A Conversation for Vegetarianism
Merangadan Started conversation May 6, 2001
I have always eaten meat but at about 16/17yrs old when a lot of people (for whatever reasons) were becoming vegetarians, I began to feel guilty that the meat I was preparing and eating was presented in such a clean and easy way.
I wasn't willing to give up meat because of the extra effort and expense vegetarianism would incur, and to be honest I didn't know how to make many meals that didn't include meat. Not the best of reasons but they were the reasons.
So I began to realise that I didn't feel bad that was eating something that "had once had a face" but that if I wasn't going to do the dirty work, kill it/them myself I shouldn't eat meat!
So a couple of survavalist books (trying to ignore the "How to kill your neighbours" chapters) and a £35 air-rifle later I'm crawling on my belly through a bush towards a cute little bunny rabbit. Trying desperatly to remember the evil "Death rabbit" from "Watership Down" and that miserly bloody Easter Bunny that only ever gave me a "Smarties" egg when my mates got loads, I aim and fire...
BANG (well more a pathetic pop) and the poor wee things deader than a can of Spam, anyway I did gut it, skin it, cooked it and ate it. It was bloody nice and I figured that I at least proved I didn't need my dead animals disguised as food and so I still enjoy meat (just not Buggs bunny cartoons, j/k).
Eating meat is wrong, I am doing something that is wrong but at least I know that I'm responsable, if there punishment getting doled out I'll get punished for killing and eating and not shopping. For some reason that makes me feel a lot better about myself.
Lotti Posted May 27, 2001
Eating meat is perfectly natural for humans. The way meat is slaughtered today is much more humane than it used to be and the animals are specifically raised for consuming.
I refer the reader to the "Ape Man" television programme: there were two species of humans in our ancient history, one being carnivorous, the other herbivore. They lived simultaneosly. The carnivores created and used stone tools and had larger brains than their herbivore counterparts. The herbivores did not reach the stone age and died out. We evolved from the carnivores.
Our digestive systems are not designed to handle an exclusively vegetarian diet. I believe vegetarians should be less sentimental about the meat issue, after all it is natural. I don't advocate cruelty in any way, I am a member of the WWF and have made donations the anti-vivisection charity BUAV. I just want to be healthy. And yes, if I had the knowledge to kill and prepare an animal for food I would do it. I have not been brought up with the knowledge and prefer to leave it to the professionals so the animal doesn't suffer.
Merangadan Posted May 27, 2001
I have/do know/n a lot of people in the farming industry and one man that worked in a slaughter house. Many have said that the slaughter process was not a kind or painless one. The animals are subjected to hours of battery hen style traveling conditions then spend more time being crushed from area to area surrounded by the smell blood and fear before being shocked or bled to death sometimes having to be shocked more than once.
The guy I knew that worked in an abattoir wouldn't have called himself a "professional", infact he left because he couldn't take the numb, cold attitude his colleagues had and that he would have to assume.
"Our digestive systems are not designed to handle an exclusively vegetarian diet."
This is so completely non-sense!
I happen to know some vegetarians - on average they are much healthier and look younger.
The majority in India are vegetarians, since hundreds of years.
The truth is: Our digestive systems are not designed to handle meat properly.
It takes much longer to digest and therefore costs resources.
Dogs and pigs love to eat human (-carnivores) s**t because it is not digested properly, and thus is so rich!
Merangadan Posted May 29, 2001
Elephant babys also love to eat their parents s**t not bacause it isn't digested properly but because many mamals, including our selves can still find protein in already digested food.
Elephants are vegys and their s**t is still full of proteiny goodness.
Like all omnivores we are designed to live from what we can find, you say that "Our digestive systems are not designed to handle meat properly", what evidance do you have for that statement, I know medical sudents, and a dietrition that would strongly disagree.
Why do we have K9's? Why has it been proven that we are instinctualy driven to kill and eat meat?
If you eat a steak for lunch, much of it is still in your stomach over night, because our digestive system doesn't contain enough strong acids to digest it like carnivores. By eating food which is easy to digest you are physically fitter.
Of course we can handle meat (some times, depending on where you live, it's necessary to survive, I admit), but it is not that healthy. In countries where much meat is eaten, people get gout, for example.
Merangadan Posted Jun 3, 2001
You cant throw a random medical condition attributed to one food source and expect to make a point, do you realy want me to list the medical conditions that occur only in vegitables or fruit? This is not an arguement as too what is better, meat or Fruit/veg.
I say that our body prefers a mix of both!
I say that we were designed to eat just about anything that contained the nutrients we need, We are omnivores like Apes and monkeys, true our digestive systems lack the necessary bacteria to eat much RAW meat because we have been cooking it for so long, but we are designed to eat meat and we still digest it effectively. Just because its in our stomach over night doesn't mean that we shouldn't eat it. In the natural world omnivores and carnivores often go long periods of time between eating meat and most mammals that eat meat are designed to take nutrients from it for as long as possible.
Can you tell me how you found out that we are ineffitient at digesting meat now??
Can you tell me how you found out that our body prefers a mix of both?
I've been an omnivore for my first 16 years, and a vegie since almost 20 years, so I can report of my own experiences.
Do you know what the participators of the Tour De France are eating during the race?
I tell you: noodles! No meat, because it is to cumbering.
On the other hand, weightlifters do eat a lot of meat, but look at them - they look old and unhealthy (at least to my vegie-eyes).
Merangadan Posted Jun 8, 2001
I'm afraid you've always been an omnivore, you always will be an omnivore,even if your vegetarian. The human animal is not an omnivore just as canines' are carnivores although you can by non-meat dog food.
There are many foods that youd be ill advised to eat while doing extreme forms of exercise not just meats. And I think that you have a week argument if you're saying that we shouldnt eat meat because some of the most extraordinary people on the planet dont eat meat while they are taking part in what is known as the most punishing sporting event in the world!
You cant live of noodles it is a good source of carbohydrates which convert into fast and slow released energy, good for excercise and short periods of time, bad because they have very little nutritional value.
Hi again, Merangadan!
(does your name has a meaning?)
I didn't say you can live healthily by eating only noodles.
It's the same if you only eat meat.
I mentionned the Tour De France because it shows, that by eating meat you don't achieve a 100% power rating.
(Otherwise, they WOULD eat meat, right?)
I also want to point out, that MY reason for being vegetarian has nothing to do with healthiness.
It started because I didn't want any animal to suffer because of me.
I don't see animals as thing (as the german law does), but as cohabitants on our planet.
Researcher 33337 Posted Jun 8, 2001
To be fair, noodles give you taht slow release energy whch is vital for riding a bike for long and grueling epriods. My father actually used to run marathons and he prefered a meaty spag bol the night before. Carbos from teh pasta, protien from teh meat. Meat does provide strength and bulk, what you need if you are to survive in a harsh climate (Scotland for example)
And I'm omnivorous even thiygh I see animals as beings with rights. I belive that unless they all take out agreements not to eat me I won't offer them teh same coutresy. We are top of the food chain and the only wrongs we do animals in tehis position is factory farming and genetic modification. Killing for meat in "Nature" keeps populations heathly as normally we pick off teh weak and slow. Farming eliminates this obviously but if we were to release our farm animals now we would be culling tem in two years time, why waste the meat?
In some points, I agree with you.
Most likely my ancestors needed the meat to survive. I don't need it, because I have the possibility to choose from various high-quality vegetarian food.
I'm a vegie now for almost 20 years and I feel very healthy.
Being top of the food chain, doesn't give us the right to deal with animals as we like.
I think men should feel more responsible for the animals, because they stand no chance against us.
Protiens are highly overestimated. As an adult, even as a marathon runner, you don't need much and you don't need animal protein (that is if you have the possibility to choose from quality vegetarian protein-carriers).
The dilemma is that there are economical interests that are averse to show the people the right thing.
Researcher 33337 Posted Jun 9, 2001
Actually, my personal dilemma is quite easy. Soya is so jam packed with Gm it is now impossable to get real soya. Plus, both it and tofu don't just have no flavour, they destroy teh flavour of all around them.
Nuts are nice though, well peanuts, which arent actually nuts.
In teh end my dilemma is between a good tasting, free range aberdeen angus steak, cooked rare, with a couple of baked potatoes, or a pasta salad. Hmm. Basically, tehre other ways to ingest protien, but none of tehm are quite as fun as meat.
Question, are you Vegan, ie, do you eat chicken, eggs fish, drink milk, wear leather ride horses etc.
DIY and morals
TheCane Posted Feb 10, 2003
How come all these vegetarian conversations end up being an argument? Anyway, the orignal point from Merangadan was that they feel happy with themselves because they are happy with their morals and that they understand themselves. I have more respect for people in control and with insight like this than cry babies who could never actually kill, but are willing to pay blind for what they probably really object to. But I still object to hunting as much as paying. The difference is that a coherent and logical process is being used which I can understand:
Merangadan's logic is: I don't mind killing and eating animals. I think it's wrong but I don't mind being wrong.
crybaby's logic: Killing upsets me but as long as I don't have to do it, that makes it alright.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Merangadan (May 6, 2001)
- 2: Lotti (May 27, 2001)
- 3: Merangadan (May 27, 2001)
- 4: Ruppinger ~ zaphodista ~ former keeper of vegan affairs ~ new keeper of rainbows, until the old one shows up again (May 29, 2001)
- 5: Merangadan (May 29, 2001)
- 6: Ruppinger ~ zaphodista ~ former keeper of vegan affairs ~ new keeper of rainbows, until the old one shows up again (May 30, 2001)
- 7: Merangadan (Jun 3, 2001)
- 8: Ruppinger ~ zaphodista ~ former keeper of vegan affairs ~ new keeper of rainbows, until the old one shows up again (Jun 6, 2001)
- 9: Merangadan (Jun 8, 2001)
- 10: Ruppinger ~ zaphodista ~ former keeper of vegan affairs ~ new keeper of rainbows, until the old one shows up again (Jun 8, 2001)
- 11: Researcher 33337 (Jun 8, 2001)
- 12: Ruppinger ~ zaphodista ~ former keeper of vegan affairs ~ new keeper of rainbows, until the old one shows up again (Jun 9, 2001)
- 13: Researcher 33337 (Jun 9, 2001)
- 14: TheCane (Feb 10, 2003)