"Vegetarian" Business/Formal Shoe Options

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by randomax

Not to digress from the topic, but Gandhi was actually a vegetarian (he experimented in meat as a child though).

My 2 cents on this:
I find it somewhat amusing that people ask me at times why I am vegetarian? I think the obvious question should be that in this day and age, why eat meat? Also, to those calling flexible vegans/vegetarians hypocrites. Where do you draw the line in calling yourself meat eaters? Do you eat all kinds of meat? To quote an extreme example, say human meat? If not, then you are a hypocrite as well. And if you, well, then you're probably a freak.

Oops my bad, your right Ghandi appeared to be a vegetarian.

Im really the type of guy that prefers not to be critical of other peoples lifestyle choices - provided their lifestyle choice is not detrimental to others. People just automatically feel defensive the moment someone else is different to them. I prefer to look at things in a more business like sense - the notion that it is the way it is.

Common reasons for being a vegetarian? Feel it is unethical to kill animals, Dont like meat (texture or taste or looks too much like roadkill), Religion / Spiritual Practices (i.e. many eastern faiths do not recommend eating meat) etc etc. Are these reasons right or wrong for being vegetarian? Thats a billion dollar question, it all depends on the individual and his/her outlook on life.

Casting validity on being a vegetarian or a meat eater is ultimately quite hypothetical - logic alone will support numerous arguments for or against the practice. It is much in the same vein as the old age argument "Which religion, church sect, or god/deity is the correct way? Or should we be aethiest and not believe all this?"

Well after 100's of years, no resolution has occured in the religious debate, I dont see the vegetarian or meat eating debate being settled any time soon either.

 

[randomax]

Originally Posted by entrero

Many people nowadays forget that meat is a luxury, it's also the most nutrient dense food. So depending on where you live it's a statement of wealth.


Good you mentioned Gandhi. The Hindu culture supports vegetarianism and I'd say it makes a lot of sense. For example why kill a cow for it's meat, when it's more beneficial in the long term to keep it alive. Gandhi is a perfect example where his beliefs, culture and options coincide.

In your case you got the luxury to have options and also you're making a political statement. In the West it's more economically sound to have a meat based diet while in the East such as India is having a vegan based diet.

IMO there's no such thing as "flexible" vegan, you're just a normal person who has a preference for veggies and by calling yourself that way, you feel above others. Same goes for "meat eaters", a normal person who has a preference for a meat based diet, and think they're more "manly" by calling themselves that way.

Your example on where to draw the line is wrongly put. You mean if a "meat eater" ever eats a vegetable, would that be considered hypocrisy? Answered above.

It all boils down to whether your purse allows you to be.

Yes, I do have the luxury to make that political statement and yes, you are correct in point out that in the west, it's much more economically sound to have a meat based diet (although not the healthiest meat). Your point is well taken and by no means was I trying to say that being vegetarian is the RIGHT thing. It's all a matter of perspective - someone wants to eat meat, good for them, but please don't tell me what is the "right" thing to do and what is the "right" diet. There are billions of people on this planet that are vegetarian and live a very healthy life and there are billions who eat meat and live a very healthy life. Do what you think is right in the end.

Originally Posted by entrero

Your example on where to draw the line is wrongly put. You mean if a "meat eater" ever eats a vegetable, would that be considered hypocrisy? Answered above.

What I was trying to highlight is that people draw a line somewhere - some people don't eat red meat, some people will not eat horse or dog meat. And the same holds true for what chasingred said. Your food options don't need to be black and white, but you are likely to be inclined to one versus the other.

 

[geoffmartin17]

epik threak.

 

[cptjeff]

Originally Posted by randomax

What I was trying to highlight is that people draw a line somewhere - some people don't eat red mean, some people will not eat horse or dog meat. And the same holds true for what chasingred said. Your food options don't need to be black and white, but you are likely to be inclined to one versus the other.
Not to mention the "meat-eater" terminology is only used to contrast with the people who don't ever eat meat. The human body has evolved for an omnivorous diet. Which means both meat and veggies. Just meat is a carnivorous diet, and you would have health issues with that if you tried it. One group is eating the diet we've evolved to have, another group is deliberately excluding a category.

 

[drbaw]

Why eat meat? Because that's a part of a well balanced diet. It's what humans have evolved to eat. That's the default.

and

I simply do what my body...my genetic heritage and eons of evolution...was designed to do. And, I might add, I derive a great deal of sensual gratification from doing so.

I hate to

and I enjoy a bacon cheeseburger as much as the next guy, but I also conduct research on human evolution for a living and have to object to the idea that there is a "natural" diet of any sort or that we were "designed to eat meat." It's more appropriate to say that we evolved to be able to eat meat. Sounds like a pedantic difference, but it's a critical one. Human diet in traditional societies ranges from people who eat almost all meat in the arctic to people who eat almost all plant-based foods in some tropical and subtropical regions.

Just because we were evolved to be able to do so something doesn't imply that we are inclined to do something and it should never be used as a justification for doing something.

Eat meat (or don't) because you enjoy it (or don't), but don't imagine that evolution compels you in one way or another (and this also goes for the many vegetarians who try to argue that their diet is more natural, and it goes double for these crazies: http://www.cavemanpower.com/)

/Rant.

 

[DWFII]

It's more appropriate to say that we evolved to be able to eat meat. Sounds like a pedantic difference, but it's a critical one.

Pedantic, probably. Critical? I don't think so. We have teeth to tear meat, sheep don't. We have digestive systems and generate enzymes that digest meat. If you object to the word "design" that's one thing but clearly evolution or God arranged things so that meat could be a major part of our diet without putting any strain on our systems. That's near-as-nevermind design in any book. It's very like saying we have brains that "evolved to be able" to gather and remember information, gain and pass on wisdom, etc., but we weren't really designed to think.

 

[drbaw]

The key issue is that humans were "designed" to either eat meat or to not eat meat. Throughout out long and broad history many of us have gotten along just fine without eating meat (and not only modern hippies - there are plenty of traditional societies in South Asia that haven't eaten meat for centuries). Evolution does not compel this (delicious) ability of our, it simply enables it. Because of that distinction, it shouldn't be used as a justification (unless you also want to justify other evolutionary affordances like reproducing at the age of 14). We cannot, on the other hand, live and reproduce without thinking and socializing. Unlike eating meat, evolution compels us to think and socialize.

 

[DWFII]

I understand your point. I understood it from the first. But what I suspect you are missing is that design doesn't necessarily compel utilization. You're confusing the two--because our feet are designed to run doesn't mean we have to run everywhere. Because we are designed to live in cold climates doesn't mean we can't make a living in the tropics. Because women are "designed" to have babies doesn't mean that they have to do so. But it is a certainty that men...who are not so designed...couldn't if they wanted to. We all fatuously believe that we can rise above our natures. But if we can, it is only because we were designed to do so. That doesn't mean that we all do, however. Or, to be fair...that we all want to. And for many people who spin fantasy worlds where everyone is good and everyone is dealt a winning hand, having a brain doesn't mean they use it for critical thinking. Evolution does not compel us to think...as so many facets of contemporary society bear out. To your last point, it is true we are omnivores. We were designed to eat a great range of foodstuffs. But meat is one of those foodstuffs. To deny that is to deny reality. In fact, there is more than a little evidence suggesting that without the high energy that meat eating generates our brains could not have evolved at all.

 

[drbaw]

I think we're talking past each other because the whole point that I'm trying to make is that "design" does not compel utilization in this case and, because of that, appeals to "design" in this case provide a poor justification.

What did you think I was arguing?

The contrast with thought is important because evolution "compels us to think" in an analogous way to how evolution "compels us to breathe." You cannot function as an organism without very basic critical thinking abilities and without abstract thought. People who are born without the ability to think abstractly or to socialize almost always die as infants. We would cease to exist as an organism if critical thinking, socialization, and abstract thought suddenly disappeared. We would still exist if meat suddenly disappeared. I'm really curious to know what facet of contemporary society (or society of any sort) is possible without basic critical thinking and socialization?

The White and co. brain/meat argument is debatable and, even if it is true, irrelevant to the discussion. Behaviors that were compelled by evolution in the past need not necessarily be compelled by evolution in the present.

All I'm saying is that if you want to eat meat, great! If you feel the need to justify it (and, frankly, nobody should feel the need to justify either eating meat or being a vegetarian), then justify it because it tastes good, because it's an easy way to get certain nutrients, because it's tradition, because you believe God gave you dominion over animals, etc.... All of those are reasonable justifications. Justifying it because "we evolved to eat meat" is not.

Also, I like clothes.

 

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by drbaw

Also, I like clothes.

I'll second that

 

[randomax]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Pedantic, probably. Critical? I don't think so. We have teeth to tear meat, sheep don't. We have digestive systems and generate enzymes that digest meat. If you object to the word "design" that's one thing but clearly evolution or God arranged things so that meat could be a major part of our diet without putting any strain on our systems. That's near-as-nevermind design in any book.

It's very like saying we have brains that "evolved to be able" to gather and remember information, gain and pass on wisdom, etc., but we weren't really designed to think.

By that arguement, we should also eat raw leaves since we have an appendix that is "designed" to digest them.

 

[cptjeff]

^Well, I do like a good salad.

 

[retozimmermann]

Originally Posted by mickey711

He was clearly joking, using a classic Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

Maybe true here but there are a frightening amount of people who argue that way and are very serious about it. In that light I don't think its very good joke material yet.

 

[apropos]

Originally Posted by randomax

By that arguement, we should also eat raw leaves since we have an appendix that is "designed" to digest them.
If by 'digest' you mean secrete substances to aid in the absorption of, or participating in said absorption, appendixes do not 'digest' anything.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by drbaw

The contrast with thought is important because evolution "compels us to think" in an analogous way to how evolution "compels us to breathe." You cannot function as an organism without very basic critical thinking abilities and without abstract thought. People who are born without the ability to think abstractly or to socialize almost always die as infants.
I don't really want to drag this out...it's evident we're not going to reach much common ground. But I would point out that you're confusing cognitive processes with "critical thinking." All kinds of animals and organisms exist and even socialize with very little in the way of critical thinking. Human beings are notorious for acting on impulse and "feeling"...neither of which has anything to do with "critical thinking." Critical thinking involves logic and reason and an openness to the facts...or at least the reality on the ground...even if, as with the brain/meat theories, you find them distasteful or don't (or don't want to) agree.

The White and co. brain/meat argument is debatable and, even if it is true, irrelevant to the discussion. Behaviors that were compelled by evolution in the past need not necessarily be compelled by evolution in the present.

How is that relevant? I alluded to the fact that many behaviours appear to be more dependent on situational factors...some of which are ultimately controlled by choice or what we percieve as choice... than compulsion. And when you come right down to it...until those memes and genetic codings (canine teeth, etc.) disappear entirely from the human genotype it can't honestly be said that we've evolved very much, can it? Under those circumstances, even if overt compulsion is moot, instincts and archetypal impulses still hold sway in the human universe.

All I'm saying is that if you want to eat meat, great! If you feel the need to justify it (and, frankly, nobody should feel the need to justify either eating meat or being a vegetarian), then justify it because it tastes good, because it's an easy way to get certain nutrients, because it's tradition, because you believe God gave you dominion over animals, etc.... All of those are reasonable justifications. Justifying it because "we evolved to eat meat" is not.

And there's another mis-perception, I suspect. It's not meat eaters that are defending or justifying anything. Nor proselytizing, nor inferring that there is something noble about not eating meat. "We evolved to eat meat" is not a justifcation to eat meat, it is a reason...based upon critical thinking and not wishful thinking or some phantasmagorical notion of post-human spirituality...to not abjure a natural component of a healthy human diet. On the bit about "eat what you want"...I began my remarks many posts ago with that very admonition.