It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Going veggie shrinks the brain

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Excellent points made, especially about sentience, which isn't recognised by many people, let alone understood. Compassion too, which is too often lacking when it comes to the selfishness of getting the food we want. Sentience is the reason we dig up potatoes and pick beans, instead of slaughtering other creatures, who know what is happening to them, and are tortured in the process. All the stuff written about our choices and rights at the top of the food chain is so superficial it's insulting, as if we have the right to complete governance over other beings lives. My feisty back chat at the start of this thread was really my way of showing how ridiculous the meat eating argument can be...however it's argued, a choice to eat meat is hypocritical and unenlightened. Sentience is the key to the whole debate.

Cait

A star for you...

Cait




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Welp im good i guess.
I eat only fish
And i take b complex vitamins. which obviously contain the vitamin b12.
than i get my protein from eggs and every morning i have a hot/cold chocolate drink which contains a lot of protein...good stuff btw i think its called morning something it comes in a yellowish tube type thing lol.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by lee anoma

Murder?


Not sure what problem you have with that use of the term. We kill them against their will. You can talk food-chain that is fine. But it's still murder. I am not even trying to say it's immoral in a general sense, but it's still murder. They are being killed against their will. How do you define murder?


By its definition.


n.

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

v., -dered, -der·ing, -ders.

v.tr.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.



If animals are killed in a humane fashion by humans for the purpose of consumption it isn't considered unlawful or murder. Not anywhere in the animal kingdom. In fact it is a part of the food chain that helps sustain a number of animals from the vulture who looks for left overs, right down to the insects that lay their eggs in the carcass left behind.

Some recent studies have shown that plants react to pain, and regardless of whether or not this grants them a new status, plants are considered living things. Stepping on a sapling and crushing it ends its life. So is that murder?

By your definition eating vegetables is murder unless the plants have consented to your consumption of them. No plant or animal (besides man) can do this.

Lets take it a step further.

What about agriculture used for the foods that allow your eating lifestyle?

A variety of burrowing animals are killed during harvesting, not to mention the pesticides and/or poisons used to control insects and vermin such as mice.

By extension that would make anyone that eats vegetables a murderer unless they can be absolutely positive no animal or insect died during the cultivation and harvest.

So what then do we eat with "clean" hands?

- Lee



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Okay that is an answer to my question "how do you define murder".

Fine, its literal defintion. As a strict noun, or confined in the context of law, then yes murder is the unjust killing of another human.

Look at murder as a transitive verb on online definitions. Hell, look at your own post. Notice v.tr.2:


To kill brutally or inhumanly.


To kill? Check. Brutally (in the event of factory farms)? Check. Inhumanly(same, factory farms). Check.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

If animals are killed in a humane fashion by humans for the purpose of consumption it isn't considered unlawful or murder.


Well that's specifically why I am so against the majority of the meat produced. The majority of it comes from factory farming, which is not humane at all. Notice, earlier in this thread I said I didn't have anything against others eating meat, that's their choice, I just wish they would eat free-range organic from small family farms, as that is much much more humane.


By your definition eating vegetables is murder unless the plants have consented to your consumption of them.


If you're asking me specifically then no that wouldn't be. Not by 'my" definition. I said to kill against ones 'will', and will implies sentience. I personally don't attribute sentience to plants.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

By extension that would make anyone that eats vegetables a murderer unless they can be absolutely positive no animal or insect died during the cultivation and harvest.

So what then do we eat with "clean" hands?

- Lee


Food you grow yourself comes to mind.

I know it may not be totally realistic in this culture with the way we live today, but, maybe we werent meant to be this disassociated from our food. I have always had a garden, no matter how small my yard is, I always have herbs, some vegetables and almost always some sort of fruit trees. I absolutely cannot grow all my own food in the yard I have but even the little bit I grow myself gives me a greater appreciation for all the food I eat.

For those arguing about the cruelty or murder aspect of eating animals, I would respectfully say you are barking up the wrong tree. Consider this; we live in a world that turns a blind eye while around 800,000 people are hacked to death with machetes. Untold number starve. Millions were killed, not just Jews, in the holocaust. People torture one another and we still have to debate if torturing another human is wrong. We murder one another. We beat children to death. If we cannot get the egocentric human animal to deeply recognize inhumanity to other humans and cease it, what chance do you really have of convincing another that it is cruel to eat a species utterly unlike itself?

It is simply pointless to argue it. Besides, if someone is a meat eater and you are calling meat eaters murderers in a sense, you have to know you are putting them on the defense. No one wants to think badly of themselves, and if you come from that angle and they accepted your argument they would have no other choice but to think badly of themselves. It is not a workable approach. It virtually forces them to close the door on your argument with almost no consideration.

Besides, very few western vegetarians have never eaten meat. You eat it, as you are raised, until your own conscience tells you not to. It is impossible to live the way we live without being party to the destruction and suffering of others, human and animal. The land your home is on? The fields our organic vegetables planted on? The places our cities were built, and the factories that make our ipods, clothes, computers? All of these things contribute or contributed to the suffering of animals and other humans. None of us have blood free hands in this culture. The only question is how much. Vegetarians are just saying "I dont want to participate in THAT kind of suffering."



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


you are right!
it is impossible to live a life without killing or ever having somebody killed for me.
i was also raised - as you stated - eating meat.

and yeah many humans are slaughtered like animals in senseless wars!

but on the otherhand i can.t just close my eyes, and tell me: it happens, and it will still happen even if i went veggie.
but still - to me - going veggie for moral and ethical issues is the right choice.
i did it on my own choice, nobody forced me.
it was natural to me, and it was a relief that at one point that killing stopped.

usually people tend to close eyes and tell themselves: it doesn.t matter.

but every walk starts with a single step, and one has to do the first step.
i did mine!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
All you guys are arguing opinions. Is anyone going to do some digging. Maybe find some factual data? I'll happily volunteer.

The following is the summation of a heated debate on the Effect of Vegetarian Diets on Performance in Strength Sports. Here are a few summary points:



-Well planned vegetarian diets, particularly those including milk and/or eggs, can provide all essential nutrients for good health and for a high level of sports performance.
-Indeed, in one recent study of resistance training in older males, omnivores had a bigger gain in muscle mass than vegetarians.
-More research is required!


You can check the actual research. It's on the bottom of the page behind the link I provided.

Now, this article seemed biased, leaning more towards a vegetarian aspect. I, personally, do not condone strict vegetarian diets. Again, this is my personal opinion on the matter. This is obviously a touchy subject and even though most of the research done in the area of study is indeed factual, it's still very subjective.

One study that I would point out from the article is one that involved comparing the effects that omnivorous and vegetarian diets had on body composition.

www.ajcn.org...

My friend Dr. John Berardi sums it up quite nicely.



Well, in comparing an omnivorous diet (meat containing) with a vegetarian diet, Campbell et al (1995, 1999) demonstrated that strength gains and body composition improvements are impaired when meat is removed from the diet.

In their studies, subjects weight trained for twelve weeks while consuming a 2300kcal diet consisting of 70-90gP (12-15%), 267-317gC (49%), and 82-87gF (7-11%). The only difference between groups was the fact that one group ate a meat-free diet while the other group ate meat. At the end of the twelve weeks, the meat eaters lost 2.8lbs of fat while gaining 3.74lbs of lean tissue. The vegetarians, on the other hand, lost no fat weight and lost 1.76lbs of lean tissue. Bottom line, meat seems to be an essential part of the diet.


In the end, what it basically boils down to, in my opinion, is for you to do what you feel is right for you. That's it. There is plenty of information on the subject. Don't afraid to do a little research guys. It won't hurt. I promise.


-Dev



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
In the end, what it basically boils down to, in my opinion, is for you to do what you feel is right for you. That's it. There is plenty of information on the subject. Don't afraid to do a little research guys. It won't hurt. I promise.


-Dev

Well said! I do not judge my family or friends for their dietary choices. I'm vegan because it enables me to sleep at night knowing that I haven't contributed to the suffering of animals in factory farms. If people don't feel remorse for partaking in that then it's up to them and I respect their choice.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Look at murder as a transitive verb on online definitions. Hell, look at your own post. Notice v.tr.2:


To kill brutally or inhumanly.


To kill? Check. Brutally (in the event of factory farms)? Check. Inhumanly(same, factory farms). Check.


I read very well anything I decide to post.

I read it more than three times to make sure I haven't misspoken or written something so ambiguous that it could be misunderstood or misconstrued into a point that I do not wish to convey.

Even still I am not always right but I make an effort not to react to anything I read poorly and without forethought. I also give you the same benefit of the doubt. I ask that you please don't take me for a fool that went through the trouble of quoting the definition of murder and pasted it here blindly.

It is you that needs to look at the opening line of my post which relates to murder as a transitive verb

Again:


If animals are killed in a humane fashion by humans for the purpose of consumption it isn't considered unlawful or murder.


This is a fact under the definition of murder in those forms.
I do stand by that fact you overlooked.

You can't make a sweeping statement that killing or eating animals is murder when in the proper conditions it is not. There are factories that do abide by the law and do not brutally and inhumanely treat the animals they are raising for human consumption. Your "checks" are a bit misguided as you have judged every factory to be a monstrous house of terror and this is not the case.

If an animal is killed under humane conditions it is not considered murder.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by lee anoma
By extension that would make anyone that eats vegetables a murderer unless they can be absolutely positive no animal or insect died during the cultivation and harvest.

So what then do we eat with "clean" hands?


Food you grow yourself comes to mind.

I know it may not be totally realistic in this culture with the way we live today, but, maybe we werent meant to be this disassociated from our food.


I wasn't.

Not until the later half of my life.

I do understand your point. Having lived in West Virginia and raised around people that had farms and animals I'm not unfamiliar with the notion of raising or growing your own food. My family did this with gardens as well as animals raised or caught in the river. I lived LITERALLY on a mountain. We had no mailbox or paved road. I had to hike down the valley and across creeks and rivers to visit my grandmother. I have a respect for nature and animals as did many of the farmers and people I knew.

We ate animals true enough, but we didn't mistreat them. We depended on them. We also made sure to plant trees and to respect our environment.

Although I did learn early on not to name anything your family planned to eat at some point in time.


I didn't feel the righteous indignation of the anti-meat crowd until I left home for college and work in the cities up north (DC, Baltimore, NY, Philadelphia) and those arrogant accusations were leveled against me by upper-class peers who wouldn't know sassafras from poison ivy.

My point was that the "meat is murder" crowd that buys vegetables from their preferred stores can also be contributing to the "murder" of animals killed during the cultivation and harvest (which is inevitable) so it's a ridiculously hypocritical accusation to make against omnivores.

I also wanted to point out here that not all omnivores are ignorant of nature or respect of animals and most of the more judgmental elitist vegans and vegetarians I came across in cities haven't lived my lifestyle that was closer to nature than they will ever get.

It's pretty ironic actually.


We murder one another. We beat children to death. If we cannot get the egocentric human animal to deeply recognize inhumanity to other humans and cease it, what chance do you really have of convincing another that it is cruel to eat a species utterly unlike itself?


So are you saying it IS cruel, but it is a waste of time trying to explain that to meat eaters?

I don't think your examples are necessarily relative to eating meat, nor do I think an animal that eats another animal is cruel. It occurs in nature and if the human animal does this in a humane fashion it is not murder.

What does genocide have to do with being an omnivore?

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
In the end, what it basically boils down to, in my opinion, is for you to do what you feel is right for you. That's it. There is plenty of information on the subject. Don't afraid to do a little research guys. It won't hurt. I promise.


-Dev


Yes, well I (along with a few others) have already said that.

Again, people are free to choose their dietary path and doing so responsibly will not cause you harm. Eating too much meat or not balancing your vegetarian diet can cause health problems.

- Lee


[edit on 17-9-2008 by lee anoma]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

I've always played the middle ground with my meals, not eating too much red meat and primarily sticking to fish, chicken, and vegetables but it appears meat should not be ruled out of our diet entirely or there is a price to pay.

Thoughts?


this statement pretty much nullifies the sensationally worded title of this thread:



Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.


SO therefore, going veggie does not harm your brain. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if you stop eating meat, that you will need to get the vitamins and minerals from another source.

To say that it's the fault of veganism or vegetarianism is misguided.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yes the title of the article (which I quoted) is a bit sensational.

In the article it states:

When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.


So it should read "Irresponsibly going veggie shrinks the brain" but I believe the title was there to cause debate.

If anything it stresses the need for supplements.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if you stop eating meat, that you will need to get the vitamins and minerals from another source.


Are you sure?

You may actually be surprised at how many people try it on a whim, a fad, or just out of curiosity and don't know what they are doing. As some have stated on this site, they went into it and became lightheaded. Which may be due to then not balancing it right or being ill prepared.

I have also seen it before with people I know so I wouldn't assume that all vegetarians are keen on all the facts.

If anything the ones in the study seemed to be lacking something.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Originally posted by lee anoma



We ate animals true enough, but we didn't mistreat them. We depended on them. We also made sure to plant trees and to respect our environment.


Completely respectable. Raising animals, even produce on your own is not an easy task. Even processing an animal is a ridiculous process. You have to understand that those lifestyles are almost completely dissolved due to modern advancements.


I didn't feel the righteous indignation of the anti-meat crowd until I left home for college and work in the cities up north (DC, Baltimore, NY, Philadelphia) and those arrogant accusations were leveled against me by upper-class peers who wouldn't know sassafras from poison ivy.


So, instead of looking at what these "arrogant rich kids" had to say, you simply justified your meat consumption because you actually knew where your food was coming from and all the work it had taken to consume it, and you used that to leverage what you thought was right against their opinions. Correct?


My point was that the "meat is murder" crowd that buys vegetables from their preferred stores can also be contributing to the "murder" of animals killed during the cultivation and harvest (which is inevitable) so it's a ridiculously hypocritical accusation to make against omnivores.


Again, we're comparing a turd and a mountain of ****. Even if some animals do get hurt or killed in the process of cultivating crops, it is not intentional, and though a life is a life and one is subsequently taken, it is not an industry and lacks intention to hurt, maim, or kill this animal. The difference between manslaughter and murder for instance is intent. As you intended not to get close or "name any animal" to avoid having feelings because you intended to slaughter and eat it someday.


I also wanted to point out here that not all omnivores are ignorant of nature or respect of animals and most of the more judgmental elitist vegans and vegetarians I came across in cities haven't lived my lifestyle that was closer to nature than they will ever get.


This isn't any sort of viable justification, but it seems to be self deception as you are convincing yourself that "they must not know" or "they don't know." They are just "city kids," "elitists," right? Just as I have no clue where you come from, what your background is, where you came from, how you were raised, or what you've experienced gives me no right to make assumptions about you, and definitely does not permit me to use my preconceived notions about you to leverage my past or current discretions.


It's pretty ironic actually.


No, it's not.



I don't think your examples are necessarily relative to eating meat, nor do I think an animal that eats another animal is cruel. It occurs in nature and if the human animal does this in a humane fashion it is not murder.


Murder - to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously.
Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.

We can tippy toe around the semantics of the issue all day long, but it's a deception of self to not recognize the killing of any sentient being as being "murder." As it is with intent and not an accident, of which we are taking a life purposely and consciously. The only issue here is that it's not another human. This is obviously where personal boundaries, morality, and ethics come into play. Individual ideology is purely debatable and up for speculation regardless of who it is or what the belief. So, I will spare you why I think it is right, not to eat meat, as I think you should spare us your justification for doing so.



What does genocide have to do with being an omnivore?


It doesn't necessarily, but in a country where we hold certain animal's lives on a pedestal, animals like cats, dogs, hamsters, guinea pigs, and domesticated birds all have safe haven. Where as cows, chickens, pigs, and fish are cultivated to be murdered, creating some duality in our own moral reasoning as a people. "It's okay to kill some animals, but not these." Where as we will go to jail for clubbing a dog, the countless pigs they club into submission aren't only ignored, but sold at large while the same government fining you and putting you in jail for beating the dog collects a tax off the death of another animal. In some way, you can consider it a "genocide" as it is species specific.



It comes down to a decision. Do you believe life is a product that can/should be consumed?

If you answered "Yes," you'll probably remain an omnivore. That's fine.
If you answered "No!" than you're probably on our side of the fence. That's also fine.

Simple really.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
So are you saying it IS cruel, but it is a waste of time trying to explain that to meat eaters?


This is my personal opinion, and only that. I think eating meat produced in factory farms IS cruel. Cruelty is cruelty. Whether it is an animal suffering or a human. If ones actions cause great suffering that could be avoided, those actions are cruel. There are volumes of argument regarding whether or not animals are intelligent. I read a quote once that summed it up for me, and I paraphrase, I cannot find the quote;

"The question is not whether animals can think like us, but can they feel?"

I think that turning a sentient being that CAN suffer into a "product" and disregarding its happiness for the whole of its life is cruel, regardless what the creature is. Human, or animal. I also grew up in the country, and I have seen some of the mistreatment that occurs in slaughterhouses on the "kill floor."

I do not think eating meat itself is inherently cruel. It is an absolute necessity for some people, in some areas, where the climate, etc., does not lend itself to a rich vegetarian diet. (Or for some individuals who due to their own physiology do not thrive on a vegetarian diet.)

I personally think that there should be respect for the animal and its happiness while alive, and every effort made to ensure the quality of its life and a humane death if one is to eat meat. I also think that people should not be allowed to disassociate themselves from the death. I would hope that would reduce frivolousness and waste.

All of that said, I think that how one lives ones life is really a matter of each person negotiating with their own conscience. I do not believe in preaching the gospel of vegetarianism, unless like here, a question is asked, and then I answer. Many people do not even realize I do not eat meat because I never bring it up. I do not wear it like a badge of honor, and if I had to kill an animal and eat meat to survive, I would. I am fortunate I have the luxury to choose.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Originally posted by lee anoma
So, instead of looking at what these "arrogant rich kids" had to say, you simply justified your meat consumption because you actually knew where your food was coming from and all the work it had taken to consume it, and you used that to leverage what you thought was right against their opinions. Correct?


No.

I don't feel I have to justify what I eat to anyone.
They were just the ones that had a tendency to expect me to.



Murder - to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously.
Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.


Those are two different words and definitions you understand that, correct?

I didn't say animals weren't "killed" I said animals killed in a human fashion is not murder by definition.
Do you consider carnivores in nature murderers?


I think it is right, not to eat meat, as I think you should spare us your justification for doing so.


Have you ever justified on this site why I shouldn't?
Perhaps we both need to spare each other this sort of conversation.


Where as cows, chickens, pigs, and fish are cultivated to be murdered...


So YOU say.

That is your opinion not fact as again it does not fall under the definition if done lawfully and humanely. Beating a dog to death for kicks and killing a cow to provide food to the masses for consumption are two different things.

I didn't think that needed to be pointed out.


In some way, you can consider it a "genocide" as it is species specific.


No you can't.
Unless you want to redefine genocide.

It would be considered genocide if we systematically planned to eradicate all cows from the face of the earth. Do you believe this is happening?

No, it isn't genocide at all.


It comes down to a decision. Do you believe life is a product that can/should be consumed?


According to the nature of the food chain some forms of life is consumed to sustain another. Done in balance or even through symbiotic relationships, neither is outright destroyed or eliminated entirely. They need each other and meet each others needs.

I didn't create the animal kingdom but that is how it works.


Simple really.


Thanks for clearing everything up.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Starred.
I couldn't agree more.

- Lee



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Although very interesting to think about I find that this may be a bit misleading. I don't think that eating only veggies will cause you to be 'dumber'.

However, there is a lot of evidence showing the jump in 'evolution' of man when they began to eat meat. It's a touchy subject and one that should be debated with this in mind. I have many vegan friends. I am not one. I love my meat and I love my veggies.

I like to think of myself as a fairly smart person. However, some of the smartest people I know are vegans.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join