How many of you are vegetarians?

[blouseybrown]

Originally Posted by This charming man.

Oh, suparni, I have at least 2/3 fresh coconuts a day in India. Drink the gorgeous fresh milk and then eat the lovely soft flesh.

Aren't they massively fatty? I worry if I even look at a coconut I'll put a stone on

[Uncleskinny]

Originally Posted by blouseybrown

Aren't they massively fatty? I worry if I even look at a coconut I'll put a stone on

Coconuts, while not massively fatty in themselves, have by far the largest proportion by weight of SATURATED fatty acids. Not good.

Peter

[blouseybrown]

Originally Posted by Uncleskinny

Coconuts, while not massively fatty in themselves, have by far the largest proportion by weight of SATURATED fatty acids. Not good.

Peter

Yum

[Qvist]

Originally Posted by suparni

What the fuck are you talking about you don't even know me. I did not give the book this title I am simply saying it's a good book. You act as if you know all things in the universe and clearly you don't... you do not know these things.

You have not even looked at the book and you tend to think you know everything about it by the title... very intelligent of you.

Furthermore the meat industry is DIRECTLY RELATED to world hunger, deforestation, and global warming. And for your tone... fuck off.

Oh come on, how can anyone not make fun of a book that is called "World Peace Diet", propounds the theory that meat "vibrates in the key of misery" and advances the view that India has historically been a peaceful country (because it's more vegetarian)?

India? You know, the country that has fought five wars since becoming independent? Who developed a nuclear weapons arsenal? Who had two heads of state assasinated in the past 3 decades? Who's been constantly plagued by explosive political and religious violence since the 1940s? Just imagine what they would have been like if they'd eaten more meat.

True, I haven't read the book. I don't think I will either, after having suffered through the first three pages of the introduction, replete as it is with halfpenny California mysticism.

As for the meat industry and its role in the world, I'm sure Mr. Tuttle... (Sorry, I just can't resist posting his picture





....has a highly relevant expertise in that area. He was after all "trained in Korea as a Zen Buddhist monk and has worked extensively in Tai Chi, yoga, massage, and dance and movement." and spent the last thirteen years touring "progressive churches, vegetarian and macrobiotic conferences, and intentional communities throughout the country". Not only that, he's a professional pianist and teacher. That's certainly what I'd do if I wanted to get a firm grounding in the workings of international capitalism and its impact on global warming.

I mean, be fair! This is ridiculorama staring you in the face, for crying out loud.


cheers

[Qvist]

Originally Posted by dom

Cool. Do you mean to do other things AS WELL as prayer? Or INSTEAD?

I mean "as well as". Even from the point of view of a convinced atheist like myself there's no harm in pryer as long as they're not an excuse for inaction.

cheers

[dom]

Originally Posted by Qvist

Oh come on, how can anyone not make fun of a book that is called "World Peace Diet", propounds the theory that meat "vibrates in the key of misery" and advances the view that India has historically been a peaceful country (because it's more vegetarian)?

India? You know, the country that has fought five wars since becoming independent? Who developed a nuclear weapons arsenal? Who had two heads of state assasinated in the past 3 decades? Who's been constantly plagued by explosive political and religious violence since the 1940s? Just imagine what they would have been like if they'd eaten more meat.

True, I haven't read the book. I don't think I will either, after having suffered through the first three pages of the introduction, replete as it is with halfpenny California mysticism.

As for the meat industry and its role in the world, I'm sure Mr. Tuttle... (Sorry, I just can't resist posting his picture





....has a highly relevant expertise in that area. He was after all "trained in Korea as a Zen Buddhist monk and has worked extensively in Tai Chi, yoga, massage, and dance and movement."

I mean, be fair! This is ridiculorama staring you in the face, for crying out loud.


cheers

Qvist ... may i be your new friend please!!?? It's just great to have a bit of humour and common sense within the LUDICROUS melodramatics that seems to surround the way (some) veggies talk .. including Suparni .. I really thought he/she was a grand old laugh... but alas .. such drama!!! ... not fun ...

ive said it before, and i will say i again and again ...

CHIIIILLLLL GUYS!!!! ... IT'S JUST A FLIPPIN FORUM!!!!!!!

:-) x

[Qvist]

Sure, why not?

cheers

[Anaesthesine]

Originally Posted by dom

CHIIIILLLLL GUYS!!!! ... IT'S JUST A FLIPPIN FORUM!!!!!!!

:-) x

Isn't this what forums are for?

I'm having a good time, anyway.

[Qvist]

[QUOTE=MunchyBrain;1251602]

First off, how can our current level of technology ever be sustainable? None if this is remotely relevant if you can't answer that question.

You mean if I can't compellingly demonstrate to you just how everything will be OK in the future, you're justified in taking impending total disaster for granted? Why should it be impossible to sustain our current level of technology? Nobody knows what the next decades will bring. We have never been in this situation, or anything remotely like it, before.

Secondly, you might want to read some of the literature by early colonial European settlers in America. They had a massive problem in that their young people kept running away to live with the native people. Many of the first enclosures were built, not to keep the natives out, but to keep their people in. They saw that in general the native people actually had far more leisure time, were suprisingly abundant in food, and seemed generally happier. One of the cries which is echoed time and time again by indigenous people, before they have their lives destroyed by western industrial civilisation is, 'We know how to feed ourselves, we just need to be allowed to.'

To the extent that this is a generally valid description as opposed to anecdotal, which I doubt, has it struck you that early colonial european settlers in America weren't a lot closer to our present material circumstances than the natives that surrounded them? Their lives quite probably were harder. Yours isn't.

We've all been completely indoctrinated into thinking that our current way of being is the only way to be. Think about why. There's people profiting from it, including us. We're living the most unrealistically cushy lifestyles possible, at the expense of the natural world. Keep convincing yourself it's making you happy!

Well, there goes the alarm bell, twice. Once for "We've all been indoctrinated", and again for "there's people profiting from it". Oh, and a third time for "Keep convincing yourself it's making you happy". Here's a guy who knows I've been duped, knows why and by whom I've been duped and can tell I'm not really happy but just trying to kid myself that I am. And all that from a few posts on the internet, what a guy. Seriously, that's the kind of reasoning used by conspiracy nuts, fanatics and sectarians. It's the kind of reasoning used by people who blow up buildings because they're convinced the UN is secretly taking over the world, and by people who think the Jews staged 9/11. It's not very convincing, among other things because what it actually translates to is that you know what it's all about, and you don't have to listen to people telling you otherwise because they are all indoctrinated and kidding themselves. It's the most primitive intellectual defence mechanism in the book. Other things who aren't very convincing is a firm belief in certain impending doom and an attachment to the virtues of noble savages you've read about in books.

But to return to the beginning, wouldn't it at least be the decent thing to hold off on idealising the hunter-gatherer existence until after 98% of us has snuffed it?

cheers

[One of your children]

I only eat chicken! I can make 100s of dishes with it! and i like it.
But i dont eat any thing with 4 legs! So i guess iam 3/4 veggie lmao : )

[nogodsnomasters85]

Originally Posted by Flax

I don't want to sound rude...etc.

It's easier to argue if you distort what I said. I also wasn't talking about vegetarianism, incidentally. I concede that it is POSSIBLE for adults at least, to live LONG, HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE lives as vegans. I never said or even implied mature adults can't survive perfectly well on a vegan diet, provided they take supplements. HOWEVER.... The practice of doing this, if you actually start to measure out what amounts of nutrients are required is a hell of a lot more complicated than it is for people who eat mixed diets. Like I said, I could have two glasses of milk, or more than 13 cups of broccoli. (Roughly 1,200 mg per day recommended calcium.) Thats' just the facts.

You made flippant remarks about maintaining a healthy vegan existence as just picking up vegetables and getting exercise; thats' not true. You KNOW that isn't true. If someone just stocks up on produce and doesn't study what their nutritional requirements are, and plan out how to replace what they aren't getting anymore from animal products, they will get sick. You need tofu, and soy protein, and B12, zinc, Iron etc., etc. You have to KNOW what you are doing. I tried to go vegan for several months, myself, I know from experience, it isn't easy. You have to get enough protein, but no one vegetable has all the proteins so you have to mix them, and you have to get enough of each, etc. Malnutrition, obviously, over an extended period of time can result in minor to major health complications. Just as an aside obviously I also realize an all meat and dairy diet isn't a great idea either, which is why most people combine the two.

I also said vegan diets tend to be high in sodium, WHICH IS TRUE. There is more sodium in veggie burgers or tofu dogs than in their meat counterparts. Check the labels. This issue was first brought to my attention by my primary doctor because she was concerned I was consuming far too much sodium. People with certain medical conditions need to be extra vigilant about that. Again, you CAN adjust for it, but again, that takes even more thought and planning.

Again, a vegan diet CAN be very healthy for an adult, in case that somehow got lost, again. However, the value of a vegan (Not vegetarian.) diet for children IS in dispute. A professor from the Department of Agriculture recently stated; "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently. ...If you're talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life. ...There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans." The professor also cited a number of studies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4282257.stm

Just after a short cursory examination of websites on pediatric care (Except explicitly vegan sites.) all of them urged great caution about vegan diets for pregnant women, infants, or toddlers. I'm not a doctor, but I seriously doubt most pediatricians would ever recommend such a diet. There have also been several high-profile cases recently in the news with parents being charged for negilgence or abuse for malnourished children.

Infants and children are extremely sensitive and require much more care than adults. This is part of the reason infant mortality is so high in the third world, small children have a much harder time going without adequate nutrition.
So, all things considered, theres' plenty of room for debate as to whether or not veganism (Again, NOT vegetarianism.) is adviseable for pregnant women, toddlers, or infants. Either way, again, if this is done right one would have to do a certain amount of homework and be much more conscientious.

[dom]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Isn't this what forums are for?

I'm having a good time, anyway.

No i know, you are right. This place wouldn't be the same without the melodrama and crazy arguments ... just sometimes it gets a bit nasty .. and unpleasant .. tis al. I am having a good time tooooo :-) x

[Flax]

[nogodsnomasters85]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

The fundamental impulse is to do the least harm. Common sense and, yes, intuition tell me that life is sacred, and that different life forms experience life differently. I make the judgement according to my own conscience what I will have killed for my dinner. It does work that way.

My point was both perspectives are not compatible. Radical animal rights folks seem to switch between deontology and utilitarianism frequently in their arguments.

I would generally agree with the minimization of suffering in a broad sense. However, human suffering and animal suffering is not of equal value. Again, I don't question your individual policies, my argument is with the notion that I must also adopt such a lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I do strive to temper my passion with reason; that's what conversations like these are about.

And thats' good, one doesn't have to look far to see not all are capable of this. However, the problem is that emotion, not logic seem to be driving the argument, and that can be destructive to rational thought.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

That is a vast subject, that has been alluded to on former threads. We disagree fundamentally, and that's all there is to it.

You are gracious as always but we’re approaching the limits of the word “argument.”

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I'm advocating a vegetarian/vegan diet. I accept and usually enjoy the ensuing arguments on both sides. I believe that I am in the right - I believe that science tells us that our current system is unsustainable,

That’s sort of a basic truism. However, the sustainability issue has to do with a lot more than just meat. It depends where you draw the lines. If you follow the extremist animal rights ideology you could actually praise the 9/11 hijackers because they probably did more for the environment than most environmentalists by eliminating almost 3,000 humans and their probable descendents, and so forth and so on. Of course most rational, decent human beings see the problem with that thinking. The question is, where do we draw the line? Incidentally, I find the environmental arguments for veganism/vegetarianism infinitely more persuasive than slaughterhouse pictures. However, there are many other things you can do for the environment, instead.

Also, arguments about sustainability rest on the current paradigm. As Kurzweil and others have shown technology is developing exponentially. A new paradigm is forming. If humanity is to have any future we need to look forward to these new developments.
Technology promises new ways to protect the environment.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

and that a plant-based diet would be of benefit to ourselves and our planet.

To us, maybe. However, this is not necessarily best for the third world.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

You are free to disagree.

I think I will exercise that freedom.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I wholeheartedly agree with you on one point - when I behold images from the Hubble Space Telescope, or marvel at the Large Hadron Collider, I know that this is a form of divinity. No other animal can do anything even close to this.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

However, a creature doesn't have to be able to calculate the speed of light to know suffering. Suffering and intelligence are not linked. Just because we can understand a cow better than it understands itself is no justification in causing the suffering of that cow. As a matter of fact, it behooves us to limit that suffering - it should be a part of our divine nature.

The classic Bentham argument. However, as I said, human suffering and animal suffering don’t have the same value. Also, you have to acknowledge the motivation. When a whale scoops up thousands of tiny marine organism is not committing calculated mass murder, it’s eating. I don’t seek to destroy cows for the pleasure of doing it, but because they are an excellent source of elements my body requires. I am not without sympathy, but I recognize that is merely an illogical emotional reaction. I don’t like to watch my cat hunting, but she is not evil. My concern, as far as animals enter into my thinking, is more for endangered species.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Yes, vegan is tough - I had to give it up, too. Still, I'm working my way back. There's only dairy left in my diet.

You seem to be the only one capable of acknowledging that. I didn’t realize it was so controversial.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

My point in posting that story was not a bid for sympathy, but as a nice little bit of empirical evidence that vegetarianism does not weaken you, or make you unhealthy. You seemed to be implying that vegetarians don't get all the proteins and minerals they need. I am living proof that that is simply not the case.

I was talking about vegans. No, not all, but I’d personally be fascinated to see a real, substantial independent nutritional study of vegans. I just don’t think most people are informed enough to do it right. I look at people, it’s a judgment call.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

No in my experience.

I was talking about veganism, which, as you say, is a bit more complicated.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

So we have established that veganism is difficult.

Exhibit A.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

This is where people have to make the decision whether expedience trumps conscience. Like I said, I'm a lapsed vegan, so I'm not as "pure" as vegans, who carry the philosophy as far as it can go. Well, the Jaines have them beat.

Here’s where that problem I mentioned at the outset crops up. We’re talking about Bentham, and reducing suffering. I respond to that by saying I also have criticisms of the meat industry and think they should change, including being more humane to the animals. This is when the person I’m arguing with suddenly transforms into a deontologist. If you want to talk about not injecting animals with drugs, keeping them in cleaner pens, doing away with veal, killing them more humanely, etc., I’m on board. However, the end result is the same.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I'm only alive because of drugs and treatments that were developed via animal testing. This is a complex argument, and it comes down to a utilitarian argument about suffering and necessary evil. I am against animal testing when there is any alternative whatsoever. However, I am willing to admit that humans have benefitted from some animal tests.
It is not necessary to eat animals or animal products, so there is not really a parallel utilitarian argument to be made. When it comes to testing cosmetics - that is an abomination.

Ahh, but if we acknowledge that human life and animal life are of different value it changes the argument; “meat is NOT murder.” I don’t see much sense in declaring war on animal-based food producers and embracing animal research. If we can use a mouse in cancer research why can’t a cow be utilized to fuel my body? Is there a value difference between a mouse and a cow? Scientists also use monkeys, which are much closer relatives and if anything would be rated more valuable than the cow. I benefit from the nutritional content of the cow as I also benefit from vaccines and pharmaceuticals developed through animal testing.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I didn't adopt this ideology, either. Like I said, it just happened; one day meat became not a food source, but a disgusting, dead thing, indicative of suffering and waste. This was an organic process for me, too. Just like you, I have never heard a convincing argument from the other side.

Well, we’ll keep going and see what happens. May the best man win.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

No, i am not. I'm pro-technology when it benefits mankind and the planet.

Ahh, but technological progress is not so neatly delineated. We would not be able to develop or conceive of photovoltaic cells using nanotechnology if we hadn’t invented dirty coal.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Really, so you believe in the supernatural? Thats surprising.

No, I dispute that those things are true expressions of our nature. The town I live in is a perfect example, while poor working class, I am an anomaly in a predominantly upper-class suburb. While I won’t say much for the locals’ personalities, the crime rate, especially violent crime, is marginal to nonexistent. It’s really negligible. Why is that? Well, I think it’s because most of the people here are well educated and exist at a higher standard of living. I think most violence and suffering are directly or indirectly tied to monolithic concentrations of power and the artificial divisions they create. I think human nature is demonized because it justifies the abuses of those above us and the existence of complex hierarchies to manage us. It’s just not convincing to me.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Yes, but that malfunction occurs in nature, in all human societies - it has, in all probability been with us ever since we first stood upright, and even before that. It is the flip-side of our divinity.

True enough, but that can be mitigated.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

That's a whole other conversation.

Feel free to post on the thread I started, seems like it’s just me and McLovin.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Congratulations to you, sir.

Right back at you.

[Flax]

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

It's easier to argue if you distort what I said. I also wasn't talking about vegetarianism, incidentally. I concede that it is POSSIBLE for adults at least, to live LONG, HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE lives as vegans. I never said or even implied mature adults can't survive perfectly well on a vegan diet, provided they take supplements. HOWEVER.... The practice of doing this, if you actually start to measure out what amounts of nutrients are required is a hell of a lot more complicated than it is for people who eat mixed diets. Like I said, I could have two glasses of milk, or more than 13 cups of broccoli. (Roughly 1,200 mg per day recommended calcium.) Thats' just the facts.

You made flippant remarks about maintaining a healthy vegan existence as just picking up vegetables and getting exercise; thats' not true. You KNOW that isn't true. If someone just stocks up on produce and doesn't study what their nutritional requirements are, and plan out how to replace what they aren't getting anymore from animal products, they will get sick. You need tofu, and soy protein, and B12, zinc, Iron etc., etc. You have to KNOW what you are doing. I tried to go vegan for several months, myself, I know from experience, it isn't easy. You have to get enough protein, but no one vegetable has all the proteins so you have to mix them, and you have to get enough of each, etc. Malnutrition, obviously, over an extended period of time can result in minor to major health complications. Just as an aside obviously I also realize an all meat and dairy diet isn't a great idea either, which is why most people combine the two.

I also said vegan diets tend to be high in sodium, WHICH IS TRUE. There is more sodium in veggie burgers or tofu dogs than in their meat counterparts. Check the labels. This issue was first brought to my attention by my primary doctor because she was concerned I was consuming far too much sodium. People with certain medical conditions need to be extra vigilant about that. Again, you CAN adjust for it, but again, that takes even more thought and planning.

Again, a vegan diet CAN be very healthy for an adult, in case that somehow got lost, again. However, the value of a vegan (Not vegetarian.) diet for children IS in dispute. A professor from the Department of Agriculture recently stated; "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently. ...If you're talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life. ...There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans." The professor also cited a number of studies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4282257.stm

Just after a short cursory examination of websites on pediatric care (Except explicitly vegan sites.) all of them urged great caution about vegan diets for pregnant women, infants, or toddlers. I'm not a doctor, but I seriously doubt most pediatricians would ever recommend such a diet. There have also been several high-profile cases recently in the news with parents being charged for negilgence or abuse for malnourished children.

Infants and children are extremely sensitive and require much more care than adults. This is part of the reason infant mortality is so high in the third world, small children have a much harder time going without adequate nutrition.
So, all things considered, theres' plenty of room for debate as to whether or not veganism (Again, NOT vegetarianism.) is adviseable for pregnant women, toddlers, or infants. Either way, again, if this is done right one would have to do a certain amount of homework and be much more conscientious.

Relax. The vegan kids will be fine.
And by the way, humans do not need protein in their diet. It's a common misconception. But I'm not gonna explain because I'm too lazy.

[M-in-Oz]

My son has been a vegetarian since the day he was born, was not born underweight and 3 1/2 years on hasn't had any health problems. Perhaps bad on my part I have never done any reading on vegetarianism, so he eats whatever he feels like which is mostly vegetables and is very healthy. He is also very tall & not underweight at all. So I think it is possible to be vegetarian and not suffer adversely.

[suparni]

Originally Posted by This charming man.

Oh, suparni, I have at least 2/3 fresh coconuts a day in India. Drink the gorgeous fresh milk and then eat the lovely soft flesh.

[suparni]

btw i me and my friend ry are in charge of a raw food teacher's birthday dinner party tonight so def lookin for good raw, vegan, organic recipes... if anyone has any really good ones hit me up please.

[suparni]

oh and dom I did not ditch out because I was listening to a troll... I have just listened to justifications for eating meat so many many times that I've grown tired of the argument... I think MEAT IS MURDER (the song) and the vid Meet your Meat pretty much say it all much better than I can and I was much too tired to get into it. I just don't like listening to a view that makes me feel sick... Nothing personal. I just feel sickened by your point of view, not you. It's like if you had to sit down and listen to nazi justify the holocaust (yes I went there...) at some point you just don't even want to entertain the blathering.

[Stephen]

Okay, well I have been a veggie for almost 2 months now and it is very easy. After a lot of reading on here, I am going to become Vegan. It is going to be a lot harder and take a lot more effort, but I as an individual feel that it is worth it. Firstly though, I need to use up all of my eggs, cheese, pizza and Baileys...but not milk (I switched to Soya milk a couple of weeks ago) haha!

Any tips from you Vegans out there on how to get started and not miss dairy products would be very nice!