The issue most certainly doesn't come down simply to where you draw the line as described here. Defensible animal rights arguments do not rely on the unobtainable assumption that eating meat is fundamentally wrong.
I credit Matt for giving me the notion of looking for evidence and questioning things in my life but after watching this I feel like he's just a hypocrite. How can you have a show that ask people to question life and morals and look for evidence and when it comes down to ethical treatment of animals he says shit like "I don't buy that" when the evidence is presented. The plenty of evidence that eating meet is unethical. More evidence for that than God and yet he still does it.
What disappointingly irrational engagement with an issue atheists (as well as others unbeholden to harmful tradition for traditions sake) ought to take seriously. 'Natural' is not synonymous with 'good'. Animals are not deserving of 'human rights', but maybe they are deserving of animal rights? And just because some people have to eat meat as a matter of survival does nothing to inform our discussion about whether we have reason to.
I disagree with Matt (never thought I'd say that). Just b'c we give animals some rights doesn't mean we have to give them all rights. There's a difference between not putting animals in horrible living conditions & giving them the right to vote.
I do agree that we are speaking from a privileged position & that I value humans over animals. However, eating meat b'c it's necessary to live & eating it for luxury after it lives in horrible eating conditions is not the same.
slippery slope... it's the same argument that was used for interracial marriage and it's the same argument used today for same sex marriage. "Well we could let them do that but then they want this,, and this.." It's ignorant. Perhaps there would be benefit in some research in nutrition. I agree with some other comments. He sure can argue for atheism and sell it but I think this was kind of blown..
Her point about chimps eating meat: Gorillas never eat meat. The average amount of meat a chimp eats per day is 1 pea-size amount.
Also, veganism isn't actually about eating meat. She's completely gone off-track from what the caller said.
Humans don't need to use animals and whether or not another species or even our own does somehing doesn't some how make it 'okay' or 'acceptable'. Otherwise she could say, "Oh I saw some people believing in God so that's okay."
I'm an atheist and I simply don't eat any animals because we humans don't need to eat them, meaning, we don't need to kill billions of them for food, clothing or "fun". I'd rather stay peaceful with our fellow evolutionary earthlings than torture, exploit and kill them for our own benefit. I think the reason why most people eat meat is the same reason most people believe in God, it's tradition that have been passed on for generations. But tradition does not mean it's right. Peace.
Regarding where you draw the line, is it really a personal choice? Is it really up to you to make? On what basis? Is it also your personal choice to treat black people with less respect, or to treat handicapped people with less rights? I don't think this should be anyone's personal choice. I think morality is based precisely on considering the interests of others besides those one oneself. If you decide a-priory who your morality applies to and who it does not your morality is rather useless
@vappole Do you have any idea how many insects and mites you kill every day? What makes you so special that you can kill millions of creatures in your lifetime?
The argument based on the fact that many people in poorer areas have no choice but to eat meat for surviving is irrelevant firstly because you are not one of those people, so this is simply not a justification for you, secondly because if you realize that producing meat takes an incredible amount of land and resources and - indeed - of food, this is yet another reason why people who *can* stop eating meat should, so as to leave food and resources for those who have few available.
How do you know that eating meat is good for your health? Have you tried going on a vegan diet for a long period of time? Do you realize that medical research largely excludes meat from a healthy diet? And do you have any idea of what sort of substances are in meat produced in intense farms? I think your answer that you need meat for you health is largely due to your ignorance on health and diet.
"We don't bite through hide. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago"
And keep in mind, our large brain is directly related to our high fat and meat diet.
Another important aspect of being omnivorous is our versatility. Being able to digest both animal and plant matter is a major evolutionary advantage.
I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian but I do try to limit my meat consumption to reduce my carbon factory. I also try to avoid eating things like foie gras and battery farmed turkey because of the way these animals are treated. However the simple eating of meat is not an ethical issue to me.
@weelittledragon I'm not a nasty person but I only punch people in the fact if I really feel like. I don't do it if I can help it. To me, punching people in the face is not an ethical issue to me. The fact that it hurts most people I hit is just natural. If nature didn't intend them to feel pain, she wouldn't have given them pain receptors in their faces. It's perfectly natural.
@marcluc1988 I never said anything about natural or not. Whether something is natural or not has no bearing on the ethics of the matter. I only said that I eat little meat for environmental reasons and not for ethical reasons. That's all I said. I think the killing of animals should be done humanely and I think animals should be treated decently. Therefore, to me the eating of meat is not an ethical issue in itself but the way the animal is killed and the way it was treated in life is.
Human beings are predators. We have teeth and stomachs that are designed to eat meat. I don't want animals to suffer, but I'm sure as hell not going to go through the trouble of raising a cow for years myself to get some steaks and hamburgers. I'd rather have somebody else do it and I'll just buy the meat from a store.
If I stop eating meat it's going to have next to no effect on the meat industry. But it's going to have a huge effect on ME not being able to satisfy my carnivorous appetite.
@SirGriefALot "We have teeth and stomachs that are designed to eat meat." We do? Which teeth? Our molars which make up the majority of our teeth are clearly for grinding. Our incisors and canines are for shearing veggies. The energy expenditure of trying to tear through animal hide with our pathetic dentition would negate the caloric input from the flesh. What about saliva...is our saliva designed to digest meat? I always thought the role of salivary amylase was to break down starch.
@monkeyfist529 We don't bite through hide. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago. When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats. As a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. We can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.
We're aren't designed to eat directly off the trees and shrubs either. We can eat meat, we have hunting instincts and are group predators. Our teeth can eat raw meat fine however we cook our food to reduce stress to our immune system and digestive system. It's pointless to argue about how natural our omnivorous behavior is, it's been the reality of our species for the duration of it's existence.
@SirGriefALot "If I stop eating meat it's going to have next to no effect on the meat industry." So you're the snowflake in the avalanche that takes no responsibility. How nebbishy and complete uninspired your existence must be. I'm genuinely curious to know what it must be like to wake up every day and believe that you haven't the slightest ability to make any difference in the world. Your sentiments on the capacity of ones actions to effect others speaks volumes about yourself.
Matt and Tracie have hit some home runs when in their ballpark (atheism) but they--and the caller--make a hash of this issue. It need not be complicated by what other animals do, prioritizing people over animals, health or environmental consequences. The bottom line is if non-necessary aspects of your diet is knowingly contributing to the appreciable suffering of vertebrates, there's a good cast to be made that you are ethically in arrears.
I think Matt (and the AE crew) are REALLY good at debating when it comes to religion and atheism.
When it comes to anything else... Eh, it's hit or miss. I'm not actually that impressed per se with Matt when it comes to things that do NOT have to do with atheism. But he's very good at that topic, that I'll definitely give him!
(Actually I felt the same about the late Hitchens. VERY good at debating for atheism, but lost it otherwise when he started voting for Bush.)
I guess... for me... There's some people like the late Sagan or Richard Dawkins who I really look up to. And there's some others like the late Hitchens and Matt Dillahunty here that I like to watch debate religious people, and consider very good at that, but outside that... eh...
Even with people I look up to though, I like still thinking for myself. And not many people even on the atheists side necessarily do that. Some just blindly agree with whomever they respect.
Very rude, I wonder if you are not already showing signs of low levels of Docosahexaenoic acid? You probably should get tested. How long has it been since you had any animal products at all? Do you at least supplement with long chain Omega 3's? Depending on your genetic make up, it could be very dangerous, if you don't. Since the first thing it affects is the brain, you might not even notice.
@rosepetal108 Oh no, poor little thing can't handle a word named "fuck."
Anyways, I challenged you to name something essential that can only be found in animal products and you have failed to do so. Omega 3's are found in vegan sources suck as flaxseeds, walnuts, olive oil, canola oil, avocado etc.
Try again.
P.S. My doctor says I'm doing just fine, make sure you are due to the health problems that animal fat leads to.
Docosahexaenoic acid is not found in any of those sources. Those things contain alpha-Linolenic acid, they do NOT contain any long chain Omega 3's. Although α-linolenic acid (ALA) does convert to DHA in most humans, the process is inefficient and very limited even in healthy individuals. ~ 0% - 9% which means most people will eventually become deficient as stockpiles run out, since they produce less than they use.
@rosepetal108 If you eat foods with Omega 3 fatty acids, even from vegan sources, you'll do just fine. And as you said the body does convert the ALA into to EPA and DHA.
There's no studies out there of an even remotely large number of vegans who have DHA deficiencies that have led those people to any form of significant harm.
@esquimalt1 There are many studies. Primary issue is children though. Once the brain is fully formed (18-22) DHA is less of an issue. However EPA and DHA do have other functions besides the nervous system.
The plant based ALA has not been shown to have the same cardiovascular benefits as DHA or EPA. Also, there are immunological studies showing the benefits of DHA.
@esquimalt1 A 2003 study published in the journal Pediatrics showed children whose mothers took a DHA supplement during pregnancy scored higher on intelligence tests at four years of age than children of mothers not taking DHA supplements.
@esquimalt1 A 2004 study published in Child Development found that babies whose mothers had high blood levels of DHA at delivery had advanced attention spans into their second year of life. During the first six months of life these infants were two months ahead of babies whose mothers had lower DHA levels.
@esquimalt1 Other research studies suggest breastfed babies have IQs of six to 10 points higher than formula-fed babies. Medical and nutritional experts attribute this difference to the real DHA as compared to synthetic precusors found in most supplemented formulas. This benefit was also not seen in women with low DHA levels due to diet. (Vegan mothers)
@esquimalt1 In a trial of women receiving DHA supplementation during the third trimester, the average length of gestation increased six days (Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2003).
@esquimalt1 Research has found low levels of DHA in mother’s milk and in the red blood cells of women with postpartum depression. (Journal of Affective Disorders, 2002). Some scientists believe increasing levels of maternal DHA may reduce the risk of postpartum depression.
I'm vegan, and an atheist. And mat is REALLY wrong that the health benefits of eating meat out way the benefits of not eating meat. There's nothing in meat that's essential that you can't get in vegan foods, plus you're eating foods without the cholesterol and high fat content.
@SUNBLAKCARBON666 That's mostly true in that the majority of vegans don't eat "...nothing but vegetable everyday.", we also eat lots of fruit, nuts and legumes. A vegan diet is just so obvious isn't it?! Makes you wonder why everyone doesn't give up eating all the animal product trash.
We don't need to concern ourselves very much with insects as there is no evidence that they can feel anything substantiated; and if any do it is probably quite rare. Some of the most complex insects possess only a few hundred thousand neurons; whereas higher mammals can possess hundreds of billions. There is a continuum from higher sentient animals down to animals which feel almost nothing. We should try not to exploit the enormously complex organisms.
@rosepetal108 They may be avoiding honey because of the possibility that insects can experience something substantial. You'd have to ask them personally. The extent to which insects feel is still disputed.
@IdaMiaDot The real reason is Veganism is a religion and borrowed the ancient religious doctrine "ahimsa" from the Indian religions Jainism Buddhism and Hinduism.
Since the restrictions are not based on science and instead on religion, you find the same inconsistencies that all ancient religious doctrines face when confronted with science.
@rosepetal108 The primary arguments in favor of vegetarianism or veganism are related to the emotional sensitivity of the animals we exploit (notably their capacity to suffer), and the gross inefficiency of the livestock sector as a means of supplying large populations with food. There is a wealth of scientific literature supporting both of these arguments.
@rosepetal108 It depends on the animal. Using commonly agreed upon ethical conclusions you can make compelling arguments for why humans should not exploit or casually slaughter specific animals. For example, elephants can develop extremely strong emotional bonds and relationships amongst one another; and can be deeply upset when a family member or friend is killed or slaughtered. Similarly mother pigs, for example; would not want their babies to be taken away or slaughtered.
@IdaMiaDot You are simply making my point by describing the Vegan form of ahimsa. IE..Your religious views on what is morally wrong or not. And as you just pointed out yourself. It has nothing to do with modern livestock methods of production. It has everything to do with an emotional response to presumed animals' feelings.
Yet once again it doesn't explain the restriction on honey.
Primates are highly diverse organisms. They can eat almost anything, but are generally more herbivorous than carnivorous. Every great ape including humans can eat meat, but doesn't need to. Only a small percentage of the chimpanzee population hunts; as most are predominately herbivorous. Humans are the only great ape for which a large percentage of the species regularly consumes meat.
@IdaMiaDot ===> "Only a small percentage of the chimpanzee population hunts; as most are predominately herbivorous"
That's not true. Actually the studies coming in now show Chimp populations AVERAGE between 1500 and 2000 pounds of meat per chimp annually. (slightly less for females) And every wild population studied hunts when prey species are available.
@IdaMiaDot "They can eat almost anything, but are generally more herbivorous than carnivorous."
I agree there. Actually biologically we are frugivorous omnivores. But populations do vary quite a lot. In general the more tropical the more frugivore and the more temperate and polar the greater the % of meat.
@twistedH3L1X If you live in first world countries such as the USA then the livestock sector is one of the reasons that starving people don't have enough food in both your own country and others. It is a grossly inefficient means of supplying food to large populations. A huge percentage of the world's clean water, crop resources and amazingly fish stocks are fed to livestock to sustain them during their lives.
*cont.* I completely agree with him when he said that its natural for a shark to eat him if it was hungry/he was swimming at its location. In that instance, he actually becomes part of the ecosystem; just like he would be was the predator and hunted for his food. In that instance, it would be perfectly natural.
*cont.* Unlike caribou or other deer for example that were born free; they actually live their lives and won't necessarily be eaten by people. It would be unreasonable to expect people living in third world countries to not eat meat; they may not have the means to go to the grocery store and buy some alternative.
I don't think that people should eat meat of they have the means to survive without it; if they're living in a first world country. I believe that people should have to hunt for their prey if they want to consume meat; animals shouldn't be bred for the purposes of food. They shouldn't be confined to a penned in area (or even if they're free roaming cattle), because they were never really given a chance to live and survive; they were meant to be eaten by people all along.
especially with a lttile [sic] BBQ sauce or teriyaki sauce!!! DELISH!!!!" So, what you are REALLY saying, is "Animal flesh only tastes good when it's flavored with plants."
I don't care about suffering of animals "suffering" any more than I care about a plant's suffering. Put a match to a houseplant and watch it's reaction under high-speed. Suffer as we know it is anthropomorphic. That said, I DO care act of intentional cruelty to anything. In the case of cruelty to non-humans it is the mindset of a person who hurts something BECAUSE he/she thinks it can suffer.
My objections to factory farming are simple concerns about the safety and quality of our food supply.
Vegetarianism/veganism is an emergent property not predicted by previous human evolution. Atheists can chose to be ethical beyond or in spite of religion. FFreeThinker decides to be Morlock instead of Eloi. I can say this because I am an atheist, a ethical vegetarian/vegan and a conservationist. I just celebrated my big 50th for all of these. Like many bigoted judges that decide cases unfairly because they can, the selfish atheists eats meat because they can. Sad.
@gulbirk "The fact is that..." source? The fossil and archaeological records clearly show otherwise in that the evolution of our teeth in reaction the the change in diet WAY proceeds the appearance of controlled fires. And you don't need teeth like this to eat clams.
If your position is so weak that you need to make shit up in order to defend it in a public forum like this, then keep it to yourself.
@no2religions Our teeths are clearly not suited to eat raw meat, or even tear up meat. And as far as I understand, most biologists admit that we probably started out as plant eaters.
@gulbirk Different teeth have different functions. The function of a K-9 tooth is exactly to rip meat. "Admit" we started with plants? It's not admit, it's obvious to everyone.
Try googling "human teeth meet". Seem like the least you could do before tell everyone they are wrong.
Here are some chimps hunting and eating a monkey because the mostly eat fish... is that how you interpret this?
@no2religions We arent chimpz, they are just as modern as we are, we didnt come "from" them. Im just quoting my OWN science books. Oxford biology ""Humans most likely started out as plant eaters"" of course we have teeths for eating meat, but not raw meat and not meat that is hard to get through.
@gulbirk No one would ever argue that our ancestors weren't herbivores. The same number of qualified people would agree that humans ate cooked meat first.
The point with the chimps was not that we came from chimps, but that it seems very likely that the K9 evolved before our lines diverged. And that would either be before we harnessed fire or that chimps somehow forgot this feat.
And I hope you aren't quote-mining that oxford book. It says that we evolved our meat teeth from cooked meat?
@no2religions No it says humans used to eat vegtables, therefore we had a better digestion system. You have an apendix that is most likely a remain of a second stomach (this is only an hypothesis, but its very very plausible).
@gulbirk the appendix is a what is left of an organ known as a "caecum" which is much larger in herbivores. There is no dispute about herbivore ancestors. But the diet would have changed THEN the caecum shrunk. Our ancestors have been eating animal flesh for a very, very long time.
There is no need you and I to think up "hypotheses" on these matters. Other, more qualified people have spent their careers figuring out this stuff.
@no2religions Sorry, then whats the argument? All I have said/stated is simply the same as biologists say. We didnt start out as meat eaters, and without fire it isnt sure if we would have become meat eaters.
@gulbirk "The fossil and archaeological records clearly show otherwise in that the evolution of our teeth in reaction the the change in diet WAY proceeds the appearance of controlled fires."
so did you not bother to read it before you called it wrong? No one ever said we started as meat eaters. If you want to go far enough back, we started as phototropes. You said that the meat we ate first was cooked, and that is factually incorrect and proven so by every single source you care to check.
@gulbirk "before we had fire we couldnt eat meet."
No you didn't. What kind of an idiot are you to think you could just lie like that when I only need to look up at what you actually say? Seriously. I'm done. You've been full of shit in every comment. It's a matter of record here in this thread, and all really I wanted to do is to not let you bullshit people who might read your garbage and take it at face value.
Don't eat meat, fine. But you don't get to make up your own facts.
@no2religions I eat meat. And at least im not the one who has to insult people. So many atheists are so fucking rude. I ONLY quote what I can find in the Oxford Biology book.
@gulbirk " before we had fire we couldnt eat meet." Then "No, I said we didnt consider humans to BE meat eaters before we had fire." those aren't the same thing and you know it, You're a liar.
Now it's, " I only quote the Biology book"... I'm willing to bet that NEITHER or your above lies are in that book.
"and without fire it isnt sure if we would have become meat eaters." Again, what page of what book? It's a baldfaced lie and everyone here can see it. Liar liar pants on fire. :)
@no2religions Im not lying, maybe the book is outdated, I dont know. My main point was that humans were not considered by biologists to be meat eaters, the same way we consider animals like lions and tigers to be meat eaters. If im wrong, im wrong, I really dont care. Anyone is free to eat meat (because its fucking good), and anyone is free to protest eating meat. When I think of it, who am I to say that we are vegetarians when we eat meat, LOL. I stand corrected.
@monkeyfist529 It's not impossible, but what else would cause them to grow in exactly to same way as meat? And why would it be different in humans that in every single other animal with these type of teeth. I real don't see it.
@no2religions "...but what else would cause them to grow in exactly to [sic] same way as meat?" Please elaborate a bit further, I don't understand what this statement means. "...why would it be different in humans that [sic] in every single other animal with these type of teeth." Why would WHAT be different? What do you mean by "it"?
A couple questions: 1) have you ever heard of mutually protected occlusion? and 2) do gorillas have large canines and what are they used for?
@monkeyfist529 "mutually protected occlusion", I hadn't heard of it, but upon looking it up I find that it occurs in both herbivores and carnivores. Looks like an aspect of teeth generally.
The primate canine evolved prior to the speciation between the gorillas and the chimp/human line. In humans they retain their original function. In gorillas they have evolved into a social use. Thus they are bigger in males than females (despite the same diets) where as they are the same in humans.
@no2religions Mutually protected occlusion...you looked it up? What is it? What is the reference that you found that says mutually protected occlusion is a general aspect of the dentition for herbivores and carnivores? You mentioned that the human canines retain their original function. What is the original function? Do you really think that the purpose of our canines now is to tear skin and flesh? Our canines protect our veggie grinding molars. Our canines are pathetic actually.
@gulbirk Different teeth have different functions. The function of a K-9 tooth is exactly to rip meat. "Admit" we started with plants? It's not admit, it's obvious to everyone.
Try googling "human teeth meet". Seem like the least you could do before tell everyone they are wrong.
Here are some chimps hunting and eating a monkey because the mostly eat fish... is that how you interpret this?
Also one more thing, as far as priorities...veganism doesn't have to be a priority, it is just easy to do. It is not a hard issue to tackle. You just stop eating meat.
However, I disagree with the caller about the ethicality of eating meat that is grown separately from an animal. It fucking weird to think about, but I don't see how that would be wrong, and I'm upset that the caller said that was wrong because it takes away from his argument. Finally, the point about us coming from a spoiled position here in the west, true, but irrelevant to the question of whether it is ethical or not for US to eat meat, no vegan says starving people should be vegans....
@mellamosean The caller didn't say that eating Star Trek meat would be unethical, he said it would be unhealthy. In part II of the video, the caller notes that eating roadkill isn't unethical...but it's unhealthy (eating meat vs a plant-based diet). The fact that Matt disagrees with the Amer. Heart Associations recommendations shouldn't be surprising since he is overweight and has Type II diabetes largely due to his poor dietary choices.
@mellamosean Who went off-topic? Matt asked the caller if he would be ok eating the meat if it was synthesized, the caller said "no" and then Matt asked "why not". Should the caller have said "I'm not going to discuss "why not" because it's off topic and doesn't deal with the ethics of eating meat."?
The thing was, Matt was asking him an ethical question, and if you can't see that, you don't understand the point of synthesizing meat.... I think he would have been better off replying, "I wouldn't have a problem with people eating it, but personally, I would refrain for health reasons." Obviously I know there are vegans for different reasons... but the call, directed to the atheist guy was clearly for discussing ethics. I'm an atheist vegan just like the caller...
@mellamosean Being vegan for many people isn't just about ethics. That is why all the vegans I know distinguish between being a vegan for ethical reasons, or health reasons, or environmental reasons. There are vegans out there that hunt. There are plenty of vegans who adopted the diet for the health benefits only.
I share the same perspective with the caller, about increasing the happiness/decreasing the happiness of other beings. I think people who eat meat like to bring up the Janism, and question how vegans treat insects, and I think the treatment we should consider for insects is another debate. If no insects existed would he consider being a vegan? It would probably not change anything for him, so he's really dragging attention away from the real issue.
Holy shit... so much about what that girl's original response seems so...unintelligent, at least to me. First, that eating meat is unnatural...where did she ever come to that conclusion? Second, why would what is natural affect our morals? If in every other species, the male rapes the female, does that make it the right thing to do? It doesn't seem to me that she has a very good moral compass.
Veganism, warmed over religious sentiment founded on faith since science has shown people were meant to eat meat... You know, rather than dying slowly on the unhealthy fad diet called veganism, why not eat a gun and end it all so much sooner?
@bl91978 Whose science showed that? The human body has mostly, if not exclusively, herbivorous traits (longer digestive tract, short, blunt teeth [and spare me that bullshit about our "canine teeth"; try comparing yours to your dog's first, and then we'll talk], flexible fingernails instead of claws, etc.). And spare me the bullshit about how veganism is "unhealthy" as well. How can a diet consisting of fruits, veggies, grains, and beans be that unhealthy?
@ElectricMayhem87 Science has shown us real herbivores can breakdown everything in a plant including cellulose! You know, that which differentiates flora from fauna? Our digestive tracts might be longer than carnivores but we're no where near an herbivore (why?) because WE are OMNIVORES! (Goggle the definition) And your FAD is unhealthy because grains are unhealthy. It's unhealthy because the soy the west co-opted from my people is processed to hell. I don't do processed, it's unhealthy.
@bl91978 We are herbivores. It is not possible for you to show a single aspect of our biology or physiology that isn't perfectly suited to an entirely plant-based diet.
@bl91978 and p.s. The Google definition of "herbivore" makes no difference. I can make my own dictionary now that has a different definition for herbivore...how would know which one to believe if you found conflicting definitions? Who says grains are unhealthy? What authors talk about that? Processed foods aren't necessarily unhealthy. What reference do you have for that? Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat soy...lots of vegans don't eat soy.
@monkeyfist529 Tthe research is out there. Especially with the advent of better research data we get from electronic medical records where we can take a more holistic view on the health of an individual, rather than self reported survey crap. BTW, schizophrenics make up their own definitions all the time... lolz
ehhhh. the solution to poverty and animal suffering are the same... feed the grains to africans instead of cows. arguments for not eating meat are visible rationalisations. the fact that other animals eat meat doesn't have any implications on our ethics at all. i can imagine a time when the statement "I'm fine with being biased toward my species" is a statement of horrible bigotry, similar to if he had said "I'm fine with being biased towards my race" today.
@arandomperseon My choice in food is of no business to you nor is your opinion of it irrelevant to me. My view on abortion is also irrelevant sense I'm not a woman but I will say that abortion happens and there nothing anyone can do about it and you can't pick and choose which patients get an abortion and which ones don't. Rap and incest happens and it's not my say if a mother should have the child or not.
@arandomperseon 1. You clearly forgot your own question. 2. Same thing and you didn't have a point. 3. Clearly not as selfish. 4. Or fat ass macho jerks trying to justify eating one animal and not the other while slowly dying or heart failure forgetting protein can be gotten from many sources without killing another creatures trying to take care of it's family. "I deserve to live more than a weaker or less mentaly complex species" That's self-righteous.
@arandomperseon We have minds that allow us to not be slaves to nature so that excuse is fucking pathetic and tiresome. Not every animal in nature kills another one for food and considering most people eat meat for the taste and not for it's protein (found in veggies), I find their opinion on not eating meat, pointless and flooded with insecurity.
I tend to lump up Veganism with Religions that have this taboo on pork, cows, shellfish and other animals (as far as I'm concerned, if it can't kill you when you eat it, you can eat it). I'm not saying I believe Veganism is a religion, I'm saying they wont make me feel guilty for eating meat. And unless scientist find a way to invent a protein resequencer or replicator, I'll stick to eating meat.
Meat IS murder. Tasty, tasty murder. Humans ARE omnivores, historically and currently. You can choose to eat whatever you are able to kill and devour, animal or vegetable. Do you think wolves came around humans and became faithful partners because of all the delicious tofu and granola available? Yeah, deprive yourself and your pets (who are carnivores, mostly obligate) of the one substance that contains all nutrition necessary to survive because you're squeamish. That's reasonable.
@SirLordBeavisEsquire Pets who are carnivores are adapted to only eat meat, so you would have to leave them out when talking about depriving both humans and pets of meat. Secondly, meat does NOT contain all nutrition necessary for us to survive, that is false. It's more reasonable to say that youre depriving us from meat, one of the substances that cause the most problems both for humans, animals and nature, globally. Is that a bad thing? Your assertion is fallible, ignorant and obsolete.
I never understood the justification for Veganism. Considering plants and everything related to them is also life just like animals. Eating an animal is no different then eating a plant, fruit, or vegetable. EVERYTHING we eat is life. That's just how life is. That's one of the ways we know there is no God. Things are too fucked up.
@DanieltheSkeptic Actually, theres a vast difference in eating plats and animals. Plants dont have a central nervous system and dont feel pain the way we do, nor do they experience anything that some animals has to put up with. I recently became a vegetarian mainly because of health reasons, but there are also environmental reasons and in many cases, but not all, animal suffering. I don't really care that much about other people eating animals, but the benefits of a vego diet are quite evident.
Well, I hope that's the reason. Because if it's purely because vegans don't want to eat life, than that's just silly. However, there are many benefits of eating meat. I believe there is a study in terms of longevity somewhere (I'll try to find it) that stated that as we reach middle age, the best diet is our hunter-gatherer one. Which including lean meat.
Me, I'm not a vegan for the reason of suffering, because animals don't hesitate to eat us.
@DanieltheSkeptic Yes, they should more preferably say "intelligent life" rather than just "life" to clear things up. Im not sure there are MANY benefits, but I do agree lean meat is pretty healthy. Although, I cant see what would be specifically healthy with for example fish that we cant get from eating a non-meat diet, that would affect us when weve reached the middle age.
@DanieltheSkeptic One more thing; I'd be glad if you shared and explained more of those benefits of eating meat that you speak of, because I dont know any actually ;)
Sorry for the late reply, check out my response to Monkeyfist529 on the video comments for one example. The main reason for eating meat is protein. You need to eat a lot of the right veggies to get the protein from one sitting of a good size meat. I welcome criticism. If we ate veggies instead of meat (our ancestors I mean), then we would have been weak and unable to survive as well as we did. We ate veggies when we couldn't eat meat.
@DanieltheSkeptic "We ate veggies when we couldn't eat meat." That is actually backwards. Early humans ate meat when they were pushed to the fringe and couldn't find fruits and vegetables. "You need to eat a lot of the right veggies to get the protein from one sitting of a good size meat." Are you talking about 'complete proteins"...because if you are, that theory went out of fashion back in the 80's. No one claims a need for 'complete proteins' anymore. All veggies are complete.
@DanieltheSkeptic Many types of seeds (100 g) also contain about as much as fish. Also, there are various types of beans and peas, which are not as rich in protein, but that you can combine, for both protein and vitamins and other nutrients. Along with something like couscous and bulgur you get a lot of protein as well, if you combine it with something else. So I don't see where I would need to eat "a lot more" or in some cases even "more" than if Im eating meat.
@DanieltheSkeptic And what our ancestors needed is irrelevant, because the time we live in is vastly different. Using our ancestors as an argument is like saying, for example "We've done it like this way for 10000 years, so we need to keep doing it this way for the rest of our existance, or atleast the nearest 1000 years, regardless of technical and scientific advances."
Health wise, yes, less risk for salmonella I believe and other forms of food poisoning and airborne illness that comes from undercooked meat. Economic wise...perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on that one? I would be glad to learn more on the subject. I have no problem switching to a vegan diet for benefits, but the hard part is of course, like for many, switching the food they find most delicious for one that would require a build up of tolerance.
@DanieltheSkeptic You should go to this site for all your questions chooseveg. com. I know it can be irritating to be handed a documentary or a website for answer, but there you've got everything I'd figure you'll ask, and its really easily navigated and quick to read through. For the economic argument I'd say the less it takes, such as not breeding something bigger such as cattle with edibly food, the less it costs. It might not be an economical boost personally.
@DanieltheSkeptic I would not force you to do anything, but if you honestly looked through the categories, Animals, Earth, Health, The Switch etc, and considered and acknowledged the arguments I'd be satisfied. And theres no building up tolerance as I know of, Ive not noticed a change in me or anything, I just work out in the gym and sport as usual and feel normally healthy.
@DanieltheSkeptic [...] the importers cant make demands on the plantation owners, because the food prices would become more expensive. The reason the food prices are as low as they are is becuase the conditions get lower and lower for both animals and nature. Fitting more and more animals on the same areas as before, and producing the cheapest protein feed for cattle using pesticides and fertilizers. Insemination also makes the animals give more births than they would otherwise.
@DanieltheSkeptic "...many benefits of eating meat." Do you mean, versus eating plants? I would love to see the study you mentioned indicates that we should adapt a hunter-gatherer diet as we reach middle age. By the way, what is "middle age"?
I'll get to finding it, and middle age is typically 'middle age' the middle of your cycle of senesence before you die of decay. (Senesence is another word for aging) One benefit I do know, is protein. You get far more protein from Turkey, chicken and other forms of meat than you do from veggies. The amount of veggies you need to eat to reach the protein you get from a good size of meat makes it hard to say which is better,
@DanieltheSkeptic So, you get far more protein from turkey, chicken and other forms of meat than you do from veggies. I weigh 175 lbs. How much protein do you think I need to consume daily? Do you think that there are any drawbacks to eating too much protein? Also, I want to know what you consider "middle age". I feel you skirted that question. Thanks.
@DanieltheSkeptic Actually, youve got it wrong. I figure you haven't checked on the table of contents for neither animal protein sources, nor vegetarian protein sources. Reading from wikipedia, 100 g of soy beans contain 36,6 g of protein, which is as much as 110 g of the most protein rich source of meat, being a certain part of beef. 100 g of both lentils or kidney beans contain about as much as 110 g of chicken breast.
I have for animal protein but not much for many vegetarian protein sources. I do agree that it is irrelevant what our ancestors needed, however It was referring to a study that I'm still having trouble recalling the source. It might have been from a news segment, however I doubt it. The study as I think I mentioned suggested from middle to old age (mid 40s+) increased life expectancy. (continued on next post)
I'll admit, I MIGHT have exaggerated by using the word 'many' (emphasis on might, there could be plenty of benefits that don't come to mind at the moment, some based on circumstance). Point is, if you cut out meat, you need to compensate by eating a lot more to fill the void of the nutrients that come from animals. For health concerns, seafood carried good cholestoral that protects your heart.
@DanieltheSkeptic "...seafood carried good cholesterol that protects your heart." What seafood? Fish? Studies have shown this isn't true. Download this 2009 article from your health science library:
Dijkstra SC, Brouwer IA, van Rooij FJA, Hofman A, Witteman JCM, Geleijnse JM. Intake of very long chain n-3 fatty acids from fish and the incidence of heart failure: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:922-928.
Hmm, that's quite interesting. Omega-3 Fatty Acids don't provide a reduced risk for heart failure huh? Thanks for pointing that out and with a source, I'll check it out and study up a bit.
So since animals will eat us when they can, I don't mind eating meat, and it doesn't bother me that they were killed and butchered, HOWEVER, that's where I draw the line. Animals don't force us to fight in arenas to the death for entertainment, and animals don't keep us as pets and treat them like crap.
@DanieltheSkeptic I kind of draw the line there too. I dont feel much empathy for the animals in the slaughterhouse at all tbh, but I do see why others could. And just something Id like to share: Ive met people that, when Ive said that I eat vegetarian mainly because of health concerns, respond to me by saying "Oh, so you do it because of egoistic reasons". Yeah, mostly, so what? Whats the problem with that when I know it has good effects on many planes? :S
But honestly, I think that whether you ate meat, or you ate a lot more as a vegan to compensate for the lack of meat, either way, it comes down to personal preference. You're still eating life and it is still food.
@DanieltheSkeptic I agree to a certain point that it is subjective, where you wanna draw the line as he speaks of, but there are health, ecenomic and environmental benefits from consuming a vegetarian or vegan diet that need to be concidered, because they benefit us all. It's about a more sustainable consumption, and it's hard to grasp or even come to thought when one is used to the convenience of the meat industry. I know cus I was myself, and I did not get what the whole veg thing was about.
I do agree it has benefits, but realistically, not eating meat is a difficult thing to achieve for those who have been eating it for quite awhile. Environmental wise, it doesn't make a difference. Eating period lowers the population of life on Earth (veggies come from plants which are lifeforms like animals) so population wise, the difference is superfluous, plants provide more of a benefit towards our survival than animals do (not justifying violence against animals)
@DanieltheSkeptic Eating meat is not difficult to achieve, I just did 2 months ago. I still eat meat perhaps once a week, you dont need to change so drastically. Veggies which comes from plants being lifeforms is unimportant. It's not eating lifeforms in general that matters. It's about animals which have central nerve systems suffering unnecessarily, rainforests being deforested and strong pesticides are being used to grow soy beans which a lot is used to feed cattle because [...]
"I feel the health benefits of eating meat far outweigh the benefits of not eating meat", says the fat man. False beliefs can have negative consequences.
Don't forget, being fat means you can live longer without food then a skinny person. Fat is necessary. Like everything, if there is too much of it, then it's bad.
the host is a speciecist. animals don't need to have all the rights that humans have. it doesn't make sense for animals to have the right to vote or education but it does make sense for animals to have the right to live. search for 'the case for animal rights tom regan' nd u'll get all the answers. The World is Vegan! if we want it.
As a Human I give all of us the highest moral concerns. Animals should be respected, but killing many animals to save a few humans is fine. To use them in scienctific studies is fine, as increased knowledge can aid humanity.
Also, it is clear naturally we require meat. The Vegan diet needs careful planning to ensure your getting all 20 amino acids, which shows us that this is not the natural way of things.
But we need animal welfare laws so people don't harm animals without justification.
@markgg1 I rather have a few more animals in nature than a few more humans. There are a lot of idiotic humans out there that I would rather replace with deers or even pigs. Don't you agree?
@Hermoor Well yeh there are some scumbag humans out there, but I would never advocate their death unless it was absolutely neccesary, i.e. killing a nazi soldier, or a suicide bomber before he blew himself up.
I love animals dont get me wrong, but humans must come first.
Tracie stopped being vegetarian because she saw 2 apes eat a monkey? What about the majority of apes that DO NOT eat meat? ignore that
jsamari 1 week ago
The issue most certainly doesn't come down simply to where you draw the line as described here. Defensible animal rights arguments do not rely on the unobtainable assumption that eating meat is fundamentally wrong.
IndieAnthias 2 weeks ago
I credit Matt for giving me the notion of looking for evidence and questioning things in my life but after watching this I feel like he's just a hypocrite. How can you have a show that ask people to question life and morals and look for evidence and when it comes down to ethical treatment of animals he says shit like "I don't buy that" when the evidence is presented. The plenty of evidence that eating meet is unethical. More evidence for that than God and yet he still does it.
jynxvox 2 weeks ago
What disappointingly irrational engagement with an issue atheists (as well as others unbeholden to harmful tradition for traditions sake) ought to take seriously. 'Natural' is not synonymous with 'good'. Animals are not deserving of 'human rights', but maybe they are deserving of animal rights? And just because some people have to eat meat as a matter of survival does nothing to inform our discussion about whether we have reason to.
Daveedamo 2 weeks ago
I disagree with Matt (never thought I'd say that). Just b'c we give animals some rights doesn't mean we have to give them all rights. There's a difference between not putting animals in horrible living conditions & giving them the right to vote.
I do agree that we are speaking from a privileged position & that I value humans over animals. However, eating meat b'c it's necessary to live & eating it for luxury after it lives in horrible eating conditions is not the same.
rsgirl10 2 weeks ago
slippery slope... it's the same argument that was used for interracial marriage and it's the same argument used today for same sex marriage. "Well we could let them do that but then they want this,, and this.." It's ignorant. Perhaps there would be benefit in some research in nutrition. I agree with some other comments. He sure can argue for atheism and sell it but I think this was kind of blown..
UninspiredGirl 2 weeks ago
Her point about chimps eating meat: Gorillas never eat meat. The average amount of meat a chimp eats per day is 1 pea-size amount.
Also, veganism isn't actually about eating meat. She's completely gone off-track from what the caller said.
Humans don't need to use animals and whether or not another species or even our own does somehing doesn't some how make it 'okay' or 'acceptable'. Otherwise she could say, "Oh I saw some people believing in God so that's okay."
marcluc1988 1 month ago
I'm an atheist and I simply don't eat any animals because we humans don't need to eat them, meaning, we don't need to kill billions of them for food, clothing or "fun". I'd rather stay peaceful with our fellow evolutionary earthlings than torture, exploit and kill them for our own benefit. I think the reason why most people eat meat is the same reason most people believe in God, it's tradition that have been passed on for generations. But tradition does not mean it's right. Peace.
ZoldierrZzz 1 month ago
Comment removed
ZoldierrZzz 1 month ago
Regarding where you draw the line, is it really a personal choice? Is it really up to you to make? On what basis? Is it also your personal choice to treat black people with less respect, or to treat handicapped people with less rights? I don't think this should be anyone's personal choice. I think morality is based precisely on considering the interests of others besides those one oneself. If you decide a-priory who your morality applies to and who it does not your morality is rather useless
vappole 2 months ago
@vappole Do you have any idea how many insects and mites you kill every day? What makes you so special that you can kill millions of creatures in your lifetime?
acr08807 1 month ago
The argument based on the fact that many people in poorer areas have no choice but to eat meat for surviving is irrelevant firstly because you are not one of those people, so this is simply not a justification for you, secondly because if you realize that producing meat takes an incredible amount of land and resources and - indeed - of food, this is yet another reason why people who *can* stop eating meat should, so as to leave food and resources for those who have few available.
vappole 2 months ago
How do you know that eating meat is good for your health? Have you tried going on a vegan diet for a long period of time? Do you realize that medical research largely excludes meat from a healthy diet? And do you have any idea of what sort of substances are in meat produced in intense farms? I think your answer that you need meat for you health is largely due to your ignorance on health and diet.
vappole 2 months ago
Maybe we should start with treating each other humane first.
Maeryck 3 months ago 2
"We don't bite through hide. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago"
And keep in mind, our large brain is directly related to our high fat and meat diet.
Another important aspect of being omnivorous is our versatility. Being able to digest both animal and plant matter is a major evolutionary advantage.
Diomedes01 3 months ago
@Diomedes01
"And keep in mind, our large brain is directly related to our high fat and meat diet."
You got any proof of that?
"Being able to digest both animal and plant matter is a major evolutionary advantage."
Yes it is, but only because one can does not mean one should.
ZoldierrZzz 1 month ago
I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian but I do try to limit my meat consumption to reduce my carbon factory. I also try to avoid eating things like foie gras and battery farmed turkey because of the way these animals are treated. However the simple eating of meat is not an ethical issue to me.
weelittledragon 3 months ago
@weelittledragon I'm not a nasty person but I only punch people in the fact if I really feel like. I don't do it if I can help it. To me, punching people in the face is not an ethical issue to me. The fact that it hurts most people I hit is just natural. If nature didn't intend them to feel pain, she wouldn't have given them pain receptors in their faces. It's perfectly natural.
marcluc1988 1 month ago
@marcluc1988 I never said anything about natural or not. Whether something is natural or not has no bearing on the ethics of the matter. I only said that I eat little meat for environmental reasons and not for ethical reasons. That's all I said. I think the killing of animals should be done humanely and I think animals should be treated decently. Therefore, to me the eating of meat is not an ethical issue in itself but the way the animal is killed and the way it was treated in life is.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
Comment removed
marcluc1988 1 month ago
Human beings are predators. We have teeth and stomachs that are designed to eat meat. I don't want animals to suffer, but I'm sure as hell not going to go through the trouble of raising a cow for years myself to get some steaks and hamburgers. I'd rather have somebody else do it and I'll just buy the meat from a store.
If I stop eating meat it's going to have next to no effect on the meat industry. But it's going to have a huge effect on ME not being able to satisfy my carnivorous appetite.
SirGriefALot 3 months ago
@SirGriefALot "We have teeth and stomachs that are designed to eat meat." We do? Which teeth? Our molars which make up the majority of our teeth are clearly for grinding. Our incisors and canines are for shearing veggies. The energy expenditure of trying to tear through animal hide with our pathetic dentition would negate the caloric input from the flesh. What about saliva...is our saliva designed to digest meat? I always thought the role of salivary amylase was to break down starch.
monkeyfist529 3 months ago
@monkeyfist529 We don't bite through hide. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago. When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats. As a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. We can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.
SirGriefALot 3 months ago
@monkeyfist529
We're aren't designed to eat directly off the trees and shrubs either. We can eat meat, we have hunting instincts and are group predators. Our teeth can eat raw meat fine however we cook our food to reduce stress to our immune system and digestive system. It's pointless to argue about how natural our omnivorous behavior is, it's been the reality of our species for the duration of it's existence.
Chinomareno 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirGriefALot "If I stop eating meat it's going to have next to no effect on the meat industry." So you're the snowflake in the avalanche that takes no responsibility. How nebbishy and complete uninspired your existence must be. I'm genuinely curious to know what it must be like to wake up every day and believe that you haven't the slightest ability to make any difference in the world. Your sentiments on the capacity of ones actions to effect others speaks volumes about yourself.
monkeyfist529 3 months ago
Matt and Tracie have hit some home runs when in their ballpark (atheism) but they--and the caller--make a hash of this issue. It need not be complicated by what other animals do, prioritizing people over animals, health or environmental consequences. The bottom line is if non-necessary aspects of your diet is knowingly contributing to the appreciable suffering of vertebrates, there's a good cast to be made that you are ethically in arrears.
badger500 4 months ago 8
@badger500
i totally agree.
Evan2718281828 4 months ago
@badger500 Exactly, the basic issue is VERY straightforward.
xIgniteTheAirwavesx 3 months ago
@badger500
I think Matt (and the AE crew) are REALLY good at debating when it comes to religion and atheism.
When it comes to anything else... Eh, it's hit or miss. I'm not actually that impressed per se with Matt when it comes to things that do NOT have to do with atheism. But he's very good at that topic, that I'll definitely give him!
(Actually I felt the same about the late Hitchens. VERY good at debating for atheism, but lost it otherwise when he started voting for Bush.)
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
I guess... for me... There's some people like the late Sagan or Richard Dawkins who I really look up to. And there's some others like the late Hitchens and Matt Dillahunty here that I like to watch debate religious people, and consider very good at that, but outside that... eh...
Even with people I look up to though, I like still thinking for myself. And not many people even on the atheists side necessarily do that. Some just blindly agree with whomever they respect.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
===>"True, name one fucking thing."
Very rude, I wonder if you are not already showing signs of low levels of Docosahexaenoic acid? You probably should get tested. How long has it been since you had any animal products at all? Do you at least supplement with long chain Omega 3's? Depending on your genetic make up, it could be very dangerous, if you don't. Since the first thing it affects is the brain, you might not even notice.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@rosepetal108 Oh no, poor little thing can't handle a word named "fuck."
Anyways, I challenged you to name something essential that can only be found in animal products and you have failed to do so. Omega 3's are found in vegan sources suck as flaxseeds, walnuts, olive oil, canola oil, avocado etc.
Try again.
P.S. My doctor says I'm doing just fine, make sure you are due to the health problems that animal fat leads to.
esquimalt1 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 False again.
Docosahexaenoic acid is not found in any of those sources. Those things contain alpha-Linolenic acid, they do NOT contain any long chain Omega 3's. Although α-linolenic acid (ALA) does convert to DHA in most humans, the process is inefficient and very limited even in healthy individuals. ~ 0% - 9% which means most people will eventually become deficient as stockpiles run out, since they produce less than they use.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@rosepetal108 If you eat foods with Omega 3 fatty acids, even from vegan sources, you'll do just fine. And as you said the body does convert the ALA into to EPA and DHA.
There's no studies out there of an even remotely large number of vegans who have DHA deficiencies that have led those people to any form of significant harm.
esquimalt1 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 There are many studies. Primary issue is children though. Once the brain is fully formed (18-22) DHA is less of an issue. However EPA and DHA do have other functions besides the nervous system.
The plant based ALA has not been shown to have the same cardiovascular benefits as DHA or EPA. Also, there are immunological studies showing the benefits of DHA.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 A 2003 study published in the journal Pediatrics showed children whose mothers took a DHA supplement during pregnancy scored higher on intelligence tests at four years of age than children of mothers not taking DHA supplements.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 A 2004 study published in Child Development found that babies whose mothers had high blood levels of DHA at delivery had advanced attention spans into their second year of life. During the first six months of life these infants were two months ahead of babies whose mothers had lower DHA levels.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 Other research studies suggest breastfed babies have IQs of six to 10 points higher than formula-fed babies. Medical and nutritional experts attribute this difference to the real DHA as compared to synthetic precusors found in most supplemented formulas. This benefit was also not seen in women with low DHA levels due to diet. (Vegan mothers)
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 In a trial of women receiving DHA supplementation during the third trimester, the average length of gestation increased six days (Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2003).
IE... Less risk of premature birth.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@esquimalt1 Research has found low levels of DHA in mother’s milk and in the red blood cells of women with postpartum depression. (Journal of Affective Disorders, 2002). Some scientists believe increasing levels of maternal DHA may reduce the risk of postpartum depression.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
be a vegan starve out teh animals for us meat lovers :D
pakatu 5 months ago
I'm vegan, and an atheist. And mat is REALLY wrong that the health benefits of eating meat out way the benefits of not eating meat. There's nothing in meat that's essential that you can't get in vegan foods, plus you're eating foods without the cholesterol and high fat content.
esquimalt1 5 months ago
@esquimalt1 ===> "There's nothing in meat that's essential that you can't get in vegan foods"
False.
rosepetal108 4 months ago
@rosepetal108 True, name one fucking thing.
esquimalt1 4 months ago
Comment removed
rosepetal108 4 months ago
No such thing as a Vegan. No 1 eats only and nothing but vegetables everyday.
SUNBLAKCARBON666 5 months ago
@SUNBLAKCARBON666 That's mostly true in that the majority of vegans don't eat "...nothing but vegetable everyday.", we also eat lots of fruit, nuts and legumes. A vegan diet is just so obvious isn't it?! Makes you wonder why everyone doesn't give up eating all the animal product trash.
monkeyfist529 5 months ago
We don't need to concern ourselves very much with insects as there is no evidence that they can feel anything substantiated; and if any do it is probably quite rare. Some of the most complex insects possess only a few hundred thousand neurons; whereas higher mammals can possess hundreds of billions. There is a continuum from higher sentient animals down to animals which feel almost nothing. We should try not to exploit the enormously complex organisms.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot Then why is honey banned by strict Vegans?
rosepetal108 6 months ago
@rosepetal108 They may be avoiding honey because of the possibility that insects can experience something substantial. You'd have to ask them personally. The extent to which insects feel is still disputed.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot The real reason is Veganism is a religion and borrowed the ancient religious doctrine "ahimsa" from the Indian religions Jainism Buddhism and Hinduism.
Since the restrictions are not based on science and instead on religion, you find the same inconsistencies that all ancient religious doctrines face when confronted with science.
rosepetal108 6 months ago
@rosepetal108 The primary arguments in favor of vegetarianism or veganism are related to the emotional sensitivity of the animals we exploit (notably their capacity to suffer), and the gross inefficiency of the livestock sector as a means of supplying large populations with food. There is a wealth of scientific literature supporting both of these arguments.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot Actually I agree that factory farming is bad for the environment bad for health and bad for the animals.
Making the leap from that to the idea that eating any meat at all is morally wrong is what makes it religious instead of science.
rosepetal108 6 months ago
@rosepetal108 It depends on the animal. Using commonly agreed upon ethical conclusions you can make compelling arguments for why humans should not exploit or casually slaughter specific animals. For example, elephants can develop extremely strong emotional bonds and relationships amongst one another; and can be deeply upset when a family member or friend is killed or slaughtered. Similarly mother pigs, for example; would not want their babies to be taken away or slaughtered.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IdaMiaDot You are simply making my point by describing the Vegan form of ahimsa. IE..Your religious views on what is morally wrong or not. And as you just pointed out yourself. It has nothing to do with modern livestock methods of production. It has everything to do with an emotional response to presumed animals' feelings.
Yet once again it doesn't explain the restriction on honey.
rosepetal108 6 months ago
Primates are highly diverse organisms. They can eat almost anything, but are generally more herbivorous than carnivorous. Every great ape including humans can eat meat, but doesn't need to. Only a small percentage of the chimpanzee population hunts; as most are predominately herbivorous. Humans are the only great ape for which a large percentage of the species regularly consumes meat.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot ===> "Only a small percentage of the chimpanzee population hunts; as most are predominately herbivorous"
That's not true. Actually the studies coming in now show Chimp populations AVERAGE between 1500 and 2000 pounds of meat per chimp annually. (slightly less for females) And every wild population studied hunts when prey species are available.
But this is about humans not chimps.
rosepetal108 6 months ago
@rosepetal108 I was unaware the figures have increased. I will have to research the percentage of chimps which now hunt.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot "They can eat almost anything, but are generally more herbivorous than carnivorous."
I agree there. Actually biologically we are frugivorous omnivores. But populations do vary quite a lot. In general the more tropical the more frugivore and the more temperate and polar the greater the % of meat.
rosepetal108 6 months ago
I'll be a vegetarian when all the meat that I won't eat goes to feed the starving people in the world.
twistedH3L1X 7 months ago
@twistedH3L1X If you live in first world countries such as the USA then the livestock sector is one of the reasons that starving people don't have enough food in both your own country and others. It is a grossly inefficient means of supplying food to large populations. A huge percentage of the world's clean water, crop resources and amazingly fish stocks are fed to livestock to sustain them during their lives.
IdaMiaDot 6 months ago
@IdaMiaDot Sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning or logic. Can you please explain?
twistedH3L1X 6 months ago
@twistedH3L1X
I eat meat as well but I hope you realize how fucking stupid your statement was.
mfentruck 5 months ago
@mfentruck Sorry, I forgot my satire stick at home. Twas a jest.
twistedH3L1X 5 months ago
@twistedH3L1X
Wait did I just miss a satirical comment? I hope not, I am almost always spot on.
mfentruck 5 months ago
*cont.* I completely agree with him when he said that its natural for a shark to eat him if it was hungry/he was swimming at its location. In that instance, he actually becomes part of the ecosystem; just like he would be was the predator and hunted for his food. In that instance, it would be perfectly natural.
BeyondMortalCoil 7 months ago
*cont.* Unlike caribou or other deer for example that were born free; they actually live their lives and won't necessarily be eaten by people. It would be unreasonable to expect people living in third world countries to not eat meat; they may not have the means to go to the grocery store and buy some alternative.
BeyondMortalCoil 7 months ago
I don't think that people should eat meat of they have the means to survive without it; if they're living in a first world country. I believe that people should have to hunt for their prey if they want to consume meat; animals shouldn't be bred for the purposes of food. They shouldn't be confined to a penned in area (or even if they're free roaming cattle), because they were never really given a chance to live and survive; they were meant to be eaten by people all along.
BeyondMortalCoil 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rorycalhoun27 "I LOVE ANIMALS!!!
especially with a lttile [sic] BBQ sauce or teriyaki sauce!!! DELISH!!!!" So, what you are REALLY saying, is "Animal flesh only tastes good when it's flavored with plants."
monkeyfist529 7 months ago
@monkeyfist529
RE "Flavoured with plants"
I think the word we are looking for children,...Is PWNED!
FatRakoon 5 months ago
I'm a free thinker. Yeah right
waiotahi52 7 months ago
I don't care about suffering of animals "suffering" any more than I care about a plant's suffering. Put a match to a houseplant and watch it's reaction under high-speed. Suffer as we know it is anthropomorphic. That said, I DO care act of intentional cruelty to anything. In the case of cruelty to non-humans it is the mindset of a person who hurts something BECAUSE he/she thinks it can suffer.
My objections to factory farming are simple concerns about the safety and quality of our food supply.
no2religions 8 months ago
Vegetarianism/veganism is an emergent property not predicted by previous human evolution. Atheists can chose to be ethical beyond or in spite of religion. FFreeThinker decides to be Morlock instead of Eloi. I can say this because I am an atheist, a ethical vegetarian/vegan and a conservationist. I just celebrated my big 50th for all of these. Like many bigoted judges that decide cases unfairly because they can, the selfish atheists eats meat because they can. Sad.
dropintheforest 8 months ago
I think Tracie was spot on with her description.
rocklobter 8 months ago
I think meat eating is OK, but how animals are treadet in factorys isn't OK
ThePeacefulAtheistt 8 months ago
humans not meat eaters. Well thats actually true, before we had fire we couldnt eat meet.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk before we had fire, we ate meat raw.
scotchlouis 9 months ago
@scotchlouis No thats actually wrong. The fact is that before we had fire, we didnt eat much meat at all. Primeraly fish.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk Not much, but we ate it.
scotchlouis 9 months ago
@scotchlouis im no expert but i bet we also at a lotta nuts fruits berries and whatever greenery we knew didnt kill us.
itsuyo211 8 months ago
@gulbirk "The fact is that..." source? The fossil and archaeological records clearly show otherwise in that the evolution of our teeth in reaction the the change in diet WAY proceeds the appearance of controlled fires. And you don't need teeth like this to eat clams.
If your position is so weak that you need to make shit up in order to defend it in a public forum like this, then keep it to yourself.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions Our teeths are clearly not suited to eat raw meat, or even tear up meat. And as far as I understand, most biologists admit that we probably started out as plant eaters.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk Different teeth have different functions. The function of a K-9 tooth is exactly to rip meat. "Admit" we started with plants? It's not admit, it's obvious to everyone.
Try googling "human teeth meet". Seem like the least you could do before tell everyone they are wrong.
Here are some chimps hunting and eating a monkey because the mostly eat fish... is that how you interpret this?
watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions We arent chimpz, they are just as modern as we are, we didnt come "from" them. Im just quoting my OWN science books. Oxford biology ""Humans most likely started out as plant eaters"" of course we have teeths for eating meat, but not raw meat and not meat that is hard to get through.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk No one would ever argue that our ancestors weren't herbivores. The same number of qualified people would agree that humans ate cooked meat first.
The point with the chimps was not that we came from chimps, but that it seems very likely that the K9 evolved before our lines diverged. And that would either be before we harnessed fire or that chimps somehow forgot this feat.
And I hope you aren't quote-mining that oxford book. It says that we evolved our meat teeth from cooked meat?
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions No it says humans used to eat vegtables, therefore we had a better digestion system. You have an apendix that is most likely a remain of a second stomach (this is only an hypothesis, but its very very plausible).
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk the appendix is a what is left of an organ known as a "caecum" which is much larger in herbivores. There is no dispute about herbivore ancestors. But the diet would have changed THEN the caecum shrunk. Our ancestors have been eating animal flesh for a very, very long time.
There is no need you and I to think up "hypotheses" on these matters. Other, more qualified people have spent their careers figuring out this stuff.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions Sorry, then whats the argument? All I have said/stated is simply the same as biologists say. We didnt start out as meat eaters, and without fire it isnt sure if we would have become meat eaters.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk "The fossil and archaeological records clearly show otherwise in that the evolution of our teeth in reaction the the change in diet WAY proceeds the appearance of controlled fires."
so did you not bother to read it before you called it wrong? No one ever said we started as meat eaters. If you want to go far enough back, we started as phototropes. You said that the meat we ate first was cooked, and that is factually incorrect and proven so by every single source you care to check.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions No, I said we didnt consider humans to BE meat eaters before we had fire.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk "before we had fire we couldnt eat meet."
No you didn't. What kind of an idiot are you to think you could just lie like that when I only need to look up at what you actually say? Seriously. I'm done. You've been full of shit in every comment. It's a matter of record here in this thread, and all really I wanted to do is to not let you bullshit people who might read your garbage and take it at face value.
Don't eat meat, fine. But you don't get to make up your own facts.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions I eat meat. And at least im not the one who has to insult people. So many atheists are so fucking rude. I ONLY quote what I can find in the Oxford Biology book.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk You'd be a lair if I were an atheist or not. Nice read herring BTW
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions Im a liar? I only quote the Biology book, maybe you should go talk to the author instead, LOL.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk " before we had fire we couldnt eat meet." Then "No, I said we didnt consider humans to BE meat eaters before we had fire." those aren't the same thing and you know it, You're a liar.
Now it's, " I only quote the Biology book"... I'm willing to bet that NEITHER or your above lies are in that book.
"and without fire it isnt sure if we would have become meat eaters." Again, what page of what book? It's a baldfaced lie and everyone here can see it. Liar liar pants on fire. :)
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions Im not lying, maybe the book is outdated, I dont know. My main point was that humans were not considered by biologists to be meat eaters, the same way we consider animals like lions and tigers to be meat eaters. If im wrong, im wrong, I really dont care. Anyone is free to eat meat (because its fucking good), and anyone is free to protest eating meat. When I think of it, who am I to say that we are vegetarians when we eat meat, LOL. I stand corrected.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@no2religions Is it possible that our cuspids have another function besides tearing flesh?
monkeyfist529 8 months ago
@monkeyfist529 It's not impossible, but what else would cause them to grow in exactly to same way as meat? And why would it be different in humans that in every single other animal with these type of teeth. I real don't see it.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions "...but what else would cause them to grow in exactly to [sic] same way as meat?" Please elaborate a bit further, I don't understand what this statement means. "...why would it be different in humans that [sic] in every single other animal with these type of teeth." Why would WHAT be different? What do you mean by "it"?
A couple questions: 1) have you ever heard of mutually protected occlusion? and 2) do gorillas have large canines and what are they used for?
monkeyfist529 8 months ago
@monkeyfist529 "mutually protected occlusion", I hadn't heard of it, but upon looking it up I find that it occurs in both herbivores and carnivores. Looks like an aspect of teeth generally.
The primate canine evolved prior to the speciation between the gorillas and the chimp/human line. In humans they retain their original function. In gorillas they have evolved into a social use. Thus they are bigger in males than females (despite the same diets) where as they are the same in humans.
no2religions 8 months ago
@no2religions Mutually protected occlusion...you looked it up? What is it? What is the reference that you found that says mutually protected occlusion is a general aspect of the dentition for herbivores and carnivores? You mentioned that the human canines retain their original function. What is the original function? Do you really think that the purpose of our canines now is to tear skin and flesh? Our canines protect our veggie grinding molars. Our canines are pathetic actually.
monkeyfist529 8 months ago
@monkeyfist529 You're right, I'm wrong, your trophy is in the mail. All hail monkeyfist529.
no2religions 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gulbirk Different teeth have different functions. The function of a K-9 tooth is exactly to rip meat. "Admit" we started with plants? It's not admit, it's obvious to everyone.
Try googling "human teeth meet". Seem like the least you could do before tell everyone they are wrong.
Here are some chimps hunting and eating a monkey because the mostly eat fish... is that how you interpret this?
watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg
watch?v=YMXk5Z6-IHY
no2religions 8 months ago
Also one more thing, as far as priorities...veganism doesn't have to be a priority, it is just easy to do. It is not a hard issue to tackle. You just stop eating meat.
mellamosean 9 months ago
However, I disagree with the caller about the ethicality of eating meat that is grown separately from an animal. It fucking weird to think about, but I don't see how that would be wrong, and I'm upset that the caller said that was wrong because it takes away from his argument. Finally, the point about us coming from a spoiled position here in the west, true, but irrelevant to the question of whether it is ethical or not for US to eat meat, no vegan says starving people should be vegans....
mellamosean 9 months ago
@mellamosean The caller didn't say that eating Star Trek meat would be unethical, he said it would be unhealthy. In part II of the video, the caller notes that eating roadkill isn't unethical...but it's unhealthy (eating meat vs a plant-based diet). The fact that Matt disagrees with the Amer. Heart Associations recommendations shouldn't be surprising since he is overweight and has Type II diabetes largely due to his poor dietary choices.
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
@monkeyfist529
yea, but it was really a conversation that was supposed to be about ethics, so I don't like when people go off topic...
mellamosean 9 months ago
@mellamosean Who went off-topic? Matt asked the caller if he would be ok eating the meat if it was synthesized, the caller said "no" and then Matt asked "why not". Should the caller have said "I'm not going to discuss "why not" because it's off topic and doesn't deal with the ethics of eating meat."?
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
@monkeyfist529
The thing was, Matt was asking him an ethical question, and if you can't see that, you don't understand the point of synthesizing meat.... I think he would have been better off replying, "I wouldn't have a problem with people eating it, but personally, I would refrain for health reasons." Obviously I know there are vegans for different reasons... but the call, directed to the atheist guy was clearly for discussing ethics. I'm an atheist vegan just like the caller...
mellamosean 9 months ago
@mellamosean Being vegan for many people isn't just about ethics. That is why all the vegans I know distinguish between being a vegan for ethical reasons, or health reasons, or environmental reasons. There are vegans out there that hunt. There are plenty of vegans who adopted the diet for the health benefits only.
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
I share the same perspective with the caller, about increasing the happiness/decreasing the happiness of other beings. I think people who eat meat like to bring up the Janism, and question how vegans treat insects, and I think the treatment we should consider for insects is another debate. If no insects existed would he consider being a vegan? It would probably not change anything for him, so he's really dragging attention away from the real issue.
mellamosean 9 months ago
Holy shit... so much about what that girl's original response seems so...unintelligent, at least to me. First, that eating meat is unnatural...where did she ever come to that conclusion? Second, why would what is natural affect our morals? If in every other species, the male rapes the female, does that make it the right thing to do? It doesn't seem to me that she has a very good moral compass.
mellamosean 9 months ago
Veganism, warmed over religious sentiment founded on faith since science has shown people were meant to eat meat... You know, rather than dying slowly on the unhealthy fad diet called veganism, why not eat a gun and end it all so much sooner?
bl91978 9 months ago
@bl91978 Whose science showed that? The human body has mostly, if not exclusively, herbivorous traits (longer digestive tract, short, blunt teeth [and spare me that bullshit about our "canine teeth"; try comparing yours to your dog's first, and then we'll talk], flexible fingernails instead of claws, etc.). And spare me the bullshit about how veganism is "unhealthy" as well. How can a diet consisting of fruits, veggies, grains, and beans be that unhealthy?
ElectricMayhem87 9 months ago
@ElectricMayhem87 Science has shown us real herbivores can breakdown everything in a plant including cellulose! You know, that which differentiates flora from fauna? Our digestive tracts might be longer than carnivores but we're no where near an herbivore (why?) because WE are OMNIVORES! (Goggle the definition) And your FAD is unhealthy because grains are unhealthy. It's unhealthy because the soy the west co-opted from my people is processed to hell. I don't do processed, it's unhealthy.
bl91978 9 months ago
@bl91978 We are herbivores. It is not possible for you to show a single aspect of our biology or physiology that isn't perfectly suited to an entirely plant-based diet.
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
@bl91978 and p.s. The Google definition of "herbivore" makes no difference. I can make my own dictionary now that has a different definition for herbivore...how would know which one to believe if you found conflicting definitions? Who says grains are unhealthy? What authors talk about that? Processed foods aren't necessarily unhealthy. What reference do you have for that? Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat soy...lots of vegans don't eat soy.
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
@monkeyfist529 Tthe research is out there. Especially with the advent of better research data we get from electronic medical records where we can take a more holistic view on the health of an individual, rather than self reported survey crap. BTW, schizophrenics make up their own definitions all the time... lolz
bl91978 9 months ago
@bl91978 "The research is out there"? Prove it.
monkeyfist529 9 months ago
ehhhh. the solution to poverty and animal suffering are the same... feed the grains to africans instead of cows. arguments for not eating meat are visible rationalisations. the fact that other animals eat meat doesn't have any implications on our ethics at all. i can imagine a time when the statement "I'm fine with being biased toward my species" is a statement of horrible bigotry, similar to if he had said "I'm fine with being biased towards my race" today.
eltonjohnfan109 9 months ago
@arandomperseon You gonna come to a point any time soon? That comparison is incredibly fucking stupid.
clipsryan 9 months ago
@arandomperseon My choice in food is of no business to you nor is your opinion of it irrelevant to me. My view on abortion is also irrelevant sense I'm not a woman but I will say that abortion happens and there nothing anyone can do about it and you can't pick and choose which patients get an abortion and which ones don't. Rap and incest happens and it's not my say if a mother should have the child or not.
clipsryan 9 months ago
@arandomperseon 1. You clearly forgot your own question. 2. Same thing and you didn't have a point. 3. Clearly not as selfish. 4. Or fat ass macho jerks trying to justify eating one animal and not the other while slowly dying or heart failure forgetting protein can be gotten from many sources without killing another creatures trying to take care of it's family. "I deserve to live more than a weaker or less mentaly complex species" That's self-righteous.
clipsryan 10 months ago
@arandomperseon Herbivores are organisms that eat plants -_-'.
Self defense is fine but the fuck does that have to do with eating them? -_-'
If you don't understand selfish justification, that's on you and experimenting on animals is incredibly fucked up. -_-' -_-' '-_-'
The definition of life doesn't affect the opinions of it and how it's used, moron. It's special to me and the lifeforms I care about.
clipsryan 10 months ago
@arandomperseon We have minds that allow us to not be slaves to nature so that excuse is fucking pathetic and tiresome. Not every animal in nature kills another one for food and considering most people eat meat for the taste and not for it's protein (found in veggies), I find their opinion on not eating meat, pointless and flooded with insecurity.
clipsryan 10 months ago
Pretty lame so far. Lame too are the tiresome and unoriginal comments from the redneck retards below.
pandaya 10 months ago
@arandomperseon Then can i come to your house and eat your dog? Or do you plan on eating it yourself?
ShroomFuu86 10 months ago
I tend to lump up Veganism with Religions that have this taboo on pork, cows, shellfish and other animals (as far as I'm concerned, if it can't kill you when you eat it, you can eat it). I'm not saying I believe Veganism is a religion, I'm saying they wont make me feel guilty for eating meat. And unless scientist find a way to invent a protein resequencer or replicator, I'll stick to eating meat.
LeviathanZr6 10 months ago
I LOVE meat, especially pork. ^^
Scorpitarios 11 months ago
One soilent green with butter, please!
chelmy18 11 months ago
Meat IS murder. Tasty, tasty murder. Humans ARE omnivores, historically and currently. You can choose to eat whatever you are able to kill and devour, animal or vegetable. Do you think wolves came around humans and became faithful partners because of all the delicious tofu and granola available? Yeah, deprive yourself and your pets (who are carnivores, mostly obligate) of the one substance that contains all nutrition necessary to survive because you're squeamish. That's reasonable.
SirLordBeavisEsquire 11 months ago
@SirLordBeavisEsquire Pets who are carnivores are adapted to only eat meat, so you would have to leave them out when talking about depriving both humans and pets of meat. Secondly, meat does NOT contain all nutrition necessary for us to survive, that is false. It's more reasonable to say that youre depriving us from meat, one of the substances that cause the most problems both for humans, animals and nature, globally. Is that a bad thing? Your assertion is fallible, ignorant and obsolete.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
predation in nature cannot excuse the violent abuses of the industrialized food industry.
Ecdysiast96 1 year ago 2
I never understood the justification for Veganism. Considering plants and everything related to them is also life just like animals. Eating an animal is no different then eating a plant, fruit, or vegetable. EVERYTHING we eat is life. That's just how life is. That's one of the ways we know there is no God. Things are too fucked up.
DanieltheSkeptic 1 year ago
@DanieltheSkeptic Actually, theres a vast difference in eating plats and animals. Plants dont have a central nervous system and dont feel pain the way we do, nor do they experience anything that some animals has to put up with. I recently became a vegetarian mainly because of health reasons, but there are also environmental reasons and in many cases, but not all, animal suffering. I don't really care that much about other people eating animals, but the benefits of a vego diet are quite evident.
NoiseSculpted 1 year ago
@NoiseSculpted
Well, I hope that's the reason. Because if it's purely because vegans don't want to eat life, than that's just silly. However, there are many benefits of eating meat. I believe there is a study in terms of longevity somewhere (I'll try to find it) that stated that as we reach middle age, the best diet is our hunter-gatherer one. Which including lean meat.
Me, I'm not a vegan for the reason of suffering, because animals don't hesitate to eat us.
DanieltheSkeptic 1 year ago
@DanieltheSkeptic Yes, they should more preferably say "intelligent life" rather than just "life" to clear things up. Im not sure there are MANY benefits, but I do agree lean meat is pretty healthy. Although, I cant see what would be specifically healthy with for example fish that we cant get from eating a non-meat diet, that would affect us when weve reached the middle age.
NoiseSculpted 1 year ago
@DanieltheSkeptic One more thing; I'd be glad if you shared and explained more of those benefits of eating meat that you speak of, because I dont know any actually ;)
NoiseSculpted 1 year ago 2
@NoiseSculpted
Sorry for the late reply, check out my response to Monkeyfist529 on the video comments for one example. The main reason for eating meat is protein. You need to eat a lot of the right veggies to get the protein from one sitting of a good size meat. I welcome criticism. If we ate veggies instead of meat (our ancestors I mean), then we would have been weak and unable to survive as well as we did. We ate veggies when we couldn't eat meat.
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic "We ate veggies when we couldn't eat meat." That is actually backwards. Early humans ate meat when they were pushed to the fringe and couldn't find fruits and vegetables. "You need to eat a lot of the right veggies to get the protein from one sitting of a good size meat." Are you talking about 'complete proteins"...because if you are, that theory went out of fashion back in the 80's. No one claims a need for 'complete proteins' anymore. All veggies are complete.
monkeyfist529 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic Many types of seeds (100 g) also contain about as much as fish. Also, there are various types of beans and peas, which are not as rich in protein, but that you can combine, for both protein and vitamins and other nutrients. Along with something like couscous and bulgur you get a lot of protein as well, if you combine it with something else. So I don't see where I would need to eat "a lot more" or in some cases even "more" than if Im eating meat.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic And what our ancestors needed is irrelevant, because the time we live in is vastly different. Using our ancestors as an argument is like saying, for example "We've done it like this way for 10000 years, so we need to keep doing it this way for the rest of our existance, or atleast the nearest 1000 years, regardless of technical and scientific advances."
*continued in next post...*
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@NoiseSculpted
Health wise, yes, less risk for salmonella I believe and other forms of food poisoning and airborne illness that comes from undercooked meat. Economic wise...perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on that one? I would be glad to learn more on the subject. I have no problem switching to a vegan diet for benefits, but the hard part is of course, like for many, switching the food they find most delicious for one that would require a build up of tolerance.
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic You should go to this site for all your questions chooseveg. com. I know it can be irritating to be handed a documentary or a website for answer, but there you've got everything I'd figure you'll ask, and its really easily navigated and quick to read through. For the economic argument I'd say the less it takes, such as not breeding something bigger such as cattle with edibly food, the less it costs. It might not be an economical boost personally.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic I would not force you to do anything, but if you honestly looked through the categories, Animals, Earth, Health, The Switch etc, and considered and acknowledged the arguments I'd be satisfied. And theres no building up tolerance as I know of, Ive not noticed a change in me or anything, I just work out in the gym and sport as usual and feel normally healthy.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic [...] the importers cant make demands on the plantation owners, because the food prices would become more expensive. The reason the food prices are as low as they are is becuase the conditions get lower and lower for both animals and nature. Fitting more and more animals on the same areas as before, and producing the cheapest protein feed for cattle using pesticides and fertilizers. Insemination also makes the animals give more births than they would otherwise.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@NoiseSculpted The taste of meat is a benefit.
havvyweponsman 9 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic "...many benefits of eating meat." Do you mean, versus eating plants? I would love to see the study you mentioned indicates that we should adapt a hunter-gatherer diet as we reach middle age. By the way, what is "middle age"?
monkeyfist529 11 months ago
@monkeyfist529
I'll get to finding it, and middle age is typically 'middle age' the middle of your cycle of senesence before you die of decay. (Senesence is another word for aging) One benefit I do know, is protein. You get far more protein from Turkey, chicken and other forms of meat than you do from veggies. The amount of veggies you need to eat to reach the protein you get from a good size of meat makes it hard to say which is better,
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic So, you get far more protein from turkey, chicken and other forms of meat than you do from veggies. I weigh 175 lbs. How much protein do you think I need to consume daily? Do you think that there are any drawbacks to eating too much protein? Also, I want to know what you consider "middle age". I feel you skirted that question. Thanks.
monkeyfist529 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic Actually, youve got it wrong. I figure you haven't checked on the table of contents for neither animal protein sources, nor vegetarian protein sources. Reading from wikipedia, 100 g of soy beans contain 36,6 g of protein, which is as much as 110 g of the most protein rich source of meat, being a certain part of beef. 100 g of both lentils or kidney beans contain about as much as 110 g of chicken breast.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@NoiseSculpted
I have for animal protein but not much for many vegetarian protein sources. I do agree that it is irrelevant what our ancestors needed, however It was referring to a study that I'm still having trouble recalling the source. It might have been from a news segment, however I doubt it. The study as I think I mentioned suggested from middle to old age (mid 40s+) increased life expectancy. (continued on next post)
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@monkeyfist529
I'll admit, I MIGHT have exaggerated by using the word 'many' (emphasis on might, there could be plenty of benefits that don't come to mind at the moment, some based on circumstance). Point is, if you cut out meat, you need to compensate by eating a lot more to fill the void of the nutrients that come from animals. For health concerns, seafood carried good cholestoral that protects your heart.
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic "...seafood carried good cholesterol that protects your heart." What seafood? Fish? Studies have shown this isn't true. Download this 2009 article from your health science library:
Dijkstra SC, Brouwer IA, van Rooij FJA, Hofman A, Witteman JCM, Geleijnse JM. Intake of very long chain n-3 fatty acids from fish and the incidence of heart failure: the Rotterdam Study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:922-928.
monkeyfist529 11 months ago
@monkeyfist529
Hmm, that's quite interesting. Omega-3 Fatty Acids don't provide a reduced risk for heart failure huh? Thanks for pointing that out and with a source, I'll check it out and study up a bit.
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@NoiseSculpted
So since animals will eat us when they can, I don't mind eating meat, and it doesn't bother me that they were killed and butchered, HOWEVER, that's where I draw the line. Animals don't force us to fight in arenas to the death for entertainment, and animals don't keep us as pets and treat them like crap.
DanieltheSkeptic 1 year ago
@DanieltheSkeptic I kind of draw the line there too. I dont feel much empathy for the animals in the slaughterhouse at all tbh, but I do see why others could. And just something Id like to share: Ive met people that, when Ive said that I eat vegetarian mainly because of health concerns, respond to me by saying "Oh, so you do it because of egoistic reasons". Yeah, mostly, so what? Whats the problem with that when I know it has good effects on many planes? :S
NoiseSculpted 1 year ago
@NoiseSculpted
But honestly, I think that whether you ate meat, or you ate a lot more as a vegan to compensate for the lack of meat, either way, it comes down to personal preference. You're still eating life and it is still food.
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic I agree to a certain point that it is subjective, where you wanna draw the line as he speaks of, but there are health, ecenomic and environmental benefits from consuming a vegetarian or vegan diet that need to be concidered, because they benefit us all. It's about a more sustainable consumption, and it's hard to grasp or even come to thought when one is used to the convenience of the meat industry. I know cus I was myself, and I did not get what the whole veg thing was about.
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@NoiseSculpted
I do agree it has benefits, but realistically, not eating meat is a difficult thing to achieve for those who have been eating it for quite awhile. Environmental wise, it doesn't make a difference. Eating period lowers the population of life on Earth (veggies come from plants which are lifeforms like animals) so population wise, the difference is superfluous, plants provide more of a benefit towards our survival than animals do (not justifying violence against animals)
DanieltheSkeptic 11 months ago
@DanieltheSkeptic Eating meat is not difficult to achieve, I just did 2 months ago. I still eat meat perhaps once a week, you dont need to change so drastically. Veggies which comes from plants being lifeforms is unimportant. It's not eating lifeforms in general that matters. It's about animals which have central nerve systems suffering unnecessarily, rainforests being deforested and strong pesticides are being used to grow soy beans which a lot is used to feed cattle because [...]
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
"I feel the health benefits of eating meat far outweigh the benefits of not eating meat", says the fat man. False beliefs can have negative consequences.
pompousprick 1 year ago
@pompousprick
Don't forget, being fat means you can live longer without food then a skinny person. Fat is necessary. Like everything, if there is too much of it, then it's bad.
DanieltheSkeptic 1 year ago
the host is a speciecist. animals don't need to have all the rights that humans have. it doesn't make sense for animals to have the right to vote or education but it does make sense for animals to have the right to live. search for 'the case for animal rights tom regan' nd u'll get all the answers. The World is Vegan! if we want it.
monlamthai 1 year ago
As a Human I give all of us the highest moral concerns. Animals should be respected, but killing many animals to save a few humans is fine. To use them in scienctific studies is fine, as increased knowledge can aid humanity.
Also, it is clear naturally we require meat. The Vegan diet needs careful planning to ensure your getting all 20 amino acids, which shows us that this is not the natural way of things.
But we need animal welfare laws so people don't harm animals without justification.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 I rather have a few more animals in nature than a few more humans. There are a lot of idiotic humans out there that I would rather replace with deers or even pigs. Don't you agree?
Hermoor 1 year ago
@Hermoor Well yeh there are some scumbag humans out there, but I would never advocate their death unless it was absolutely neccesary, i.e. killing a nazi soldier, or a suicide bomber before he blew himself up.
I love animals dont get me wrong, but humans must come first.
markgg1 1 year ago