4 ms·

Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition a

Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition affects the body. True, but there are societies that are vegetarian and have been for centuries. Apparently veggies are healthy! - You are a predator? I don't know you but I'm willing to bet it's been a while since you hunted down, killed, and ate an animal in the wild. - "The system has worked" - with that kind of reasoning you could justify anything from rape, manslaughter, ostracizing, etc. Being civilized means rising above unhealthy instincts. I think you should probably just stick with "it tastes good". Can't argue with that.

existencebox 13y ago
No bait intended, I honestly mean it. I just felt like "it tastes good" being a weak justification since it is by nature very subjective, so I look for a better justification. also, to answer in order: -Indeed, there are multiple approaches, and this is why I find it hard to select one vs. the other. If my body "craves" meat, there's usually a reason due to digestive peptides that the nutrition from the food I'm craving is something that'd be useful. I realize I could with time potentially reprogram this, but, the statement stands. -You'd actually be wrong. I enjoy both bow hunting (which I had the opportunity to learn initially as a boy scout) and game shooting. -If you notice, I qualify that with avoiding creating undue harm. I think it's quite a strawman to draw an equivalence between consuming animals that are killed in a humane fashion with e.g. rape especially. If you kept it to manslaughter, you'd have a stronger point, since I have a hard time arguing against anything outside of specific targeted uses of violence either. (please don't take this as bait; just that there have been wars in history I do not oppose.)
- nhangen 13y ago
  People crave sugar, nicotine, narcotics, and other things that aren't good for them, so your argument falls apart there. You crave meat for a variety of psychological and physiological reasons, but not necessarily because you're missing something that meat provides. My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to? Mostly, unless you've developed some kind of novel purely-synthetic foodstock, you have to (well, you can probably get away with dismembering living things rather than killing them, in some cases.) To a certain extent, you have a choice about whether the "something" killed or dismembered is plant, animal, fungus, etc.
    - brortao 13y ago
      There isn't exactly a lot of evidence that plants feel pain or can suffer in the same way that animals can. Even if they could, you'd still be minimizing the amount of killing by not eating meat, since animals have to be fed.
  - existencebox 13y ago
    So as I said above, there's a certain degree of actual feedback in terms of your body "Wanting" foods that contain proper nutrients, and while with a combination of multiple types of beans, supplements, and other foods you can approximate some of the proteins you'd be missing out on by not eating meat, it's both far more complicated (and until recently in my life, expensive), and as my initial statement about a lack of "True Understanding"(tm) of necessary nutrition tried to state, has potential long term effects. (and I mean biologically long term, multiple generations. If there are meaningful long term studies on what various exclusionary diets do across generation I'd like to see them, but my understanding was that our data was currently very insufficient.) So I'd respond, there are some constraints that don't say I _have_ to eat meat, but certainly shift the cost/benefit analysis more in its favor.
    - nhangen 13y ago
      With the exception of gym rats or those with a job that requires strenuous physical labor, the body doesn't require that much protein. I've been a vegetarian for 15 years or so, and would question your statement that finding non-meat protein alternatives is complicated. It sounds like you're trying to make an argument that not eating meat could have long-term health hazards, in which case I'd argue that it's easier to prove that meat is bad for you than it is to prove not-eating it is.
kansface 13y ago
"It tastes good" is an exceptionally morally weak argument. All sorts of unsavory things probably taste great, but we don't eat them.
sergiosgc 13y ago
The Wikipedia page on the history of Vegetarianism[1] paints a rather different picture. There were historically pockets of vegetarians, namely in Greece and India, but quite restricted. Namely, no large cultural group in History is identified as vegetarian. As for being a predator, I have hunted, and it is a fact that most people who eat meat could hunt if in need. It's not rocket science. The fact that they don't hunt is caused by practical reasons. I don't knit my sweaters and that does not preclude me from wearing clothes. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Yeah, take the average American meat eater and drop them into the woods to what... Starve to death shortly. They couldn't even farm or forage for edible plants. Your post is ridiculous, and I say that as an American hunter with some knowledge of foraging and farming.

existencebox 13y ago

No bait intended, I honestly mean it. I just felt like "it tastes good" being a weak justification since it is by nature very subjective, so I look for a better justification. also, to answer in order: -Indeed, there are multiple approaches, and this is why I find it hard to select one vs. the other. If my body "craves" meat, there's usually a reason due to digestive peptides that the nutrition from the food I'm craving is something that'd be useful. I realize I could with time potentially reprogram this, but, the statement stands. -You'd actually be wrong. I enjoy both bow hunting (which I had the opportunity to learn initially as a boy scout) and game shooting. -If you notice, I qualify that with avoiding creating undue harm. I think it's quite a strawman to draw an equivalence between consuming animals that are killed in a humane fashion with e.g. rape especially. If you kept it to manslaughter, you'd have a stronger point, since I have a hard time arguing against anything outside of specific targeted uses of violence either. (please don't take this as bait; just that there have been wars in history I do not oppose.)

nhangen 13y ago
People crave sugar, nicotine, narcotics, and other things that aren't good for them, so your argument falls apart there. You crave meat for a variety of psychological and physiological reasons, but not necessarily because you're missing something that meat provides. My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to? Mostly, unless you've developed some kind of novel purely-synthetic foodstock, you have to (well, you can probably get away with dismembering living things rather than killing them, in some cases.) To a certain extent, you have a choice about whether the "something" killed or dismembered is plant, animal, fungus, etc.
  - brortao 13y ago
    There isn't exactly a lot of evidence that plants feel pain or can suffer in the same way that animals can. Even if they could, you'd still be minimizing the amount of killing by not eating meat, since animals have to be fed.
- existencebox 13y ago
  So as I said above, there's a certain degree of actual feedback in terms of your body "Wanting" foods that contain proper nutrients, and while with a combination of multiple types of beans, supplements, and other foods you can approximate some of the proteins you'd be missing out on by not eating meat, it's both far more complicated (and until recently in my life, expensive), and as my initial statement about a lack of "True Understanding"(tm) of necessary nutrition tried to state, has potential long term effects. (and I mean biologically long term, multiple generations. If there are meaningful long term studies on what various exclusionary diets do across generation I'd like to see them, but my understanding was that our data was currently very insufficient.) So I'd respond, there are some constraints that don't say I _have_ to eat meat, but certainly shift the cost/benefit analysis more in its favor.
  - nhangen 13y ago
    With the exception of gym rats or those with a job that requires strenuous physical labor, the body doesn't require that much protein. I've been a vegetarian for 15 years or so, and would question your statement that finding non-meat protein alternatives is complicated. It sounds like you're trying to make an argument that not eating meat could have long-term health hazards, in which case I'd argue that it's easier to prove that meat is bad for you than it is to prove not-eating it is.

kansface 13y ago

"It tastes good" is an exceptionally morally weak argument. All sorts of unsavory things probably taste great, but we don't eat them.

sergiosgc 13y ago

The Wikipedia page on the history of Vegetarianism[1] paints a rather different picture. There were historically pockets of vegetarians, namely in Greece and India, but quite restricted. Namely, no large cultural group in History is identified as vegetarian. As for being a predator, I have hunted, and it is a fact that most people who eat meat could hunt if in need. It's not rocket science. The fact that they don't hunt is caused by practical reasons. I don't knit my sweaters and that does not preclude me from wearing clothes. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism

wavefunction 13y ago
Yeah, take the average American meat eater and drop them into the woods to what... Starve to death shortly. They couldn't even farm or forage for edible plants. Your post is ridiculous, and I say that as an American hunter with some knowledge of foraging and farming.