Page 2 of 2
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
16 Jul 2011, 19:44
by NinjaPuppy
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
25 Nov 2011, 17:28
by Benjamin
Right, i have been a vegetarian for 3 years, and i love it. I am a strong believer in animal rights and i am proud of this, however i would like to be vegan. The problem is, i still live with my parents and brother, who all eat meat. Many of the products i eat are not vegan and even though i am veggie, i am not a great vegetable lover. I have signed a pledge against fur, fast food chains and their treatment of animals,i never use animal testing products, do not eat meat, fish, gelatine, rennet, shellac and E120, and support PETA....
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
26 Nov 2011, 01:13
by Craig Browning
I find it interesting that most vegetarians (especially in the U.S. & Europe) are female and "soft" males. . . not effeminate or gay necessarily but certainly men that offer a far more feminine sense of energy & expression. Just an observation but one I find curious nonetheless.
As I've already noted, very few of today's Vegetarians & Vegan types have ever had to live in the real world on the world's terms vs. their "choices" and the conveniences of dropping into a bright, shiny grocery store to pay too much for their "organic" food. . . then again, few of them know that "Organic" is how most of agriculture worked up into the 1930s (roughly) and more and more chemicals were getting introduced to said industry. I never used chemicals, just lots of bull shit. . . ok, rabbit poop actually in that we raised bunnies which are a little factory for top quality fertilizer. Certain breeds lending to you "fur" without having to kill the little buggers as well; the angora being best known as a "Lady's Lap Bunny" got the nick-name because you could pull off the fur and spin it with bunny in lap. . . but I digress.
The ignorance that has come to be a constant in today's culture when it comes to where food comes from and what is actually involved with livestock (particularly) is a big reason for today's piety when it comes to Vegetarians-Vegans and the "Animal Rights" types who likewise know little to nothing about why "slaughter" as well as Hunting (fishing) is a "must" and does actually benefit said critters more than harms them. Even the whole campaign of disallowing "pets" by said fools, is the result of serious ignorance and the lack of practical study as to what happens when dogs are allowed to just be themselves as well as those cute kitties we all go ga-ga over when browsing the net, etc. Ignoring the fact that the majority of domesticated animals have been human dependent for THOUSANDS of years and that symbiotic connection is part of their nature now days, there is also the fact that few of these animals could survive left to their own and to get back to the puppies and cats -- they will go back to be pack-animals and becoming quite vicious, disease spreading things.
To control the population of animals and thus, issues of sanitation, pestilence and general disease spread there must be a form of management. That would mean some form of population control. If we were to follow the delusional ideas of PETA and such groups we would be literally murdering these animals because we wouldn't be respecting them; they've just be killed and not used AS NATURE INTENDED. . . and if you doubt that fact go ask a cheetah whether he prefers his carrots baked or boiled.
If we hold to the No Pet/No Zoo angle these so-called Animal Rights people promote we would be abolishing the Spay & Neuter policies now extant. Do some basic math on that idea if you don't think there's a danger. . . While you're at it, consider how Zoos and private ownership have kept entire race groups of animals from going extinct in the past half-century alone; white tigers & lions along with the Panda being at the top of said list.
I'm all for protecting animals from any and all forms of abuse but as with all things, I believe people need to understand the issue from all sides before going to the extremes. In this case we must have both; animal protection as well as balance of use. A diet in which meats are nominal and vegetation high is proper if you were to look at historical and global standards. People ending up hospitalized as the result of poor nutrition via their attempt to be a vegetarian/vegan. . . it's much higher a rate than proponents of said life-style want to accept and is especially common amongst those with a stronger European lineage (especially northern Europe & Slavic lands) because they are not genetically predisposed to not having meat. I know this is a point pro-veggie types love to negate, but there seems to be a truth to it given that it is just such people that wind up having acute medical conditions when removing meat from their diets. Interestingly though, when they reduce red meat in favor of fish/seafood they not only tend thrive but come to know much greater longevity and in men, virility.
I could go much deeper into this, even admitting that I should be eating more weeds in my daily in-take (thank god for the V-8 blends!). The point is, the pacifist types that want to make this a global demand haven't thought it through, haven't looked at both the past course of where our ancestors brought things and thus, the obligations therein, nor have they taken an honest look at what will happen should we all go vegetarian. . . for example, nations filled with starving idiots because they won't eat the cows (or monkeys) that roam freely amongst them.
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
16 Dec 2012, 18:32
by Scepcop
Earthlings (2005) - This disturbing documentary film is guaranteed to turn anyone into a vegetarian! Using hidden cameras and never-before-seen footage, EARTHLINGS chronicles the day-to-day practices of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely entirely on animals for profit.
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
16 Dec 2012, 20:20
by NinjaPuppy
I make it a general rule to not watch anything that has to do with my food as it tends to take all the fun out of eating.
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
26 Jul 2013, 22:05
by Hank Freud
I've been eating vegetarian for 7 years and don't think it affects my body in any way. However, I must admit that not everyone would feel good while keeping this type of diet. Some people say it depends on your blood type, genetic peculiarities, health state, etc. I strongly recommend a test drive: if you want to switch to vegetarian or vegan diet, don't try to make it a lifetime commitment right off the bat. Test the water and see what's happening. Give it 2-3 months. If you feel good - go ahead and try to make it to 10 months, etc. If you experience dizziness, fatigue, or any other alarming symptoms, give up the idea - it's just not for you. There are lots of ways to eat healthy, you just need to find yours.
http://www.askwiki.net/How-to-Eat-Healthy
Re: Is it better to be a vegetarian?
Posted:
11 Apr 2014, 17:32
by Baldwin
Great thread and informative discussion by other members, like to say we must have nutritive meal plan formulated by physicians to lead healthy lifestyle and engage in regular physical activities to reduce the risk of major health disease.