PDA

View Full Version : Are there any good arguments PRO eating meat at all?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

LunaVanillaVega
Jan 5th, 2006, 12:04 PM
13 Good reasons for eating meat, eggs, and dairy:

1. Cancer of the stomach, colon, intestines, and breasts

2. High cholesterol and clogged arteries resulting in congestive heart failure (One egg has 217 mg of cholesterol, meat & diary is high in fat and cholesterol.)

3. Obesity (only 2% of vegans are clinically overweight)

4. Vitamin, mineral, and fiber deficiencies (meat, eggs, & dairy contain no fiber, and are seriously lacking in human vitamin & mineral requirements.)

5. Osteoporosis (the excessively high animal proteins in dairy actually leach calcium from human bones.)

6. Leukemia (vegans are 9-times less likely to develop it, compared to meat-eating humans.)

7. A shorter life. (vegans live an average of 10 years longer than meat-eating humans.)

8. Increased risk of childhood schizophrenia and autism. (recent studies show that there is a link between these conditions and the ingestion of dairy in childhood.)

9. Polluting the water. (the commercial livestock industry is the leading cause of industrial water pollution in the U.S.A., because livestock causes 130-times the excrement of the entire human population. [87,000 lbs./per second.] Farms & slaughterhouses do not have to provide proper sewage control, so the majority of the excrement is dumped into streams, rivers, or stagnant "ponds" on site, which seeps into the local ground waters.)

10. Polluting the air (the commercial livestock industry creates massive amounts of toxic methane every year... ever drive past a cattle farm? gross.)

11. Destroying the rainforests. (cattle ranching is the leading cause of tropical rainforest decimation, as the forest is destroyed to make room for grazing. 55 square feet of rain forest may be razed to produce just 1 quarter-pound burger. By being a vegan/vegetarian, you save, on average, an acre of trees every year.)

12. Contributing to world-wide hunger and starvation. (raising animals for food uses 70% of the U.S. corn, wheat, & other domestic grains. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of feed equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people- more than the entire human population.)

13. Needlessly perpetuating the torture, suffering, and murder of innocent animals. (they have nerves, brains, and emotions, too.)

Human anatomy doesn't lie:
We are built to be herbivores and
We are meant to stop drinking milk after we are weened.

Carnivores have very sharp, pointed teeth and claws for tearing flesh and hide. The jaws of carnivores only move up-and-down (for biting prey, tearing and chewing meat,) not up-and-down and side-to-side, which is required for grinding plants. They also have short intestines, so the raw meat will pass through their system quickly, before it rots. Carnivorous animals require a high consumption of fats and proteins for their systems to function properly.

Herbivores have less pointed, flatter teeth for grinding plants, and rarely have claws. Their jaws are able to move side-to-side to grind plants (think of a cow when she chews grass.) They also have very long intestines to allow slow digestion of plants and nuts. Non-carnivorous animals require relatively low amounts of fats and proteins for their bodies to function properly. They get all these proteins and fats from plant sources.

Humans have less pointed, flatter teeth, made for grinding plants, and we do not possess claws for natural hunting. Our jaws are able to move side-to-side for grinding and chewing plants. We also have very long intestines, the biggest sign of a herbivore; when we eat meat, it starts to rot inside of our intestines. Humans require small amounts of fats of proteins for our bodies to function properly.
(Throughout history, there have been many successful, professional athletes, even Olympians, who have been vegetarians and vegans.)

Humans are meant to live on a diet of plants, that's why we are built like other plant-eaters. If humans were meant to eat meat, we would be built like the other meat-eaters.

No species on Earth is built to drink the milk of another species. No species on earth is built to drink milk after they are old enough to chew solid food and have been weened from their mother's milk.

There is an enzyme that naturally occurs in infants' bodies to help them digest breast milk. Around the ages 3 -4, their bodies stop producing L-cystein, the lactose-tolerating enzyme. Essentially, we all become naturally lactose intolerant: we are not biologically designed to process milk from any species once we stop breast-feeding. The commercial food industry adds this enzyme to foods containing lactose so that humans can better digest it.

Baby cows have 4 stomachs and are meant to gain about 1000 lbs. in their first year of life. Cows milk is very high in fat to help this process, and the 4 stomachs allow for its proper digestion.

Baby humans have one stomach and they gain about 20 - 30 lbs. in their first year of life. Human milk is considerably lower in fat and lactose, compared to cow's milk.

Make informed choices when you sit down to eat.
If you care about someone, educate them, too.

Zero
Sep 4th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Mainstream nutritionists just don't seem to have a clue a lot of the time. They just tell everyone to eat everything availiable that way you will get what you need.

I still hear nutritionists going on about the huge amounts of protein people should eat and how veganism is unhealthy on that front. They simply don't understand that it's the quality of the nutrient and how well the human body assimilates it not just how much is there.

The best arguement people can come up with after you dispell all the myths surrounding meat are, well nonsensical. Things like "I feel stronger when I eat meat" or "Humans have always eaten meat" or "I just like meat".

In the end the only "Pro" arguement that makes real sense is that the meat industry fills the deep pockets of the meat industry executives and they will always come out with these bogus studies we see all the time about how fish could be linked to certain health benefits or whatever because for them MEAT = BIG PROFITS.
Of course this arguement only benefits them.

We just have to keep educating those people who are interested in listening, because once you know that meat is wrong and dirty and disgusting and recognize the validity of the lives of Animals it is imposible to unlearn these facts.

xrodolfox
Sep 4th, 2007, 06:02 PM
The best argument for eating meat is: It's a cultural habit for community identity.

However, that's still a pretty horrible reason. My opinion is that an action which is has a ritual based on death needs to be reevaluated.

Zero
Sep 5th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Indeed, a lot of it is just down to tradition and conformity. People often believe the majority cannot be wrong. The truth is that the majority can be wrong, the Earth used to be flat you know? ;)

Linxie
Sep 5th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Most of my friends say that they eat meat because they like it and just can't give it up. I've never understood that as i think meat tastes horrible and has a really gross texture (from what I remember).

What really worries me is the people who know how much animals suffer but just don't care. When people have so little or no compassion I have to wonder what kind of people they are!

A friend of mine recently announced that red meat is really good for you. I just looked at her and was lost for words. Even my real meat eating friends accept that its not the best thing for their diet! Mind you this is the same friend who thinks that cheese is "really healthy and low fat".

applebaby
Nov 26th, 2007, 06:44 AM
when i mentioned a girl i work with today that i am vegan she plafully hit me and was like "you're a bad girl! isn't that bad for you ??" and at the time i was just like ..... no ...... because i don't know it just seems so rediculous to me that i don't even know what argument to give.

i'm sure i have heard valid arguments before, but it's just, for me personally, my health has improved so much since giving up meat &animal products it just goes without saying. i'm sure there are people who have had not the best experience giving up meat and feel they are stronger or have more energy or whatnot when they eat meat, but i look at the meat now and it is just so dense. hard to digest. i mean, if your body is in good working order, i think it should be able to get what it needs out of a completely plant-based diet.

i even ate raw fruits &vegetables ONLY all summer long and never got sick, went to the dentist and they were amazed at how my gum problems were clearing up. i felt amazing. no meat needed here.

within the first week of giving up meat though, i got terribly sick. sicker than i ever had been in years! then after that passed, i havn't been sick since. my body needed to adjust and it was rough at first but then everything has been much better since.

Fuhzy
Nov 26th, 2007, 07:43 AM
The best (real) argument I have seen is that it's very healthy (biologically) to incorporate small amounts of lean meat into a diet. Clean protein, B12, etc.

Not advocating it, but that seems to be the only reasonable argument out there...

John
Nov 30th, 2007, 02:50 AM
It must be nice to be able to travel the world with no morals and eat whatever is put in front of you. Dog meat? Sure; dolphin? No problem; human flesh? Well, it's already dead.

Roxy
Nov 30th, 2007, 06:27 AM
If you're some selfish person without a conscience, it's probably nice. I know that I'd rather be dead than live like that.

ALexiconofLove
Nov 30th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Short version of my post:

"Natural" is not always a meaningful term.
Even when "natural" is meaningful, it is not a justification for cruelty.

Long version:

Why do so many Vegans use the carnivore-herbivore comparison chart as proof that we are herbivores? It seems like a very ill-planned argument to me, since literally NO ONE argues that human beings are carnivores. (Okay, Uncle Ted proudly proclaims that he is a carnivore, but he still eats potatoes, so you can't take him seriously.)

It would be better to use an omnivore-herviore comparison chart, but that is difficult because there is so much variation among omnivores. Dogs, pigs, opossums, skunks, and some primates are omnivores. I don't know *anything* about anatomy, but I'd guess that there is a lot of variation between all these creatures as far as intestine length, teeth, etc. Some omnivores eat more meat and some omnivores eat less meat.

Here is my personal belief (I say belief because I haven't done as much research into this as I should!): humans are omnivores whose diet recently consisted of much less meat than it currently does. We are not fully adapted to eating the large amounts of meat we consume (as evidenced by our long intestines and stubby teeth).

But really, I dislike all of the "Humans are naturally x" or "Humans naturally eat y" arguments because I don't think "natural" has a stable meaning. Populations evolve. Carnivores can evolve into herbivores and vice versa. So while some species are firmly carnivorous or herbivorous, there are many species on a continuum between these two extremes. I think on this continuum, humans are closer to herbivores than carnivores, but that still makes us omnivores.

So I don't disagree with people who say "A Vegan diet isn't natural," because I believe our species is currently omnivorous. I just disagree that there is some "natural" ideal that we need to strive for. The people who claim a Vegan diet is "natural" don't generally run around outside naked building houses in caves.

Shells
Feb 9th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Yeah, the essentialist argument is one that's really pokey... a woman I work with seems to be on a campaign to get me to tell her it's ok to eat meat. Her biggest selling point is that "We're naturally meant to be omnivores" and goes through the whole canine teeth and intense length spiel.

Silly me. I always thought that what was "natural" to humans was rationality and the ability to use our "superiority" (the thumb, according to Aristotle) to adapt and change and think about what we're doing rather than answer every basal instinct that calls our name. The essentialist argument is one that requires putting a definition on humanity, and as a philosophy student, I feel rather confident in asserting that we don't all agree.

But for most (not necessarily me, I tend to give animals a little more credit), the point is that we can think and reflect - animals have souls (so says St. Thomas) but they don't have reflective souls. So a Lion gets hungry and goes looking for food. He sees a gazelle, and instantly goes for the one he can catch. Humans get to sit back and deliberate. We don't just have gnashing teeth and immediately satisfy them, we use our rational reflectivity to make not the first choice, but the best choice.

OMGGAZELLECARCAS!!!! - is not human nature. Sorry, essentialist omni's. Our omni-ness is part of our rational form, our ability to *choose*. And I choose to excersize what makes me human, my compassion. That's what elevates me above animals, not my constant reassertion of dominance by consumption.

(not that I think we're above animals in that regard, but rather different - our ability to choose as such takes away our innocence, and I'm hard pressed to prioritize human intelligence/will over the innocence and instinct of an animal.)

MillieAnne
Feb 13th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Oh Oh I love this one.....

"We are higher up on the food chain....that's why we get to eat them."

How barbaric and disgusting is that.

Or......."That's the way it has always been."

Ya well we used to hate black people and women weren't allowed to vote...so now what?

littlewinker
Mar 26th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Pro-meat arguments include:

we were MEANT to eat meat. We have canines. It's the cycle of life, you kill to eat.

reality: we were only designed to eat a tiny bit of meat when food was scarce, eg in the winter, not every day or even every week. Our canines look like incisors, compareout teeth to true meat eaters like cats and dogs. Our intestines are long, whereas animals that eat a lot of meat have short ones (so the meat does not have a chance to rot in the system) Animal products are completely unnecessary for survival. We are no longer part of the food cycle as we are notliving naturally, we're farming.

Meat tastes good:

probably does, I've never eaten it. There are vegan foods that taste just as good (and I'm not on about replacement meat etc). Should people and animals die and the environment get ruined just for your tastebuds? It's a pathetic argument.

There rest are arguments to do with health, which obviously are formed from ignorance.

So basically, no there are absolutely no credible pro-meat arguments. They get angry and accuse us of being militants (even after preaching anti-veganism to us) and bost of being stubborn meat eaters because they can't argue.

Korn
May 20th, 2008, 12:57 AM
Here is my personal belief (I say belief because I haven't done as much research into this as I should!): humans are omnivores whose diet recently consisted of much less meat than it currently does.


I think on this continuum, humans are closer to herbivores than carnivores, but that still makes us omnivores.



First of all - regarding the topic of the thread: I don' think there are any good arguments pro eating meat at all.

Regarding the statement about believing that humans are omnivorous, all I can say that if 'natural' isn't important, 'believe' definitely isn't - and I also wonder what you mean when you write that we are 'omnivorous'. Does it mean that we 'may' eat meat, in certain amounts, without getting sick? Does it mean that we re 'designed' to eat meat, or that we would be better off - in terms of health - if we were eating meat?

The current definition of omnivore in Wikipedia is "Omnivores (from Latin: omne all, everything; vorare to devour) are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source."

According to that definition, since I don't eat animal products, I'm not a omnivore, but my neighbor is. Does that make humans closer to omnivores because there are more omnivores than vegans/vegetarians?

And... what the consequence of not disagreeing with this negative statement:


So I don't disagree with people who say "A Vegan diet isn't natural," because I believe our species is currently omnivorous.

I disagree with the statement about a vegan diet not being natural, because humans are part of nature, plants are part of nature, and we can survive well on a diet not containing any animal products. What would that statement look like without three negatives?

ALexiconofLove
May 20th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Sorry, my viewpoints have changed somewhat since that last post! I'm no longer particularly interested in whether vegans are "naturally" omnivorous or "naturally" herbivorous. Having researched further, I don't see enough solid evidence to come to either conclusion.

Twist Kick
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:46 PM
The single only reasonable argument FOR eating meat I've ever heard was one concerning enviromental effects:

Basically, the argument was that some of every food crop that is also fed to animals (such as wheat, soybeans, corn) is 'unfit for human consumption'. Basically something went wrong with that portion of the crop and hence it cannot be processed for humans. Instead, that portion goes to be made into animal feed. If we didn't raise animals for meat, the unfit portion would go mostly wasted. Hence eating a little meat, according to the argument, is better for the enviroment.

However, even this argument has a critical flaw: It's in a hypothetical world where NO animals are raised for meat and the demand for animal feed would be extremely low in the United States. HOWEVER, one has to also consider that the argument fails to take into account that even if no animals in the USA were raised for meat, other countries would. And if, and may I point out this is reasonably IMPOSSIBLE, the whole world didn't eat meat, the 'unfit' crop would still be sellable to a third-world or less-industrialized country because the people there would eat it even if it didn't fit 'human standards'.

So while on the base level this argument sounds reasonable, it's founded on impossible conditions and hence, incorrect.

-nod- This theory actually comes from Slate Magazine's online version, I beleive from The Green Lantern. Which is why it seemed, at first, reasonable. But once you consider the actual circumstances required for the theory to work.. it just becomes another peice of anti-vegetarianism work, written up to make meat-eaters feel better about their descision because it's supposedly more enviromentally friendly.

tweqy
Jun 18th, 2008, 03:42 AM
convenience and tradition are the only two things i can think of that an meat eater could say; and are the two main reasons why people continue to purchase.

The other is brain washing due to the fact that the large corporations have invested billions toward meat production; and people love those adverts mmmm sooo tendy and yummy.

tweqy
Jun 18th, 2008, 04:04 AM
tradition goes a bit deeper though; some people refuse to believe their family has been wrong all these years.( they haven't , thats the thing, but they cant see that) .

Mr.Meater = "Are you saying my mother and father are wrong?? We have always eaten meat in our family, I am healthy , why should i even think to change my diet?"


Tweqy= "Your parents are not wrong; things have changed though; today we know so much more about nutrition; your parents have be brought up without realising that humans can live a far more healthy life without meat&dairy in the diet. As well the mass demand for meat today means that billions of animals are abused during the production of meat."

Ames
Jun 19th, 2008, 01:35 PM
Nope. No reason to eat it whatsoever!

Linxie
Jun 19th, 2008, 01:43 PM
I think we can safely conclude that there are no good reasons to eat it but lots of stupid, selfish, ignorant ones!

xrodolfox
Jun 19th, 2008, 04:08 PM
Well, I think that tradition and convenience are good reasons.

I just don't think that those reasons are good enough to justify suffering.

But that goes for most arguments, not just AR.

Some traditions and conveniences are just fine because they have very little suffering connected to them. Like the tradition of me wearing pants to my office. I'm not going to stop that tradition. ;)

Nothsa
Aug 31st, 2008, 03:33 PM
This is quite a good topic actually.

I only very recently become vegetarian (about 3 months ago) and decided to go Vegan yesterday - but while I 'was' a meat eater, I always favored the vegetarian/vegan side of the argument, which confused alot of people. I basically totally understood every reason 'not' to eat meat, I just couldn't give it up!

The truth is, there's no good argument in favor of eating meat. The government recommends that you eat 5 portions of fruit and veg per day - there's no guidelines to how much meat you should be eating, and ask any meat-eater when they say "it's unhealthy not to eat meat" if they're so health contentious, do they get their 5 a day? .... i'm sure most will say no.

I think alot of people say things like that to put up a barrier, rather than addressing the problem - it's much easier to just say things like that, than to look at and take notice of every bad part of eating meat (be it cruelty, effects on health, effects on environment etc). When I've tried to speak to my family members or friends about it, specifically the cruelty aspect most say "Oh, don't tell me about it - I don't want to know!".... I've also heard people say that they don't eat meat off the bone "because then it's an animal"

I think it's really all down to lazyness, in that people just can't be bothered to think about what they're going to eat - of course, if you cut out meat, milk, dairy and eggs then you're going to be losing ALOT of nutriants, it goes without saying, that's why you have to get them from other things, things that don't contain the fat, drugs, hormones and god knows what else. People don't do this, which is why you get the reports of 'it made me ill', 'I felt SO much better when I started to eat meat again', 'I just felt down all the time'.

As far as i can see, the best argument for eating meat is "I'm too ignorant and lazy not to".

ElaineVigneault
Sep 11th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Even if there were excellent reasons for eating animal products, they would only support eating animal products in moderation. No healthy diet should include animal products at every single meal. A more healthy approach to eating animal products would effectively be something like 80-90% vegan and 10-20% nonvegan. Instead, many omnis eat a diet that's closer to 50/50, which is incredibly unhealthy.

Many of these same omnis who claim health reasons for eating animal products won't even eat a single 100% vegan meal without being pressured to do so. They are so super-dependent on animal products, they act just like smokers or alcoholics who are addicted to a substance.

Sarabi
Nov 3rd, 2008, 07:26 AM
That's weird. I haven't thought about it since becoming vegan, but it's true that eggs are way high in cholesterol. I remember my mom telling me that a thousand times, that more than one egg per week is unhealthy because of the cholesterol. And I think I've heard that elsewhere, too.... so that definitely wasn't made up by vegans. As for meat being unhealthy, I never heard that till I started vegetarianism. I don't really care about the health issues, though, to be honest. I've never been a healthy eater, and I don't think veganism changes that except by making me more conscious.

I have heard a good argument against eating meat: needing it to survive when you actually do need it to survive. I met one guy who told me he tried to be vegan until his skin turned yellow and his hair became brittle. Some people apparently can't handle it, although I dunno if there's a way around that. He said he tried all sorts of things and still would try something else. I wouldn't ask anyone to risk their own lives for anything. For the rest of us, there's no excuse.

sandra
Nov 5th, 2008, 08:40 PM
I met one guy who told me he tried to be vegan until his skin turned yellow and his hair became brittle. Some people apparently can't handle it, although I dunno if there's a way around that. He said he tried all sorts of things and still would try something else. I wouldn't ask anyone to risk their own lives for anything. For the rest of us, there's no excuse.


I'd love to know what he was eating that turned his skin yellow and made his hair brittle! :confused:
I don't agree that 'some people apparently can't handle it' ...........if you are eating a proper vegan diet, then that is the healthiest diet you can get!
I have been vegan for 3 years now and have NEVER felt healthier...............and my hair is in great condition! :)