Vegetarians, I don't get it

In My Humble Opinion
81

Weirdave: I was pointing out the inconsistancy in Justin’s predation argument. It’s inaccurate to call a modern hunter a “predator” of deer when technology makes things so unequal. Run down a deer and kill it with your bare hands or a knife, and then I’ll call you a “predator”. Otherwise, you’re a hunter. I am part Native American, I do know something about the culture and hunting methods. And for the record, my objection to hunting is the same as Opal’s. I think killing an animal for enjoyment is twisted.

I don’t normally quote entire posts. I thought that since my reply was directly beneath your post, minimal quoting was needed. It was not my intention to skew your words.

82

Well, could you run down a deer, catch it and kill it with your bare hands? If not then no, you’re not a “natural” predator of deer.

83

Yes, we eat what my husband kills. We would never throw away the meat. From the deer he got this weekend, we will get some a few roasts, some ground and some in little chunks that I make into a stew.



[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by VeraGemini *
**There is a world of difference between subsistence hunting with a bow and arrow or spear and "sport" hunting with a rifle and a scope. The reason deer have few natural predators now in many areas is because man has hunted or driven away those predators.
**
[/QUOTE]
My husband uses a rifle, but not a scope. He tracks the deer through the woods and finds one by using a deer call, looking for deer poop and looking for markings on the trees. I would think a quick bullet would be more humane than an arrow, which tends to wound rather than kill.
84

Oh, so now i have to run the deer down and bring it down with my bare hands to kill a deer now.

Let me break it down for your, nice, clean, and simple.
Every creature has a special feature that is nessesary for its life and distinguishes it from the other species.

For deer, its their speed, along with their excelent smell, hearing and eyesight, and their antlers that protect them from predators and help them find food.

Humans, on the other hand, cant run as fast as most animals.
we have borderline vision compared to animals.
our hearing and smell are nearly non existent.

But…but… we have the most advanced brain in the animal kingdom, and opposable thumbs…great for making tools that make our job easier.

and you cant tell me, that if indians had guns instead of bows, they wouldnt use them…My room mate is an indian, and he never uses a bow, and he hunts all the time.

…rare exception… i ahve a cousin that once managed to kill a deer with a knife, but thats very rare…

Yall veggies should try hunting…even if you dont shoot, you will realize that its not as easy as you think it is. Deer are very well iquiped at avoiding potential predators, so most deer killed end up being a deer earned.

85

**The Big Cheese wrote:

Am I a hypocrite for saying eating a carrot is not killing something? I don’t think so, but feel free to call me one. I don’t consider a carrot a living, breathing thing.**

Sorry, but I have to jump in here and say this is just plain wrong. By every definition of life in biology, a carrot is a living, breathing organism. It IS alive, just like everything in the plant kingdom is alive.

Now, does that carrot feel pain or have any sense of awareness? Good question. Probably not, but we just don’t know. But please don’t go saying plants aren’t alive. There’s a great difference between saying that something isn’t alive and something doesn’t have a sense of awareness or is capbable of experiencing pain as animals do.

86

Carrots don’t breathe. Please be so kind as to point out where the lungs are on a carrot.

87

First off, the suggestion that I try hunting is totally offensive. Would you tell a pro-life Christian that they “should try having an abortion”?

Second, I never said I thought hunting was easy. I said I thought that finding enjoyment in killing an animal was, in my opinion, sick.

88

**Nukeman wrote:

Carrots don’t breathe. Please be so kind as to point out where the lungs are on a carrot.**

Certainly carrots (and other plants) don’t have lungs, but they do breathe. It’s better to call it respiration; taking in gases needed for their metabolism and giving off waste products such at oxygen and water vapor. Now if you want to get into an argument about whether breathing is the same as respiration, well, let’s save that or another thread.

This takes place in mainly in the leaves and stalks of the carrot plant. You know, the part ABOVE the ground. You can identify it by the green color.

89

right, respiration. There is no argument. Breathing is the process of taking air into the lungs and then expelling it, allowing the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide to occur. It only takes place in animals.

Respiration is the process that takes place in all living cells, by which [simply] glucose (or fatty acids) and oxygen are broken down into carbon dioxide, water and ATP (energy). Not oxygen, as you put it. You are thinking of photosynthesis, which does occur in plants. You confirm this when you say:

‘This takes place in mainly in the leaves and stalks of the carrot plant. You know, the part ABOVE the ground. You can identify it by the green color.’

Respiration also occurs in the roots, (or the carrot. Thats the orange bit by the way, the bit BELOW the ground. :wink: )

90

[slight hijack]

I once had a vegetarian tell me that the land used to raise cattle and pigs and other animals for consumption would be much better put to use to grow things like corn and soy. Apparently the whole world could survive on that much available vegitarian food. I don’t remember any cites from this person, but that was their contention.

I told them, sure, we could feed the world on that much land, but then, where would we put the cows?

They told me I was being unreasonable, and it wasn’t worth discussing with me anymore.

[/slight hijack]

See, I eat meat. Most people I know do. Many people don’t. So be it. I don’t hunt, either. I consider it natural to eat meat for a variety of biological and historical (evolutionary?) reasons. To those who tell me it no longer is natural, and that I shouldn’t do it, I ask them to give up their cars, their synthetic clothes, their houses with heat, electricity, air conditioning, the SDMB. I ask them to give up their refrigerated foods, their GardenBurgers,their Diet Coke (or Pepsi). I tell them that to do what is natural is now “unnatural” in today’s world, and so to argue either way is kind of a moot point.

The way I see it, in the end, it comes down to an issue of right or wrong. I don’t believe it’s wrong to eat meat. If you do, then don’t, but I will continue to do so. I also don’t believe that most animals raised for consumption are in horrible “factory farm” conditions. This may not be the most educated opinion, because I admit that I don’t know all the facts. But I’ve been to some farms, I’ve taken a class at school specifically about Animal Production Systems and Industry (capitalised cuz that was the name of the course), and I go to a school that also has on its campus a very well known and respected Agricultural college. I get the impression that horrible situations are a minority . Although these animals may live in minimal luxury, they receive what they need to be content - an unhappy, stressed animal won’t eat, will lose weight, may get sick, etc, all of which can affect other animals in its vicinity, and would likely lead to a financial loss for the farmers/producers. They don’t want this, so they give the animals what they need in order to get from them what is wanted.

Someone once worded their opinions to me this way : “I believe in animal welfare, not animal rights”. Not a very powerful quote, but I think it helps describe how I feel.
In the cases where the animals are subjected to cruel situations, then these particular cases need to be dealt with. It’s wrong to assume all farms are one way because a few are. Just as it’s wrong to assume all people are one way because a few are.

BTW- The “if you wouldn’t do it yourself” argument doesnt fly well with me, either. As someone in this thread pointed out, the world (developped countries in particular) has evoleved in such a way as to minimize the need for people to know how to hunt for themselves, and so it becomes a sport. Most people don’t know how to garden, and so it’s a hobby. I can’t sew or knit, but I will still wear clothes because someone else enjoys it/is paid for it/will do it for me. Eliminate the comfy cozy society and life experience I suspect you’ve (we’ve) all had, since you had the freedom to make a choice about what you eat, and I suspect that you’d all very likely be sitting next to the camp fire gnawing away on that bone as much as the rest of us. Assuming we had the comforts of fire, of course. :slight_smile:

Sorry if that was a bit disjointed…but, I just wanted to say something. :slight_smile:

91

mnemosyne, thats correct. The reason behind it is that you get the energy more directly via this method. The theory is, all energy for life originally comes from the sun (ie sun -> photosynthesis in plants -> plants get eaten). Therefore, if you grow plants, but then let cows eat them you lose energy because the cows waste energy by releasing heat, not digesting everything completely etc. So you can theoretically feed more people with the plants. The idea is that they should grow a lot of soya in Africa in order to feed starving people better.
But, its not that simple. We can’t survive on energy alone, we need protien, nutrients etc.
The main problem is what are called ‘essential amino acids’ (e.a.as). Amino acids are needed to make different protiens, but only certain ones are essential, they can be converted into the non-essential ones. Meat contains all the essential amino acids (plus most of the non-essential ones probably). One type of plant will not contain all the e.a.as. This is alright for veggies in western countries as they can vary the stuff they eat to incorporate all the e.a.as they need in their diet. Obviously, people in 3rd world countries find this a little more difficult, especially if they can only grow/get one type of plant.

Also, meat tastes better :p. Mmmm. Tasty cow.

92

Nuke Did I make it sound like I was serious? That part of my post was meant more as a joke - I understand the concept of energy loss as you move up the food chain - My comment was mostly about the fact that this person was telling me specifically that turning all the cow fields to crop fields was kind of a “solution” to what was seen as the “problem” of meat eating. Literally, she wanted the fields near the school to be used for crops, not for the cows who were already there. So as a quick response, I said where would you put the cows? She got mad and stopped talking to me. I guess maybe it’s not as funny in type. Or if you weren’t there…:slight_smile:

I never bothered to do the research to figure out how much of what crop would be needed to feed, for example, the population of Canada using only Canadian crops. I just think it would be kind of funny if it turned out that we’d bring cows to extinction by using their fields for crops in order to save the cows from slaughter :slight_smile:

I also know all about the amino acids (Biochem Major here :)). It is a very valid point in that discussion, in that obtaining them all is not possible without access to specific sources of protein. I think that “obtaining them from alternate sources” is valid for the diet, but not as a defense of vegetarianism as a right/wrong thing. We are privileged enough to have the time to research sources of appropriate a.as, and to literally design foods and diets that contain them, only without meat. Because of the luxuries of this society and efforts made by people who have specialised in this research, and who have dedicated themselves to it. But those supplemented or designed meals aren’t all that natural, maybe, or it took a lot of “animal” research to identify and understand a.as (essential ones in particular) and to determine adequate sources of such. I’m not really up on the history of all this, and I won’t have time to look into any of it, but in the end what I think I’m trying to say is that the choice of vegetarianism for most people in this discussion, and indeed most people doing so for non-religious reasons, is just that - a choice. It was made available by people understanding what it took to stay alive, and that involved understanding the foods we ate,and, yes, killing, animals in the process. Same with makeup (there was a reference about that). Even all that natural makeup available today was made possible my Revlon, Maybelline (?) etc, who identified half of what NOT to include via animal testing.

Again, sorry if things are worded kind of funny - I’m not totally taking the time to think everything through completely at the moment - gotta get studying for finals.

Just to make it clear, I have nothing against vegetarians. Really just those that try to make my choices into wrong ones, especially for invalid reasons.