Vegetarians are unhealthy

[mightymrbob]

Well, you can add me to your list!

I know what you mean. Someone at my school asked the "cooks" whether the cheese had rennet in it, and she got laughed at. Dearie me.
Some people are, like, so prehistoric!

[RQ]

Would you eat monkey butt?

By the way, animals can be replaced, and that's the reason they are killed and eaten, because they have more iron, and vegetarians are just a joke of natural selection. I never insulted anyone's beliefs, nor did I ever not read the facts, well maybe i didn't because I knew them, I just don't want to continue rearguing points that people keep bringing up. That's all, you can believe whatever you want to, but I just don't care about this topic anymore, and quite frankly the topic itself has become annoying, not me.

Edit by BobXP: removed double-post

[Geosphere]

Would you eat monkey butt?

And why not?

I've eaten whole baby squid. But you have to spit out the beak. Entire sardines. Ostrich, rattlesnake, buffalo, lamb, hissing cockroaches, cow, pig, chicken, duck, pheasant, quail, deer, moose, alligator, octopus, eel, shark, heck, most kinds of fish...

If there's a culture eating it somewhere, short of humans, I'm right in line to give it a whirl. There's way too much intriguing stuff in this world not to.

You know what? Some of it sucks. But some is GREAT.

[RQ]

Well most people wouldn't eat monkey butt. No I may not be amongst them, but then again it's the majority that counts.

[Geosphere]

but then again it's the majority that counts.

For what?

[RQ]

For everything.

[Geosphere]

For everything.

Rarely.

The majority did not equate logarythms. The majority did not define relativity. The majority did not discover x-rays.

It is the special minority that causes progress for the majority.

[RQ]

Yes the minority of minorities makes the significant progresses (most of the time), but a majority vote overrules a minority one. There are several ways to calculate that, when it's less than majority such as the Borda count by giving points to each category to vote, and adding them up. There are plurality with elimination, that however undermines the Borda count and all the other processes of voting. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that there is no perfect voting system. But in a majority it's the majority that counts, especially if they're all deciding whether to eat monkey butt.

[PWrong]

vegetarians are just a joke of natural selection. I never insulted anyone's beliefs

Oh no?

nor did I ever not read the facts, well maybe i didn't because I knew them

Maybe that's something you could think about next time. :wink:

[mightymrbob]

RQ, do you get a kick out of contradicting yourself or something?

[Keiji]

Nah, he's probably just randomly typing stupid things to see what everyone else does.

[mightymrbob]

I think you hit the nail on the head there!

[Keiji]

let's wait for him to respond then

[mightymrbob]

See who he "doesn't insult" this time.

[Keiji]

it's ;) or :wink:, not >wink<.

[mightymrbob]

I know. I did that to signify a physical action, not a smiley!

[Keiji]

Oh, sorry. Well then you should put *wink*.

[mightymrbob]

OK. Just my way of doing things. I see he hasn't come back yet then! :wink:

[mghtymoop]

we are by nature an omnivorous species, there are certain protiens which we get in ample amounts at birth to probably last us a lifetime provided the body efficiently recycles them that we cannot synthesise within our cells, the protiens are however synthesised by C1 mammals or herbivours, there are documented cases of severe health problems in older vegetarians who have for one reason or another become deficient in these protiens and are unable to get new ones from there diet, so techinically being vegetarian is not a sustainable lifestyle because if enough people back through a family tree, females only because they are responsible for the initial transfer of protiens in the womb it is highly likely that the source of these protiens would run out, just a biologists viewpoint for you

[PWrong]

Hey, that's interesting. Thanks . So are you saying that I could be healthy for most of my life, but if my children and grandchildren stay vegetarian they might be unhealthy?

That looks like one of the most sensible non-vegetarian arguments I've ever seen. It almost ranks as the most original, but that award goes to my friend peter, for: "fish need salt to breathe, therefore you shouldn't be a vegetarian".

Anyway, it seems plausible, but I'd like to know why I haven't seen anything like it before. :?

The best info I've found on the topic is here:
http://www.veganhealth.org/shv/

On most veggie health websites like this one, it seems like protein is considered much less of a problem than iron and B12.

Anyway, can I ask you some questions about this topic

Is this your particular specialisation, or is it general knowledge for biologists?

How recent are the cases of severe health problems?

Couldn't you fix it with supplements?

Does this apply to all vegetarians, or just vegans?

What about buddhist societies and parts of India where vegetarianism is almost the norm?

[RQ]

Hey, that's interesting. Thanks . So are you saying that I could be healthy for most of my life, but if my children and grandchildren stay vegetarian they might be unhealthy?

That's what evolution is. Genetic traits change of repetitive physical conditions. Now who doesn't know the facts. And besides, what I meant is that I do read my facts and if I don't it's because I already know them.

[DogmaticTrip]

First of all, I'm new here - so my voice may not count for much, but honestly - RQ, stop talking.

That's what evolution is. Genetic traits change of repetitive physical conditions. Now who doesn't know the facts. And besides, what I meant is that I do read my facts and if I don't it's because I already know them.

"Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Now what, huh!?"

it's pathetic, brother.

Second, as a vegan, I find much of what RQ said not only insulting, but irrelevent, or just .. wrong.

Finally, in regards to the "biologists point of view" - that IS interesting, although I've never heard anything of the like, elsewhere. However, abstaining from the meat-industry isn't so much a nutritional issue as an ethical one. So, as there are millions of vegetarians thriving in the world, I'll take my chances.

Now, - this was all irrelevent to the purpose of the board.


Josh

[RQ]

You can dispute this all you want, and even if you don't look up some facts on nutrition, it's probably a matter of personal preference, and no athlete has ever achieved any medal in athletics that was vegetarian save for a few. Ask any health teacher as to the consequences of being vegetarian and the strenuity of replacements for iron-rich meat.

As for genetic traits being passed on by physical ones, then what is evolution my friend?

[mghtymoop]

any biologist of any area of study would no at least something about the mechanics of food chains, mammals have a particulary well organised stratified system where each species apart from a small number of generalists has well a defined trophic level. You have C1's which are pure herbivores (cows, sheep), C2's which eat non mammalian animals as well as plants (insectivourous mammals, pigs), C3's which eat C1's and C2's and plant material (us, dogs, bears), C4's which tend to be wholly carnivourous and eat all lower trophic levels (big cats) and there is some argument for the existence of C5's (lion's, polar bears) which eat C4's and everything else.
In mammals problems can arise when the trophic chains are broken, eg feeding sheep to cows caused the original outbreaks of BSE which is a disease caused by a rouge protien (mad cow disease).
also there is some evdience for increased mental disabilites in cultures where dog's and cats are commonly eaten due to protiens getting to places they really shouldn't be, now i'm not a microbiologist so protiens aren't really my thing but a quick search through web journals (not sites, go to science direct or something like that) ought to give you the answers your looking for.
supplements would be of no use as the would be supplements made from red meat which would defeat the whole vegetarian purpose, and yes vegetarians are as susceptible as vegans as milk does not contain the protiens and vegetarians who do eat meat tend to never eat red meat which is the only source.
Buddist societies are an interesting point and would be an excellent place to do further study on such issues, one of the common symptons of any protien deficiency is chronic fatigue and also mental impairment ranging from temporary to permanent. Given my limited knowledge of buddist culture i could almost see a non-violent culture originating from groups of people unable to wage war or defend themselves simply due to poor physical and mental condition.

[RQ]

any biologist of any area of study would no at least something about the mechanics of food chains, mammals have a particulary well organised stratified system where each species apart from a small number of generalists has well a defined trophic level. You have C1's which are pure herbivores (cows, sheep), C2's which eat non mammalian animals as well as plants (insectivourous mammals, pigs), C3's which eat C1's and C2's and plant material (us, dogs, bears), C4's which tend to be wholly carnivourous and eat all lower trophic levels (big cats) and there is some argument for the existence of C5's (lion's, polar bears) which eat C4's and everything else.
In mammals problems can arise when the trophic chains are broken, eg feeding sheep to cows caused the original outbreaks of BSE which is a disease caused by a rouge protien (mad cow disease).
also there is some evdience for increased mental disabilites in cultures where dog's and cats are commonly eaten due to protiens getting to places they really shouldn't be, now i'm not a microbiologist so protiens aren't really my thing but a quick search through web journals (not sites, go to science direct or something like that) ought to give you the answers your looking for.
supplements would be of no use as the would be supplements made from red meat which would defeat the whole vegetarian purpose, and yes vegetarians are as susceptible as vegans as milk does not contain the protiens and vegetarians who do eat meat tend to never eat red meat which is the only source.
Buddist societies are an interesting point and would be an excellent place to do further study on such issues, one of the common symptons of any protien deficiency is chronic fatigue and also mental impairment ranging from temporary to permanent. Given my limited knowledge of buddist culture i could almost see a non-violent culture originating from groups of people unable to wage war or defend themselves simply due to poor physical and mental condition.

Lol, did you copy this from some site? Well newsflash we're not cows.

[RQ]

Meat supplies the body with vitamin D, which is necessary against many diseases including tuberculosis. Although dairy products also have it, eating meat too increases your immune system against the diseases and decreases your chances of getting sick.

[Demostenes]

Before you guys rip apart RQ (again), have any of you listened to anything he's said? I mean granted, some of the stuff is obvious fallacy, but he does have some good points. There are things inherent to certain types of meat that cannot by synthetically created (as of yet) and cannot be found in other food sources. The first thing that pops in my head is fish. Fish have an Omega 3 fatty acid in their oil that is extremely good for your heart. So much so that certain studies on Omega 3 has shown that it can keep the body from absorbing excess cholesterol and helps fight arterial plaque. While it may be true that things like soybeans contain alpha-linolenic acid which the body can convert to a form of Omega 3, it's incredibly inefficient and the quantities of consumption are much higher than to just eat a small amount of fish. Fish is also great for you because its fat content is nearly entirely unsaturated. (since lipids are hydrophobic, it makes sense). I don't support vegetarianism for a few reasons. One, I don't believe it is a truly balanced diet. For a diet to be balance you need variety and correct proportionality. Secondly as I've seen here and other place, I simply do not care for the attitude of the vegetarian or vegan. Insofar as I have scanned this post (though not the most rigorously, I'll admit) I've seen nothing but scorn aimed at those of us who choose to eat meat. One comment made an "observation" that vegetarians are more prevalent in intellectual circles. Whether implicitly implying or otherwise, the impression I got was that vegetarianism is the choice of intellectuals whereas omnivorism (or even carnetarism, lol) is not. I'm tired of hearing how barbaric eating meat is. It's no more true than eating only vegetables makes you a pansy. Another I can't stand is the smug superiority vegetarians take over meat eaters. As if by our choice we are somehow worsened as an individual. I can respect your choice even if I don't agree with it. And I don't have to feel superior to do it. Could you do the same for me?

[mghtymoop]

mate, i have no need to copy my information from some website nor would i tend to assume that any information gained from websites is accurate, and i never said we were cows, i simply described BSE as one example of a disease caused by protiens getting to places they shouldn't through an innapropriate diet that is outside of the natural trophic order, but you probably wouldn't comprehend that anyway

[PWrong]

Before you guys rip apart RQ (again), have any of you listened to anything he's said? I mean granted, some of the stuff is obvious fallacy, but he does have some good points.

You're right, sometimes RQ does make good points, and I think he's probably very intelligent for his age. But I would go as far as to say that he's right. I might also point out that it's not only the vegetarians pointing out mistakes in RQ's reasoning. Look at Geosphere's argument, for example.

There are things inherent to certain types of meat that cannot by synthetically created (as of yet) and cannot be found in other food sources.

People used to say that about vitamin B12, which is needed in tiny amounts, but is almost exclusively found in animal products. Now, almost every vegan food on the market is fortified with B12. There's even a drink with it.

The first thing that pops in my head is fish. Fish have an Omega 3 fatty acid in their oil that is extremely good for your heart. So much so that certain studies on Omega 3 has shown that it can keep the body from absorbing excess cholesterol and helps fight arterial plaque. While it may be true that things like soybeans contain alpha-linolenic acid which the body can convert to a form of Omega 3, it's incredibly inefficient and the quantities of consumption are much higher than to just eat a small amount of fish. Fish is also great for you because its fat content is nearly entirely unsaturated. (since lipids are hydrophobic, it makes sense).

I've never been sure about fish. Some people claim that fish don't feel any pain, so it's ok to eat them. I've also seen evidence that some fish do feel pain. My guess is that some fish feel pain and others don't, and I think more research should be done in that area.

I don't support vegetarianism for a few reasons. One, I don't believe it is a truly balanced diet. For a diet to be balance you need variety and correct proportionality.

Who's to say that the meat intake of the average person in the developed world is proportional? Also, a lot of vegans would claim to have a more varied diet. Personally, I'm not one of them, because I can't cook and I prefer to worry about other things. Before I went vegetarian, I had very little variety. Now, I still have very little variety.

Secondly as I've seen here and other place, I simply do not care for the attitude of the vegetarian or vegan. Insofar as I have scanned this post (though not the most rigorously, I'll admit) I've seen nothing but scorn aimed at those of us who choose to eat meat. One comment made an "observation" that vegetarians are more prevalent in intellectual circles. Whether implicitly implying or otherwise, the impression I got was that vegetarianism is the choice of intellectuals whereas omnivorism (or even carnetarism, lol) is not. I'm tired of hearing how barbaric eating meat is. It's no more true than eating only vegetables makes you a pansy. Another I can't stand is the smug superiority vegetarians take over meat eaters. As if by our choice we are somehow worsened as an individual. I can respect your choice even if I don't agree with it. And I don't have to feel superior to do it. Could you do the same for me?

When you say that it's your choice to eat meat, think about what that might mean to a vegetarian. That implies that you've seen the inside of a slaughterhouse, you know what goes into your food, and you're making a conscious and deliberate decision to eat it, while ignoring any biased influence from your culture.

In other words, if you were brought up as a vegan, would you make a conscious decision to start eating meat, despite the wishes of your parents?
Anyone who makes a real choice is an intellectual. If you have made a conscious decision to eat meat, then you may be more intelligent than the average non-vegetarian. In fact I would assume that you're above average intelligence, since you're on this forum.

Believe it or not, there is some real logic behind vegetarianism. Unfortunately, most people, veggies and meat-eaters alike, don't understand logic, or if they do, they can't explain it, or refuse to listen to it. Read some of Peter Singer's work, for example. Personally, I don't have any strong feeling toward animals. I don't even like them.
I just don't want to follow any ethics that don't make sense. If I shouldn't cause pain to a human being, then I shouldn't cause pain to anything else.

Having said all that, I do think smugness is a problem in vegetarians, and it's clearly turning intelligent people like you away from the real issues. It's interesting that for many minorities, a big problem is their own lack of self esteem, but for us, the problem is apparently that we have too much self esteem.

I prefer http://www.veganoutreach.com to other vegan organisations, like PETA. They have some advice on how to tolerate non-vegetarians and stuff.

[RQ]

I agree vegetarianism has some advantages over nonvegetarianism, which is why I think it's good to sometimes cut off meat for a while, but if I had to purely choose between forever eating meat or being forever vegetarian, then I wouldn't choose vegetarianism, because of the muscle atrophy and collapse it causes.