• HEALTH & RECOVERY
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Thread Directory 1 Thread Directory 2
    Mindfulness Links Addiction & Mind
    Sober Living Partner Program (SLiPP)
  • H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist

Vegetarianism vs meat eating

Coolio said:
saturnine, eating things while they're still alive sounds a LOT worse than eating dead things!!!
Click to expand...

mmm. well that's what ALL ANIMALS DO.

real carnivores eat a fresh kill. ever see a lion eating a still moving antelope? that's nature.
since i as a human don't have fangs or claws or a digestive tract that keeps me safe from bacterial infections, i don't maul or eat other animals. it makes sense to me and that;s why i do it. not because i feel morally or spiritually obligated.

life feeds on life, not on death.

and if you're all such big fans of naturally degrading food, then don't bother to refrigerate that meat; if you're made to eat it you wont get sick. ;)
 
Last edited:
BigBenn said:
If you read my next post you would see I addressed this issue and showed its illogical nature
Click to expand...

There may be something to disagree about with the statement(s) you are disputing (and it may turn out that Saturnine is factually incorrect) but there is nothing logically incoherent (i.e. illogical) in saying its better (healthier) to eat something while its still alive. You'll have to find a better way to dismiss it than that.
 
This thread has become too hippy-dippy for me. Everyone has strong subjective views on their philosophies behind eating, but now it all seems to be too philosophical for me. I respect these philosophical discussions and all, I just didn't expect to find them in "Healthy Living." And seeing as how I've already been a vegetarian before, and then a vegan for a little while, before evolving past it all to the level I'm at now (healthiest I've ever been, IMO), a lot of these philosophies are expired to me.

At any rate, I just thought I'd point out that this thread is looking more like a discussion about philosophies of good vs bad, rather than healthy vs unhealthy.

Have fun y'all.
 
saturnine, I was talking about from the standard vegan/vegetarian ethical stance where it's wrong to kill animals. I don't understand why it's wrong to kill animals but it's okay to kill many many more plants and eat them while they're still alive.
 
^^
* ethical: plants don't feel pain.

* environmental: some plants, such as soy, are good for the soil they grow in.

* in contrast, raising animals for food creates an excess of shit (yes, literally feces) that pollutes our air and can get into our crops and water (remember the spinach fiasco..?)

* waste of resources: to grow vegetables for food , water is only needed to keep the crops alive. to raise animals for food, water is needed for the crops (used as the animals' feed) in addition to keeping the animals themselves hydrated.

* pollution: raising animals for food is a far more complicated, energy-consuming process than agriculture because it requires more use of machinery and automobiles:
the feed the crops are harvested, then trucked to the factory farms. the animals in turn are trucked to mechanical slaughter facilites, the bodies are trucked again to processing facilites, and then packaged and trucked out to the stores.



in conclusion, everyone has a reason for what they eat.

my way is no better than yours essentially. just because i hjave conviction doesnt mean i don't agree with or respect your viewpoints.

all i have to say is, respect the factually-based opinions of others and not to take personal statements as generally applying to anyone but the speaker themself is good practice in here.


Church said:
This thread has become too hippy-dippy for me. Everyone has strong subjective views on their philosophies behind eating, but now it all seems to be too philosophical for me. I respect these philosophical discussions and all, I just didn't expect to find them in "Healthy Living."
Click to expand...

i totally agree with what you're saying, and frankly i don't intend to post any further in this thread for that reason;

people keep missing the points and instead start picking at details of what the others are saying; totally counterproductive.

the only reason im posting this is just to show everyone else in here that i have logic and thought backing my statements (more so than others with opinions); i don't need to waste my time otherwise to prove jack to myself..i know what i believe and why and that should be clear.
 
^ Just one quick point before you go, though... there is evidence that plants do feel pain. There have been scientifically proven experiments that show that plants respond accordingly to being broken/scratched/picked/pulled/etc. Anyone remember that book that came out explaining this? I think it's called "The Secret Life of Plants." That sounds right.

Anywho, bye guys.
 
^
okay i lied, this is my last post:

yes, i know about it... as far as i know they only proved that plants have a vibrational reaction to such stimuli, and not "pain" as we know it. without nerve endings i just don't think it's the same, even if it isn't totally different, either.


ciao.
 
This isn't grammar school, sorry about your post, feel free to post something on topic.

Until then, you are getting overly personal. This thread is heading to being closed.
 
^^ saturnine is getting personal? 8)

Plants do not necessarily feel pain, they simply "react" by emitting sounds when changes in the environment occur, most notably when another lifeform in the area is stressed or dying. We cannot assume this is "pain", that they suffer.
 
Well since we're already arguing...

Actually, there have been some pretty reasonably conclusive tests that plants react in specific ways to specific actions by humans. It was charted out and shown to be rather consistent. Furthermore, the element of "intention" was added into the mix, and the human experimenters would think thoughts of destroying the subject plant, and identifiable, chartable reactions ensued.

FWIW.
 
^^ Is this similar to the water crystals that form in response to their environmental influences?

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

Saw that guy's book in the bookstore.

Edit: BTW Church, can you direct me to a study for more info on the plant reactions? I remember reading a quick article once on plants sending certain frequencies off in response to alterations done to the plants, but nothing too informative.

Edit 2: Was saturnine's post deleted by user or moderator I wonder? Judging by BigBenn's reaction post...
 
Last edited:
It just so happens I'm at work and bored out of my gourd, so I would be glad to go look for some references! =D
 
I prefer BALANCE.
Meat over-consumption is unhealthy.
Vegetables overconsumption and NOT eating ANY meat might be unhealthy too.[much greater chances of anemia , for example].
From an ethical point of view, plants have feelings too. So to be really ethical you should feed yourself on fruits & chocolate. ;P
Hormones and pesticides are unfortunately used on plants as well.
Personally, nowadays I combine rather small quantities of meat with lots of fruits & vegetables. Vegetables ONLY tend to make my stomach generally more upset and swollen.

Meat has also been an essential part of many diets all over the world, such as the meditteranean one for example, considered amongst the most healthy, as far as i kno.
What i fucking hate is people trying to FORCE others their diets, be it vegetarians/vegans or meat-eaters..[usually i've noticed it's the vegz that do so though..]
 
MasterOfDeception said:
I prefer BALANCE.
Hormones and pesticides are unfortunately used on plants as well.
Click to expand...

Here's a thread-valid piece of information: meat retains pesticide residue 14 times more than vegetables
 
someone needs to close this thread.


the minute opinions are censored is the minute the thread turns to shit..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top