Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is vegetarianism healthy? Does it matter if it's healthy?
I feel the same way about it. In UK halal is very widespread, to the point that you can sometimes eat halal meat without even knowing it.
I read recently, on the BBC News website, that a study had contradicted the previous assumptions about Halal and Kosher, and concluded it could be more humane than the usual method of slaughter.
But as I'm a vegetarian (mostly), I'm glad to be able to dip out of this debate.
If you’re unhealthy without meat then eat it, by all means. Contrary to what many would have you believe, there are vegetarians who struggle tremendously with their health – this despite exhausting all avenues – and feel rotten because of their diet. It’s easy to condemn these people when you haven’t lived with their persistent health niggles. Suffering from chronic fatigue isn’t anybodies idea of fun and sometimes, just sometimes, the evil doctors get it right.
As for vegetarianism generally? Well, I think many people don't take the idea of vegetarianism seriously because many vegetarians are charlatans. By that I mean there are ample vegetarians who’re actively dishonest in promoting the myth of a healthier vegetarian diet, or they're simply ill educated. I say this for two reasons: (1) Because meat IS healthy and (2) I was a meat-eater for much of my life, and I know how the vegetarian propaganda turned me off at first.
No thinking person – certainly not with any considerable scientific knowledge – can say that the healthiest diet is void of all meat. Putting that argument forward is an ill-fated case of intellectual dishonesty. A vegetarian diet can be healthy, but healthier? Laughs. Vegetarians would be much better advised to focus on the ethics of eating meat. After all, very few meat eaters could deny that vegetarianism is more ethical.
The biggest problem for vegetarianism is that the ethical core of the diet has been hijacked by irrational extremists. Many of whom, I’m sorry to say, are almost exclusively female. They hide behind the guise or morality, or superior diet, but in actual fact only avoid meat because they find it 'icky'. What Richard Dawkins once referred to in a discussion with Peter Singer as "the yuk factor.” This is perhaps down to poor parenting, as said aversion to meat only seems prevalent in privileged, Western societies.
There are many differences between vegetarians that should be pointed out. There are ethical vegetarians and there are the rest. An ethical vegetarian – a person who avoids meat based on their morality – would quite happily eat a chicken burger if it meant saving another chicken from slaughter. The ethical vegetarian, in most cases, would surely enjoy this chicken burger. But the other vegetarian – a person who probably insists upon using buzzwords like 'flesh' and 'carcass', and conceivably volunteers for PETA – would squirm, perhaps to the extent of crying and being physically ill, while making an attempt to eat the delicious chicken burger.
You see, one is a rational person who doesn't eat meat because they believe in causing minimal harm, within reason. The other – the other is unreasonable and little more than a fussy-eater. I think it’s important to distinguish the two, because the cause of their vegetarianism is fundamentally dissimilar. Paradoxically many vegetarians aren’t ethical, at all. Still, they would like you to believe that they hold some moral high ground.
You could say, and it was once remarked, that I’m a “self-hating vegetarian.” When I was an avid meat-eater I didn’t like vegetarians, and as a vegetarian of 3 years I’m sorry to say that my opinion hasn’t changed one bit! Vegetarians I find are by in large illogical, and will lie to further the cause. Most have yet to appreciate that their white lies are nought but a hindrance to ‘the movement’.
It's good to be back on the forum. I hope you've all had a good start to the year!
many vegetarians who are not influenced by buddhism to become vegetarianism live healthyily and long living such as Theresa Koh who lived until the age of 113. According to sutra, majority of human is born with combination of several categories of thoughts either good, bad, not certain etc. And bad thoughts carries 26 as xompared to good thought of 11. Therefore it is easier to become bad than good as the old wise saying taught. being vegetarianism eliminates the condition of unkind seeds from developing and taking effect. For instance, planted papaya seed will never grow grape fruit. And if you would to plant durian seed but eliminated the xonditoning factors of sunlight, water by laying cement over it. it never bear fruits. is still up to you. love is the best medicine
IMO in the modern society farmers are in a sense made to grow faster, bigger and in more abundance. Thus enter chemicals, both in meat and vegetables. The only way to ensure what you eat is partly healthy at least is to grow it yourself. Captialism, greed and all sorts of ignorance have come together to create an inustry where eating food, even if it is packaged as being organic or healthy is not so (trust me I studied graphic design).
Mmmm. My mom used to send us to school with a few chunks of Fri-Chik and some cheese slices...best lunch ever.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@Sile I find that fascinating. Were you raised a vegetarian or did your parents give you the option to choose at one point? Also, if you don't mind my asking, what country are you from?
@SattvaPaul I don't know about halal meat. I worked at a middle eastern restaurant for a day and they told me that halal meant using a very sharp knife at the throat of the animal. I was told that they would do it from behind, so the animal couldn't see, and the cut was meant for the blood to drain quickly and easily. (It was the treatment of ME, not the animals that made me quit, lol) But you know... there is always free range.
I cant tell you anything about Halal meat except this...in Buddhist Thailand, virtually all butchers are Muslim. I suppose it is because of the Buddhist concept of right profession.
@Sile I find that fascinating. Were you raised a vegetarian or did your parents give you the option to choose at one point? Also, if you don't mind my asking, what country are you from?
I was raised vegetarian, although there was no family-based prohibition on trying meat. When MacDonald's came to Hong Kong in the 1970s I tried a hamburger. Pretty sad that as far as I know, that was my first meat experience. My family is from the States but with a long history in Asia.
Hong Kong is full of delectable vegetarian cuisine due to the Buddhist history--Chinese Buddhism started emphasizing vegetarianism sometime around 500 A.D.
Interesting new factoid to me today - all the Gelugpa Tibetan monasteries in India have now transitioned their mess halls to veggie fare.
Here's a neat article on the resurgence of vegetarianism in the Tibetan community:
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@Sile I find that fascinating. Were you raised a vegetarian or did your parents give you the option to choose at one point? Also, if you don't mind my asking, what country are you from?
I was raised vegetarian, although there was no family-based prohibition on trying meat. When MacDonald's came to Hong Kong in the 1970s I tried a hamburger. Pretty sad that as far as I know, that was my first meat experience. My family is from the States but with a long history in Asia.
Hong Kong is full of delectable vegetarian cuisine due to the Buddhist history--Chinese Buddhism started emphasizing vegetarianism sometime around 500 A.D.
Interesting new factoid to me today - all the Gelugpa Tibetan monasteries in India have now transitioned their mess halls to veggie fare.
Here's a neat article on the resurgence of vegetarianism in the Tibetan community:
@Sile Ah, fascinating! I had a friend from India who would always laugh at people who would claim that vegetarianism is totally unnatural and unhealthy. She said that a good portion of Indians are vegetarians as well. I think it's just the western countries that seem to freak out about it...
Well, I've been a vegetarian "off and on" for a little over five years now. I get cravings for meat, as I unfortunately find it very tasty.
If I have not eaten breakfast or lunch on any given day, I sometimes get a huge craving for meat towards night-time, and I feel very fatigued and deflated. It's like my body is telling me I need a quick shot of protein to make up for the day's lost meals. However, I believe that's actually because of my poor diet within vegetarianism . . . it seems sorta contradictory for an herbivore to drink a lot of soda and eat junk food for almost every meal. My reasoning for being a vegetarian is that I don't want to have a hand in the murder of something innocent, not because I want to be healthy.
My girlfriend is a vegan and she eats very healthy foods, and I've never heard her complain of getting meat cravings or being overtired. So in my case, I think the fatigue is just a matter of not eating healthy things.
Yes, it can be healthy. You have to know what to eat and maybe take a supplement or two, but I've been a healthy veg for 6 years now. I think it's worth it
One thing that has helped me is that I no longer view such a thing as a vegetarian. Rather there are individual choices. Each choice is in the present. I am saying it from the perspective of a habitual meat eater. Like they say in AA 'one day at a time'.. For me it's one choice at a time.
If you’re unhealthy without meat then eat it, by all means. Contrary to what many would have you believe, there are vegetarians who struggle tremendously with their health – this despite exhausting all avenues – and feel rotten because of their diet. It’s easy to condemn these people when you haven’t lived with their persistent health niggles. Suffering from chronic fatigue isn’t anybodies idea of fun and sometimes, just sometimes, the evil doctors get it right.
As for vegetarianism generally? Well, I think many people don't take the idea of vegetarianism seriously because many vegetarians are charlatans. By that I mean there are ample vegetarians who’re actively dishonest in promoting the myth of a healthier vegetarian diet, or they're simply ill educated. I say this for two reasons: (1) Because meat IS healthy and (2) I was a meat-eater for much of my life, and I know how the vegetarian propaganda turned me off at first.
No thinking person – certainly not with any considerable scientific knowledge – can say that the healthiest diet is void of all meat. Putting that argument forward is an ill-fated case of intellectual dishonesty. A vegetarian diet can be healthy, but healthier? Laughs. Vegetarians would be much better advised to focus on the ethics of eating meat. After all, very few meat eaters could deny that vegetarianism is more ethical.
The biggest problem for vegetarianism is that the ethical core of the diet has been hijacked by irrational extremists. Many of whom, I’m sorry to say, are almost exclusively female. They hide behind the guise or morality, or superior diet, but in actual fact only avoid meat because they find it 'icky'. What Richard Dawkins once referred to in a discussion with Peter Singer as "the yuk factor.” This is perhaps down to poor parenting, as said aversion to meat only seems prevalent in privileged, Western societies.
There are many differences between vegetarians that should be pointed out. There are ethical vegetarians and there are the rest. An ethical vegetarian – a person who avoids meat based on their morality – would quite happily eat a chicken burger if it meant saving another chicken from slaughter. The ethical vegetarian, in most cases, would surely enjoy this chicken burger. But the other vegetarian – a person who probably insists upon using buzzwords like 'flesh' and 'carcass', and conceivably volunteers for PETA – would squirm, perhaps to the extent of crying and being physically ill, while making an attempt to eat the delicious chicken burger.
You see, one is a rational person who doesn't eat meat because they believe in causing minimal harm, within reason. The other – the other is unreasonable and little more than a fussy-eater. I think it’s important to distinguish the two, because the cause of their vegetarianism is fundamentally dissimilar. Paradoxically many vegetarians aren’t ethical, at all. Still, they would like you to believe that they hold some moral high ground.
You could say, and it was once remarked, that I’m a “self-hating vegetarian.” When I was an avid meat-eater I didn’t like vegetarians, and as a vegetarian of 3 years I’m sorry to say that my opinion hasn’t changed one bit! Vegetarians I find are by in large illogical, and will lie to further the cause. Most have yet to appreciate that their white lies are nought but a hindrance to ‘the movement’.
It's good to be back on the forum. I hope you've all had a good start to the year!
Wow that is a lot of stereotyping going on there. I don't even know where to start. How bout this. I'm an ethical vegetarian and I would never happily eat ANY chicken burger for ANY reason.
Well they do say that the problem with stereotypes is that they're mostly true!
I'm not sure how you could be unhappy while eating the chicken burger, in turn saving the life of a live chicken. Why would that upset or displease you? The chicken you're eating is already dead, you couldn't possibly save it or bring it back to life, so you eat it to save the life of a chicken that you can effect. Why wouldn't this make you happy?
Oh no the attack of the militant self righteous vegetarians. I've been warned about you guys. By the way just had a big juicy steak with mashed potatoes and gravy. Very delicious to say the least...
You're in a Buddhist forum, so presumably have some understanding of compassion and "least-harm". I don't think it's militant to point out that treating animals as slaves and putting them through horrific suffering is wrong.
Does that juicy steak come from a factory farm?
As to the OP, I'm vegan because I know longer see our fellow sentient beings as food. Becoming vegan has made me more compassionate so can only assume it will help my Buddhist practice. As for those who claim it's inferior in a dietary context- certainly it can be, if you don't ensure a balanced diet. Two vegans can have vastly different diets, one nutritionally rich and one nutritionally void. It depends on the individual.
And nutritional yeast (not brewer's or baking yeast) is an excellent source of B12 as well as being very tasty.
Well they do say that the problem with stereotypes is that they're mostly true!
The problem with stereotypes is that they are based on anecdotal evidence. No thinking person – certainly not with any considerable scientific knowledge, forms conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.
I'm not sure how you could be unhappy while eating the chicken burger, in turn saving the life of a live chicken. Why would that upset or displease you? The chicken you're eating is already dead, you couldn't possibly save it or bring it back to life, so you eat it to save the life of a chicken that you can effect. Why wouldn't this make you happy?
Because I know this situation would not occur in actual reality.
The problem with stereotypes is that they are based on anecdotal evidence. No thinking person – certainly not with any considerable scientific knowledge, forms conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is not a prerequisite of stereotyping, far from it. Anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily bunk, either - It can be, but isn't necessarily.
When we do not have scientific study, experience and observation is a good fall-back. Much of Buddhism is anecdote, would you not agree?
Because I know this situation would not occur in actual reality.
Probably not, but it doesn't need to. I use the hypothetical situation to demonstrate there is divide and contrast within the vegetarianism community. To show that some vegetarians are reasonable, some are not. To show that many vegetarians - notably females - are without morality, despite bemoaning others for a perceived absence of it.
Maybe more importantly, I bring this up because I believe reason and humility will best further vegetarian ideals. I don't believe that lying or espousing a fervent us vs. the flesh-eaters attitude does anything, save for marginalising and deterring the 'flesh-eaters'. While my posts may seem counter-productive, understand that my intention is the same as yours.
I can't help but feel you're nitpicking my posts. Don't you agree that there's an abundance of irrational vegetarians? So many vegetarians engage in animal cruelty and refuse to feed their animals meat, so many vegetarians engage in child cruelty and refuse to give their children meat. This isn't something I'm making up, this is the truth.
There's an abundance of militant vegetarians who've abandoned reason, completely. An abundance of vegetarians who, rather than working to show the benefits and goodness of vegetarianism, would rather condemn and belittle the uninitiated from their holographic ivory towers.
This is a passionate subject but we need to be reasonable and good mannered. While many vegetarians might think lying to 'convert' people is justifiable, I'm not of the same opinion. People want the truth, most importantly they want to be respected and treated with maturity. Lying to them and treating them as unevolved heathens isn't good for anybody.
When we do not have scientific study, experience and observation is a good fall-back.
And to take that very small sample set and then extrapolate to an entire population is not very reasonable.
I can't help but feel you're nitpicking my posts. Don't you agree that there's an abundance of irrational vegetarians?
No I don't agree with that because I have been vegetarian for almost 20 years and the majority of vegetarians that I have met are quite rational. To say that most aren't is simply inaccurate, IMO.
This is a passionate subject but we need to be reasonable and good mannered. While many vegetarians might think lying to 'convert' people is justifiable
Yes, there are people that do that. However, to say that those people are the majority or to say that most vegetarians do that, is inaccurate IMO. I am picking apart your post because you are saying "most vegetarians are like this", when that simply isn't true. Perhaps it is true with the ones you have met, but that does not represent the entire population of vegetarians.
Then a simple disagreement would suffice, surely? As it stands you seem to be committing the same fallacies that you're accusing me of. Your view that my view is inaccurate is no more scientifically or objectively valid than the view you're objecting to in the first place.
I believe most vegetarians lie or extend the truth about their diet to further the cause, you do not. You believe most vegetarians are rational, I do not. This isn't because one of us is being more fallacious than the other, it's because we clearly have different opinions on what constitutes rationality and what constitutes truth.
Then a simple disagreement would suffice, surely? As it stands you seem to be committing the same fallacies that you're accusing me of. Your view that my view is inaccurate is no more scientifically or objectively valid than the view you're objecting to in the first place.
I believe most vegetarians lie or extend the truth about their diet to further the cause, you do not. You believe most vegetarians are rational, I do not. This isn't because one of us is being more fallacious than the other, it's because we clearly have different opinions on what constitutes rationality and what constitutes truth.
I believe you can not reasonably say "most vegetarians are like (insert whatever here)" at all. It's really no different than saying "Most black people are like this" Or "most Jews are like this". That is not a very reasonable approach in any situation. Especially if one is concerned about being rational. Doing that is irrational. Stereotyping, is itself, irrational.
I believe you can not reasonably say "most vegetarians are like (insert whatever here)" at all. It's really no different than saying "Most black people are like this" Or "most Jews are like this". That is not a very reasonable approach in any situation. Especially if one is concerned about being rational. Doing that is irrational. Stereotyping, is itself, irrational.
Of course I can, and I did. There is nothing irrational in highlighting trends or commonality within a group - unless the observation is objectively wrong, or being put to a specific individual.
Stereotypes are only deemed objectionable when believed to be incorrect or negative. If I said that most vegetarians were healthy and ethical, I doubt there would be any objection from yourself. We aren't having this debate because you're opposed to generalisations or group-assessments, we're having this discussion because you disagree with my conclusions. If you believed my generalisations to be a positive you wouldn't be splitting hairs as you are, I don't think.
You're within your rights to believe or tell me that I'm wrong in my views. But I think to say my views are invalid because they're generalisations is incorrect. Either my generalisations are wrong or my generalisations are right, but there's a general truth either way.
Sure you can, but you are using an irrational method to accuse people of being irrational, while at the same time being irrational yourself. Sounds irrational if you ask me.
"There is nothing irrational in highlighting trends or commonality within a group"
There is when you use an extremely small sample set.
If there are 6-8 million vegetarians in the US alone, how can you reasonably say that most of them are irrational? You simply can't...
"and you saying vegetarians are not x rational?
I haven't said anything about "most vegetarians" are anything. I have spoken about the ones I have met and said most that I have met are not irrational. So no, I don't believe that most are because I have no evidence that most are. The evidence that "most vegetarians are irrational" does not exist.
I have said that to try and ascribe that very small sample set (people who you have met or come in contact with) to millions and millions of people, is where the irrationality comes in. You can not reasonably say that millions and millions of people are "like this" based on your personal experiences with a very slim percentage of them. Now, if you had personal contact with 4 million vegetarian people, then it would be different. But you haven't had that.
...There is nothing irrational in highlighting trends or commonality within a group - unless the observation is objectively wrong, or being put to a specific individual.
Stereotypes are only deemed objectionable when believed to be incorrect or negative. If I said that most vegetarians were healthy and ethical, I doubt there would be any objection from yourself. We aren't having this debate because you're opposed to generalisations or group-assessments, we're having this discussion because you disagree with my conclusions. If you believed my generalisations to be a positive you wouldn't be splitting hairs as you are, I don't think.
You're within your rights to believe or tell me that I'm wrong in my views. But I think to say my views are invalid because they're generalisations is incorrect. Either my generalisations are wrong or my generalisations are right, but there's a general truth either way.
I have to agree with Cosmic Gypsy here. There are rational stereotypes and irrational stereotypes. And, one must agree that you cannot assume that stereotypes are always correct.
Serious vegetarians are generally more healthy than the average person.
Western Buddhists are generally more open-minded about religion than fundamentalist Christians.
If I'm in upcountry Thailand and I meet a Thai person, he or she will probably not speak English and will probably not have gone to college.
Republicans are generally more conservative than Democrats.
Asian mothers are more likely to attend parent conferences than Asian fathers.
In a difficult parent conference, Middle Eastern fathers are more likely to be aggressive than most parents.
Those statements are all statements I have found to be true, far more often than not. They are stereotypes. They are not always true, and I know I need to be open-minded about such situations.
Yes vinlyn, that is what I was trying to say. There's nothing inherently right or wrong in stereotyping or generalising. It's only wrong if it is wrong(ie if the generalisation is incorrect, generally) or if you apply a generalisation(even if correct) to a specific individual.
Stereotyping in itself is reasonable, within reason - whether I'm being reasonable is up for debate
And yet, you suggest that most vegetarians are rational. I still fail to see the difference between my position and yours?
I suggest that the people I have met are not, nothing more. Like I said before, I make no assumptions about millions of millions of people with no reliable evidence. To think you can accurately describe 4-5 million people based on your personal interactions with a very small minority, is itself, irrational and certainly not reasonable. Which is interesting coming from someone accusing 5 million other people of being irrational...That makes no sense whatsoever.
And yet, you suggest that most vegetarians are rational. I still fail to see the difference between my position and yours?
I suggest that the people I have met are not, nothing more. Like I said before, I make no assumptions about millions of millions of people with no reliable evidence. To think you can accurately describe 4-5 million people based on your personal interactions with a very small minority, is itself, irrational and certainly not reasonable. Which is interesting coming from someone accusing 5 million other people of being irrational...That makes no sense whatsoever.
I see your point, but I think it is overstated. Psychologists see classification as one of the rather basic human tendencies.
And yet, you suggest that most vegetarians are rational. I still fail to see the difference between my position and yours?
I suggest that the people I have met are not, nothing more. Like I said before, I make no assumptions about millions of millions of people with no reliable evidence. To think you can accurately describe 4-5 million people based on your personal interactions with a very small minority, is itself, irrational and certainly not reasonable. Which is interesting coming from someone accusing 5 million other people of being irrational...That makes no sense whatsoever.
I see your point, but I think it is overstated. Psychologists see classification as one of the rather basic human tendencies.
Psychologist also have empirical data and scientific studies to back up their assumptions. In other words, the don't go by anecdotal evidence.
Psychologist also have empirical data and scientific studies to back up their assumptions. In other words, the don't go by anecdotal evidence.
You're half right. Have you ever read a psychological report on someone? I have because I sometimes had to review that type of record for troubled students in my school...not to mention a very occasional reading of a psych report on a teacher. It's all anecdotal, and usually followed up by a summary comparing it to stereotypical profiles.
Psychologist also have empirical data and scientific studies to back up their assumptions. In other words, the don't go by anecdotal evidence.
You're half right. Have you ever read a psychological report on someone? I have because I sometimes had to review that type of record for troubled students in my school...not to mention a very occasional reading of a psych report on a teacher. It's all anecdotal, and usually followed up by a summary comparing it to stereotypical profiles.
Yes, but then they don't just randomly then apply that to 5 million other people without ever having seen or heard or met them or studied them. They certainly don't go around saying "I know of a lot of people like this, therefore most people are like this"
Psychologist also have empirical data and scientific studies to back up their assumptions. In other words, the don't go by anecdotal evidence.
You're half right. Have you ever read a psychological report on someone? I have because I sometimes had to review that type of record for troubled students in my school...not to mention a very occasional reading of a psych report on a teacher. It's all anecdotal, and usually followed up by a summary comparing it to stereotypical profiles.
Yes, but then they don't just randomly then apply that to 5 million other people without ever having seen or heard or met them or studied them. They certainly don't go around saying "I know of a lot of people like this, therefore most people are like this"
Seeker, fine. If choose to look at it that way, fine.
I haven't read all of this thread, so this may have already been said, but I would consider trying lacto-ovo vegetarianism for a little while and see how you feel. There are studies that indicate that animal protein is good for you (especially for trying to gain muscle), but there is very little evidence that indicates that a well balanced diet with meat is healthier than a well balanced diet without meat. Also, seeing a nutritionist couldn't hurt.
Make sure to get enough sleep, and taking a daily vitamin couldn't hurt. The Nature Made multi-vitamins (the non-gel capsule ones) are free from gelatin and have adequate iron, B12, and other good stuff. Also, if you have local farmers nearby, see if you could possibly buy milk and/or eggs directly from them after seeing how their animals are treated. Labels on products like "cage free" and "organic" can be misleading, but there's usually some data online about the ethics of each company.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I love meat but the protein content gives me horrible cramp. I don't get that as much with other protein-packed products, but some.... I also have a blood condition known as thalassaemia minor, and have been advised by more than one nutritionist that meat protein helps this condition and counteracts its anaemic effect. Time and again, I have said this on forums, and vegetarian purists have always cried 'nonsense!' and tell me the fully-trained, qualified and experienced nutritionists are quite wrong, and I can get all i need from vegetative food. Their insistence can occasionally prove hurtful not to say insulting....
so I'm damned (by my own body) if I do, and damned (by my own body) if I don't.....
I love meat but the protein content gives me horrible cramp. I don't get that as much with other protein-packed products, but some.... I also have a blood condition known as thalassaemia minor, and have been advised by more than one nutritionist that meat protein helps this condition and counteracts its anaemic effect. Time and again, I have said this on forums, and vegetarian purists have always cried 'nonsense!' and tell me the fully-trained, qualified and experienced nutritionists are quite wrong, and I can get all i need from vegetative food. Their insistence can occasionally prove hurtful not to say insulting....
so I'm damned (by my own body) if I do, and damned (by my own body) if I don't.....
I understand what you're saying. I have a great difficulty digesting many veggies. So I have to be very selective. No lettuce, cabbage, celery, corn, and a few others. No citrus fruits. I'd have a great deal of trouble being a vegetarian.
Comments
But as I'm a vegetarian (mostly), I'm glad to be able to dip out of this debate.
While I'm struggling with my meat addiction, perhaps I can cause less suffering by buying halal if that is preferable.
As for vegetarianism generally? Well, I think many people don't take the idea of vegetarianism seriously because many vegetarians are charlatans. By that I mean there are ample vegetarians who’re actively dishonest in promoting the myth of a healthier vegetarian diet, or they're simply ill educated. I say this for two reasons: (1) Because meat IS healthy and (2) I was a meat-eater for much of my life, and I know how the vegetarian propaganda turned me off at first.
No thinking person – certainly not with any considerable scientific knowledge – can say that the healthiest diet is void of all meat. Putting that argument forward is an ill-fated case of intellectual dishonesty. A vegetarian diet can be healthy, but healthier? Laughs. Vegetarians would be much better advised to focus on the ethics of eating meat. After all, very few meat eaters could deny that vegetarianism is more ethical.
The biggest problem for vegetarianism is that the ethical core of the diet has been hijacked by irrational extremists. Many of whom, I’m sorry to say, are almost exclusively female. They hide behind the guise or morality, or superior diet, but in actual fact only avoid meat because they find it 'icky'. What Richard Dawkins once referred to in a discussion with Peter Singer as "the yuk factor.” This is perhaps down to poor parenting, as said aversion to meat only seems prevalent in privileged, Western societies.
There are many differences between vegetarians that should be pointed out. There are ethical vegetarians and there are the rest. An ethical vegetarian – a person who avoids meat based on their morality – would quite happily eat a chicken burger if it meant saving another chicken from slaughter. The ethical vegetarian, in most cases, would surely enjoy this chicken burger. But the other vegetarian – a person who probably insists upon using buzzwords like 'flesh' and 'carcass', and conceivably volunteers for PETA – would squirm, perhaps to the extent of crying and being physically ill, while making an attempt to eat the delicious chicken burger.
You see, one is a rational person who doesn't eat meat because they believe in causing minimal harm, within reason. The other – the other is unreasonable and little more than a fussy-eater. I think it’s important to distinguish the two, because the cause of their vegetarianism is fundamentally dissimilar. Paradoxically many vegetarians aren’t ethical, at all. Still, they would like you to believe that they hold some moral high ground.
You could say, and it was once remarked, that I’m a “self-hating vegetarian.” When I was an avid meat-eater I didn’t like vegetarians, and as a vegetarian of 3 years I’m sorry to say that my opinion hasn’t changed one bit! Vegetarians I find are by in large illogical, and will lie to further the cause. Most have yet to appreciate that their white lies are nought but a hindrance to ‘the movement’.
It's good to be back on the forum. I hope you've all had a good start to the year!
There's a great book out called "Tomatoland: How Industrial Farming Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit."
Link to article here: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137371975/how-industrial-farming-destroyed-the-tasty-tomato
This was 15+ years ago, and I'm really healthy right now. Much healthy that when I was consuming meat.
Blessings.
Mmmm. My mom used to send us to school with a few chunks of Fri-Chik and some cheese slices...best lunch ever.
@SattvaPaul I don't know about halal meat. I worked at a middle eastern restaurant for a day and they told me that halal meant using a very sharp knife at the throat of the animal. I was told that they would do it from behind, so the animal couldn't see, and the cut was meant for the blood to drain quickly and easily. (It was the treatment of ME, not the animals that made me quit, lol)
But you know... there is always free range.
Hong Kong is full of delectable vegetarian cuisine due to the Buddhist history--Chinese Buddhism started emphasizing vegetarianism sometime around 500 A.D.
Interesting new factoid to me today - all the Gelugpa Tibetan monasteries in India have now transitioned their mess halls to veggie fare.
Here's a neat article on the resurgence of vegetarianism in the Tibetan community:
http://www.godsdirectcontact.org/eng/news/160/vg6.htm
If I have not eaten breakfast or lunch on any given day, I sometimes get a huge craving for meat towards night-time, and I feel very fatigued and deflated. It's like my body is telling me I need a quick shot of protein to make up for the day's lost meals. However, I believe that's actually because of my poor diet within vegetarianism . . . it seems sorta contradictory for an herbivore to drink a lot of soda and eat junk food for almost every meal. My reasoning for being a vegetarian is that I don't want to have a hand in the murder of something innocent, not because I want to be healthy.
My girlfriend is a vegan and she eats very healthy foods, and I've never heard her complain of getting meat cravings or being overtired. So in my case, I think the fatigue is just a matter of not eating healthy things.
I'm not sure how you could be unhappy while eating the chicken burger, in turn saving the life of a live chicken. Why would that upset or displease you? The chicken you're eating is already dead, you couldn't possibly save it or bring it back to life, so you eat it to save the life of a chicken that you can effect. Why wouldn't this make you happy?
Does that juicy steak come from a factory farm?
As to the OP, I'm vegan because I know longer see our fellow sentient beings as food. Becoming vegan has made me more compassionate so can only assume it will help my Buddhist practice. As for those who claim it's inferior in a dietary context- certainly it can be, if you don't ensure a balanced diet. Two vegans can have vastly different diets, one nutritionally rich and one nutritionally void. It depends on the individual.
And nutritional yeast (not brewer's or baking yeast) is an excellent source of B12 as well as being very tasty.
When we do not have scientific study, experience and observation is a good fall-back. Much of Buddhism is anecdote, would you not agree? Probably not, but it doesn't need to. I use the hypothetical situation to demonstrate there is divide and contrast within the vegetarianism community. To show that some vegetarians are reasonable, some are not. To show that many vegetarians - notably females - are without morality, despite bemoaning others for a perceived absence of it.
Maybe more importantly, I bring this up because I believe reason and humility will best further vegetarian ideals. I don't believe that lying or espousing a fervent us vs. the flesh-eaters attitude does anything, save for marginalising and deterring the 'flesh-eaters'. While my posts may seem counter-productive, understand that my intention is the same as yours.
I can't help but feel you're nitpicking my posts. Don't you agree that there's an abundance of irrational vegetarians? So many vegetarians engage in animal cruelty and refuse to feed their animals meat, so many vegetarians engage in child cruelty and refuse to give their children meat. This isn't something I'm making up, this is the truth.
There's an abundance of militant vegetarians who've abandoned reason, completely. An abundance of vegetarians who, rather than working to show the benefits and goodness of vegetarianism, would rather condemn and belittle the uninitiated from their holographic ivory towers.
This is a passionate subject but we need to be reasonable and good mannered. While many vegetarians might think lying to 'convert' people is justifiable, I'm not of the same opinion. People want the truth, most importantly they want to be respected and treated with maturity. Lying to them and treating them as unevolved heathens isn't good for anybody.
I believe most vegetarians lie or extend the truth about their diet to further the cause, you do not. You believe most vegetarians are rational, I do not. This isn't because one of us is being more fallacious than the other, it's because we clearly have different opinions on what constitutes rationality and what constitutes truth.
I believe you can not reasonably say "most vegetarians are like (insert whatever here)" at all. It's really no different than saying "Most black people are like this" Or "most Jews are like this". That is not a very reasonable approach in any situation. Especially if one is concerned about being rational. Doing that is irrational. Stereotyping, is itself, irrational.
Stereotypes are only deemed objectionable when believed to be incorrect or negative. If I said that most vegetarians were healthy and ethical, I doubt there would be any objection from yourself. We aren't having this debate because you're opposed to generalisations or group-assessments, we're having this discussion because you disagree with my conclusions. If you believed my generalisations to be a positive you wouldn't be splitting hairs as you are, I don't think.
You're within your rights to believe or tell me that I'm wrong in my views. But I think to say my views are invalid because they're generalisations is incorrect. Either my generalisations are wrong or my generalisations are right, but there's a general truth either way.
It's irrational only because you disagree with the conclusion, not the method or the generalisation.
I have said that to try and ascribe that very small sample set (people who you have met or come in contact with) to millions and millions of people, is where the irrationality comes in. You can not reasonably say that millions and millions of people are "like this" based on your personal experiences with a very slim percentage of them. Now, if you had personal contact with 4 million vegetarian people, then it would be different. But you haven't had that.
Serious vegetarians are generally more healthy than the average person.
Western Buddhists are generally more open-minded about religion than fundamentalist Christians.
If I'm in upcountry Thailand and I meet a Thai person, he or she will probably not speak English and will probably not have gone to college.
Republicans are generally more conservative than Democrats.
Asian mothers are more likely to attend parent conferences than Asian fathers.
In a difficult parent conference, Middle Eastern fathers are more likely to be aggressive than most parents.
Those statements are all statements I have found to be true, far more often than not. They are stereotypes. They are not always true, and I know I need to be open-minded about such situations.
Stereotyping in itself is reasonable, within reason - whether I'm being reasonable is up for debate
Make sure to get enough sleep, and taking a daily vitamin couldn't hurt. The Nature Made multi-vitamins (the non-gel capsule ones) are free from gelatin and have adequate iron, B12, and other good stuff. Also, if you have local farmers nearby, see if you could possibly buy milk and/or eggs directly from them after seeing how their animals are treated. Labels on products like "cage free" and "organic" can be misleading, but there's usually some data online about the ethics of each company.
I don't get that as much with other protein-packed products, but some....
I also have a blood condition known as thalassaemia minor, and have been advised by more than one nutritionist that meat protein helps this condition and counteracts its anaemic effect.
Time and again, I have said this on forums, and vegetarian purists have always cried 'nonsense!' and tell me the fully-trained, qualified and experienced nutritionists are quite wrong, and I can get all i need from vegetative food.
Their insistence can occasionally prove hurtful not to say insulting....
so I'm damned (by my own body) if I do, and damned (by my own body) if I don't.....
So I just think in getting better for put my hand (or teeth) in this:
http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp6698694.jpg
PD: Is vegetarian BTW