Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[Ivor the Engineer]

Doesn't that have something to do with a type of sodium that is used in processing the meat?

IIRC, it certainly looks like consumption of processed meat (including bacon - sorry!) is a more significant risk factor than red meat alone.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Irrelevant. That happens even with cooked food. Will you stop trying to demonize everything you don't agree with by posting extreme examples of what might, possibly, go wrong with it?

Does cooking food kill bacteria, viruses and parasites or not?

 

[tesscaline]

Would increasing the risk of years of chronic illness be something that would convince you to drastically change your diet? Why?

No. I increase my risk of death, and being maimed, and having life long health problems just by walking out my front door. I refuse to life my life in fear of what might happen.

In fact, all those things that might happen? They're exactly my motivation for attempting to enjoy as much of the life I have as I can. Because I actually do have a chronic illness. And if there's anything I've learned from it, it's that life is short, and the happy moments are few and far between -- enjoy every single one you possibly can.

 

[Furcifer]

The problem that I have with his post is that he assumes to know what vegetarians think and say.

Incorrect. It's about knowing what vegetarians do; not eat meat. You might be surprised that the generalization that "all vegetarians don't eat meat" is pretty accurate.
It's also safe to assume they've all used their reasoning skills to come to that conclusion. (and not because they're deathly allergic to animal protein)
I don't presume to know how they came to that conclusion, that's your mistake. I just pointed out the ones that tend to come off as preachy are the ones that use negative reinforcement, telling people what not to do. Meat eaters that may come off as "preachy", if at all, tend to encourage people to eat what they like and seek diversity in their diet.

You don't seem to be grasping this simple concept of positive and negative reinforcement.

Skeptics are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Mystics, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Skeptics' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Men are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Women, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Mens' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Republicans are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Democrats, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Republicans' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Muslims are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Christians, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Muslims' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

I think that when you apply Furcifer's same line of reasoning across other groups it becomes more apparent why it qualifies as a fallacious, over-broad generalization.

But again, I'm open to hearing why I'm wrong.

Please explain.

lol, no, I'm afraid vegetarianism isn't a religion or a political party. The fallacy is yours, it's called false analogy.

It isn't about the groups it's about the preaching.

 

[tesscaline]

Does cooking food kill bacteria, viruses and parasites or not?

False dichotomy.

Cooking CAN kill bacteria, viruses, and parasites. It does not always, depending upon how contaminated the meat is, and what it's contaminated with. Cooking meat also does not address some forms of food borne illness, such as botulism.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No. I increase my risk of death, and being maimed, and having life long health problems just by walking out my front door. I refuse to life my life in fear of what might happen.

<snip>

Avoiding leaving your home is not comparable to cutting down on the amount of red and processed meat you eat. The former is far more likely to have devastating effects on your enjoyment of life than the latter. Better analogies would be wearing a seat belt or having a regular medical check-up. I.e. Relatively small changes that you would either not notice after a while and/or find disconcerting if you didn't do them.

 

[tesscaline]

Avoiding leaving your home is not comparable to cutting down on the amount of red and processed meat you eat. The former is far more likely to have devastating effects on your enjoyment of life than the latter. Better analogies would be wearing a seat belt or having a regular medical check-up. I.e. Relatively small changes that you would either not notice after a while and/or find disconcerting if you didn't do them.

Ivor, how do you know how much "red and processed" meat I eat? How do you know that cutting down on it wouldn't be of great notice, or wouldn't drastically affect my health (in a negative fashion)? You're making a LOT of assumptions here.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

False dichotomy.

Cooking CAN kill bacteria, viruses, and parasites. It does not always, depending upon how contaminated the meat is, and what it's contaminated with. Cooking meat also does not address some forms of food borne illness, such as botulism.

You're engaging in the Nirvana/Perfect solution fallacy.

In general cooking food makes it safer to eat and easier to extract nutrients from. Yes or no?

 

[tesscaline]

You're engaging in the Nirvana/Perfect solution fallacy.

No, I'm not.

In general cooking food makes it safer to eat and easier to extract nutrients from. Yes or no?

That's not what you asked me before.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, how do you know how much "red and processed" meat I eat? How do you know that cutting down on it wouldn't be of great notice, or wouldn't drastically affect my health (in a negative fashion)? You're making a LOT of assumptions here.

I'm not assuming anything. You may be a vegan for all I know. Why are you taking my question so personally? I'm interested to know why some people are so attached to eating meat that any suggestion (backed up with evidence) that cutting down might be beneficial to their health is either dismissed, ignored or violently rejected.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, I'm not.

You felt the need to point out that cooking is not a perfect solution for killing all bacteria, viruses and parasites.

That's not what you asked me before.

I know exactly what I asked you, but as you felt the need to be ridiculously pedantic in your reply, I thought I'd ask a similar question with virtually no wiggle room. I see you've managed to avoid answering it though, so I've obviously failed. Well done. You win.

 

[citizenzen]

Nice try, Citizenzen, but I don't buy it. The original point you made was this:

Actually, you're wrong. The first reply I had to his post was ...

Oh my. Paint with an overly broad brush much?

While there was more to my post, it was really his hasty generalization that I made a point to rebut. The rest was just mockery. Which I must confess, I do enjoy engaging in.

His post and your reply to it had nothing to do with knowing what vegetarians think and say, but merely that preachy vegetarians tend to tell you what not to do, and that he tried to avoid doing that.

I don't think he tried to avoid that at all.

Let's look back at his original statement ...

Vegetarians are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Meat eaters, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

He doesn't use the term "preachy vegetarians".

He uses the term "vegetarians."

And then he goes on to say that [all] vegetarians are much more [likely?] to tell you why you shouldn't do something.

Right there he assumes to know what is more or less likely to come out of the mind and mouth of vegetarians ... not just "preachy" vegetarians, but all vegetarians.

Please read his own words and dissect them to show me where I am wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

While there was more to my post, it was really his hasty generalization that I made a point to rebut. The rest was just mockery. Which I must confess, I do enjoy engaging in.

Actually the entire post was mockery and a complete failure to comprehend the observation being made.

He doesn't use the term "preachy vegetarians".
He uses the term "vegetarians."

Context apparently means nothing. This was the topic of discussion, preachy vegetarians.

And then he goes on to say that [all] vegetarians are much more [likely?] to tell you why you shouldn't do something.

Yes, the preachy ones. That's clearly the topic.

Right there he assumes to know what is more or less likely to come out of the mind and mouth of vegetarians ... not just "preachy" vegetarians, but all vegetarians.

Please read his own words and dissect them to show me where I am wrong.

No, not all vegetarians. That was made clear to you numerous times. You are lying.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm interested to know why some people are so attached to eating meat that any suggestion (backed up with evidence) that cutting down might be beneficial to their health is either dismissed, ignored or violently rejected.

The root cause is simple;people don't like being told what to do.

I've said this before, but as a vegetarian I probably ate "healthier" but put in the time necessary to do so. For someone who eats at restaurants and gas stations a lot a vegetarian diet probably won't do you any good. If you don't prepare your own food and tend to be on the lazier side when it comes to meals but still enjoy variety you're probably better off eating meat. I can see some people rejecting a vegetarian diet because of this, but as I said, the majority of people just don't like being told what to do.

There's also probably a bit of "meat eaters guilt" in there as well.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The root cause is simple;people don't like being told what to do.

I've said this before, but as a vegetarian I probably ate "healthier" but put in the time necessary to do so. For someone who eats at restaurants and gas stations a lot a vegetarian diet probably won't do you any good. If you don't prepare your own food and tend to be on the lazier side when it comes to meals but still enjoy variety you're probably better off eating meat. I can see some people rejecting a vegetarian diet because of this, but as I said, the majority of people just don't like being told what to do.

There's also probably a bit of "meat eaters guilt" in there as well.

You will note I said "cut down", not become vegetarian. There seems to be a desire amongst meat eaters to maintain a belief that their personal level of meat consumption is harmless or even beneficial and therefore there is no reason to lower their intake.

 

[citizenzen]

You are lying.

Wow. That's quite a claim.

Please show me how "I'm lying."

As you are accusing me of this, please be detailed.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

 

[Furcifer]

You will note I said "cut down", not become vegetarian. There seems to be a desire amongst meat eaters to maintain a belief that their personal level of meat consumption is harmless or even beneficial and therefore there is no reason to lower their intake.

Sorry, I may have overlooked the "cut down" part (I suppose it's all a matter of to what extent anyways).

Do you mean a reduction in terms of overall intake or portion size? There may be some confusion in terms of "more vegetarian meals" and "smaller portions" and how beneficial they are or how "harmless" they are. I can see how a smaller portion size could be viewed as equally harmful. Something had to die to be on the plate, so everyone's guilty of "harm", the fact that x numbers of cows didn't die because of it seems irrelevant.

 

[MoeFaux]

I didn't try meat until I was 17, and have dabbled between strict vegetarianism and occasional meat-eating on and off since then. And I am so, so sick of having people tell me what the heck I "should" be eating. To the point that it makes me really angry.

I started off by trying chicken, and had that a few times before my 18th birthday. From then until nearly 20, I was back to vegetarianism. Moving to Vegas and being around interesting folks going to interesting restaurants found me trying fish, which I was okay with. My first bite of steak was from a friend's plate at age 20. I thought it was absolutely revolting. But I kept at it, and managed to have beef occasionally. Still, when I was eating meat, I wasn't eating it with any kind of regularity.

A few years ago I had a very strong reaction to the idea of eating animals. It was around the same time I was making some big changes in who I was as a person, and evaluating my beliefs. I just couldn't be okay with something dying for my dinner. PETA had no influence on me; I think they're bonkers. It was simply my own ethical values had changed so that I felt badly at the idea of eating meat. And besides, my having meat was rather infrequent so it wasn't a big deal.

During this period of my vegetarianism, I was working at a restaurant and would get a lot of crap from the kitchen for my stance. It was the worst kid of "peer pressure" I've ever experienced, and it was almost malicious. Those kind of people aren't rare, they're people that I've encountered throughout my life, just in this instance they were an entire team of folks ganging up on me. The kind of folks who made me worry that they'd try to slip me some meat because they thought it was funny, or thought that they knew better. Enough of that would make anyone angry.

I started eating meat again last year. I missed sushi. I really, really missed delicious raw fish. So much. And I began to feel okay enough about fish that I would order sashimi when taken out to Japanese restaurants (3 occasions, exactly). I missed bacon, but I could live the rest of my life without bacon. It was the raw fish that I couldn't pass up.

Now, for the past few months, I've been eating chicken, but I don't like it. The chicken, or the idea of eating it. Flesh just isn't appealing to me. The texture, the idea of what it is (but the sashimi is different, for some reason, I suppose the texture), grosses me out. But I am eating chicken because it is the fastest and easiest way for me to get enough protein. I know there are other ways, yes, and I supplement my diet with those other ways. But I am 5'9" and weigh 120, and drop weight like it's nothing if I'm not very careful. I have to make myself eat to maintain my weight. Recently, I've moved and live in an area where I can work out outdoors. I'm not a fanatic; I'm more of a hobbyist. Just some activity a few times a week. And I've lost weight. Last month I was at 124. The weight has been dropping off and it's not what I want, I want to gain muscle. So, I'm eating chicken about 3 times a week. It's like I'm force-feeding myself, but it's preventative.

I know there are veg's and vegans who want to tell me to try other ways, but with the amount of time and effort I'm willing to put in, chicken consumption is just the easiest way to make sure I'm not missing out on nutrients and protein. I'm hoping eventually I'll be able to cut it back out. I don't like the idea of how the birds lived and died. I'm not okay with it. I'd rather raise and kill my own chickens so that my hand was involved; that's how I'd be "ethically okay" with it.

But, I don't think I can ever give up sushi again. My mouth is watering just thinking about a big plate of sashimi. That being said, I haven't had any in 8 months; it's a special occasion "going out" thing. And my ethics? I can bend my moral code around fish...which is what I'd use to slap someone if they want to challenge me over my lunch.

 

[Furcifer]

Please show me how "I'm lying."

As you are accusing me of this, please be detailed.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Certainly. He's the fallacious claim;

And then he goes on to say that [all] vegetarians are much more [likely?] to tell you why you shouldn't do something.

I never said "all", that's a lie and a misrepresentation.

Here's what I said actually:

I think typically "preaching" is about why people shouldn't eat meat ie; shouldn't do what they do.

Vegetarians are much more (eta "likely") to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Meat eaters, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

The first sentence, the one you continue to omit to perpetuate the lie, clearly outlines the context of the discussion; "preaching".

Even if you assumed by forgetting to put "preachy" in front of "vegetarians" meant it applied to "all" vegetarians, "much more likely" does not mean "all".

Seeing as I didn't type the word "likely", and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I once again clearly stated this didn't apply to "all" vegetarians.

Where did I say most? I think many do, and that's why there are varying opinions on how "preachy" vegetarians can be. "Most" however would probably be wrong, as "most" of the vegetarians I've met do so for religious reasons. They don't really try and justify it or get preachy about it, they just say it's part of their religion and leave it at that.

So despite the last sentence which clearly indicates, not all, and not even "most" vegetarians IMO are preachy you continued to perpetuate this falsehood.

On top of all that you are ignoring the actual observation I was making. It's that two people can be equally "preachy" ie; getting up on their soap box and telling people what to do and how to go about it, and the person saying "you shouldn't do this!" is going to sound more preachy than a person saying "you should do this!". Negative statements are going to come off as condemnation, while positive statements are going to come off as encouragement.

 

[citizenzen]

Seeing as I didn't type the word "likely", and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I once again clearly stated this didn't apply to "all" vegetarians.

Cool.

So will you then agree with the statement that vegetarians are no more likely to be preachy than any segment of the population?

Or ...

That the quality of preachiness is no more likely to be found in vegetarians, simply for the fact that they eat a vegetarian diet?

I just want to make sure that we're clear here.