<p>Not quite, Mavin. I know many self-proclaimed vegetarians who eat cold-blooded fish (with the oft overlooked exception of tuna). I doubt that statistic has been found. I’d like to see that, along with a survey of quasivegos like myself.</p>
<p>harri and nom, don’t you understand? ANY piece of information that we offer them, no matter how valid, is going to be fully rejected by them. Even if God himself were to proclaim that vegetarianism was better than eating meat, a few people would nonchalantly dismiss his claims by saying “Oh, that wasn’t God” or “God is propaganda” lol… something to that effect. </p>
<p>And now, even though I don’t really know why I’m still making an effort to explain my views, I’ll respond to Mavin’s post:
First of all, I never said that salmonella is “such a big problem”. If it were, only fools would still be eating chicken. My argument was in fact that over 20% of all broiler chickens were contaminated with salmonella (although I really wouldn’t be surprised if you rejected that official rate as well). That is my argument. But then we can also start doubting whether salmonella exists at all. However, you must remember that there’s also E. coli, mad cow disease, etc. (wow, is this gonna provoke a reaction)</p>
<p>As for PETA, of course they’re biased and extreme. Does that reduce the validity of their claims, though? Let’s say someone has seen a murder take place and they proceed to shout and yell about seeing it happen, waking up the whole neighborhood in the process. This person might not have had the right approach, but it doesn’t mean that they didn’t see the murder taking place. PETA can have the wrong approach sometimes, I agree with you on that, but there is absolutely no indication that what PETA claims is false. If you can find me evidence that PETA lies and makes up stories and facts that they assert on their website, then that’s a different story.
Besides, a major meat processing corporation profits from the facts that they assert. Why would they go on about how meat is bad for their potential buyers health, when their profits depend directly on whether potential buyer is going to buy their meat or not? PETA’s only gain is the prevention of animal abuse and subsequently meat eating-it’s an NPO…</p>
<p>As for the ‘chicken is unhealthy’ bit, the mere fact that something is diseased makes it unhealthy. But if you want further ‘factual basis’, then I hope you know that ±1000 people die each year in the US from salmonellosis. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised, Mavin, if you rejected the possiblitiy of that being true either. </p>
<p>As for the labelling issue, that’s a whole other topic for debate. Why do I label myself Christian or Jewish? Why do I say I’m gay or straight? I’ll tell you why I do it: because it’s my identity. Being a vegetarian is my identity. However, your not eating seafood isn’t your identity. It’s fairly irrelevant in relation to who you are. Not to mention that you don’t eat seafood because you don’t like it… and I don’t eat meat for other reasons. Why would you complain about the inhumane conditions of fish (even though fish has little to do with seafood) when you don’t eat seafood for that reason?</p>
<p>If you like debating, that’s swell. Really is. I, myself, like to debate certain topics if I feel strongly about them. However, Mavin, I hope you don’t debate controversial topics just for the sake of debating them -because you like seeing how people react when you give arguments completely opposite to theirs. Because that would just be immature.
Besides, I really don’t see that you’re “increasing your own knowledge and shaping your own point of view.” All I see is you rearranging your prejudices by rejecting every single piece of information that we’ve given you. But, even if you refused to increase your own knowledge on this board and did it privately, that would still be awesome.</p>
<p>Just on the dog point - last time I checked, dogs are omnivores. If you want a vegetarian dog, your dog will be able to subsist on a vegetarian diet happily and healthily (not that I’m advocating vegetarianism for pets). A cat, on the other hand, is an obligate carnivore, and their dentition, and dietary requirements, are different from those of both dogs and humans.</p>
<p>Bravo, crimson4me! Except for one point. . . the risk of contracting bovine spongiform encephalitis, “Mad Cow.” It’s low. Very low. But incurable with current medicine. I haven’t found a reason to explain my not eating red meat to people. Mad Cow just doesn’t fly as an excuse.</p>
<p>i am a fegetarian - a vegetarian for february. i did it this year for the entire february and it was a very interesting experiment. i plan on doing it next year as well</p>
<p>Why don’t you guys just let everyone have their own views? It used to bother me when I was a vegetarian when people would try to convince me I was an idiot for doing so, but it’s just as annoying now that I’m not to have vegetarians try to convince me that I’m an idiot for eating meat.</p>
<p>no one is trying to convince you anything filmxoxo17. sorry if you got the wrong impression</p>
<p>hey crimson! empty your pm box will ya. I can’t answer your last one till you do.</p>
<p>crimson4me:</p>
<p>Did I say ONE piece of information in that last article linked was not valid? No, and you know why? Because there is a difference between linking something from PETA and linking something from a legitimate source, like the one harri linked. So don’t try putting words in my mouth. Thanks.</p>
<p>“My argument was in fact that over 20% of all broiler chickens were contaminated with salmonella”</p>
<p>So what? I don’t care if 100% are contaminated with salmonella. If no one is getting sick it DOES. NOT. MATTER.</p>
<p>“Besides, a major meat processing corporation profits from the facts that they assert. Why would they go on about how meat is bad for their potential buyers health, when their profits depend directly on whether potential buyer is going to buy their meat or not? PETA’s only gain is the prevention of animal abuse and subsequently meat eating-it’s an NPO…”</p>
<p>Oh boy, don’t be so naive. PETA, like many other rights organizations, receives tons of money in donations. The more exposure they get and the more extreme they are, the more PETA will receive in donations, which they can then use as they please. So yes, there is a direct profit motive for PETA. And even if there weren’t (which there certainly is), based on how extreme PETA is, there is no reason to think that they wouldn’t lie to perpetuate their agenda. PETA activists obviously feel very strongly about what they support. They have just as good a reason to lie, in order that they might reach their goals, as meat manufacturers have a reason to stretch scientific data in order to reach their own goals (i.e. profit). So again, if you take PETA’s claims as fact, you have to take the claims of meat manufacturers as fact too. It works both ways.</p>
<p>“As for the ‘chicken is unhealthy’ bit, the mere fact that something is diseased makes it unhealthy. But if you want further ‘factual basis’, then I hope you know that ±1000 people die each year in the US from salmonellosis. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised, Mavin, if you rejected the possiblitiy of that being true either.”</p>
<p>1000+ people eh? Take a look at this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pub/publications/2004/dubois_2004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pub/publications/2004/dubois_2004.pdf</a></p>
<p>Its from the CDC, a government agency, so yes, it is a reputable source. </p>
<p>Now according to that, there is something like 600 deaths from salmonella per year. Considering there are nearly 296 million people in the US, the vast majority of whom consume chicken on a very regular basis, that statistic is not at all alarming. Granted, the number of salmonella infections (total, not just those that result in death) is higher. But again, considering how many and how often Americans eat meat, that is not at all an alarming statistic. It certainly doesnt make me think twice.</p>
<p>But seriously, crimson4me, I hope your major is not journalism. If it is, then you have a long ways to go before you can recognize bias in sources. But here is a hint: if you go to a web page, and you find the web page is dedicated SPECIFICALLY to a certain cause, and the web site goes to great lengths to support that cause, then it’s very wise to seek alternate sources that allow you to compare and corroborate your research. Government reports are some of the best options.</p>
<p>“because you like seeing how people react when you give arguments completely opposite to theirs. Because that would just be immature.”</p>
<p>No. I’m not just playing devil’s advocate. I fully support and believe what I’m arguing, but I still think debating is very enjoyable. ;)</p>
<p>“All I see is you rearranging your prejudices by rejecting every single piece of information that we’ve given you.”</p>
<p>Once again, the only information I’ve rejected is the PETA website and that other one with a similar agenda. The last article was perfectly fine and accurate.</p>
<p>I eat chicken, pork, beef, turkey, deer, fish, dove, I’ve even eaten squirrel (I don’t however recommend it, squirrel is not all that tasty), and I am healthy and will probably live a long healthy life like my grandparents, who are 86 and 82, both very healthy, meat eaters. They are even fit for old people. Especially my grandfather.</p>
<p>Random stat: for all of this talk about humans having “evolved to eat meat,” in the hunter-gatherer days, approximately 90% of human’s calories came from plants, while only 10% came from meat.</p>
<p>Filmxoxo: I think that there is an entirely different reason for vegetarianism being mostly a Western phenomenon: the availability of food sources in other countries. We are lucky enough to have ample food sources of every variety, so we can be ethical and healthy by eschewing meat. Other countries feel lucky to have the meat, which the people really need to supplement their diets. Most vegetarians would admit that, if they had to for their health, they would eat meat. I’m among them. If I lived in another country, I would not have the luxury of being vegetarian - because I woudl have to eat whatever I could get.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but I definitely think it also has to do with different mindsets and philosophies.</p>
<p>Ariesathena,
Haha! I was gonna stay out of this one, but that reminds me of some of my veg friends being completely shocked during one of our world religions seminars when the visiting Tibetan monk sat down in the cafeteria and chowed down on some roast beef. They asked him about it just sure Buddhists were all supposed to be vegetarians. He busted out laughing and told them to try growing a garden in Llasa.</p>
<p>In response to vegitarians pointed out that poultry may be submerged in feces…</p>
<p>Vegetable are also submerged in feces (soil)</p>
<p>yes there’s that whole microorganisms and toxicity thing…but minor details</p>
<p>One word: Shuttheheckupyoursaberrattlers-yesImeanyou.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is naive to believe a non-profit organization, no matter how well-funded or extreme, has somewhat stronger principles than a large corporation. A corporation exists for the explicit and sole purpose of making a profit. PETA exists to try to convince people to, well, treat animals ethically. Sure, I think they are too extreme and not always quite realistic, but I think they are dedicated to a cause they believe strongly in. I suppose I’m just an idealistic bleeding heart liberal, though.</p>
<p>I have a slightly different theory on why developing countries aren’t very into vegetarianism. I think the animals are raised more humanely, and there is less need. Many people would be appalled at the cruel way animals are factory-farmed for meat in the US and other first world countries. I spent time in Ecuador, and it seemed like things were done on a much smaller scale. I’ll admit that I was pretty squemish when walking through the markets–the vegetables and fruits were amazingly good, but then they’d have a whole pig sitting out and just hack off chunks when someone wanted some. A family we stayed with had “cuy” (guinea pig) one evening–scraped the fur off and roasted them, with the little ears and paws and tail still on and everything. As I am bothered by these things, I don’t eat them. I don’t, however, have an ethical opposition to eating meat that was raised humanely. Maybe this is because I live in the country where the first day of “deer season” is a major holiday (Yes, many businesses and schools close). Deer are overpopulated and hunting them keeps them from starving to death, and I understand that this is how nature works. I still cry when I see the deer out hanging in front of someone’s house.</p>
<p>I can accept that most people eat meat and are not bothered by the conditions the animals are raised in, but you can’t argue that it is not cruel to the animals or that they don’t notice. Have you ever seen someone kick a dog? Did it look to you like the dog didn’t feel it? You feel that it is an acceptable means to the end of you having an inexpensive steak on your dinner plate. I don’t think cruelty, to animals or humans, can ever be justified. It’s a basic moral and ethical difference of opinions, and all the logical argument in the world won’t change either of our views.</p>
<p>Nicely put, Cynthia. I have no problems with meat eaters, otherwise I would have very few friends. I do have a problem with animal cruelty, which is almost commonplace in the meat industry. And I do have a problem with people that don’t at least care about that type of thing. I couldn’t bring myself to eat something that was born to a mother and was slaughtered in some disgusting place after spending its life without ever seeing light. Is that weird to feel that way? And I’m certainly not what you would call an emotional or sensitive guy, on the outside at least. It’s just an obvious moral issue to me.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you, aim78 and CynthiaR. I have no problem with meateaters whatsoever. In fact, I’ve got a friend who only eats meat and cooked vegetables, so she basically eats meat three times a day… which I find disgusting, but I don’t make an issue out of it. Also, I realize that some people are just weak… they believe in animal rights and cringe when they hear about slaughterhouses and maltreatment of animals, but they’re not strong-willed enough to follow through with their beliefs. I can understand that completely and don’t make an issue out of that either.
What I don’t understand at all, however, as aim78 put it, is people who don’t give a damn about animals being tortured… and especially when people react as if there is something wrong with me because I’m a vegetarian. I mean, I don’t go around telling people that they’re crazy for eating something that could once breathe and feel - even though I most certainly could, so I expect the same sort of tolerance from meateaters. I mean, tolerance is the least that anyone can expect from any other human being.</p>
<p>As for Mavin’s little pointless escapade (don’t worry Mavin, we still love ya:)), I never linked to anything from PETA. In fact I linked only to unbiased sources. I linked to a CNN source, a “Positive Nation” source (that’s a health magazine in the UK) and an article titled “Chicken is bad for your health”. As for that last one, the website is far from biased, and the webpage is a piece of research with official USDA (government agency) findings. No source is biased if it has official statistics to support its claims. </p>
<p>“Government reports are some of the best options.”</p>
<p>Government reports give you statistics. Therefore, any research paper or article that cites there statistics is absolutely legitimate. </p>
<p>“So what? I don’t care if 100% are contaminated with salmonella. If no one is getting sick it DOES. NOT. MATTER.”</p>
<p>And where did you get the idea that no one was getting sick? This is what it says in the CDC source that you linked to: “In 1999, it was estimated that each year 1.4 million persons are infected with Salmonella in the United States”. </p>
<p>“…that statistic is not at all alarming.”</p>
<p>Wow! What an attitude, man! 600 people die a year and you say it’s not alarming! I think it’s alarming if one person dies… let alone six hundred lives. Now, if you ever thought I was suggesting salmonellosis was an epidemic… you misunderstood me completely. But anyway, the reason why I gave you that statistic was in response to your request for further ‘factual basis’ that chicken is unhealthy. I mean, if 1.4 million people a year get sick from salmonellosis, you’ve gotta agree, it’s not the healthiest thing in the world to be eating.</p>
<p>“It certainly doesnt make me think twice.”</p>
<p>Hey, I didn’t expect you to be afraid for your life and think that each piece of chicken you eat could be your last! lol</p>
<p>“PETA, like many other rights organizations, receives tons of money in donations”</p>
<p>Of course it does, how else would it be able to run all its operations. Unless you think that PETA is a big cover-up for its employees to earn billions by selling t-shirts and stickers. 
But, unless you give me proof that PETA uses its donations towards causes other than the ethical treatment of animals, all you’ve got going for you is a first-class conspiracy theory.</p>
<p>As for the discussion about the difference between the amount of vegetarians in third-world countries and first-world countries, I can tell you my experience with that. I come from a third-world country, but have since lived in developed countries, as well. As someone said, people in developed countries have the luxury of picking and choosing food to suit their diet. In underdeveloped countries (and I’m not just talking Ethiopia and Sudan), tofu, soy and other veg stuff is highly unavailable and often even more expensive than meat. Not only that, but most people have never even heard of tofu hot dogs, hamburgers, etc. and are used to meat substitutes that taste horrible. That results in protein and iron deficiencies and the subsequent abandoning of vegetarianism.
What happened to me was that (because I decided to be a vegetarian at a young age) the unavailability of resources posed a threat to my health. Three years ago, when I moved to where I live now, I could immediately substitute my meat intake with other foods successfully.
In addition to that, some countries have the tendency to outright reject all Western phenomena, regardless of the legitimacy of it. That’s also a big factor and I find it very sad.
I have to disagree with Cynthia, though, about people in underdeveloped countries treating animals with more respect. Of course, there are cases, like India and as you said Ecuador, but some countries treat animals even more inhumanely than the US. But there, it’s just not an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s really sad to me. That whole “starvation” argument is bull. There are people starving in Africa. Should we shoot them too? HUNTING for the pure fun of killing is barbaric and wasteful, if the target isn’t eaten.</p>