addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

The Atlanta Atheists Meetup Group Message Board › I am surprised ore freethinkers are not vegetarians.

I am surprised ore freethinkers are not vegetarians.

A former member
Post #: 2
For medical reasons I cannot be a vegetarian. I have tried several times but I always ended up suffering from some allergy or deficiency. I find that typical vegetarian diets include way to much complex carbohydrates, which is now my mortal enemy. I am on Robb Wolf's Paleo plan under medical supervision and it has actually worked out pretty well for me. I actually eat more whole fruits and vegetables this way.

I do consume free range grass fed meat products, and expensive venture but well worth it.
Montana W.
user 20557871
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 2
I've actually gone in quite the entire opposite direction, and am a hardcore paleolithic diet emulator and probably eat twice as much meat (though I do my best to find grass fed and venison as much as possible) and have a large appetite for fish that I did not have before.
Roswell, GA
Post #: 33
Maybe we can agree to differ on this one. Acceptance of diversity can never be a one-way street!
Athen F.
user 45604552
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 1
I think vegetarians have the right to hold on to their beliefs, however, I do not think that vegetarianism is a necessary quality of a free thinker. Human beings are omnivore's, thus our design and evolutionary pattern suggests that we eat both meat and non-meat. The main argument from vegetarians is that it is wrong to eat things that have a sensory system similar to our own. While it is true that animals have a similar sensory system, in nature it seems counter intuitive to stop superior beings (more evolved beings) from exercising their evolutionary superiority over inferior beings. Thus, while a vegetarian has the right to hold on to her beliefs, I do not believe that this view is a necessary quality of a free thinker.
user 7818114
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 7
in nature it seems counter intuitive to stop superior beings (more evolved beings) from exercising their evolutionary superiority over inferior beings.

I haven't had a vote pro or con vegetarian/meat, but I couldn't overlook this latest argument.
There are a lot of human beings who believe in their superiority over other human beings. How do you suggest that they "exercise their evolutionary superiority" over other humans?

Traditionally, men have believed themselves superior to women. Many still believe they are superior to women in every way. Others believe only that men are physically superior (stronger, faster). Some believe they are more intelligent than women...and so on. Some believe they are superior in terms of math and physics ability.

Now, I'm not interested in a debate with you- or anyone- about which gender actually IS superior; I"m just trying to follow your logic.

Throughout all societies, you'll hear humans comment (and act) daily on their belief of their superiority to someone else because of their race, their strength, where they live, how they dress, how much money they make (or don't make), where they went to school or how many years they spent in school, and on and on.

But, as it turns out, the superiority over others, has been found in most cases to not be real. Those who've tried to maintain a white-knuckled grip on their superiority have done so by means of control- suppression and oppression - more than proof of actual superiority in every aspect.

How exactly are we superior to "inferior beings"? It takes humans over a year to learn to walk, whereas some mammals walk the day they're born. Few take as long as we do to be able to feed ourselves, and most other mammals have far superior- and earlier- motor coordination and ability to survive without their mother. Animals have shown ingenious ways to adapt to intrusions by humans on their habitat and food sources, whereas humans "adapt" more by destroying that which gets in our way.

I assume you mean we're more intelligent, but I'm not so sure we are. Sure, you won't find any monkeys reading Tolstoy, but there are other factors to measure intelligence. If we're more intelligent, why are so many of us "unable" to stop addictions? If we're so intelligent, why is that we repeat the same mistakes over and over, expecting different results? Why do we put blame and accountability on a dog (often taking it's life) instead of it's owner when the dog misbehaves? After all, it's not a wild animal. It's a domestic animal, bred and trained (or neglected/not trained) by humans to be what WE want them to be.

I just can't go for the argument of superiority, and find it to be very god-like and arrogant.
Roswell, GA
Post #: 53
Spot on, Annette. I would add that if being "superior" gives one animal (even a human animal) the right to eat another, then I reserve the right to be inferior but also to defend myself and other inferior animals. If I successfully defend myself does that then make me "superior"?. Moreover the fact that animals eat each other in nature cannot make the eater "superior" to the eaten....that would give superiority to cannibals over the rest of humanity! Richard Dawkins covers this in his writings by pointing out that that which is "natural" is not necessarily "good" and that, for example, genes have no "morality".
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 20
Wow, forgot this thred was here.. It's so nice to discuss this with freethinkers..

I am a met eater now.. I cannot eat eggs, or wheat, barley, rye, oats, because they make me sick (we all have different body chemistry).. But I still try to cause less suffering by the meal choices.. And I vote for laws on humane treatment of food animals whenever possible..

The part I want to stress is caring about the suffering of our helpless food sources.. As someone pointed out, genes evolve but have no empathy or morality built in.. However our higher thought process should care, or something is wrong..

Doesnt matter if fish or chicken, or something closer to human like a pig, or chimp.. The whole point is sentience, and suffering.. Yes, there is a whole tangent we could take, proposing that plans feel pain, but we have to draw a line somewhere., And the amount of suffering caused, where one cow suffering can feel 100 people, but a chicken 1-2 people..

I guess if more people came on board with this, there would be more support for regulations to ease the suffering of food animals.. Todays modern animal farms, fueled by overpopulation and greed are greusome, it was better when people went out with a gun and shit the animals..
A former member
Post #: 3
Vegetarians who fail to supplement their diets with Vitamin D, B12 and iron are prone to becoming dangerously anemic. They also may not get omega-3 fatty acids, which slow the progression of atherosclerosis, reduce triglyceride levels, act as anti-inflammatory agents, and potentially help with depression and some personality disorders.

Plants share somewhere around 50% of our genome. Why wouldn't you also say that plants deserve respect and that killing them arbitrarily is morally wrong as well?

Anyone ever been to a pork processing plant? I have. The pigs are slowly lowered by an elevator into a pit filled with CO2, where they very peacefully fall asleep and die. Turns out if you scare them, it makes the meat tough, so great care is taken not to frighten them.

I agree that traditional slaughterhouses should be condemned. Check out Humane Farm Animal Care, look for the Certified Humane Raised and Handled® label on a product. Other organizations, like the American Humane Association (AHA), offer meat certifications to farms that practice humane farming techniques.
Roswell, GA
Post #: 73
I think you are confusing the notion of vegetarian with that of vegan. A vegetarian eats no meat (or fish in my opinion) which require the killing fo animals but still eats dairy products - so there is no need for supplements.
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 31
I remember a quite from an old episode if Dr WHO; "these people are primitive savages, what is your excuse," to an alien about to destroy earth because the alien had superior knowledge (brain power, or whatever). Kind if sums up my option nicely; humane treatment of food animals.

I'm glad to hear they are killing pigs humanely.. But I can't even mention this to my vegan GF, who would freak out at the thought of this. I'm not overly happy at the practice of killing chickens at 6-weeks of age, even humanely (I feel they should be allowed a little more life before they get killed..

On veganism (no animal products at all).. I tend to agree humans are probably the most healthy being omnivores.. That we need b12 in our diets looks like this is what we should eat.. Although there are no shortage of extremely old healthy vegans around too.. I can't argue this point either way, but I don't think science knows enough to give a definitive answer.. Some vegans say to not wash fruits and veg.. So the normal diet might include bugs and occasional feces (where b12 might come from).
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy