Valmorian

</strong>

Um, if it has more B12, it is a better source of B12. Whether you need that much or not is a separate question.

</strong>

What is wrong for all humans, eating liver? How so? Why is it "wrong"?


Inferior to what? Inferior to an assertion that "killing needlessly is wrong"?

Rediculous.

All you keep doing is making bald assertions with nothing to back it up. You make the claim that "X is immoral" but then fail to give a reason WHY.

Valmorian

</strong>

Did you even READ the link that was provided by Rational Ag? Particularly this point:

Regardless, since when is the ability to vocalize the only indicator of pain? Are you seriously saying that a human without vocal chords can't feel pain?

I'm in awe here about how you could just assume they don't feel pain because you don't see them "cry out".

"It's just Common Sense"? Why? What makes it common sense? They have a central nervous system, why wouldn't they feel pain? What's the rational reason explaining why they would not?

I think you're just rationalizing this.

</strong>

You said that eating meat is immoral because it is unnecessary. If that's the case, what else could you do but have the bare minimum requirement?

</strong>

Wow, you're just chock full of fallacies and assumptions. How do you know I wouldn't recommend raw meat? I wouldn't, but then, I know people who would. I also wouldn't recommend raw fish, by the way, but what difference does whether I recommend something or not make to whether someone can eat it?

</strong>

Fish don't feel pain.
Vegetarians are smarter than meat eaters.
Nobody would recommend eating raw meat.

These are all outlandish claims, IMHO.

</strong>

It's not required for red meat either. It's just safer. For that matter, it's not &lt;b&gt;necessary&lt;/b&gt; to keep mould and bacteria off of your vegetables and fruits to eat them, but it's a good idea.

</strong>

You're thinking of it backwards. Whatever we can eat that helps us survive will do as far as the body is concerned. If cooked meat helps you survive, that's good enough.

The human body isn't "DESIGNED" for anything. Evolution doesn't work that way.

I suppose you also ignored the information above that points out the majority of people throughout history have had meat in their diets. It's not a rare thing.


But really now, you want to argue that it's immoral. So convince me. If it's OBJECTIVELY immoral to eat meat, what's the objective reason?

shamon

It’s NOT a better source of B12 b/c it has 33 times the amount of B12. I guess you could eat 1/33 the serving amount every day but it wouldn’t be feasible. You tell me, do you need that much? You’re implying that it’s ambiguous when it’s clearly not. You don’t need that much B12. Beef liver has 33 times the amount of B12 recommended by the RDA standard (or any other standard you’ll likely come across) therefore, Beef liver is not a better source of B12.
What is wrong is what I said, “My point is that if someone goes around telling others that meat is required in their diet b/c of B12 and that beef liver is a “far better” source than fish or dairy or eggs, I HAVE so say something b/c it blatantly wrong.”
Simply:
1. Telling others that meat is required in the human diet is wrong.
2. Telling others that beef liver is a far better source of B12 is wrong.
It is also wrong to needlessly kill. This includes eating liver if you don’t have to eat it. It automatically causes needless suffering and death. There’s not a single reputable and reasonable website that you’ll run across that says that meat is required in the humans diet, not one. If a whole class on being, sentient animals, aren’t required then the only ethical thing to do is to not kill them. You can’t even prove that meat is required using your own ideas b/c no one can. There are no nutritional requirements that meat provides that a vegetarian cannot.
I didn’t find your feelings inferior. It was just refreshing to see someone expressing feelings about a moral decision rather than relying exclusively on linear rationality.

Valmorian

</strong>

It appears you are using a different definition of "Better Source" than I am. If I have to choose between two objects that contain a substance, and one contains more of that substance, I would consider that object to be a better source of said substance. Whether I NEED that much substance is a separate question.

</strong>

If by needlessly you mean it is wrong to kill unless by not killing you are endangering your own life. I disagree.

I don't find the killing of animals to be immoral. You have yet to demonstrate to me that it is.

</strong>

Whether meat is required for me to LIVE or not is irrelevant to me. My enjoyment of meat superceeds my value of the life of a cow.

</strong>

In your opinion. Many don't share that opinion.

</strong>

I've never claimed it was required. I enjoy eating meat. I have no ethical problems with the slaughter of animals to obtain that meat. Therefore, there's no ethical problem for me.

</strong>

All morals are effectively based upon desires. If they were not, you should kill yourself now, since by doing so you would minimize the amount of suffering your life causes. Obviously, you desire to live, therefore you justify any action that keeps you from dying as "moral".

They're all simply value judgements based upon what you want, though.

brighid

Please read back through the information I posted about the many sources of necessary nutrients that aren’t found in non-animal sources! I am not going to rehash them for you if you haven’t bothered to read the info I posted. Uh – why am I bothering with you? Lactose intolerance, allergies to many nuts, poor tolerance of bean sources, allergies to shellfish and some other fishes, and other physical ailments that I care not to detail here MEAT is the best source of vital nutrients as determined by my allergist and my nutritionist – therefore honey, I NEED meat to be healthy. As a meat eater, who incorporates 7 servings of fruits, vegetables and whole grains into my diet nearly every day and avoids those foods I am allergic to, I am not deficient in any of those areas. My body is different from your body and certified health professionals have made unique determinations based upon my age, gender, activity level and physical restrictions so that I may obtain optimal health. So who the fuck are you to second guess my doctors or what’s best for me, or anyone else? A balanced diet is best, always. A balanced diet including lean meat sources, lots of fruits and veggies and whole grains is right for me, nor has there been any credible scientific finding that eating lean sources of animal meat is detrimental to your health – it is the overindulgence that hurts one. And to deny someone the right to optimal health and call it immoral, when she and highly educated health professionals have made this specific determination is wrong. Like I said – go ahead and be deficient and sedentary and eat a vegetarian diet all you want. (However I am not implying all being a vegetarian makes one sedentary or deficient) If it works for you – great! But leave me the fuck alone and don’t attempt to assert your ill constructed and weak moral arguments into my life.

Nor have I found that vegetable sources are better, or in most cases sufficient sources of ALL the essential nutrients for a normal functioning body of any active person, or that the human body absorbs, digests or processes those aforementioned nutrients better from vegetarian sources, including eggs, milk and cheese. You have provided no compelling evidence to counter the information I, or others have presented and you have provided a woefully inept argument against the immorality of eating meat. You have demonstrated your utter hypocrisy in determining that fish aren’t meat, when indeed they are capable of feeling and pain although they lack voice boxes to express like cow, pigs or sheep so you can’t hear their pain AND conversing with you is an utter waste of time. There are 7 pages of discussion here and not ONE sound or even developed moral argument presented by you. So, stop wasting our time.

To attack the factual nature of the information I presented by casting doubt upon the accuracy of the information by alleging spurious and unknown motives of the author is an AD HOMINEM fallacy. If you have a problem with the actual information presented, discredit it with credible information. Don’t simply cast it aside because it was written by someone you presume may have an agenda simply because the information is in disagreement with your thinking!

Just as with the abortion issue – if you don’t want to have one, don’t and stay the hell out of my uterus and in the case with people like you – stay the hell out of my BODY!


Brighid

droolian

Shamon, fish do have a nervous system and are not required for health. Also, protein combining isn’t necessary.

Even if I weren’t a vegan for ethical reasons, I wouldn’t recommend eating meat or dairy to anyone. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm</a>

Yes vegans (and some meat eaters) benefit from a supplement or fortified foods. Nearly 40% of all Americans are short in b12. What’s wrong with them? It can’t be a shortage of animal products.

B complex vitamins are made in gastro-intestinal tract if our friendly flora is properly colonized. Jean Mayer, Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, said that meat, poultry, and seafood may not be good source of b12.
“Katherine Tucker and colleagues measured blood levels and food or supplement sources of vitamin B-12 in roughly 3,000 men and women--aged 26 to 83--whose health has been tracked since 1971 as part of the Framingham Offspring Study.
"A surprising 39 percent of the participants had blood levels below 350 pg/ml, the level at which neurological signs of vitamin B-12 deficiency or high homocysteine levels sometimes occur. And younger people were just as likely to have low levels as older people. What's more, people who got their B-12 from supplements, fortified breakfast cereals, or dairy products were less likely to be deficient than those who got more of their B-12 from meat, poultry, or fish.”
Modern life and excessive cleanliness and the antibiotics from eating farm animals probably have more to do with us not storing b12 as we should. Antibiotics kill bacteria indiscriminately.

Carl Lewis is not an ethical vegan. He only cares about the health benefits. It’s the same with Dr. John McDougall, who has stated publicly numerous times that he wants people to go vegan to benefit his or her own lives. He has said, “I don’t care about animals, but human health.”

Carl Lewis doesn't ever eat animal products of any type and is 9-time gold medal champ in sprinting. Plenty of people never eat any animal products.

Someone was bringing up lack of sex drive from not eating meat due to lack of zinc? Plenty of zinc is found in plant sources. Impotence is linked to heart disease, which is caused by eating animals. Heart disease can be prevented by a healthy diet and so can impotence. Viagra is a hit for a reason---it's needed. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/impotence/causes/" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/impotence/causes/</a>

Again the ADA position that being vegetarian and vegan is fine. <a href="http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html" target="_blank">http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html</a>

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]</p>

DRFseven

Brighid, surely you know better than to quote beyondveg. Would you accept quotes as reliable from americanvegan.org? Of course not; you have to use a nonpartisan site, which is why I go by ADA and medical journals.

You never answered my question. Would you like me to post some information about the ill-effects of meat in the diet in relation to the first and second leading causes of morbidity due to disease in the U.S., and why people who are concerned about their health might want to consider switching at least some of their protein intake to nonmeat sources? I will not use any vegetarian sources, pro or con.

Just so you'll know, I don't consider a total lacto-ovo vegetarian diet the healthiest of all possible diets; I like to see a little fish in there.

tronvillain

I'll just point out that what we can eat raw is not an indicator of what is "natural" (as if that mattered anyway) since we've had fire for a long time. Potentially long enough to virtually make it a requirement for eating meat.

DRFseven

This has been pointed out, but it doesn't seem to matter to them; they go merrily on their way, having huge arguments about what some other people in another place at another time, under other circumstances did as if that means we should do it, too because it's "natural."

tronvillain

Actually, I meant that cooking meat may very well be what is "natural" for humans - that we may have evolved to depend on fire.