PDA

View Full Version : Eating guinea pigs - an insight into another culture



LiciaMommycott
02-13-05, 12:06 am
The name of this discussion area (The Kitchen) reminded me of this article I read last year about guinea pigs in Ecuador (and let me give you a hint, they are not used for pets). Now if you've ever said one of the following in one of the threads in this forum, do not even bother to click this link as you will not like it.


That's not funny...
How dare you...
Don't even joke about that...
You should be banned...

http://www.southamericatravelguide.org/archives/000471.shtml

Now, I find the thought of eating guinea pigs repugnant and I would never in a million years eat one just as I would never eat a cat or a dog. However, it never hurts to get perspective on other cultures.

Besides, gotta keep the heat on in the kitchen. *puts on helmet and flak jacket in anticipation of the barrage of attacks*

dansamy
02-13-05, 12:28 am
Yuk! I know different cultures have different views on what is edible livestock vs pet vs sacred animal, but YUK!

LiciaMommycott
02-13-05, 12:37 am
Kind of makes vegetarianism seem like an option after all. After reading that article I think I'll ask the next time I'm having chicken or steak, "Who's pet am I eating today?"

Susan9608
02-13-05, 05:57 pm
I think it's funny that people will get offended at the idea of eating a guinea pig or a cat or a dog, but think nothing of eating a chicken, cow, or pig. How do they draw the line between animals that are okay to eat and animals that should only be pets? I'm glad to be a vegetarian so I don't have to wrestle with those decisions ... I don't know how I'd rationalize it.

Krysanthemum
02-13-05, 06:26 pm
It's the culture we're brought up in. I'm not vegetarian, I just love my meat (sorry). I don't enjoy the texture of most vegetables, so that's left me with a lot of meat eating. Anyway, that's not the point. So many of our beliefs are a product of our upbringing and culture.

How do I rationalise eating a chicken, cow or pig, but not a dog, cat or guinea pig? Because I've been brought up to believe that the first group are okay but the others are not. I don't necessarily think it's wrong to eat meat from the second group, I just don't think I would want to personally.

Honestly, it's not really something I think about. Humans are designed to consume meat as part of their diet. If you choose not to, good on you, I don't have a problem with that. I just know I couldn't make that decision, because I enjoy my meat too much and I'm comfortable with that.

Susan9608
02-13-05, 07:19 pm
Slavery and the subordination of women used to be part of our culture and upbringing, too. Thinking about those issues and the tremendous advances that have been made gives me hope that one day the animal rights movement will come that far and the question about which animals are okay to eat will be moot.

Krysanthemum
02-13-05, 07:46 pm
Okay, just let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. Say your vision comes true, and humans all stop eating meat. Do we then begin to force other omnivorous animals to not eat meat either? Obviously you believe meat eating is wrong, but why is it wrong for humans and not wrong for other animals?

It's not like meat eating is some barbarous practice invented by humans purely for cruelty, such as hunting for sport, nor do I think it's really comparable to slavery. It's a dietary requirement, which some people choose to get around.

Frankly, I'm not sure I really appreciate my choice to eat meat compared to slavery and subordination of women. Isn't that a little extreme?

LiciaMommycott
02-13-05, 08:42 pm
I'm with you Krysanthemum and agree 100% with all your statements above.

CavySpirit
02-14-05, 12:38 am
It's not like meat eating is some barbarous practice invented by humans purely for cruelty, such as hunting for sport, nor do I think it's really comparable to slavery. It's a dietary requirement, which some people choose to get around.

Frankly, I'm not sure I really appreciate my choice to eat meat compared to slavery and subordination of women. Isn't that a little extreme?

I don't think it's extreme enough. Have you actually WATCHED any of the videos that have been posted over time? Do you read any of the content from any of the sites about factory farming? The practices are barbaric and extremely inhumane and full of torture and horrible lives and living conditions and pain, suffering and finally murder. Ignorance is bliss.

sasha
02-14-05, 12:45 am
In terms of nutritional content and cost- there is a biology formula that can be used that includes cost in terms of human labor and the calories that it takes to do that work, the resources needed for processing, the land and nutrients used to make the food, it does this in terms of energy and resources used up. The equation itself is almost a page long, and I was forced to do this calculation numerous times by a very good ecology teacher who himself grew up around cows, and could tell you every type there is, but wanted us to be well informed. Meat as a food has the lowest payoff for the most work of almost any food with the exception of maybe candy and other highly processed foods. We could accomplish more in terms of human nutrition if we took the livestock farms and grew crops.

Himino
02-14-05, 12:48 am
It's not like meat eating is some barbarous practice invented by humans purely for cruelty, such as hunting for sport, nor do I think it's really comparable to slavery. It's a dietary requirement, which some people choose to get around.

Frankly, I'm not sure I really appreciate my choice to eat meat compared to slavery and subordination of women. Isn't that a little extreme?
I don't think it's extreme enough. Have you actually WATCHED any of the videos that have been posted over time? Do you read any of the content from any of the sites about factory farming? The practices are barbaric and extremely inhumane and full of torture and horrible lives and living conditions and pain, suffering and finally murder. Ignorance is bliss.CavySpirit is right, if you took one look at Meet you Meat by Peta you'd see what she means. Now I don't think I'd say it's as bad as slavery but that just might be because I'm part of that minorty but it's darn close! I feel that meat indistry is revolting and make's me sick to even think how a person could stoop so low as to work in those place's but I guess that's just my navie mind.

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 05:23 am
Look, before I begin, I want to make the point that I've intentionally stayed away from the vegetarian section of this forum because I knew I would disagree with a lot of it. I didn't want to start a fight about meat eating.

However, now that you brought it up ...


I don't think it's extreme enough. Have you actually WATCHED any of the videos that have been posted over time? Do you read any of the content from any of the sites about factory farming? The practices are barbaric and extremely inhumane and full of torture and horrible lives and living conditions and pain, suffering and finally murder.
So let me get this straight. Eating meat is wrong because of the barbaric modern methods of keeping animals and slaughtering them. So when hunter gather societies hunted with spears and arrows, it was less barbaric and therefore okay? Yes, modern humans behave atrociously to animals, but does that mean I should be denied the food that I enjoy? Would you be happier if I kept my own animals humanely and slaughtered them myself?


Ignorance is bliss.
You're damn right it is. Pass the bacon please. 8)

CavySpirit
02-14-05, 10:46 am
Yes, modern humans behave atrociously to animals, but does that mean I should be denied the food that I enjoy?

Absolutely.

Would you be happier if I kept my own animals humanely and slaughtered them myself?

Damn straight. I have absolutely no problem with that.

I'd be much, much happier if you killed and cooked your cavies rather than buy a pound of hamburger.

Piglet
02-14-05, 10:49 am
Yeah, I think you should kill your animals too. If you want to eat the SO much, then kill them yourself

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 03:41 pm
I'd be much, much happier if you killed and cooked your cavies rather than buy a pound of hamburger.
Wow.

What you've just suggested is illegal, I might point out. The RSPCA would be down on me like a tonne of bricks if I killed and ate my cavies, but I'm free to buy a pound of hamburger whenever I like.

A question for you: do you grow all your own vegetables? Modern methods of mass produced agriculture have been very destructive to the land, including mass clearing of native forests, dangerous pesticides and increased salt content in the soil and rivers. Many natives species of animals and insects have been made extinct because of land clearing. If I were to find that morally offensive, would it be fair of me to demand that you stop eating vegetables and grains of all types?

Look, I'm not trying to challenge your right to be a vegetarian. I'm just trying to make it clear that I would hope for the same level of respect towards my decision. I understand that you don't like the idea of eating meat, that's your choice and I respect that, but that doesn't mean I can't. We can agree to disagree, but I would appreciate a level of respect for my decision, not taking such a hard line.

CavySpirit
02-14-05, 04:11 pm
Wow.

What you've just suggested is illegal, I might point out. The RSPCA would be down on me like a tonne of bricks if I killed and ate my cavies, but I'm free to buy a pound of hamburger whenever I like.

Well, the laws in Australia must be radically superior from the laws in the US, which surprises me. Here, you can raise and butcher your own animals. People do it all the time. So, no one raises and kills rabbits for food in Australia either? You learn something new every day.

I'm just trying to make it clear that I would hope for the same level of respect towards my decision. I understand that you don't like the idea of eating meat, that's your choice and I respect that, but that doesn't mean I can't. We can agree to disagree, but I would appreciate a level of respect for my decision, not taking such a hard line.

Sorry, I do take a hard line. You are the one that entered into the fray with this statement: It's not like meat eating is some barbarous practice invented by humans purely for cruelty, such as hunting for sport, nor do I think it's really comparable to slavery. It's a dietary requirement, which some people choose to get around.

I completely disagree with your statements. Factory farming may not have evolved with the pure motivation of cruelty, but that most certainly IS WHAT IT IS today.

This thread is now being moved the vegetarian forum where it belongs anyway.

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 05:49 pm
Firstly and once again, since this conversation has now been moved to the vegetarian forum, I want to state that I have nothing at all against vegetarianism. I disagree with a lot of the views held but totally respect your right to have a different view from mine. As a result, I have stayed away from this forum and enjoyed the guinea pig sections.

However, even though CavySpirit chose to move this discussion to the vegetarian forum, I am reluctant to allow that to stop me from expressing my opinion on this matter, even though I know I have no hope in hell now of getting any support. I'm not here to insult anyone over their lifestyle choices.


What you've just suggested is illegal, I might point out. The RSPCA would be down on me like a tonne of bricks if I killed and ate my cavies, but I'm free to buy a pound of hamburger whenever I like.

Well, the laws in Australia must be radically superior from the laws in the US, which surprises me. Here, you can raise and butcher your own animals. People do it all the time. So, no one raises and kills rabbits for food in Australia either? You learn something new every day.
Just a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know animal welfare laws well, but this is my understanding of matters.

I think you're deliberately misreprenting what I said. I said that it would be illegal to kill and eat my cavies, because they're pet animals and are entitled to a certain level of care. In law, both Australian and American (as I understand it), there is a distinction between animals intended for pets and for food. I know you probably don't agree with that law, but that's the way it is at the moment.

No, people in Australia do not keep rabbits as food animals because they are a pest here and a huge problem for farmers. Farmers are legally required to keep the number of rabbits on their property down, and may choose to utilise the meat afterwards as food. The alternative is that the carcass simply rots.

Yes, Australians can and do keep and raise animals for the purpose of food, we have one of the best sheep and cattle industries in the world. Do I want to keep my own animals for the purpose of food? Of course not, I live in a third floor apartment in a capital city, it's completely impractical. I'm lucky I can even keep guinea pigs as pets. Should that preclude me from eating meat? You say yes, I say no.


Sorry, I do take a hard line. You are the one that entered into the fray with this statement: It's not like meat eating is some barbarous practice invented by humans purely for cruelty, such as hunting for sport, nor do I think it's really comparable to slavery. It's a dietary requirement, which some people choose to get around.

I completely disagree with your statements. Factory farming may not have evolved with the pure motivation of cruelty, but that most certainly IS WHAT IT IS today.
I believe I have already responded to those statements. I understand you disagree with me. Do you have anything to say about my previous comments about the environmental cruelty which is a result of modern agriculture? Because I believe it is just as disasterous as animal factory farming, but that hasn't stopped anyone becoming a vegetarian.

mncavylover
02-14-05, 06:08 pm
Right... because, as you can see, meat eaters are contributing to BOTH problems. I'm content with my choice to contibute to only one part of what you have stated.

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 06:33 pm
Right... because, as you can see, meat eaters are contributing to BOTH problems. I'm content with my choice to contibute to only one part of what you have stated.
I see your point. So what you are suggesting is that vegetarianism is in fact the lesser of two evils, rather than a profoundly moral decision?

CavySpirit
02-14-05, 06:55 pm
In law, both Australian and American (as I understand it), there is a distinction between animals intended for pets and for food.

In the US, there is no distinction. Here is an exact case in point, boy kills and cooks guinea pig for class demo. (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/geauga/110690847785440.xml). Not a crime.

And the reason I moved this thread here (in part) is the rebuttals to the arguments you've posed are here in abandance in this forum. I don't have the time at this moment to go through and quote them for you.

Do you have anything to say about my previous comments about the environmental cruelty which is a result of modern agriculture? Because I believe it is just as disasterous as animal factory farming, but that hasn't stopped anyone becoming a vegetarian.

A quick look through this short forum will highlight the fallacy of that position. I'll search it out for you later.

It is very significantly the lessor of two evils and it is very much ALSO a profoundly moral decision--unless you subscribe to the acceptability of wholesale torture and abuse as being moral.

Oh and also in this forum, you'll find some posts indicating Australia's horrible record on the meat industry. I'm pretty sure it's here, I'll dig that out later, also.

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 07:35 pm
In law, both Australian and American (as I understand it), there is a distinction between animals intended for pets and for food.

In the US, there is no distinction. Here is an exact case in point, boy kills and cooks guinea pig for class demo. (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/geauga/110690847785440.xml). Not a crime.
Yeah, I remember that article. Is it that it wasn't a crime, or that the boy wasn't charged because he was a minor? I would have thought that if an adult had done the same thing, the consequences would have been very different. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but that was my impression.


It is very significantly the lessor of two evils and it is very much ALSO a profoundly moral decision--unless you subscribe to the acceptability of wholesale torture and abuse as being moral.
Of course I'm not advocating the abuse of animals. I am simply suggesting that to use said cruelties as a reason for vegetarianism is a little flimsy, when your own diet is a direct result of equally destructive agricultural methods.

I thought of another analogy. Yes, there would seem to be a conflict between keeping animals as pets, and then eating a big steak. However, as a vegetarian, do you keep plants in your house or garden? Some people care deeply about their plants, they spend lots of time caring for them, but I'm sure they still enjoy their leafy greens.

Of course, animals have more rights than plants. But humans have more rights than animals. I'm not saying the torture of animals is right, but we as humans do (I believe) have the right to kill and eat them as nourishment if we choose. I respect your decision not to, but ask that you equally respect my decision. Or at the very least, agree to disagree.


Oh and also in this forum, you'll find some posts indicating Australia's horrible record on the meat industry. I'm pretty sure it's here, I'll dig that out later, also.
I haven't read those posts, but I am aware of a number of protests against Australian methods of keeping meat animals, particularly pigs. The actor, James Cromwell, the farmer from "Babe", spoke here recently about how pig farmers house their sows. I hear it's disgusting, although I've never seen it myself, being a city girl. My understanding is that there is progress in Australia towards more humane practices in pig rearing, and that these "sow pens" are on the way out.

Similarly, I've heard a woman from PETA protesting strongly against the Australian wool industry because of a practice called mulesing. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but it involves cutting away the skin around the backside of a sheep to prevent the sheep from becoming flyblown. It's similar to castration or docking lamb tails. Gross, right?

On the other hand, are you familiar with the disease of fly blow? If a sheep is not kept properly clean by mulesing, the area becomes crusted with faeces and attracts flies. Those flies lay their eggs in the sheep's anus and the maggots eat the sheap alive from the inside.

So which is worse? Of course, neither is desirable, but there is ongoing research into chemical methods of keeping the sheep clean without the necessity of mulesing. PETA efforts towards boycotting the Australian wool industry are only making those research efforts more difficult by decreasing funding.

My point? I'm not going to allow my enjoyment of meat be changed by the one-sided propaganda of organisations like PETA. They are probably well intentioned, and most likely represent a portion of the truth, but I find their beliefs and methods to be over the top and offensive.

If I choose to have a hamburger, I will. If you choose not to, good for you. As I keep saying, I have no problem with the choice to be vegetarian. I just don't understand why some vegetarians believe that it is the ONLY moral choice. There are so many different sides to this argument that I don't see it having a black and white solution.

Susan9608
02-14-05, 09:17 pm
Vegetarianism *is* a moral choice; actions that harm others are not a matter of personal choice. Murder, child abuse, and cruelty towards animals are all immoral. Even though our society encourages meat eating and factory farming, history also shows that our society once encouraged slavery, child labor, and other practices now universally recognized as wrong.

Meat is not a nutritional requirement. Protein, on the other hand, is a nutritional requirement. Almost all foods contain protein to some degree; you can get enough protein from whole wheat bread, oatmeal, beans, corn, peas, mushrooms, or broccoli. In fact, most people get way more protein than they need, about 7 times as much. Too much protein actually causes problems, such as osteoporosis and kidney disease.

The USDA and American Diabetic Association have endorsed vegetarianism because studies have show that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than meat-eaters and that meat-eaters are almost twice as likely to die of heart disease, 60 percent more likely to die of cancer, and 30 percent more likely to die of other diseases. The consumption of meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence.

Human beings are much more suited to a vegetarian diet than anything else. Carnivorous animals have long, curved fangs, claws, and a short digestive tract. Humans have flat, flexible nails and our so-called "canine" teeth are minuscule compared to those of carnivores, and even compared to vegetarian primates like gorillas and oranguatans. Our tiny canine teeth are better suited to biting into fruits than tearing through tough hides. We have flat molars and a long digestive tract suited to a diet of vegetables, fruits, and grains. Eating meat is hazardous to our health; it contributes to heart disease, cancer, and many other health problems.

No one expects other species of animals to become vegetarian. Human beings have the unique ability to think, reason, and plan their actions - other animals operate on instinct. Plus, other species of animals do not raise animals for the sole purpose of consuming them and carnivores do not subject their prey to the tortures of factory farming.

I think the real problem is not with the evidence that supports the moral, environmental, and health related benefits of a vegetarian diet. I think the real problem is the human factor - human beings turn a blind eye to the benefits of vegetarianism because if they didn't, they would be forced to make a change and give up the food they enjoy and go to extra trouble to prepare meals and deal with the hassles of eating out and so on and so forth. I think that's the real issue - people don't want to change their behavior.

Krysanthemum
02-14-05, 10:15 pm
Vegetarianism *is* a moral choice; actions that harm others are not a matter of personal choice. Murder, child abuse, and cruelty towards animals are all immoral. Even though our society encourages meat eating and factory farming, history also shows that our society once encouraged slavery, child labor, and other practices now universally recognized as wrong.
Just to reiterate, I agree with you, vegetarianism is a moral choice, but in my opinion, it is not the *only* moral choice.

And agreed, murder, child abuse and cruelty towards animal is immoral. However, your examples of cultural changes - including slavery and child labor - are human-related atrocities which have been reversed. Do you have an example of an animal-related reversal in culture?


I think that's the real issue - people don't want to change their behavior.
In my case, that is 100% true. I enjoy most meats. At times, I have joked that I am more of a carnivore than omnivore. But that is not just because I enjoy meat so much, or I am dogmatically turning a blind eye to animal cruelty, but because I largely do not enjoy fruits and vegetables. I eat enough to sustain myself, but given the choice, I would much rather have a steak than an apple. As it is, I struggle to include enough vegetable matter in my diet to keep me healthy.

While I understand that some people find a great benefit in health through vegetarianism, I don't think the same would be true for me. I would find it difficult to find a variety of foods that I enjoyed. I know that the same is not true for others. My mother, while not really vegetarian, does not enjoy meat nearly as much as I do.

But this is the point that I've been making all along. It is my choice. I've heard all the arguments for vegetarianism, and I'm not disputing them for a second. I've heard about all the animal welfare atrocities perpetrated against so many species. While it is atrocious, I nevertheless choose to eat meat, because I enjoy it. I respect your decision not to do so, but I would appreciate the same respect in return.

Out of curiosity, CavySpirit and Susan9068, do you eat eggs? Have you seen the conditions in which farms keep battery chickens? Or drink milk and eat cheese, with the machine production lines that dairies have set up?

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 02:01 am
While it is atrocious, I nevertheless choose to eat meat, because I enjoy it.

I choose not to eat meat because my heart hurts knowing of the extreme torture that other living creatures suffer as a result of my self-indulgent enjoyment. It's not worth it.

Out of curiosity, CavySpirit and Susan9068, do you eat eggs?

I'm not perfect. Far, far from it. I never claimed to be. I only buy free-range, antibiotic-free eggs. I make a serious effort. I refrain from buying leather. I never ever buy fur. I avoid as many animal products as I can. I get better all the time. It's a step at a time for me and for many others.

If we were going to sit down at a meal together and you had a big juicy steak, I wouldn't say one word to you about it. However, don't come on this forum and expect me or others to leave it alone and respect your 'decision' and allow you to toss out all the standard misconceptions that meat-eaters have and leave it alone.

I know you and millions of other people 'enjoy it.' Who cares and so what?

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 02:38 am
Oh, and the fact that the killing and cooking a cavy wasn't a crime had absolutely nothing to do with his being a juvenile.

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 02:42 am
Of course I'm not advocating the abuse of animals. I am simply suggesting that to use said cruelties as a reason for vegetarianism is a little flimsy, when your own diet is a direct result of equally destructive agricultural methods.

I am so floored by this comment, I can't even figure out how to respond to it. I think you need to just forget about this thread and don't come back to this vegetarian forum. That's a sincere request.

Krysanthemum
02-15-05, 04:10 pm
If we were going to sit down at a meal together and you had a big juicy steak, I wouldn't say one word to you about it. However, don't come on this forum and expect me or others to leave it alone and respect your 'decision' and allow you to toss out all the standard misconceptions that meat-eaters have and leave it alone.
Just to reiterate, I purposefully did not come to the Vegetarian section of this forum because I knew I would disagree with a lot of the views here. But this conversation started in the Kitchen, and I simply answered a question about how someone could both keep pets and still enjoy eating meat. While I have enjoyed the debate on the subject, I'm about finished with the hard headed propaganda being sprouted here.

You speak of my meat-eating standard misconceptions? While I agree with a lot of what you have spoken about, and have learned a lot, I have also seen you make statements which I think are absolute rubbish - vegetarian misconceptions, if you will. I see that as a difference of opinion and I'm fine with that, but you are steadfastly refusing to see that my opinions are just as valid as yours.

Not once have I said, "I am right and you are wrong," but that is all I'm hearing from you.

My intention with this conversation hasn't been to "convert" anyone, I was enjoying an exchange of ideas and beliefs, with the hope that some understand could be reached that my opinions were as valid as yours, although we agree to disagree, but it's obvious that that is not going to be forthcoming.


I am so floored by this comment, I can't even figure out how to respond to it. I think you need to just forget about this thread and don't come back to this vegetarian forum. That's a sincere request.
I do intend this to be my last comment and my last visit to the vegetarian forums. It's obvious that I'm not going to get the respectful exchange of ideas and opinions that I was hoping for. As I said, this conversation did not start in the Vegetarian forum, but it's fairly obvious that your moving of this conversation here was an attempt to shut me up.

Krysanthemum
02-15-05, 04:13 pm
Oh, and the fact that the killing and cooking a cavy wasn't a crime had absolutely nothing to do with his being a juvenile.Yes, you're right about this. I asked my fiance last night, and he told me that animal cruelty is illegal but killing an animal humanely is legal. It was news to me, but there you go, you learn something new every day.

LiciaMommycott
02-15-05, 05:08 pm
I do intend this to be my last comment and my last visit to the vegetarian forums. It's obvious that I'm not going to get the respectful exchange of ideas and opinions that I was hoping for.
Ditto! I have also stayed out of the vegetarian cheering section because of the lack of interest in a reasonable discussion. However, I don't want Krysanthemum to feel all alone out there so I'm just posting my support for her comments which were stated much more eloquently than mine.

Susan9608
02-15-05, 06:31 pm
Krysanthemum, just in case you're still reading.

You asked if I eat eggs and dairy products. I don't. If I happen to need an egg for baking or cooking (which rarely happens, as I don't cook), I only use eggs from free-range hens. I avoid dairy whenever possible. I drink soy milk and cook with it (again, rarely). I eat soy cheese. I eat soy ice cream. I haven't yet found a good substitute for sour cream, but I have my fingers crossed because I *love* sour cream and it's been very difficult to give it up.

I also don't wear leather or own anything leather. When we purchased a new car, we had to have it specially made without leather seats, and it actually cost us more money ... which I found unbelievable. I don't wear fur. I don't use products tested on animals if at all possible. I belong to animal rights groups; I do protest marches, boycotts, etc. etc.

If there is any hypocrisy in my life style, I try to correct it whenever I find it, even if it means giving up things I enjoy.

You said you want you opinion to be respected. In response, I say this ... I respect your right to *have* a different opinion, but I do not respect your opinion. I think your choices are selfish and lazy ... and I don't respect that. Now, whether or not I respect your choices really doesn't matter, because I'm a stranger to you and my opinion really, I'm sure, matters nothing to you. But you *asked* for our ("our" being the die-hard vegetarians) respect of your opinion. I refuse to go the "let's agree to disagree" route. It may be easier and more pleasant, but while I can't force you to change, I can't say I respect your decisions and choices. That, I feel, would be a cop-out and hypocritical of me.

So I apologize for anything I said that came across as a personal attack and/or anything I said that was offensive to you. But while I respect you as a human being/fellow living creature, I think your ooinion and decisions on this issue are terribly, terribly wrong.

Susan9608
02-15-05, 06:36 pm
An added thought ....

I think what I find the most wrong about your opinion and choices (and what makes them impossible to respect) is the fact that you actually stated that you know and understand all the reasons for vegetarianism and agree that animals should not be treated badly, but that you *continue* to eat meat, which adds to the misery and suffering of animals, because you "enjoy" it. To me, that is the epitome of selfishness.

lindsey's boys
02-15-05, 06:42 pm
I agree. I think it's just plain old SICK to enjoy eating animals. I usually don't eat meat. Since i'm a growing child, I do occasionally eat meat. But I have to tell you, my mom pretty much has to shove it down my throat.

2boar1sow
02-15-05, 06:53 pm
As I said, this conversation did not start in the Vegetarian forum, but it's fairly obvious that your moving of this conversation here was an attempt to shut me up. I also do not understand why cavyspirit would move this discussion into the vegatarian forum, except to gain support, which is an abuse of power if you ask me.This forum is provegatarian, The kitchen forum is not. This thread should not have been moved here. Cavyspirit could have simply said, "Go look at the vegatarian forum" without moving this thread here.

Krysanthemum and Licia, I agree with you that PETA and many people in these forums try to shove non-meat eating propaganda down our throats. I will probably get heat from my fellow vegatarians, but I try to encourage them to avoid using some of these ridiculous arguements. I am sorry that you have been met with such hostility, when you did not even start this thread in the vegatarian forum.

With that said. Saying something is a moral choice, immediately implies there is a moral or an immoral choice to be made. People have not said you must become a vegatarian, rather, so and so is a reason why it is the immoral choice not to be. I will also give my reasons, for sake of discussion. I respect your choice to eat meat, but obviously does not mean I agree with it.

Animals have a nervous system and a brain. To me it is obvious that they think and feel pain. This is what distinguishes them from other nutrients to me. I am slightly disturbed by your justification to eat meat because you enjoy it so much. Of course, all our choices are choices that we have decided are the best choice at the time, but we often give up things we enjoy in life for other more important things to us. I also enjoyed very much eating meat at one point. I decided that my pleasure did not justify the pain animals experience when they are raised to be our food. I probably don't enjoy eating a single fruit. And am very picky with my vegatables. I like corn, potatoes, onions and thats about it. That does not mean that I cannot be a vegatarian.

There is a choice for me to make and thats why I have made it. Concerning eating other crops that have damaged the environment. There is a choice in which crops to eat. I also eat the free range milk and egg stuff. And try my best to eat organic crops that don't abuse the rainforests and cause soil erosion. It is not the easiest thing to do. I personally feel that it is sad that you justify eating meat with personal pleasure. I think it is more than possible for you to be vegatarian and still live a happy life. I enjoy my life more knowing that I'm not killing animals. To me the the moral decision, no matter how much an inconvience it is to me, is always worth it.

You have made several other comments that I believe other vegatarians have done well rebuting, which is normal in any debate. Even if you never decide to be a vegatarian, or think I'm crazy for giving up pleasure for the sake of preventing animal pain and suffering, I still respect your decision to eat meat because your life simply has not exposed you to the same things that my life has exposed to me.

2boar1sow
02-15-05, 06:59 pm
When vegatarians compare eating meat to slavery and child labor and women's rights, I don't think they are saying it has the same gravity. They are merely pointing out that standards and norms do not make something moral and that our hope is for the standard to change like it has with slavery, child labor, and women's rights.

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 07:30 pm
This thread was moved to the vegetarian forum because it became a topic about vegetarianism. There is a whole forum here where all of the points raised have already been discussed multiple times. It was not a move to shut you up. We always move threads to the appropriate forum.

I also do not understand why cavyspirit would move this discussion into the vegatarian forum, except to gain support, which is an abuse of power if you ask me.This forum is provegatarian, The kitchen forum is not. This thread should not have been moved here. Cavyspirit could have simply said, "Go look at the vegatarian forum" without moving this thread here.

There is absolutely no reason for me or anyone else to reinvent the discussions and points about vegetarianism. This thread belongs here. It is not an 'abuse of power.' If you want to acuse me of abusing power, then the very fact that I created a pro-vegetarian forum, would, I suppose qualify. But then, so is the fact that I don't allow promotion of too-small (according to my position of power) pet store cages. Also, my abuse of power is quite clear in the tough stance I take on being anti-breeding. So, in a lot of ways, I most definitely am abusing my 'power.' When threads about cavy care on the chat forum turn into breeder debates, they are moved to the Kitchen forum--which is anti-breeding. Almost all the time, the initial posts did not start out as a what the thread turns into. Same exact thing here.

I have also stayed out of the vegetarian cheering section because of the lack of interest in a reasonable discussion.

Lack of interest in reasonable discussion? You'll find the most reasonable discussions in all of this entire forum on the vegetarian forum. There is a mountain of quoted material here and serious references linked. You have only to read it.

And, as usual, Susan9608 summed up my exact thoughts on the respecting of opinions/decisions--very eloquently.

ridiculous arguements, 2boar1sow, specifically which arguments are you referring to?

I still respect your decision to eat meat because your life simply has not exposed you to the same things that my life has exposed to me.

I don't think one has to necessarily be exposed to something to appreciate, understand or empathize with it.

many people in these forums try to shove non-meat eating propaganda down our throats.

Exactly, where, outside of this vegetarian forum, are many people shoving non-meating propaganda down your throat?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This entire forum and site is run with my bias towards animal welfare. I do not apologize for it. Call it a power trip if you want to. That's the way it is. I've made no pretense about it anywhere. I try my level best to be fair but stay true to my own belief system about animals and their place in the world. I do what I can do.

Susan9608
02-15-05, 08:01 pm
CavySpirit said it all. Everything I could say - and more - and better than I could have said it. :):):) Three cheers to you! Some day, meat eaters will be the minority. :):):)

Krysanthemum
02-15-05, 08:02 pm
An added thought ....

I think what I find the most wrong about your opinion and choices (and what makes them impossible to respect) is the fact that you actually stated that you know and understand all the reasons for vegetarianism and agree that animals should not be treated badly, but that you *continue* to eat meat, which adds to the misery and suffering of animals, because you "enjoy" it. To me, that is the epitome of selfishness.
Fair enough, I can cop to that. Part of my motive in participating in this conversation has been to learn more about the reasons behind vegetarianiam, and while I know I'm never going to change over myself, and disagree with some of the sentiments, I can admit that my decision is purely selfish. I was brought up eating meat, and only discovered later in my life that some people chose to be vegetarian. I just can't see myself making that same decision.

I don't believe that my changing to vegetarianism will actually influence the meat production industry to change their methods in any way. I also do not buy leather or fur, I care for my cavies and other animals as well as I can, so I suppose my contribution is there but lesser.

It is just that vegetarians like CavySpirit, with their whole-hearted support of biased PETA propaganda and fairly militant views on the evils of meat eating, have always gotten up my nose. I respect her beliefs and her right to create a vegetarian forum, and I would not for a second consider invading that forum and saying "you lot are all nuts". I got involved in a conversation on a different topic in a different forum that veered towards vegetarianism, and found myself being verbally hammered by the forum administrator. So be it. I knew I was never going to convince her otherwise, and wasn't interested in doing so. I was just hoping that I could find a small crack of understanding in her attitudes.

I guess I believe just as strongly in the importance of human politeness to each other as you guys do about animal welfare.

Susan9608
02-15-05, 08:21 pm
I don't really think I've said anything impolite in any of my posts, but if I did, I offered you an apology in one of my last posts ....

If you don't believe that you and your choices/attitudes can make a difference in how animals are treated, then why do you avoid leather and fur? What makes those industries more inexcuseable than the treatment of animals used for food? And why does your contribution (by not wearing fur/leather) help out, but your being a vegetarian would not?

Every journey begins with one small step ... and every change begins with one person. One person *can* make a difference. If everyone held the belief that you do, that their individual contribution was insignificant, then nothing would every happen. There would still be slavery in America ... children would still be forced into labor ... women still wouldn't have the right to vote ... minorities wouldn't have the right to vote ...

Each person who joins the animal rights movement, who boycotts practices that are cruel to animals, brings the whole movement one step closer to achieving the goal of humane treatment for all animals, human or not.

I find it very sad that this is one of your reasons for not wanting to change your life style and make more humane choices.

You said, "It is just that vegetarians like CavySpirit, with their whole-hearted support of biased PETA propaganda and fairly militant views on the evils of meat eating have always gotten up my nose." Well, I am *proud* to be a whole-hearted supporter of PETA. And I am *glad* to have militant views on the evils of meat eating. So I guess you'll have to pick me out of your nose as well.

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 08:35 pm
I don't believe that my changing to vegetarianism will actually influence the meat production industry to change their methods in any way.

Then similarly, not buying animals in a pet store will not influence the pet trade industry in any way. And on and on with the analogies. Keeping it relevent to this site, not breeding your guinea pig will not have any influence on the pet overpopulation problem in any way.

It is just that vegetarians like CavySpirit, with their whole-hearted support of biased PETA propaganda and fairly militant views on the evils of meat eating, have always gotten up my nose.

And the 'let's all be polite to each other while I finish my steak' views gets up my nose. But more than that, when you are empathetic to any degree with the animals' pain and suffering, it hurts. It's emotionally and intellectually painful and difficult to bear. It's more than a knee-jerk reaction to a hot topic. It's something you take on as part of yourself. And because it is so damn bloody easy to eat meat and consume meat-related products, you have to make it a strong part of yourself to resist those seductively easy temptations. It's very, very hard. It's not a 'think about it once in a while during a thread discussion on a forum' kind of thing. It's in your face every day and you have to keep reminding yourself WHY you are denying yourself the pleasure of that steak or burger or whatever. So yeah, we are a little more passionate about the topic and some of us are a little less polite.

Well, I am *proud* to be a whole-hearted supporter of PETA. And I am *glad* to have militant views on the evils of meat eating.

Ditto.

2boar1sow
02-15-05, 09:01 pm
Cavyspirit. It has been previously stated that this is not only a vegatarian forum, this is a provegatarian forum where meat eating perspectives have been met with disrespect and hostility. Hence this discussion does not belong here. It was started by a meat eating person with non vegatarian views. If you don't think vegatarians should repeat what they have already said, then again I ask you, why did you not simply suggest krysanthemum take a look at the vegatarian forum herself/himself without moving the thread here?

The fact is you moved this thread here and someone who was looking for a polite response was met with hostile vegatarians. A good impression? I think not. If you want vegatarianism to be the norm I suggest you learn from your mistakes.

Ridiculous arguements are the things people say like, "too much protein is harmful" (there are others, most of which with I have already mentioned my discontent) as a reason not to eat meat. COMMON, maybe some people get too much protein, but obviously eating meat doesn't cause you to have too much protein and I'd bet its more common for vegatarians not to get enough. Personally I like your reasons more than others. Animals are definitely treated poorly when being raised for human consumption in most circumstances.

I try to keep an open mind. I feel when problems are presented to me, I am much more open to change when I don't feel like the person presenting the ideas is hostile, dissrespectful, or an overall smuck. People not seeing eye to eye with us makes our blood boil when its something important to us, but when we lose control, the way we present ourselves turns others off to our ideas. PETA is a well intentioned orginization, but from what I've seen of the orginization, its members seem to be very passionate about their cause which is good, but when they let it interfere with how they present the problems and solutions to others, there is a problem.

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 09:48 pm
Cavyspirit. It has been previously stated that this is not only a vegatarian forum, this is a provegatarian forum where meat eating perspectives have been met with disrespect and hostility.

There is far more respect and politeness in the debates on this forum than disrespect and hostility. Once again I tell you, just like breeding discussions are moved to the ANTI-breeding Kitchen forum, vegetarian discussions are moved to the PRO-vegetarian forum. That's my rule. Therefore, it's right. The power abuser has spoken.

If you want vegatarianism to be the norm I suggest you learn from your mistakes.

My mistakes? You mean that you disagree with my approach and therefore your judgement is that I'm doing something wrong. I think the contrary.

Ridiculous arguements ... -- clearly not so ridiculous, as you've already pointed out in your own response.

Krysanthemum
02-15-05, 09:50 pm
I don't really think I've said anything impolite in any of my posts, but if I did, I offered you an apology in one of my last posts ....
I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear that I was talking about CavySpirit, not yourself.


If you don't believe that you and your choices/attitudes can make a difference in how animals are treated, then why do you avoid leather and fur? What makes those industries more inexcuseable than the treatment of animals used for food? And why does your contribution (by not wearing fur/leather) help out, but your being a vegetarian would not?
I believe there is a difference. Most people choose to not buy leather and fur, and as a result that decision HAS effected those industries. The s ame overall support is not shown against eating meat, and so I believe my potential decision to change to vegetarianism will have little effect, even if I were tempted to do so. Vegetarianism as a stand against animal cruelty doesn't have the same support as does avoiding leather and fur. Even PETA doesn't protest directly against eating meat, to my knowledge, but rather against the practices found in factory farms.

You made a comment earlier than soon people who eat meat will be in the minority. While that may be true in the future, I doubt it's going to happen in either of our lifetimes. I don't think stopping eating meat is the only way to change the cruelty. Protest against those practices? Fine, I think that's much more constructive. Boycott companies that are particularly cruel? Absolutely. But stopping eating meat altogether makes a very, very small difference, in my opinion.


There would still be slavery in America ... children would still be forced into labor ... women still wouldn't have the right to vote ... minorities wouldn't have the right to vote ...
There you go again, comparing eating meat with human atrocities such as slavery. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think they're comparable.

If you want to talk about human atrocities, talk about the people dying through terrorism every day in the Middle East or dying of disease throughout South East Asia. Or the millions of children around the world living in poverty or suffering child abuse. I'm sorry, but I think their problems are more important, and I spend some of my time doing what I can to help them, not sacrificing my own small enjoyments by boycotting an entire industry that barely knows I exist.


But more than that, when you are empathetic to any degree with the animals' pain and suffering, it hurts. It's emotionally and intellectually painful and difficult to bear.
So you would be happier if I was just an unthinking, redneck moron who eats bacon while torturing a kitten, just to remain consistent? I'm sure that would make me fit in nicely with your narrow view of meat eaters as a whole, but I'm not that two dimensional. I'm not allowed to show emotion towards animal cruelty without being a hypocrite? I actually don't have a problem reconciling the two beliefs.

2boar1sow
02-15-05, 10:29 pm
Cavyspirit. It has been previously stated that this is not only a vegatarian forum, this is a provegatarian forum where meat eating perspectives have been met with disrespect and hostility.

There is far more respect and politeness in the debates on this forum than disrespect and hostility. Once again I tell you, just like breeding discussions are moved to the ANTI-breeding Kitchen forum, vegetarian discussions are moved to the PRO-vegetarian forum. That's my rule. Therefore, it's right. The power abuser has spoken.

If you want vegatarianism to be the norm I suggest you learn from your mistakes.

My mistakes? You mean that you disagree with my approach and therefore your judgement is that I'm doing something wrong. I think the contrary.

Ridiculous arguements ... -- clearly not so ridiculous, as you've already pointed out in your own response.
You know, I told you what I thought you did wrong. Its your forum, don't pay attention, dont change and you're the one who has to live with turning people away from vegatarianism. I'm glad that you feel passionately about vegatarianism and I have lots of respect for you because of that.

2boar1sow
02-15-05, 10:48 pm
Krysanthemum, isn't not eating meat a way to boycott companies that treat animals cruelly? I personally think that killing them at all is not right, so picking a certain company out isn't really an issue for me. Why does it matter how much of a difference you are making? Shouldn't you just make the moral decision regardless of how much of a difference it is going to make? If you want to make a difference then go ahead and become more active too. It does not take time to be a vegatarian, you simply don't eat meat...So you have plenty of time to help 3rd world countries, victims of terrorism and etc.

Shouldn't this thread be done with? Krysanthemum already said that s/he doesn't eat meat because s/he is selfish right?

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 11:09 pm
There you go again, comparing eating meat with human atrocities such as slavery. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think they're comparable.

That wasn't what she was saying. She was not comparing eating meat with human atrocities. She was comparing the advances of things that were once the social norm--socially acceptable behavior--and after much awareness raising and effort by many activists over time (and yes, generations)--are now no longer socially acceptable. THAT was the point that she was making:


Slavery and the subordination of women used to be part of our culture and upbringing, too. Thinking about those issues and the tremendous advances that have been made gives me hope that one day the animal rights movement will come that far and the question about which animals are okay to eat will be moot.
If you want to talk about human atrocities,...

That wasn't the point. She could just as easily have used cigarette smoking as an example of the social progress made and still being made.


You made a comment earlier than soon people who eat meat will be in the minority.

No. She said, Some day, meat eaters will be the minority. :):):). Some day does not translate into soon in my book.

While that may be true in the future, I doubt it's going to happen in either of our lifetimes.

So, if you don't personally live to see it, it's not worth making an effort and gaining progress along the way?

Protest against those practices? Fine, I think that's much more constructive. Boycott companies that are particularly cruel? Absolutely. But stopping eating meat altogether makes a very, very small difference, in my opinion.

I wondering what your understanding of the factory farming/meat processing industry is. I would like you to explain to me how you would go about boycotting the what--please explain it to me--by doing what. You seem to know what would be effective and constructive. I'd really like to hear more.

But stopping eating meat altogether makes a very, very small difference, in my opinion.

Well, tell that to Safeway, one of North America's largest food retailers, with annual revenues of around 40 billion dollars. I guess they might just disagree with your opinion. Tell that to Trader Joe's. Tell that to Whole Foods. Tell that to a lot of grocery stores. The VEGETARIAN product shelf-space is growing every day. There are more and more vegetarian products and brands available every day--in mainstream stores. Not just the little funky specialty shops. Why? EVERY TIME YOU BUY SOMETHING (OR DON'T BUY SOMETHING) YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I just don't get why people don't get it. Supply and demand. It's as simple as that. Same argument about pigs in pet stores. You cannot refute it. It matters. It does make a difference.

All our little decisions add up to a big difference.

So you would be happier if I was just an unthinking, redneck moron who eats bacon while torturing a kitten, just to remain consistent? I'm sure that would make me fit in nicely with your narrow view of meat eaters as a whole, but I'm not that two dimensional. I'm not allowed to show emotion towards animal cruelty without being a hypocrite? I actually don't have a problem reconciling the two beliefs.

You took that right out of context and twisted it around. I was talking about ME not you. I was trying to respond to your criticism of my "militant" views. I was trying to explain how much you have to take on when you are trying to be a vegetarian for moral reasons.

I don't have a narrow view of meat eaters. Geez. I still like the taste of meat probably as much or more than you do. I just don't eat it or buy it anymore. The vast majority of people I know eat meat. But, if you want to debate the issues, then fine. Let's do it. But, I'd prefer you stop slinging mud at yourself and attributing the slurs to me or others.

CavySpirit
02-15-05, 11:16 pm
You know, I told you what I thought you did wrong. Its your forum, don't pay attention, dont change and you're the one who has to live with turning people away from vegatarianism.

Your entitled to your opinion. There are plenty of posts from people who are encouraged into vegetarianism and are making an effort.

2boar1sow
02-16-05, 04:09 am
You know, I told you what I thought you did wrong. Its your forum, don't pay attention, dont change and you're the one who has to live with turning people away from vegatarianism.

Your entitled to your opinion. There are plenty of posts from people who are encouraged into vegetarianism and are making an effort.
I did not say nor imply that people have not been encouraged on this forum. I said you have to live with turning people, not all people, away from vegatarianism. Regardless of how many people are encouraged, I doubt you want to turn any away. So why are you saying I'm entitled to my opinion when licia and krysanthemum have clearly said that they are turned off to vegatarian reason by hostile advocates including yourself? Do you think you treated krysanthemum with the same respect as the people that you deem to be more encouraged?

Your entitled to look past that so you don't have to feel like you did something wrong, but like I said, you're the one who has to live with turning people, not all people, away from vegatarianism.

Smudger
02-16-05, 09:21 am
I think what gets up the collective nose of most of us meat eaters is the way that vegetarians will constantly berate us for being involved in the suffering of animals, but very rarely will they admit that the farming of the crops that provide their own diet is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of small animals each year-and usually if they do engage in discussion on the subject, the response is one of 'at least I'm doing my part to minimise the suffering of animals'.

It would be nice if we could all just calm down a bit, because this is a very interesting discussion and maybe we can all learn something in the process-some of us meat-eaters may even decide to go veggie as a result of it, but I can promise people that won't happen if all we hear is 'eating meat is wrong' repeated over and over again.

suzy_99
02-16-05, 09:43 am
I definetely agree with you Smudger. I myself was thinking about becoming a vegetarian and even posted about it on this forums, but after reading through all of the post I kinda felt that some of the vegetarians here think themselves to be better than us meat-eaters (This is not intended for most, only a couple post that I seen way back). Everytime there is this type of discussion, it always seems to turn into a fighting match and us meat eaters are said to be aiding in the suffering of animals.
Another popular discussion is "How can you have animals as pets and then eat other animals at the same time". This is not an educational or informative type of post. It is almost a personal attack. I personally am not offended by any of these types of comments, but it is quite easy to see how others would be. If everyones goal here is truly too create an awareness and education on the vegetarian lifestyle, I would seriously recommend that some of these points be worded in a way that doesn't sound like an attack on a particular persons lifestyle. Most of us come in this forum open and accepting of the fact that many of you are vegetarians, but I haven't seen many vegetarians yet that are completely accepting of meat-eaters. I know that we have different views than you, but please try to accept or at least tolerate our views, so long as they are not belittling your. Some conflict and debate is useful in educating people, but attacks on a person values and beliefs have never helped anyone.
I personally like to come in here to get some information on the pros and cons on being a vegetarian. I was very dissapointed with the fact that some of the vegetarians on the web site are quite quick to point out the drawbacks of eating meat, but seldom point out any of the drawbacks of not eating it. Therefore, I feel that I am not getting an accurate picture of what it means to be a vegetarian, I am only getting one side of the picture and I don't feel that is enough for me to make a complete lifestyle change. I will continue to gather information on it though and I am hoping ot be able to make the change fairly soon, cause it is something that I have wanted to do for a while.

CavySpirit
02-16-05, 10:30 am
I get the same criticism (only more of it) for not providing a "balanced" view of breeding as well. Same with pet stores.

Susan9608
02-16-05, 01:18 pm
I believe I am the one, at least in this particular thread, who made the comment that others have twisted around into, "How can you have pets and eat other animals at the same time?"

What I *actually* said was, "How do they draw the line between animals that are okay to eat and animals that should only be pets? I'm glad to be a vegetarian so I don't have to wrestle with those decisions ... I don't know how I'd rationalize it." I honestly *don't* know how people decide between the animals that are okay to eat and the animals that should only be pets. That's an honest question. And I also said that I'm glad that *I* (as opposed to anyone else) am a vegetarian so that *I* don't have to make those decisions because *I* wouldn't know how to rationalize it. If people take that statement, which I made about *myself*, as a personal attack, then that is *their* issue and not mine.

If people are turned off of vegetarianism because of the posts here, then again, I said that is *their* issue and not mine. I think if something as simple and silly as posts being viewed as "hostile" turns someone off of being a vegetarian for moral reasons, then obviously they weren't very serious about it to begin with. And Krysanthemum clearly stated that she has no desire to be a vegetarian, not just because of the "hostile" vegetarians, but because she enjoys meat and is too selfish to change.

I would be interested to see some facts about crop farming killing small animals. I can't make an intelligent response to that accusation (not caring about the small animals killed because of crop farming) when I don't have any facts to work with. If you, 2boar1sow, have some links to reliable data, I would be happy to look at it, think about it, and get back to you with how I feel about it. But you posted no facts. So it sounds like a cop-out, designed to put vegetarians on the defensive and get them to drop their arguements and let the meat eaters go along their merry way. I have noticed that this seems to be a favorite tactic of non-vegetarians - to prove that most vegetarians are hypocrites in some way ... as if that undermines the validity of their arguement.

On this forum and in this threat, fact, after fact, after fact about the benefits of being vegetarian have been posted. Links to more facts have been given. Yet you label these arguments as "ridiculous". Your position, in my opinion, is the one that's ridiculous.

And as for people getting too much protein ... that *is* a fact. In America, especially, the average person gets *7* times as much protein than they need. Protein is very hard on your kidneys, so too much protein leads to kidney disease, eventual dialysis, the need for a kidney transplant, and possibly even death. Too much protein filters calcium out of your system (hence, why milk is *not* a good source of calcium) which can lead to osteoporosis and dental problems. Nutritional guidelines say that 60% of your caloric intake should come from carbohydrates, 30% from protein, and 10% from fat. People don't need as much protein as they think they do .... I have been a vegetarian for 17 years; I take no vitamins and I don't even go to special pains to create protein-balanced meals. Never once have I been in a negative nitrogen balance (a state created by too little protein). People who get too little protein are people who eat mostly junk food and/or people who don't have enough of *anything* to eat, not just meat.

Before labeling things as ridiculous, it's usually smart to do some fact-finding, so you avoid looking ridiculous yourself.

Susan9608
02-16-05, 01:20 pm
oops ... I wrote threat instead of "thread" in my above post. That typo puts an interesting twist on what I wrote, doesn't it? :)

2boar1sow
02-16-05, 02:23 pm
Firstly Susan, I said nothing at all about crop farming killing small animals... I said there are ridiculous things said by avid vegatarians. Just because you say something is a fact does not make it an accurate portrayal of the truth. I've previously stated before, all people interpret data with bias for their own purpose. I have checked on many websites that list "facts" about the "facts" listed on the downsides of meat in this forum. I have come across many clearly bias articles incorrectly referencing other scources. For example, there was an article that was saying chicken caused a certain type of cancer. I looked at the article it referenced about this, and that article said that red meat was linked to that type of cancer, not chicken. I don't offer "facts" because they could be made by just as bias a meat eater. I reason for myself. You can let other people's emotions affect your own and make decisions like that, but I prefer not to do that. When I do find articles that seem to have less bias towards one view, I share that article and encourage understanding of the reason in it. Just because something has a percentage in it, doesn't mean everybody should beleive it. I could easily make up my own "facts". You'd say you don't think I have gotten them from a credible source. Thats what I say about the majority of the articles that are referenced by the "ridiculous arguements". Anyone can write whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

It is a horrible thing to say that it is someone else's problem and not yours if you say somethign that turns them away from vegatarianism. If you're not going to make the effort to respectfully discuss vegatarianism with people who are interested but reluctant, then you're just hurting your own cause. How is it that you care for animals so much, but you can't give humans the respect they deserve? I never said you're position is ridiculous, I said some of the arguements made are ridiculous. My position, by the way, is pro-vegatarian. I have been one for some time now, I previously stated that, not sure if you picked up on it...

If you'd only listen to the meat eaters, instead of readily throwing everything you've ever heard that puts down meat eating towards them, you'd notice that your approach isn't helping. Think of it this way. How many people on this forum have said, "Wow thanks, I'm really planning on becoming a vegatarian now that you've told me that killing animals is barbaric." Please pay attention to what smudger and suzy have to say.

Smudger
02-16-05, 02:35 pm
Susan-if you want facts or information regarding the deaths of animals as a result of harvesting, just type something like 'small animals killed during harvesting' into Google or any other search engine-you should get quite a few results. Also, rather than me just giving you a link to a particular site, it will give you the benefit of having access to both sides of the argument.

2boar1sow-great post.

CavySpirit
02-16-05, 03:30 pm
I want the sites that you've found. I don't have time to redo the searching and research to find the evidence that supposedly supports your position. If you have the information or links to it that supports your position then share it. Broad-brush statements saying there is plenty of info out there--go search for it, doesn't work for me. Back up your statements and positions. Otherwise, just state them as your opinions or biases or perceptions or whatever.

You'd say you don't think I have gotten them from a credible source. Thats what I say about the majority of the articles that are referenced by the "ridiculous arguements". Anyone can write whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

At least we give you a source to judge it's credibility. I expect the same respect in return. The only source we have is your word for it. That's not enough for me. I could just as easily label all your positions ridiculous. Show me the meat.

Just a friendly fyi, vegan is spelled with an 'a.' Vegetarian is spelled with an 'e.'

How many people on this forum have said, "Wow thanks, I'm really planning on becoming a vegatarian now that you've told me that killing animals is barbaric." Please pay attention to what smudger and suzy have to say.

Actually, there are quite a few people who have. And it has to do with the viewing of videos in those posts. Seeing is finally believing for many people. And you also don't see the private emails I receive as the webmaster.

Susan9608
02-16-05, 05:07 pm
2boar1sow - I apologize. I got your post confused with Smudger's post, regarding the crop-farming killing small animals. That was my mistake.

I don't think it's at all horrible to say that if what I say turns someone away from vegetarianism, then that is *their* problem and not mine. I say that because if someone let me - a *single* individual who is pretty much totally *unknown* to them - and my opinions, thoughts, and writing style dissuade them from endorsing a vegetarian diet, then I think they couldn't have been that serious about it to begin with. If someone looks at the evidence, agrees that factory farming is cruel and that meat based diets are detrimental to human health, and is willing to consider changing their life style based on moral/ethical and health reasons, then that person would not let what *one* single, unknown individual says change their mind.

I think that's a cop-out position to take ... it's so easy for someone who *doesn't* really want to change their life to say, "Well, I would have been vegetarian if not for that hostile, unpleasant individual I encountered on this guinea pig website" when it's really their own reluctance to change that's the true reason.

Smudger, if you know of evidence, reliable, valid evidence, regarding the crop-farming and related killing of small animals, I would appreciate knowing where to look. I don't have time to waste searching through countless, pointless sites trying to find what you're talking about it.

I retract nothing I have said. If it comes across as disrespectful, than that's unfortunate, as I have tried to be as polite as possible, but I offer my apologies to anyone who has been offended. But I do not apologize forthe content of my posts.

Smudger
02-16-05, 05:27 pm
Smudger, if you know of evidence, reliable, valid evidence, regarding the crop-farming and related killing of small animals, I would appreciate knowing where to look. I don't have time to waste searching through countless, pointless sites trying to find what you're talking about it.

Well, I can't guarantee that any information I can provide would be enough for you to consider reliable and valid, but here is one article dealing with the subject:

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

And another, which expands upon the first:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/animals/Davis-LeastHarm.htm

Susan9608
02-16-05, 05:53 pm
Thank you. I will look into it.

2boar1sow
02-16-05, 06:09 pm
You'd say you don't think I have gotten them from a credible source. Thats what I say about the majority of the articles that are referenced by the "ridiculous arguements". Anyone can write whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

At least we give you a source to judge it's credibility. I expect the same respect in return. The only source we have is your word for it. That's not enough for me. I could just as easily label all your positions ridiculous. Show me the meat.

How many people on this forum have said, "Wow thanks, I'm really planning on becoming a vegatarian now that you've told me that killing animals is barbaric." Please pay attention to what smudger and suzy have to say.

Actually, there are quite a few people who have. And it has to do with the viewing of videos in those posts. Seeing is finally believing for many people. And you also don't see the private emails I receive as the webmaster.
There is a difference between showing someone the video's and tactlessly insulting meat eaters. I would like to know which stance of mine it is that you find ridiculous. My stances as far as I can tell have been for treating people respectfully and for vegEtarianism (my bad). As I already said, I'd rather appeal to reason then simply take someone elses word for it. I see no reason why its better to give a source then not if the source is not credible. Its just putting up a front to make your information look more credible.

I would agree that its a cop-out for someone to be like, oh well I'm not going to be a vegatarian just because I've met a few with a bad attitude. I don't think thats what the others were saying though. They're saying you're making them less interested, its not black and white.

Susan9608
02-16-05, 06:25 pm
Again, I reiterate, if my opinions, thoughts, phraseology, and style of writing make someone less interested, that is *their* issue because they couldn't have been that interested in the first place. If someone is truly interested, but finds me offensive, then the logical thing would be that they wouldn't listen to *me* anymore, not that they would lose interest in being a vegetarian.

I don't think that anyone on here has tactlessly insulted meat-eaters. Have I missed something?

It was also me, and not CavySpirit, who said something about finding your position ridiculous. You'll see it if you re-read the posts.

Susan9608
02-16-05, 06:37 pm
Also, I don't quite understand something you said. You said, "As I already said, I'd rather appeal to reason then simply take someone elses word for it. I see no reason why its better to give a source then not if the source is not credible. Its just putting up a front to make your information look more credible."

I don't understand several things about this statement. First of all, what do you mean when you say you'd rather appeal to "reason" than simply take someone else's word for it? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, if someone tells you a fact and then cites the source for said fact, isn't it *your* job as the reader to decide for yourself if the fact/source is credible? That's the whole point, in my understanding, of listing sources ... so that people can see and decide for themselves.

I don't understand what you're trying to say ... it simply looks like you're blowing smoke to cover up the fact that you a) have not looked at any of our sources, so you can't say for certain whether or not they are credible and b) that you have no sources of your own to list.

CavySpirit
02-16-05, 06:40 pm
I see no reason why its better to give a source then not if the source is not credible.

Says you on my sources. I'll be my own judge on what sources I find credible and what I don't. But if you don't provide your source, I have NOTHING to go on. Just your word. Your opinion.

As I already said, I'd rather appeal to reason then simply take someone elses word for it.

EXACTLY. I am certainly not going to take your word for it, just because you say it.

I see no reason why its better to give a source then not if the source is not credible.

I can definitely see why you wouldn't want to provide your sources if they are not credible.

There is a difference between showing someone the video's and tactlessly insulting meat eaters.

Please quote the tactless insults to meat eaters.

I would like to know which stance of mine it is that you find ridiculous.

Okay. You did not get the point of that paragraph at all. Let me try again. I wasn't saying I FOUND your stances ridiculous, I was saying that LIKE YOU claimed originally that our arguments were ridiculous:
Krysanthemum and Licia, I agree with you that PETA and many people in these forums try to shove non-meat eating propaganda down our throats. I will probably get heat from my fellow vegatarians, but I try to encourage them to avoid using some of these ridiculous arguements.By NOT supporting your positions I could just as easily label your arguments ridiculous. Back them up with some substance.

2boar1sow
02-16-05, 10:10 pm
Susan clearly you did not pay attention to a word I said. If someone is interested but skeptical in vegetarianism, should you dismiss them and treat them rudely, or help inch them closer to vegetarianism? You are a vegetarian and your actions reflect on us. If a person meets two vegetarians that are rude guess what they're going to start feeling most vegetarians are like? Yes it is their business, but isn't it yours that you could have inched someone closer to giving up meat but didn't? Take some responsibility for your actions, they affect other people whether you want them to or not. And also Cavyspirit did mention the issue of ridiculous positions in her last post. I quoted it in mine.

I'd rather use my intelligence, like if I see an animal get its neck slit open and it wails I can deduce pretty conclusively that its in pain, rather than read animals are mistreated by farmers and simply trust that. If there is an article written by some 16 year old that I've never heard of, that is saying 60% of fish contain a lethal amount of mercury in them and also writes how animals shouldn't be used for food, and misquotes a source, I'm not going to go around telling people that 60% of fish have a lethal amount of mercury in them. If an article says "An alarming amount of mercury has been found in fish. Scientist believe it is because of pollutants burned in industry falling from the air into the water. Small fish barely have any in them and are safe to eat, but the bigger fish could be hazardous to ones health if eaten too much" and is posted by a federal orginization and quotes sources accurately I'm going to have an understanding of what the author claims is going on and be able to think about it. Can you see the difference?

Cavyspirit, once again, what positions are you talking about? I'm not claiming that 40 percent of vegetarians die within 5 years of becoming one or anything...

Quote the tactless insults? All of them? No thank you. You can find them yourself by looking at the places where the meat eating posters in this thread have said they have been met with hostility.

You don't have to take my word that your sources aren't credible. All you have to do is look into it yourself. Like the chicken article I previously mentioned. I am not claiming to have any sources because I'm not giving any facts, I'm only doubting the validity of yours. If you read an internet article that said soy products reduce people's lifespan by 25 years and you did not hear anything else to counter it, does that mean you'd simply believe that? Or would you be skeptical and think maybe someone who is in the meat industry is just trying to reduce the spread of vegetarianism?

So, I have looked at every source that has been posted in threads that I have visited and I am not taking any positions, so why would I cite something? Am I taking a position that would be more credible if i were to cite an article? Can you tell me what position that is?

It seems to me that you two are having a really hard time grasping what I'm trying to say about encouraging other vegetarians, or you're just being stubborn and trying to invent things to throw back at me. I don't know how many different ways I can put the same statement. Quick recap.

You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. and Don't believe everything you hear, think for yourself.

I have previously stated why I am telling you these things, so look back and read if you don't understand why. I'll give you benefit of the last word and stop my participation in this thread here. It all comes down to I don't think you go about the best way to encourage vegetarianism and the meat eaters on this thread are all the backup it should take. I think its a cop-out from politeness and effort, to say "oh they weren't really interested anyway". Even if they weren't you should have tried your best for the sake of the animals.

2boar1sow
02-16-05, 10:13 pm
Oh one more thing, I apologize to licia if this thread did not take the course you intended it.

CavySpirit
02-16-05, 11:24 pm
2boar1sow, you really amaze me. Your vague generalities and accusations that you never back up and refuse to quote are just that. It's so easy.

You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. and Don't believe everything you hear, think for yourself.

Greatly appreciate the words of wisdom. The personalities and posting styles of members, the moderators, and myself are what they are. You think we do more harm than good here. I completely disagree. I think that's about it. Not much left to discuss on it.

It all comes down to I don't think you go about the best way to encourage vegetarianism and the meat eaters on this thread are all the backup it should take.

This thread was never about "encouraging vegetarianism." It was a debate about the issues. You're entitled to your opinion. I think you need to do what you feel is best your way. We'll do what we think is best our way.

LiciaMommycott
02-17-05, 01:18 am
Oh one more thing, I apologize to licia if this thread did not take the course you intended it.
Not a problem. It has taken a far more interesting turn. I have been greatly entertained by the debate.

Susan9608
02-17-05, 07:43 pm
"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. and Don't believe everything you hear"

Ah platitudes ... how effective they are in winning an argument, especially if you can't argue the facts or the issues.

fawnmarie
02-17-05, 08:48 pm
I personally think that whether or not you eat meat is less of an issue than how the animals are treated and regarded.

I guess I take an Native American view. I hate to see us taking ourselves out of our place in nature. We are ALSO animals, and need to be "humane" to ourselves. We are not natural vegetarians, we have evolved into omnivores (like our cousins the chimps, but not like our cousins the gorillas) - and that adaptability is one of the reasons for our success as a species.

We have both canine teeth and molars. Anthropological studies have shown that previous societies that were hunter/gatherers and lived mainly on meat (rather than agriculutural grains) were stronger, healthier and taller than societies that became agricultural.

The addition of processed cane sugar (which is not natural to ANYONE's) began the current trend towards heart disease, obesity and diabetes. Both vegetarians and meat-eaters that eat a lot of process cane sugar are going to experience these health problems.

I think that we need to remember that we too have a place in nature. We don't despise the lion for doing what comes naturally and hunting. We don't despise dogs or wolves for their diet. Granted, they are not capable (as far as we know) of making a moral choice - but they are eating the diet that they evolved to eat. They are part of nature, and so are we. We are omnivores - both predator and prey (when unlucky).

We need to learn to respect our place on the food chain. And we need to be respectful of the animals that we do eat. We need to treat them like fellow creatures. Those that we take eggs and milk from we should care for and cherish, and care for so that we aren't a burden to them. We need to only kill when we need to eat and what we need to eat. We need to be thankful to their spirits, and respectful of their sacrifice, and not take it for granted and not take advantage of it. Not kill indiscriminately, needlessly or painfully. And certainly allow them to live a natural life before hand.

I believe in the tenants of vegetanarism in that one should avoid causing needless pain and suffering. But I don't want to see people losing touch with what they really are - intelligent animals filled with divine spirit. We need to be respectful of our place in nature, and respectful and mindful of what we destroy to survive, and that for our own inner peace and self-respect we need to be kind and to end the commercialization of ALL living beings. Like I have said in an earlier post, we even do that to ourselves, reducing ourselves to "commodities" in the corporate world. We need to treat all living beings with more respect than that - even with enough respect to allow that the creature must follow it's natural diet to thrive.

Those of us who do eat meat need to recognize our dependence on animals and what they give up for us and show respect and gratitude. Those of us who can thrive without meat because they love animals also need to learn to love the human animals.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

Fawn

2boar1sow
02-18-05, 02:08 am
Fawnmarie, thats a very nice belief. (Not being sarcastic if you can't tell) Just wondering why you think "we are not natural vegatarians". Just because our species didn't begin that way doesn't mean its unnatural to change. Is that all you meant, that we didn't start that way? I'd agree there. I think an animal would prefer not to have to make the sacrafice of dieing for me to eat it. If I needed it to live, I would probably sacrafice its life and be thankful for that, but I don't see why I'd need to do that.

What do you mean by taking ourselves out of nature? Some animals in nature are herbivores, right? I don't understand why you say "we are not natural vegetarians, we have evolved into omnivores". Can't we choose to continue that evolution into being herbivores (not in anyway saying herbivores are more or less evolved than carnivores and omnivores). Are you saying omnivores are more evolved than herbivores? If so why?

I think the civilizations where meat eaters were stronger then the vegetarians is outdated. More time has gone by and people have done research that shows us how to replace the nutrion that comes from meat with non meat nutrition.

Like you said its natural for a lion to eat meat. What makes it natural for us to eat meat? Just because our species has in the past? Canine teeth doesn't mean its unnatural to only eat vegetables.

Our brains becoming larger is something that naturally happened through evolution. We are the animals at this point, best suited for survival in the current world. Our thought has made that possible. We discover new things to improve the quality of life. Why is it unnatural to change to vegetarianism?

I guess my main question for you is, what makes something unnatural?

fawnmarie
02-18-05, 09:59 am
2boar2sow,

Here's a good article summarizing what is currently known about the effects of diet on human evolution:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=0007B7DC-6738-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF

We did in fact, start out that way - as vegetarians - and as we evolved we began to scavage for meat and then hunt meat. The increase of calorie-rich food as well as the necessity to learn new skills to hunt catalyzed our evolution into large brained, tool-using, group-living creatures with a language.

However, this doesn't mean that people should not be vegetarians if they wish too and can thrive on that diet. It just means that it may not be particularly 'natural' or sustaining for all people.

There is a very interesting theory put forth by Dr. Peter Adamo that different blood type groups thrive on different diets. He tracks the evolution of humans and compares the natural diet of people during the stage any particular blood group evolved. (Blood type and diet was determined through testing of teeth, bone, remains, artifacts, etc.)

For example, the earliest humans were all of the blood group 'O'. They were hunter/gatherers, chasing meat and living off of aboveground plants and fruits. As humans migrated towards Asia and developed an agricultural lifestyle, the blood group 'A' evolved. Then some of these humans migrated towards Europe and became nomadic, and the 'B' blood group evolved, and then the AB Group.

The theory states (and he seems to back it up with laboratory evidence), that humans of different blood types should be eating foods natural to that particular step in evolution. For example, I am an 'O' blood type (common as dirt) and am best off eating a "hunter/gatherer" diet. This doesn't actually preclude vegetaranism, though it does preclude veganism. Anything that could be scrounged and eaten without processing or long-term time investment by our neolithic ancestors should be wholesome for me, including meat, eggs, nuts, fruits, vegetables, small amounts of tubers, etc. There is a whole list in his material. Foods that require cultivation or multi-step processing (i.e. more than just cooking) are not healthy for 'O' types. Animal products that require cultivation should not be eaten by 'O' types (like pigs, milk, etc.)

On the other hand, 'A' blood types do best on agricultural diets like grains, legumes, more tubers, etc., and if they eat meat 'domesticated' animal products such as chickens and pigs, milk and cheese.

'B' group does best on small game animals and retains the ability to eat grains and legumes.

I'm not promoting this theory, but I do find it very interesting.

What I mean by natural is that humans have been, for many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years, part of the predator class of animals. We have evolved to eat meat. Animals do not eat things naturally that will not sustain them. Rabbits don't make a moral choice to eat only vegetables - they cannot eat meat. It does not tempt them or signal anything in their brain that causes them to start feeding. Same with cats, almost strict carnivores - although they will play with a grape, nothing about a grape signals them to chow down.

Many humans are signaled strongly to eat when presented with meat. It is natural for those humans to eat it. NOT eating meat can be a moral victory over our animal nature. It is to be respected and honored. This mastery over our nature is what makes humans so interesting. Much like nuns and monks who do not indulge in sex. Sex and reproduction is natural behavior for all living creatures. It is a moral victory for them to not to sucumb to the temptation. It is a celebration of and an exercise towards true spirit and divinity. It is a good thing - a desire to be more noble than our origins.

However, lay people are not required to be celibate, though spiritual lay people may try to be moderate with sexual behavior and be respectful and thankful of it and their partner and recognize it's power over them and the power of mother nature's imperative to reproduce. They do not abuse it, but revere it's power and be thankful for it's part in our happiness and fulfillment.

It's the same way I feel about eating meat - to be respectful and aware of power of nature and it's control over us. To be respectful and thankful for the animals that feed us - and the part that they play in our health and survival. And to care for them - to allow them full lives in nature while they are alive. To pay them back for it - to care for their offspring, to protect them from other predators, to feed them and shelter them. Not to over indulge or do it recklessly and thoughtless, painfully and greedily. And yes - sometimes we feel the need to have control over nature. It's a personal choice and a moral decision. But not entirely a sentence to hell to fill one's place in nature - thoughtfully, mindfully, and with gratitude.

Both are valid viewpoints. Both are valid lifestyles. Human beings are complicated.

As being part of nature - I mean this - humans have been predators for many hundreds of thousands of years. We have as natural a part and place in the ecology of the world as do the wolves and the dogs that hunt and to think otherwise is arrogant. To think we are "above" nature or outside of it and to take the role of masters of nature is arrogant. Although our better nature may inspire us to be masters of our baser nature, to deny that we are part and parcel of the worlds ecology is the kind of dangerous thinking that makes humans think that as creatures above the design, we can take and do and kill and exploit any damn thing we want. Thinking we are "God's chosen species" has led to the extinction of more animals than eating them ever did.

Those of us who try to be spiritual or moral need to be respectful of nature's powerful hold over us. When you take a predator out of an ecology can be as devasting to that ecology as taking prey out of an ecology, or an important scavanger. What will happen to the ecology if vegetarianism becomes the world-wide standard? What prey animals will overproduce as a result? What plant species will become devastated when the prey animal population explodes? Will we then, as vegetarians, have to compete with other herbivores for plant food? Would we then just kill them off through competition (after all we have tools and are more adaptable) just as easily as if we killed them for food? Would we not destroy just as many of our fellow creatures by destroying their habitats by the need to increase farm lands?

It's a lovely ideal not to kill and eat other creatures - a moral victory. Please remember though that killing and eating other creatures is what allowed us to develop into the kind of animals that can make moral decisions in the first place.

I do have to say that the most intelligent piece of perspective I've ever heard on animal-rights activists was by Dennis Miller:

"When did minks become more important than people? I've watched individuals in New York City step over fellow human beings laying in their own piss to spit on somebody who's wearing chinchilla."

And I reiterate my original statement - human beings need to be more respectful and compassionate to ALL living beings - those that are eaten, those that hunt, and yes - even other human beings - and acknowledge and respect each living beings place and purpose in the world. There are no easy answers, except that moderation and mindfulness is the only way to find any of them.

Just my thoughts.

Fawn

2boar1sow
02-18-05, 12:52 pm
Did Dr. Peter Adamo write that Eating for Your Bloodtype book? I glanced through it once. Someone told me they heard A was a good bloodtype for vegetarians and I'm A+ so yay.

I guess I'd have to disagree that because we have been doing something for any length of time it makes it natural and that its unnatural to change that. I bet you for the majority of those 10's of thousands of years that people were eating meat, they were not also revering it, treating animals as well as you propose we should.

My personal view of nature is that nothing is unnatural to my own knowledge. If something happens it is because of events that happened throughout nature. I guess that is how I view the word with the nature linked to it. Natural can also be synomonous with common or usual, in which case many things are not natural, but don't always have to be. That being said, I think humans can make decisions which have a negative impact on, well, anything. But I wouldn't say the person is going against their nature when they make it.

Just because humans desire meat does not make it natural. You mentioned how humans lived long without sugar cane and how unhealthy it is for us. Yet I'd say many humans desire to eat sweet things more than they do meat. The humans whose bodies enjoy eating fatty and sugary foods have survived, because in the recent past ( not long ago enough for evolution to have changed this aspect of our biology by now) fatty and sugary foods were important to our health. Also I propose that the reason we like to eat meat is because of social engineering, or in less conspircal terms, learned psychological behavior. People, not all people just several people I've heard, who have been raised to be vegetarians from birth have showed disgust in meat, it not being a desire at all. I believe Kalrik mentioned this was her case.

Once again, I think the main thing we'd disagree on is just what is unnatural.