Almost a vegetarian!

[sand_dune]

That stuff way above, that's been called logic and sarcasm - it's neither logic nor sarcasm. It's called embarrassment. That is to say something really stupid and amass yourself a follower or two. Then it becomes group embarrassment.

I never suggested that people, like grazing animals, should eat grass off a field. Therefore your argument is gone, because it suggests that I did. Simple as it is.

Am not even gonna quote anyone. I'm staying out of this embarrassment. Have fun.

 

[Zethor]

That stuff way above, that's been called logic and sarcasm - it's neither logic nor sarcasm. It's called embarrassment. That is to say something really stupid and amass yourself a follower or two. Then it becomes group embarrassment.

I never suggested that people, like grazing animals, should eat grass off a field. Therefore your argument is gone, because it suggests that I did. Simple as it is.

Am not even gonna quote anyone. I'm staying out of this embarrassment. Have fun.

Don't take it personally. Several posters here have the tendency to high five each other particularly when a post aligns with their preconceived ideas, even if it's a string of red herrings and false equivalences. Helps keep self esteem up and everything.

 

[Uther]

I make one post saying I'm eating less meat and all the cray crays appear.
Saying that, I've just been to the supermarket, and you certainly have to put more effort in to buying food if you're trying to avoid meat!

 

[Tefal]

Don't take it personally. Several posters here have the tendency to high five each other particularly when a post aligns with their preconceived ideas, even if it's a string of red herrings and false equivalences. Helps keep self esteem up and everything.

you think you could live on the diet of a grazing animal?


good luck with that.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Yes processed meat is the worse of the bunch but the study also clearly shows that moderate to large daily consumption's of even UNPROCESSED red meat isn't good for you. (Hence why WHO have classified them as a 'probable' cause of cancer)

Anyway I can't be ass'd to argue anymore, some people here are clearly moderate to heavy consumers of nasty processed meat and are in denial because of it!

Doesn't pretty much everything cause cancer? Living for instance - if you live long enough you're almost certain to get cancer at some point. It's probably reasonable to note that some choices put you at higher risk of cancer than others but really it's always going to be about finding a balance that is acceptable to you.

LOL

you can't avoid playing some part in animal suffering much less consuming the products of animals

it isn't hypocritical to be concerned about animal welfare while also benefiting form the suffering of animals - I mean every time a tree is cut down thousands of insects die yet I'd wager most vegans still have wooden furniture of some description in their houses.

The argument is really about where you draw the line in terms of acceptable suffering - some people make the distinction at much higher levels than others, there's not necessarily a right or wrong in an absolute sense but it has to be ok for you. Ideally I'd suggest without causing unnecessary suffering to another but where you, or I, would draw the line on unnecessary is probably going to be quite different. You're right it's almost impossible to live a life where your choices don't impact negatively on other living organisms at some level - that probably doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to minimise the harm done where there's no benefit to causing extra suffering.

 

[Jono8]

You are definitely becoming a veggie because you are now telling EVERYONE about it.

Now we know to look forward to you telling us about it in every post.

Brilliant

 

[Angilion]

That stuff way above, that's been called logic and sarcasm - it's neither logic nor sarcasm. It's called embarrassment. That is to say something really stupid and amass yourself a follower or two. Then it becomes group embarrassment.

I never suggested that people, like grazing animals, should eat grass off a field. Therefore your argument is gone, because it suggests that I did. Simple as it is.

Am not even gonna quote anyone. I'm staying out of this embarrassment. Have fun.

I'm going to quote someone. Specifically, I am going to quote you suggesting that people, like grazing animals, should eat grass off a field. Because that's exactly what you suggested.

You seem to be doing it the right way as you're still eating fish, I'm trying to find the study I read but those who don't eat seafood or meat are missing vital nutrients to stay healthy.

That's nonsense. Ask any grazing animal. What people need is being able to separate nonsense from reality, even if there's a study into that nonsense.

You didn't quote me because you know I'm right. If you had quoted me, it would have been easy for anyone to click back through the posts. So you didn't quote me, hoping to obfuscate the issue.

I think you're trolling. Your posts are so silly that I think you're not silly enough to believe them.

 

[Angilion]

Don't take it personally. Several posters here have the tendency to high five each other particularly when a post aligns with their preconceived ideas, even if it's a string of red herrings and false equivalences. Helps keep self esteem up and everything.

Is that what you're doing here, when you're "high fiving" someone for saying that humans can eat the same diet as a grazing animal?

Or is it that you never bothered looking at what anyone had written before writing your reply?

 

[Angilion]

I make one post saying I'm eating less meat and all the cray crays appear.
Saying that, I've just been to the supermarket, and you certainly have to put more effort in to buying food if you're trying to avoid meat!

On the plus side, the extra effort you have to put in means that you will be likely to have a healthier diet if you're doing it right.

You could have a healthier omnivorous diet of course, since that's what humans are physically adapted to, but the relative ease of buying unhealthy omnivorous food makes it easier to have an unhealthy diet that way. It's sort of like choosing to not have a car and thus being required to walk or cycle to work instead.

 

[pooley]

On the plus side, the extra effort you have to put in means that you will be likely to have a healthier diet if you're doing it right.

You could have a healthier omnivorous diet of course, since that's what humans are physically adapted to, but the relative ease of buying unhealthy omnivorous food makes it easier to have an unhealthy diet that way. It's sort of like choosing to not have a car and thus being required to walk or cycle to work instead.

sauce?

 

[Zethor]

Is that what you're doing here, when you're "high fiving" someone for saying that humans can eat the same diet as a grazing animal?

Or is it that you never bothered looking at what anyone had written before writing your reply?

His choice of words has been unfortunate in some of the posts but he is not suggesting human beings should have the diet of grazing animals. You pulled that red herring out of your hat to facilitate the sarcastic follow-up.

On the plus side, the extra effort you have to put in means that you will be likely to have a healthier diet if you're doing it right.

You could have a healthier omnivorous diet of course, since that's what humans are physically adapted to, but the relative ease of buying unhealthy omnivorous food makes it easier to have an unhealthy diet that way. It's sort of like choosing to not have a car and thus being required to walk or cycle to work instead.

Human beings are physically adapted for a vegetarian, vegan or omnivorous diet. What we have here is yet another fallacy known as stacking the deck. You've repeteadly focused on our omnivorous diet adaptation but you don't ever mention we are perfectly adapted to survive solely on plants.

Considering most available studies at the moment, it's safe to conclude a vegetarian diet is healthier. Some of the posters here suggest the results of the studies that saw benefits in a vegetarian diet is explained by the assumption that vegetarians control their diet where as the others don't. Feel free to test that, maybe suggest the idea to researchers, I don't know. But until that happens, this is just an assumption, not a conclusive argument.

 

[RaohNS]

I think we should have a vegetarian section of the forums. That way we can move this thread to it. Then we can check in every day to see new posts by different people all titled: I'm a Vegetarian.

We will never click on them but can still stay amused.

 

[Zethor]

I think we should have a vegetarian section of the forums. That way we can move this thread to it. Then we can check in every day to see new posts by different people all titled: I'm a Vegetarian.

We will never click on them but can still stay amused.

I'm not a vegetarian, far from it.

 

[Uther]

Nor me!

 

[Angilion]

His choice of words has been unfortunate in some of the posts but he is not suggesting human beings should have the diet of grazing animals. You pulled that red herring out of your hat to facilitate the sarcastic follow-up.

I quoted him doing exactly that. Anyone who cares can click back through the posts and see for themself.

Human beings are physically adapted for a vegetarian, vegan or omnivorous diet. What we have here is yet another fallacy known as stacking the deck. You've repeteadly focused on our omnivorous diet adaptation but you don't ever mention we are perfectly adapted to survive solely on plants.

If humans were properly adapted for a plant-only diet, several things would be true that are not true:

1) We'd be able to digest a much wider variety of plants.
2) We'd be able to digest plants much more efficiently.
3) We'd be able to get B12 without eating dung or an artificial supplement.
4) We'd be unable to digest meat or would at least digest it very inefficiently.

It's possible for humans to survive almost solely on plants (there's that dung thing, but it is a very small amount) if they use artificial support. At the very least farming is required and to properly thrive preservation and rapid transport is required in order to get a wide enough variety of plants.

Humans are physically adapted to be versatile omnivores. So versatile that with advanced enough technology they can thrive almost entirely on plants alone and close to entirely on animal parts alone. But that doesn't mean that humans are naturally absolute herbivores or absolute carnivores. We're not physically adapted to either extreme. We're physically adapted to versatility and to having the ability to extend our range with the use of technology (farming is a form of technology).

Considering most available studies at the moment, it's safe to conclude a vegetarian diet is healthier. Some of the posters here suggest the results of the studies that saw benefits in a vegetarian diet is explained by the assumption that vegetarians control their diet where as the others don't. Feel free to test that, maybe suggest the idea to researchers, I don't know. But until that happens, this is just an assumption, not a conclusive argument.

Your own words are an appropriate reply to your own words:

What we have here is yet another fallacy known as stacking the deck.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

An omnivore has invited a vegetarian to a dinner party. Should the vegetarian inform her host of her dietary restrictions, or should she remain silent and hope for the best? Would it be rude to bring a dish? What is the host's duty in this situation?
When weighing questions such as these (and they can apply to other dietary restrictions besides vegetarianism), we like to remind ourselves that our goal – as host or guest – is to do our best to make the other person feel comfortable. It might not be possible to eliminate all awkwardness, but genuine thoughtfulness and respect go a long way.

In an ideal situation, the host and guest are already well acquainted and any discussion of vegetarianism is unnecessary. The host, whose duty it is to ensure that guests are happy, plans for a meatless option (either a flexible main dish or a substantial side) and the guest remembers to thank the host. But what happens when the parties are less acquainted or – uh-oh – the host forgets?

A lifelong vegetarian, I personally prefer to keep things low-key. If the gathering is large and/or buffet-style, I stay silent and simply make do with what's available. This occasionally means going hungry, but I'd rather not make a fuss and then raid the refrigerator when I get home.

However, if the dinner party is a smaller affair where avoiding food would be obvious and possibly hurtful to the host, I take a cue from the Emily Post Institute, which advises that a vegetarian respond to an invitation with something like, "'Thanks so much for the invitation. I should let you know that I’m a vegetarian. I’d love to bring a quiche if that’s okay with you." This way, the host is both informed and relieved of the pressure to cook an alternate dish. The only thing I might do differently is ask the host whether there is a particular dish I could bring that complements the rest of the menu. Alternatively, I might emphasize that I am perfectly happy eating side dishes, but that I wanted to mention my vegetarianism ahead of time to prevent any awkwardness on the night of the party. Most of all, I try to be considerate and never demanding. (Also, I would never bring a side dish unannounced.)

If the vegetarian issue has not been discussed until the night of the party, or even if it has but there isn't sufficient food to eat, the vegetarian should make an effort to tell the host how delicious and adequate the other offerings are. For me, focusing on the host's good intentions and the pleasure of good company prevents me from ever feeling disappointed or resentful. I also think it is important not to even talk about vegetarianism at the table unless the conversation is initiated by the host. Regardless of whether one's vegetarianism is for religious, health, or ethical reasons, bringing attention to it could make the host feel bad.

How about you? How do you handle such dinner party situations as a guest or host?

 

[Angilion]

sauce?

Surely that would depend on personal taste and what food you're eating? I usually prefer no sauce at all on my food, but it's a very subjective thing.

If you're asking for a source for humans being physically adapted to being omnivores, well, that's a bit of an odd request. You may as well ask for a source for humans being intelligent or having an aptitude for tool use. It's that level of uncontested obviousness.

I'll start with a source from the Vetegarian Resource Group, as that should be quite clear as a source that if it had any bias on the subject would be biased against the idea that humans are adapted to being omnivores. The author is also a vegatarian. It's a very short summary of the evidence.

https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Here's another article on the subject by another vegetarian, with a lot more detail. I am, hopefully obviously, deliberately restricting the sources I use so they can't just be dismissed because they're not vegetarians.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml

Off on a tangent, there's this study that ended up classifying humans as being carnivores (while noting that humans are physically adapted to being omnivores). That illustrates the distinction between diet and physiology and also the grey areas of terminology. If an animal adapted to an omnivorous diet eats a high enough proportion of plants/meat, is that animal now a herbivore/carnivore?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032452



The idea that humans must be herbivores owes a lot more to belief than evidence or reasoning. There isn't any realistic controversy about humans being physically adapted to being omnivores - it's more like the "controversy" between evolution and creationism, i.e. a thing manufactured from belief to suit an agenda.

Humans do, of course, have some physical adaptations that suit eating and digesting plants. Omnivores do, since plants are a big part of their diet. Ignoring everything else in order to pretend that those adaptations are proof that humans are natural herbivores is at best badly misled. Humans also have some physical adaptations that suit eating and digesting parts of animals, but nobody's suggesting that makes humans naturally purely carnivores.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Let's be honest now, most meat eaters eat the cheaper processed meat, ie Sausages, burgers, meatballs, bacon, hotdogs ..etc .etc )

Probably because the expensive stuff is expensive, yeah. Not so much in some other countries, but this one is governed by money and convenience, not nature any more.
Conversely, I've known many obese vegetarians, who just pig out on french fries and cheese - Because no poor animal was slaughtered....!!

World Health Organization Says Processed Meat Causes Cancer

When faced with a number of smoking cessation products, the WHO also officially advocates people smoking tobacco, because it brings in a useful source of tax revenue...

lots of people that are fans of fad diets like (cringe) 'Paleo' seems to think early humans were largely carnivores, or always had a constant supply of meat -completely ignoring the gathering aspect of "hunter-gatherer".

Really?
All seems to be a load of meat & veg stuff to me. How can you have the Steak without the Mushroom, or the Fish without the Samphire?

The other aspect ignored is that early humans were scavengers, a large source of protein would come form carcasses left behind by the sabre toothed tigers and cave bears etc. Using tools to break open bones to get to the marrow or the brain deep within a skull etc.

Carcasses and brains not so easy to come by at our local butchers...

But for some reason 'Paleo' advocates don't seem to want to eat earth worms and road kill

Historic carcasses generally weren't soiled by road dirt, exhaust crap and Michelin RoadPilot 4 rubber...
Earth worms not so easy to dig up in the middle of town and city concrete jungles... also expensive on eBay.
Thanks to the French and Chinese, snails are now an expensive delicacy.

Everyone who would be very eager to prevent abuse of a dog or a cat, but eats meat is utterly deplorable hypocrite.

I'll happily use, abuse and finally eat a vegetarian... Cat too, in fact.
But historically dogs have been more useful as companions than food - Eat the dog, you have one meal. Keep the dog, you have a hunting assistant and camp defender for a good decade.

You get it from backward countries where they just destroy woods and let kettle eat the grass.

Sorry, I'm totally against farming kettles... I don't mind the occasional Morphy Richards pie or even Kettle Chips, but en-masse appliance farming is just immoral...

So get that meat for little money and sell it here.

That requires food standards, trade agreements and all sorts.

 

[loltim]

sarcasm combined with logic, its a unique combination and is a great post.

It's an interesting style of posting. It's like he was butthurt by a veggie at a young age

I do agree with the plants only/B12 thing though. I think you need dairy to be healthy which is why I could never go vegan.

 

[Dave M]

I do agree with the plants only/B12 thing though. I think you need dairy to be healthy which is why I could never go vegan.

Actually you can get it from yeast can't you? Marmite and similar. I'm not sure how much marmite you'd have to east to equal one portion of cheese however. I don't mind marmite but I couldn't eat a big chunk of it