Print

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

[lordnincompoop]

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

You disliking offal does not make everyone else dislike offal.

That said, an eternally burning item would be interesting.

[G-Flex]

Oh I'm looking at it as an animal so I disregard supply.

Why would you "disregard supply" when your entire argument is what we'd do in animalistic terms when attempting to survive? Supply levels are extremely important here.

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,

I don't think anybody disagrees that meat-eating, from that standpoint, makes sense. Well, I guess you'd have some, but I think we can safely ignore them for the purposes of this discussion. What you're saying simply doesn't address the question of whether or not, in a modern society (or even some non-modern ones), a vegetarian diet can be complete and healthy. They certainly can be.

[Namfuak]

Godwin's Law

Hitler.

Now we've fulfilled it.

I don't really understand why rephikul is so adamant about proving that vegetarianism is so bad, but I will say that he is right that pound for pound there are many more calories in meat than there are in lettuce (not necessarily salads, because you can get quite a few calories out of different sauces and ingredients), as well as more fat and protein (again, lettuce, not all salads).  In general, vegans have to either take supplements or eat a very specific diet to get the necessary amount of protein and calories out of what they eat (especially if they don't have any animal products, so no dairy, fish or eggs).

This argument kind of reminds me of that episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" where their car breaks down in the woods and they need food, and find a bird on the ground.

[rephikul]

Raise the kids on veg then, watch them stick to it.
Raise the kids on meat then, watch them stick to it. Note how in my example they are supposed to be fed with both



Your second argument is flawed on a number of levels:

• We are not sumrandumanimal. Our needs are different.

Like what?

• 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.

Both links described what we ate, neither said anything about what we should. In both case, they mentioned with ate both plants and animals so we are omnivores. Looking at the fact that we hunted animals for food in your first link, It is safe assume we have been predators for very long time now.

• "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.

Sure, first link on google: meat and veggie

• 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

Last I checked, Eskimos still exist, thus 100% meat diet works just fine.

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.
If there're any other people who conduct experiments on human as if they are animals so I can use as alternative, let me know.

[decius]

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,

Why can you disregard supply in this context? Supply represents the cost of eating, measured in time and energy (or money). Disregarding supply would result in a diet of nothing but Ambrosia, on which anything would starve, because there isn't any. In reality, carnivores (animals) eat meat because meat has a low cost (to them), in terms of nourishment received compared to time and energy expended. Omnivores (animals) eat a varied diet because sometimes meat is less expensive, and sometimes it is more expensive. Herbivores (animals) follow similar physics.

When ethics comes into play (human ethical vegetarians), it alters the cost of meat to include "Eating this has the cost of violating an ethical belief". Meat now becomes either very or infinitely expensive, depending on the individual. When taste comes into play (human dietary "limited omnivores" or vegetarians), meat has a lesser perceived benefit, so becomes less popular or is removed from the diet. In neither case does evolutionary biology need to come into play.

The final argument, that meat requires less of scarce resources than grains and legumes to feed the same number of people, falls under a different set of ethical and physical premises, and I don't think that those premises are reasonable.

Sweetbread, offal, and organ meat are all delicious, and a BETTER source of trace vitamins than muscle meat. Some of them (polar bear liver) are dangerously fatally rich in some.

[rephikul]

I don't really understand why rephikul is so adamant about proving that vegetarianism is so bad.

Because my grandma is one and we visit her every sunday.

Just kidding.

[G-Flex]

but I will say that he is right that pound for pound there are many more calories in meat than there are in lettuce

It's too bad it's an extremely useless comparison, because nobody eats lettuce for calories, even vegans. You might as well say that a hammer pounds nails better than a screwdriver.

In general, vegans have to either take supplements or eat a very specific diet to get the necessary amount of protein and calories out of what they eat (especially if they don't have any animal products, so no dairy, fish or eggs).

As far as I know, the only serious problem here is vitamin B12, which doesn't exist in plant sources (although it does exist in eggs and dairy), so vegans in particular need to take supplements, which isn't necessarily a big deal unless for some reason they aren't available at a decent price, which they should be.

Last I checked, Eskimos still exist, thus 100% meat diet works just fine.

It works, yes, but it requires a whole lot of care and some fairly broad practices; they pretty much let none of the animal go to waste. As with any limited diet, just because you can do it doesn't mean it's remotely easy.

If there're any other people who conduct experiments on human as if they are animals so I can use as alternative, let me know.

I think it was more of a thought experiment than an actual proposition for a real medical experiment.



To reiterate, humans can eat a very wide variety of things, and crave a wide variety of things -- or at least can. It all boils down to what we personally perceive as food, and what sort of diet works for the situation we're in.

[decius]

Like what?

WOW. Used out of context, that does support your point. Of course, Maslow himself said that those needs may vary in importance or order between individuals, and various others have demonstrated that they vary between cultures; some humans will accept pain, hunger, and death (All low levels on that pyramid) in order to avoid dishonor or embarrassment (a higher level need).

[rephikul]

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,

Why can you disregard supply in this context? Supply represents the cost of eating, measured in time and energy (or money). Disregarding supply would result in a diet of nothing but Ambrosia, on which anything would starve, because there isn't any. In reality, carnivores (animals) eat meat because meat has a low cost (to them), in terms of nourishment received compared to time and energy expended. Omnivores (animals) eat a varied diet because sometimes meat is less expensive, and sometimes it is more expensive. Herbivores (animals) follow similar physics.

When ethics comes into play (human ethical vegetarians), it alters the cost of meat to include "Eating this has the cost of violating an ethical belief". Meat now becomes either very or infinitely expensive, depending on the individual. When taste comes into play (human dietary "limited omnivores" or vegetarians), meat has a lesser perceived benefit, so becomes less popular or is removed from the diet. In neither case does evolutionary biology need to come into play.

The final argument, that meat requires less of scarce resources than grains and legumes to feed the same number of people, falls under a different set of ethical and physical premises, and I don't think that those premises are reasonable.

Sweetbread, offal, and organ meat are all delicious, and a BETTER source of trace vitamins than muscle meat. Some of them (polar bear liver) are dangerously fatally rich in some.

Do note that I didnt make that final argument. You answered your own question about supply. We'd take the most easy path to fill our stomach thus supply isnt a constant. However under these condition human are more likely to choose meat: the amount are equal or when the supply is in infinite amount where in the capacity of the stomach is the only limit. The reason is already provided, you get more energy per bite to do whatever you are partaking in. In most other circumstances, human would favor plants because it's easier to obtain them. Due to this trend, I conclude plants as being substitute to meat and not the other way around.

In my opinion, omnivore is superior to both carnivore and herbivore because it gives the species more options to get food and thus more chance of survival. Carnivores and Herbivores have to evolve themselves so they can eat the meal of choice (and still stay alive). Omnivores can take it easy on the "eat the meal of choice" bit and just forcus on staying alive.

[rephikul]

Like what?

WOW. Used out of context, that does support your point. Of course, Maslow himself said that those needs may vary in importance or order between individuals, and various others have demonstrated that they vary between cultures; some humans will accept pain, hunger, and death (All low levels on that pyramid) in order to avoid dishonor or embarrassment (a higher level need).

They died when they choose higher needs over more basic needs. That's important. They failed to survive. We are talking about food.

but I will say that he is right that pound for pound there are many more calories in meat than there are in lettuce

It's too bad it's an extremely useless comparison, because nobody eats lettuce for calories, even vegans. You might as well say that a hammer pounds nails better than a screwdriver.

If my life depends on the act of pounding nail then I'd crave for hammers too.

[lordnincompoop]

Godwin's Law

Hitler.

Now we've fulfilled it.

I don't really understand why rephikul is so adamant about proving that vegetarianism is so bad, but I will say that he is right that pound for pound there are many more calories in meat than there are in lettuce (not necessarily salads, because you can get quite a few calories out of different sauces and ingredients), as well as more fat and protein (again, lettuce, not all salads).  In general, vegans have to either take supplements or eat a very specific diet to get the necessary amount of protein and calories out of what they eat (especially if they don't have any animal products, so no dairy, fish or eggs).

This argument kind of reminds me of that episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" where their car breaks down in the woods and they need food, and find a bird on the ground.

A carnivorous diet is suboptimal, as is confirmed by many articles. A meat-only based diet can be dangerous for you, such as a lean-meat only diet¹.

Veganism can also be dangerous for you, because you're eliminating a lot of good sources of various nutrients.

• We are not sumrandumanimal. Our needs are different.

Like what?

Dietary needs.

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.
If there're any other people who conduct experiments on human as if they are animals so I can use as alternative, let me know.

I was being facetious, if that wasn't clear enough for you.

EDIT:

Like what?

WOW. Used out of context, that does support your point. Of course, Maslow himself said that those needs may vary in importance or order between individuals, and various others have demonstrated that they vary between cultures; some humans will accept pain, hunger, and death (All low levels on that pyramid) in order to avoid dishonor or embarrassment (a higher level need).

They died when they choose higher needs over more basic needs. That's important. They failed to survive. We are talking about food.

but I will say that he is right that pound for pound there are many more calories in meat than there are in lettuce

It's too bad it's an extremely useless comparison, because nobody eats lettuce for calories, even vegans. You might as well say that a hammer pounds nails better than a screwdriver.

If my life depends on the act of pounding nail then I'd crave for hammers too.

Okay, now you're being deliberately obtuse. The comparison cannot continue, because what you are contrasting it with (a screwdriver/lettuce) is not used for that purpose and is thus invalid for such a comparison. It's comparing bicycles and oranges. You cannot ride on an orange.[/list]

[Namfuak]

If there're any other people who conduct experiments on human as if they are animals so I can use as alternative, let me know.

Soviet Russia.

As for the guy who pointed out that meat and lettuce were incomparable, I wasn't the one who was arguing salad versus meat in the first place.

[lordnincompoop]

If there're any other people who conduct experiments on human as if they are animals so I can use as alternative, let me know.

Soviet Russia.

As for the guy who pointed out that meat and lettuce were incomparable, I wasn't the one who was arguing salad versus meat in the first place.

No, you were not.

We wouldn't think any worse of you for it or something though, if that's what you're worried about. At least I don't.

[rephikul]

Dietary needs.

Please elaborate, this is new to me cause I eat anything that's digestible within health limit. From my understanding basing on Wikipedia, there's no biological reasons for dietary. Of course there're items such as milk which cant be absorbed by everyone but that fall outside the term diet.

Okay, now you're being deliberately obtuse. The comparison cannot continue, because what you are contrasting it with (a screwdriver/lettuce) is not used for that purpose and is thus invalid for such a comparison. It's comparing bicycles and oranges. You cannot ride on an orange.

It was a bad joke to end a bad subthread. If you want to discuss that bit, please bring up an earlier view point when it was still sensible.

[Eagle_eye]

well... if you don't get vitamin c you get scurvy. most animals synthesize vitamin c. humans don't. we need to get it from plants... unlike nearly every other animal.