It is violence at it's height. I dread eating over roasted dead bodies. I do not mind sharing a table with meat eaters, but I think they haven't seen the slaughter that's carried out for impressing our taste buds.
No, it's not an act of violence to kill an eat animals. The killing part should ofcause be done as "humane" as possible.
Joined: May 10, 2005
Yep, this is the kind of emotive language I was referring to [sleep]
The perception towards vegeteriansm depends on the culture you grow up in. A typical person from china/korea/vietnam would have abused me for my post. Above comment reinforces my reason.
just wanted to know does vegetaranism exist in other countries
I pride upon the fact that India is the only country where vegeterianism is a custom. If you are a strict Indian veggie, never ever try to look at a typical menu of a country to your east or west. [ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Ramesh Choudhary ]
A handful of good soil has more organisms than there are people on the earth. I wonder how many of those organisms die with every step a person takes. Maybe some folks think that the lives of larger organisms have more value than the smaller organisms?
I've heard of folks called "fruitarian" - they eat only that which the plant has released - no plants are harmed. Of course, that fruit is viable life. If you leave it, it could sprout and become a new plant. So here the plant has spent its entire life to generate a few offspring and a fruitarian comes along and eats its babies. And how many animals did the fuitarian kill standing on that soil to pick up that fruit? I wonder if any animals were living on that fruit and also enjoying the fruit - that the fruitarian ate. Eaten alive. Death by stomach acid.
I seem to remember some evolutionary suggestion that humans are bug eating sea monkeys. We're designed for putzing around in shallow water. We have two eyes on the front of our head - just like other predators - to help us judge the distance to our prey.
Violence? I guess it is relative.
I think a better question involves how was what you eat raised? In rows. In monoculture? Basking in the glow of chemicals? Genetically modified?
The emotive language and gap in conversation I was referring to relates to comments which state or imply that non-vegetarian options are evil and that eating meat makes you so. I dislike arguing against comments like 'roasted dead bodies' because they are designed to promote an emotional reaction which detract from the arguments being made.
I have nothing against vegetarians as people or a choice and would support anyone who decides to practice that option. Anyone who wants to throw this in my face does not have my support. (no I'm not referring to anyone on this conversation). To be meaningful, any discussion would need to be civil and argue a point and be prepared to consider a side before presenting an opposing view, but in many situations this initial understanding is not possible. Hence the yawn: I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, and while I like having my say there isn't a lot point, is there?
I went and browsed the link above for PETA and it has reinforced my original feelings: I am against cruelty to animals and the creation of unnecessary suffering, but I do not support PETA. My reasons for having my original feelings are complicated, but their FAQ had the opposite effect intended. They use weak tools to push their point and it is a practice I would rather not promote. (What's that internet rule for using the 'H' word in a discussion?)
I think many of the questions put are answered here.
Thanks Venkatesh S
I have respect for vegetarians whose religion demands vegetarianism. I also have respect for people who choose vegetarianism for themselves. However, I have no respect whatsoever for PETA, and consider its philosophy to be evil.
I believe its German founder came up with the theory to ameliorate her embarassment over the atrocities committed by her grandparents' generation before and during WWII. With her philosophy, she can claim that her grandparents generation behaved no worse than any other western country in that era or earlier, because whatever her grandparents did to human beings other countries of the time did to food animals.
Anyhoo, it's late and I'm busy for the next few days so I doubt I'll be able to come back.
Just before I go I thought you might like an explaination of why I can't (or won't) be convinced: I just don't get it.
Not in any negative way, vegetarianism of any form is not something I have ever had any feeling for and while I accept it in others it is not something I feel connected to. My sister decided to spend a period as a vegeterian when we were younger and I didn't get it. When I encounter vegeterians and where it is possible without being rude, I like to ask their reasons for their choice. People do it for a variety of reasons, I don't feel the same way.
I hope you understand that my choice to eat meat is the default for me in the same way that being vegetarian may be the default for others. My inability to see the other point of view is not driven from any ill feeling, just a lack of connection to the issues as others see them.
So I finish with, no I do not believe it is an act of violence.
I have been a non-vegetarian all my life and I feel this discussion about veg v/s non-veg is a matter of eating preference or cultural influence. These discussions have been existing in India since ages and I still remember a story in a comic book of Amar Chitra Katha about a Spiritual aspirant who is sent to a spiritually advanced person by his Guru to learn about life. The aspirant is shocked to see that the person is a butcher by profession and the butcher then imparts him some wisdom about not judging people and not to assume too much about knowing life. That picture is very impressed in my mind (maybe because I like non-veg food and my conscience agreed with that). Of course, in arguments with my friends, I refer to them by a quote that I saw in a car bumper sticker "A vegetarian is a failed hunter".
Killing an animal is an act of violence. Cutting down a tree is an act of violence. Cutting wheat stalks is an act of violence. Plucking a fruit is an act of violence. Breaking a flower of it's stem is an act of violence. Hitting an innocend human being is an act of violence. Hitting a human being to stop him from harming an innocent human being is also an act of violence. Breaking a door is an act of violence. Breaking a door to get someone out of a burning building is also an act of violence
I've heard of folks called "fruitarian" - they eat only that which the plant has released - no plants are harmed. Of course, that fruit is viable life.
A fruit is not a viable life. A seed is. Actually, the whole purpose of a fruit is to let the seeds of the plant spread far. It is meant to be tasty and nutritious so that mobile animals would eat it and spread the seed. So being a fruitarian is probably the ideal diet. Though I am not sure if one can survive soley by eating fruits.
Joined: Dec 02, 2005
BTW, I am a vegan and I am a vegan by choice. Although my religious beliefs also prohibit meat but that has now become a secondary reason because of my experiments with meat.
Yes, on the face of it, meat seems to be very nutritious and everything but I have found out (only by experiments on myself, no scientific proof) that it is really a bad food. Your mouth stinks, your toilet stinks (I believe that both of these are symptoms of something rotten going on in your body), you are filled with guilt whenever you see/hear/read about ill treatment of animals (does not apply to some people).
Contrary to what non-vagans say, I found meat to be totally tasteless. In fact, all the taste that you get in a non-vegan dish is due to various spices (vegs). I mean, just try eating a raw cabbage, or a capsicum, or a carrot, or any veg stuff, it has a beautiful flavor of its own.
Most importantly, I feel lighter and more energetic when I eat veg. Another observation, which I am sure many will not accept, is that I feel more creative and my brain works faster on a veg diet. It also enhances a +ive and a satisfying feeling. I know there is no measure to these things. Try it out is all I can say.
I have another theory about non-veg diet. Why is cannibalism bad (a scientifically proven fact)? While you can find detailed technical reasons, I believe that the underlying concept is that in cannibalism, your food is genetically exactly the same as you, which causes problems. So I think, the more genetically apart you and your food is, the better. So I guess, eating fish is probably better than eating avians, which in turn is better than eating mammals. By this logic veg is the best food to eat. Again, just a theory.
OK, another theory: Our sense of smell is a highly advanced instrument that has evolved to differentiate betweeen good and bad food. Try smelling any raw veg and raw meat. I am not talking about rotten meat but normal meat. Meat stinks big time. What does that tell you?
BTW, it has been proven scientifically that human body is designed to digest veg as well as non-veg food. However, just because we can digest meat doesn't mean that we have to eat it if we know better.
one of the interesting ideas toward support of vegeterian diet is compassion towards fellow living organism.
Being human we morally belive that once a life comes in to this world, consciously killing it is inhumane, as supported by catholics and anti-abortion groups, and ofcourse by social laws against murder.
This brings up a question that should we extend this moral law to animals?
I had read that in some form of buddhism they have this middle ground where meat can only qualify for eating only if the animal was not killed intentionally.( Example: deer gets killed by your van ) The above idea extends its compassion to animals.
well all this have made me hungry for some spicy chicken, I guess I will go and have some
There has been some long serious debates about eating non-veg food. I wanted to know what you people think about it. Don't you think killing animals for food is an act of violence?
Thanks Venkatesh S
It is a criminal act. I don't know how killing and eating a animal is different from killing and eating a human being.
Take a chicken cut its head using a knife...wow that is so human...
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
I agree with what you say..I think there is a direct corelation between the food you eat and your thoughts and actions.... When you eat vegetarian food you are free of any guilty feeling..You dont get cheap thoughts...
Though I am not religious I firmly believe in the hindu philosophy of Karma.. You will definitely reap what you sow......
To be a vegetarian or a non vegetarian is a choice of individual. But being a vegetarian and criticize non-vegetarianism is not nice � and vise versa. Everybody has their own belief and way of living and all are right at their land.
Bottom line : If everyone eats their own potato chips, everything's gonna be alright. - Ernest Friedman-Hill at the age of 8.
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Chetan Parekh ]
My blood is tested +ve for Java.
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Thirukural,One of the greatest master piece on ethics in Tamil literature written 2000 years back states 'How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?
The meat-eater's desire for meat drives another to kill and provide that meat. The act of the butcher begins with the desire of the consumer. Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion. When the individual's consciousness lifts and expands, he will abhor violence and not be able to even digest the meat, fish, fowl and eggs he was formerly consuming. India's greatest saints have confirmed that one cannot eat meat and live a peaceful, harmonious life. Man's appetite for meat inflicts devastating harm on the earth itself, stripping its precious forests to make way for pastures.
vegetarian families have far fewer problems than those who are not vegetarian. If children are raised as vegetarians, every day they are exposed to nonviolence as a principle of peace and compassion. Every day they are growing up they are remembering and being reminded to not kill. They won't even kill another creature to eat, to feed themselves. And if they won't kill another creature to feed themselves, they will be much less likely to do acts of violence against people.
Hinduism advocates vegetarianism because of the below reasons 1) The DHARMIC/SCRIPTURAL LAW reason
Ahimsa, the law of non injury, is the Hindu's first duty in fulfillment of his religious obligations to God and God's creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
2) The KARMIC CONSEQUENCES reason
All of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
3) The SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS reason
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of butchered creatures. For these reasons, shakaharis live in higher consciousness and mansaharis abide in lower consciousness.
4) The HEALTH reason
Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is easier to digest, provides a wider range of nutrients and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body. Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills. Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer, more refined and skin more beautiful.
5) The ECOLOGICAL reason
Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient rain forests to create pasture lands for livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of meat in the human diet. No single decision that we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat. Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this decision for this reason and this reason alone
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Rambo Prasad ] [ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Rambo Prasad ]
I belive that whenever we make a choice we have a reason to make it.
It is not critisizing the people who eat non-veg. It is just asking them why did they make that choice? what drove them that way?
Thanks Venkatesh S [ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Venkatesh Sai ]
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
1. The Hunger Argument against meat-eating
Much of the world's massive hunger problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating. The reasons: 1) livestock pasture needs cut drastically into land which could otherwise be used to grow food; 2) vast quantities of food which could feed humans is fed to livestock raised to produce meat.
This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die as a result of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by a mere 10%.
Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S. is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed the hungry.
2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating
Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rain forests and species extinction.
The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.
Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished food production. Meat-eating is the number one driving force for the destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of U.S. forest land has been cleared for cropland to produce the meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rain forest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of rain forest beef. An alarming 75% of all U.S. topsoil has been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly related to livestock raising.
Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of tropical rain forests for meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.
To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat are imported annually from Central and South America. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pasture land. The short-term gain ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all Central American children under the age of five are undernourished.
3. The Cancer Argument against meat-eating
Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer than those following a vegetarian diet.
The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week; 2.8 times greater for women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week; and 3.25 greater for women who eat butter and cheese 2 to 4 times a week as compared to once a week.
The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week as compared with less than once a week.
The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily as compared with sparingly or not at all.
4. The Cholesterol Argument against meat-eating Here are facts showing that: 1) U.S. physicians are not sufficiently trained in the importance of the relation of diet to health; 2) meat-eaters ingest excessive amounts of cholesterol, making them dangerously susceptible to heart attacks.
It is strange, but true that U.S. physicians are as a rule ill-educated in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and nutrition. Of the 125 medical schools in the U.S., only 30 require their students to take a course in nutrition. The average nutrition training received by the average U.S. physician during four years in school is only 2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the U.S. are ill-equipped to advise their patients in minimizing foods, such as meat, that contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes of heart attack.
Heart attack is the most common cause of death in the U.S., killing one person every 45 seconds. The male meat-eater's risk of death from heart attack is 50%. The risk to men who eats no meat is 15%. Reducing one's consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10% reduces the risk of heart attack by 10%. Completely eliminating these products from one's diet reduces the risk of heart attack by 90%.
The average cholesterol consumption of a meat-centered diet is 210 milligrams per day. The chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol is 210 milligrams daily is greater than 50%.
5. The Natural Resources Argument against meat-eating
The world's natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a result of meat-eating.
Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S. is consumed in livestock production. The amount of water used in production of the average cow is sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship). While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds of wheat. If this water cost were not subsidized by the government, the cheapest hamburger meat would cost more than $35 per pound.
Meat-eating is devouring oil reserves at an alarming rate. It takes nearly 78 calories of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, etc.) energy to produce one calory of beef protein and only 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calory of soybean. If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the world's known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years. They would last 260 years if humans stopped eating meat altogether. That is 20 times longer, giving humanity ample time to develop alternative energy sources.
Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by the U.S. are devoted to the production of livestock, as compared with 2% to produce a complete vegetarian diet.
6. The Antibiotic Argument against meat-eating
Here are facts showing the dangers of eating meat because of the large amounts of antibiotics fed to livestock to control staphylococci (commonly called staph infections), which are becoming immune to these drugs at an alarming rate.
The animals that are being raised for meat in the United States are diseased. The livestock industry attempts to control this disease by feeding the animals antibiotics. Huge quantities of drugs go for this purpose. Of all antibiotics used in the U.S., 55% are fed to livestock.
But this is only partially effective because the bacteria that cause disease are becoming immune to the antibiotics. The percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin, for example, has grown from 13% in 1960 to 91% in 1988