|
Vegetarianism/Veganism (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| eRRaTiK |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Although it is quite ironic that obesity, diabetes and various other health issues are in fact symptoms of a sort of "healthy" economic and consumerist affluence. |
good observation. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
And yeah, there's loads of inconsistencies. But not everything is black/white, good/bad, etc...
|
Unfortunately it seems that for most people this conversation is an all or nothing affair.
Shame really, because as in most things in life it's the extremist douchebags who inhibit any real progress ever being made. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Although it is quite ironic that obesity, diabetes and various other health issues are in fact symptoms of a sort of "healthy" economic and consumerist affluence. |
Sort of, although the most affluent people actually tend to be the least obese, at least in Western countries. More than anything else, obesity is a symptom of eating foods that are bad for your body (which may have an economic component, since healthier foods tend to be more expensive). |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Maybe I am just an irrational skeptic, but it seems to me that the ones pushing people to eat, eat, eat are the ones with the most to gain from it. And that the processing of livestock for consumption is just as generally unnecessary, yet quite beneficial to those controlling the mass disregard for animals as, well, frankly, just as deserving of life as human beings. |
If livestock are deserving of life, then first they must be born; but the number of livestock born and, thus, the extent to which all potential livestock collectively get life as they deserve is proportional to the demand for meat which, in turn, is proportional to the consumption of meat by the consumer market. Ergo, if you believe that animals' lives should not be denied, then you are obligated to maximize your consumption of their flesh and, a fortiori, you should oppose vegetarianism at every turn. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sort of, although the most affluent people actually tend to be the least obese, at least in Western countries. More than anything else, obesity is a symptom of eating foods that are bad for your body (which may have an economic component, since healthier foods tend to be more expensive). |
I didn't mean it at that level.
I meant that a "healthy" economy in the sense that food is processed and made readily available to a great number of people at reasonable prices due to a complex system of planned growth and cultivation by tax-driven Government subsidiaries causes its own set of problems. Of course there is an unfortunate occurrence of famine in the United States at times, but I think that compared to many countries with a suffering Government and an overwhelming amount of impoverishment/famine in the populace, you can draw what I am trying to say about how the subsequent overindulgence of being at the supposed "top" of things leads to a large unbalance in the populace's dietary health. Especially with the sugar industry being what it is in the US. I'm sure Lilith can speak of this far more elaborately than I ever could. :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On |
Actually, I was apparently sort of wrong. In the U.S. today, the difference in obesity rate between high income and low income groups is only about 6%:
| quote: | Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974:
* Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese
* $25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese
* $40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese
* More than $60,000: 9.7% obese
Here are the results for 2001-2002:
* Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese
* $25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese
* $40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese
* More than $60,000: 26.8% obese
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=56138 |
Everybody's getting fat, not just poor folks... |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If livestock are deserving of life, then first they must be born; but the number of livestock born and, thus, the extent to which all potential livestock collectively get life as they deserve is proportional to the demand for meat which, in turn, is proportional to the consumption of meat by the consumer market. Ergo, if you believe that animals' lives should not be denied, then you are obligated to maximize your consumption of their flesh and, a fortiori, you should oppose vegetarianism at every turn. |
haha, the syllogism follows suit, but I still do not trust the terms. :p
True, there would be a demand for more livestock to be birthed as the demand for meat goes up, but being a stamped and boneless Poultry #87907325b, jammed in a cage that is filled to the brim with your own species and feces, then ground into a thin paste after being milked for all of your reproductive worth hardly seems a "life" in any humanist sense. And the demand, itself, is what I would protest first. The less of this process we carry on with, the better. I know I am skating the line of personification, assigning "life goals" to a chicken. , I don't even have life goals, myself, so why don't you eat me? :p
It just seems to me that once you start justifying the unnecessary processing of any animal, you might as well not stop with humans. Beef holocaust, yo. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| *inserts Theresa* |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
*inserts Theresa* |
Why Theresa? |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why Theresa? |
cause she is? |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
What if I don't eat nor care? |
fine by me... ive just encountered to many people trying to tell me why i shouldnt eat meat... |
|
|
| Krypton |
I am hungry...
 |
|
|
|
|
