gb hill
Veteran
This thread proves to me that we are indeed in the last days. Read 1 Timothy 4:1 to vs 5. I'm thankful for meat & I'm thankful for film.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=4&t=KJV#3
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=4&t=KJV#3
gavinlg
Veteran
What you just stated was a rationalization. Your knowledge of what is sentient and what is less sentient is so small that it wouldn't qualify as a single pixel blip on a map of the scale of the universe. To think that 'what we know now' is how things really are in the scale of what is alive and what is sentient is just pure ignorance. Human are most certainly biologically attuned to be omnivorous, and get a large portion of our main nutrient uptake from meat.
gavinlg
Veteran
No because our body is literally made from protein. Our entire immune system relies on protein for repair and maintenance. Protein is extremely important, and meat is the singular best source of it, by a long way, and is best in unrefined, unprocessed form, lightly cooked.
Carbohydrates are the macronutrient that aren't really needed, but people are obsessed with. The food pyramid that everyone refers to so lovingly was created by the US department of agriculture to boost grain consumption, not for optimum health (if you don't believe me, look it up). Most grain produce must be highly refined and processed to be able to be consumed by humans (try eating a husk of wheat, or a raw soybean, or squeezing a sunflower seed to get the oil out).
Sorry to go off on a tangent a little bit everyone, but I find this is all extremely fascinating, and can't help but throw some counter points in here.
c.poulton
Well-known
I'm with Paul on this one. I've been a vegetarian since 1984 and have always known about gelatine use in film. I don't like it particularly but then again I wear leather shoes and belts (and the occasional jacket!) so my 'justification' is that it's a by-product of meat industry...
However, I am slowly changing my personal views on the ethical treatment of animals used for meat and diary production. Given a choice I would rather not rely on using animal products anymore - where the animal has been killed or treated badly to obtain that product. Where gelatine (or leather) sits in this I am unsure....
starless
Well-known
Why do you expect people to act on something they don't know about? It's like saying don't kick or step on rocks, because it's possible that you hurt them. Isn't it better to do something about thing we are SURE about? Like killing animals or treating them badly?
Sorry, but most of what you are saying is incorrect:
The best source of protein is the egg white - which is pure protein.
You are also confusing refined and processed foods with prepared foods.
Foods are refined and processed in order to enhance flavor and extend their shelf life. For example stripping the bran and germ from the grains to produce white flour which people find tastes better and cooks easier than wholemeal flour. Or refining sunflower cooking oil (a mechanical process which includes heating and certain chemicals) - because it's cheaper and yields more than cold-pressing.
gavinlg
Veteran
Sorry I don't agree - foods are refined because there is money to be made from the refining process. No refined grain is better for your health than the unrefined version of itself. In fact, quite the opposite - anything that is refined is bad for you. The more refined, the quicker it breaks down, the quicker it spikes insulin, which then stores more as fat and raises inflammation in the body. I'm not just saying this in theory either, I've seen a cancer sufferer beat their disease just by eating (similar to) paleolithic diet - backed with full PET/CT glucose scans done by doctors. And I've seen it more than once.
Since the introduction of refined grains and processed vegetable oils cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis have been on the up in direct relativity to the amount of refined grains consumed.
Research the nutritional research of Weston A. Price in the first part of last century to further understand the angle that I'm coming from.
starless
Well-known
Well, I never said refined foods are good for your health.
I was trying to point out the difference between refined food and prepared food (to eat), because you stated that Most grain produce must be highly refined and processed to be able to be consumed by humans.
In other words, a cup of boiled whole wheat is not refined or processed food.
I was trying to point out the difference between refined food and prepared food (to eat), because you stated that Most grain produce must be highly refined and processed to be able to be consumed by humans.
In other words, a cup of boiled whole wheat is not refined or processed food.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think it's a rationalization. Sure, the universe is big but we're not talking about the universe, just our own planet. Unless you want to make some kind of religious argument, it's immensely relevant what we as humans know and think. If you agree that moral values are human concepts and that they're constantly re-negotiated in our society then there's no way around accepting that in the end it comes down to what we know.
If you, on the other hand, believe that moral values are dictated by God/a god then it's different, of course. Then it basically just comes down to what the 'rules' are in that religion.
Steve M. was right in saying that the fact that something is a living organism is not really a good measure for whether or not we should kill it. Bacteria live and we kill them every time we wash our hands. Whether or not something is sentient and to what degree is one measure to discuss ethics in regards to killing things. Also, whether or not something has an awareness of it's own future is an aspect often discussed in this regard.
All these things depend on what we know and as morals are constantly being re-negotiated in our societey we can also change our moral beliefs on the basis of new knowledge.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think there is little to be gained from a terminological debate about whether a cup of boiled wheat (or a loaf sourdough bread with all the complex biochemistry behind it) constitutes "refined", "processed" or merely "prepared" food.
starless
Well-known
Fine, let's concentrate on film grain rather.
deerstalkr
Established
I think this is a very difficult subject with grey areas.
I've been vegan for four years, and I have recently started shooting film--I continue to shoot film knowing that gelatine is one of its components.
I consider myself to be a strict vegan, however I have to be reasonable. If you attempt to divide certain actions and place them on a moral scale, I assure you that you will go mad.
I'll admit I've allowed film to enter my moral blind spot because I am comfortable with the choice and its implications. If there is a viable alternative to gelatine based film, I will discontinue usage of said film.
I try to reduce the amount of suffering to both non-human and human Earthlings, but I have to be reasonable to maintain a certain level of contentment in my life.
I don't necessarily condone killing--the murder of living organisms, whether sentient or not. I object to unnecessary slaughter and exploitation of said organisms.
If my existence is being threatened, by Staphylococcus or a wild animal to the extent I cannot avoid killing it, then I must kill it in order to ensure my survival.
As a vegan amongst omnivorous friends I've been thrown in to many wild scenarios such as being stuck on an island with a cow, fights with grizzly bears, the sudden change of heart in humanity when everybody decides to live a vegan lifestyle; and occasionally somebody feigns concerns for the wellbeing of potatoes and challenges my choice of lifestyle. All of which are unlikely to occur and miss the point.
At this point, whether plants are sentient within the parameters that humans are capable of assessing or not is irrelevant. I am unable to photosynthesise, so I must sustain life in a manner that is viable and most logical in relation to my circumstances. I reason that I'm doing less harm than I would be doing if I consumed products derived from animals. While I'm unsure of the exact number, it takes up quite a bit of grain and other resources to maintain livestock and produce a kilogram of meat than it does to produce and harvest various crops--for those with extensive knowledge on agriculture, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've been vegan for four years, and I have recently started shooting film--I continue to shoot film knowing that gelatine is one of its components.
I consider myself to be a strict vegan, however I have to be reasonable. If you attempt to divide certain actions and place them on a moral scale, I assure you that you will go mad.
I'll admit I've allowed film to enter my moral blind spot because I am comfortable with the choice and its implications. If there is a viable alternative to gelatine based film, I will discontinue usage of said film.
I try to reduce the amount of suffering to both non-human and human Earthlings, but I have to be reasonable to maintain a certain level of contentment in my life.
I don't necessarily condone killing--the murder of living organisms, whether sentient or not. I object to unnecessary slaughter and exploitation of said organisms.
If my existence is being threatened, by Staphylococcus or a wild animal to the extent I cannot avoid killing it, then I must kill it in order to ensure my survival.
As a vegan amongst omnivorous friends I've been thrown in to many wild scenarios such as being stuck on an island with a cow, fights with grizzly bears, the sudden change of heart in humanity when everybody decides to live a vegan lifestyle; and occasionally somebody feigns concerns for the wellbeing of potatoes and challenges my choice of lifestyle. All of which are unlikely to occur and miss the point.
At this point, whether plants are sentient within the parameters that humans are capable of assessing or not is irrelevant. I am unable to photosynthesise, so I must sustain life in a manner that is viable and most logical in relation to my circumstances. I reason that I'm doing less harm than I would be doing if I consumed products derived from animals. While I'm unsure of the exact number, it takes up quite a bit of grain and other resources to maintain livestock and produce a kilogram of meat than it does to produce and harvest various crops--for those with extensive knowledge on agriculture, please correct me if I'm wrong.
v3cron
Well-known
Nobody needs the level of protein we are led to eat as consumers, at least in America. The alternative is not grain (which is mostly unnecessary as well), it's increasing dramatically our intake of vegetables and fruit. More than enough protein there. If in doubt, through some tree nuts in there as well.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
I stopped reading the thread once it got off the topic of your original question...but as a vegetarian of over a decade, I'd like to chime in on the issue as it's one I've thought about a decent amount as a film user.
I saw the term "grey moral area" and thought that was very fitting. I don't eat meat and I leave it at that. I used to dive into the particulars a lot to the point where I wouldn't drink beer used with animal charcoal filters. Then I found out that the tires on my bike were made with bits n' pieces of animal, so were the tires on my car. The list piled on and on and I realized the only thing I was doing was stressing myself out and making myself feel like crap just by living day to day. Anyone who takes a strong stance on everything will be found to be a hypocrite somewhere along the way. The easy route is to not take a moral stance on anything, but I don't see that as being entirely just and I would not want to live in such a world.
My bottom line is that I use film. I know it's wrong (in my opinion and my philosophical logic), but at least I know my mistake. I don't pretend to justify it and live with it. I could research as to whether gelatine is a by-product of the slaughter process and that I'm simply "using what would go to waste", but I feel it's futile as you'll likely find competing evidence in the world of research papers to justify and negate your belief. I feel I'm doing my part by not eating meat, so 'nuff said.
I saw the term "grey moral area" and thought that was very fitting. I don't eat meat and I leave it at that. I used to dive into the particulars a lot to the point where I wouldn't drink beer used with animal charcoal filters. Then I found out that the tires on my bike were made with bits n' pieces of animal, so were the tires on my car. The list piled on and on and I realized the only thing I was doing was stressing myself out and making myself feel like crap just by living day to day. Anyone who takes a strong stance on everything will be found to be a hypocrite somewhere along the way. The easy route is to not take a moral stance on anything, but I don't see that as being entirely just and I would not want to live in such a world.
My bottom line is that I use film. I know it's wrong (in my opinion and my philosophical logic), but at least I know my mistake. I don't pretend to justify it and live with it. I could research as to whether gelatine is a by-product of the slaughter process and that I'm simply "using what would go to waste", but I feel it's futile as you'll likely find competing evidence in the world of research papers to justify and negate your belief. I feel I'm doing my part by not eating meat, so 'nuff said.
gavinlg
Veteran
I think your points are fair. Just remember that grains and vegetables are sprayed mercilessly with insecticides and pesticides that kill off and poison every living thing on the planet and pass on through our urine to waterways and the ocean. Not to mention GM crops (which make up most of the worlds vegetable and grain harvest) are now cross pollinating with wild crops and wiping them out. So it may take more feed to make a comparable amount of commercial meat, but you can use the by-products of the animal as fertilizer instead of chemicals, and vegetables/grains have a much lower useable level of proteins and fats than meat produce. Of course you could go round and round forever with this sort of stuff...
As a bodybuilder (and speaking for the general populace, not just bodybuilders), I disagree completely. Statistically, feel free to point out the vegetables and fruits that have 'enough' protein to me, but I'm not aware of any that have anywhere NEAR the same available amount as meat. You'd have to eat literally pounds/kgs of veges every day. No fruit as any decent amount of protein as far as I can tell. Most are full of sugar though, but that's a different topic.
Seeing as though protein alone is necessary for muscle growth, recovery and maintenance, I don't see how anyone (apart from those who live a VERY sedentary lifestyle) could function with just fruit and veges in their diet - which is why I mentioned legumes and nuts - the main source of protein for a vegetarian. A lot of which must be processed for consumption.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm totally against treating animals badly - for sure commercial factory farming needs to be stopped and I try not to support it or take part in it. My family actually go onto a private property and hunt for our meat supply as much as possible - and we hunt deer, which are considered pests and otherwise poisoned (if not hunted) because they tend to eat vegetable crops (the same ones vegetarians eat because they don't want to kill animals). We use every single part of the animal and prepare the meat ourselves. One deer feeds a family of four for a decent while. I know exactly where my food comes from, It takes me 3 days to obtain it, and I prepare it myself. You can't be more conscious of your food choices than that.
When I say meat is the best source of protein, I include whole eggs under that umbrella of 'meat products'.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
There is nothing as personal as what we eat (except possibly who we sleep with).
This is not going to be a very fruitful discussion.
This is not going to be a very fruitful discussion.
v3cron
Well-known
There have already been a few sources posted in this thread for thoroughly researched facts about this topic. There are vegan and even fruitarian bodybuilders out there. The need for protein is far less than you think.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Well said. Human beings became the top animal by eating other animals, it's when they settled down and started growing grain that the slow decline in health began.
Jamie123
Veteran
There was an article in the NYT a while ago about 'vegan bodybuilding' but the article does point out that there's some controversy about whether or not a vegan diet is ideal for bodybuilders. I think it's important to remember that while there are serious studies supporting the argument for a vegan diet, there are also those that are quite sceptical about it. (And no, this is not the same as with tobacco being unhealthy or global warming existing where there are very few 'scientists' claiming that it's a hoax.)
In any case, the vegan bodybuilder guy apparently eats 10 bananas for an afternoon snack. Seems to me like he's begging for constipation
gavinlg
Veteran
In any case, the vegan bodybuilder guy apparently eats 10 bananas for an afternoon snack. Seems to me like he's begging for constipation
It's do-able as a vegetarian/vegan with a big reliance on nuts and legumes, but not really as a 'fruitarian' - there's just no fruit that has enough protein to be able to do it. Eating only fruit is a good way to path yourself to insulin resistance - 10 bananas is 170g of sugar, or 6 ounces, or 32 teaspoons of sugar.
I definitely disagree, but if you do well on a low protein diet then best to you. It's all about what works for you which is why we all have different opinions