Vegetarians are usually associated with non-violence.
Are there exceptions to this? Does the diet reduce aggression? Was there ever Atila the Vegan? Vicious herbivores?
Usually it’s because they’re (we’re) non-violent that we become vegetarian–amongst other reasons.
If you had to kill the cow yourself, would you eat meat as often?
I don’t personally know of any violent vegetarians, although some are quite aggressive in business and sports and such.
The classical example of a violent vegetarian is probably Hitler. Granted, I don’t know how many acts of violence he committed with his bare hands, but I wouldn’t call him non-violent exactly.
Probably more often since I would have all that cow laying around.
IIRC, Hitler was a vegetarian (or at least ate very little meat) under doctor’s orders, not out of any moral stance.
It wouldn’t surprise me if some vegetarians are very pacifistic but I betcha a lot of them are the folks who are veggie because of moral convictions (“it’s wrong to kill an animal to eat it”) rather than people like me who are (generally) vegetarian for health reasons.
Well, you have the terrorist group ALF (Animal Liberation Front) which really frowns on meat eating or any other use of animals.
What about militant eco-terrorist groups? You know, the those groups that like to firebomb logging equipment and things like that? I believe that ELF/ALF are some of those groups.
Are they? And if so by whom? Is there any evidence that vegetarians are non-violent or is this just another baseless stereotype like greedy Jews?
What do you mean by exceptions?
Even at the level of more mundane violence most people are relatively non-violent. Dietary preference isn’t recorded on police charge sheets or court records. The only way I could imagine even trying to work out whether vegetarians are exceptionally more or less violent is if you have access to records for those prisons that provide special diets for people who have no religious needs for such diets but just prefer it.
Very few people of any stripe become mass murderers or despots so the sample size is too small to detect significance in things like dietary preference. If one in 1000 Americans is vegetarian and 1 in 1, 000, 000 is a mass murderer then the chances of finding a vegetarian mass murderer is low even if vegetarians are statistically just as likely to become mass murderers. If one in every 6 billion people becomes a despot then the chances of vegetarians showing up is small even if most vegetarians are hideously violent.
There have been some truly horrific acts committed by Indian Hindus, some of whom would have been vegetarian if that is what you mean. But again it is hard to know whether a person is vegetarian because it is not a detail that is commonly recorded for common murderers prior to this century.
If you were really interested you could check out accounts of local rulers in the southern areas of India at the time of the British colonisation. It’s a fair bet some of them were vegetarians. If you find one that is vegetarian then you have your answer, since they all maintained private armies.
Then there are the acts of violence committed by various ‘animal rights’ and ‘eco’ terrorism groups. The man who murdered Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn was one such activist who was a strict vegan, strident animal rights activist and quite happy to commit cold blooded murder.
You need only read the Mahabarata/Bhagavad Ghita to get an appreciation of the fact that a philosophy espousing vegetarianism is also capable of espousing violence as a solution to differences.
I really would be interested to know who it is that considers vegetarians non-violent and if they have any rational basis for such a prejudice.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/08/fortuyn.court/
van der Graaf has since been convicted if that murder.
Oh yeah. Hippos, Rhinos, Buffalo…
There are some nasty herbivores.
Classic, and a complete myth.
that argument has always sorta bugged me… i mean yeah but if i had to build my own house i’d probably live in an adobe.
Boy, you clearly don’t live near me. 
Oh yeah. Hippos especially. Just ask King Narmer, the first Pharoah of Egypt. But you can’t, because he’s dead. Killed by a hippo he was. Very tragic.
In general vegetarians are MORE violent than the rest of the population. This is because the lack of trace elemnts found in meats can affect their brains sending them into violent rages*
[sub]*this is a fabrication[/sub]
In eating plants you are just as responsible for animal deaths as any carnivore - it’s just not as direct a connection.
The only reason you get to eat those tasty veggies is because any animal that tried to eat them first has been killed - shot, sprayed with pesticide, whatever. Even fencing off land kills critters by denying them food and habitat. You can’t opt out of having an impact; your existence has some effect what ever you do.
There are large populations of vegetarians in areas of India and I have never heard any suggestion that violence is less common in those areas.
And if you had to poisons thousands of rats yourself would you eat grain as often?
If so then obviously killing animals to get their preferrred food isn’t something people have a problem with. If not then a consideration of animal life isn’t primarily what is making vegetarians choose their diet.
Either way the arguman makes no sense.
I am a vegetarian, and have been for probably 7 or 8 years now. I didn’t stop eating meat because I felt sorry for the animals being used as food or whatever other animal rights reason you can think of. I did it because I found it easier to maintain a healthy diet and maintain my fitness level without having meat in my diet. In fact, I hunt quite often, and enjoy violent sports, so I guess you could call me more violent than the average person. Other vegetarians I know defenitely are less aggressive than the average person though, and seem to have a more pacifist attitude towards such subjects as war and criminal justice.
Is that the group that’s responsible for “liberating” seeing-eye dogs and companion dogs from their owners?