Vegetarians, Vegans...

Peanut

Well if someone's written a book then it must be true.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

But you still need to supplement with Vit B12, which is only available naturally from animal sources.

Alcohol is only obtained "synthetically" through fermentation also, but I don't see a lot of people worrying about that...

Sharkey 10

Could the meat eaters here go without meat for a year for a million dollars?
It think i know the answer most of you will give , phil ivey couldn't but with the amount of money they splash around it unsurprising.

http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/poker-pros-news/phil-ivey-loses-1-million-vegetarian-prop-bet-dwan/5118

Cookie_Monster

Peanut wrote: »

Alcohol is only obtained "synthetically" through fermentation also, but I don't see a lot of people worrying about that...

except fermentation is a natural process

Snakeblood

Guill wrote: »

On the assumption that the above is true i think that would confirm that humans are and need to be omnivores.

Well, it wouldn't if you can get B-12 from a supplement. That would remove the need.

Guill

Fermentation is a natural process.

Cookie_Monster

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't if you can get B-12 from a supplement. That would remove the need.

but that supplement will be animal based...
I've a container of vits here, no mention of being suitable for vegetarians / vegans, 100% of your daily B-12

bonerm

krudler wrote: »

I'm a member of PETA

People Eating Tasty Animals...

If I ever see you I'm going to throw a bucket of ketchup on your steak.

Peanut

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

except fermentation is a natural process

Ergo, non-animal B12 is a natural product, at least, as natural as beer.

PanchoVilla

bonerm wrote: »

Hi Guill.
I know they're git's, but just for future reference it's "vegetarian"

/grammar nazi

Hi bonerm.

It's "gits" not "git's".

thirtythirty

bonerm

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Hi bonerm.

It's "gits" not "git's".

Thanks. No, I'm no better. The word Vegitarians just jumped out at me.

Guill

bonerm wrote: »

Hi Guill.
I know they're git's, but just for future reference it's "vegetarian"

/grammar nazi

Now i'm an educated omnivore!

--Kaiser--

Peanut wrote: »

Alcohol is only obtained "synthetically" through fermentation also, but I don't see a lot of people worrying about that...

Alcohol isn't an essential part of the diet. If this is your standard of argument?

seamus

bonerm wrote: »

How is he? Lower animals generally don't voluntarily feed themselves to higher animals either, so why would man? Besides, the fact that humans can thrive in a world of bears, sharks, tigers (and hippo's!) only further confirms our position at the top of the chain.

My point here is that the food chain is a very basic illustration taught to children about how ultimately all of the energy that drives our bodies, comes from the sun.

It is not a set in stone biological process like, say evolution, because the very concept of a "chain" is far too simplistic to describe the complexity of these interactions. For example, pretty much all of the animals at the "top" of this chain are capable of eating eachother. And of being eaten by animals further down the chain.

Basing your moral viewpoint on the "food chain" is like basing your historical viewpoint on the bible. Good from a high level, but when you actually look at any of the details, the whole thing falls over.

itsallaboutheL

Nom Nom Nom Double XL bacon cheeseburger

Cholesterolarianism ftw

Peanut

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Alcohol isn't an essential part of the diet. If this is your standard of argument?

Lol. Nice deflection, but that wasn't the question - the claim was that it was only ("naturally") available from animal sources, which is clearly not true, especially considering that it's not even produced by the animals themselves.

Degsy

I beleive the word Vegetarian stems from an old Native American word meaning "lousy hunter".

Guill

Degsy wrote: »

I beleive the word Vegetarian stems from an old Native American word meaning "lousy hunter".

Excellent!

krudler

bonerm wrote: »

If I ever see you I'm going to throw a bucket of ketchup on your steak.

good! I drown stuff in ketchup as it is

--Kaiser--

Peanut wrote: »

Lol. Nice deflection, but that wasn't the question - the claim was that it was only ("naturally") available from animal sources, which is clearly not true, especially considering that it's not even produced by the animals themselves.

OK, it can also be obtained from bacteria if you happen to eat some animal faeces.

"Vitamin B12 is found in foods that come from animals, including fish and shellfish, meat (especially liver), poultry, eggs, milk, and milk products.[24] One half chicken breast provides some 0.3 µg (micrograms) per serving or 6.0% of one's daily value (DV); 85 grams (3 oz) of beef, 2.4 µg, or 40% of one's DV; one slice of liver 47.9 µg or 780% of DV; and 85 grams (3 oz) of molluscs 84.1 µg, or 1,400% of DV."

(There is no B12 in beer by the way)

bonerm

seamus wrote: »

My point here is that the food chain is a very basic illustration taught to children about how ultimately all of the energy that drives our bodies, comes from the sun.

It is not a set in stone biological process like, say evolution, because the very concept of a "chain" is far too simplistic to describe the complexity of these interactions. For example, pretty much all of the animals at the "top" of this chain are capable of eating eachother. And of being eaten by animals further down the chain.

Basing your moral viewpoint on the "food chain" is like basing your historical viewpoint on the bible. Good from a high level, but when you actually look at any of the details, the whole thing falls over.

Fair enough. I don't think anyone believes that there is a set of natural rules on what animals can/should eat what in order to keep a stable ecosystem. At best it's probably a simple guide to teach children about nature. If your issue eating of meat cannot be justified morally simply because "the food chain says so" then I would agree.

Peanut

You missed this bit -

Industrial production of B12 is through fermentation of selected microorganisms.

If you're arguing that historically the only source was animal products, then yeah sure, but that's not the case now.

I don't buy the argument that just because we HAD to do something in the past means we are still bound to that, seems rather restrictive in fact.

It reminds me of similar arguments being made against cooking food because we weren't "designed" to eat cooked food or something equivalently silly.

seamus

In my experience, you never come across a preachy vegetarian. I have never once encountered a vegetarian who has criticised or attacked someone else for eating meat (unless prompted). The stereotype of the crusty, crazy, preachy, feminist vegetarian screaming at anyone who eats meat, simply doesn't exist.

Preachy meat-eaters, now they're everywhere.

Guill

seamus wrote: »

In my experience, you never come across a preachy vegetarian. I have never once encountered a vegetarian who has criticised or attacked someone else for eating meat (unless prompted). The stereotype of the crusty, crazy, preachy, feminist vegetarian screaming at anyone who eats meat, simply doesn't exist.

Preachy meat-eaters, now they're everywhere.

I have!

An ignorant bitch who looked down her nose at eveyone who ate meat and refused to talk to them!
We invited her to many a party as she was a friends GF and we went out of her way to make her vegetarian food yet she would claim not to be hungry and leave after 30 or so mins cause she 'couldn't stomach' us eating meat!

Funny how she shut her face when her leather boots were pointed out to her.


Now that was the only one i have ever met like that but what an idiot.

--Kaiser--

Peanut wrote: »

If you're arguing that historically the only source was animal products, then yeah sure, but that's not the case now.

I don't buy the argument that just because we HAD to do something in the past means we are still bound to that, seems rather restrictive in fact.

It reminds me of similar arguments being made against cooking food because we weren't "designed" to eat cooked food or something equivalently silly.

My argument was that, historically, humans were omnivores. Whilst I'm not stating that an omnivorous diet is essential nowadays, I do believe that it is the healthiest.

I agree though, the raw food argument is both silly and wrong

seamus wrote: »

Preachy meat-eaters, now they're everywhere.

Guilty as charged

Duggy747

seamus wrote: »

Preachy meat-eaters, now they're everywhere.

Not really preachy, more so: "You don't like meat!?! Heh, you've no idea what you're missing out on"..........*chomps on succulent leg of lamb* :P

I've never met preachy vegetarians either and one of my sisters is one, but I've met plenty of "I'm a vegan, aren't I great??" types of fools.

As for Quorn, it's alright, I guess. But to convince me to use it as a subsitute for meat in a dinner is like telling a lesbian not to use a penis-shaped dildo :pac:

Novella

I don't particularly like the taste of meat. It's not that I'm crazy about animals or anything, 'cause I'm not. I just prefer quorn. Except for the rashers and sausages 'cause they're plain awful.

c_man

I have no problem with vegetarians, more meat for me!

Canis Lupus

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Nom Nom Nom Double XL bacon cheeseburger

Cholesterolarianism ftw

Easily the finest fastfood burger around.

jackiebaron

Insurgent wrote: »

Are you saying because the animal is smaller than you it's easier to digest

It's a fact. The molecular makeup of larger animal is harder to breakdown in the human metabolic system.