Do you preach vegetarianism

[Moralgy]

It's not the amount of food it's the variety and quality of it. And conditions are irrelevant.

Conditions are very relevant due to once good quality food turning into bad quality pretty fast due to where each is able to store said food. You seemed to try and make the argument in that original post that meat eating is better due to rich people having better diets from eating more meat. I apologize if you were not making that, but it really read that way.

[obdigore]

Not on account of being vegetarian, necessarily. The average vegetarian, as a consequence of being vegetarian, just tends to be more conscious of their diet, and this results in going out of one's way to ensure variety, which a meat-eater might not care to do.

Do you have proof that vegetarians, on average, have a more diverse diet than omnivores? Where the hell is my citation needed button. My keyboard doesn't have F13. What the hell?

[PizzaSHARK]

So you are claiming that restricting yourself to a smaller group of potential food instead of all potential food somehow indicates you have a more diverse diet?

Are we talking about possible, or realistic? In general, people pursuing vegetarian or vegan diets will eat a larger variety of foods and will typically be healthier. This is probably because they aren't cramming themselves full of the garbage produced by fast food restaurants (or, at least, not nearly as often.)

I only have experience with this sort of thing in the US, though; it could be different in other countries. I do think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the average vegetarian or vegan in the US enjoys a healthier and more diverse diet than the average "omnivore."

- - - Updated - - -

Not on account of being vegetarian, necessarily. The average vegetarian, as a consequence of being vegetarian, just tends to be more conscious of their diet, and this results in going out of one's way to ensure variety (in the way of nutrients, and such), which a meat-eater might not care to do.

This might be a better way of stating it.

[obdigore]

Are we talking about possible, or realistic? In general, people pursuing vegetarian or vegan diets will eat a larger variety of foods and will typically be healthier. This is probably because they aren't cramming themselves full of the garbage produced by fast food restaurants (or, at least, not nearly as often.)

I only have experience with this sort of thing in the US, though; it could be different in other countries. I do think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the average vegetarian or vegan in the US enjoys a healthier and more diverse diet than the average "omnivore."

[citation needed]

[Falseprophet]

I absolutely DO NOT preach vegetarianism. I actually try and hide it because I think it's quite selfish to have others cater around something you chose. Also, another reason why I hide it is because I seem to get harped on about it. But all in all, everyone I know eats meat, doesn't bother me because it's not going down my throat.

[Elim Garak]

Remember what I said about shitting out both ends?

Yeah it's what you are doing.

Mock meat.

That will cause even more unnecessary suffering. Not only there would be no meat, but you will have to eat soy.

[Velaniz]

The variety of one's diet doesn't depend on whether they are vegetarian or meat eaters or all-eaters.

No, but it correlates differently (and exhibits different general patterns) with such variations.

[PizzaSHARK]

[citation needed]

Anecdotes are anecdotes, obviously.

[Elim Garak]

Conditions are very relevant due to once good quality food turning into bad quality pretty fast due to where each is able to store said food. You seemed to try and make the argument in that original post that meat eating is better due to rich people having better diets from eating more meat. I apologize if you were not making that, but it really read that way.

Conditions are irrelevant to my point.

[PizzaSHARK]

Yeah it's what you are doing.

You tell me that diversity of diet is irrelevant. You then proceed to, immediately afterwards, state that diversity of diet (along with quality, which I and others had mentioned previously) was the key factor.

[Velaniz]

Do you have proof that vegetarians, on average, have a more diverse diet than omnivores? Where the hell is my citation needed button. My keyboard doesn't have F13. What the hell?

There was that study a couple of years back where a vegetarians tended to have, on average, marginally longer lifespans (in the range of 4-6 years) than the average meat-eaters. While this wasn't attributed to their being vegetarianism itself, it was suggested that the correlation was due to the sample of people who were vegetarians were also generally more health-conscious, and also tended to avoid undesirable habits like smoking, while also generally caring more about their fitness.

I'll try and find the link.

Edit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhe...nger-lifespan/

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Rese...rs-finds-study

From a quick google search, though I think these are different studies.

[Elim Garak]

No, but it correlates differently (and exhibits different general patterns) with such variations.

That may be the case for vegetarians - because if you are eating just grass - you will want some variety. It's not as if they have more variety - they don't, they just more prone to go for it. Whereas meat-eaters just have a numerous ways to cook different kinds of meat. But since meat is delicious - most people just don't feel the need to seek much variety. But they have more variety. And some meat eaters go for it for the sake of it, while vegetarians are required to.

- - - Updated - - -

You tell me that diversity of diet is irrelevant. You then proceed to, immediately afterwards, state that diversity of diet (along with quality, which I and others had mentioned previously) was the key factor.

Ooooh, you got a full strawmen army. I never ever mentioned variety/diversity (i never ever used this word) and relevance in relations to each other

[Deleted]

That may be the case for vegetarians - because if you are eating just grass - you will want some variety.

Please grass

But since meat is delicious - most people just don't feel the need to seek much variety.

You have no idea of cooking.

[Jackmoves]

My girlfriend is a grass eater and (granted I might be biased and protective so my perspective might be skewd) it seems to be more common that people critize the choices of vegetarians and not the other way around. It pisses me off. Hehe

I dont see much of either happening though, she is fine with me eating meat and hunting (our evening meals are either vegetarian or fish/seafood). As a general principle I think people should mind their own business.

[PizzaSHARK]

Whereas meat-eaters just have a numerous ways to cook different kinds of meat.

Wait, when did how something is prepared enter into the equation?

[Elim Garak]

Wait, when did how something is prepared enter into the equation?

Since the invention of cooking. Different ways of cooking produce different results in terms of food. Both in taste and diet department.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Do you have a minute to talk about our lord sellery? What do you think this thread is? To accuse me of baiting is hillarious but not entirely unfounded.


You have no moral problem with the uncessary suffering of highly intelligent vertebrates?

I know for sure now that you are not bringing anything worthy of discussion that's for sure.

What kind of nonsense is this? Didn't I already write in this thread that I don't agree with letting animals suffer, especially when they are going to be killed for food production? I will not feel guilty for eating meat regardless, though. I wasn't the one who caused unnecessary pain to the animal, so the people responsible should be the ones who we should deal with, not everybody else.

[PizzaSHARK]

Ooooh, you got a full strawmen army. I never ever mentioned variety/diversity (i never ever used this word) and relevance in relations to each other

It's inferred. You're stating that access to meat results in a better diet... which in the context of this discussion about the diets of royalty versus peasantry (and in general), means a more varied or diverse diet.

Except "access to meat" can easily be linked to "access to wealth/power." That royalty ate better, no one is disputing. The point is that the royalty ate better because they had more money, more power, more resources than the peasants did. In the context of this discussion, who ate more meat is almost wholly irrelevant.

Hence why I said you're shitting out both ends.

- - - Updated - - -

Since the invention of cooking. Different ways of cooking produce different results in terms of food. Both in taste and diet department.

Yes, and there are numerous methods of cooking a wide variety of plants, fruits, and meat substitutes. What's your point, again?

[Jackmoves]

What kind of nonsense is this? Didn't I already write in this thread that I don't agree with letting animals suffer, especially when they are going to be killed for food production? I will not feel guilty for eating meat regardless, though. I wasn't the one who caused unnecessary pain to the animal, so the people responsible should be the ones who we should deal with, not everybody else.

Hunt for your own meat, that way you dont support industrial slaughter. The worst thing I know is people who critize hunters but are glad to stuff themselves with meat that comes from an industry that is far less humane then hunting. Not saying you are one of those btw, but there plenty of those types of hypocrites in the world. Makes me rofl everytime. Lol

[Frozen Death Knight]

1) Cool, but the person I was responding to was claiming the claims that killing animals for food when you don't need the meat is immoral is just wrong.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Of some reason it feels like you are making a statement that I never even said if I understood it correctly.