To eat meat, or not to eat meat...that is the question?

Our whole lives weve been rasied to eat flesh. Or as most ppl call it meat, but whatever you decide to call it, when it boils down to t its all flesh. I know the feeling of discomfort may come over you when you refer to your food as flesh, but make no mistake thats exactly what most people eat on a daily basis. Drumsticks, chicken breasts, chicken wings, chicken nuggets, chicken tenders, popcorn chicken, grilled chicken, crispy chicken, fried or glazed barbeque chicken is all chicken flesh. Steak, hamburger, beef, groundbeef, oven roasts, pot roast, and beef brisket is all derived from the flesh of cow carcasses. Pork rhimes, bacon, Pork tenderloin, and sausage is all made from the flesh of a pig. Chances are you had a little bit of flesh with at least one of your meals today whether you know it or not, but as a common american it is harder and harder to avoid products made from animal flesh.

We have been conditioned, the way they advertise in commercials and movies, and tv shows and holidays, to consume meat on a regular basis, and most of us never think twice about where it came from, or how it came from the farm to our plate. But do most of care? Not really. We dont really care about how me got our leather couch, or sirloin steak, or our kfc chicken, or our bigmacs, or our breakfast omlette with cheese and sausage. Most of us dont care and why? honestly i cannot answer that question. Most of us are empathetic to the thoughts and feelings of other species other than a select few. We love our dogs, our cats, our pet rodents or lizards, or even cute zoo animals. Most of us by nature love animals to an extent and dont intentionally wish for unneccssary suffering to our beloved pets or zoo animals. But then when it comes to the common animals we eat on regular basis we have no compassion. No empathy. No emotion. We dont feel sad when we have to eat a chicken wing or cheeseburger. We eat it and dont even think about the life that was sacrificed.

After Countless videos of animal suffering and abuse from factory farm workers, and after doing hours upon hours of research I have come to the conclusion that my moral values, and my ethical standards contradict the eating and consumption of animal products. I dont beleive that any living creature, like me or unlike me should suffer needlessly so i can appease my hunger when i can feed on plants, organisms with very little likeness to myself and humans. Animals have blood, have organs, have brains, have eyes, have skeletons, and most all of them feel pain and have the ability to express the feeling of suffering or pain.

For 5 months i have strived to be a vegetarian but the major problem is as most vegetarians encounter is an array of criticism ffrom those who dont understand the vegetarian diet or vegan way of life. Most people are oblivious to the concept of no meat or no animal in their lives. Most people actually think that without meat you can die or get sick and become ill becasue the health benefits of eating meat. They think that with out that cheesburger, or milkshake, or bucket of chicken, or egg omlette that you are missing out on nutrients that can only come from animals and therefore make you very unhealthy. If that were truly the case then most americas would be lean and in shape. Heart disease would not be the number one killer of people in the world. But thats not the case. Generally a diet high in animal fats and meat often leads to multiple health risks and comlications. [1],[2]

So in the rest of this post i will put some of the common myths about being a vegetarian and share facts to help cralify some of the biggest misconceptions.

1. A Vegetarian or Vegan diet is low in protein. How do you get enough protein? What about Iron? Can you really get all your nutrients from just plants? Is there anything a meat free diet could be lacking?

*The American Dietetic Association’s 2009 position paper on vegetarian diets states:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.… An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.

Cows’ milk contains ideal amounts of fat and protein for young calves, but far too much for humans. And eggs are higher in cholesterol than any other food, making them a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

Vegan foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans, are low in fat, contain no cholesterol, and are rich in fiber and nutrients. Vegans can get all the protein they need from legumes (e.g., beans, tofu, peanuts) and grains (e.g., rice, corn, whole wheat breads and pastas); calcium from broccoli, kale, collard greens, tofu, fortified juices and soymilks; iron from chickpeas, spinach, pinto beans, and soy products; and B12 from fortified foods or supplements. With planning, a vegan diet can provide all the nutrients we were taught as schoolchildren came only from animal products.*[3]

2. Why should we care about animals? They dont have souls, and cant think or reason like us humans. We are better and smarter so that easily justifies our consuming animals.

So much is there a common misconception of animals. alot of religious folks like to beleive c=beasue their books dont really discuss too much about animals having souls that its assumed animals dont. even though we cannot prove the exsistance of a soul, we automatically dismiss the notion of an animal having a soul, simply because they are different. I beleive that we should show compassion for all creatures.

3. Isnt it hard being Vegan? Itsnt it Expensive?

It can be, especially if you hold yourself to too high a standard. But the important thing is to make changes you feel comfortable with, at your own pace. While reducing your consumption of animal products completely may be ideal, any reduction is a step in the right direction. The vegan lifestyle is an ongoing progression. Everyone should go at their own pace and remember that all steps towards veganism are positive. It is most important to focus on avoiding the products for which animals are bred and slaughtered. Animal by-products will exist as long as there is a demand for primary meat and dairy products. When it comes to avoiding items that contain small amounts of by-products, vegans must decide for themselves where to draw the line. Some vegans will adjust their level of abstinence according to the circumstances. For example, as a consumer, you might make sure the bread you buy is not made with whey; but as a dinner guest, you may accept bread without asking to see the ingredients. These types of compromises can actually hasten the spread of veganism, in that they help counter the attitude that it’s very hard to be vegan.

While many (though not all) mock meats and dairy substitutes are pricey, a vegan diet comprised of oatmeal, peanut butter, bagels, bread, pasta, tomato sauce, tortillas, rice, beans, potatoes, and common produce can be relatively inexpensive.


Another thing to consider is the many benefits of a vegan or vegatarian diet.

Health benefits incluse(but arent limited to):

A major report published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 1997 recommended we lower our risk of cancer by choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish. These methods of preparing meat produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic. [4]

Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. [5]

In a study done after much research the conclusion was that vegetarian diets also lead in increase in longevety.

"Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity."[6]

But dont take my word for it, do your own reserch or check out some of the sources that i have provided and decide for yourself whether or not a vegetarian diet is beneficial, healthy, or morally just.

Bibligraphy

1-http://www.thedietchannel.com/fatfacts.htm
2-http://www.annecollins.com/cholesterol-fat-diet.htm
3-http://www.veganoutreach.org/guide/qa.html#isavegandiethealthy
4-http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/updates/vegetarian_diets_health_benefits.php
5-http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777
6-http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/526S

extra sources

http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19/57-health-benefits-of-going-vegan/
http://www.goveg.com/healthconcerns.asp
http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/vegetarian.htm

Some videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz-Ubsn-2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPaxE9ouHpI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhqZm9E6SA8

Phew! That's long. Anyway, let's tackle what I can find:

1) Your insistence on using "flesh" was not even held by you after the first paragraph. This showed that you were not trying to find a better word for your definition; you were only looking to use a word that invoked as stronger reaction.

2) Point 2: Certainly your weakest argument; I would stop using it as an opening point. First, it's of the nature, "I don't know it doesn't have a soul, so let's assume it does." I could easily say, "I don't know plants don't have souls, so let's assume they do; thus, vegetarianism is wrong." Arguing from an unknown is annoying when the other person is doing it, so try not to do it yourself. Second, most people don't feel bad for a lot of really retarded animals like shrimp, nor should they. I'm sure a shrimp doesn't have much jostling around in their brain, so, since they're delicious, might as well chow down.

3: Point 3b: I'm splitting this point up into a) difficulty and b) nutrition, and only find fault in b. I think that the association we see between vegetarianism and better nutrition is simply that vegetarians have to be concerned about nutrition more than meat-eaters. I'm sure that if more meat-eaters paid as much attention to their diet as vegetarians, their life-span would also increase. On that note, it's probably in a lazy person's best interest to stay a meat-eater, as they would not as quickly fall into malnutrition from not choosing their food more wisely.

Anyway, your arguments are mostly good, and there are plenty more out there in support of vegetarianism. I'll probably end up becoming a weekday vegetarian once I'm cooking for myself. And vegans can suck it.

I wasnt saying that animals do or do not have souls, i was trying to point out that regardless of whether or not they have souls we shouldnt eat them. Some christians will justify eating animals becuase they assume animals have no souls. As far as plants i dont know if they have thoughts or emotions becuase we dont quite have the technology to discover if they do or not. Hoever even if plants did i would still eat them. Plants dont resemble me in any way shape or form. The only common trait i share with plants is that they are indeed alive, they breathe, and die just like me. They dont have eyeballs, or brains, or lungs or anything similar to that of a human. I am not a zombie, so i prefer not to eat flesh.

However i am not entirely vegetarian. It is too hard for me where i live, phx az, although it is possibel just way too expensive. For now i eat just wild caught fish, or sea animals. I Might confuse ppl or seem hypocritical at times, but i am actually not completely against the consumption of meat like my girlfirend. I see meat eating as being natural since our bodies are designed to eat flesh and plants, i just am 100% against factory farming. If you knew exactly what was going on you too would probably be mostly vegetarian if you had the chance, but when we live at home i understand how hard going veg can be. Do some research on what exactly goes into making meat at factory farms and tell me if you would still advise eating meat from those sources. Keyword-FACTORY FARM

Whether you are a believer in God or not, there is no denying that there is order to our world. In this order, animals eat animals (and plants) to survive. When man eats animals, man has not strated a traversity against the animal kingdom that is not already in existance. I am a 100% advocate of animal rights. In the case of sheep and cow and chicken, you do them justice by killing them in a merciful painless quick way. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in our practice. Now for those who believe in a creator, the argument is much more simple: God made it permissable to eat certain animals.

Well I'm not so much against eating meat as I am the practises involved preparing the meat. Ill eat wild caught and game meat. Todays meat if from a factory farm has antibiotics, hormones, disease. Plus they make cloned meat without labeling it, and they treat meat with carbon monoxide so it looks fresh even if it is gone bad. Its not worth eating the available meat. I'm pretty much vegetarian with the exception or elk and deer and wild caught fiah every now and then plus I eat all organic too

You mind posting the summary for that? Too long...

mbacolas' for vegetarian points: He is trying to change the perspective most people have of vegetarians/ism.
1) Healthy: vegetarians and vegans have, on multiple occasions, have strong correlation with lower risk of various diseases (most commonly, but not exclusively, those related to the heart).
2) Animals resemble us, and plants don't resemble us, so it's only okay to eat plants.
3) Vegetarianism can be conducted without a drastic increase in one's dietary spending.
4) The bigger issue is not over the eating of the animals, but of the manner in which the animal has been slaughtered.

Shynaku's refutation:
1) The perceived health benefits may be from the fact that vegetarians have to be more mindful of their diet, i.e. we may be seeing the results of a person being mindful of their diet, not the results of being vegetarian.

Strat's refutations:
1) The natural ordr of things is for humans to eat both plants and animals.
2) The Christian "[g]od made it permissible to eat certain animals."


I would still suggest reading what's been said, since I made this by skimming, which means I missed some points; however, this will give a general overview of the key points that I find to still be in dispute.


Strat
I'm not a huge believer in the "natural order" stuff. Naturally we have a gall bladder; naturally we die pretty young; naturally we don't have Lords. I find it indisputable that we have improved by moving away from that which is natural, so I don't see how any attempts to use the natural way of things is an argument in-and-of-itself; thus, if we find a system that is better, it will be so with merits independent of how natural it is.

There are people who claim that vegetarianism is the true way God wanted us to live. It is clear that vegetarianism was the system of the Garden of Eden, and meat-eating was a secondary plan put in place after the fall, so it follows that the most godly dietary system would be vegetarian (if not vegan).

I'm not really savvy in all this, but I'll try.

Also, that post suspiciously looked like an essay to me.

(I say this too many times) also, it seems like your shifting in what your saying, from not eating them because animals are like us, to eating them, but as long as there not factory farm made or wherever there made. it's disgusting( especially back before Upton Sinclair), but you could do the same argument with pesticide usage on growing crops and such. people do try to improve the way they use these things.

Meat is awesome. it tastes awesome and it's plentiful( like plants.).humans are naturally( can I still use this word even though you argued against it? cause I like it) omnivores, so we eat both plants, meats and other stuff that I do not know of . and even then, animals do what we do too, they eat each other, they eat plants or eat both( And the other stuff). they even try to eat us sometimes. and just because plants are not like us in anyway means we can eat them anyway? sounds like whites in the U.S. using blacks just because they have A different skin color. they still live, though differently.

Sooto
I think you hit on a good point when you noted that the "is like us" argument seems to be an ad hoc rationalization (at least in mbacolas' case...); it seems to be incapable of being a major issue if it can be so easily forgotten next to other circumstances.

However, the "it feels good" argument is none better an argument; it's a weak argument, and should only be used as a tie-breaker. For example, you would never attempt to defend yourself in court using an "it feels good" argument.

over the past couple of weeks ive actually changed my views on dieting/vegetarianism. I have come to the conclusion that eating meat from a natural source (hunted wild animals, or well taken care of farm animals) then it is good enough for consumption and there should be no reason not to eat them. But factory farmed meat in the disgusting and inhumane conditions they have the animals in it would be more damaging to eat that meat than to eat pestiside residue on a fruit (i go all organic by the way so pestiside residue isnt a big issue with me ). If you find it hard to not eat factory farmed meat then look up some videos on youtube. Or heck go visit a factory farm yourself. Some one once said that if factory farms had glass windows then more ppl would be vegetarian and i really do beleive that.

I can salute your care for the way animals are treated when they are raised for food, but I must take issue with the idea that buying organic will be as effective as you think it is. Organic foods still use pesticides, just organic pesticides; and organic pesticides are still things that are intended to kill pests — adding "organic" does not mean it's automatically safe for humans. I think this is a good overview tearing down the bloated claims of what "organic" means and does. If you want to encourage a type of farming, you need to do hard research on where the product actually comes from — just because it says "organic" does not mean it's what you want. For example, "free ranged" eggs are not regulated by the USDA, so any egg can be called "free ranged". If you want eggs of a certain type, you need to research exactly where they come from.

here is a website i found that talks about the claims made against organic farming including your mention of organic pesticides.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/index.htm

One specific section challenges the claims made against organic pesticide use;

"Stop Labeling Lies
Hudson Institute launched a Web site in 2003 indicting the organic industry as hucksters lying on their labels and misrepresenting how their food is produced. As opposed to popular belief, organic farmers really do use toxic chemicals on their fields and treat their cattle with antibiotics. Shame!

Mr. Avery must be taking yoga classes because he can bend over so far backward in his attempt to twist the truth in his effort to defame the organic label.

Pesticides: Because of good crop rotation practices and carefully chosen resistant varieties, field crops virtually never have problems with pests that would economically justify using insecticides. Organic vegetable producers sometimes resort to natural, botanically based pesticides in order to "rescue" a crop. These natural poisons, derived from flowers, have distinct environmental benefits over highly toxic man-made chemicals. They break down in the environment very quickly, so they kill or injure many fewer "non-target" species. Man-made pesticides can continue to kill for days, weeks, or months-long after an insect infestation is resolved. Furthermore, the risks to farm workers are far, far fewer (although these materials should still be treated with care). And most importantly to the consumer, unlike chemical pesticides, these materials are not "persistent." They break down quickly in the environment, and that should relieve fears that the next apple you eat might have had a chemical cocktail applied, with long-lasting residual effects."

I was not impressed by the lack of references given by your website. I've been trying to find things that back up the claims made on the website, and haven't been successful. I see all over the place that organic food has less pesticides, but that is a far cry from the claim on your website saying that there are practically no pesticides. It has also not shown that the levels of pesticides we get from conventional farming is unsafe — and there are no studies to say otherwise.

but isnt it a fact that the pesticide residue found on conventional crops are linked to cancer? Where as there are little or no studies that prove the same about organics?

Well, large amounts of pesticides are linked to cancer, but you may wish to avoid the well-established scientific axiom that a little exposure over a long time is about the same as a lot of exposure over a little time. For example, a can of tuna every year is benign; a can of tuna every day gives you mercury poisoning. As for a toxic organic pesticide: rotenone.

I am not overly concerned with the health risk of eating cooked meat as it certainly is not on the list of top reasons for people to die. I do, however, support the movement towards organic products and detest all the chemicals and pesticides and commercial additions to food.

The natural order for things is indeed a good argument for eating meat. You say we can find "better" systems but who is to judge what is better?

And lastly, when I said "God made it permissible", I was referring specifically to the 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Followers of the last two of these represent nearly half the population so it is very relevant.

In response to your first point: I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. First, the general argument is that eating meat increases your risk of heart disease, and heart disease is the number one killer in America. Second, just because something doesn't kill a lot of people, doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it. For example, salmonella kills about 5,000 people per year, which doesn't even get close to our top 10 killers; however, it would be ill advise to say that salmonella is, thus, not a concern.

A bloated response to your second point: smallpox is completely natural, but it's better to use vaccines (human inversion) to improve our lives. As for who decides what's better, there's a bit of a slippery slope there. I'd probably use a utilitarian approach with a side of human rights. The slippery slope comes in when someone plays the skeptic: it's impossible to figure out exactly who/what is the decider of what is good — every side has flaws somewhere; hence, it is impossible to say that anything better or worse than anything else. The problem is that someone who takes this stance will be forced to say that we shouldn't have spent any money on swine flu prevention, because having a deadly outbreak of a new flu is no worse than not having it. I'll stick to a utilitarian approach, and say that, if more people are surviving with healthier lives, then it's a better system.

As for your third point: First, I don't think I was saying that it's irrelevant to look at the Abrahamic religions; my point was that there are biblical ways to justify vegetarianism; however, I will now take the time to say that the Abrahamic religions saying it's okay is irrelevant: Your argument is a very clear case of a the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. Just because the majority of people used to think the world was the center of the universe, did not make it so; just because the majority of people think it's okay to eat meat, doesn't make it so.

it sounds to me like you are better at defending my position than i am lol

I just don't like when people are wrong; I'll correct anyone, regardless of whether they are on my side. Having your side spread poor arguments is, long term, only to the detriment of your position.

how did you learn to be good at debating?

Three years of philosophy education. Also, I try to be straight to the point with things. The benefit from this is that people are more willing to read a dense, single paragraph than a fluffy, page-long report; however, the detriment is that people get annoyed at your bluntness — especially if you're attacking one of their sacred cows. I would also suggest familiarizing yourself with the logical fallacies. I don't know all of them, but you learn to pick out new logical fallacies if you have a strong grounding in a few key ones. The ones that I see most often used — thus, should be memorized — are: is-ought problem, false dichotomy, correlation does not imply causation, fallacy of the single cause, moving the goalpost, cherry picking, and similarly, quote mining. Finally, the list of infamous red herrings: ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, wishful thinking, and, finally, but most importantly, the straw man. It can take a bit to get all of these, but it's very handy to know, by name, exactly what an opponent (or possibly yourself) is doing wrong.

I will quickly give my side and then cover a few things mentioned.

Animals are for us to eat.

There, I said it. If animals have souls the argument is we shouldn't eat them, but if they do, and eat others animals, than we should know that it is not wrong. But we are clearly different, a hyena will eat a dead hyena for no other reason than that it is dead and meat, yet we do not eat our dead. The entire way that we, as human, behave is different. We do not eat each other when we die, we can communicate easily and understand each other, something even monkeys can't do. We are different. Animals probably do not have souls. And if they do then we should care what they do, and they eat their same species, so are you saying then that I should eat you if you die?

Animals taste good!

Heart disease was brought up. Not brushing your teeth over the course of your life time will greatly increase your chance of heart disease, wither you are a vegetarian or not.

Baby cows drink milk, and the reason we drink milk is because a farmer during the last century decided it tasted good enough, and it was cheap to make and sell, so he sold it to make a profit and get rich. I am not a baby cow, so I don't drink very much milk, though it is useful to me for cooking things like cookies, donuts, and ice cream which are yummy.

Eating only meat, only vegetables and fruit, or lots of sweets can all make you fat. Early nomadic people didn't know what they would do for food daily. One day these hunter/gatherers would find a limping deer, they would then kill it and eat it. The next day they might find a berry bush, and the day after some genetically inferior bean plants which instead of shooting their seeds in all directions, held on to them offering food. The way to be healthy is by having a wide verity of diet, maintain personal hygiene, and using our bodies. I am one of the most athletic people at my school. I am in good shape and I can run faster, longer, farther than anyone else. I am in better shape with less work. The reason is variety. If you eat a hamburger every day, it is just as bad as eating carrots every day, or an apple. If you mix up what you eat and change your diet, you will be healthier than anyone else.

Vegetables may be expensive, especially some of the better tasting ones like asparagus and brussel sprouts, but a steak is expensive to.

Anyone who eats a lot of meat is wrong. Peasants in Europe in the middle ages had little meat, except for some had fish. They lived longer than nobility who ate meat daily, and the rich people had better living conditions.

Eating healthy is a balance of meat and vegetables, fruit and grains. If you have to eat the same thing daily, like for me a sack lunch, spread the meal out over several hours, eating different parts and different times over the course of the day.

My biggest problem with male vegetarians who eat soy. Soy is the second largest producer of estrogen in the world, after the female body. Men who are vegetarians eat soy a lot, sometimes every day. In this case the men will eventually have difficulty with reproduction and that is cruel to the human race to make ones self infertile, or at least less so.

In conclusion to my side, is that vegetarians are wrong. Anyone can prove their actions right through hypothetical. I can prove that mass murder is not wrong through a simple logic stream disproving the existence of 99.9% of all humans, making the rest not there and merely figments of my imagination and there for me to dispose of any way I wish.

Don't eat meat every meal, or only vegetables. Balance your diet, shower, brush your teeth, and walk a mile a day, with a few push ups/pull ups and crunches, even 10 per day, and you will be healthier then most.

Bonobos have the ability to vocally communicate. Besides, I think it's premature to conclude that if something isn't on the exact same level of consciousness as us, it can be eaten; by that logic, the mentally handicapped should be the regular course of banquets at the National Academy of Scientists.

Just because something feels good, that isn't reason to do it.

How eating meat and not brushing your teeth are at all related in this conversation requires explanation.

The milk thing is confusing me. Is this an argument against veganism? If so, make sure you're not saying something so egregiously wrong on how we came to use cow milk. Not only that, you don't even bother to make a claim on what's right or wrong; you just assumed your knew the evolution of milk production, wrote it down, and hoped it supported your side.

Eating only one type of thing will only make you fat if you overeat; however, without a balanced diet, it is common to fall prey to malnutrition. It is possible to have a balanced diet with a vegetarian diet, so I don't think your argument holds any water, aside from saying, "It's not natural," which I've already given my refutation of that system of argument.

Yes... certain foods are expensive.

Another "fact" of yours I see. Please cite something, because I can find no evidence of peasants living longer than nobility because of their eating habits.

Eating healthily is done through intake of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. The food groups you listed are excellent sources of these, but if the nutrients can be gotten from other sources, we do not need to partake in all those food groups.

You need to take a fairly large amount of soy to see large effects on fertility in men. Also, a normal amount of soy decreases the risk of prostate cancer. But soy ends up like tuna: it's fine in the right quantity, but too much can have detrimental effects. Doesn't mean we shouldn't eat tuna, and doesn't mean we shouldn't eat soy.

I don't see how the hypothetical thing comes in. You haven't shown facts to back up your claim, and the "facts" you have shown are either blatantly wrong or without source.

Responses are in italics.


Bonobos have the ability to vocally communicate. Besides, I think it's premature to conclude that if something isn't on the exact same level of consciousness as us, it can be eaten; by that logic, the mentally handicapped should be the regular course of banquets at the National Academy of Scientists.

Just because something feels good, that isn't reason to do it.

How eating meat and not brushing your teeth are at all related in this conversation requires explanation. it was mentioned above that eating meat causes heart disease, the leading cause of death in the country. not brushing your teeth will do the exact same thing, that is increase your chance of heart disease. It doesn't matter if you are vegetarian or a omnivore

The milk thing is confusing me. Is this an argument against veganism? If so, make sure you're not saying something so egregiously wrong on how we came to use cow milk. Not only that, you don't even bother to make a claim on what's right or wrong; you just assumed your knew the evolution of milk production, wrote it down, and hoped it supported your side. milk was brought up earlier on being bad, as a reason for being a vegan, i was agreeing with that statement.

Eating only one type of thing will only make you fat if you overeat; however, without a balanced diet, it is common to fall prey to malnutrition. It is possible to have a balanced diet with a vegetarian diet, so I don't think your argument holds any water, aside from saying, "It's not natural," which I've already given my refutation of that system of argument. You appear to have ignored my other statement about how the serfs, who ate only vegetables and grains, were more healthy then those that ate only meat. You can have a variety of food with vegetables, but meat is also very necessary. For example, the fatty acids in fish are vital to brain development, and are nearly impossible in a vegetarian diet, as plants don't have fat.

Yes... certain foods are expensive. They certainly are. I was agreeing with an earlier point on how it doesn't cost more either way.

Another "fact" of yours I see. Please cite something, because I can find no evidence of peasants living longer than nobility because of their eating habits. As I replied above, you didn't realize that I am agreeing with you, only vegetables and grains is better than to much meat.

Eating healthily is done through intake of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. The food groups you listed are excellent sources of these, but if the nutrients can be gotten from other sources, we do not need to partake in all those food groups. Agreed, but somethings are vital. Animal fat and fish oils are vital parts of brain development in all ages, more so for children There are many other things that can only be gotten in meat, as well as only in vegetables.

You need to take a fairly large amount of soy to see large effects on fertility in men. Also, a normal amount of soy decreases the risk of prostate cancer. But soy ends up like tuna: it's fine in the right quantity, but too much can have detrimental effects. Doesn't mean we shouldn't eat tuna, and doesn't mean we shouldn't eat soy. I was just saying that some vegetarians have problems to with over consumption, though point taken.

I don't see how the hypothetical thing comes in. You haven't shown facts to back up your claim, and the "facts" you have shown are either blatantly wrong or without source. There are none that are blatantly wrong that I am aware of, though correction would be appreciated if so. I was saying we should stay with what can be proved, not with hypothetical things, such as wither or not animals have souls. If we can eat plants because they are not flesh and don't have bones, that is similar to hating another race because they look different or have different customs.

Brushing teeth: I still don't see your connexion. You should brush your teeth, partly because you decrease your risk of heart disease. By the same logic, you should not eat meat, then. Are you conceding that there are valid reason for going vegetarian? If so, you should probably make it more clear that that is what you are doing; otherwise, we are left guessing as to how brushing your teeth is an argument for eating meat.

Milk: Another case where you should have made it explicit that you are not defending meat-eating. However, you're still incredibly wrong on how milk became a part of the European diet, and you should research it before you use that argument again. This is a decent summary of the development of lactose tolerance.

Serfs: I don't think you understand my problem here: Where is the source of your claim that serfs did better than nobles?

Nutrition: Fatty acids are found in various seeds and nuts, so it's not necessary to get them from meat. Getting these from meat is certainly easier, but saying it's "nearly impossible" is a gross overstatement. Also, please cite what nutrients can only be gotten from meat and fish, for I have not been able to find any.

Discrimination: The key fault to your analogy is that the races all have sentience. As far as we know, there is no awareness in plants, nor a mechanism by which such an awareness can take place. We then see various forms of life with different levels of awareness. For example, my vegetarian sister is likely to eat shrimp, simply because she doesn't see them as having consciousness. Sentience and physical characteristics are not equatable.