Going Vegetarian

[BronyPony 575]

Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein

 

 

Also, screw you. My brain is functions perfectly normally and I don't appreciate you insinuating vegetarians don't have properly developed minds. 

I didn't insult anyone. I simply gave scientific evidence. If you want to interpret it as an insult, I could give two pony flanks.

 

Albert Einstein ate meats many days of his life(which was the years where he had his miracle year). It was during his elderly years that he switched to vegetarianism. Also, much of Albert Einstein's work involved combining two equations that were developed by other physicists(hence he worked in a patent office being able to access most of the material that came in there, he had access to much of the information there. If he didn't work in a patent office, he wouldn't have become the "genius" that is still known today.

 

For Leonardo Da Vinci, there is creative genius and intelligent genius. Creative genius? Yes. Intelligent genius? No. Most of his designs, as some seem to make misconceptions of, were merely ideas. In fact, most of his designs did not work, only modified later on to make them work.

 

Most of the equations and theoretical models that Nikola Tesla brought out were from Michael Faraday's equations developed way before Tesla's time(as many seem to forget to talk about). It was Michael Faraday who discovered electromagnetic induction, which Tesla did use many of his inventions.

 

EDIT: Look, I'm not saying that people who are vegetarian should stop being vegetarian. I am stating(based on what seems to be the debate) that people shouldn't be forced to live a vegetarian life-style. Just like how I don't force my religion on you.

Edited June 12, 2013 by BronyPony

[BronyWithRage 26]

On a somewhat related note which I've been waiting for a while to post; I am confused with these people who will happily eat a steak or a chop, but wince if they so much as see a cow's heart. If you're going to eat meat, you got to eat the offal too. And there are certain realities about eating meat. I wouldn't like to think of how much good, nutritional food goes to waste.

Edited June 12, 2013 by BronyWithRage

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Well apparently i dont know what im talking about..... Being son of 2 nutritional annalists i dont know what i was thinking that i knew something about nutrition.

 

 

You're wrong. There are plenty of exceptions to this. You don't know what you're talking about. 

 

 

 

 

As somebody that gets his iron levels checked twice a week (I sell plasma) I can safely say you're wrong. Spinach contains lots of iron. So do beans and many other easily accessible food sources. If anything vegetarians need to be concerned about getting vitamin B-12, which I happen to get from cheese and eggs. 

 

 

 

 

We have no problem gaining muscle mass. Meat eaters can have the exact same problem. You're misinformed.  

 

 

 

 

 

I found exceptions to all of these and it was easy. I didn't even have to look because most of this is common knowledge. Your "facts" are not "facts". Vegetarians cut out the middle man to get our nutrition. If anything we're more efficient.  

 

I shall leave you to your own ignorance.

[Circadian 1,273]

 

 

Albert Einstein ate meats many days of his life(which was the years where he had his miracle year). It was during his elderly years that he switched to vegetarianism. Also, much of Albert Einstein's work involved combining two equations that were developed by other physicists(hence he worked in a patent office being able to access most of the material that came in there, he had access to much of the information there. If he didn't work in a patent office, he wouldn't have become the "genius" that is still known today.   For Leonardo Da Vinci, there is creative genius and intelligent genius. Creative genius? Yes. Intelligent genius? No. Most of his designs, as some seem to make misconceptions of, were merely ideas. In fact, most of his designs did not work, only modified later on to make them work.   Most of the equations and theoretical models that Nikola Tesla brought out were from Michael Faraday's equations developed way before Tesla's time(as many seem to forget to talk about). It was Michael Faraday who discovered electromagnetic induction, which Tesla did use many of his inventions.

 

Are you seriously trying to downplay the achievements of these three men just to prove a point? Here are some more I guess. 

 

Sir C.V. Raman, Indiant Physicist; 1930 Nobel Laureate in Physics

Linus Pauling, American Quantum Chemist and Biochemist; 1954 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and 1962 Nobel Laureate in Peace 

Srinivasa Ramanujan, Indian Mathematician

 

Look, I get that essential nutrients can be found in meat but those can all be obtained from other sources as well. I checked out your link and couldn't think of a single thing. 

 

 

 

I shall leave you to your own ignorance.

 

 

You couldn't even spell "analyst" right.

[Tia Is Best Pony 310]

yeah so a few problems.. humans need to eat meat to stay healthy and if you want to be real really scrawny then by all means dont 

[. eris . 1,661]

Wow, this thread still exists!?

 

Seriously, I thought we all agreed to disagree. Vegetarians are healthier, us carnivores just like eating meat too much to give it up. *shrug* I have no problem admitting my vice when it comes to meat. I may die fat, riddled with heart disease, and longing for a piece of asparagus, but I'll die happy. Meanwhile Circadian will die lean, tanned, fit and devilishly good looking, and will say with his dying breath, "I wish I ate more bacon."

 

 

 

 

[SBaby 660]

No. The whole point of this thread is to give reasons why people should consider going veggie. If you truly don't care, stop replying.

 

I'd like to quote a brief passagee if I may. Mind you, it's a Bible passage. But I think in this one case, it's pretty relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Matthew 6:1 (NKJV) "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.

 

So what does this mean? In a nutshell, it means 'do what you feel is right'. But don't make a huge spectacle of it. If you make a huge spectacle of it, that's all that people are ever going to see when you try to argue why you do it.

 

 

Why is this relevant?  Because since your first post in this topic, all I've seen is, "Look at me!  I'm a Vegetarian and you're not!  Shame on you!".  Seventeen pages of essentially this statement.

 

If you're a vegetarian, that's fine.  If you want to give advice, that's fine.  But there's no reason to go all 'Fern Gully' and shove it in everyone's faces.

Edited June 13, 2013 by SBaby

[The Soldier 2,043]

You couldn't even spell "analyst" right.

Not much of us would really give a care how to spell analyst right now. Wasn't this thread about being a vegetarian ? Or did you perhaps change this into a thread about being a "Grammar Nazi"?

[Steve 290]

all i can really say to you and other vegetarians is thank you for leaving the good food for me, because i honestly hate vegetables

[Dark Moon 965]

Also, screw you. My brain is functions perfectly normally and I don't appreciate you insinuating vegetarians don't have properly developed minds. 

 

I would like to challenge that brother, hehe, since I know certain "things" that I'm not going to mention. Kidding your alright, some of the time. XD

 

But yeah, lets look at nature shall we. Large numbers of dumb herbivores that only survive because of their massive numbers. Small numbers of highly intelligent predators. So yes, eating meat does make you more intelligent, according to other species. Actually life would never have adapted and evolved beyond the very first life forms if their weren't predators to force change, which makes the prey smarter, which in turn made the predators even more intelligent. That is the story of life. Survival of the fittest. It also made our species intelligent as well. Check mate on that aspect of this debate.

 

Being a Vegetarian does not make you healthier, I cannot stress that enough. Most meat eaters only have access to unhealthy products. Like myself, mmmmm BACON!!!! I had two baconators this week, but I'm still not gaining back the 8 pounds I lost at the end of the school year. Maybe I have a worm...fun. XD

 

To conclude once again, eat whatever you want to eat, just don't force your beliefs on others. Sounds awfully similar to religion.....

Edited June 13, 2013 by Dark Moon

[BronyPony 575]

I would like to challenge that brother, hehe, since I know certain "things" that I'm not going to mention. Kidding your alright, some of the time. XD

 

But yeah, lets look at nature shall we. Large numbers of dumb herbivores that only survive because of their massive numbers. Small numbers of highly intelligent predators. So yes, eating meat does make you more intelligent, according to other species. Actually life would never have adapted and evolved beyond the very first life forms if their weren't predators to force change, which makes the prey smarter, which in turn made the predators even more intelligent. That is the story of life. Survival of the fittest. It also made our species intelligent as well. Check mate on that aspect of this debate.

 

Being a Vegetarian does not make you healthier, I cannot stress that enough. Most meat eaters only have access to unhealthy products. Like myself, mmmmm BACON!!!! I had two baconators this week, but I'm still not gaining back the 8 pounds I lost at the end of the school year. Maybe I have a worm...fun. XD

 

To conclude once again, eat whatever you want to eat, just don't force your beliefs on others. Sounds awfully similar to religion.....

As pointed out in my post.  

 

 

 

Are you seriously trying to downplay the achievements of these three men just to prove a point? Here are some more I guess. 

 

Sir C.V. Raman, Indiant Physicist; 1930 Nobel Laureate in Physics

Linus Pauling, American Quantum Chemist and Biochemist; 1954 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and 1962 Nobel Laureate in Peace 

Srinivasa Ramanujan, Indian Mathematician

 

Look, I get that essential nutrients can be found in meat but those can all be obtained from other sources as well. I checked out your link and couldn't think of a single thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

You couldn't even spell "analyst" right.

There is no downplaying, there is simply making a point.

 

Yes, we must believe the internetz on every fact made. Was he a vegetarian during his child hood years? Also, he became a vegetarian in his elderly years.

 

Not all these people were complete vegetarians. Just because a scientist is a vegetarian for 1 year doesn't mean he was a complete one.

 

Also, did you know Albert Einstein ate boiled eggs?

[Pripyat Pony 2,608]

Like religion, vegetarianism is like having rude bits. It's fine to be proud of having one, but that's no reason to wave it around in public and shove it in people's faces.

 

I think I made a post earlier about how eating meat developed the brain of early prototype humans. That's not an opinion, it's scientific fact and there's no point in trying to deny it now when the fact is, that the reason homo sapiens sapiens has such a big brain now, is from eating meat.

 

http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

Although this isn't the first such assertion from archaeologists and evolutionary biologists, the new studies demonstrate, respectively, that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet and that meat-eating was a crucial element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind.

Yet both "extreme sides" of the meat argument — the unapologetic meat eater and the raw vegan — should remember that few so-called natural foods today were around as little as a few hundred years ago, from the modern invention called corn-fed beef to genetically altered strains of Queen Anne's lace called the carrot.

From health to the environment, there are many reasons to go vegetarian, go vegan and even go raw, but evolution isn't one of them.

A more detailed link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004093508.htm

[SasQ 1,355]

If you can supplement the nutrients like protein lost from not eating meat then your fine.

there is NO substitute for good old fashioned animal protein.

 

What proteins lost are you telling about exactly? Do you at least know what proteins are? Every living organism is made of proteins and plants have them equally much as meat. Please stop repeating folklore myths and propaganda (especially calling them "facts").

 

Animal proteins help develop your brain, and helps to build healthy, lean muscle.

 

I eat meat, but from what you've said above it appears that I'm doing it wrong, since I'm skinny (probably it's because I like the way I am, so my body follows).

 

A vegetarian diet lacks these animal proteins, and therefore will NEVER be able to be as healthy as those who consume meat AND veggies. Sure you may be thin, and high energy, but your muscles are going to suffer in the long run, as well as your mental development.

 

Well, then tell it to the gorillas. They eat mostly plants, fruits, succulents etc., but no meat at all, and they don't appear skinny or weak at all. What magic do they use to produce their tough muscles from all these "protein-lacking" plants?

 

 

The last one's face tells it all what do they think about the "Muscles are meat, so you need to eat meat to have muscles" folklore ;-J

 

However, the lack of meat (presumably iron, but probably other things too) caused these problems to become much, much worse

 

"There are no data to indicate that the bioavailability of dietary iron is a significant factor in the pathogenesis of anemia and iron deficiency"

[source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257743/ I'll be using it more below.]

 

Why there are so many people thinking that meat is a good source of iron? -,-

 

Iron is never used as pure metallic iron in living organisms, since this form is toxic for them due to its ability to react with oxygen and leaving free radicals. The only form which can be absorbed by organisms is "organic iron", that is, different compounds of iron, like iron salts, or some more complex protein molecules containing iron at their active sites.

 

In animal sources, iron is mostly contained in the heme molecules, which are mostly used in hemoglobin and myoglobin proteins. Hemoglobin is used in the red blood cells (around 60%..70% of the body mass) for transporting oxygen around the body. Myoglobin is used in muscles for the storage and use of oxygen. But it is only around 10% of the body mass, despite the fact that animals have more muscles than blood. Iron is also stored in some other forms in better blood-supplied organs, like liver or kidneys.

 

So if you're looking for a good animal source of iron, you'd need to drink their blood and eat their livers, since these are the richest sources of iron in animals, not their muscles :-P Bon apetit.

 

Nevertheless, meat, or even liver, actually contains less iron than most plant sources. For some actual figures, let's look at some comparison:

Beef and lamb: only 3.7 mg for every 100 g.

It's the same amount as in bean! :-P And nearly as much as in green leafy plants (like salad, 3.6 mg).

But let's look at other plant sources, which have even more!

Squash and pumpkin seeds: 15 mg.

And if you eat 100 g of dark chocolate or cocoa, you'll get as much as 17 mg. That is around 4.6 beefs :-P

I'm starting to consider becoming chocolatearian :-J I like chocolate more than animal viscera. I'm not a vampire either to drink their blood.

 

Too much iron is also not good for us, and can lead to diseases too. Iron is an efficient catalyst for electron transfer and free-radical reactions which also means that "free" (inorganic) iron (ie. when it is not bound to protein or other organic molecules) is potentially toxic and that organisms need to minimize their exposure to it. Too much iron leads to production of harmful free radicals, and interferes with metabolism, causing damage to organs like the heart and liver.

 

To close the iron discussion:

 

"The principal, and probably the only, physiological and primary determinant of how much iron is absorbed is the systemic need for iron. [...] More iron is absorbed from the diet in a state of iron deficiency and less is absorbed when iron depots are replete."

So you can eat as much meat as you want, and you'll get no benefit from it nevertheless, unless your organism really needs it. That's what I was writing about in my recent post.

 

Well apparently i dont know what im talking about..... Being son of 2 nutritional annalists i dont know what i was thinking that i knew something about nutrition.

 

Being a son of a car engineer doesn't make me feel more smart about cars and know how to repair engines. Are you trying to tell that knowledge is hereditary? Or maybe that it somehow comes down from your parents upon you in some magical way? SO far you haven't shown much knowledge about nutrition, not to mention biochemistry, beside regurgitating some folklore myths. So why should we trust your opinions (oh, sorry, "facts") about nutrition at all?

 

We evolved from primates, which also do eat meat.

 

Which primates exactly do eat meat?

Do all of them eat meat?

Gorillas are already excluded. Any other examples?

 

Anyways these are nutrient rich and stimulated brain development which lead to language and tool making.

 

So what is stopping other carnivores, like lions, cougars, tigers etc. from evolving and developing language and tools? Maybe it is the fact that eating meat (or plants, whatsoever), has actually nothing to do with intelligence? :-P

 

Erm... *hem...* http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Human#Diet

 

If there would be written at Wikipedia that there are spiders in human diet, would it mean that you should start eating spiders from now on, to "fulfill your natural instincts"?

 

I'm deeply interested in science, and I read much scientific papers about different experiments, original textbooks from 19th century etc. This caused me to stop trusting Wikipedia long ago, since there are tons of bullshit spoon-feeded to us. I know many experiments which contradict claims stated at Wikipedia, and many scientific theories, experimentally verified, which are censored from being published by the mainstream. Wikipedia included, since it's just the propaganda of the mainstream and a democratic consensus of the majority. But majority can be wrong, and in many cases it is wrong. Knowledge isn't democratic. One doesn't vote over 2+2=4.

 

Simply saying that you are or are not something doesn't make it so. I could say that I'm not white and that I'm actually black until I'm blue in the face. No amount of stating that will make it true.

 

You are right to this point: when speaking about real "facts" or "objective truths". It applies to 2+2=4 quite well. But it doesn't apply to mere opinions which you're trying to call "facts" here.

 

You cannot will away the fact that human beings are omnivores.

 

How being an omnivore can be interpreted that I have to eat meat? Doesn't it simply means that my digestive system can handle with many different food types and I can choose? What you're trying to tell me is like giving me a choice, "You can eat X or Y", were to mean that I have to eat both X and Y. If you call this valid logic then I'm out.

 

Unless you're saying you're not human, either, but then we have the exact same problem.

 

Oh, so now vegetarians are not humans? Niiiice... 9_9

 

I'm leading a fully and truly healthy life and I don't eat meat. Your simple "fact" is not in fact a fact. It is an opinion. The actual fact is you can lead a fully and truly healthy life without eating meat because I'm doing it right now.

 

That's what I'm talking about. This one counter-example of yours contradicts the claims of @@Clover Heart and @, and in science one counter-example is enough to invalidate the whole theory. Unfortunately it's not enough to invalidate religious beliefs or folklore myths.

 

If you have read articles or specific scientific journals about why humans eat meat instead of vegetables, they give very good reasons why humans need meat to improve our intelligence and to become more efficient.

 

So what about all those hamburger eaters dumber than a box of hammers? Shouldn't these huge amounts of cow steaks already make the IQ world record bearers out of them? Do you have any scientific evidence (something more than just a coincidence or a mere correlation) of how eating meat causes intelligence? Because I know lots of meat-eaters which are dumb, as well as many vegetarians which are not much smarter. So I see no cause-effect relationship between eating meat or vegetables and intelligence. More on that below:

 

Notice how all the greatest scientists in the world eat meat? If you can find one that does not, please post his or her name.

Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein

 

"Anna was eating meat and she won a lottery.

Fred was a vegetarian and he's been run over by a car." :-P

 

Do you really think that eating meat (or vegetables) has anything to do with intelligence or knowledge?

 

For Leonardo Da Vinci, there is creative genius and intelligent genius. Creative genius? Yes. Intelligent genius? No. Most of his designs, as some seem to make misconceptions of, were merely ideas. In fact, most of his designs did not work, only modified later on to make them work.

 

Oh, so if some great scientist was smart, but not meat-eater, then he must be a thief or just some creative dumbass with too much luck?

 

Most of the equations and theoretical models that Nikola Tesla brought out were from Michael Faraday's equations developed way before Tesla's time (as many seem to forget to talk about). It was Michael Faraday who discovered electromagnetic induction, which Tesla did use many of his inventions.

 

Yeah, and other scientists are using the alphabet, which is not their own invention too, so they're not geniuses either, since alphabet has been invented by some genius long time before them (meat-eater, I guess). Do I follow your line of thoughts correctly?

 

BTW what do you really know about Michael Faraday's work? Have you read them at least? (I did.) He was a genius, it's true, but not more ingenious than Leonardo da Vinci, since Faraday was also a "creative genius" type, and he lacked mathematical skills (which was not much the case with our friend Leonardo though). And some of Faraday's ideas were wrong too, like his "lines of force".

Edited June 13, 2013 by SasQ

[Dark Moon 965]

 

 

So what is stopping other carnivores, like lions, cougars, tigers etc. from evolving and developing language and tools? Maybe it is the fact that eating meat (or plants, whatsoever), has actually nothing to do with intelligence? :-P

 

There are several factors that made us evolve to be intelligent starting with our adaption of becoming bipedal, and yes a diet of eating other animals was part of it. Humanity is a success story really, we were literally at the right place at the right . We are no longer like primates because we ate meat, among other things. Our brains never would have developed if it wasn't for eating meat,  a coastal/swamp diet to be exact in the then swamp of Ethiopia, cradle of humanity. We never would have gotten enough nutrients and what not for brain development. 

Paleoanthropology is on my side friend. You lose, this aspect of the debate is done. 

 

When I said primates, I meant our early ancestors from which we evolved, who ate meat. 

[BronyPony 575]

What proteins lost are you telling about exactly? Do you at least know what proteins are? Every living organism is made of proteins and plants have them equally much as meat. Please stop repeating folklore myths and propaganda (especially calling them "facts").

 

 

I eat meat, but from what you've said above it appears that I'm doing it wrong, since I'm skinny (probably it's because I like the way I am, so my body follows).

 

 

Well, then tell it to the gorillas. They eat mostly plants, fruits, succulents etc., but no meat at all, and they don't appear skinny or weak at all. What magic do they use to produce their tough muscles from all these "protein-lacking" plants?

 

 

The last one's face tells it all what do they think about the "Muscles are meat, so you need to eat meat to have muscles" folklore ;-J

 

 

"There are no data to indicate that the bioavailability of dietary iron is a significant factor in the pathogenesis of anemia and iron deficiency"

[source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257743/ I'll be using it more below.]

 

Why there are so many people thinking that meat is a good source of iron? -,-

 

Iron is never used as pure metallic iron in living organisms, since this form is toxic for them due to its ability to react with oxygen and leaving free radicals. The only form which can be absorbed by organisms is "organic iron", that is, different compounds of iron, like iron salts, or some more complex protein molecules containing iron at their active sites.

 

In animal sources, iron is mostly contained in the heme molecules, which are mostly used in hemoglobin and myoglobin proteins. Hemoglobin is used in the red blood cells (around 60%..70% of the body mass) for transporting oxygen around the body. Myoglobin is used in muscles for the storage and use of oxygen. But it is only around 10% of the body mass, despite the fact that animals have more muscles than blood. Iron is also stored in some other forms in better blood-supplied organs, like liver or kidneys.

 

So if you're looking for a good animal source of iron, you'd need to drink their blood and eat their livers, since these are the richest sources of iron in animals, not their muscles :-P Bon apetit.

 

Nevertheless, meat, or even liver, actually contains less iron than most plant sources. For some actual figures, let's look at some comparison:

Beef and lamb: only 3.7 mg for every 100 g.

It's the same amount as in bean! :-P And nearly as much as in green leafy plants (like salad, 3.6 mg).

But let's look at other plant sources, which have even more!

Squash and pumpkin seeds: 15 mg.

And if you eat 100 g of dark chocolate or cocoa, you'll get as much as 17 mg. That is around 4.6 beefs :-P

I'm starting to consider becoming chocolatearian :-J I like chocolate more than animal viscera. I'm not a vampire either to drink their blood.

 

Too much iron is also not good for us, and can lead to diseases too. Iron is an efficient catalyst for electron transfer and free-radical reactions which also means that "free" (inorganic) iron (ie. when it is not bound to protein or other organic molecules) is potentially toxic and that organisms need to minimize their exposure to it. Too much iron leads to production of harmful free radicals, and interferes with metabolism, causing damage to organs like the heart and liver.

 

To close the iron discussion:

 

"The principal, and probably the only, physiological and primary determinant of how much iron is absorbed is the systemic need for iron. [...] More iron is absorbed from the diet in a state of iron deficiency and less is absorbed when iron depots are replete."

So you can eat as much meat as you want, and you'll get no benefit from it nevertheless, unless your organism really needs it. That's what I was writing about in my recent post.

 

 

Being a son of a car engineer doesn't make me feel more smart about cars and know how to repair engines. Are you trying to tell that knowledge is hereditary? Or maybe that it somehow comes down from your parents upon you in some magical way? SO far you haven't shown much knowledge about nutrition, not to mention biochemistry, beside regurgitating some folklore myths. So why should we trust your opinions (oh, sorry, "facts") about nutrition at all?

 

 

Which primates exactly do eat meat?

Do all of them eat meat?

Gorillas are already excluded. Any other examples?

 

 

So what is stopping other carnivores, like lions, cougars, tigers etc. from evolving and developing language and tools? Maybe it is the fact that eating meat (or plants, whatsoever), has actually nothing to do with intelligence? :-P

 

 

If there would be written at Wikipedia that there are spiders in human diet, would it mean that you should start eating spiders from now on, to "fulfill your natural instincts"?

 

I'm deeply interested in science, and I read much scientific papers about different experiments, original textbooks from 19th century etc. This caused me to stop trusting Wikipedia long ago, since there are tons of bullshit spoon-feeded to us. I know many experiments which contradict claims stated at Wikipedia, and many scientific theories, experimentally verified, which are censored from being published by the mainstream. Wikipedia included, since it's just the propaganda of the mainstream and a democratic consensus of the majority. But majority can be wrong, and in many cases it is wrong. Knowledge isn't democratic. One doesn't vote over 2+2=4.

 

 

You are right to this point: when speaking about real "facts" or "objective truths". It applies to 2+2=4 quite well. But it doesn't apply to mere opinions which you're trying to call "facts" here.

 

 

How being an omnivore can be interpreted that I have to eat meat? Doesn't it simply means that my digestive system can handle with many different food types and I can choose? What you're trying to tell me is like giving me a choice, "You can eat X or Y", were to mean that I have to eat both X and Y. If you call this valid logic then I'm out.

 

 

Oh, so now vegetarians are not humans? Niiiice... 9_9

 

 

That's what I'm talking about. This one counter-example of yours contradicts the claims of @@Clover Heart and @, and in science one counter-example is enough to invalidate the whole theory. Unfortunately it's not enough to invalidate religious beliefs or folklore myths.

 

 

So what about all those hamburger eaters dumber than a box of hammers? Shouldn't these huge amounts of cow steaks already make the IQ world record bearers out of them? Do you have any scientific evidence (something more than just a coincidence or a mere correlation) of how eating meat causes intelligence? Because I know lots of meat-eaters which are dumb, as well as many vegetarians which are not much smarter. So I see no cause-effect relationship between eating meat or vegetables and intelligence. More on that below:

 

 

"Anna was eating meat and she won a lottery.

Fred was a vegetarian and he's been run over by a car." :-P

 

Do you really think that eating meat (or vegetables) has anything to do with intelligence or knowledge?

 

 

Oh, so if some great scientist was smart, but not meat-eater, then he must be a thief or just some creative dumbass with too much luck?

 

 

Yeah, and other scientists are using the alphabet, which is not their own invention too, so they're not geniuses either, since alphabet has been invented by some genius long time before them (meat-eater, I guess). Do I follow your line of thoughts correctly?

 

BTW what do you really know about Michael Faraday's work? Have you read them at least? (I did.) He was a genius, it's true, but not more ingenious than Leonardo da Vinci, since Faraday was also a "creative genius" type, and he lacked mathematical skills (which was not much the case with our friend Leonardo though). And some of Faraday's ideas were wrong too, like his "lines of force".

There are many factors of genetics involved. And actually many primates eat meat, such as bugs. Gorillas do eat meat, but very little of it. It all just adds up to what you genetically are.

[Clover Heart 978]

Mrrrrr.... I was hoping to have been done with this topic, already...

 

"There are no data to indicate that the bioavailability of dietary iron is a significant factor in the pathogenesis of anemia and iron deficiency"

[source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257743/ I'll be using it more below.]

 

Why there are so many people thinking that meat is a good source of iron? -,-

Cutting it there, because it's long and the rest is irrelevant to my point.

 

I don't know if it was anemia and I don't know if it was iron. Hence, "presumably." It was something in the meat that was making him better. As I already explained, since his health was in such poor condition, it wasn't worth it for them to figure out exactly what it was that he was missing when they were able to solve his problems much more quickly by him eating meat.

 

 

If there would be written at Wikipedia that there are spiders in human diet, would it mean that you should start eating spiders from now on, to "fulfill your natural instincts"?

 

I'm deeply interested in science, and I read much scientific papers about different experiments, original textbooks from 19th century etc. This caused me to stop trusting Wikipedia long ago, since there are tons of bullshit spoon-feeded to us. I know many experiments which contradict claims stated at Wikipedia, and many scientific theories, experimentally verified, which are censored from being published by the mainstream. Wikipedia included, since it's just the propaganda of the mainstream and a democratic consensus of the majority. But majority can be wrong, and in many cases it is wrong. Knowledge isn't democratic. One doesn't vote over 2+2=4.

No. Naturally, I would be skeptical of something like that. I don't understand why people are so incredibly anti-Wiki, nowadays. Like because it's on Wiki automatically makes it not true. Wiki's standards are actually rather high for what it allows in an article. Are there some jerks who troll it? Of course. However, the thing people seem to so easily forget is that Wiki requires sources. And lots of them. If you're not sure of something, go to the source.

 

If I had something that required more specific knowledge, then I would have sought out more specific sources. The fact is that this is common knowledge, and Wiki backs me up on that. That's why I put it.

 

You are right to this point: when speaking about real "facts" or "objective truths". It applies to 2+2=4 quite well. But it doesn't apply to mere opinions which you're trying to call "facts" here.

 

That humans are omnivores is no longer fact? When did this happen and why was I not informed?

 

How being an omnivore can be interpreted that I have to eat meat? Doesn't it simply means that my digestive system can handle with many different food types and I can choose? What you're trying to tell me is like giving me a choice, "You can eat X or Y", were to mean that I have to eat both X and Y. If you call this valid logic then I'm out.

I'm not saying anyone has to eat meat. I'm just saying that it's okay to do so, because it's in our nature. And before you get to it, I'm not saying that everything in human nature should be acted upon. However, eating is the most basic and fundamental of instincts. Other than eating within our own species, things which are directly harmful (by which I mean poisions, toxins, etc, not merely something which has been fried) or non-food items, or if their overall diet is directly causing them a problem (someone eating McDonald's everyday and their liver is failing) there's no good reason to tell someone to restrict their diet.

 

Oh, so now vegetarians are not humans? Niiiice... 9_9

I should think you would have picked up on that what I said was tongue-in-cheek. My point was that humans are omnivorous. And (jokingly, mind you) said that if one's not an omnivore, regardless of one's diet of choice, that would make one not human.

[Cuhpcakes 15]

I'm clueless to why so many of you wish to justify eating flesh. If it for the sake of debate? Do you find it wrong to do so? Or do you simply not care about eating others?

 

I've changed my diet and haven't purposely devoured dairy or innocent creatures in like 2 months. My physical appearance improved drastically, but that may be due to my vigorous exercise as well.

 

I only eat around 60-80 grams of protein(only from food) and am seeing improvement in my muscular developement. Could I have gotten better results from eating meat protein? Perhaps, but I'm getting stronger regardless.

 

My friend asked me what I would do if I was trapped on a deserted island with no source of plant life; and only animal occupants. I smiled and responded "I would gladly die."

[Sugar Pea 2,681]

Is it really?

Sometimes I think about being a vegetarian myself, because I think of all those poor animals who died to feed us. Then I think, "But I don't think I can live a day without meat, it's so delicious!" 

However, I'm not sure if it's in the right or wrong here.  
Innocent, defenseless animals die to feed us....but meat is full of protein and is really healthy for you.

 

 

Do you think eating meat is ethical?
If not, back up your reasoning.

[Moonlight 7,279]

As a vegetarian, it's not really unethical. Who cares, really? Just keep eating meat. I don't eat it myself because I can't chew it and it just tastes awful to me. Eating meat isn't necessary, as people can get protein from other things, but eh, some people find it good tasting. Who am I to tell them otherwise.?

[Red Diamond 549]

You need meat for protein and iron, and your body needs it to live, like carbohydrates, and other cells.

 

If you hate meat, there are many ways to gain protein, like eating insects(I know this is disgusting, but I tried a cricket, it wasn't half bad. Not alive of course). It is a large source of protein.

[Scootalove 10,685]

Eating meat is actually okay because, we know that slaughterhouses are able to kill animals to turn them into meat. I'm neutral on this when it comes to killing innocent animals and eating them to survive.

[An Old Head 4,815]

Is it really?

 

Sometimes I think about being a vegetarian myself, because I think of all those poor animals who died to feed us. Then I think, "But I don't think I can live a day without meat, it's so delicious!" 

 

However, I'm not sure if it's in the right or wrong here.  

Innocent, defenseless animals die to feed us....but meat is full of protein and is really healthy for you.

 

 

Do you think eating meat is ethical?

If not, back up your reasoning.

 

Just to let you know that I've merged your thread with another one discussing the same topic; please use the search function in the future to see if your thread idea already exists

[ASocialyAwkwardPony 299]

If you don't want to eat meat, it's possible to find meat substitutes that are made out of Tofu or Soy Beans that are really good. I am personally mostly a vegetarian since I think the thought of eating a dead animal seems kind of nasty and unnecessary to me (though I still eat fish due to my culture, even if I get depressed when I do for the reason stated before). It's also good for the environment apparently to be a vegetarian as it's cheaper and less polluting to create plant food compared to the same amount of nutrition made through meat. But if you don't feel you can manage to live without meat it's still understandable since so much food in out society is based around it.

[Commissar Alexer 763]

I myself could never turn vegetarian. I just love meat too much and i like being a predator (even if i don't really hunt).

 

What we need are more efficient ways to get our daily steak without that the animals have too much to suffer.

[Rockymoo 2,136]

As a vegetarian, it's not really unethical. Who cares, really? Just keep eating meat. I don't eat it myself because I can't chew it and it just tastes awful to me. Eating meat isn't necessary, as people can get protein from other things, but eh, some people find it good tasting. Who am I to tell them otherwise.?

So much win in a single post. I tip my hat to you, madam.

 

As an omnivore, it's my personal belief that the only reason to have anything against eating meat(with the exception of religious policies) is that they just plain don't like the taste/texture of it. Much like how I'm not a big fan of spicy foods. It just doesn't appeal to me.

 

What I really can't stand is the pretentious hippie mindset that some vegetarians have. Who cares if you can get protein by other means. Do your own thing and shut up about it instead of going on a tangent about how eating meat isn't right(even though it 100% is; it's a part of nature in its purest form) or how superior you think you are for something that doesn't make you any better of a person than anyone else.