PadmaVonSamba wrote:I am going more vegetarian every day.
I am glad you are able to make a joke out of the intense suffering and deaths of billions of beings for no reason other than: taste preference, displaying domination, displaying the most conspicuous consumption from the most wasteful possible food source in terms of inputs put in. However, you keep arguing for and creating apologia for meat eating, so I doubt the sincerity of all your allusions to vegetarianism.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:However, to grow all of that stuff, millions of beings were killed.
Let's not kid ourselves!!!
To eat turkey meat, well, you only have to kill one creature...the turkey.
Or you could just amputate the legs and just eat them I suppose,
and then the turkey wouldn't have to die.
Or you could just eat an apple or something, which unlike eating a Turkey leg, benefits the tree if you don't do it like imperialist modern peoples. Before toilets and abstracted civilization if I ate an apple, walked a bit, I will eventually poop. That poop will give the seed of the apple fertilizer and a chance to spread. However human meat eating is nothing like that, human hunters unlike real carnivores use projectiles and chase after the healthiest of the herd or species if possible, not the weakest, smallest and most sickly, like real carnivores do, improving herd health. Let us not kid ourselves with your fictions. Turkeys require plant sources to feed them which also involves the land base this takes up. Farming those plants sources kills even more beings, and prevents more beings from access to a unfettered land base, since humans will destroy all species that interfere with their farming. But that is beside the point, what you are doing is trying to guilt vegans and vegetarians as I pointed out before to you
in this thread:
Thrasymachus wrote:1.) You cannot do the impossible, so don't do the possible.
Basically this argument maintains that since even eating plant foods involves killing insects and micro-organisms, that the meat abstainers are no different or better. But trying to do the impossible always results in failure. Does this mean we should not do what is possible in terms of saving lives? Does that sound a very compassionate or enlightened argument? It sounds like a very bad excuse to bring down the bar of ethics and compassion to satisfy the attachment of those with certain taste preferences.
Which brings us to:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:I was responding to the statement "...but no animals had to die"
Do you have trouble understanding what an animal
is and isn't? Do you know the difference between doing what is humanely possible in one's capacities like not eating animals, and guilt tripping people for not doing the impossible: harming no beings at all while being alive? Everyone may as well just do nothing just to make everyone else feel good about their extreme disconnection to their consumption choices.
PorkChop wrote:Oh I know... Tofurkey is the nastiest stuff I've ever eaten.
There are actually peoples who have eaten raw meat extensively. The Mongols of the steppes and Turkic tribes used to take raw meat, put it under the saddle and eat it while rampaging to battle on horseback. The Comanche tribe had similar practices. That behavior almost universally disgusts most human cultures throughout history and induces real vomit. On the contrary I have seen many so called carnivores and omnivores disgusted by raw meat, and lament how good soy and wheat disguised as meat can taste.
The article you posted mis-attributed the fact that animal remains -- bones were found and imputed something about plant foods. If you bury animals, their bones can remain a long time and preserve better, but if you bury a sack of potatoes with the same weight it will just return to the earth by decomposition unless it fossilizes somehow. So it is not strange that mostly animal remains can be found. However that is not what the latest research points to:Scientific American: Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians
Are you even serious about the last paragraph? If you do something for one day out of seven, is that even giving it a shot? How is that even logistically possible? Most people cook more than enough for one or two meals. I don't understand how you can have this nice compartment where you just go vegetarian for one day or how it could be considered even trying. Alot of Americans always fight the battle of the bulge. I got news from you(I should create a thread about it infact), if you get a small minority of calories from animal sources(which have excess calories from fat and protein), that is not an issue. My family were all poor rural Greeks and before they were rich enough to afford meat, no one was overweight. Now Greeks are the fattest population in Europe thanks largely to the rat race of affluence that allowed them to consume many animal products! Alot of fad diets exist like Atkins, Paleo, etc. to try to use unhealthy tricks like carbohydrate starvation to induce ketosis and meld meat consumption with temporary weight loss at the cost of long term health. I have a feeling that is what you are alluding to. But if one simply eats 90% or greater calories from whole plant foods, they are not only healthy but avoiding the need to play such games or use such tricks.
I used to think like that before going vegetarian, but I realized something:
If you eat meat under any circumstances you are no longer an example of an alternative for others. However if you refuse to eat meat those who care for you and love you will cook and eat more vegan or vegetarian meals themselves. So if you are strict, it radiates outwards. If you make exceptions it creates implosions inwards.