• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

Prometheus said:
True, it isn't complicated. It also isn't 'chilli'. Call it what it is: tomato and bean soup.
Click to expand...

It's called "chili" based on the chili powder/sauce, not the meat. We do not call ground beef "chili powder".
 
Lonewulf said:
It's called "chili" based on the chili powder/sauce, not the meat. We do not call ground beef "chili powder".
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the etymology of the name. It's still not chilli if it has no meat. Just like a salad is not a Caesar Salad without anchovy's, regardless of which restaurant you buy it at.
 
Prometheus said:
I'm aware of the etymology of the name. It's still not chilli if it has no meat. Just like a salad is not a Caesar Salad without anchovy's, regardless of which restaurant you buy it at.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the ol' "tradition trumps logic" argument. ;)

I think that a certain Jewish group made a song based on tradition.
 
Brief summing up

Having taken into account the main arguments relevant to the OP of this thread:

To sum up, it would seem that reducing meat consumption is definitely a good thing, but that for the planet to go vegetarian altogether would be undesireable, because there are some good reasons why keeping animals and eating a certain amount of meat benefits some.
 
Prometheus said:
I'm aware of the etymology of the name. It's still not chilli if it has no meat. Just like a salad is not a Caesar Salad without anchovy's, regardless of which restaurant you buy it at.
Click to expand...

That is why you have Chili con carne 8with meat) and chili san carne (without meat).

ETA: I only heard named as "chili" only by US people. Here around it is always with con/sin carne.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
That is why you have Chili con carne 8with meat) and chili san carne (without meat).
Click to expand...

Never saw or heard the second before today. I guess it's not as widespread a tradition. I also don't allow that that Manhattan Tomato & Clam Soup locals in New York have delusions about is actually Chowder. Guess I'm just picky.

Anyway, my pet peeve with names is really the least important part of what I was trying to say, and it is turning into something of a derail, so how 'bout we stop it?
 
What puzzles me is how come when I have anyone vegetarian over for dinner I make sure I prepare something they would like - san carne.

But when ever I go to their place for dinner, I always get what they want.
 
In a way, prometheus, I understand what you're saying. Of course I do. I think you overstate the case, in some respects, but I know where it's coming from.

The problem is this: were such argument offered in support of any other activity, belief or behaviour, they'd be laughed out of town on this board. "Everyone else does it" and "It makes me feel better" are both fallacious arguments; they're bad arguments, even if they're true. Supporting behaviours that have quantifiably negative consequences with what strike me as rather limp arguments seems really to only ever be justifiable round here in discussions about diet.
 
Perpetual Student said:
That is utter nonsense! Our omnivorous species has done quite well over the last few hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...

"Quite well"? Over nearly all that time most people died before age 40. Do you want to go back to that?

Perpetual Student said:
Tasteless, mindless rubbish!
Click to expand...

You come across is a little unhinged on this topic... aren't you happy to have vegetarians around, leaving more meat for you?
 
Geckko said:
What puzzles me is how come when I have anyone vegetarian over for dinner I make sure I prepare something they would like - san carne.

But when ever I go to their place for dinner, I always get what they want.
Click to expand...

It's probably because they don't realise it's a requirement of your diet that you must have meat - they probably assume you're happy either way.

It doesn't have to be a problem: In future, just ferrit away a large supply of ground meat in the space between your gums and your cheeks before you go, and daintily get bits out with your tongue on taking each mouthful of what they've given you, so it's got that nice meaty flavour. They need never know what's going on. :p
 
volatile said:
In a way, prometheus, I understand what you're saying. Of course I do. I think you overstate the case, in some respects, but I know where it's coming from.

The problem is this: were such argument offered in support of any other activity, belief or behaviour, they'd be laughed out of town on this board. "Everyone else does it" and "It makes me feel better" are both fallacious arguments; they're bad arguments, even if they're true. Supporting behaviours that have quantifiably negative consequences with what strike me as rather limp arguments seems really to only ever be justifiable round here in discussions about diet.
Click to expand...

But I'm not making an Argument From Popularity or an Appeal To Consequences, though I see how it might look that way. I'm saying that, because of the collegiality and pleasure which I get from sharing meat with loved ones, doing so provides me with a real, tangible benefit which I subsequently include in my cost/benefit analysis. I admit that I'm not sure how easy it would be to actually quantify these positive consequences objectively, but really that doesn't make them any less real.

All other things being equal, hurting animals is wrong. It's not that the pleasure I'm talking about refutes this moral truth. It's just that I personally value that pleasure more than I value the animals' rights. Further, I know from experience that when I live as a vegetarian, I'm miserable and I have an astounding innate capacity to make those around me share in my misery (call it reverse-empathy). So a case can be made that my being vegetarian indirectly harms other people--many of whom I love considerably more than I love cows.
 
Geckko said:
What puzzles me is how come when I have anyone vegetarian over for dinner I make sure I prepare something they would like - san carne.

But when ever I go to their place for dinner, I always get what they want.
Click to expand...

So you want the people who are morally against meat to go out, buy ground beef, just to please you?

See, that's the thing that amazes me about this. Not including meat in a dish might be a hassle, but people that are against the eating of meat are often against it because of moral issues. You're not eating meat because it's "moral", but because you like it and it's easier on you (pleasure and convenience exclusively).

If the vegetarians in question did not eat meat because of health reasons, then yeah, that might seem a little rude. But what you're saying right here seems to lack any sort of empathy or understanding whatsoever; you assume that They are You, and their "preferences" have the exact same reasons as your own.

Unless you're stating that you need to eat meat at all meals for survival concerns, in which case, I can see your point, and highly suggest you warn people before visiting their place.
 
Last edited:
Prometheus said:
But I'm not making an Argument From Popularity or an Appeal To Consequences, though I see how it might look that way. I'm saying that, because of the collegiality and pleasure which I get from sharing meat with loved ones, doing so provides me with a real, tangible benefit which I subsequently include in my cost/benefit analysis. I admit that I'm not sure how easy it would be to actually quantify these positive consequences objectively, but really that doesn't make them any less real.

All other things being equal, hurting animals is wrong. It's not that the pleasure I'm talking about refutes this moral truth. It's just that I personally value that pleasure more than I value the animals' rights. Further, I know from experience that when I live as a vegetarian, I'm miserable and I have an astounding innate capacity to make those around me share in my misery (call it reverse-empathy). So a case can be made that my being vegetarian indirectly harms other people--many of whom I love considerably more than I love cows.
Click to expand...

If you really wanted to go vegetarian, I'd recommend picking up some Chinese and other asian textbooks; they have a lot of variety for vegetarians, given that a good majority of their numbers are Buddhist.
 
sol invictus said:
Perpetual Student said:
That is utter nonsense! Our omnivorous species has done quite well over the last few hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...

"Quite well"? Over nearly all that time most people died before age 40. Do you want to go back to that?
Click to expand...

The thesis that affluence is synonymous with increasing life expectancy is not true. The poorest area of Japan (the country with the highest life expectancy) has the highest life expectancy.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120135050/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The Okinawans are also omnivorous.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it.
 
And Japan, because of Buddhism, has a higher rate of vegetarians as far as I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom