Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Humans are extremely adaptive animals; that's why we're "omnivores" in the first place. It's effectively our modus operandi to eat whatever the hell is around us that isn't directly poisonous, and even some of the stuff that is.

As a result, anybody trying to tell you what a "natural" or "unnatural" human diet consists of is pretty much full of it. Human diets have varied so much across space and time that the options you actually have, especially in a modern society, are pretty amazing. I mean, you have some forms of vegetarian stretching back centuries, and on the other hand, you have cultures like the Inuit who had to figure out how to survive using essentially no plant products at all (which requires some pretty interesting dietary habits and rituals of their own).

I don't really think every vegetarian/vegan in existence expects the entire world to share their dietary habits; I think most of them are smart enough to realize that this isn't remotely possible at this point in time and that the choice to not eat meat (or animal products, as the case may be) is only possible because they're lucky enough to be in a position where they can feasibly make the choice.


For the most part, what humans "crave" as food depends on what we're used to. Some cultures eat insects, but if I see insects (even ones eaten by some other people on the planet), I don't reflexively think of it as "food" even though there's nothing really wrong with doing so. Many vegetarians, after not eating meat for a long time, actually find themselves disgusted by it rather than craving it, because they don't quite see it as food anymore due to a lack of exposure and the decision on their part not to do so.

There is no constant and unchanging part of the brain causing you to crave every single thing that might be food. Humans naturally eat meat, yes, but that doesn't mean that choosing not to is somehow irrational. Otherwise, it would be irrational for any of us to wear clothing, use an alarm clock, grow staple crops like wheat (which don't even exist naturally), or any number of other ways in which we either subvert our natural inclinations or condition ourselves to have inclinations we weren't necessarily born with.

You don't have to be rich to be vegetarian, especially because a salad costs less than a steak, and you can very easily SAVE money by avoiding meat.

This is a pretty bad comparison. Salad and steak (for most salads, anyway) do not share remotely the same nutritional role. They are not substitutes for each other, and no vegetarian (and nobody who studies nutrition) would claim that they are.

Your thinking is jaded because you live in a society with economy. Think of yourself as an animal because that's exactly what we are when considering basic needs. As I have said, pound by pound, meat give more energy then vegetable. This is a fact. Thus, given the choice between equal amount of meat and vegetables, meat is always a better choice for survival reasons. The 4 thousands years or so of civilization caused little changes in bodily needs comparing to the 6+ millions years of evolution prior to discard the latter.

This assumes that an equivalent mass of meat vs. "vegetables" costs the same or is otherwise equivalent. This is hardly ever the case. Which one you'd choose depends not only on what kind of vegetable it is (you realize there's more at stake than calories, right?), but how much of each is actually available, and especially in agricultural societies, you're going to have a lot more vegetable matter than meat, especially staple crops like grains.

[rephikul]

Ok, if the standard of testing is to starve children to prove your point, then I don't think there's any real argument I can make.  You're using insane troll logic now and there's nothing I can really say to that.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

I consider it more on the line of nazism but suit yourself.

This, unfortunately, is problematic because it rarely happens. Most groups do this, whether it be religious, political, ethical or otherwise. If you listen to politicians, why not vegetarians/meat-eaters?
I don't mind, to be honest. I just look at it as healthy, friendly debate.

Why?
-because my reasons for my diet are pretty personal and I don't see a point in forcing it upon anyone else. I naively expect the same from others.
-I'm fine with debating over freedom of speech, reforms, etc, but surprise! I don't like debating about everything! I don't want to debate about every single part of life! Or rather, seeing the turn from this topic, I equally naively expect other people to agree to disagree when needed. We can't all have the same opinion, so we'll have to get along with different ones.
-to finish the list of things I naively expect, I'll say politicians are expected to bring up issues and start debates. If non-politicians want to start a discussion, I fully expect them to be well-informed on the subject. I don't want to defend my vision of things against people who actually have no idea of what they are talking about, don't want to receive information, and didn't even need to start the debate in the first place.

If you can keep on answering "this is why" until it's some fact in science, then it's a debate. If anything that goes into opinion territory and both side agree it being opinion, it remains a debate. If you cant do that, you need to raise some conversation skills.

[Dragonchampion]

Guys, guys. Think of it like this.

Dwarves are a very diverse people, like us. Some like only veggies, some like meat, others like the organs. When you have plenty of food, they can afford to be picky. But when you are first starting it up, you are forced to eat what you have.

Starving people cannot be picky.

[Girlinhat]

This may be subjective, but I'd encourage non-vegetarians here to overcome their prejudices and try offals

To be fair, I've tried various forms of strange vegetarian stuff, like goat cheese and other oddities.  While admittedly not as outlandish as chicken heart, it's still some pretty strange stuff.

Also: Vegimite.  Just... Vegimite.

[G-Flex]

I consider it more on the line of nazism but suit yourself.

Wait, what? I know it was a sort of crass thought experiment, but Nazism?

To be fair, I've tried various forms of strange vegetarian stuff, like goat cheese and other oddities.

I know the answer is probably just "I'm not used to it", but how is goat cheese any stranger than cow cheese? Granted, it tends to be kind of strong-tasting. Feta cheese is pretty delicious on pizza with chicken.

[Girlinhat]

I'm not sure what exactly is different, perhaps it's because I was in France at the time and they get particular with their cheese, but this was a thoroughly different cheese altogether, at least compared to the "safe" types of cheddar and such I'd tried in the states.

[decius]

I do enjoy it when people don't force their meat-centric ideas onto me...  I'm sorry that my lifestyle upsets you so much.

Are you saying that your diet is the defining feature of your lifestyle? Mine isn't. Or is your diet a direct and unavoidable result of your ethical choices? Have you examined those choices, and found them and their consequences to be justified?

You don't need to answer to anybody but yourself, but you do need to answer to yourself. Telling others to stop making you feel judged, even when done in a passive-aggressive manner, does not absolve you of the act judging yourself.

The craving to rape and murder are often ignored, even though pretty much every able-bodied male gets similar urges on a daily basis.

Wait, you mean I'm able to resist the provocation to rape and murder every woman who makes eye contact with me?* Around 84-98% of American men (most) will never commit rape**, and an even smaller percentage will never commit murder. Eating meat does not correlate with either.

*Joking, sarcastic, and ironic. Not funny; an attempt to demonstrate that the quoted line is absurd.
** Not joking, these numbers represent a best-guess estimate based on modern research. No data is available on urges.

Now that we've managed to get persecution, ethics, and rape into a "So what the hell is sweetbread?" post: How can sweetbread be weaponized? The use of magma is encouraged, but not required.

Late add:
 

If you can keep on answering "this is why" until it's some fact in science, then it's a debate. If anything that goes into opinion territory and both side agree it being opinion, it remains a debate. If you cant do that, you need to raise some communication skills.

Fixed, with the caveat that "What I perceive is in some way linked with reality." is a premise, not a fact.

[lordnincompoop]

A) Everyone does not crave meat, hence the vegetarians.  Also even if everyone does, that does not mean everyone acts on their cravings.  The craving to rape and murder are often ignored, even though pretty much every able-bodied male gets similar urges on a daily basis.
Everybody craves for meat. Simple test: Raise 100 children to 3-4 years old as omnivores, feed equally amount of vegetable and meat until they understand their diet. Let them starve for about 3 days. Show & ask them what they'd want, equally amount of meat or salad.

B) You don't have to be rich to be vegetarian, especially because a salad costs less than a steak, and you can very easily SAVE money by avoiding meat.
Your thinking is jaded because you live in a society with economy. Think of yourself as an animal because that's exactly what we are when considering basic needs. As I have said, pound by pound, meat give more energy then vegetable. This is a fact. Thus, given the choice between equal amount of meat and vegetables, meat is always a better choice for survival reasons. The 4 thousands years or so of civilization caused little changes in bodily needs comparing to the 6+ millions years of evolution prior to discard the latter.

On a side note, without laws and enforcement in place, rapes and murders do rampart.

Raise the kids on veg then, watch them stick to it.

Your second argument is flawed on a number of levels:

• We are not sumrandumanimal. Our needs are different.
• We have subsisted on vegetables for an incredibly long time. Our diet is supposed to have large portions of vegetables in it (thus the term omnivore)^1,2. Look at our evolutionary features, and there you'll see that we are not built to be predators, or even carnivores.
• "Pound by pound, meat give more energy then vegetable. This is a fact." What? Where? If you're going to try to state facts, stop pulling them out of your ass.
• Try surviving on meat alone. Go ahead, try it. It's just not possible, and dangerous to do so. Where do you think people are getting atherosclerosis from?³

B) You don't have to be rich to be vegetarian, especially because a salad costs less than a steak, and you can very easily SAVE money by avoiding meat.

Steaks are incredibly expensive by virtue of being one. If we're arguing vegans too here, I have to mention that with such a diet you are not going to gain some essential nutrients without supplements.

I consider it more on the line of nazism but suit yourself.

Wait, what? I know it was a sort of crass thought experiment, but Nazism?

Wewt Godwin's Law.

Warning - while you were typing 12 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Ohgodwhat

EDIT:

Around 84-98% of American men (most) will never commit rape**, and an even smaller percentage will never commit murder.

I really wish people would stop pulling facts out of their asses.

[harborpirate]

oh and back more on topic, in DF I set all offals to get cooked and leave meat raw until the offals are all gone. I generally set plants to be left raw, but that's more just to make sure there are always enough around to make booze.

[Musashi]

@rephikul: I think my conversation skills are just fine, thank you very much. Rarely will both sides agree that opinions are just opinions and stop there.

Also, did we seriously just reach Godwin point again? Seriously?

[rephikul]

Your thinking is jaded because you live in a society with economy. Think of yourself as an animal because that's exactly what we are when considering basic needs. As I have said, pound by pound, meat give more energy then vegetable. This is a fact. Thus, given the choice between equal amount of meat and vegetables, meat is always a better choice for survival reasons. The 4 thousands years or so of civilization caused little changes in bodily needs comparing to the 6+ millions years of evolution prior to discard the latter.

This assumes that an equivalent mass of meat vs. "vegetables" costs the same or is otherwise equivalent. This is hardly ever the case. Which one you'd choose depends not only on what kind of vegetable it is (you realize there's more at stake than calories, right?), but how much of each is actually available, and especially in agricultural societies, you're going to have a lot more vegetable matter than meat, especially staple crops like grains.

Oh I'm looking at it as an animal so I disregard supply. You are indeed right that I'm staking mostly calories there and it's true that in some extreme habitat, a bag of salt would be more valuable then wives. However in most habitats where you may find human as a thriving animal (I'm looking at you, Africa jungles), supplementary is of abundance and it's of much more importance to get the bulk of the meal. Since even carnivores eat random grass from time to time for supplementary, I make the assumption that everybody know even meat-craving human would when deemed necessary,

[lordnincompoop]

@rephikul: I think my conversation skills are just fine, thank you very much. Rarely will both sides agree that opinions are just opinions and stop there.

Also, did we seriously just reach Godwin point again? Seriously?

Yes, we did. But whatever, it happens.

I'd really rather we not do that though, because it is an incredibly weak argument and it just shows the user is incapable of creating a better point.

Oh I'm looking at it as an animal so I disregard supply. You are indeed right that I'm staking mostly calories there and it's true that in some extreme habitat, a bag of salt would be more valuable then wives. However in most habitats where you may find human as a thriving animal (I'm looking at you, Africa jungles), supplementary is of abundance and it's of much more importance to get the bulk of the meal. Since even carnivores eat random grass from time to time for supplementary, I make the assumption that everybody know even meat-craving human would when deemed necessary,

We are omnivores. This means we are not just meat-craving. Also, I forgot to adress another point:

Everybody craves for meat. Simple test: Raise 100 children to 3-4 years old as omnivores, feed equally amount of vegetable and meat until they understand their diet. Let them starve for about 3 days. Show & ask them what they'd want, equally amount of meat or salad.

Back this up. Now.

Sweetbread doesn't sound that bad in comparison actually.  Regular steak is pretty much just muscle and fat.  A gland is just a different form of tissue, a more tender one understandably, and once something is breaded and deep fried, what difference does it make?

This may be subjective, but I'd encourage non-vegetarians here to overcome their prejudices and try offals (sweetbread, kidney, liver, intestines, tongue, heart, brains) when presented with the opportunity. In regards to sweetbread and intestines (prepared in the form of chitterlings mainly), I'd even say you should seek out an opportunity.

This is because I myself have tried all the stuff I mentioned above (grilled... I'd figure that deep fried everything would taste well), and I've found all of them to taste nice, or delicious even, save for the brains.

Brains weren't awful either, if I had to, I'd eat them again, but I would choose any of the other items over it.

A note on heart, I've only had chicken ones. In Brazil, they put chicken heart on everything.

I have never tried offal, unfortunately. I am present looking for an opportunity to do so.

[Girlinhat]

For the record, I'm tapping out of this thread.  Too much drama in too little time.

[decius]

B) You don't have to be rich to be vegetarian, especially because a salad costs less than a steak, and you can very easily SAVE money by avoiding meat.
Your thinking is jaded because you live in a society with economy. Think of yourself as an animal because that's exactly what we are when considering basic needs. As I have said, pound by pound, meat give more energy then vegetable. This is a fact. Thus, given the choice between equal amount of meat and vegetables, meat is always a better choice for survival reasons. The 4 thousands years or so of civilization caused little changes in bodily needs comparing to the 6+ millions years of evolution prior to discard the latter.

How about we compare the subjective costs and value of meat and vegetables RIGHT NOW. Right now, I eat mostly vegetables and starches, but don't eschew (all) meat; By weight, I figure I eat several times more fruit, veg, starch, and bread than meat. Those proportions are about the same in my American middle-class kitchen as in charity soup kitchens, so there's either some amount of economic independence or acquired personal taste involved.

[Lagslayer]

I say we mod sweetbread to burn forever, then mod it to be repulsive, because of the smell.