Meat lovers vs. Vegetarians

[D Jay99]

Also, I don't get the whole "if I don't eat meat, less animals will get killed" thing, if you don't eat meat, someone else is just going to eat it, or it is going to go to waste.

 

Because we produce such massive quantities of animals to be eaten. If we would halve the production, everyone would start moaning, and after a while we'd all adapt to eating half the meat we used to eat.

[Sir_Redhead]

Despite what is said, you can't replace the nutrients found in meat, you can find substitues, but you can't replace them.

[Sir_Redhead]

hypocrisy, thy name is vegetarian. a vegetarian cant love the environment, they're eating all the damn plants!

 

 

 

Despite your excuses, and all your facts, this statement is true if you think about it.

 

 

 

*prepares for intense flaming*

[Skull]

Eat your soy and grass all you want, just don't tell me I should do the same. You don't see me trying to shove a cheeseburger down your throat, do you?

 

 

 

Although it is tempting.

[Lenticular_J]

ounce per ounce

 

I know that was a long time ago, but I take issue with it. Considering that ounce per ounce vitamins and pills contain very concentrated amounts of nutrients and such. Maybe you should be a pillitarian instead.

 

 

 

Eat your soy and grass all you want, just don't tell me I should do the same. You don't see me trying to shove a cheeseburger down your throat, do you?

 

 

 

I guess they have right to tell me to do the same, then...

[Hernet0]

I have no issues with vegetarians its thier choice. However I personaly don't get where alot of them are coming from. I get the inhumane treatment on animals used in food, but I know people who think that humans eating animals is not natural but still thinking that animals eating animals is natural.

 

 

 

I would like to point out that our ancestors have been eating meat for 10,000+ years. Why should we stop now.

 

 

 

Also there is a study that shows that there is a protein we can't synthesize that we normaly get from meat that vegetarians lack and it makes thier brain 5% smaller (NOT TO CALL ANYONE DUMB!!! Love everyone \ ). This just shows that we are supposed to eat meat.

[D Jay99]

I would like to point out that our ancestors have been eating meat for 10,000+ years. Why should we stop now.

 

There were a whole lot less people back then than there are now.

[Zierro]

I would like to point out that our ancestors have been eating meat for 10,000+ years. Why should we stop now.

 

There were a whole lot less people back then than there are now.

 

 

 

Is that supposed to be a pro-vegetarian argument or is it my misunderstanding?

[D Jay99]

I would like to point out that our ancestors have been eating meat for 10,000+ years. Why should we stop now.

 

There were a whole lot less people back then than there are now.

 

 

 

Is that supposed to be a pro-vegetarian argument or is it my misunderstanding?

 

Nah. I'm just trying to say, if everyone wants to keep eating meat as cheap as possible as most meat eaters do, those massive bio industry farms are unavoidable.

 

 

 

Up to you to decide whether that's a bad thing.

[Lenticular_J]

It would be the same way for vegetarians, if the whole world "converted". People won't put up with all their food sources costing extravagant amounts.

[Skull]

I'm tempted to try out this vegetarian thing for a month so I can make a conclusion from a completely unbiased standpoint, but have knowledge of both sides. I could calculate the amount of various nutrients I consume, cost, etc and compare that to a month of a mixed diet. It might make for a fun experiment. Except the eating nothing but plants, I doubt that will be all that fun.

 

 

 

Anyone else willing to do this?

 

 

 

 

 

1000th post ftw \ \

[i_love_burritos]

It would be the same way for vegetarians, if the whole world "converted". People won't put up with all their food sources costing extravagant amounts.

 

 

 

Are you saying vegetarian food costs more than meat ? I mean for little baby lion cubs I understand, Mufasa does do all the hunting for you but, that is in no way true.

 

 

 

Pound for pound many vegetarian foods are better sources of this essential nutrient than meat. A 100-gram portion of meat contains only 20 grams of protein.(Another fact to consider: meat is more than 50% water by weight.) In comparison, a 100-gram portion of cheese or lentils yields 25 grams of protein, while 100 grams of soybeans yields 34 grams of protein. But although meat provides less protein, it costs much more. An average servng of steak costs around $8 - $12 , while staple ingredients for delicious vegetarian meals averaged less than 50 cents a pound. An eight-ounce container of cottage cheese costing 4 dollars provides 60% of the minimum daily requirement of protein. Becoming a vegetarian could potentially save an individual shopper at least several hundred dollars each year, thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime. The savings to America's consumers as a whole would amount to billions of dollars annually.

 

 

 

Thats some tasty copy(vegetarian)pasta. Found some on some random website.

[Lenticular_J]

Nah, I mean if the whole world ate only vegetables. They would be vastly more expensive. A mixed diet is better for the environment too, or so I reckon.

[i_love_burritos]

What?

 

What do you mean, can you clarify ?

 

I intend to mop the floor with your ideals.

[Serpent Eye]

A mixed diet is better for the environment too, or so I reckon.

 

 

 

How do you figure this..?

 

 

 

The (American, anyways) meat industry vastly affects our environment in a negetive way.

 

 

 

Also, when compared to what it takes to get a pound of meat onto the table, vegetables are far cheaper and easier to attain. If everyone ate only vegetables, they would still be just as cheap and easy to attain.

[Zonorhc]

What?

 

What do you mean, can you clarify ?

 

I intend to mop the floor with your ideals.

 

Because if there was such a high demand for vegetables, suppliers will raise prices to maximise their profits.

 

 

 

Also, you're forgetting the hidden cost of vegetarianism, that is, you don't get to eat dead animals.

[i_love_burritos]

What?

 

What do you mean, can you clarify ?

 

I intend to mop the floor with your ideals.

 

Because if there was such a high demand for vegetables, suppliers will raise prices to maximise their profits.

 

 

 

Also, you're forgetting the hidden cost of vegetarianism, that is, you don't get to eat dead animals.

 

 

 

That goes with any commodity that is in high demand, or needed.

 

 

 

I thought you were reffering to the environmental impacts of meat eating opposed to vegetarians.

 

 

 

Besides, meat for the win. Animals wouldn't be so easy to kill if we weren't intended to kill them.

 

 

 

Thats like saying, you were not intended to be born because your mother dropped you on your head and forgot to take her pill. Adding to that, you will be draining precious resources such as air and water.

 

 

 

You're really not needed on this planet.

 

Leave now.

[raven_gaurd0]

Yeah...have you ever heard the saying, 'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should?' I could probably rape a baby. But that's totally not kosher.

 

 

 

Vegetarians who are vegetarian under the ground of global food conservation I understand, appreciate, and encourage, but I hate vegans who do it for the sake of animal rights. Animals are, in fact, a food source. There isn't any real difference between a plant and a cow in my opinion, other than the fact that one has a more recognizable organic system. I've spent a lot of time studying the organic functions of plants and animals, and they're both incredibly similar.

 

 

 

That being said, it is, as a rule of thumb, incredibly inefficient to eat meat. (For each 100g of corn put into a cow, you get 1g of meat out.) For that, I think it's great for those of us who feel that it simply helps more to be a vegetarian. But don't feed me animal rights. Animals, for the most part, don't have rights. Yes, you shouldn't be over cruel and be garishly inhuman towards them, but for the love of whatever, there is no way that it's ever going to be practical to put cows and chickens back on the prairie and still expect to keep up with the demands of an ever-growing population.

 

 

 

If you really want to stop animal cruelty in the slaughterhouse, stop the massive procreation, don't -not- eat the meat. Because if you don't, somebody else will.

[pureprayer]

Vegetarians eat tofu, I could never stand that.

 

 

 

[hide=]I am so leik a meat-a-tarian becuz plands got to feed our air wit oxigyen so i only eet cowas because dey breef carbon die oxider[/hide]

[i_love_burritos]

See, Raven Gaurd gets it.

 

 

 

I just don't like those types of vegans/vegetarians that preach, and think they are the most pious of us all.

[Lenticular_J]

A mixed diet is better for the environment too, or so I reckon.

 

 

 

How do you figure this..?

 

 

 

The (American, anyways) meat industry vastly affects our environment in a negetive way.

 

 

 

Also, when compared to what it takes to get a pound of meat onto the table, vegetables are far cheaper and easier to attain. If everyone ate only vegetables, they would still be just as cheap and easy to attain.

 

Mmmm, considering most people in the world would have to eat at least three times (I think, can't confirm that) as many fruits and vegetables as we do now - and that figures from the west, doesn't count starving people in Africa - that's a lotta farmland, and possibly lots of runoff and pesticides to get the food cheaper.

 

 

 

Also, one problem I've never seen addressed: What happens to the animals if we just up and decide to never eat one again? We have billions of livestock out there, not to mention populations that are controlled by our hunting and eating. We'd be overrun.

[awesome400]

think about it this way

 

in the global warming CO2 and other gases are building up

 

meat eaters eat the problem (cows release CO2 through respiration and methane aswell)

 

however vegeterians are eating the damn solution!!! what do you think turns CO2 into O2?

[1_man_army]

If there was less demand for meat people wouldn't breed as many cows to feed the demand and thus there would be less emissions. Your logic doesn't work.

[i_love_burritos]

Ok, mopping time.

 

 

 

The price we pay for meat-eating is degradation of the environment. The United States Agricultural Research Service calls the heavily contaminated runoff and sewage from America's thousands of slaughterhouses and feedlots a major source of pollution of the nation's rivers and streams. It is fast becoming apparent that the fresh water resources of this planet are not only becoming polluted but also depleted, and the meat industry is particularly wasteful. In their book Population, Resources, and Environment, Paul and Anne Ehrlich found that to grow one pound of wheat requires only 60 pounds of water, whereas production of a pound of meat requires anywhere from 2,500 to 6,000 pounds of water. And in 1973 the New York Post uncovered this shocking misuse of a valuable national resource - one large chicken slaughtering plant in America was found to be using 100 million gallons of water daily! This same volume would supply a city of 25,000 people.

 

 

 

Mmmm, considering most people in the world would have to eat at least three times (I think, can't confirm that) as many fruits and vegetables as we do now - and that figures from the west, doesn't count starving people in Africa - that's a lotta farmland, and possibly lots of runoff and pesticides to get the food cheaper.

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Vegetables contain all your required protein, and vitamin needs. Meat does very little for your body, that other food sources can facilitate for. Where do you think you get you vitamins from ? Meat ? No.

 

What feeds, the cows, the pigs and the chickens ?

 

The grain that we throw away to feed them, think about that. Cut out the middle man.

 

 

 

 

Also, one problem I've never seen addressed: What happens to the animals if we just up and decide to never eat one again? We have billions of livestock out there, not to mention populations that are controlled by our hunting and eating. We'd be overrun.

 

 

 

Well, in the past, millions of animals have been purged/destroyed, why so different now. If you remeber when BSE broke out. I guess we will just have to eat them. But then after that no more eating animals. ( Note: Lions are excluded)

 

 

 

More tax dollars go down the drain in the form of the millions of dollars the U.S. government spends each year to maintain a nationwide network of inspectors to monitor the little-publicized problem of animal diseases. When diseased animals are destroyed, the government pays the owners an indemnity, For instance, in 1978 the American government paid out $50 million of its citizens' tax money in indemnities for the control of burcellosis, a flulike disease that afflicts cattle and other animals. Under another program, the U.S. government guarantees loans up to $350,000 for meat producers. Other farmers receive guarantees only up to $20,000. A New York Times editorial called this subsidy bill "outrageous," characterizing it as "a scandalous steal out of the public treasury." Also, despite much evidence from government health agencies showing the link between meat-eating and cancer and heart disease, the USDA continues to spend millions promoting meat consumption through its publications and school lunch programs.

 

 

 

 

If there was less demand for meat people wouldn't breed as many cows to feed the demand and thus there would be less emissions. Your logic doesn't work.

 

True, in addition to this, millions of gallons of water would be saved.

 

 

 

A significant contributor to these emissions is the agricultural idustry, mainly due to the use of large amounts of nitrogen fertilizers. Ammonium nitrate, the most ommon fertilizer is actually derived from natrual gas, a fossil fuel. One quarter of the nitrogen fertilizer used in the United States is used on corn grown as livestock feed.

[raven_gaurd0]

I, personally, think that the most viable solution is a reductions of the out-of-controls meat industry, but eradication by any means is a ridiculous concept. We could stand to produce less cows a year, perhaps by stopping forced procreation, and that would reduce global food supply on meat and raise it in terms of vegetation, while still not overflowing the market with newly diverted food sources.

 

 

 

We could always stand to use less cows. Those things are terrible. The less amount of organic compound CH4 we have, the better.

 

 

 

Mmm...organic molecule chains...

 

 

 

At any rate, a balance is what's important. Less meat, more green, is, I feel, the way to go, but the extremists who shove to one end of the spectrum aren't really helping.