Should more people be vegetarian?
Should more people convert to vegetarianism?
Yes
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No
Side Score: 21
|
|
|
|
|
I believe more people should become a Vegetarian because, it's a healthier life choice, consuming a lot of meat can lead to illnesses. Eating more vegetables and fruits is more beneficial than consuming meat products, since majority of North Americans eat meat more than their greens. Also, eating meat does exploit animals, even if Harvey's hamburgers are delicious, ha-ha. My point is, why should one kill something in order for a human to take pleasure in, when we can merely consume Vitamin B12 pills to replace our meat, which does have B12 inside it. Why should an animal have to go through agony, just to feed our stomachs, when we do not have to eat meat? There are a variety of ways to consume calcium as well: fortified, spinach, broccoli, tofu, beans, and nuts. Cows do not need to be milked, once the calf has grown-up, it will no longer need to consume it's mother's milk. Some farmer’s have their chickens locked in a barn where they cannot roam free, pumped with drugs, they die faster but grow bigger for the consumer and big corporations; they can hardly see sun light, treated with disrespect. With less meat in our society, we would save billions of dollars, less 'bad' fast foods, replaced with healthier foods that are not meat. Why should a human have any more rights than an animal? We all live in this world together, and we should all be treated with respect and cared for equally. Side: yes
2
points
it's a healthier life choice A vegetarian diet is not superior to a balanced omnivorous diet. consuming a lot of meat can lead to illnesses. That depends on what you would define as "a lot". Remember; too much of anything is by definition detrimental. Eating more vegetables and fruits is more beneficial than consuming meat products, since majority of North Americans eat meat more than their greens. That is hardly a valid inference. Also, eating meat does exploit animals, even if Harvey's hamburgers are delicious, ha-ha. Sigh. In one sense you are correct; animals are a resource and it is correct to say that using a resource is exploiting it. That, however, is not what you meant. Humans are omnivorous organisms. This simply means that we can gain sustenance through the consumption of both plant matter and other organisms. As we evolved this way, there is no valid moral argument against our consumption of other unendangered animals. My point is, why should one kill something in order for a human to take pleasure in Because we are at the top of the food chain (excluding viruses). when we can merely consume Vitamin B12 pills to replace our meat, which does have B12 inside it. Simple; meat tastes nice, vitamins rarely do. Why should an animal have to go through agony, just to feed our stomachs, when we do not have to eat meat? Animals do not go through agony. Slaughter is a remarkably quick process. There are a variety of ways to consume calcium as well: fortified, spinach, broccoli, tofu, beans, and nuts. Plants are living organisms too. Deal with it. Cows do not need to be milked, once the calf has grown-up, it will no longer need to consume it's mother's milk. Irrelevant. Milk is nice, milking a cow does not harm it. These facts eliminate virtually any argument in favour of abolishing the factor. Some farmer’s have their chickens locked in a barn where they cannot roam free, pumped with drugs, they die faster but grow bigger for the consumer and big corporations Chickens are a remarkably stupid animal, wholly unsuited to "roaming free" in western environments. Foxes would wipe them out in a very short length of time. With less meat in our society, we would save billions of dollars Simple economics, money not spent in one place is spent in another or invested in a banking establishment or in some other enterprise. You are essentially swapping meat for something else. Meat is what people want, therefore they spend money on it. They are obviously prepared to spend the money, so your argument is worthless. Why should a human have any more rights than an animal? Because we are the only sentient organisms on Earth. Because we invented the notion of "rights". Because the only standards by which such matters are judged are our own standards. We all live in this world together, and we should all be treated with respect and cared for equally. So you believe that an injured rat should receive as much access to a hospital as a similarly injured child? Side: No
A vegetarian diet is not superior to a balanced omnivorous diet. How so? Red meat is high in saturated fats and "bad" cholesterol, which can lead to clogged arteries and heart disease. Whilst eating more fruits and vegetables will not lead to this. That depends on what you would define as "a lot". Remember; too much of anything is by definition detrimental. Not necessarily, you can replace meat products with other proteins, which then will give you a equal balance diet. That is hardly a valid inference. The Canada’s Food Guide recommends seven servings of Fruits and Vegetables for female and male adults, and Meat and Alternatives one for women, and two for men, as you can see why, from my point of view of course. http://pureprimal.files.wordpress.com/ In one sense you are correct; animals are a resource and it is correct to say that using a resource is exploiting it. That, however, is not what you meant. Humans are omnivorous organisms. This simply means that we can gain sustenance through the consumption of both plant matter and other organisms. As we evolved this way, there is no valid moral argument against our consumption of other unendangered animals. I believe your evidence here is invalid and lacking, humans do not need to be a omnivorous organism, and we can survive without consuming meat, and meet our nutritional requirements with it from other products. Because we are at the top of the food chain (excluding viruses). Even if we are at the top of the food chain, it does not mean we should exploit and slaughter animals – we forgot to put the man in man-slaughter. Animals are living things, why should humans slay a living thing that feels pain. Note, pigs were used to be tested for the atomic bomb, is that truly justified? No. Their stomachs were torn apart, screaming in agony. Simple; meat tastes nice, vitamins rarely do. Sorry, not good enough. It does not matter if meat taste good and vitamins do not. You should not kill an animal for one’s desire, thus, if we can live without it, when we can merely take a pill for it. Animals do not go through agony. Slaughter is a remarkably quick process. Yes, a lot of animals are tortured, exploited, and some are kept in small crates the day they step out of their mum’s womb, and are kept where they can hardly move, being fed to get fat, getting exploited for human fulfillment. Plus, killing animals takes up too much time, energy, resources, money, food to feed the animals in order to die quickly to get fatter, and it ruins the environment, Plants are living organisms too. Deal with it. Plants lack a nervous system. While they may react to stimuli, and even send out chemicals in response, they cannot "feel" anything. Plants do not have a brain to process the sensations. Any being that has no brain, such as all plants and bivalves, cannot "feel" anything. Irrelevant. Milk is nice, milking a cow does not harm it. These facts eliminate virtually any argument in favour of abolishing the factor. OK, I see your point, yes – it does not harm the cow. If it does not hurt the cow, then yes, it should be accepted. I do agree with your statement here. Chickens are a remarkably stupid animal, wholly unsuited to "roaming free" in western environments. Foxes would wipe them out in a very short length of time. It’s still a living thing, and being exploited and slaughtered. Simple economics, money not spent in one place is spent in another or invested in a banking establishment or in some other enterprise. You are essentially swapping meat for something else. Meat is what people want; therefore they spend money on it. They are obviously prepared to spend the money, so your argument is worthless. All the reason more why I’m not in favor of Capitalism. Not true, we could use the money for other valid resources for our society, and not on slaying creatures for human fulfillment. Because we are the only sentient organisms on Earth. Because we invented the notion of "rights". Because the only standards by which such matters are judged are our own standards. Animals are well aware of their surroundings. How nonsensical, humans should not have the notion of killing another living thing. No, we need to not only look at our standards; we are not the only living species on this earth. So you believe that an injured rat should receive as much access to a hospital as a similarly injured child? I should have made my statement more clear, no, not medically, but not exploited to be slain and eaten by humans. There is a place called the Vet, I'm sure you've heard of it. Side: yes
Also, eating meat does exploit animals, even if Harvey's hamburgers are delicious, ha-ha. My point is, why should one kill something in order for a human to take pleasure in, when we can merely consume Vitamin B12 pills to replace our meat, which does have B12 inside it. Law of nature. Animals eat each other. Plants and animals each each other. Why should a human have any more rights than an animal? We all live in this world together, and we should all be treated with respect and cared for equally. Nature is not civil. Nature has no rights. We give rights and take them. Side: No
Law of nature. Animals eat each other. Plants and animals each each other. Humans have the capacity to not eat animals though. We don’t have to eat them. So nature is just pure fallacy. Nature is not civil. Nature has no rights. We give rights and take them. Then humans should not take animals rights away. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
|
3
points
2
points
Such a "holier than thou" attitude of this degree seems to be shared only by vegetarians and Christians (and perhaps the PC). Where is this "should" coming from? You are you, you are not anybody else, so how the hell can you infer what everyone else should do? You really should stop using that word. ;) Anyway, a vegetarian diet is a dangerous thing. Without going too deep into metabolism, there are things in meat that you simply cannot function without. You can get by as an ova-vegetarian, but that's about it. Side: No
there is no need for a person to be vegetarian if they don't want to, but not eating meat won't kill them. many people believe that they can stay alive only on meat. they can try stopping themselves from eating meat or other non-veg food. but there is no need for a person to be specifically veg or non veg. being either won't really kill them. Side: No
I think its a matter of ones choice to do so or not do so, if you want to go all vegan than good on ya... there are a plethora of reasons I have never been and will never be a vegetarian though, a few of them being: beef, pork, bacon, steak, ribs, lamb chops, shrimp (may not be applicable), salmon... and a lot more... overall I think a healthy balance between vegges and meat! is the best way to go though :). Side: No
Humans are omnivores not herbivores or carnivores so vegetarianism is a preference choice. Firstly humans cannot digest vegetable matter well as only true vegetarian animals have celluase in their gut. So people who are consuming only non-veg are wasting food. Secondly meat contains all 8 essential amino acids, vegetables the best you can manage are 6 amino acids. Of the 30 or so documented people who have lived to 100 only 2 were vegetarian and not complete either. There are also around 10-15 groups of vegetarians, you get vegetarians who eat chicken, fish, eggs etc. Strict vegans will not even use animal products like wool. Another thing to remember is that your either a normal eater or vegetarian as normal people also eat vegetables (something a lot of vegans seem to forget). If the world turned vegetarian it would die of starvation as cattle would over run the populace and only a small part of the land mass is even arable to grow food. The culling of all animals to make way for crops would be horrendous to watch. Lastly a vegetarian is not a person who loves animals but a person who hates plants so much he wants to slaughter and eat them! Side: No
1
point
Well, I think that being a vegetarian is basically giving up the base of our nutrients, which from my point of view , is bad, but it also gives out respect towards the animals. I'd like to think that being a vegetarian is a good thing, since it saves animals and everything, but then, looking at it from a bigger picture, you see that nature is made for animals to eat each other. I mean, if we weren't meant to eat animals, they wouldn't have survived until now, that being the case, it means animals would overpopulate the world in a small span of time, since they wouldn't die so often, but they would continue to generate more children. Let's put it like this. Every year, on average, a female cow has a baby. That means that, if we have two (female) cows in a field, after ten years, we will already have 2048 cows. That would be the case if it was a field of only female cows, and all the babys where female. Imagine if that happened world-wide? So, my answer to the question would be that I disagree with being a vegetarian, since it's basically going against nature. Side: No
0
points
2
points
|
