Is Vegetarianism/Veganism The New Religion in N.A.

[Machjo]

I'm sure that makes your momma proud.

Hitler and I are teetotallers. My momma doesn't drink much.
Hitler and I are vegetarian. My momma loves her meat.
Hitler and I believe that we should care for young Aryan children (though of course I'd extend that to all children). My momma loves kids too.

 

[Risus]

There is no scientific reason to give up meat in ones diet. There is a lot of misinformation put out by the proponents of vegetarianism/veganism. The only real reason to embrace this eating choice is on a philosophical level. Therefore, is this a type of cult or religion?

What a stupid idea....

 

[Tonington]

Is Vegetarianism/Veganism The New Religion in N.A.


No. There are plenty of scientifically defensible arguments for abandoning meat products in a diet. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean that a vegan or vegetarian is using blind faith to make their choice.

 

[JLM]

What a stupid idea....

Well, of course, meat is attributable to strength, you don't get that from lettuce leaves.

 

[Tonington]

Well, of course, meat is attributable to strength, you don't get that from lettuce leaves.

What in meat is attributable to strength? Proteins, amino acids? Where do you think they come from in the meat you're eating...

Pfffffffft

 

[JLM]

What in meat is attributable to strength? Proteins, amino acids? Where do you think they come from in the meat you're eating...

Pfffffffft

Okay- let's put it another way- What is wrong with meat, like 3 or 4 oz. of red meat 3 or 4 times a week? That amount is certainly not detrimental.

 

[Cliffy]

I guess Hitler didn't realize that humans are animals too. But then most humans think they are above animals. But if you are one of them, I say watch your cat as he/she walks away from you. Notice that his/her body language say, "kiss my ass!" Cats think humans were created to feed them and judging by people's behaviour around the little arrogant SOBs, they are right.

 

[Tonington]

Okay- let's put it another way- What is wrong with meat, like 3 or 4 oz. of red meat 3 or 4 times a week? That amount is certainly not detrimental.

Avoiding red meat lowers the risk for heart disease. This is a consistent finding. I myself eat red meat about once or twice a week. Red meat is lacking in fiber, and the high fat content increases hormone production in your body. This is where your risk of cancers begins. The risk only increases as you cook the meat and produce polyaromatic hydrocarbons that come along with the charred meat.

I wouldn't call it wrong. It's just not right for me.

Some people it's not right for at all, this may involve ethical decisions.

Equating these decisions generally with religion is laughable.

 

[mabudon]

A very good friend of ours adopted an Inuit baby almost 2 years ago, and he had no end of dietary problems- as it turned out, he is afflicted with a strange deal where he actually has to eat almost all protein in the form of red meat. His adopting (??) mother was actually eating a vegetarian diet at the time but once the dietary problem was identified his diet was switched. All drug-free "as free range as is possible" meat, but he eats red meat nonetheless. As omnivores we can eat what we choose.

As Tonnington points out, red meat isn't necessarily even good for most people to consume, but I concede in some cases (as I hopefully illustrated above) it can be.

As for all the idiots who invoke the "I'd DIE without meat" mantra, I suggest that is more indicative of a cultish mindset

 

[Said1]

No, pretty much all vegetarians do not eat meat due to religious beliefs. Some "claim" that there is science behind their decision but that is not true. Some claim that they simply "do not like meat" but that is not true either. There is only one reason to remove all meat from ones diet and science has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.

 

[s_lone]

It is if they choose not to eat it based upon some moral principle.

If I decide to not pay a woman for sexual services out of moral conviction is that a religion too?

How about if I decide to pay all the income taxes I should be paying out of moral principle, is that a religion too?

It seems to me your understanding of what a 'religion' is borders on ridiculous.

 

[ShintoMale]

humans have ONE stomach unlike herbivores that have stomachs with 4 compartments and our intestines are not long like herbivores compare our digestive system to that of herbovours like sheep, goats and cattle and those that chew thier cud

 

[Cannuck]

No. There are plenty of scientifically defensible arguments for abandoning meat products in a diet. J

Vegetarians/Vegans have been telling me this for as long as I can remember but have never actually given any scientifically defensible arguments for abandoning meat products in a diet. What they have done is given scientifically defensible arguments for reducing meat consumption (something that I believe should occur) and scientifically defensible arguments for changing farming/ranching practices(also something that I believe should occur).

I also get the "Insert celebrity de jour here was a vegetarian" nonsense because most vegetarians I've talked to are suckers for the halo effect.

 

[Cannuck]

How about if I decide to pay all the income taxes I should be paying out of moral principle, is that a religion too?

It seems to me your understanding of what a 'religion' is borders on ridiculous.

From dictionary.com

religion - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

 

[Tonington]

Vegetarians/Vegans have been telling me this for as long as I can remember but have never actually given any scientifically defensible arguments for abandoning meat products in a diet. What they have done is given scientifically defensible arguments for reducing meat consumption (something that I believe should occur) and scientifically defensible arguments for changing farming/ranching practices(also something that I believe should occur).

I guess you missed my other replies. I'll expand a bit as well if you like. It's been shown consistently that reducing red meat consumption reduces risks for heart disease. It's been shown consistently that reducing red meat in the diet reduces the risk of many forms of cancer. White meat is better, but then there are ethical issues associated. Farming practices only go so far as to satisfy economic means. Agricultural ethics that are absolute with regards to animal welfare, don't afford farmers with decent enough margins to survive the volatile changes in agricultural enterprise.

Reducing red meat might not be enough for someone who also is aware of the ethical issues surrounding animal agriculture. Draw the strings together.

These scientifically defensible arguments are not enough for you to make that choice, obviously. There's nothing in those scientific arguments that says someone has to accept the status quo.

Calling it a new religion is logically absurd. It's not new, it's not a religion. It's a trend. Are you going to call the "eat local practitioners" followers of a religion as well?

I also get the "Insert celebrity de jour here was a vegetarian" nonsense because most vegetarians I've talked to are suckers for the halo effect.

And you feel compelled to bring this up, despite the fact that I have not made any such statements. Save your rhetoric for those who will respond in kind.

 

[Cannuck]

It's been shown consistently that reducing red meat consumption reduces risks for heart disease......It's been shown consistently that reducing red meat in the diet reduces the risk of many forms of cancer.

What they have done is given scientifically defensible arguments for reducing meat consumption (something that I believe should occur)

I rest my case. You gave reasons to reduce red meat consumption, not to eliminate meat from ones diet.

White meat is better, but then there are ethical issues associated. Farming practices only go so far as to satisfy economic means. Agricultural ethics that are absolute with regards to animal welfare, don't afford farmers with decent enough margins to survive the volatile changes in agricultural enterprise.

Reducing red meat might not be enough for someone who also is aware of the ethical issues surrounding animal agriculture. Draw the strings together.

These scientifically defensible arguments are...

...not scientifically defensibly. Nice try though. I'll give you an E for effort as you managed to get through a post without name calling.

 

[Cannuck]

And you feel compelled to bring this up, despite the fact that I have not made any such statements. Save your rhetoric for those who will respond in kind.

Wow, that's pretty arrogant of you. Apparently you feel that I'm only allowed to bring up things that you yourself have stated. You should maybe post this rule (and any other rules or standards of conduct you have) in a thread so that we can all educate ourselves as to what we are and aren't allowed to say.

Keep it up. It's just more evidence of the looney thinking surrounding this issue.

 

[Tonington]

I rest my case. You gave reasons to reduce red meat consumption, not to eliminate meat from ones diet.

And eating none is less than eating 3 servings a week. Eating none is less risk of heart disease/cancer than eating 3 servings a week.

That alone is enough for some people, and is in no way related to religious faith. It's based on evidence...

Now follow that to the ethical issues...

...not scientifically defensibly.

..which are scientifically defensible. There's entire journals devoted to animal welfare. Despite your repeated assertions that they are not.

Not religious at all. Informed decision making is not the same as blind faith about spiritual issues.

 

[tracy]

From dictionary.com

religion - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

So paying your taxes or not stealing or following our laws means you are a member of a religion simply because most of us hold those beliefs and follow those practices? That seems kind of extreme to me and a very simplistic and limited definition.

 

[Tonington]

Wow, that's pretty arrogant of you. Apparently you feel that I'm only allowed to bring up things that you yourself have stated. You should maybe post this rule (and any other rules or standards of conduct you have) in a thread so that we can all educate ourselves as to what we are and aren't allowed to say.

No, I think it's just poor form for you to discuss things with me that I never said, to frame things in the manner you did. What do I care what other people say, even if they do argue the same position as me... it's irrelevant. Your pejorative use of this example when talking to me is contemptuous. Hence my response, save your rhetoric for someone who will respond in kind.

What point were you even trying to make bringing that up with me?