Humans and Meat

2nd paragraph: You could say the same about cows.

3rd paragraph: picky eater is to vegetarian as rectangle is to square.  I'm not sure where you were going with that first sentence really. For that matter, the entire capitalist thing is right out of left field and doesn't tie into the rest of the paragraph at all.  As for the last part; doing something that feels like you are doing good can satisfy your desire to do good even if you haven't actually done anything at all. Its like those people driving gas guzzlers all over the place with bumper stickers saying they support green energy or recycling.

4th paragraph: How is detecting a parasite, determining what it is, and then releasing a scent that attracts that parasite's predator a 'knee jerk reaction'? Refusing to believe that plants could possibly possess some form of intelligence simply because they are different is ignorant. They are still complex organisms with cells that have different jobs, even if they don't have a central nervous system they must have some method of communicating between different parts of it's self in order to function.

I am not being superstitious, I am pointing out how flawed "moral veganism" is, because most arguments made for why animals should be spared death could be made about plants. Eating to survive is just survival. Taking it upon yourself to judge what is worthy of life and what is not based on how similar to you they are is immoral.

2nd paragraph: You could say the same about cows.

3rd paragraph: picky eater is to vegetarian as rectangle is to square.  I'm not sure where you were going with that first sentence really. For that matter, the entire capitalist thing is right out of left field and doesn't tie into the rest of the paragraph at all.  As for the last part; doing something that feels like you are doing good can satisfy your desire to do good even if you haven't actually done anything at all. Its like those people driving gas guzzlers all over the place with bumper stickers saying they support green energy or recycling.

4th paragraph: How is detecting a parasite, determining what it is, and then releasing a scent that attracts that parasite's predator a 'knee jerk reaction'? Refusing to believe that plants could possibly possess some form of intelligence simply because they are different is ignorant. They are still complex organisms with cells that have different jobs, even if they don't have a central nervous system they must have some method of communicating between different parts of it's self in order to function.

I am not being superstitious, I am pointing out how flawed "moral veganism" is, because most arguments made for why animals should be spared death could be made about plants. Eating to survive is just survival. Taking it upon yourself to judge what is worthy of life and what is not based on how similar to you they are is immoral.

I'm just going to say one thing. As a vegan you contribute to less death of any kind, including plants, because that's the way the food chain works (10% of energy transferred), so we still reduce the death count of every living thing (morals work for things you can do while living- if you're against murder and you crash in a deserted place like those football players did, and you kill someone else so you can survive, that does not make you a hypocrite). I do not eat plants because I find them to be inferior (although I do think that there is no morally wrong thing about eating them), it is 100% to survive. Your argument is somehow one of the most used against vegans even though it is one of the worst. Also, again, plants are not sentient beings, and are not proven to feel any type of pain, and their conditions are similar in a plantation to what it regularly should be in, so you can't compare a plantation to a factory farm.

2nd paragraph: You could say the same about cows.

3rd paragraph: picky eater is to vegetarian as rectangle is to square.  I'm not sure where you were going with that first sentence really. For that matter, the entire capitalist thing is right out of left field and doesn't tie into the rest of the paragraph at all.  As for the last part; doing something that feels like you are doing good can satisfy your desire to do good even if you haven't actually done anything at all. Its like those people driving gas guzzlers all over the place with bumper stickers saying they support green energy or recycling.

4th paragraph: How is detecting a parasite, determining what it is, and then releasing a scent that attracts that parasite's predator a 'knee jerk reaction'? Refusing to believe that plants could possibly possess some form of intelligence simply because they are different is ignorant. They are still complex organisms with cells that have different jobs, even if they don't have a central nervous system they must have some method of communicating between different parts of it's self in order to function.

I am not being superstitious, I am pointing out how flawed "moral veganism" is, because most arguments made for why animals should be spared death could be made about plants. Eating to survive is just survival. Taking it upon yourself to judge what is worthy of life and what is not based on how similar to you they are is immoral.

I'm just going to say one thing. As a vegan you contribute to less death of any kind, including plants, because that's the way the food chain works (10% of energy transferred), so we still reduce the death count of every living thing (morals work for things you can do while living- if you're against murder and you crash in a deserted place like those football players did, and you kill someone else so you can survive, that does not make you a hypocrite). I do not eat plants because I find them to be inferior (although I do think that there is no morally wrong thing about eating them), it is 100% to survive. Your argument is somehow one of the most used against vegans even though it is one of the worst. Also, again, plants are not sentient beings, and are not proven to feel any type of pain, and their conditions are similar in a plantation to what it regularly should be in, so you can't compare a plantation to a factory farm.

Again, only in theory do you kill less for the same food. In practice.. it does not work out that way.  40 grams of lettuce, a common base for salads, is 5 calories, while 40 grams of beef is roughly 100 calories. If plants are 10 times more efficient, why do you get 20 times as much energy out of meat compared to plants? Probably because we are omnivores, not herbivores. Most likely, our stomachs waste a lot of plant material we eat because we can't digest it.

There are some exceptions out there of course; we can digest around the same number of calories out of a serving of peanuts as beef. peanuts are also one of the rare plants that we can actually get protein out of.

But then.. there are 33 peanuts in a serving, which is roughly equal to the average yield of one peanut plant. . meanwhile an average of 530 pounds of usable meat is on one cow. With the average serving size being 3 ounces of meat, the death of one cow is worth 8,480 servings of food. So, if we lived in an alternate reality where you could eat just one serving of one thing a meal and not get sick from malnutrition, eating peanuts would have you responsible for 3 deaths a day, while eating beef makes you responsible for 10 deaths every 7 years. (10 because I'm using your '10 to 1 count' do the death total instead of counting the cow as just 1)

"although I do think that there is no morally wrong thing about eating them."
 
What makes eating meats morally incorrect and eating plants morally fine? Killing a certain species is the same as killing another species. If you claim killing plants is morally better than you would be claiming plants are inferior. You are discriminating against plants. So you need to make up your mind. Are plants inferior or is veganism pointless?

2nd paragraph: You could say the same about cows.

3rd paragraph: picky eater is to vegetarian as rectangle is to square.  I'm not sure where you were going with that first sentence really. For that matter, the entire capitalist thing is right out of left field and doesn't tie into the rest of the paragraph at all.  As for the last part; doing something that feels like you are doing good can satisfy your desire to do good even if you haven't actually done anything at all. Its like those people driving gas guzzlers all over the place with bumper stickers saying they support green energy or recycling.

4th paragraph: How is detecting a parasite, determining what it is, and then releasing a scent that attracts that parasite's predator a 'knee jerk reaction'? Refusing to believe that plants could possibly possess some form of intelligence simply because they are different is ignorant. They are still complex organisms with cells that have different jobs, even if they don't have a central nervous system they must have some method of communicating between different parts of it's self in order to function.

I am not being superstitious, I am pointing out how flawed "moral veganism" is, because most arguments made for why animals should be spared death could be made about plants. Eating to survive is just survival. Taking it upon yourself to judge what is worthy of life and what is not based on how similar to you they are is immoral.

I'm just going to say one thing. As a vegan you contribute to less death of any kind, including plants, because that's the way the food chain works (10% of energy transferred), so we still reduce the death count of every living thing (morals work for things you can do while living- if you're against murder and you crash in a deserted place like those football players did, and you kill someone else so you can survive, that does not make you a hypocrite). I do not eat plants because I find them to be inferior (although I do think that there is no morally wrong thing about eating them), it is 100% to survive. Your argument is somehow one of the most used against vegans even though it is one of the worst. Also, again, plants are not sentient beings, and are not proven to feel any type of pain, and their conditions are similar in a plantation to what it regularly should be in, so you can't compare a plantation to a factory farm.

Again, only in theory do you kill less for the same food. In practice.. it does not work out that way.  40 grams of lettuce, a common base for salads, is 5 calories, while 40 grams of beef is roughly 100 calories. If plants are 10 times more efficient, why do you get 20 times as much energy out of meat compared to plants? Probably because we are omnivores, not herbivores. Most likely, our stomachs waste a lot of plant material we eat because we can't digest it.

There are some exceptions out there of course; we can digest around the same number of calories out of a serving of peanuts as beef. peanuts are also one of the rare plants that we can actually get protein out of.

But then.. there are 33 peanuts in a serving, which is roughly equal to the average yield of one peanut plant. . meanwhile an average of 530 pounds of usable meat is on one cow. With the average serving size being 3 ounces of meat, the death of one cow is worth 8,480 servings of food. So, if we lived in an alternate reality where you could eat just one serving of one thing a meal and not get sick from malnutrition, eating peanuts would have you responsible for 3 deaths a day, while eating beef makes you responsible for 10 deaths every 7 years. (10 because I'm using your '10 to 1 count' do the death total instead of counting the cow as just 1)

1st the way biology works is that through every trophic level there is less of the original energy, that is a fact. Eating a plant, you get 10% of its energy, while eating a cow you get 1% of the plant's energy. Cows give more protein not because if this but because it has protein more concentrated, but that's because it ate many plants- eating meat means more plant deaths, that is a fact. You get more protein per pound from meat, but you need way more space, plants and water to produce the same amount of meat compared to plants. Also, peanuts aren't at all the best source of protein, and protein isn't at all hard to get as a vegan- on a diet with no animal products at all I get over 100 grams of it daily. Many plants have a good amount of protein- soy (tofu, edamame), beans, quinoa, nuts (especially almonds), many greens, and the list goes on.

Warzone: Plants are not a species, and it is not morally wrong because it is for survival, just like killing another animal (including humans) for survival is not immoral.

"Warzone: Plants are not a species, and it is not morally wrong because it is for survival, just like killing another animal (including humans) for survival is not immoral."

They are living are they not? They are living, so they are a living creature. Wait, wait. It looks like you are discriminating against plants because you don't know everything about them? So just because you don't know 100% that they feel pain, YOU THINK ITS ALRIGHT TO PICK ON PLANTS AND KILL THEM!!!??? Are you freakin kidding me? Also, "and it is not morally wrong because it is for survival" if you can kill one species for survival, why can't you kill other species for survival? Really, it just looks like you are discriminating against plants and think of them as inferior. And if you think of them as inferior, that means that there a inferiors and superiors. And if you there are superiors and inferiors, then that means humans are superior. And if were superior, then we can do what we want. And if we can do what we want, then that means we can eat whatever we want.
 
I'm confused... Humans are superior then? Either way, veganism is not required nor morally better. If they are inferior, than that makes everything inferior to man because we are the most advanced. And if plants are equal to animals, then that means eating plants is no worse than eating meats. So either way, your backed into a corner.

2nd paragraph: You could say the same about cows.

3rd paragraph: picky eater is to vegetarian as rectangle is to square.  I'm not sure where you were going with that first sentence really. For that matter, the entire capitalist thing is right out of left field and doesn't tie into the rest of the paragraph at all.  As for the last part; doing something that feels like you are doing good can satisfy your desire to do good even if you haven't actually done anything at all. Its like those people driving gas guzzlers all over the place with bumper stickers saying they support green energy or recycling.

4th paragraph: How is detecting a parasite, determining what it is, and then releasing a scent that attracts that parasite's predator a 'knee jerk reaction'? Refusing to believe that plants could possibly possess some form of intelligence simply because they are different is ignorant. They are still complex organisms with cells that have different jobs, even if they don't have a central nervous system they must have some method of communicating between different parts of it's self in order to function.

I am not being superstitious, I am pointing out how flawed "moral veganism" is, because most arguments made for why animals should be spared death could be made about plants. Eating to survive is just survival. Taking it upon yourself to judge what is worthy of life and what is not based on how similar to you they are is immoral.

I'm just going to say one thing. As a vegan you contribute to less death of any kind, including plants, because that's the way the food chain works (10% of energy transferred), so we still reduce the death count of every living thing (morals work for things you can do while living- if you're against murder and you crash in a deserted place like those football players did, and you kill someone else so you can survive, that does not make you a hypocrite). I do not eat plants because I find them to be inferior (although I do think that there is no morally wrong thing about eating them), it is 100% to survive. Your argument is somehow one of the most used against vegans even though it is one of the worst. Also, again, plants are not sentient beings, and are not proven to feel any type of pain, and their conditions are similar in a plantation to what it regularly should be in, so you can't compare a plantation to a factory farm.

Again, only in theory do you kill less for the same food. In practice.. it does not work out that way.  40 grams of lettuce, a common base for salads, is 5 calories, while 40 grams of beef is roughly 100 calories. If plants are 10 times more efficient, why do you get 20 times as much energy out of meat compared to plants? Probably because we are omnivores, not herbivores. Most likely, our stomachs waste a lot of plant material we eat because we can't digest it.

There are some exceptions out there of course; we can digest around the same number of calories out of a serving of peanuts as beef. peanuts are also one of the rare plants that we can actually get protein out of.

But then.. there are 33 peanuts in a serving, which is roughly equal to the average yield of one peanut plant. . meanwhile an average of 530 pounds of usable meat is on one cow. With the average serving size being 3 ounces of meat, the death of one cow is worth 8,480 servings of food. So, if we lived in an alternate reality where you could eat just one serving of one thing a meal and not get sick from malnutrition, eating peanuts would have you responsible for 3 deaths a day, while eating beef makes you responsible for 10 deaths every 7 years. (10 because I'm using your '10 to 1 count' do the death total instead of counting the cow as just 1)

1st the way biology works is that through every trophic level there is less of the original energy, that is a fact. Eating a plant, you get 10% of its energy, while eating a cow you get 1% of the plant's energy. Cows give more protein not because if this but because it has protein more concentrated, but that's because it ate many plants- eating meat means more plant deaths, that is a fact. You get more protein per pound from meat, but you need way more space, plants and water to produce the same amount of meat compared to plants. Also, peanuts aren't at all the best source of protein, and protein isn't at all hard to get as a vegan- on a diet with no animal products at all I get over 100 grams of it daily. Many plants have a good amount of protein- soy (tofu, edamame), beans, quinoa, nuts (especially almonds), many greens, and the list goes on.

Warzone: Plants are not a species, and it is not morally wrong because it is for survival, just like killing another animal (including humans) for survival is not immoral.

While protein is important to get, you do realize that if you are talking about energy you are talking calories right? Proteins relate to amino acids.  On that note; the 90% energy loss thing? That is a gross simplification of how energy transfer through consumption works, and is subject to change based on what foods are eaten and how well the animal in question digests that food. Hell even speaking about food as energy is a gross simplification of how food works, since energy is just one of many things you need to get out of a diet in order to remain healthy.

So many vegetarians fall back on these oversimplifications in order to make their arguments work. Incorrect understanding of nutrient facts, and a 2nd grade understanding of the food chain does not inspire much confidence in the vegetarian diet.

Oh and how does the venus fly trap fit into your "plants aren't alive" philosophy? Or how about the Mimosa Pudica which folds it's leaves away when touched. A lot of your arguments sound more like rationalizations than reasons.

I don't know what good it would do for a plant to be able to feel pain or loss when the point of pain and loss is to deter someone from having that emotion arise again, which, as far as I know, no plant has any active (non-genetic) control over. If anything, edible plants would hypothetically feel a pleasure from being harvested as they've evolved to be eaten to reproduce (as opposed to creatures where others adapt to eat them).

Also I'm a vegetarian to avoid cancers. Please let me know if there's some underground undeniable proof that meats can't harm your body long-term.

There is some appallingly ill-informed maths in this thread.

Peanuts and cows equated to deaths per meal is particularly cute and special.

What did the cow eat to get so big?

There is some appallingly ill-informed maths in this thread.

Peanuts and cows equated to deaths per meal is particularly cute and special.

What did the cow eat to get so big?

Cows need energy to move around and do everything, and they get it from plants like grass or hay, which is the reason why it's not 100% efficient.  The exact rate varies depending upon the animal; insects seem to waste less energy from what they eat than cows.

This entire argument (about how plants are on the same tier as animals) seems like a devil's advocacy, except it doesn't sound like they believe otherwise.  Ideally we'd all photosynthesize and eat the waste of other animals (worms, for example, get their nutrients and energy from dirt), but all of the humans I know aren't evolutionarily equipped for that., and also wouldn't enjoy eating those things if they could.  Regardless of how "moral" anything is, doing that just isn't practical unless you're a plant or a worm.
I've now realized that it's not the ability to feel, and react (which is probably just something that all living things possess) that makes a life sacred.  My iPhone can feel a touch, hear sounds, or "see" things and react, but it's not sacred.  The reason why animals are a sacred form of life (this statement is unrelated to religion; I'm using it to describe the things that have a life worth living...) is because they have personalities.  I think the emphasis (at least in American culture) on the different personalities of cats and dogs is why it's so painful to imagine the Chinese eating them.  It doesn't matter how they got their personality, but it's a fact that the personalities of litter-mates (AKA being twins or a higher order multiple) are often very different.  I have never seen any evidence to suggest that plants have personalities in the few ways that they react to stimuli.  You can only pretend that they have personalities.

I'm not going to argue about material wastefulness, because I think that it's, in general, bad; however, it's possible to have either type of diet and be wasteful or otherwise.  This is true for resources like water, as well.

I also think that my comments on capitalism, though unexpected, were not unwarranted.  The only reason that these "evil meat companies" still exist is because they have an income from their "evil meat products".  Unless I'm completely wrong, vegetarianism (etc.) is a form of boycott or protest.  (I'm not sure if you're also upset with the fact that I only make references to America, where I live and know the culture, but this is because I don't like to assume that other countries are the same as mine.  I expect people to realize their country fits the description, because usually the situation's not applicable when it doesn't.)

About the slavery thing... The Bible DOES support slavery, but why?
Because at jesus's (AAW. sorry no Caps for you) time, slavery was common and if slavery was abolished, not only would the masters perish because of their habit, but slaves would have no form of sustenance. I'm not saying slavery should be commended, but there ARE some people who would prefer slavery to their current life. Though servants are a better option.

oh ... this thread again...

I thought we dropped this a month ago

Agreed, necroposting in a topic like this is bad.