^ uh, how can you be both a meat eater and a vegetarian? 
Last edited:
Meat Eater / Vegetarian / Vegan
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
Eww, you have reflux too? No fun.
And this is why I don't like it when people preach about how you must be a cold-blooded killer if you don't do the "right" thing and abstain from meat. For me that would mean being on a LOT of supplements, and likely also in constant pain because of having to eat things I can't process correctly, whereas I CAN process a chicken or a fish properly. Should the law tell me that I have to live like that??? I don't think so.
Should I avoid waste, and push for a humane animal farming industry? I believe so. But to tell me that I should have to trade a diet I get good quality of life on for one that would physically disrupt me that badly--PETA can take that and shove it where the sun don't shine.
I used to have constant acid reflux when I was eating a high-carb diet. I even had to take prescription medication for it. Haven't had a problem with it at all since I went low-carb.
This is beginning to annoy me. The "meat eater" option doesn't say carnivore. If you eat meat, then you aren't vegetarian or vegan. So select the "meat-eater" option.
What if you ARE a carnivore, though?
A
Amaris
Guest
Omnivore here, meaning I survive off of BOTH meat and vegetables, not that I employ the option to go one way or another. 
Considering humans are omnivores by nature (We do have both molars for plant eating and canines for meat eating) I see no problem with eating meat. I also see no problem with people living life as they choose, if someone wants to be a vegetarian for whatever reasons they have, more power to them. I do however, dislike when people start to go on about how humans eating meat is wrongful. That is in fact something I get into long discussions over with one of my friends, who is a vegetarian. Her main point is how animals are treated when they are living things. Any time I point out that plants fit all of the scientific conditions for life and are alive she usually tries to end the conversation and leave it off with "Well plants can't feel it [when they're being hurt or killed] like animals can." And there she has a small point, I do believe that animals in the current state of how humans treat them are being treated badly. They aren't kept well, they are treated terribly, and it is very inhumane. I am 100% for the better treatment of animals. However, I do still believe that humans have every right to eat other animals as other animals do to eat each other. Pigs are omnivores. So are most species of bears. As well as chimpanzees, raccoons, chipmunks, badgers, squirrels, mice, and rats... to name a few... Why would it be any different for humans to eat meat than it is for say bears? If it is indeed "wrongful" for humans to eat meat, than does that make it equally "wrongful" for bears to eat meat? Why is the nature of the bear or pig any different from the nature of the human? We are all creatures on this planet. We are all animals. And in the same respect that some bears eat mostly plants or mostly meat depending on their area and the food available and what they need to stay healthy, we humans can differ our diets based on what is available and what we need to keep healthy. The only reason that vegetarianism is even such a viable choice for humans nowadays is, as I believe someone had mentioned previously, because of how we humans have adapted our environments to suit us. How we have bred our crops to yield more in number, to yield bigger, and to yield more nutritious foods. My sister is lactose intolerant. But these days you can find orange juice with all the same nutrition of a glass of milk in any supermarket you walk into. Calcium and Vitamin C are very commonly added in to orange juice and other juices now. People can live very healthy lives as vegetarians or as vegans. People can also live very healthy lives off of meat and vegetables combined as well. That is, after all, how our bodies were designed.
How our animals are treated is problem though. Even so called "free range" chickens are still very commonly overcrowded, and even though they have access to the outdoors, it is usually through one small door to a small outdoor area that not all of the chickens can make it out into. Treatment of animals is definitely something that needs to be fixed.
Another problem with our food system nowadays is with the amounts and portion sizes. Humans used to live and eat based on scarcity of food. It wasn't always as easy as driving down the road and handing over some money to get all the food you need. However, the instincts of humans continue to drive us to produce that way. It is, IMO, that fear of scarcity that helps drive us to overproduce and overconsume. I believe the best way to take care of that is to be more conscious of what we buy, how much we buy, and to make sure we educate our children on the same. Eventually the younger generations come to power and if they've been taught well they can learn from our mistakes and the things we got right and can make the world better.
If anyone is interested in learning anything more about food and the current problems with the food system such as animal treatment, food availability, and so on, I highly recommend the documentary Food, Inc.
And, I do just want to mention, it is a fair leap of logic to conclude that Jadzia could be in favor of making eating meat illegal. No, she did not state directly that she supported that, nor am I saying that it means she does, but she did say that 1) If she thought something was wrongful, than it should be against the law and 2) that she thought killing animals for food is wrongful. Context does come in to play, but lets not forget the context of this conversation as a whole, a thread about Vegetarianism/Veganism/Omnivorism/etc. I'm fairly certain both of those statements were said with the topic of the conversation as a whole in mind. Let's also not forget the fact that the statements, even on their own, logically support the conclusion that killing animals for food should be illegal. I find the fact that Jadzia has not denied nor confirmed that she feels this way to be the one missing piece here. It was brought up that Jadzia did not directly say she felt that it should be illegal, however MLB did not directly say that Jadzia had outright said she thought it should be. He put forth the evidence he had for why he came to the conclusion that she believed it should be. Whether or not that was indeed her meaning falls entirely onto her to clarify if that was indeed what she meant, not on MLB to find some statement he never claimed existed. We should turn to Jadzia for clarification instead of tossing back and forth what is a bad leap of logic and what isn't...
Considering humans are omnivores by nature (We do have both molars for plant eating and canines for meat eating) I see no problem with eating meat. I also see no problem with people living life as they choose, if someone wants to be a vegetarian for whatever reasons they have, more power to them. I do however, dislike when people start to go on about how humans eating meat is wrongful. That is in fact something I get into long discussions over with one of my friends, who is a vegetarian. Her main point is how animals are treated when they are living things. Any time I point out that plants fit all of the scientific conditions for life and are alive she usually tries to end the conversation and leave it off with "Well plants can't feel it [when they're being hurt or killed] like animals can." And there she has a small point, I do believe that animals in the current state of how humans treat them are being treated badly. They aren't kept well, they are treated terribly, and it is very inhumane. I am 100% for the better treatment of animals. However, I do still believe that humans have every right to eat other animals as other animals do to eat each other. Pigs are omnivores. So are most species of bears. As well as chimpanzees, raccoons, chipmunks, badgers, squirrels, mice, and rats... to name a few... Why would it be any different for humans to eat meat than it is for say bears? If it is indeed "wrongful" for humans to eat meat, than does that make it equally "wrongful" for bears to eat meat? Why is the nature of the bear or pig any different from the nature of the human? We are all creatures on this planet. We are all animals. And in the same respect that some bears eat mostly plants or mostly meat depending on their area and the food available and what they need to stay healthy, we humans can differ our diets based on what is available and what we need to keep healthy. The only reason that vegetarianism is even such a viable choice for humans nowadays is, as I believe someone had mentioned previously, because of how we humans have adapted our environments to suit us. How we have bred our crops to yield more in number, to yield bigger, and to yield more nutritious foods. My sister is lactose intolerant. But these days you can find orange juice with all the same nutrition of a glass of milk in any supermarket you walk into. Calcium and Vitamin C are very commonly added in to orange juice and other juices now. People can live very healthy lives as vegetarians or as vegans. People can also live very healthy lives off of meat and vegetables combined as well. That is, after all, how our bodies were designed.
How our animals are treated is problem though. Even so called "free range" chickens are still very commonly overcrowded, and even though they have access to the outdoors, it is usually through one small door to a small outdoor area that not all of the chickens can make it out into. Treatment of animals is definitely something that needs to be fixed.
Another problem with our food system nowadays is with the amounts and portion sizes. Humans used to live and eat based on scarcity of food. It wasn't always as easy as driving down the road and handing over some money to get all the food you need. However, the instincts of humans continue to drive us to produce that way. It is, IMO, that fear of scarcity that helps drive us to overproduce and overconsume. I believe the best way to take care of that is to be more conscious of what we buy, how much we buy, and to make sure we educate our children on the same. Eventually the younger generations come to power and if they've been taught well they can learn from our mistakes and the things we got right and can make the world better.
If anyone is interested in learning anything more about food and the current problems with the food system such as animal treatment, food availability, and so on, I highly recommend the documentary Food, Inc.
And, I do just want to mention, it is a fair leap of logic to conclude that Jadzia could be in favor of making eating meat illegal. No, she did not state directly that she supported that, nor am I saying that it means she does, but she did say that 1) If she thought something was wrongful, than it should be against the law and 2) that she thought killing animals for food is wrongful. Context does come in to play, but lets not forget the context of this conversation as a whole, a thread about Vegetarianism/Veganism/Omnivorism/etc. I'm fairly certain both of those statements were said with the topic of the conversation as a whole in mind. Let's also not forget the fact that the statements, even on their own, logically support the conclusion that killing animals for food should be illegal. I find the fact that Jadzia has not denied nor confirmed that she feels this way to be the one missing piece here. It was brought up that Jadzia did not directly say she felt that it should be illegal, however MLB did not directly say that Jadzia had outright said she thought it should be. He put forth the evidence he had for why he came to the conclusion that she believed it should be. Whether or not that was indeed her meaning falls entirely onto her to clarify if that was indeed what she meant, not on MLB to find some statement he never claimed existed. We should turn to Jadzia for clarification instead of tossing back and forth what is a bad leap of logic and what isn't...
That's because even though someone might not say it here, it is a sentiment that often comes up with this topic anywhere. I know I've come across it before. Usually if someone hears that enough times in other places in association with this topic, they associate the two. "Oh, they're talking about this again, how long till someone mentions this thing I hear all these other places about this. Better put my foot down first.
"
A
Amaris
Guest
That's because even though someone might not say it here, it is a sentiment that often comes up with this topic anywhere. I know I've come across it before. Usually if someone hears that enough times in other places in association with this topic, they associate the two. "Oh, they're talking about this again, how long till someone mentions this thing I hear all these other places about this. Better put my foot down first.
No one is going to stop anyone from eating meat if they so desire.
Yes, I have in fact been told to my face that eating meat is wrong and I should become a vegetarian. It's not something you hear anywhere near every day, but it's something I've heard more than once. I'm sure the idea also comes across in the fact that people force their own personal opinions on others all the time, regardless of what it's about.
Obviously, no one will ever manage to get that to come to pass, no. But then I never said they would.That's because even though someone might not say it here, it is a sentiment that often comes up with this topic anywhere. I know I've come across it before. Usually if someone hears that enough times in other places in association with this topic, they associate the two. "Oh, they're talking about this again, how long till someone mentions this thing I hear all these other places about this. Better put my foot down first.
No one is going to stop anyone from eating meat if they so desire.
It has been said by people before though. I've come across the implication more than once.
I do eat meat, as I Posted earlier. The point is that if something is wrong, it should be illegal; that's what the law is for, to prevent people from doing things that are wrong.
If something is wrong, you can be forced to refrain from doing it. Murder is against the law, arson is against the law, rape is against the law, stealing is against the law, et cetera. This is not about "closed-minded people" who are "forcing their beliefs" on you. You're just using arbitrary rhetoric in your defensive posture. And, earlier, you justified meat-eating because animals do it; that would mean that anything animals do-- including killing over territory and killing babies to give their own offspring dominance-- is justified as well.
Me too.As Denis Leary once said - "Just bring me out a cow, I'll cut off what I want and ride the rest home."
Well unless you are posting from northern Greenland were probably not going to believe you.
And look at all the people who continue to claim that eating meat is wrong...
Obviously, no one will ever manage to get that to come to pass, no. But then I never said they would.
No one will *succeed* in completely banning meat, but that doesn't mean they won't still try.
I don't eat much meat, but I do eat it from time to time. I don't think it's evil to kill a cow so that I can have a nice steak. I used to be vegetarian a few years back, but decided against it for whatever reason I can't remember anymore.
I could never be vegan. I can't go without eggs and cheese and real chocolate.
I could never be vegan. I can't go without eggs and cheese and real chocolate.
A
Amaris
Guest
And look at all the people who continue to claim that eating meat is wrong...
Obviously, no one will ever manage to get that to come to pass, no. But then I never said they would.
No one will *succeed* in completely banning meat, but that doesn't mean they won't still try.
Your responses seem almost conspiratorial toward people who don't eat meat. Relax. You can keep your steak.
Thank the Holy Cow! 
Oh, the whole "thieves are bad, m'kay?" attitude is so conservative and traditionalist...
You know, my dictionaries all seem to define open minded and liberal minded in the same way. They are frequently suggested as synonyms of one another.
Open minded has always meant to me (and always will mean to me), being receptive to new ideas. Open means things (ideas) can flow in or out. So open minded is about the flow of ideas in and out of the mind. As in, out with the old ideas and in with new ones.
Liberal minded I tend to associate with the desire for social freedom. This is about freeing people from varying degrees of restriction, obligation and servitude, with the belief that individual freedom is the ultimate good. Liberal mindedness would require open mindedness in order to implement a change of policy.
That's not a belief I share though as I feel that ethics is the ultimate good, and is considerably more valuable than individual freedom.
Similar threads
