains about 70% fat and 200mg of cholesterol. I do not see the logic in eating chicken when it contains nearly the same amounts of fat and cholesterol as beef, yet 15 times higher in heterocyclic amines (a carcinogen, also found in cigarette smoke). I do not see the logic in recommending and believing these things are a healthy part of the human diet, yet also recommending short periods of abstaining from these same foods. If she believed them to be healthy, then why would you need to detox from them?

As for fundamental vegetarianism, that's not what I'm into. I am not your stereotypical vegan who passes out "Why vegan" pamphlets and chants "meat is murder!" I am vegan because of my knowledge of nutrition, not because I think eating meat is morally wrong. What I do feel is morally wrong, is the wide spread misinformation about human nutritional needs, and the blatant disregard for human health for the sake of wealth and industry. I do not care what anyone eats, but I do care when people make bad dietary choices under the false belief that they are making healthy choices.

 

So it all comes down to "my evidence is better than yours", so sad.

 

Neither of us have presented evidence. What it all comes down to is that the dietary ideals you have presented are unfounded. What's sad is that I posted a well thought and thorough response, and all you have to say is "So it all comes down to "my evidence is better than yours", so sad." I'm not here to fight or argue, all I'm doing is making the necessary corrections. Nobody has to take my word for anything, but I would hope it would at least cause people to question what they think they know about nutrition.

 

I knew you would interpret my post that way. I dislike the way you argue, very assumptuous, spose i'll have to try and turn it on your head:

For example -
The fact that tribal cultures still eating meat still suffer from osteoperosis does not prove that we can attribute it to eating meat. Just like I can't attribute the success of my friend's family to eating meat. I never said that at all, its just reasonable to assume that they would be suffering quite badly if meat was as bad as you say it is.

How do you know what this lady believes isn't supported by evidence? She scrutinises. Very much so...you're only assuming that she doesn't because you think shes wrong. Do you see what i meant now when i said, "It all comes down to "my evidence is better than yours.""?

As for your detox argument - You're just not thinking. Perhaps detoxing is a remedy for western diets. The diet also involves abstaining from onions, several spices, garlic and spicy foods - Because they contain small amounts of toxins or at least substances that the body reacts to in a negative way. So thus, giving the liver a rest and that brings me to your other argument:

Meats and animal proteins are harmful to the body because they sometimes contain what might be called toxins - I'm guessing you're a soy eater? I could dig up a lot of dirt on that one too, lets not forget canola oil. For the record i try to abstain from both foods, as well as dairy. But there is a line one must draw in saying that the human body should be free from entirely every type of food that contains TRACES of a harmful substance. Nature is full of harmful substances, thats why we have a liver.

I know you're not here to fight or argue, but you decided to scrutinise my beliefs to begin with and expect me to react.

 

god bless lily st. cyr..