Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

CapelDodger said:
"Vegan" and "vegetarian" are types of diet; animal testing only comes into it in terms of taste-testing. By people who eat meat.

Whether JoeEllison would eat labkill (given all the relevant documentation), well, that's for him to say. (I'm thinking "yes, he would" myself.) Would you?
Click to expand...

Well... the "control" animals, at least. Rat, skinned and on skewers, in a vinegar-heavy marinade and/or Brazilian dry rub? Let me fire up the grill. :D
 
JoeEllison said:
I don't know if my position is rational, but it is pretty consistent. I also have a problem with people who won't eat some animals, but eat others, for any reason besides health or taste reasons. I mean, there's some animal meat I just don't like, mostly some of the odder roadkill stuff like possum and raccoon. If I had to eat it, I would.
Click to expand...

And no doubt you'd learn how best to cook it. With enough garlic and spices and slow-cooking the meat itself hardly matters, but you still get the benefit.

my favorite shows on the TV, BTW, is Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. That guy will eat ANYTHING, and I admire his spirit, even if he does go places that I'm not sure I could.
Click to expand...

I'm still amazed that people eat snails. They're just slugs with fancy packaging, FCOL. I'm sure I'd starve before I ate a slug. Grubs I could handle, but not slugs.
 
Ateius said:
Because of PETA's antics, perhaps? Guilt by association?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. If I had to guess, it's that some people don't like it when other people make a change to their lives based on a moral standpoint.

I've seen very similar jibes made when people have - for example -given up their car in order to try and live more environmentally, or who recycled back when doing so was a comparative rarity. These aren't things that impact other people in any way at all, they're purely personal decisions - but there's a subset of people who just love to rubbish them for it.

I genuinely don't know why they do it, but I've seen it over and over again.
 
Rocko said:
Marmite is certified veggie friendly, which would surely mean that B12 isn't derived from animals though? Cheese with animal based rennet in isn't certified suitable for vegetarians, for example.
Click to expand...

I don't know where the B12 comes from. Perhaps it's from bacteria. The point is that B12 is not available from vegetarian sources, and veggie friendly foods have to be supplemented with it. No B12 and you will be illin'. Now, if you want to debate whether or not bacteria are "veggie friendly" that's a different argument. Still, if I eat one serving of non-vegan foodstuff per day, I'll get all the B12 I need.

-Dr. Imago

ETA: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
 
Last edited:
JoeEllison said:
Well... the "control" animals, at least. Rat, skinned and on skewers, in a vinegar-heavy marinade and/or Brazilian dry rub? Let me fire up the grill. :D
Click to expand...
Well, if that's your attitude, I think I'll have no further part. You'll need some big skewers, anyway.
 
Rat said:
Well, if that's your attitude, I think I'll have no further part. You'll need some big skewers, anyway.
Click to expand...

Human rats are only a last resort. However, if it came down to death or eating a person's corpse? I'm chowing down... regretfully, hesitantly, and hopefully braised in a white wine sauce.
 
Rocko said:
I don't think so. If I had to guess, it's that some people don't like it when other people make a change to their lives based on a moral standpoint.

I've seen very similar jibes made when people have - for example -given up their car in order to try and live more environmentally, or who recycled back when doing so was a comparative rarity. These aren't things that impact other people in any way at all, they're purely personal decisions - but there's a subset of people who just love to rubbish them for it.

I genuinely don't know why they do it, but I've seen it over and over again.
Click to expand...

Your observation strikes a chord with me. I can't explain it, but I can recognise it.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
It is largely a moral issue, not a scientific one. The vegetarians I know are better with their diet than most meat eaters, because they obviously have to focus on it more. But I don't think all vegetarians are saying that a vegie diet is inherently healthier than a meat diet.
Click to expand...

Haven't read this whole thread yet but wanted to jump in...The vegetarians that I know do it for a conscientious objection to killing animals, not because it's healthier.

That said I think some people think vegetarians eat healthier when they really just eat processed white pasta dishes and veggie pizzas all the time.

I really doubt there's science saying it's bad for humans to eat meat on general terms. Of course meat that's full of toxins and devoid of nutrition is bad but meat properly raised is just fine, imo.
 
my guess is eating nothing produced thru agriculture; eating fruits, berries, grains, legumes, shoots and roots in their season; eggs, small reptiles and mammals, organ meats from carrion or rotted animal muscle tissue and Capel Dodger's grubs, of course; whatever you can catch with your hands in tidal pools and riparian areas; gorging/starving/gorging/starving... mmmm. That's probably the diet we evolved with and are sellected for. But maybe eating fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc., year round has its problems, since our systems evolved with only seasonal intake. But for us modern denizens, it's probably as much about how much you exercise in relatiionship to what you choose to eat as anything. I was a vegetarian for three years in my late 20s -- not for health or morals. 'twas the veterarian women!
 
I mentioned Andrew Zimmern before, but I didn't realize how important he was to the discussion until now. Veganism, vegetarianism, and other fruitcake diets are a product of ultra-wealthy Western societies. Where all food is abundant, it is easy to take some silly moral stance against some food over others.

On the other hand, look at the exotic locations where Andrew Zimmern and his Strange Foods show travel to. They eat every damned bit of creepy crawly they can scrounge up. Do you think they eat bugs and snakes and rats and bats because they prefer it to filet mignon and steamed Maine lobster?

The reality is that people need protein to survive, and eating whatever will hold still long enough to be killed and roasted is pretty much fair game.
 
JoeEllison said:
Where all food is abundant, it is easy to take some silly moral stance against some food over others.
Click to expand...

That may be, but India has the oldest tradition of vegetarianism, (I think), and food has not always been abundant there. Still isn't in a lot of places. Was it a moral stance or a pragmatic one to avoid eating animals there?

I never thought about it till just now. A hot, very hot, tropical region with a rainy season. Could a meat eating culture even exist in that situation? A huge population, but limited land, but lots of water and sunshine.

If they ate meat, how would they keep it fresh? How could the culture afford the land and resources to even have enough animals to eat? The choice of that culture, which worships the cow, is possibly a pragmatic one. By feeding the cow grasses and some grain, and using the milk fresh, or fermenting it (whey, cheese, butter, yogurt), they avoid spoilage of animal protein, get immediate high protein/high fat food, and have animals for labor as well.

Now the issue of including milk as vegetarian food arises. India was an example because it is an ancient Vegie culture, with limited food sources.

I don't think you could even have a vast meat eating culture in that climate. With slaughter comes disease, scarcity, and less food from the same amount of land. Utilizing the living cow for labor, as well as a daily source of food, is possibly better economics.

Fruits, nuts, seeds, legumes and grains grow well in a tropical climate. Especially rice. Combining those sources with animal protein/fat from milk was obviously a workable solution to the area. I can't see how the culture could have survived otherwise.

Some African herders also do the same, not killing the animals but eating the blood and milk daily, increasing the number of animals, rather than killing them. Killing a cow is a rare event. Too valuable alive. I don't know enough to say for sure, just musing aloud.

It is an interesting subject. There are all kinds of health risks from eating meat that are avoided by vegetarians.

And in regards to the ever present questions, there was a huge study done on this. (forgive me if it has been mentioned, I didn't read everything yet). The evidence was overwhelming. Vegie health nuts really do live longer and have less illness. The main factor seemed to be fresh fruit. Five servings a day of fresh fruit cut the risk of all deaths in half.
 
And before anyone starts going crazy and wanting to bash my head in for pointing out that a study was done, try looking it up to see for yourself.

It wasn't my study. But the facts were obvious.

Sad thing is, even knowing this, I am not a vegetarian, and I find it hard to eat five servings a day of fresh fruit. I sometimes don't even eat any fruit. I have no doubt about the science of it, but I still just don't do it.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
That may be, but India has the oldest tradition of vegetarianism, (I think), and food has not always been abundant there. Still isn't in a lot of places.
Click to expand...
That was actually kind of my point, in case you missed it. In places like America, we can shrug off certain foods because we know we can get multivitamins and plenty of fruits and vegetables of a wide variety. In places like India, people might stick to diets of plants and bugs because they have no choice.
 
JoeEllison said:
That was actually kind of my point, in case you missed it. In places like America, we can shrug off certain foods because we know we can get multivitamins and plenty of fruits and vegetables of a wide variety.
Click to expand...

I spoke to your point about it being an easy moral choice, because we are a land of plenty.

You stated, "Where all food is abundant, it is easy to take some silly moral stance against some food over others."

I noted that history does not bear that out. Hindus, like Jews, Moslem's, Buddhists, Jain's and others, have dietary restrictions, mostly about animals, that restrict their diets, and all are based on moral precepts. These moral choices were not made where food was abundant.

They are still in place, even when food is abundant, but things like the Hindu not eating beef, ever, or Muslim and Jews not eating pork, ever, are choices based on religion, or moral precepts, not because of scarcity or abundance.

JoeEllison said:
In places like India, people might stick to diets of plants and bugs because they have no choice.
Click to expand...

People in India do not eat bugs. Just like Jews don't eat bugs. Maybe in a desperate survival situation, a Muslim or Jew might eat pork, or a Hindu might eat a cow, but if they are deeply religious, they will probably die first.

It is probably going off topic, but a conversation about food would be interesting. I've always wondered about dietary restrictions. Is there any connection between pragmatism and religion, when it comes to avoiding certain animals? Or is it all woo woo?

For example, is there any health benefit to following restrictions?
Meat and dairy foods may not be eaten in the same meal.
Blood may not be consumed.
The sciatic nerve may not be eaten.
Internal fat may not be eaten.
All foods must be without blemish.

Or is it just religious claptrap? Does it make any difference at all?
 
Last edited:
It's pretty clear that vegetarians make their decision, in the strictest sense, to be so not on scientific reasons.

-Dr. Imago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom