Niño Vega;2972486 said:
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the natural argument
I won't even address the attempted "rape and war: meat-eater" analogy, suffice it to say I don't agree. Anyway, it's not an "argument", our genes were effectively shaped by the
two and a half million years during which our ancestors lived as hunter/gatherers prior to the introduction of agriculture twelve thousand years ago. This period, know as the Paleolithic era, constitutes
99.5% of human history. It's not an argument of position but just about as close to fact as provably possible save for the advent of time machines.
If anything, as a meat-eater I am an advocate for the most humane conditions of the animalsafter all, I eventually ingest themas well as the continued study of methods that could make such things obsolete the days when we can grow meats in a lab without the need for slaughter is approaching faster than many of us think.
As to the issues of ecology we need less people and corporate greed not less grassland for cows (and BTW, cow farts/poop? Really?
). I say keep the grazing lands, feed the stock their natural diet and start thinking about population control and better business practices/regulations; in that sense I'm somewhat glad people continue to eat themselves into an early grave.
Niño Vega;2972486 said:
And some words about the health thing some people brought up. It's funny that meat eaters suggest that a vegetarian or vegan diet is unhealthy when studies actually suggest the opposite (with a longer life, lower cancer and heart disease rate and so on). Yes, with a vegan diet, if you don't follow basic rules, it's easier to develop deficiencies (the cattle breeding industry is the largest buyer of dietary supplements by the way). But if you just mind your intake a little bit, it's much healthier. All essential amino acids are delivered in plants, and milk is actually very unhealthy and even divests minerals from the body.
CHO
drives Insulin
drives Obesity and Disease; meat, i.e.combinations of proteins and fats, do not. A diet of fats and proteins in the absence or limitation of carbs
the exact opposite of vegetarianismis perfectly healthy and safe. In fact, in the obese population it routinely leads to lower BP, higher HDL (the good cholesterol) numbers and larger LDL (the bad cholesterol) molecule size, preventing the LDL from causing athero/arteriosclerosis, the chief reason it's even thought of as the "bad" cholesterol. The driving down of insulin, combined with the increase of Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) like docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, also brings down inflammation, a known contributor to and exacerbator of diseases. Oh yea, it causes body-fat loss too.
Now don't misunderstand me, a diet with cruciferous vegetables can be a healthy one. But, that does not make a vegetarian diet "much healthier" as you claim; especially when those who practice it become more anti-meat than pro-vegetation in their food choices. As vegetarians try to do the whole food-combining thing in an attempt to make up for the essential nutrients they require (and could easily get from animal products), they can potentially end up with a diet that's a metabolic disaster: inadequate protein intake, incomplete amino-acid profiles, EFA imbalances and deficiencies, too much sugar, fructose and refined flour, too many obesity and disease causing carbs, possible hydrogenated vegetable oils, too many phytoestrogenic compounds from soy substitutes, etc. Basically, vegetarian diets that make-up and meet essential nutritional requirements yet also avoid cereal grains, dairy products, sugary beverages and alcohol, vegetable oils, dressings and fructose, etc.,
could be healthier than the average diet but that doesn't make it better than one that contains animal products.
Niño Vega;2972486 said:
The weak and malnourished argument is also invalid. At least I don't think Robert Cheeke, Mike Mahler, Alexander Dargatz, Bryan Danielson, Mac Danzig, Luke Cummo and so on (all vegans) actually suffer from undersize. Vegetarianism and veganism are even more common in the bodybuilding and martial arts scene.
First, comparing professional athletes to average people is not an accurate comparison by any means. Second, as someone who is actively a part of said communities it's not as "common" as you may think. Beyond that, for every athlete you name I could name as manyif not several times morewho are meat-eaters
so what's your point?
Just because you
can do something doesn't mean it's the most
optimal and efficient way to accomplish the task. To paraphrase Chris Rock
"Shit! You can drive a car with your feet if you want to; it don't mean it's a good fuckin' idea! " But yes, it's possible.
Bottom line: Eating the opposite of a vegetarian diet is healthy throws some greens in for variety and your set. It's also natural and part of who we are on a genetic level. We're also naturally greedy and it's that greed that causes our problems, not the eating of meat per se.