Arguments from the Veg friends against Meat Eating and the realities of the Nature

[Alam_dar]

I am not from India, so sorry for my limited knowledge about this Issue regarding Indian society. 

 

But I did have discussions with the Western Veg people on this issue many times. Now I also want to know the arguments from the Indian friends too as Indian society seems to be the largest vegetarian society in the world. 

 

Let me first present the important points from my discussions with the western Veg friends. 

 

(1) Objection: Animals have to suffer the pain

Yes. It is true.

But it seems that it is the "NATURE" which is ruthless. Nature designed this universe/world in this way that "suffering" of some species is necessary for the "existence" of other species. 

For example, can we demand a LION to not eat meat of other weaker animals while this cause "pain" to them?

 

(2) Why People eat weak animals and not eat the loin or wolves? 

This question is very often asked by the Veg friends. It seems there is very big misunderstanding here. 

 

Meat of "Grass Eating" animals VS meat of "Meat Eating" animals

 

Simple answer is this that the meat of the "Meat Eating" animals is very very smelly. While the meat of "Grass Eating" animals has no smell and it is delicious. 

 

Not only the meat of "Grass Eating" animals is smell-free, but their poop is also almost smell free. While the poop of "Meat Eating" animals is very very smelly. 

 

Have you ever been to Zoo? Normally the cage of Lion has the worst smell. It is due to the reason while Lion eats meat. 

 

In free Nature, even a dog kills a cat, but it does not eat it, but prefer to eat the meat of grass eating animal. Similarly, in free nature, if Lion kills a hyena, he does not eat it but always prefer to eat grass eating animal. 

 

 

(3) Nature:  What does "Nature" tells us about ideal diet of human beings?

Nature divides the species in (a) Herbivores (b) Carnivores (c) Omnivores

Human Teeth are witness that Humans are Omnivores (i.e. they should eat from both plants and meat)

The Length of Intestine (small) also a witness that human beings are "Omnivores".

In Carnivores, small intestine is 1/4th of their body size. In Herbivores, the length of small intestine is 20+ times of body length of an animal, while in "Omnivores" it is about 6 to 7 times of body size)

In Carnivores, the eaten meat has to come out of the body within 5-6 hours, otherwise it would produce a lot of toxins. Therefore there is very short intestine. In Herbivores, in order to get all the nutrition from the food (i.e. grass) it should take days to stay in the intestine. While Omnivores also need many hours that food stays for many hours in intestine. 

 

 

(4) Humans were "Omnivores" throughout their evolution

Do you believe in "Evolution"? 

If yes, then Home Erectus and Neanderthals were all Omnivores. 

Humans  were known as "Hunter Gatherer" in the stone age. 

 

 

(5) Do Meat has other effects on human health as compared to the Plants?

Yes. 

Ideal diet (suggested by Nature for humans) is that which hunter gatherers ate i.e. "RAW Meat and RAW Vegetables". 

In West, we have about 10 times of different Green Salats. Many people are here "Raw Vegetarians" too. I will come to this topic of "Raw VS Cooked" later in this thread. 

 

Now I want to hear the arguments from Indian Vegetarian Friends on this topic. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

I am not from India, so sorry for my limited knowledge about this Issue regarding Indian society. 

 

But I did have discussions with the Western Veg people on this issue many times. Now I also want to know the arguments from the Indian friends too as Indian society seems to be the largest vegetarian society in the world. 

 

Let me first present the important points from my discussions with the western Veg friends. 

 

(1) Objection: Animals have to suffer the pain

Yes. It is true.

But it seems that it is the "NATURE" which is ruthless. Nature designed this universe/world in this way that "suffering" of some species is necessary for the "existence" of other species. 

For example, can we demand a LION to not eat meat of other weaker animals while this cause "pain" to them?

 

(2) Why People eat weak animals and not eat the loin or wolves? 

This question is very often asked by the Veg friends. It seems there is very big misunderstanding here. 

 

Meat of "Grass Eating" animals VS meat of "Meat Eating" animals

 

Simple answer is this that the meat of the "Meat Eating" animals is very very smelly. While the meat of "Grass Eating" animals has no smell and it is delicious. 

 

Not only the meat of "Grass Eating" animals is smell-free, but their poop is also almost smell free. While the poop of "Meat Eating" animals is very very smelly. 

 

Have you ever been to Zoo? Normally the cage of Lion has the worst smell. It is due to the reason while Lion eats meat. 

 

In free Nature, even a dog kills a cat, but it does not eat it, but prefer to eat the meat of grass eating animal. Similarly, in free nature, if Lion kills a hyena, he does not eat it but always prefer to eat grass eating animal. 

 

 

(3) Nature:  What does "Nature" tells us about ideal diet of human beings?

Nature divides the species in (a) Herbivores (b) Carnivores (c) Omnivores

Human Teeth are witness that Humans are Omnivores (i.e. they should eat from both plants and meat)

The Length of Intestine (small) also a witness that human beings are "Omnivores".

In Carnivores, small intestine is 1/4th of their body size. In Herbivores, the length of small intestine is 20+ times of body length of an animal, while in "Omnivores" it is about 6 to 7 times of body size)

In Carnivores, the eaten meat has to come out of the body within 5-6 hours, otherwise it would produce a lot of toxins. Therefore there is very short intestine. In Herbivores, in order to get all the nutrition from the food (i.e. grass) it should take days to stay in the intestine. While Omnivores also need many hours that food stays for many hours in intestine. 

 

 

(4) Humans were "Omnivores" throughout their evolution

Do you believe in "Evolution"? 

If yes, then Home Erectus and Neanderthals were all Omnivores. 

Humans  were known as "Hunter Gatherer" in the stone age. 

 

 

(5) Do Meat has other effects on human health as compared to the Plants?

Yes. 

Ideal diet (suggested by Nature for humans) is that which hunter gatherers ate i.e. "RAW Meat and RAW Vegetables". 

In West, we have about 10 times of different Green Salats. Many people are here "Raw Vegetarians" too. I will come to this topic of "Raw VS Cooked" later in this thread. 

 

Now I want to hear the arguments from Indian Vegetarian Friends on this topic. 

The bolded part is bullshit.

 

For eg: no, mankind is *not* equipped to eat all types of raw meat. Even amongst human tribes that do eat raw meat, it has been distinctly noticed: we cannot eat raw bird and expect to live. Period. We can eat *most* raw bugs and their meat is digestable, same with *most* raw fish. We can eat *some* red meat and eat *some* read meat raw. Bovines work. Pork works. Wild deer does not. We also cannot exactly kill a cat/dog/tiger/bear/any predatory animal etc. and eat it raw and expect to live for very long.  

Either way, i agree with you that 'animal suffering' is an invalid reason to forsake an animal's (in this case, us) own food that our bodies can digest and process without dying.

 

However, there is a strong argument towards lessening the meat heavy diet, particularly for the arabs/muslims & westerners : it is pretty bio-unfriendly to keep the billions of cows - especially cows- for sole purpose of eating, as they are highly polluting and cattle farming is very destructive to the ecosystem. 

I don't have a problem with someone eating a portion of meat (say a 5 ounce steak as part of a healthy diet involving other grains & veggies) every day even. But those who just stuff burgers and anything with meat down their gullet, they need to realize the harm they are doing to nature by eating 5x-10x the normal consumption of meat. Not to mention, to their own bodies.

Its far deadlier, over the long term, to over-eat meat than to say, over-eat rice & veggies.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

Also no, just like meat is something we cant eat (we tend to die) raw, with a *few* exceptions, we also can't eat most veggies raw without seriously upsetting our stomachs. Eating raw broccoli for e.g., is actually putting a huge stress on your digestive system.

 
There is a reason also, just like our stomachs are not equipped to eat most types of raw meats- like a true carnivone/omnivore, we can't exactly eat bunch of leaves for dinner and call it a day as well : you will be in stomach cramp hell, most likely.

Human diet, is ideally, if you want to use evolutionary principles, very similar to the chimpanzee diet : fruits, nuts, the occasional bugs, with the noted exception of fish : we, as a species, are great at just eating fish raw. But given how our small intestine is longer than most carnivores, yet shorter than most herbivores, evolutionarily, we are not a true omnivore, we are a 'plant-dominant omnivore'.

 

A true carnivore/omnivore are those who can eat a wide variety of meats and veggies and not die/be screwed. 

A raccoon is a true omnivore. Why ? Because a raccoon can practically eat anything. They will eat your cooked food, your processed foods, your raw foods and just about any type of meat they can get their hands on. 
Raccoons will eat raw potatoes and be okay with it. They will also eat the rat that got run over on the street and be ok. Or your cat, if your cat is a moron and tries to 'scare away' a bunch of raccoons. 

Same with true carnivores : they eat practically any type of meat and are A-ok with it. We are not. Our biggest hurdle to being a true omnivore, is eating raw birds. Coz we cannot deal with E-coli and E-coli lives on the mucuous membranes. Birds have a lot more, which is why chicken is so much 'slimier' than raw mutton or beef. 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The bolded part is bullshit.

For eg: no, mankind is *not* equipped to eat all types of raw meat. Even amongst human tribes that do eat raw meat, it has been distinctly noticed: we cannot eat raw bird and expect to live. Period. We can eat *most* raw bugs and their meat is digestable, same with *most* raw fish. We can eat *some* red meat and eat *some* read meat raw. Bovines work. Pork works. Wild deer does not. We also cannot exactly kill a cat/dog/tiger/bear/any predatory animal etc. and eat it raw and expect to live for very long.  

Dear, Your arguments are correct. Nevertheless, they are OLD arguments. There are some things more, that should be added to them in light of more modern experiments. 

 

There are some techniques, which enables a human body to live upon either 100% Raw Vegan Diet or 100% Raw Meat Diet, or a mixture of both raw Vegetables and raw Meat.

 

(1) In West, you will find easily people who are  100% raw Vegans for very longer periods of their life.

They eat mostly green leaves of Salats and very less (to almost none) of vegetables like carrot or broccoli. 

Actually, they eat mostly wild herbs like dandelions and  stinging nettles and dozens of other kinds of wild herbs. Then comes the consumption of raw fats from raw nuts and raw nut pastes and coconuts. 

They also use seeds, plant oils, sea vegetables, herbs, mushrooms, and fresh juices.

 

Here is the list of vegetables that are consumed in case of 100% Raw Vegan Diet. 

 

http://rawschool.com/best-raw-foods/

 

 

(2) Similarly, you will find people in US/Canada/Europe, who sustain almost 100% Raw Meat Diet (including Birds and Wild Deer). They have their own techniques for doing it. Mostly, it is the consumption of very high "Animal FAT", which allows them to use animal protein in moderation and acquire most of their calories from animal fat, instead of animal protein. 

They prefer to consume fatty fish like Herring and Mackerel, and also use raw Coconut Oil. 

 

You can see these people in action here:  https://www.rawpaleodietforum.com

 

They swear that they used all kind of other diets (vegan, raw vegan, cooked meat etc.) and the most natural diet for human life is "Raw Paleo Diet" which consists of raw Meat and raw herbs and green salat leaves. 

 

Their argument is this that before the usage of "Fire", our ancestors (Homo Habilis and Homo Errectus etc.) ate this diet for millions of years. It was mostly raw meat diet, with little bit of green leaves of salats and herbs and fruits. We were Hunter Gatherers for millions of years. 

 

Quote

However, there is a strong argument towards lessening the meat heavy diet, particularly for the arabs/muslims & westerners : it is pretty bio-unfriendly to keep the billions of cows - especially cows- for sole purpose of eating, as they are highly polluting and cattle farming is very destructive to the ecosystem. 

Once again you are correct about keeping billions of cows and their destructive effect upon the ecosystem. 

Nevertheless, Raw Paleo Eaters answer it by indicating that problem is not the Raw Paleo Diet, but the problem is "Over Population" of humans. For them, the raw paleo diet stays as the most ideal human diet, as it never destroyed the ecosystem for millions of years in which species HOMO stayed as hunter gatherer. 
 

Quote

 

I don't have a problem with someone eating a portion of meat (say a 5 ounce steak as part of a healthy diet involving other grains & veggies) every day even. But those who just stuff burgers and anything with meat down their gullet, they need to realize the harm they are doing to nature by eating 5x-10x the normal consumption of meat. Not to mention, to their own bodies.

Its far deadlier, over the long term, to over-eat meat than to say, over-eat rice & veggies.

 

Cooked meats are more harmful to health as compared to cooked vegetables, as one has to cook the meats for longer period of time, which creates more poisonous stuffs. 

 

Eating cooked burgers (like Americans do) is certainly very bad. Nevertheless, it should not be mixed with the raw paleo diet, which is totally different concept. 

 

Red Indians used "Pemmican" as survival food for months and years, without becoming deficient of any thing. This pemmican is made up of 50% sun dried meat and 45% of animal fat, and 5% of sun dried berries. 

 

 

 

Healing Effects of Raw Paleo Diet:

Maximum as compared to any other Food (like Fruit/Vegetable Juices etc.)

Especially raw Organ Meat (liver, heart, kidney, tongue, bone marrow, ....) have the most healing effects. 

That is why Americans are using Dried raw organ meats in capsule forms now. 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Dear, Your arguments are correct. Nevertheless, they are OLD arguments. There are some things more, that should be added to them in light of more modern experiments. 

 

There are some techniques, which enables a human body to live upon either 100% Raw Vegan Diet or 100% Raw Meat Diet, or a mixture of both raw Vegetables and raw Meat.

 

(1) In West, you will find easily people who are  100% raw Vegans for very longer periods of their life.

I've lived in the west for 30+ years and i live in one of the hippie-dippie-est part of the world. Never met a single westerner with 100% raw vegetable diet. 

If you think human body can live on raw vegan diet, try eating raw potatoes and see how far you go. Saying we can eat SOME things raw does not mean we can eat everything raw. 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

They eat mostly green leaves of Salats and very less (to almost none) of vegetables like carrot or broccoli. 

Actually, they eat mostly wild herbs like dandelions and  stinging nettles and dozens of other kinds of wild herbs. Then comes the consumption of raw fats from raw nuts and raw nut pastes and coconuts. 

They also use seeds, plant oils, sea vegetables, herbs, mushrooms, and fresh juices.

 

Here is the list of vegetables that are consumed in case of 100% Raw Vegan Diet. 

 

http://rawschool.com/best-raw-foods/

That list is pretty small, considering the bulk majority of veggies we are are cooked. 

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

(2) Similarly, you will find people in US/Canada/Europe, who sustain almost 100% Raw Meat Diet (including Birds and Wild Deer). They have their own techniques for doing it. Mostly, it is the consumption of very high "Animal FAT", which allows them to use animal protein in moderation and acquire most of their calories from animal fat, instead of animal protein. 

They prefer to consume fatty fish like Herring and Mackerel, and also use raw Coconut Oil. 

100% bullshit. Show evidence. 
Eating raw birds mean you get e-coli and die. This is why chicken has to ALWAYS be cooked and never serve raw, same for every bird out there. 

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

You can see these people in action here:  https://www.rawpaleodietforum.com

 

They swear that they used all kind of other diets (vegan, raw vegan, cooked meat etc.) and the most natural diet for human life is "Raw Paleo Diet" which consists of raw Meat and raw herbs and green salat leaves. 

Nothing more than a fad that these fad-holics are propagating. I am yet to see a SINGLE person eat raw bird and live to tell the tale, without modern medicine. They can swear what they wish, it doesnt overturn medical fact. 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Their argument is this that before the usage of "Fire", our ancestors (Homo Habilis and Homo Errectus etc.) ate this diet for millions of years. It was mostly raw meat diet, with little bit of green leaves of salats and herbs and fruits. We were Hunter Gatherers for millions of years. 

The argument is flawed, since we are a different species from Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. We are Homo Sapiens. Evolved with fire and have been eating cooked food for as long as we can tell. There is absolutely zero evidence of species homo sapiens practicing eating a wide variety of raw meats- in any of archaeology. 

So on the basis of evolution, we the species known as homo sapiens, i.e., not homo habilis or homo nearderthalis or homo erectus, have evolved to eat cooked food, while retaining our prior evolutionary paradigm of eating some things raw.

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Once again you are correct about keeping billions of cows and their destructive effect upon the ecosystem. 

Nevertheless, Raw Paleo Eaters answer it by indicating that problem is not the Raw Paleo Diet, but the problem is "Over Population" of humans. For them, the raw paleo diet stays as the most ideal human diet, as it never destroyed the ecosystem for millions of years in which species HOMO stayed as hunter gatherer.
 

Cooked meats are more harmful to health as compared to cooked vegetables, as one has to cook the meats for longer period of time, which creates more poisonous stuffs. 

The bolded is more propaganda. Yes, cooking meat degrades some proteins. But i'd rather not die from eating uncooked meat that our bodies cannot process. Especially uncooked birds. 

Whether the problem is overpopulation or not, the world cannot sustain the paleo-meat heavy diet. Period. So their solution, is not a solution, but actually destructive. Furthermore, Paleo-dieticians eat way more meat than species homo sapiens normally consumes, as seen by hunter-gatherer observations. 

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Eating cooked burgers (like Americans do) is certainly very bad. Nevertheless, it should not be mixed with the raw paleo diet, which is totally different concept. 

 

Red Indians used "Pemmican" as survival food for months and years, without becoming deficient of any thing. This pemmican is made up of 50% sun dried meat and 45% of animal fat, and 5% of sun dried berries. 

 

 

Sure, you can eat some things raw and its fine. But fact is, we cannot eat most meat raw and its far worse to eat raw chicken than cooked chicken. 

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Healing Effects of Raw Paleo Diet:

Maximum as compared to any other Food (like Fruit/Vegetable Juices etc.)

Especially raw Organ Meat (liver, heart, kidney, tongue, bone marrow, ....) have the most healing effects. 

That is why Americans are using Dried raw organ meats in capsule forms now.

 

Yawn. More bullshit propaganda. 

[randomGuy]

My only concern is the pain, fear etc. suffered by animal when it is slaughtered..IMO animals are somewhat similar human babies in intelligence and in the way they perceive pain and fear and the way they react to it.... 

 

Coming to nature - how nature made us ? Nature gave humans the ability to think, to differentiate between right and wrong...And that ability is telling me to be a vegetarian...

 

I was listening to osho, he said you could consume non-veg, but non-vegetarianism would be an impediment to spiritual growth and that one would be inclined to become a vegetarian by himself if he has thoughts of going on to the spiritual path...I kind of agree with this.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by randomGuy

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

My only concern is the pain, fear etc. suffered by animal when it is slaughtered..IMO animals are somewhat similar human babies in intelligence and in the way they perceive pain and fear and the way they react to it.... 

 

Coming to nature - how nature made us ? Nature gave humans the ability to think, to differentiate between right and wrong...And that ability is telling me to be a vegetarian...

 

I was listening to osho, he said you could consume non-veg, but non-vegetarianism would be an impediment to spiritual growth and that one would be inclined to become a vegetarian by himself if he has thoughts of going on to the spiritual path...I kind of agree with this.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in denial of our base instincts = leads to spirituality bullshit argument.

That is, straight-up contradictory. We are to be true to our nature, if we want to understand ourselves. That is the fundamental bedrock of a reasonable logical 'spiritualism'. 

 

[Alam_dar]

Quote

I've lived in the west for 30+ years and i live in one of the hippie-dippie-est part of the world. Never met a single westerner with 100% raw vegetable diet.

 

Well believe me, there are plenty of them in the West. There are dozens of websites about 100% raw Vegan and dozens of books that you could buy online. 

 

Quote

 

If you think human body can live on raw vegan diet, try eating raw potatoes and see how far you go. Saying we can eat SOME things raw does not mean we can eat everything raw. 

That list is pretty small, considering the bulk majority of veggies we are are cooked.

 

Raw potatoes are not eaten in the Raw Vegan Diet, but green leaves of many different kinds of Salats and dozens of wild herbs leaves are eaten. The List is not small if you consider those dozens of wild herbs like dandelions and nettles etc. Then come wild tubers and nuts. 

Actually they follow what Gorillas and Chimpanzees eat in their wild life. Gorillas and Chimpanzees know about 250+ type of different edible plants and herbs and know exactly which plants and herbs and fruits should not be eaten while they are poisonous. 

Agriculture became only about 10000 years ago. So, cultivated vegetables like potatoes and broccoli has no place in this diet. 

 

You will find this particular community in Germany. They are totally raw vegan for decades. 

 

https://germanygoesraw.de/buch-dvd/

 

Quote

100% bullshit. Show evidence. 
Eating raw birds mean you get e-coli and die. This is why chicken has to ALWAYS be cooked and never serve raw, same for every bird out there.

Believe me. It is 100% TRUE. 

Your argument of e-coli is correct. But again there is more to it. 

E-Coli occurs only in the chickens/ducks/birds which are fed with "GRAINS". 

In wild life, chicken and birds don't eat the cultivated "grains", but their original diet is different kind of "grasses" and "worms" and "insects". 

 

You could visit the Raw Paleo Forum and see hundreds of members there eating raw chickens, ducks and other birds for the last few decades now. 

 

A grass fed chicken is totally different than farm raised chicken. It has totally "yellow" colour of fat. 

 

 

Wild ducks are very tasty while they have a lot of fat. 

 

Quote

I am yet to see a SINGLE person eat raw bird and live to tell the tale, without modern medicine. They can swear what they wish, it doesnt overturn medical fact. 

Believe me, there are thousands of people who are eating raw cattle and birds and fishes for decades. Once again I suggest you to please see witnesses of thousands of members in this Raw Paleo Forum. 

 

 

Quote

The argument is flawed, since we are a different species from Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. We are Homo Sapiens. Evolved with fire and have been eating cooked food for as long as we can tell. There is absolutely zero evidence of species homo sapiens practicing eating a wide variety of raw meats- in any of archaeology. 

One could only argue about it in the absence of any solid proof. 

Evolution of Homo Erectus from Homo Habilis didn't occurred due to usage of fire. Therefore, evolution is not dependant upon use of fire. The early modern humans are about 200,000 years old and no evidence is found that they were cooking their food. 

 

Quote

Yawn. More bullshit propaganda. 

We should be open for new things. They should not only be denied while they are "NEW". 

We may ask for the "evidence", which is the proper way of handling the facts. 

 

Here one link to "Amazon.Com" where Americans are buying raw dried liver in capsules form. Just read hundreds of reviews there. Note, they are not even "Raw Paleo" eaters, but normal dieters with cooked foods and vegetables, but still they witness the healing effects of raw organ food. 

 

As far as real "Raw Paleo Eaters" are concerned, then you could read their witnesses in their forum.

 

Please keep in mind the basic rule: In order to "criticize" some thing, one first needs to know "fully" about them. There are many things which make a lot of difference. For example, the farm raised chickens vs wild grass fed chickens. 

 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, randomGuy said:

My only concern is the pain, fear etc. suffered by animal when it is slaughtered..IMO animals are somewhat similar human babies in intelligence and in the way they perceive pain and fear and the way they react to it.... 

 

Coming to nature - how nature made us ? Nature gave humans the ability to think, to differentiate between right and wrong...And that ability is telling me to be a vegetarian...

 

I was listening to osho, he said you could consume non-veg, but non-vegetarianism would be an impediment to spiritual growth and that one would be inclined to become a vegetarian by himself if he has thoughts of going on to the spiritual path...I kind of agree with this.

Yes brother, human intelligence play the biggest role. 

I will have no problem in accepting the cooked Vegan diet if it heals and really provides the spirituality. 

 

Experience (which involves human intelligence) shows, cooked Vegan diet (vegetables and lentils and grains/bread/rice) is not going to "Heal" you and detox your body. 

 

Raw vegan diet (with no grains/breads/rice/lentils) is much more powerful in healing you as compared to the cooked vegan diet. While raw meat and raw meat organs have even edge over the raw vegan diet. 

 

Spirituality:

Believe me, spirituality comes from a "clean body". A body, which has been thoroughly detoxed. 

You will feel TRUE love sensations and True spirituality and clearance of mind after you have detoxed your body through different ways. I am afraid only eating raw vegan diet is not enough for this. 

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

Usually, the veg vs non-veg debate goes like the one below:

 

• Meat eater: Why don'y you eat meat?
• Veg eater: Animals feel pain
• Meat eater: Plants feel pain too 

The meat eater here assumes that the argument is won since everything feels pain, eating everything is justified. Much like how Lahori logic is used to justify terrorism for example, etc. 

 

Points that need to be considered in totality:

• The degree of pain experienced 
• Responsibility of taking care of off springs 
• The food choices available to human beings, along with the ability to farm 

 

 

 

In climates where farming is not always possible, humans have hunted like animals. But I would put that as a special case

[Alam_dar]

49 minutes ago, zen said:

Usually, the veg vs non-veg debate goes like the one below:

• Meat eater: Why don'y you eat meat?
• Veg eater: Animals feel pain
• Meat eater: Plants feel pain too 

The meat eater here assumes that the argument is won since everything feels pain, eating everything is justified. Much like how Lahori logic is used to justify terrorism for example, etc. 

Yes, I have also seen such arguments from the meat eaters (mostly Muslims).

 

Nevertheless, here case is different. As you could see that argumentation has been presented from the point of View of "Science and Nature", who heavily support the omnivorous origin of homo species. 

 

Just see the "Yellow" fat colour of "100% Grass Fed" cattle. 

 

And also see yellow fat from the "grass fed free range" chickens.

 

What does this deep yellow fat means? It means "DHA" (i.e. Omega 3 Fat). It is found only in grass fed animal fats or in fish meat. 

 

Plants don't have Omega 3 fat (or very inferior type of Omega 3 in flax seeds). 

 

Also, if you are living near to Northern/Southern pole e.g. Europre and Canada where there is not enough sun shine, then you will certainly develop Vitamin D deficiency. 

The European were able to fight Vitamin D deficiency by eating oily Fish (like herring, mackerel, sardines, wild Salomon etc.). 100% Vegan Dieters would have died in such environment in couple of generations. 

 

Religions helped the mankind in the past. But now their time has past and Science and knowledge have opened new dimensions to the mankind.  

 

Grains/Bread/Rice/Lentils etc. became part of Human Diet only about 10,000 years ago when the cultivation started for the first time. But for the millions of years of HOMO species history, we were hunter gatherers and eating only meat and wild fruits and wild herbs. 

 

Regarding cultivation of crops: 
Wild herbs and see vegetables are superior to present day Farmed vegetables. Even the so called "organic vegetables" could never compete with the wild ones in nutrition. 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Alam_dar

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

What does this deep yellow fat means? It means "DHA" (i.e. Omega 3 Fat). It is found only in grass fed animal fats or in fish meat. 

 

Plants don't have Omega 3 fat (or very inferior type of Omega 3 in flax seeds). 

 

Also, if you are living near to Northern/Southern pole e.g. Europre and Canada where there is not enough sun shine, then you will certainly develop Vitamin D deficiency. 

The European were able to fight Vitamin D deficiency by eating oily Fish (like herring, mackerel, sardines, wild Salomon etc.). 100% Vegan Dieters would have died in such environment in couple of generations. 

 

Religions helped the mankind in the past. But now their time has past and Science and knowledge have opened new dimensions to the mankind.  

 

Bro, I avoid looking at meat even when having a buffet breakfast at hotels. and you are forcing me to see such images

 

There are a lot of vitamins and Omega supplements available now so for me it is not an issue. I already mentioned that there would always be outliers (the point on climate) but humans do have a choice and more options now 

 

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive  

 

 

[Alam_dar]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

Bro, I avoid looking at meat even when having a buffet breakfast at hotels. and you are forcing me to see such images

 

There are a lot of vitamins and Omega supplements available now so for me it is not an issue. I already mentioned that there would always be outliers (the point on climate) but humans do have a choice and more options now 

 

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive  

Please excuse me for making you inconvenient. 

You are right about the Vitamins and Omega 3 supplements. 

Nevertheless, please note that:

(1) Synthetic Vitmains could never replace the efficiency and benefits of the Natural Vitamins. There are millions of people who are taking synthetic vitamins, but their deficiency is not healing. 

(2) And Omega 3 supplements are normally animal (fish) based. The synthetic ones, or the flax seed based one are very inferior and not providing the desired results. 

 

Would you believe me if I say that whole Fish and Meat (with Organs) in raw form have a lot of trace elements in them, which science has not understood fully up till now and thus could not synthetically reproduce them. (Omega 3 is heat sensitive and over 37 degree Celsius, it starts dying). 

 

I took the supplements for many years, but almost nothing changed. But the raw Paleo food is really healing. 

 

Also, if one want to drink milk, then I suggest drinking only the "Raw Milk" while heating milk (pasteurizing it) at even 76 degree Celsius would kill all the organic (i.e. living) calcium and vitamins. 

 

In India and Pakistan, we don't have the culture of drinking raw milk. But in the Western Cold countries, there was a culture of drinking raw milk in the earlier centuries, while such raw milk stays good for 4 to 5 days at cold temperature. 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

18 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please excuse me for making you inconvenient. 

You are right about the Vitamins and Omega 3 supplements. 

Nevertheless, please note that:

(1) Synthetic Vitmains could never replace the efficiency and benefits of the Natural Vitamins. There are millions of people who are taking synthetic vitamins, but their deficiency is not healing. 

(2) And Omega 3 supplements are normally animal (fish) based. The synthetic ones, or the flax seed based one are very inferior and not providing the desired results. 

 

Would you believe me if I say that whole Fish and Meat (with Organs) in raw form have a lot of trace elements in them, which science has not understood fully up till now and thus could not synthetically reproduce them. (Omega 3 is heat sensitive and over 37 degree Celsius, it starts dying). 

 

I took the supplements for many years, but almost nothing changed. But the raw Paleo food is really healing. 

 

Also, if one want to drink milk, then I suggest drinking only the "Raw Milk" while heating milk (pasteurizing it) at even 76 degree Celsius would kill all the organic (i.e. living) calcium and vitamins. 

 

In India and Pakistan, we don't have the culture of drinking raw milk. But in the Western Cold countries, there was a culture of drinking raw milk in the earlier centuries, while such raw milk stays good for 4 to 5 days at cold temperature. 

 

 

It would be hard to find a perfect solution so one has to look for solutions which generally benefits all. By killing and eating X, I get A benefits. By eating supplements, I get A/2 benefits while reducing harms to animals. Pick your poison 

 

By focusing solely on benefits in one particular area, you could be treading on dangerous grounds. For e.g. by maximizing benefits in one area by eating meat, one would be introducing negative elements in others .... Many studies show that vegetarians live longer: http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/ 

 

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. As for me, I don't mind being not 100% on Omega 3 or vitamins as long as animals remain safe 

Edited November 25, 2017 by zen

[randomGuy]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't believe in denial of our base instincts = leads to spirituality bullshit argument.

That is, straight-up contradictory. We are to be true to our nature, if we want to understand ourselves. That is the fundamental bedrock of a reasonable logical 'spiritualism'. 

 

The 30-40% Indians who are vegetarians and ~10% vegetarian non-Indians won't agree with you on consuming meat being our basic instinct. It's not. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

It would be hard to find a perfect solution so one has to look for solutions which generally benefits all. By killing and eating X, I get A benefits. By eating supplements, I get A/2 benefits while reducing harms to animals. Pick your poison 

"Perfect Solution" is only a dream, when the "Mother Nature" itself does not want such a solution for the universe and it made "carnivore animals" who would die without giving pain and eating the "herbivore animals". Do you think Mother Nature was "unjustified" where it made so much easy for the herbivores to live by eating grass which is every where, but making life of carnivores so much difficult that they have first to hunt in order to get their food?

 

So, the aim is not the "Perfect Solution", but the "Best Solution", as mother nature has programmed for us. I personally feel that this is the best for the "humanity" to follow the mother nature. 

 

Quote

By focusing solely on benefits in one particular area, you could be treading on dangerous grounds. For e.g. by maximizing benefits in one area by eating meat, one would be introducing negative elements in others .... Many studies show that vegetarians live longer: http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/ 

You are correct about the Meat eaters dying earlier than the Vegetarians. 

Nevertheless, all these figures about the "meat eaters" is about the "cooked meat", which is totally different than "raw paleo meat eating" and they could never be compared. 

 

As I stated above, meat becomes more poisonous by cooking, while one has to cook it for much longer time than the vegetables. 

While the raw meat (especially organs) are the "most healing" things in this planet earth. 

I know this is a very big statement, but this is 100% true and I stand upon it in order to help the Humanity. 

 

If any one is chronically sick, and nothing is helping, then I ask them to try at least once the raw paleo diet and they will get rid of pain and disease.

 

Quote

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. As for me, I don't mind being not 100% on Omega 3 or vitamins as long as animals remain safe

 Truth is truth and it should not be looked as left or right or middle. 

Your intentions are noble to not to give pain to the animals. 

But mind it please that not only you will be suffering with pain in your life, but you will pass these deficiencies & pain to your children in heritage. For example, if Parents have vitamin D deficiency, then they will pass it to the new born babies, who will have weak bones and suffer pain in life. This has become a major problem in European Countries where parents have vitamin D deficiency due to less sun shine and people staying mostly at home and travelling in cars. They pass this same deficiency to their new born children. 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, randomGuy said:

The 30-40% Indians who are vegetarians and ~10% vegetarian non-Indians won't agree with you on consuming meat being our basic instinct. It's not. 

Bro, How could one "Disagree" upon any issue without being "open" to experience it? 

Such statement could only be made after one has tried these different kinds of diets. If you are vegetarian whole of your life, and you have not tried other diets, then you could not make claims about the other diets. 

 

For example, I was vegetarian for long period of time.

Next step was "Raw Vegan Diet" which indeed helped me many folds more than cooked vegetarian version. I was able to detox my body and I felt the feelings of "spiritualism". But still I was totally able to felt that some thing was missing and I was not satisfied. This satisfaction came only after turning to raw paleo version. 

 

Thus, for the betterment of humanity, I only ask to be "open minded" enough to get the first hand experience yourself, even for couple of weeks or even for some days. I am confident that even these few days are enough to find out the truth about our "basic instincts". 

[Singh bling]

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

It would be hard to find a perfect solution so one has to look for solutions which generally benefits all. By killing and eating X, I get A benefits. By eating supplements, I get A/2 benefits while reducing harms to animals. Pick your poison 

 

By focusing solely on benefits in one particular area, you could be treading on dangerous grounds. For e.g. by maximizing benefits in one area by eating meat, one would be introducing negative elements in others .... Many studies show that vegetarians live longer: http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/ 

 

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. As for me, I don't mind being not 100% on Omega 3 or vitamins as long as animals remain safe 

Those are BS studies only done in west , Most vegans in west are quite health concious people while typical non veg of west is quite junkie.Also per capita meat consumption in west is around 100 kg which too high

 

I would like to invite researchers in India to study Jains and muslims, christians as Jains are pure veg while the other two communities are most non veg and then they should present their results.

 

Also read about Mongols who were one of most non veg but not very developed.They still mostly eat meat and milk products and many believe that vegetables are taboo because they grow on ****.Still average age of Mongolians were found to be around 68 which is pretty good for their development standard

 

[MechEng]

18 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am not from India, so sorry for my limited knowledge about this Issue regarding Indian society. 

 

But I did have discussions with the Western Veg people on this issue many times. Now I also want to know the arguments from the Indian friends too as Indian society seems to be the largest vegetarian society in the world. 

 

Let me first present the important points from my discussions with the western Veg friends. 

 

(1) Objection: Animals have to suffer the pain

Yes. It is true.

But it seems that it is the "NATURE" which is ruthless. Nature designed this universe/world in this way that "suffering" of some species is necessary for the "existence" of other species. 

For example, can we demand a LION to not eat meat of other weaker animals while this cause "pain" to them?

 

You my dear friend have justified cannibalism with your "NATURE" argument.

 

Tomorrow if your neighbour overpowers you even though you try to defend yourself, he chops your arm off and starts eating it will you be okay with the "NATURE" being ruthless argument?

 

And regarding Lions, keep in mind that all carnivores perspire through their tongues, humans and herbivores perspire through skin pores. Even if you force feed a Lion with healthy vegetarian diet, it will eventually die in few days because their body system will get messed up.   

[Alam_dar]

27 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You my dear friend have justified cannibalism with your "NATURE" argument.

 

Tomorrow if your neighbour overpowers you even though you try to defend yourself, he chops your arm off and starts eating it will you be okay with the "NATURE" being ruthless argument?

 

And regarding Lions, keep in mind that all carnivores perspire through their tongues, humans and herbivores perspire through skin pores. Even if you force feed a Lion with healthy vegetarian diet, it will eventually die in few days because their body system will get messed up.   

I have not studied enough about cannibalism in HOMO species .

I don't know if it was normal like eating wild deer, or it was primarily due to the shortage of food. 

I don't know if cannibalism took place while it is "healing" (like eating the wild deer or fish), or it took place as pride over the enemy.  I read somewhere a form of cannibalism where only the already dead relatives were eaten so that their soul could live up in the remaining living ones. 

 

If we talk about "nature", then Cannibalism is not usually found in the mammals, but it is found in the reptiles.

Dogs, cats, lions, tigers, leopards etc. don't indulge in cannibalism.  

 

Therefore, it may be possible if human beings are involved in cannibalism, then it is not the "nature", but the "modified" behaviour of human beings (like eating dead relatives with religious belief that his soul will live further in the living relatives, or eating the enemies as pride etc.). 

 

Perhaps this "modified" behaviour is also responsible for leaving the natural diet and eating only the "vegetables". 

 

Cannibalism was never so much wide spread among humans that we could say with surety that "nature" lead them towards it.