Have you ever seen that PETA pamphlet that is called "Your Mommy Kills Bunnies" (or something to that effect)? The cover features a cartoon of blonde woman mercilessly stabbing a rabbit with blood and guts coming out of the stomach as its face shows human expression of pain. Now that I think about it, it's probably a PETA2 pamphlet.
I am one of those people who actively converts vegetarians back to meat eating. I don't do it because I'm an evil person (although, my political ideologies might prove to the contrary); I do it because I (like the American public around voting time) am choosing the lesser of two evils.
Although I don't view meat eating as wrong, I'm going to pretend like I do for the sake of this blog. So, to start off, let's say that killing animals is wrong. Let's also take the Kantian approach and say that the more animals we can save the better. OK. We've set our ground rules.
Vegetarians might claim that meat is bad for your health. That is untrue. Meat provides quantities of vital protiens which a vegetarian diet cannot nearly satisfy without a great increase in diet (or taking supplements). Meat provides cholesterol as well. Lately, cholesterol has been getting a bad rep for causing heart trouble and strokes; however, just like any nutrient, cholesterol is good for you but only in moderation. Meat is a good source of Iron, a mineral which aids in oxygenating your blood. I think it's fair to say that we've established that meat is not (necessarily) bad for your health.
So, now that we've gotten the health issue out of the way, we can tackle vegetarian moralism. Vegetarians will say that they don't eat meat because they don't want to kill animals. They then proceed to eat heaps of soy and grain and other crop vegetables. They don't ever bother to think about where those non-meat products came from or how they were harvested. And why should they? We certainly wouldn't think about such a thing! It's a funny thing, moral heirarchy, because it almost always involves a level of hypocrisy, or if not hypocrisy, at least doublethink.
The tenets of doublethink are simple: if something does not fit your belief system, and there is no way out of it, the best (and only) thing to do is to ignore it. That is what vegetarians do everytime they eat a slice of bread or a brick of seasoned tofu. Grain is harvested by combines. What is a grain combine? It's essentially a giant lawn mower used to harvest, thresh and clean grain (and certain other crop vegetables). But does the combine only mow down grain? Of course not! With the grain are killed millions of rodents in the field.
So the real moral question is: do we eat more grain because we don't want to eat animals, thereby needlessly killing more animals? Or do we do what Kant would suggest, and eat the animals, which have been martyred for a higher calling?
Personally, I wouldn't mind eating human...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
How come anytime people post anti-PETA blogs on this site, they never know what they're talking about?
Proteins are definnitely a necessity in people's diets, there's no question about that. Unfortunately, animal proteins cause cancer. Virtually anything you eat in a vegetarian or vegan diet has protein and it is absolutely not true that you need to eat any particularly great amount of food to acquire it. I'm not sure what vegetarians you've been hanging out with.
Depending on the crop you're talking about (soy, corn, wheat, etc.) it takes about 8-16 times as much of it to produce one unit of flesh. Animal-based agriculture is extremely inefficient and wasteful and the world could be fed with the crops that we feed the animals who only feed, for the most part, Americans. Animal-based agriculture--and not the lumber industry--is also responsible for the depletion of forests around the world, making way for grazing land whereas that would not exist with the comparably miniscule plots of land needed to provide for a vegetarian diet. And don't even get me started on the polution from all those pesticides and the rivers of feces that result from the vegetarian diet. You can visit GoVeg.com and other sites for more information about all of this. It may be helpful before you decide to blog about vegetarianism again.
-- P
I'm not sure where you get the notion that animal proteins cause cancer. Animal proteins aid in the absorbtion of Zinc (Page 233), necessary for bone and hair growth. There are very few vegetarian foods which contain complete proteins. (Plenty contain incomplete proteins, thereby requiring a much more diverse diet in order to get the proteins in meat).
Do you actually think that the vegetables which we feed animals on are suitable for human consumption? Animal feed contains vegetable products which are not suitable for human consumption (like stalks, chaff, etc.), so your statistic is a bit skewed. Also, you have not confronted the issue of farming methods. Millions of rodents die needlessly in grain combines each year. Hence why I say Meat is Martyr.
--Mike
I've figured out where you got the notion that animal fat (not protein) can cause colorectal cancer. If you don't get enough fiber, the animal fat (and undigested red meat) get stuck in the colon. If it stays there long enough, it can develop into cancer. However, this assumes that you eat a primarily meat diet. Alot of GoVeg's facts are based on just that: what happens when you don't have a balanced meal. What they don't tell you is what happens when you don't have meat to balance a meal.
--Mike
Nice comment perle, I'm glad someone sees how wasteful animal based products are and how useful plant based diets could be.
It really interests me everytime this argument is brought up. Why does neither side bother checking facts.
Depending on the crop you're talking about (soy, corn, wheat, etc.) it takes about 8-16 times as much of it to produce one unit of flesh."
Whilst this is entirely true for the figures that went into making up this figure (and I do mean "making up") It is generally regarded as a total crock because of the nature of the study that produced these "facts". Whilst figures weren't totally fudged they were blurred a lot at the sides. For example, used as an actual figure in the land area required for production of beef was the Victoria River Downs Station (I will call it VRDS cause i am not typing that out again) in the Northern Territory (Australia). VRDS is the largest cattle station in Australia and indeed the world covering some 983,482km² (Texas is a mere 678,051km²). Just for those of you that struggle with maths, VRDS is one and one third the size of the entire state of Texas.
The fact that the entire land area of VRDS was used when at any one given time it is likely that less than half the available runs in the station would be in use AND the fact that the station is part of the Northern savanahs of Australia and has little viable agricultural use. The average head of cattle at VRDS has at its disposal well inexcess of 200 times the available land area than cattle raised in southern agricultural areas in Australia have. I could list the statistical anomolies all day about the figure you have quoted using JUST VRDS as the example.
Hence the "8-16 times" is in short (and this is a recognised cattle industry expression) a load of BULL. :D (Just so you know that was nothing more than a bit of humour, your ignorance is only due to the fact that you have been fed something that is basically a lie)
"Animal-based agriculture--and not the lumber industry--is also responsible for the depletion of forests around the world"
On the initial viewing this statement would also appear to be true. Infact it is totally true for third world nations such as Brazil where they slash and burn land, raise cattle, discover the land is totally unviable for more than a few seasons of ANY agricultural crop, sell the meat to McDonalds (AKA the American People) and then move on to another area of forest that they slash and burn. I think we can all agree on that right?
I hope you got the part where they discover it is no good for ANY viable agricultural crop after a few seasons. Essentially again we are comparing apples with forequarter steaks. IF there was a crop that was as easy and as profitable that was a vegetable product, the Brazillians would be doing EXACTLY the same thing for that. Hence it would matter little what the produce was, animal or vegetable, the land IS slashed and burnt because of American Money NOT animal based agriculture.
Should I point out to you that grazing can be used in conjunction with cropping in the SAME field in areas of viable land such as a greater majority of the US mid-west. In fact in Western Australia we are using our cattle and sheep industries to help STOP logging in old growth forrests by growing in grazing fields a crop of high production high value hard woods such as Tasmanian Blue Gum with very little discernable decrease in land usable for grazing. Ahhhhh multiple use fields.... Instead of the highly destructive practice of single species cropping.
I could go on and on and on, but i won't... because really if you don't understand by now you will never understand. Meat is an essential part of the majority of western cultures diets.
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
I don't believe in actively converting people back towards eating meat. That would be like actively converting staunch meat eaters to vegetarianism.
If people don't wish to eat meat, that's their own choice. As long as they do so healthily, I don't see why anyone should have an objection.
Another thing to consider is this. Not all vegetarians/vegans are crazy PETA-esque extremists, so we shouldn't treat them all like such.
I only convert the ones who are the crazy PETA extremists. For instance, my cousin is a vegetarian because she just doesn't like the taste of meat. That I can respect. It's when they take to moral grandstanding that I choose to cut them down.
--Mike
I agree. Let people eat what they choose to and want to.
Hmm, this seems way too familiar..
reminds me of a page I saw in 2002
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor
Yeah, I copped a bunch of stuff from Maddox; I won't deny that. I added the health part, though. Plus, Maddox isn't the only one who's ever given the combine argument.
--Mike
Oh please. It is just as rude to try and convert vegetarians as vice versa. It makes you look like an asshole. Vegetarianism is a way of life. Trying to convert them is like trying to make gay people straight!
Of course meat is healthy for you, I will not argue with that. But that is not the point for many veg*ns. Stopping all killing is hard and pretty much impossible, but trying to lessen the deaths of animals is not.
Do not associate all veg*ns with PETA. I do not care for PETA, I am a vegetarian.
It is healthy. You can get plenty of vitamins/minerals with a veg*n diet. It is different, but not bad.
There are many benefits and downfalls to being a vegetarian. Having jackasses bitch to you about how stupid you are, how unhealthy it is, and all that shite is not an enjoyable part of it.
Haha, I like this post. I like how upset you made people, Mike, especially the non-violent vegetarians. I didn't know we had that much rage in us, but I am a vegetarian, if you do things correctly the only thing you really have to worry about is low iorn in your blood. At least--I hope.
-Alexa
And all the dead field mice.
--Mike
This is a very interesting debate: turning vegetarians into meat eating... Well for starters I have nothing against meat, I won't deny it's contribution for our health, on the other hand there are people who simply can't eat meat for medical reasons, I think we should imaginary separate them form those who become fanatic about protecting the animals, loosing their senses. I am a vegetarian and for medical reasons I can't eat meat, it's difficult to live like this, now I am taking acetyl-l carnitine and it helps me face this food restriction much better.