<p>A lot of defensive intolerance against vegetarians on this thread. Why is it that someone’s eating habits anger others. Lots of people don't eat certain animals for religious reasons-such as pork. Is anyone going to rag on them?</p>
<p>At the end of the day, everyone can eat what they feel appropriate and comfortable with and shouldn't have to justify it to anyone else. Even most western world meat eaters likely draw the line at eating cats, dogs and monkey-a meat source in other parts of the world. </p>
<p>Saying its hypocritical for a vegetarian to kill a bug is as stupid as saying all meat eaters should eat any animal. If someone feels more comfortable to not eat flesh at all, why is that any different than not eating all types of flesh?</p>
<p>Just because animals die during farming doesn't mean that it therefore becomes ethical to eat meat.</p>
<p>While I myself am not vegetarian and don't plan on becoming a vegetarian anytime soon, there is a rational moral argument in favor of reduction of meat. However, it largely hinges on the effects that our high protein diet has on the environment and availability of food for the world's human population.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Piccolo, I play the occasional sports...but I am no jock. I am a vegetarian, genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you've admitted that it's impossible to be both a successful vegatarian and athlete. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Kill insects? I try my best not to. I try to keep my house as clean as possible from ants, etc. In the event a spider does come along and the most common house spider does have mild amounts of poison, y*ou better believe I will kill it. Quickly as well.*
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lol, good job violating your own group's rules.</p>
<p>I believe Hank Arron is a veggie along with Ricky Williams. You usually don't come across too many vegetarians considering the "intellect" of sports players/athletes.</p>
Yeah, I'm going to second afruff and the others; fine, be a vegetarian, but don't support PETA. There are only two types of people that support PETA: 1) people that have no idea what the organization is about (ie, the average person that says "I'm against animal cruelty, so PETA must be a nice bunch of people for supporting animals!") and 2) the scumbags that are part of the organization and should all be sentenced to death for their idiocy.</p>
<p>I don't have a big problem with #1 because they don't know better; but #2s are the biggest idiots you'll ever meet.</p>
<p>Anyway, vegetarianism and veganism are not healthier diets. They can be, but so can omnivorism. Both diets (omnivorism and vegan/vegetarianism) have their defects, both are bad in excess, both have their problems. Generally, vegetarianism and veganism have more health problems associated with them than omnivorism, but they can still be healthy diets if done right. Believe me, I've had this argument on another forum before and I found quite a bit of research to back it up.</p>
<p>If you're vegetarian/vegan for religious reasons, then go for it. For moral reasons, it's a little iffy, but still fine. For health reasons, it's just stupid (unless you have some special dietary needs), because it does not provide any advantage over a regular diet.</p>
<p>Minus the fact that a lot of agribusiness is incredibly inefficient and spreads large volumes of persistent organic pollutants into our food streams.</p>
<p>Seriously people none of this is black and white. Vegetarianism ≠ instant win. Anti-vegetarianism ≠ instant win. There are good things about organics. There are bad things about organics. But this oversimplified knee-jerk reactionary crap is just silly.</p>
<p>Of course, eating PB&J all day as part of a vegan diet is not good, but the research I have seen clearly shows that vegans with proper diets are much better off than non-vegans with "proper" diets. How do you think so many animals get so big and strong? Many big animals are vegetarian. If they can do it, so can humans and you can avoid kidney problems and fatigue.</p>
<p>I do think mother's milk of the same species and family is good, so I think that would be an exception. However, cow's milk has hormones not intended for humans.</p>
While I myself am not vegetarian and don't plan on becoming a vegetarian anytime soon, there is a rational moral argument in favor of reduction of meat.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would you care to make such an argument? I don't think such an argument can be made without resorting to relatives (e.g. killing 1 person is better than killing 10 people) and thus it is arbitrary to draw the line at any point.</p>
<p>Saying that certain animals get big and strong on a vegetarian diet is not necessarily an effective argument. For one, different animals have very different nutritional needs. If you fed a cat nothing but veggies and fruits it would probably die due to its short intestinal tract. Humans are less likely to be affected by this problem, but the inter-species argument is fallacious and does not account for specific species' dietary needs.</p>
<p>Assume that arable land and topsoil are limited resources. Assume that the protein-heavy diet of the average American uses significantly more of that arable land than necessary to feed the average human being. Both assumptions are easily supported by evidence, both quantifiable and anecdotal.</p>
<p>Now, assuming that we believe that all humans have the right to at least a minimum standard of living and caloric intake, we have a problem: the large-scale production of meat requires significantly more land than a less protein-heavy diet would require. Every cow raised and slaughtered requires a significant input of land and topsoil.</p>
<p>That's just one facet of the problem, however. Large-scale meat production is also very energy intensive. Similarly, most worldwide fisheries are near limit or already overfished and collapsing.</p>
<p>If one does believe that it is a necessary requirement for all humans to have a basic standard of living, then how can one say that it is not a moral imperative to reduce the use of a scarce resource in order to ensure that there is more of said scarce resource available to be spread more evenly?</p>
<p>Again, that's assuming you believe that everyone has a right to a minimum standard. That's the sticky part of the argument. As for the scarcity of food production, that's fairly clear and is well-supported by economic theory and the current and past food crises.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not really, considering humans can get all the protein and stuff they need from certain plants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. But that does not mean that humans can be readily compared to, for instance, gorillas. It's a specious argument because we have different dietary needs.</p>
<p>Similarly, humans can live on nearly all meat diets (Inuit), whereas many other animals could not.</p>
<p>
[quote] If one does believe that it is a necessary requirement for all humans to have a basic standard of living, then how can one say that it is not a moral imperative to reduce the use of a scarce resource in order to ensure that there is more of said scarce resource available to be spread more evenly?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was in full agreement with you until this part. How is it moral to take the fruits of someone else's labor without their permission and thus essentially make you a slave for whatever work you put into to produce what was stolen. </p>
<p>For example, I steal a bushel of your corn since I claim you are being "immoral". It takes you 1 month of work to harvest one bushel of corn. I have in essence enslaved you for 1 month.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that you steal someone's bushel of corn. Where on Earth did you get that from?</p>
<p>I'm saying that the sequestering of arable land and topsoil for the production of high-intensity foods poses an ethical issue if you believe that people should be able to eat a certain number of calories a day.</p>
<p>Why is the comparison so far apart between gorillas and humans? They are very genetically similar and have similar diets and anatomy. Not to mention, both humans and gorillas can survive without meat.</p>
<p>{quote}I'm saying that the sequestering of arable land and topsoil for the production of high-intensity foods poses an ethical issue if you believe that people should be able to eat a certain number of calories a day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And such a belief would require you to steal from people since I don't see high-intensity foods going away anytime soon.</p>