Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

vegetarianism is a good idea in theory but when they make groups that push people into it their just pushing people farther away and making themselves look like retards

I have tried vegetarian lifestyle in the past.
But I had a real problem with the 'vegan' B.S. that some people that follow that lifestyle & look down their noses at those of us who didn't follow along with their views.
When I was on a more vegetarian diet.
I see no problem eating free range eggs. I buy them from a woman up the road from my house & her hens all seem to be wandering around the yard eating scratching away quite (imo) happily.
I don't understand why consuming dairy products like milk, cream, cheese's & butter is considered a no-no. As someone who has family that raise dairy cows, you know that happy cows give more milk. So they are not abused...at least I have never seen it & you rarely hear about it.

I also didn't get not eating insects like snails, or seafood . So I just chucked the whole no meat idea in the toilet where it belongs & went to eating less meat , but meat that is raised on local farms, I love a nice BBQ steak & burgers & nothing beats slow cooked (6+ hours) ribs ! my mouths watering just thinking about it.

At 7/16/09 10:45 PM, TDwizBang wrote: i am all about being an educated human not an informed human... i dare anyone in this thread to show real proof that eating just veggies and mold is healthier for you than a well rounded diet. and if you use an argument about chemicals remember to make sure your data matches and look for the veggies covered in pesticides.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

that says about it.

At 7/21/09 08:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I have tried vegetarian lifestyle in the past.
But I had a real problem with the 'vegan' B.S. that some people that follow that lifestyle & look down their noses at those of us who didn't follow along with their views.

I think with eggs and with milkj and all, one can raise the same issue as the non-smokers telling the smokers to quit because it is unhealthy.
Fuck that, we are allowed to kill ourselves with our habits if we want to versus everyone should live as healthy as possible.

If you choose to persue unhealthy habits, don't be a hypocrite and rip on other people for having disgusting unhealthy habits.
(I eat meat still, but I'm not against smoking/drugs because it is unhealthy)

At 7/21/09 04:15 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

The naturalistic fallacy is always dragged into this, but why don't you see it in a discussion about domestic violence or rape? Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, okay, or even acceptable.

Anger and sex drive are natural, domestic violence and rape are not. You seem to be too wrapped up in your views of "naturalistic fallacy" to argue the issue at hand here beyond that. Perhaps you should make a thread about it, I am sure people would have something to say and I would like to see you elaborate on it.

At 7/21/09 08:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I have tried vegetarian lifestyle in the past.
But I had a real problem with the 'vegan' B.S. that some people that follow that lifestyle & look down their noses at those of us who didn't follow along with their views.
When I was on a more vegetarian diet.
I see no problem eating free range eggs. I buy them from a woman up the road from my house & her hens all seem to be wandering around the yard eating scratching away quite (imo) happily.
I don't understand why consuming dairy products like milk, cream, cheese's & butter is considered a no-no. As someone who has family that raise dairy cows, you know that happy cows give more milk. So they are not abused...at least I have never seen it & you rarely hear about it.

I completely agree with you. Milking cows actually relieves pressure on their udders, so it is a win-win situation. There is the issue of cows being milked too much and the machines harming them after being attached for so long. However that is under industry standards, not on local farms.
I'm not sure why vegans do not eat eggs, perhaps they consider cooking eggs along the lines of a chicken abortion? I couldn't tell you, but I hope to find out soon.

At 7/21/09 10:23 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html
that says about it.

I wouldn't say that this proves vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle. The kind of meat the children were eating was not specified, nor exactly how much. That the children who ate more meat "were at greater risk for liver cancer" doesn't really jump out at me. Everything seems to cause cancer these days.
I do however agree with RubberTrucky that people should not be condemned for their habits.

At 7/21/09 02:16 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Anger and sex drive are natural, domestic violence and rape are not. You seem to be too wrapped up in your views of "naturalistic fallacy" to argue the issue at hand here beyond that. Perhaps you should make a thread about it, I am sure people would have something to say and I would like to see you elaborate on it.

The main fact emains that because animals kill for survival negates the call for stopping to eat meat is not sufficient. On the side, there might even be argued that we don't eat meat for survival, but that meat is a luxury product (safe for places where there is meat exclusively). If meat was necessary for survival, vegans would in general be unhealthy and die because of nutrional defects.

At 7/21/09 10:23 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html
that says about it.

I wouldn't say that this proves vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle. The kind of meat the children were eating was not specified, nor exactly how much. That the children who ate more meat "were at greater risk for liver cancer" doesn't really jump out at me. Everything seems to cause cancer these days.

Any genuine dietician can say that meat is less healthy than vegetables. People who are on a legit diet are said to reduce their meat intake etc etc
To you, you might nt be impressed by the results, in the same way that smokers don't quit their cigs because they cause cancer.
But that doesn't invalidate the results that a vegan diet is healthier than a meat-allowing diet.

Strictly seen, fish appears in general the healthiest. (modulo the metal residu in fish+over-fishing problem)

I don't see why anything who calls themselves a vegan would object to drinking milk or anything like that. The thing where the milk comes from isn't being hurt in any way (unless you're thinking about all the hormones and stuff that are being given to the cows, so that could be another story) and the same thing can be done with people (and they aren't hurt much although once again you have to take into account and the hormones they would give to people if they were to be treated this way), so milk and diary products come off as the healthiest things (in terms of ethnic reasons) to eat/drink.

At 7/21/09 03:28 PM, Ericho wrote: so milk and diary products come off as the healthiest things (in terms of ethnic reasons) to eat/drink.

Actually, milk has ben shown by some studies to also be dangerous. Milk is overall not a natural product for the human being, as is shown by the amount of lactose intollerant people.
But now I'm not really 100% sure if the dangers of milk is not only a vegan myth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Contro versy

At 7/21/09 02:34 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: The main fact emains that because animals kill for survival negates the call for stopping to eat meat is not sufficient. On the side, there might even be argued that we don't eat meat for survival, but that meat is a luxury product (safe for places where there is meat exclusively).

This is true but we shouldn't stop eating meat just because we don't absolutely need to, just as long as we are not abusing our livestock. Even if eating meat wasn't "natural" I would eat it so long as we obtained it in a manner that is not cruel to the supplying animals.

At 7/21/09 02:16 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Anger and sex drive are natural, domestic violence and rape are not. You seem to be too wrapped up in your views of "naturalistic fallacy" to argue the issue at hand here beyond that. Perhaps you should make a thread about it, I am sure people would have something to say and I would like to see you elaborate on it.

How do you define natural then? "Occuring in nature" is a fairly common definition.

At 7/21/09 04:12 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Unless you're talking about bugs, this "shitload of animals" will probably globaly be far less than is killed in the meat industry in just denmark.

I'm not talking about bugs. I'm talking about animals like mice, rabbits, rats, squirrels, etc.
This page:
http://web.archive.org/web/2004110708452 1/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news /food/vegan.html notes that the mowing of a single alfafa field reduced the grey-tailed vole population by 50% in that area. Even PETA have acknowledged that millions of animals are killed every year during the harvesting process.

As said above, this is a problem that is equally large today. Vegetarians don't think that no animals will die or suffer if we stop eating meat, it's about minimizing the damage.

So basically, minimising the damage as long as it's convenient for the vegetarians. The farce of this whole thing is that vegetarians don't even eat the animals that die to support their vegetarian lifestyles. If vegetarians genuinely wanted to "minimise" animal suffering/death, they would simply grow and eat their own vegetables, but vegetarians don't want to minimise animal suffering to that extent because it imposes on their own lives too much.

Actually, where I might move when I get a part-time job, they're making about 70% of their food themselves through growing their own vegetables.

Hats off.

Anyway, It's not about "completely eradicating animal suffering" just like how medicine isn't about "completely eradicating human suffering". It's about minimizing damage and removing unnessecary suffering.

Again, it all comes down to the fact that vegetarians only want to get rid of animal suffering as long as it fits in with their own idealistic view of life. They don't want to have to give up all the shit that they like and take for granted that animals have died/suffered to produce, so instead they just cut out all the stuff that they can easily do without, and then claim that they're 'minimising the damage'.

The question is rather if human enjoyment is more important than thousands of animal lives (for a single human).

Depends what you mean by enjoyment. If you're only referring to what we eat, then it proves my point that vegetarians are only interested in this whole thing as long as it doesn't inconvenience them, because why would it be wrong for an animal to be killed for food, but right to be killed for cosmetics? Animal products can be found in all kinds of things like playing cards, pharmaceutical capsules, tarmac, paint, photographic paper, various colours and dyes, plywood, various cosmetics, glue, etc.

The only time I would expect anyone to even try to cut animal products out of their lives would be if that person was trying to get other people to stop eating meat. If someone considers themselves a vegetarian even though they still use animal products, I honestly don't give a fuck as long as they're not preaching to me about how I should be doing more to 'minimise the damage'. All these agenda-fuelled vegetarians are just a parody of themselves.

At 7/21/09 07:40 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 7/21/09 04:12 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Unless you're talking about bugs, this "shitload of animals" will probably globaly be far less than is killed in the meat industry in just denmark.

I'm not talking about bugs. I'm talking about animals like mice, rabbits, rats, squirrels, etc.
This page:
http://web.archive.org/web/2004110708452 1/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news /food/vegan.html notes that the mowing of a single alfafa field reduced the grey-tailed vole population by 50% in that area. Even PETA have acknowledged that millions of animals are killed every year during the harvesting process.

Yes, but "millions" isn't a whole lot compared to what is killed right now.
According to this:
http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/2000 slaughter_stats.html
45 billion animals, NOT including fish, were killed in 2000 to become food.
Also, a lot of the vegetables grown goes towards feeding our livestock which is very inefficient compared to eating it as it is.

As said above, this is a problem that is equally large today. Vegetarians don't think that no animals will die or suffer if we stop eating meat, it's about minimizing the damage.

So basically, minimising the damage as long as it's convenient for the vegetarians.

Well, yeah? People do this all the time in many respects. I minimize my environmental inpact by going by bus instead of car - I know that I COULD walk, minimizing even further, but that is to inconvenient when I'm going 30 kilometers away. Eating local meat is also damage minimizing, as is not shooting people on the street - people will still die, but by not shooting them you cause less suffering than if you would (and no, most people don't disdain from murdering because it's illegal, they do it because it's wrong and causes suffering). And on a personal level, one COULD live extremely healthy and not eat anything that isn't healthy, but most people find that too inconvenient and eat some healthy things and some unhealthy things; lessening the damage compared to eating a lot of unhealthy stuff.

The farce of this whole thing is that vegetarians don't even eat the animals that die to support their vegetarian lifestyles. If vegetarians genuinely wanted to "minimise" animal suffering/death, they would simply grow and eat their own vegetables, but vegetarians don't want to minimise animal suffering to that extent because it imposes on their own lives too much.

Sure, though many vegetarians, at least in areas where it's possible, DO grow their own vegetables at least to a part. At least in my country, don't know about the US though.

Anyway, It's not about "completely eradicating animal suffering" just like how medicine isn't about "completely eradicating human suffering". It's about minimizing damage and removing unnessecary suffering.

Again, it all comes down to the fact that vegetarians only want to get rid of animal suffering as long as it fits in with their own idealistic view of life.

Yes, and any voluntary doctor who doesn't dedicate his WHOLE life doesn't do any good because he only helps as long as it fits his view of life. -.-

The question is rather if human enjoyment is more important than thousands of animal lives (for a single human).

Depends what you mean by enjoyment. If you're only referring to what we eat, then it proves my point that vegetarians are only interested in this whole thing as long as it doesn't inconvenience them, because why would it be wrong for an animal to be killed for food, but right to be killed for cosmetics? Animal products can be found in all kinds of things like playing cards, pharmaceutical capsules, tarmac, paint, photographic paper, various colours and dyes, plywood, various cosmetics, glue, etc.

It's not, and most vegetarians I know DO watch out for this. Some things are unavoidable to live a normal life; you HAVE to use paper. However, I don't know a single vegetarian that don't care what's in their cosmetics and how they're tested.

At 7/22/09 03:33 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Yes, but "millions" isn't a whole lot compared to what is killed right now.

Millions is a lot whichever way you look at it. It actually doesn't bother me that animals die to support any kind of diet, what annoys me is that vegetarians are always the ones who want to make the rest of us feel guilty about it when they themselves are nowhere near guilt-free. Vegetarians are in no position to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, and yet they seem to think they have the right to.

Well, yeah? People do this all the time in many respects.

And when these people start telling others how they need to change their lives/diets/whatever, their hypocrisy shows. Vegetarians like comparing meat to murder. Well in that case, a vegetarian telling me to stop eating meat is like a murderer who killed five people (and used their blood to paint his house) telling a murderer who killed fifty people (and then ate them for sustainance) that he should stop what he's doing and cut back and oh noes think of teh bunnies waaaaah

Sure, though many vegetarians, at least in areas where it's possible, DO grow their own vegetables at least to a part. At least in my country, don't know about the US though.

Many do, most don't.

Yes, and any voluntary doctor who doesn't dedicate his WHOLE life doesn't do any good because he only helps as long as it fits his view of life. -.-

Totally incomparable. A voluntary doctor isn't trying to impose his own lifestyle choices on the rest of the world. If vegetarians really do consider themselves to be as noble and important as voluntary doctors, they need their heads pulling right out of their asses.

Some things are unavoidable to live a normal life; you HAVE to use paper.

Think of teh bunnies waaaaaaaah waaaaaaah

At 7/21/09 05:47 AM, Sekhem wrote: Everything you eat was once alive, whether it's fruit or meat. Drawing the line anywhere is pretty hypocritical.

Are you kidding? What I saw in that video was incredibly sick, and I am a passionate animal advocate, but fruits don't have nerve endings or any kind of thoughts whatsoever.

I am a vegetarian myself, but I must agree on this. It's trying to turn vegetarianism into its own religion or cult by using mind disturbing and cruel images to make you feel bad about yourself. For most Canadian/Americans who are vegetarian by will, are just willing to live healthier, or are against the meat market. Some people are vegetarian by belief, like the Hindus. But i haven't met one person yet who has turned vegetarian because some dirty, disgusting propaganda film told them to do so.

Boo to this video :(

If everyone became vegetarian, there wouldn't really be anymore need for cows, chickens, and all the other animals we eat and eventually we would only breed them for their milk and chickens eggs, which means about 95% of all the animals we currently breed for food would be dead anyway. Eventually they would go extinct.

At 7/22/09 04:12 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:
And when these people start telling others how they need to change their lives/diets/whatever, their hypocrisy shows. Vegetarians like comparing meat to murder. Well in that case, a vegetarian telling me to stop eating meat is like a murderer who killed five people (and used their blood to paint his house) telling a murderer who killed fifty people (and then ate them for sustainance) that he should stop what he's doing and cut back and oh noes think of teh bunnies waaaaah

The problem with this debate is that both sides are debating on different things. You have voluntary vegetarians/vegans who choose to live as a vegan, even to minimise animal suffering and would nudge their friends to join their cause and there is peta who would drop blood over you because you are eating a sandwich.
I feel people are right for calling peta stupid in their actions, but let's not get lost on their causes and people who persue them in a sensible way.
Whether or not peta is erroneous by pushing their will upon others by pamphlets with gruesome images to force people on veganism, it's still admirable that some people recognise that a man can live solely on vegetables and choose to not have animals killed for his amusement.

On the side note of hypocrisy, I also have only met ideological vegans who also look after other aspects so no animal products are used. People who truly act on ideology are not so much about hypocrisy. (in frming, one also has biological farming rather than industrial farming what often goes accompanied by veganism)

I don't give a shit, I like my beef.

At 7/22/09 11:34 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: I feel people are right for calling peta stupid in their actions, but let's not get lost on their causes and people who persue them in a sensible way.

That is exactly it. PETA has an extremist view and extremism in any case is bad. Respect for other peoples beliefs is very important. If one believes in a cause they have every right to try and sway another's beliefs by reasoning and persuasion, but they by no means have any right to force their views upon others.

At 7/22/09 03:06 PM, KidneyThief wrote: If one believes in a cause they have every right to try and sway another's beliefs by reasoning and persuasion, but they by no means have any right to force their views upon others.

Though, in relation to peta, one can still argue that they promote rather than force their opinions on others.
It is not like they bomb buildings or kill people with different opinions. (I thought that part is reserved for the ARM)

At 7/22/09 03:17 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Though, in relation to peta, one can still argue that they promote rather than force their opinions on others.
It is not like they bomb buildings or kill people with different opinions. (I thought that part is reserved for the ARM)

That is true, but I meant that statement in a more general sense. PETA bombing buildings is one of the last things we need. That would be far, far too extreme.

As a vegetarian, I hate the tactics PETA use to try to recruit others to be vegan. There are many health, ethical, environmental, or religious reasons to avoid eating meat, but instead of trying to guilt people into not eating beef or pork or chicken, they should be worrying about the conditions of the animals before slaughter.

I never try to force anyone to conform to my diet. I have no issues with anything other people eat, as long as they are informed of the issues. Information is more important than shock or guilt, really. And if people truly know what goes on in the industry and they make informed choices, then all is fine.

(I also have the same feelings about diamonds, but yeah. That's my two-cents.)

At 7/23/09 06:52 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: As a vegetarian, I hate the tactics PETA use to try to recruit others to be vegan. There are many health, ethical, environmental, or religious reasons to avoid eating meat, but instead of trying to guilt people into not eating beef or pork or chicken, they should be worrying about the conditions of the animals before slaughter.

;;;
As a vegetarian Freakapotimus... do your ever eat cheese's or eggs ?
Do you ever eat any type of seafood ?

I stopped eating meat because I lived in the city & had researched the 'meat industry' specifically the feed lot mentality where beef & pork & chicken are kept in absolutly horrific crowded conditions & where their 'feed' consists of drugs that help keep them healthy in these condidtions... & I wanted to cut out all of these drugs along with the hormone enhancing drugs fed to these animals so they grow bigger faster, that get passed on to us when we eat them.

Now I eat meat grown in the farms that are all around me. I buy locally made cheese's and eggs & all of the beef I buy comes from a farm not 20 minutes up the road from my house, all organically locally raised. I also eat a lot less meat than I used to.

At first, I became a vegetarian because of the cruelty, but now i would not go to eating back to eating meat even if the animals were treated like royalty before their death, simply because of my infinite respect for nature, and the theory that animal life is one of the most beautiful things in the universe, and shouldn't be used as a commodity for money or a moment of great taste. We, as humans, are gifted with the ability to break out of our carnivorous instinct and eat what we want.

Basically, I personally am not trying to prove anything or stop people from eating meat, my decision is 100% personal and I dislike PETA for shoving the idea of vegetarianism down people's throats, which is a terrible tactic, since no matter what, some people care and others don't, and never will. Simple as that.

I think I'll leave this here seeing as we are talking about vegitarianism

ohno flame war

At 7/25/09 05:58 AM, steventhegreat wrote: I think I'll leave this here seeing as we are talking about vegitarianism

ohno flame war

Oh nifty, real life trolling. It's so badass to pee on the grave of a young deceased girl during a visit from her family.

At 7/17/09 04:33 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: If we weren't meant to eat animals then they wouldn't be made out of delicious meat.

Try eating your steak without cooking or seasoning it. If we were meant to eat meat then we should be able to eat it raw without any negative consequences.

At 7/21/09 03:43 PM, RubberTrucky wrote

Actually, milk has ben shown by some studies to also be dangerous. Milk is overall not a natural product for the human being, as is shown by the amount of lactose intollerant people.
But now I'm not really 100% sure if the dangers of milk is not only a vegan myth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Contro versy

(sigh) Didn't you listen to what I meant? I meant in terms of whether it is ethical to destroy something (like an animal for meat or a plant for vegetables for that matter).

At 7/27/09 06:57 PM, Ericho wrote: (sigh) Didn't you listen to what I meant? I meant in terms of whether it is ethical to destroy something (like an animal for meat or a plant for vegetables for that matter).

I believe it is, just not in excess. I feel Native Americans have a very good outlook on eating animals. They A: have respect for the animal. B: Don't waste it. Eating meat isn't a bad thing, it's the greed in the industry that is the problem.