It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Vegetarians vs. meat-eaters: Standoff is over

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:22 AM
I was looking at the chart with the similarities and differences of carnivores, omnivores, humans and herbivores. I think that we posess traits of herbivores more because we chew our food more. We take the time to prepare our food. If we ate raw meat all the time for as long as fire had been created perhaps our stomach acid levels would be different. We need the longer intestinal track to digest the vegitation but we also need to be able to get the protin in there too.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by purplemer

Is being vegetarian hard wired into our brains? I hate eating meat, and feel like I only eat it because everyone else does and I'm told I'm supposed to as part of my diet. Thats what the canines are for, tearing meat right?

Maybe 1000's of years ago meat was necessary, but with the crap they are using to process today (such as carbon monoxide) I feel as though its worse for us than ever before.

Plus, its murder, no matter how you look at it.

But, plants sustain life as well.

Maybe people need to perfect the photosynthesis thing and become reliant on sun water and minerals from the ground?

Gotta eat these eggs wifey placed in front of me. I don't wanna, but she didn't make anything else...

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by Ericthenewbie

Even though I can appreciate you may have multiple things on the go at one time... supplying one source as a basis for your bold statement that the "vegetarian versus meat-eater stand off is over" and then dictating to others your personal beliefs/opinions on the topic without further information appears to have a clear bias in your favor/agenda

It is peer reviewed science, it can hold its own as a single study. The findings where published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

I am not dictating to others I am sharing science and I am sharing my opinion too. Since when has been sharing such things become dictating to others.. Are you dictating to me now with you response.. No you are sharing an opinion. You can choose to read or ignore a thread. It is your choice..

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Tripple_Helix

I see all these omni's being very defensive in this thread.. I have not seen one Vegetarian or Vegan dictating to people how to eat

I noticed that too. Its like people take it as a personal insult. Which it is not meant as. Peeps should eat what they choose. If the glove fits were it.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by barmyfluid

I apologize if I came off as too defensive towards the knuckle dragger comment as it did feel like it was being intended for me in an indirect way.

And yes I agree that cherry picked information can be used for both sides of the debate hence why I asked for clarification of the study guidelines in an earlier post because studies are often bias towards one side or the other depending on funding source(s).

The main concern I had was that most neglected to use their critical thinking and research skills to determine the legitimacy of their stance. The ethical treatment of animals versus plants in my mind, based on my research is a void argument within the debate. Once that component is removed from the debate, the discussion becomes purely scientific/health related which makes for a much more interesting debate.

I also agree that there are individuals on each side of the debate either forcing their belief or opinions onto the other in a ignorant high and mighty type way which in my mind is neither productive or valuable to the discussion as a whole. There are too many variables to take into consideration with that type of mentality towards the topic in order to find the correct answer if one exists. Again why I recommended the three tier independently/none bias type of study using a consistent control for comparisons in a previous post. Anything less than that simply amounts to opinion and not fact.

My stance is a relatively simple one in that I believe moderation is the key and that taking only what you need is the best way of sustaining a healthy balanced ethical diet. I'm not against others who choose different paths as long as it isn't taking advantage or imposing on others....make sense?

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by torqpoc

Science books are your friend.

Yes they are my friends. I quoted from a peep review paper in my OP. Maybe you should try quoting from them too. They are your friends too....!

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by purplemer

If you neglect to answer the questions I asked in one of my earlier posts around what were the controls used in the study and who funded the study the arguments on either side are irrelevant as the study isn't a true comparison of vegetarian versus meat eaters debate simply opinion (at the very least red meat doesn't encompass all meats rendering the statement "vegetarian versus meat-eaters standoff is over" void from the start as the article itself recommends consuming poultry and fish).

I have never said either side is right nor wrong only that the ethical component of the debate is a void stance within it. If you can provide a study that compares the three tiers using the same control as I mentioned earlier I would be very interested to see the results and be more than willing to have an intelligence conversation on that study.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Ericthenewbie because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by purplemer

The huge problem with this study is that they made separation of how the "red meat" was grown. Was it grass fed, organic, or raised on an industrial farm filled with antibiotics and growth hormones before the calf was even born?

I do not eat much meat and when I do I prefer to eat organic or wild. I was vegetarian for many years on moral grounds and I still would be if I could maintain my health as such. I cannot. But I certainly would not base my diet choices on this study; it was horribly flawed. But of course the industrialized meat producers do not want any of us to understand the difference.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:27 PM
Just more evidence that the end times are here and Jesus is coming:

1Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is all laid out in the bible folks....there is no place to hide. Another great day to come to Lord, repent, and get saved for eternity!

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by DissentFromDayOne

Wow now this debate has veered towards religion. If you choose to quote the Bible as your stance on this topic please, avoid cherry picking information to reinforce it.

Below is how Andrew Wommack Ministries interprets your "quote" from the bible;

"Note 12 at 1 Tim. 4:3: The Greek word that was translated "meats" here is BROMA which meant "food." But it specifically meant "food that was forbidden by the Jewish law" (Strong). This is referring to the meats that the Old Testament law classified as unclean (Lev. 11; Dt. 14:3-21).

As explained in note 23 at Colossians 2:16, p. 1202, the dietary laws of the Old Testament were symbolic. It may be true that pork, unless prepared properly, can cause trichinosis, or that scavenger birds and fish can spread disease, but that's not the reason the Lord forbid eating these animals. That which was unclean under the Old Covenant has now been made clean by the sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament (Acts 10:15). These dietary laws have been fulfilled in the New Testament through Jesus.

Therefore, we are now free to eat meats that were classified unclean under Jewish law. There is room for private opinion about how much and which meats are good for us, but anyone who teaches that certain or all meats are forbidden is promoting a demonic doctrine.

Note 13 at 1 Tim. 4:3: God created animals to be food for man. Jesus ate meat at the Passover feasts. Even in His glorified body, Jesus ate fish (Lk. 24:41-43). Therefore, those who maintain that eating meat is wrong are not taking into account the example of the Lord Jesus."


So based on the above the bible isn't saying not to eat meat

edit on 22-3-2012 by Ericthenewbie because: add source link

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:23 PM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
If it wasn't for the invention of cooking foods, meat in particular, we would not have evolved into the humans we are today. The discovery of cooking allowed the human to take on more energy from digestible cooked meats. This meant we had more energy to do other things like hunt and gather, pro create, whatever. It has been part of our evolution. It also increased the size of our brains which improved our intelligence

It's true that people probably eat too much processed meat today, but within moderation it will do you no harm and will do you good.

Here's some info

Without cooking, an average person would have to eat around five kilos of raw food to get enough calories to survive.
The daily mountain of fruit and vegetables would mean a six-hour chewing marathon.
It is already accepted that the introduction of meat into our ancestors' diet caused their brains to grow and their intelligence to increase.

No, no, no, no,no. You're wrong. Our morphology is absolutely NOT set intended to digest meats. our digestive tract is very long, and yes, longer than a typical omnivore's relative to our size.[and DON'T talk about canines being large. Baboons have the largest canines in the primate order, and they do not consume meat.] I have been studying anthropology for my entire academic career and, the reality is, there was very, very little meat-eating being done.

I am constantly asked why i'm a vegan, everyone tries to scrutinize everything I do.

WHY do you eat meat? do you have a good reason? do you have an informed reason? 'it just tastes good' is not funny, it's not cute, and it's an insult to our intelligence. The fact is, you have probably never thought about it. The meat industry [read: VERY cruel and VERY wasteful factory farms] uses grains to feed cows, where the cow feeds twenty people but the grain used could feed 100 people. Meat is bad for our entire planet.

I don't care if you want to eat it, that's fine. When you get colon cancer from all of the polyps building up in there, you'll wish you'd thought about it more. But don't spread this terrible misinformation when it's clearly wrong. I challenge you to sit through the entire film, and think about it. and don't turn it off and complain 'propaganda'. ITS NOT. Do you have kids? You feed this to your kids and you don't care where it comes from? what it really is ?

moral schizophrenia is very rampant in these arguments. Why do you eat pigs, wear cows, and love dogs? What makes the cow different? Purpose bred is a false argument, because we shouldn't be dominating anyone. YOu people piss and moan about tyranny and this entire industry is a holocaust. I realized it when I worked at Texas roadhouse, I bit into a hamburger, and suddenly I felt extremely sick, thinking about the horrific treatment of the cows. and all the waste. I went outside, and wept. Then I quit my job. I've lost 47 pounds [I was a fat idiot], and people are stunned when they learn I am a vegan, I have a very muscular build. and girls whistle from cars once and a while.

vegan revolution, people.

edit on 22-3-2012 by DarwinVsJesus because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:05 AM

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
reply to post by Char-Lee

I eat meat of all kinds (moderately), I don't like zoos at all, they make me sad.
edit on 21-3-2012 by yamammasamonkey because: Ishbfj

Yes that's what I am saying.Contradictions like this are so odd in behavior. Animals living in pain effects you, you want to see them free, you seem to care. Yet you can watch the details of how they truly and terribly torture the cows and pigs and chickens you eat and it is still not a bother you taste buds come first.

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by Char-Lee

Speaking of contradictions, take the time to read the following articles before you think vegetarians don't kill for their taste buds;

Michigan State University researchers have determined plants feel pain;

Here is an article from the New York Times in 2009 by Natalie Angier that sheds some light on the intelligence aspect;

Also this article about Plants 'can think and remember'
By Victoria Gill Science reporter, BBC News;
edit on 23-3-2012 by Ericthenewbie because: fix links

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by purplemer

The standoff is not over. Not every meat-eater eats red meat. The studies do not prove that other meat is unhealthy.

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:34 AM
My story - grew up disliking red meat, pork, bacon. 18 became full vegetarian. 25 discovered pub steak, started eating meat regularly (engage weight gain and less energy). 31 visit India, get dysentery, can't eat meat or consume dairy for weeks. 33 get really sick again can't eat meat or drink dairy without feeling crap, give up meat and processed food at home, dairy full stop (been a few weeks now) and haven't felt this good in years, aside from a few minor digestive issues.

So it works for me, been trying to promote it other friends who have had similar health issues (lethargy, weight, reflux etc etc) - but they seem more content to stick with their fad carb free diets. I am a little preachy; but because I want to help.

Next stop; quit the beer and smokes.

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:52 AM

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by torqpoc

Science books are your friend.

Yes they are my friends. I quoted from a peep review paper in my OP. Maybe you should try quoting from them too. They are your friends too....!

I don't need to quote or link science fact. Maybe you should try educating yourself a little, since you think you "evolved". I think you'll find that term isn't quite scientific fact in your respect. Then again you link a paper which disregards humans have incisors *shrug* and seem to be proud of it, what the hell is a peep review anyway? Is that like a hot and sweaty academic get together where new "facts" get their "pages" off? Don't make me laugh.

And since you're such a plebeian and can't use the internet yourself:

The fact is it is scientific fact that our evolution is directly linked to eating protein from meat. It is only when spaced out hippies worried about meat animals suffering and turning to vegetarians that the science became blurred. If anyone actually thought about it, they'd realise that we are unable to return in time to "educate" our ancestors into the potential alternatives protein food sources, nor was there a proliferation of alternatives, which makes the entire vegetarian arguement moot regarding "protein from meat being an integral part of man's evolution".

I'll also go further to state it is only vegetarians who put themselves on this high moral ground dictacting to meat eaters what they should and shouldn't eat. Do meat eaters come to your house pushing their propaganda to you, telling you that you must eat meat? I don't think so. You're like a bunch of ex-smokers, religious nut jobs, who think you have the right to tell others how to live and what to eat. Should we start wearing yellow crosses on our clothes also, so you can identify us better? Fascism has many facets, think about that all you preachy types.

Now go read and stop pestering me with your nonsense while I go hunt some meat to kill and eat.

edit on 23-3-2012 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:16 AM
Tell this to a 40 year old lifelong vegetarian thats just been diagnosed with prostate cancer. I wonder if denying himself all of that yummy bacon was worth it, in the end? Healthiest eater that I know of, and it's done him no good. It would seem that frozen / microwaved "vegetarian" entrees are just as lethal as butter & steak.

Either way you go, just don't nuke your food.

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by purplemer

your graph is not correct, especially the OMNIVORE column. Also the terms used are deliberately vague and not quantified. get real.

To expand upon this a bit, I submit to you a challenge to find a single (any) accurate cross-section of every omnivorous species on the planet that would allow you to arrive at the conclusion that you can boil down the attributes of omnivores in GENERAL to a single line column on your silly little graph. Please.

Also don't forget you have to include species from several groups because there are several genus that will eat both plant and animal matter, be they insects or amphibians, or what have you. This is a big picture question if you want to end the debate once and for all!

edit on 3-23-2012 by Loki because: Struggling to illuminate the 'illuminated' *scoff*

edit on 3-23-2012 by Loki because: grammar

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by ZiggyStardust

It's not guilt, it's the sheer indignity of having some sanctimonious salad shooter telling me I'm wrong because I enjoy a steak like any given person in the world. Fact of the matter is Homo Sapiens would have never made it out of their trees and caves without meat. If you want to go vegan, do it. Quietly. I don't wave a steak in your face and tell you that you need your Iron and Protein and Aminos, but that's cause I could give a squat what you stuff your face with.

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by Ericthenewbie

Yes it does make sense. Also ethical for one is unethical for another in some cases.
We try to have this rule whenever we have family get-togethers regarding topics of conversation:
No discussions on racism, religion and vegetarian v omnivore. Guess what we always end up talking about?
Then arguing about.
Then falling out over.

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in