Many people don't like the way we humans raise animals to be slaughtered for food. This is probably one of the most common reasons for becoming a vegetarian. Personally, I don't mind that we harvest animals but wish for the process of raising and killing the animals to be as painless as possible. I thought I had a pretty reasonable view on this topic, and perhaps I do, but something made me realize I'm still actually pretty confused.
A few weeks ago there was a big Tornado in the US that stuck, among other things, a large chicken farm. It destroyed the buildings that chickens were being raised in. The photos posted on the web showed the ground littered with dead chickens (you could barely see the ground) with a headline that something like 500,000 chickens were killed by the damage. When I saw this headline and looked at the pictures, I felt awful. Awful the same way you feel when you read a school bus full of children from your hometown lost control and careened off a cliff (except not as much obviously)...
I have intentionally not included the relevant article for the purposes of keeping the reader objective, but after you read feel free to do a quick search for it if you want to.
Is it reasonable for me to so emotionally react to this article? These chickens were being prepared for slaughter. I don't think the 'suffering' they experienced due to death by tornado was much more than whatever is associated with being slaughtered in a major chicken farm. I also noticed that the few chickens that managed to survive the tornado were found walking around in between all the chicken carcasses eating little bits of seed on the ground like nothing had happened. There didn't seem to be any emotional trauma whatsoever for these chickens (that's not to say the same would be true for other animals... I can't say).
It seems like I try to have it both ways... I can write off the slaughter of animals as a necessary expense in order for humans to benefit, but when the animals die some other way suddenly I feel really bad for them, even though the end result for the animals is the same.
I think the sadder thing are the conditions under which those chickens must have been kept if a roof collapsing can kill half a million of them. Your emotional reaction would probably be the same for both "ways to die" for the chicken if you actually saw them being slaughtered for food. If we had an image (much like the pictures on cigarette packages) of a killed animal or the questionable living conditions of factory farming in front of us every time we buy/ eat meat, most of us would probably become vegetarians.
edit: not a vegetarian myself, though I've cut down heavily on eating meat because I've always liked vegetables anyways. ezpzyo
I never thought of myself as an animal lover, and really still never think of myself as one. But i read an article a few years ago about a mother bear killing her cub because of the pain both her and her cub were feeling. They were in China or some place and the farmers there were extracting bile from her and the cub because the bile is used as some kind of medicine in China. Needless to say, this is an extremely painful process and it disturbed me quite a bit that an animal would kill their own offspring, something that goes completely against nature. Animals shouldn't be treated like that
it is reasonable to be emotionally about the article. Id recommend some texts on animal rights (most popular are probably singer and regan) to get a different perspective on this topic. There is no meat from happy animals, but only from dead ones.
On May 17 2014 23:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: I largely think that the degree to which you care about animals is a good indicator of how good of a person you are.
so be happy with yourself.
It shows empathy. It's an ability to be nice to other beings that have no intention to harm you, or at least no intention to do it out of malice; this is especially true when you can easily harm them out of malice.
hmm I think part of it might be because you saw the end result of the Tornado first hand. I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling emotional when you see that many chickens dead but when it comes to slaughter, you only ever hear about that but never saw it happen directly. Maybe if you did, you would have a better idea of what you want and might feel just as if not more emotional.
My girlfriend is a vegetarian for this very reason. She hates the way animal farms treat and degrade animals and don't even give them an inch of space to call their own before they are slaughtered. She still eats fish, but wants to one day cut it out due to overstocked fisheries and fear of mercury poisoning.
I have stopped eating any meat that is not organic, grass-fed or grazed. Though package labeling of these things may not always be honest, unfortunately. And it's also expensive as all hell.
It's weird that you bring this up because I recently had a similar reaction. I've always been more concerned with the suffering of other humans, particularly children, than I have of animals.
But recently I went chicken catching. There were a whole mess of chickens that needed to be inoculated with something so we would wade out into the throng, grab a chicken, stick it with a needle, and then literally throw it over this fence that separated the two sides. It was pitch black in there, and at the end of the shift when the lights came back on, it painted a pretty gruesome spectacle.
There was zero room for the chickens to move around. They were incredible smooshed together, and just sort of jolted amongst each other. Plus, when the lights came back on they went berserk and started scrambling over each other in a mad panic. A ton of birds died in this process. Some guy was striding through the birds dumping the dead ones into a large sack he carried. It made me want to vomit.
I guess there's no real point to this story other than to say that I'm right there along with you. It never really bothered me that much when I heard the living condition of some animals. But seeing that stuff up close really depressed me.
When I was about 9, I attended a farm function in which a bunch of farmers trained a couple of piglets to race, and then held bets on them on the night of the function. At the time it was pretty difficult economically in the country, so they were fund raising. At the end of the night they auctioned off the piglets. My father was pretty drunk by this point and agreed to let me bid for a piglet. It arrived two days later on the back of a truck and lived in my suburban backyard for about 8 or 9 months. In this time I named it (Grunter), bonded with him, fed him, played with him etc until he got really big and fat. At this point my father announced it was time he got sent to live on a real farm and have piglets of his own. Naturally this upset me, but I didn't have a say. And so my pig was shipped off to some 'farm'. A few years ago I asked my parents what farm Grunter had been sent to, out of curiosity. My parents looked at each other and then admitted that he had been sent to the abattoir and we had eaten him...
About 5 years ago whilst I was away at uni my sister decided to adopt 50 day old chicks to raise (again) in our backyard. Naturally, a lot of them died due to cold, lack of professional conditions for raising tiny babies etc, but at least 25 of them grew to full adult size. My family never killed a single one to eat, and we sold several to other breeders. (Off point but we had one specific hen that the others used to bully, so we took her out of the enclosure, and we would often find her sleeping with the dogs, or following them around the garden. We named her Meg.) But yeah, not a single chicken was eaten by my family.
My parents are always going on about how awful it is that people eat dogs. But they sense no hypocrisy in eating my pet pig. They wouldn't eat the chickens they raised, but they will still buy store bought chicken and eat it. Why is it that people will eat other creatures that eat plants, but not ones that eat meat? Just the other day I was talking to a hunter - he takes people out on safari and they shoot a zebra or eland, and then they eat it. But then they catch a leopard they skin it and throw away the meat. Why do people do this? I really hate how desensitized people have become to the death of animals. Sure they're not as smart as people, but it doesn't mean they don't have feelings or emotions. A zebra runs from a lion because it WANTS to live. It is a struggle for life, it is scared of dying, just like us. Meh. People have reached the stage where technology is advanced enough that we don't have to have meat to survive, so personally I go without meat where I can because I choose to.
On May 18 2014 01:15 itsjustatank wrote: be glad you live in such a place with such a surplus that you can have such feelings
erm? Okay China is notoriously horrible but it's my impression that Indians treat animals with much more respect than westerners do. There's no real connection between wealth of country and treatment of animals - if anything this connection would be the opposite of what you seem to indicate.
People always associate such negativity with death, and in the case of humans the emotional suffering of loved ones is quite grave, but for animals, especially farm-raised chickens? Not so much.
Maybe I just don't "fear" death in a purely academic sense (I would not be at all afraid to die if I didn't have family), but honestly death for animals is such a natural thing especially when you think about what is really important in the lives of animals.
A chicken isn't going to be intellectually deprived or seek higher forms of joy, for them maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (in constraint to their natural instincts and behavior) is all that matters. I would say chickens were relatively "happy" before the mass adoption of modern chicken farms, raised naturally outdoors with ample space to exercise and with natural chicken feed.
Nowadays, chicken farms are fucking disgusting hellholes that would definitely qualify as a place of animal cruelty, and conditions for chickens are still rapidly deteriorating. Just a few years ago, chicken farms were at least still open-air with iron mesh on the sides of the barn. Currently, most chicken farms are completely sealed, and these chickens live in enormously overcrowded barns with either separate levels or tiny little separate cages, and they literally sit on top of their feces all day, eat a ton of GMO feed laced with all kinds of antibiotics and growth hormones, live among death birds that don't get removed for days or even weeks, and never ever get to see sunlight in their entire lives.
So yah... I really don't think you're becoming a vegetarian for the right reasons.
Is it reasonable for me to so emotionally react to this article?
yes. There might be a more profound reason, or you may be very much more aware person than you think. The way animals are being grown and breeded for our tables is outrageous. Not only to the animals, but towards humans as well. What good can come from eating food that is treated like an object. I agree with you on the meat eating, i prefer a farmers chicken than the supermarket chicken. I mean, i don' t eat birds, and i try to eat as little red meat as possible, not on any moral grounds, but i have hard time digesting that stuff. Love fish do. Even there, horrors above horrors. They started 20 years ago to box fish that lives some 2000 meters under sea level, that is to say creatures that have never seen the light of day and serving them to us in cans under "exotic" species. And tuna, don' t get me even started i don' t eat tuna. Again no moral grounds, just hard to digest and it has a very high tolerance to pollution.
To get back to the point, the killing of an innocent for no good reason makes some of us feel an emotional upheaven. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, these birds where grown for slaughter, and instead now they are all dead.
Oh and people, if you can afford it economically grow your own stuff or have a farmer slaughter the animal and sell it to you. Its much more tasty.
Oh and a vegetarian does not eat fish . I find vegetarian and vegan extremly stupid definitions. can' t you just say i don' t eat meat or fish or derived products?
Similar things happen to people. We are fine with sweatshop labor in deplorable conditions as long as we get our cheap products.
No one thinks about these things much until they see them first hand. Industrial livestock producers know this. That's why they are doing everything in their power to keep their livestock handling practices hidden from the public eye.
On May 18 2014 01:15 itsjustatank wrote: be glad you live in such a place with such a surplus that you can have such feelings
erm? Okay China is notoriously horrible but it's my impression that Indians treat animals with much more respect than westerners do. There's no real connection between wealth of country and treatment of animals - if anything this connection would be the opposite of what you seem to indicate.
the dislocation of an animal domesticated for food from 'food source' to 'thing that has feelings' is an indicator that surplus exists. in the united states we can look down upon mass production of food because the majority of people dont have to worry about their next meal here; the people in the places we export that food to do not have that luxury.
the existence of ideologies that privilege animal life above human life is the logical extreme of this luxury.
Oh and a vegetarian does not eat fish . I find vegetarian and vegan extremly stupid definitions. can' t you just say i don' t eat meat or fish or derived products?
Someone who only eats fish is called a Pescetarian.
On May 18 2014 01:17 dravernor wrote: Meh. People have reached the stage where technology is advanced enough that we don't have to have meat to survive, so personally I go without meat where I can because I choose to.
i am wondering what "where I can" means exactly. i cant think of a realistic situation where you couldnt
On May 18 2014 01:17 dravernor wrote: Meh. People have reached the stage where technology is advanced enough that we don't have to have meat to survive, so personally I go without meat where I can because I choose to.
i am wondering what "where I can" means exactly. i cant think of a realistic situation where you couldnt
I became a vegetarian as soon as I lived on my own and didn't have to share meals with people. I was a vegetarian for several years and during that time I was frequently ill because I didn't have the student budget to properly supplement my diet. When I moved back home after uni my parents requested that I experiment with my diet by eating at least one meal a month that includes fish. I was extremely reluctant, but I went along with it and to my surprise it made a noticeable difference.
On May 18 2014 01:15 itsjustatank wrote: be glad you live in such a place with such a surplus that you can have such feelings
erm? Okay China is notoriously horrible but it's my impression that Indians treat animals with much more respect than westerners do. There's no real connection between wealth of country and treatment of animals - if anything this connection would be the opposite of what you seem to indicate.
Have you been to India sir?
Like yes there is wealth but the areas that aren't directly wealthy?
I feel the same, micronesia. 3 years ago, when I read about that article explaining that in Korea due to some contagious disease they had to bury alive millions of pigs I couldn't stop thinking about it for days.
I think Monsen's right. The conditions chickens live in is worse than how they die. Like going to a chicken farm in rural china or even western mass you see chickens cooped into tiny holes being constantly surrounded by shit smells. I never really thought about if people were treated like that. It'd be a condition as bad as a concentration camp.
For what it is worth though, seeing the expanse of land, we can definitely afford free range chickens. The quality is better too.
I was building houses in Ensenada one time and the community there killed some of the roosters as and barbecued them over an open flame, along with the frijoles and Chiles Verde (green bell peppers), such a simple meal was surprisingly better than most of the chicken I have eaten here (I am Californian).
Why?
I do think there is a correlation between how we treat things and the ROI. Treat your animals well? (Toss 'em your leftover corn cobs and let them roam till you catch 'em for a meal)? They produce amazing meat. Treat them like units? "We don't know what it is, but it is not chicken"
Regularly change the fluids and rubber in your car? My great grandmother purchased the first car I drove, a 1961 Ford Falcon. It ran just fine, since I am in the desert it got vapor lock but that always wore off and I could start it right back up and take off.
Drive your car like an ignoramus? A guy used to work with my company, a total dishonest nut job drove all over AZ and southern CA like a trucker on his route, rarely changed oils & stuff- nearly totaled his truck just driving it by 83k miles. It was a 2012. Again, my Dad replaces him, changes all the fluids and the tires and it actually ran better, unfortunately the damage has been done and the NorCal rep uses it when he is in AZ filling the job of the guy who got fired.
But I do get emotional, seeing even disaster of inanimate objects. I have been desensitized to small witless animal death by seeing them work wanton destruction (rabbits in crops) however, and subsequently slaughtering them.
To date I have killed over 1,000 rabbits, as quickly and painlessly as possible because they squeal. This has made me a very good shot.
Then come some coyote hunters and I hear them blowing whistles that sound like that squeal! Gave me the chills! So I asked them why they did this, were they crazy? After laughing a bit, they told me coyotes torture their prey to call other coyotes to share the meal.
On May 18 2014 02:02 endy wrote: I feel the same, micronesia. 3 years ago, when I read about that article explaining that in Korea due to some contagious disease they had to bury alive millions of pigs I couldn't stop thinking about it for days.
My post got buried so I'll attach it again at the end, but in pure utilitarian terms, the intense but very short suffering (being buried alive) of let's say 5 million pigs is NOTHING compared to the constant and prolonged suffering (in conditions that I've described) of billions of pigs/chickens/whatever, all day and everyday.
So I feel the reason to become a vegetarian should be for the revolting conditions that animals were raised in, which causes much more suffering overall than their sometimes gruesome but nevertheless relatively quick deaths.
On May 18 2014 01:28 EngrishTeacher wrote: People always associate such negativity with death, and in the case of humans the emotional suffering of loved ones is quite grave, but for animals, especially farm-raised chickens? Not so much.
Maybe I just don't "fear" death in a purely academic sense (I would not be at all afraid to die if I didn't have family), but honestly death for animals is such a natural thing especially when you think about what is really important in the lives of animals.
A chicken isn't going to be intellectually deprived or seek higher forms of joy, for them maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (in constraint to their natural instincts and behavior) is all that matters. I would say chickens were relatively "happy" before the mass adoption of modern chicken farms, raised naturally outdoors with ample space to exercise and with natural chicken feed.
Nowadays, chicken farms are fucking disgusting hellholes that would definitely qualify as a place of animal cruelty, and conditions for chickens are still rapidly deteriorating. Just a few years ago, chicken farms were at least still open-air with iron mesh on the sides of the barn. Currently, most chicken farms are completely sealed, and these chickens live in enormously overcrowded barns with either separate levels or tiny little separate cages, and they literally sit on top of their feces all day, eat a ton of GMO feed laced with all kinds of antibiotics and growth hormones, live among death birds that don't get removed for days or even weeks, and never ever get to see sunlight in their entire lives.
So yah... I really don't think you're becoming a vegetarian for the right reasons.
On May 18 2014 02:21 Alakaslam wrote: For what it is worth though, seeing the expanse of land, we can definitely afford free range chickens. The quality is better too.
I was building houses in Ensenada one time and the community there killed some of the roosters as and barbecued them over an open flame, along with the frijoles and Chiles Verde (green bell peppers), such a simple meal was surprisingly better than most of the chicken I have eaten here (I am Californian).
Why?
I do think there is a correlation between how we treat things and the ROI. Treat your animals well? (Toss 'em your leftover corn cobs and let them roam till you catch 'em for a meal)? They produce amazing meat. Treat them like units? "We don't know what it is, but it is not chicken"
Regularly change the fluids and rubber in your car? My great grandmother purchased the first car I drove, a 1961 Ford Falcon. It ran just fine, since I am in the desert it got vapor lock but that always wore off and I could start it right back up and take off.
Drive your car like an ignoramus? A guy used to work with my company, a total dishonest nut job drove all over AZ and southern CA like a trucker on his route, rarely changed oils & stuff- nearly totaled his truck just driving it by 83k miles. It was a 2012. Again, my Dad replaces him, changes all the fluids and the tires and it actually ran better, unfortunately the damage has been done and the NorCal rep uses it when he is in AZ filling the job of the guy who got fired.
But I do get emotional, seeing even disaster of inanimate objects. I have been desensitized to small witless animal death by seeing them work wanton destruction (rabbits in crops) however, and subsequently slaughtering them.
To date I have killed over 1,000 rabbits, as quickly and painlessly as possible because they squeal. This has made me a very good shot.
Then come some coyote hunters and I hear them blowing whistles that sound like that squeal! Gave me the chills! So I asked them why they did this, were they crazy? After laughing a bit, they told me coyotes torture their prey to call other coyotes to share the meal.
Who mistreats animals the worst?
Animals.
i am pretty sure that human-animals treat non-human animals the worst.
I didn't read many of the other comments, so someone probably said something like this... but if you were very aware of and witnessed the way these animals raised for slaughter live, you'd probably have the same strong, negative emotional reaction to their conditions. This is one of the reasons I became a vegetarian.
Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
i disagree, both issues are connected. you react emotionally to the chickens being killed by the tornado because you see how terrible it is. however, you pretty much have to ignore these feelings/this fact, when thinking about chickens being slaughtered for food, because you couldnt cosum their meat otherwise. the reason why the conditions are so fucking terrible for so many animals is because people chose to ignore them.
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
Your emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food.
Faced with real hunger and a threat to your life, you wouldn't have any problem to kill such animals with your bear hands.
On the other thing someone mentioned, you can survive without meat, but the replacements will never be as good as the real thing for your body and you will always be weaker, have lower energy and require supplements you would otherwise not (and probably live less but I can't say that with certainty)
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
If you eat meat it's natural to try to rationalize things you would normally (in "sterile" and logical environment) consider wrong.
On May 18 2014 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:
Your emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food.
Faced with real hunger and a threat to your life, you wouldn't have any problem to kill such animals with your bear hands.
To be totally honest that is irrelevant to his dilemma. It's obvious that environment in which we were raised and the one we are currently located is crucial for who we are, but saying "you think that because you can" is quite pointless. Seeing that most part of human history revolved around fighting, manslaughter, slavery, abuse, etc. it's same as saying to someone who wishes other person better that he is empathetic just because "he can afford it" or someone who is against racism that if he were born 100 years ago it would be normal to be racist, so he shouldn't be sad for someone being a target to such actions...
It's how it works and at least in my humble opinion it's pointless to bring such arguments to the discussion because they serve nothing.
Also you have no evidence that his emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food, being empathetic is an evolutionary mechanism and it's natural to experience various feelings when confronted with other beings emotions, that how our brain works and you can find examples in not only human history but also other animals.
On May 18 2014 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:On the other thing someone mentioned, you can survive without meat, but the replacements will never be as good as the real thing for your body and you will always be weaker, have lower energy and require supplements you would otherwise not (and probably live less but I can't say that with certainty)
Sorry, but with all due respect to you this is plain wrong. Are conspiracy theories allowed on TL? :o It's even opposite, without meat you will be stronger, have more energy and live longer. At least according to all researches I have read so far and to my friend who has his own clinic and she is also a CEO of one of my country nutrition associations, so I usually trust her expertise, but of course one person can be wrong no matter how good she is. So always use good ol' science in doubt!
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
Your emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food.
Faced with real hunger and a threat to your life, you wouldn't have any problem to kill such animals with your bear hands.
To be totally honest that is irrelevant to his dilemma. It's obvious that environment in which we were raised and the one we are currently located is crucial for who we are, but saying "you think that because you can" is quite pointless. Seeing that most part of human history revolved around fighting, manslaughter, slavery, abuse, etc. it's same as saying to someone who wishes other person better that he is empathetic just because "he can afford it" or someone who is against racism that if he were born 100 years ago it would be normal to be racist, so he shouldn't be sad for someone being a target to such actions...
It's how it works and at least in my humble opinion it's pointless to bring such arguments to the discussion because they serve nothing.
Also you have no evidence that his emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food, being empathetic is an evolutionary mechanism and it's natural to experience various feelings when confronted with other beings emotions, that how our brain works and you can find examples in not only human history but also other animals.
On May 18 2014 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:On the other thing someone mentioned, you can survive without meat, but the replacements will never be as good as the real thing for your body and you will always be weaker, have lower energy and require supplements you would otherwise not (and probably live less but I can't say that with certainty)
Sorry, but with all due respect to you this is plain wrong. Are conspiracy theories allowed on TL? :o It's even opposite, without meat you will be stronger, have more energy and live longer. At least according to all researches I have read so far and to my friend who has his own clinic and she is also a CEO of one of my country nutrition associations, so I usually trust her expertise, but of course one person can be wrong no matter how good she is. So always use good ol' science in doubt!
Yeah our enviroment shapes us. My point was that you should not let your emotions dictate your moral guide lines. Just like slavery wouldn't be any more right because it is tradition.
Science =/= propaganda
There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians. I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I think that was just due to the display of violence from the photo and headline. If you decide to watch a documentary about intensive chicken farming you'll probably react the same way. I know it was mentioned several times in the thread that living conditions are much worse than the slaughtering itself, but actually seeing it is different.
Why does it matter how they are killed? I can understand people who want or dont want animals to be killed for food but who cares about how painless it is?
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
Is it not just that they're wasted? The sole reason all those birds exist is they were bred and raised to be food and then a tornado comes... you understand rationally that there's a lot of people and we need to feed them, but in this case the chickens ended up living in vain and dying for nothing. Also the fact that it happened to all of them. I think your heart wouldn't sink the same way if you heard like one chicken got run over by a tractor or got its head caught in some mesh and croaked.
On May 18 2014 05:21 micronesia wrote: Some very good points have been made, however, I think I should clarify the comparison I was making: I was comparing these chickens being slaughtered for food to these chickens being killed by a tornado. The living conditions are the same in either case, I assume. Why do I react so differently to the chickens being killed by a tornado than I do them being killed by the company that raised them?
I definitely do not like when animals are treated really poorly before being harvested for meat, but that conflict of whether or not I should continue to eat meat is a separate one (I think) from the confusion I felt, as described in the OP.
If you eat meat it's natural to try to rationalize things you would normally (in "sterile" and logical environment) consider wrong.
On May 18 2014 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:
Your emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food.
Faced with real hunger and a threat to your life, you wouldn't have any problem to kill such animals with your bear hands.
To be totally honest that is irrelevant to his dilemma. It's obvious that environment in which we were raised and the one we are currently located is crucial for who we are, but saying "you think that because you can" is quite pointless. Seeing that most part of human history revolved around fighting, manslaughter, slavery, abuse, etc. it's same as saying to someone who wishes other person better that he is empathetic just because "he can afford it" or someone who is against racism that if he were born 100 years ago it would be normal to be racist, so he shouldn't be sad for someone being a target to such actions...
It's how it works and at least in my humble opinion it's pointless to bring such arguments to the discussion because they serve nothing.
Also you have no evidence that his emotional conflict arises from a lifetime of surplus of food, being empathetic is an evolutionary mechanism and it's natural to experience various feelings when confronted with other beings emotions, that how our brain works and you can find examples in not only human history but also other animals.
On May 18 2014 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:On the other thing someone mentioned, you can survive without meat, but the replacements will never be as good as the real thing for your body and you will always be weaker, have lower energy and require supplements you would otherwise not (and probably live less but I can't say that with certainty)
Sorry, but with all due respect to you this is plain wrong. Are conspiracy theories allowed on TL? :o It's even opposite, without meat you will be stronger, have more energy and live longer. At least according to all researches I have read so far and to my friend who has his own clinic and she is also a CEO of one of my country nutrition associations, so I usually trust her expertise, but of course one person can be wrong no matter how good she is. So always use good ol' science in doubt!
Yeah our enviroment shapes us. My point was that you should not let your emotions dictate your moral guide lines. Just like slavery wouldn't be any more right because it is tradition.
Science =/= propaganda
There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians. I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
What? There are tons of vegetarian or vegan athletes... And since you mention lifting weights, you should probably know about Patrik Baboumian, one of the strongest man on earth.
Hm I don't want to derail this blog, so if this discussion is against micronesia intention then please tell me.
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
Two major things.
First, it's total untrue. Like endy posted there are a lot of athletes including Patrik who is vegan and successful and titled strongman. Also people like Dave Scott who was multiple champion of Ironman (speak for itself!), he won it 6 times, each time on vegan diet, not from ethical reason, but from performance-wise approach also fellow Ironman guy, etc. Also Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis.
Second, saying there there are no vegan/vegetarian athletes is not only wrong, but has a bias flaw. In Western culture, which I'm part of, not eating meat/animal products is something just getting rise in popularity. So it's obvious that the group will be underrepresented in sports, politics, business, because that's the social trend. It's same like people who said (and say...) that minorities are inferior as bosses, etc. because they are underrepresented at the highest points in hierarchy or that women are inferior in many areas in which they were actively and passively being blocked to get to...
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
I won't pretend I know a lot about powerlifting. But I know that Patrik that endy mention has world records as vegan. I know about nutrition enough to know that you can get everything you mentioned from other than animal products with the exception of B12 if you live in sterile environment. Also whey shakes you mention are by default vegetarian...
Also regarding creatine if anyone here is interested here in boosting their cognitive performance - it has really good results on you when you are vege. :D Good for SC2 I guess. ;] Link wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Improved_cognitive_ability
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
Science =/= propaganda
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
Eh, this again. So let's consider everything a propaganda if that doesn't suit our believes? :/ Cmon. You are using propaganda because you are talking without backing your statements in facts. I sent link to the study and lecture who are not associated with "vegan propaganda ecoterrorists", because I too try to avoid bias on both sides. But saying that everything that they publish in science journal is false because it's not
tradition and experience
is wrong on so many levels...
I will be more than happy if you will show me this bad methodology they have used and "cherry-picking", because if you want to publish in such renowned journal like the one I posted the proper methodology is main important factor. :X
Also you mention tradition, which for sake of this discussion I understand as evolutionary developed habits and preferences. From that point of view you are correct that people prefer meat, especially in colder/more harsh geographical areas, but you need to include facts that:
- most of evolutionary "tradition" of humanity revolved around meat as a luxury that is eaten occasionally and with lot of fruits and plants as main courses - in modern developed world our preferences haven't changed but the surrounding drastically - you can eat things like sugar, salt, meat as much as you want which in past were not just by the corner. Hence the many diseased considered to be caused by development. And that our organism crave for the taste of it doesn't mean it's healthy, it's just evolution is slow process while technological development is exponential.
Also don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you for eating meat, etc. I don't want to limit other people choices how live their life, it's just that I find some of you statements not true and against everything that my education was about. So it's just stronger than me to not reply sometimes when I see something like that. Sorry, but I bet you understand. ^^
Personally the reason that reading an article like the OP mentioned would just be the ridiculous waste of resources that are incurred. I personally feel little empathy for animals but seeing so many die without a cause or result would be pretty upsetting for me. What I'm saying is that wastefulness, for me at least, would be the uncomfortable factor in this story rather than the loss of animal's lives.
I am a vegetarian since about a year now. Seriously I have no problem with killing animal for survival, but the pointless mass killing for steaks and hamburgers.. is a little bit complicated to accept for me now.
I saw a video of a speech from philosopher Slavoj Žižek (I know there is chicken in the title of the video but it has nothing to do with the animal). He explains that we know how bad some situations are but manage to completely ignore it. I can't explain properly because it isn't 100% clear for me yet, but I recommend you listen to him.
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
Two major things.
First, it's total untrue. Like endy posted there are a lot of athletes including Patrik who is vegan and successful and titled strongman. Also people like Dave Scott who was multiple champion of Ironman (speak for itself!), he won it 6 times, each time on vegan diet, not from ethical reason, but from performance-wise approach also fellow Ironman guy, etc. Also Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis.
Second, saying there there are no vegan/vegetarian athletes is not only wrong, but has a bias flaw. In Western culture, which I'm part of, not eating meat/animal products is something just getting rise in popularity. So it's obvious that the group will be underrepresented in sports, politics, business, because that's the social trend. It's same like people who said (and say...) that minorities are inferior as bosses, etc. because they are underrepresented at the highest points in hierarchy or that women are inferior in many areas in which they were actively and passively being blocked to get to...
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
I won't pretend I know a lot about powerlifting. But I know that Patrik that endy mention has world records as vegan. I know about nutrition enough to know that you can get everything you mentioned from other than animal products with the exception of B12 if you live in sterile environment. Also whey shakes you mention are by default vegetarian...
Also regarding creatine if anyone here is interested here in boosting their cognitive performance - it has really good results on you when you are vege. :D Good for SC2 I guess. ;] Link wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Improved_cognitive_ability
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
Eh, this again. So let's consider everything a propaganda if that doesn't suit our believes? :/ Cmon. You are using propaganda because you are talking without backing your statements in facts. I sent link to the study and lecture who are not associated with "vegan propaganda ecoterrorists", because I too try to avoid bias on both sides. But saying that everything that they publish in science journal is false because it's not
I will be more than happy if you will show me this bad methodology they have used and "cherry-picking", because if you want to publish in such renowned journal like the one I posted the proper methodology is main important factor. :X
Also you mention tradition, which for sake of this discussion I understand as evolutionary developed habits and preferences. From that point of view you are correct that people prefer meat, especially in colder/more harsh geographical areas, but you need to include facts that:
- most of evolutionary "tradition" of humanity revolved around meat as a luxury that is eaten occasionally and with lot of fruits and plants as main courses - in modern developed world our preferences haven't changed but the surrounding drastically - you can eat things like sugar, salt, meat as much as you want which in past were not just by the corner. Hence the many diseased considered to be caused by development. And that our organism crave for the taste of it doesn't mean it's healthy, it's just evolution is slow process while technological development is exponential.
Also don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you for eating meat, etc. I don't want to limit other people choices how live their life, it's just that I find some of you statements not true and against everything that my education was about. So it's just stronger than me to not reply sometimes when I see something like that. Sorry, but I bet you understand. ^^
I stand corrected as apparently Carl Lewis and the iron man guy, together with Mat Danzig, the 3 vegetarians that are good athletes in the history of mankind.
That said, the problem I have with those three is that they weren't vegans in the begining of their carreers; while being rich they can supplement with pretty much anything, and taking steroids for their lack of natural testosterone (not that other atletes don't take them, but meat eating is fundamental for "natty" lifters more than lifters on "gear")
Sorry but Patrik Baboumian is fraud. He made up an event, then made up a weight class, and then claimed he owned a "World Record" in Strongman (which is not powerlifting). Also, he built most of his lean mass before switching to vegan (according to his own biography). He is an decent athlete for German level but never won any international event.
I could walk to my gym now, weight myself and max on something like the rack pull from above the knee. Then I could claim I'm the "Latin American Champion in the rack pull above the knee" because no one ever bothered before.
On May 18 2014 22:05 Magggrig wrote: I am a vegetarian since about a year now. Seriously I have no problem with killing animal for survival, but the pointless mass killing for steaks and hamburgers.. is a little bit complicated to accept for me now.
I saw a video of a speech from philosopher Slavoj Žižek (I know there is chicken in the title of the video but it has nothing to do with the animal). He explains that we know how bad some situations are but manage to completely ignore it. I can't explain properly because it isn't 100% clear for me yet, but I recommend you listen to him.
On May 18 2014 20:16 [BSP]Kain wrote: Hm I don't want to derail this blog, so if this discussion is against micronesia intention then please tell me.
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
Two major things.
First, it's total untrue. Like endy posted there are a lot of athletes including Patrik who is vegan and successful and titled strongman. Also people like Dave Scott who was multiple champion of Ironman (speak for itself!), he won it 6 times, each time on vegan diet, not from ethical reason, but from performance-wise approach also fellow Ironman guy, etc. Also Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis.
Second, saying there there are no vegan/vegetarian athletes is not only wrong, but has a bias flaw. In Western culture, which I'm part of, not eating meat/animal products is something just getting rise in popularity. So it's obvious that the group will be underrepresented in sports, politics, business, because that's the social trend. It's same like people who said (and say...) that minorities are inferior as bosses, etc. because they are underrepresented at the highest points in hierarchy or that women are inferior in many areas in which they were actively and passively being blocked to get to...
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
I won't pretend I know a lot about powerlifting. But I know that Patrik that endy mention has world records as vegan. I know about nutrition enough to know that you can get everything you mentioned from other than animal products with the exception of B12 if you live in sterile environment. Also whey shakes you mention are by default vegetarian...
Also regarding creatine if anyone here is interested here in boosting their cognitive performance - it has really good results on you when you are vege. :D Good for SC2 I guess. ;] Link wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Improved_cognitive_ability
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
Science =/= propaganda
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
Eh, this again. So let's consider everything a propaganda if that doesn't suit our believes? :/ Cmon. You are using propaganda because you are talking without backing your statements in facts. I sent link to the study and lecture who are not associated with "vegan propaganda ecoterrorists", because I too try to avoid bias on both sides. But saying that everything that they publish in science journal is false because it's not
tradition and experience
is wrong on so many levels...
I will be more than happy if you will show me this bad methodology they have used and "cherry-picking", because if you want to publish in such renowned journal like the one I posted the proper methodology is main important factor. :X
Also you mention tradition, which for sake of this discussion I understand as evolutionary developed habits and preferences. From that point of view you are correct that people prefer meat, especially in colder/more harsh geographical areas, but you need to include facts that:
- most of evolutionary "tradition" of humanity revolved around meat as a luxury that is eaten occasionally and with lot of fruits and plants as main courses - in modern developed world our preferences haven't changed but the surrounding drastically - you can eat things like sugar, salt, meat as much as you want which in past were not just by the corner. Hence the many diseased considered to be caused by development. And that our organism crave for the taste of it doesn't mean it's healthy, it's just evolution is slow process while technological development is exponential.
Also don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you for eating meat, etc. I don't want to limit other people choices how live their life, it's just that I find some of you statements not true and against everything that my education was about. So it's just stronger than me to not reply sometimes when I see something like that. Sorry, but I bet you understand. ^^
I stand corrected as apparently Carl Lewis and the iron man guy, together with Mat Danzig, the 3 vegetarians that are good athletes in the history of mankind.
That said, the problem I have with those three is that they weren't vegans in the begining of their carreers; while being rich they can supplement with pretty much anything, and taking steroids for their lack of natural testosterone (not that other atletes don't take them, but meat eating is fundamental for "natty" lifters more than lifters on "gear")
Sorry but Patrik Baboumian is fraud. He made up an event, then made up a weight class, and then claimed he owned a "World Record" in Strongman (which is not powerlifting). Also, he built most of his lean mass before switching to vegan (according to his own biography). He is an decent athlete for German level but never won any international event.
I could walk to my gym now, weight myself and max on something like the rack pull from above the knee. Then I could claim I'm the "Latin American Champion in the rack pull above the knee" because no one ever bothered before.
No hard feelings it is not personal.
I hate to break it to you, but your point has been refuted. Hard. Your condescending tone of voice is in no way warranted because most people in this thread can see that a) if there are examples of successful vegetarian athletes, then it's proven possible, b) there's no need for vegetarian athletes to win trophies to prove the viability of a vegetarian diet for athletes, unless you'd like to argue that "if an athlete can only perform at 90% on a vegetarian diet then it follows that vegetarian diets are inadequate" and c) "the history of mankind" is not a useful sample to prove/disprove the viability of vegetarianism because for a plethora of evolutionary, geographical and cultural reasons history has not had (m)any vegetarian athletes.
Like I said before, I'm not a vegetarian myself, but your arguments are pretty weak. Maybe they should work out more.
On May 18 2014 20:16 [BSP]Kain wrote: Hm I don't want to derail this blog, so if this discussion is against micronesia intention then please tell me.
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
Two major things.
First, it's total untrue. Like endy posted there are a lot of athletes including Patrik who is vegan and successful and titled strongman. Also people like Dave Scott who was multiple champion of Ironman (speak for itself!), he won it 6 times, each time on vegan diet, not from ethical reason, but from performance-wise approach also fellow Ironman guy, etc. Also Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis.
Second, saying there there are no vegan/vegetarian athletes is not only wrong, but has a bias flaw. In Western culture, which I'm part of, not eating meat/animal products is something just getting rise in popularity. So it's obvious that the group will be underrepresented in sports, politics, business, because that's the social trend. It's same like people who said (and say...) that minorities are inferior as bosses, etc. because they are underrepresented at the highest points in hierarchy or that women are inferior in many areas in which they were actively and passively being blocked to get to...
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:There are no professional athletes who are worth anything, aside from Mat Danzig, that are vegans or vegetarians.
I'm gonna lift in excess of 90% of the drug tested record in my next competition on powerlifting (unless something unexpected happens), and I can assure you this would be impossible to me without eating meat and whey shakes. There is no way I can consume the amount of protein, fat and cholesterol, creatine, zinc and B12 vitamin required in my sport without eating meat; and I'm a middle weight. Even if you make up all the studies in the world, the empiric evidence that there are no vegan athletes is just there and irrefutable.
I won't pretend I know a lot about powerlifting. But I know that Patrik that endy mention has world records as vegan. I know about nutrition enough to know that you can get everything you mentioned from other than animal products with the exception of B12 if you live in sterile environment. Also whey shakes you mention are by default vegetarian...
Also regarding creatine if anyone here is interested here in boosting their cognitive performance - it has really good results on you when you are vege. :D Good for SC2 I guess. ;] Link wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Improved_cognitive_ability
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
Science =/= propaganda
On May 18 2014 13:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
As someone educated, you should understand that anyone can make up studies to support the most ridiculous beliefs, specially on complex stuff like nutrition, and should not disregard the value of tradition and experience (not even considering cherry picking data) For example, the China Study convinced people to start eating dieting high on carbs and avoid fat like the plague, resulting on the obese epidemy the US faces today (HFS and trans fats are what make you fat)
Eh, this again. So let's consider everything a propaganda if that doesn't suit our believes? :/ Cmon. You are using propaganda because you are talking without backing your statements in facts. I sent link to the study and lecture who are not associated with "vegan propaganda ecoterrorists", because I too try to avoid bias on both sides. But saying that everything that they publish in science journal is false because it's not
tradition and experience
is wrong on so many levels...
I will be more than happy if you will show me this bad methodology they have used and "cherry-picking", because if you want to publish in such renowned journal like the one I posted the proper methodology is main important factor. :X
Also you mention tradition, which for sake of this discussion I understand as evolutionary developed habits and preferences. From that point of view you are correct that people prefer meat, especially in colder/more harsh geographical areas, but you need to include facts that:
- most of evolutionary "tradition" of humanity revolved around meat as a luxury that is eaten occasionally and with lot of fruits and plants as main courses - in modern developed world our preferences haven't changed but the surrounding drastically - you can eat things like sugar, salt, meat as much as you want which in past were not just by the corner. Hence the many diseased considered to be caused by development. And that our organism crave for the taste of it doesn't mean it's healthy, it's just evolution is slow process while technological development is exponential.
Also don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you for eating meat, etc. I don't want to limit other people choices how live their life, it's just that I find some of you statements not true and against everything that my education was about. So it's just stronger than me to not reply sometimes when I see something like that. Sorry, but I bet you understand. ^^
I stand corrected as apparently Carl Lewis and the iron man guy, together with Mat Danzig, the 3 vegetarians that are good athletes in the history of mankind.
That said, the problem I have with those three is that they weren't vegans in the begining of their carreers; while being rich they can supplement with pretty much anything, and taking steroids for their lack of natural testosterone (not that other atletes don't take them, but meat eating is fundamental for "natty" lifters more than lifters on "gear")
Sorry but Patrik Baboumian is fraud. He made up an event, then made up a weight class, and then claimed he owned a "World Record" in Strongman (which is not powerlifting). Also, he built most of his lean mass before switching to vegan (according to his own biography). He is an decent athlete for German level but never won any international event.
I could walk to my gym now, weight myself and max on something like the rack pull from above the knee. Then I could claim I'm the "Latin American Champion in the rack pull above the knee" because no one ever bothered before.
No hard feelings it is not personal.
I hate to break it to you, but your point has been refuted. Hard. Your condescending tone of voice is in no way warranted because most people in this thread can see that a) if there are examples of successful vegetarian athletes, then it's proven possible, b) there's no need for vegetarian athletes to win trophies to prove the viability of a vegetarian diet for athletes, unless you'd like to argue that "if an athlete can only perform at 90% on a vegetarian diet then it follows that vegetarian diets are inadequate" and c) "the history of mankind" is not a useful sample to prove/disprove the viability of vegetarianism because for a plethora of evolutionary, geographical and cultural reasons history has not had (m)any vegetarian athletes.
Like I said before, I'm not a vegetarian myself, but your arguments are pretty weak. Maybe they should work out more.
Yes that was my point. You can obviously be a vegetarian and do sports, I'm talking about being a competitive athlete; if you are happy with anything but winning you are not a competitive athlete, you do it for fun. The difference between playing Brood War when you are bored vs trying to outclass Jaedong. Empirism is the superior method of knowledge for complex systems, and the fact that you can find 3 elite athletes among all sporting disciplines should tell you something (specially considering that lean mass requirements are very limited on those disciplines, compared to other sports (Olympic lifting, power lifting, american football, rugby, etc)
If you'd put Jeadong against the vast majority of progamers just based on mental/physical performance, they could never ever win. Does that make them not competitive? And yes, people finding 3 elite vegetarian athletes indeed tells me something. 1 it can be done and 2 not many athletes are vegetarians (just like with normal people). Your assumption of "not many athletes are vegetarian = vegetarian diet is bad for athletics" is just faulty.
On May 20 2014 02:50 GoTuNk! wrote: Yes that was my point. You can obviously be a vegetarian and do sports, I'm talking about being a competitive athlete; if you are happy with anything but winning you are not a competitive athlete, you do it for fun. The difference between playing Brood War when you are bored vs trying to outclass Jaedong. Empirism is the superior method of knowledge for complex systems, and the fact that you can find 3 elite athletes among all sporting disciplines should tell you something (specially considering that lean mass requirements are very limited on those disciplines, compared to other sports (Olympic lifting, power lifting, american football, rugby, etc)
Everyone here agrees that empirical data is superior. The problem is that you use simple heuristic and ignore facts. The fact that there are competitive and successful athletes shows you can be the best still without eating meat at all. There are tons of examples that support this thesis. You should provide empirical data that supports your claim that not eating meat makes you inferior in sports and there is no such data, because it's not the case.
Also there are a lot athletes that are the best in the world in what they do and are vegan/vegetarian. The 5 or so examples in above discussion is not all but you insist on treating it like it's closed list... If I want to spend more time I would start to google but what's the point? Providing 20 is empirical data yet? :D And this JD comparison is just... meh. There are people like Bode Miller who is vegetarian from year 0 and he is an Olympic champion, etc. :X Saying by you that people who won Ironman, which is considered as most challenging physical experience, are not competitive is an abuse in my opinion.
I hunt and find it the most rewarding way to put food on the table. I have no qualms about harvesting an animal but I treat them with respect and try my utmost to ensure a clean kill. I've been quite upset before when I fluffed a shot and ended up wounding a rabbit, and for it to flee into its warren and slowly die. I definitely think many people living in cities in the developed world have grown detached from where their meat comes from. I've had anti-hunters/shooters tell me that I'm barbaric and bloodthirsty, and I should buy my meat from the supermarkets like everyone else.
Actually I'm not sure where I'm going with this post, or its relevance to the thread at hand
On May 21 2014 00:08 ahswtini wrote: I hunt and find it the most rewarding way to put food on the table. I have no qualms about harvesting an animal but I treat them with respect and try my utmost to ensure a clean kill. I've been quite upset before when I fluffed a shot and ended up wounding a rabbit, and for it to flee into its warren and slowly die. I definitely think many people living in cities in the developed world have grown detached from where their meat comes from. I've had anti-hunters/shooters tell me that I'm barbaric and bloodthirsty, and I should buy my meat from the supermarkets like everyone else.
Actually I'm not sure where I'm going with this post, or its relevance to the thread at hand
On May 21 2014 00:08 ahswtini wrote: I hunt and find it the most rewarding way to put food on the table. I have no qualms about harvesting an animal but I treat them with respect and try my utmost to ensure a clean kill. I've been quite upset before when I fluffed a shot and ended up wounding a rabbit, and for it to flee into its warren and slowly die. I definitely think many people living in cities in the developed world have grown detached from where their meat comes from. I've had anti-hunters/shooters tell me that I'm barbaric and bloodthirsty, and I should buy my meat from the supermarkets like everyone else.
Actually I'm not sure where I'm going with this post, or its relevance to the thread at hand
EPT
