File :-(, x, )
S. Korea Anonymous
trip to asia, last weeks lunch.
>> /s/
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
you went to rural places, didnt you?
>> 4tran
Steamed, or stir fried?
>> Anonymous
>>167305
traditionally its prepared in a spicy soup
>> Anonymous
man its gotta suck growing up eating your pets....
>> Anonymous
I cant remember seeing any 'pet supplies' section in any of the asian markets I've been to.

Maybe they don't have pets there?
>> #fortune Anonymous
#fortune
>> 4tran
>>167604
They generally don't eat pets. The dogs/cats used for food are specifically raised for that purpose.

Pets stay as pets (except for the rare ones that get kidnapped) and food stay as food.
>> Anonymous
People who eat animals are disgusting regardless of which culture they came from.
>> Anonymous
>>167621
Humans are carnivores. Animals are FOR eating, dipshit.
>> Anonymous
>>167624
Humans are also animals. By your logic, we are also for eating.

I wonder what we taste like.
>> Anonymous
>>167621
gtfo of earth vegetarian. circle of life
>> Anonymous
>>167626
gamey
>> Anonymous
>>167624
We aren't carnivores either, dipshit. We are omnivores.
>> Anonymous
Asians don't traditionally keep dogs and cats as pets, they've never been seen as such there. Birds, reptiles, insects are the main pets because they eat little. The rest of the animals are beasts of burden, and animals that don't work, like many dogs and virtually all cats except as mousers, are a liability. That's why dog and cat are traditionally part of the menu in much of Asia.

But unless they're starving, Asians also don't go around kidnapping people's pets to eat or hunt down stray pets, especially in the US or wherever else dogs and cats are pets.
>> Anonymous
>>167630

Uhm, Asians have domesticated cats and dogs for thousands of years. For example:

Chinese breeds of Dog: Pug, Chow-Chow, Shih Tzu, Shar Pei, Lhasa Apso.

Japanese breeds of dog: Akita, Shiba, Tosa, Kishu

Various Asian cats: Oriental short/longhairs, Siamese, Japanese bobtail, Burmese, Kucinta and so on.
>> ethics of meat Anonymous
>>167621
what about the staving Ethiopions? you shouldn't kill animals because it's fun, but for survival. like a man trying to feed his starving family, it should be okay to kill a wild elephant. and for those who want to get rid of human consumption of meat, good luck trying to convince the asians. and what do vegys think of humans eating bugs?
>> PETA wraps Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
does peta/celebs try to stop cricket fighting?
>> Anonymous
>>167718
All the more reason to stop eating meat. It takes 20 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of cow meat. That is a complete waste of food that could be put to better uses elsewhere.

But I am not unrealistic. In the absolutely hypothetical situation where you get stranded on an island, sure kill and eat whatever you need to. Discussing ethics in the absence of necessities is usually a pipe dream. But for those of us living in the real world, eating meat is unnecessary, unhealthy, wasteful, and immoral.
>> Anonymous
>>167630

I lived in South Korea for a year and have spent time in China and Laos. Lots of people there had PET cats and dogs. There were even specialty pet stores catering to dog and cat owners. Something tells me you have never even been to Asia.
>> Anonymous
Hitler was a vegetarian. According to transcripts dated November 11, 1941 Hitler said, "One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."
>> Anonymous
>>167928

Your logic is broken.

Human beings cannot digest grain very effectively. One pound of meat is more nutritious to a human than several pounds of grain is.

Mind you, if you want to be a vegetarian, that is your choice and I'm not going to stop you. But if you want to make statements, please make sure you look at the whole picture.

You might as well say that a car is just 1500 pounds of steel with some plastic and other metals thrown in there. The FORM of those parts is much more important than the chemical composition or the weight.
>> Anonymous
>>167928

I've met lots of healthy people who ate a well-balanced diet that included milk and dairy products.

I've never met a healthy-looking vegan.
>> Anonymous
>>167928
It takes zero grams of grain to produce a kilogram of meat, if the cattle feeds on grass.

Of course, maybe such cattle does not exist on your side of the Atlantic...
>> Anonymous
>>167928
Did you forget that cows have to eat to survive?
>> Anonymous
>>167936
If you're talking about America, there are some farms that only feed their cows certain grains or vegetables to promote a certain kind of taste in the meat.

>>167928
The diversity of a field is reduced to less than half after a combine harvests any kind of field for grain, soy, or corn. If you didn't pay attention in biology, that means that over half the species of animals in the field gets killed for you to eat your grain. Animals that don't get eaten by anything but insects, bacteria and mold. So fuck off with your vegetarian propaganda. Are you going to try to stop bears from eating salmon? How about stopping wolves from eating deer? Life requires death. Even yours. Just because it doesn't have eyes doesn't mean it wasn't alive before it was processed to feed you. Hell, if you eat a salad, you're actually eating something alive.
>> Anonymous
>>167933
That is not my logic in the first place. I am not telling you to eat 20 pounds of grain OR 1 pound of meat. It was simply a statement of fact to point out how much food is being lost in the process of producing meat.

Vegan/vegetarian diets are healthier than diets that have meat in them, and they take less energy and agriculture to produce. That is the simple truth of the matter.

>>167935
(?) That is not a scientific statement and will not receive a scientific answer.

>>167936
I don't know what to tell you. I have read time after time after time that it is a total waste of energy to feed on flesh instead of vegetarian diets (non-vegetarian sources agree). If you have evidence that contradicts that, I am willing to read about it.


P.S. Sorry, I think I'm wrong. Apparently it's more like 7 pounds of grain/pound of meat. The numbers seem to change daily. Of course, then there's the huge quantities of drinkable water used for the cattle and the grain/soybeans/etc.
>> Anonymous
>>167942

Not only that, but the act of farming is disruptive to animals as well. Pesticides, fertilizer, clearing the land, and displacement/elimination of smaller animals that are low down on the food chain.

Yes, it is possible to grow some crops chemical-free and with a minimum of disturbance to the natural order, but only on a small scale.

The most enviornmentally-friendly setup you could have is if small, local, farms raised both animals and vegatables native to those areas and you then ate that. Unfortunatley for the vegetarian people out there, that would mean that you would not only have to eat meat, but your vegetable selection would be limited to what is locally available in your area, and in season.

Yes, it is techincally possible to have a healthy 100% vegetarian diet these days. BUT that is only possible due to globalization/transportation using fossil fuels, as well as modernized agriculture using fertilizers, pesticides, specially modified crops, and so on....or did you think it was "natural" to be able to buy a ripe red tomato in the middle of winter? Where did that tomato come from, and how did it get to you? That tomato might be "natural" but the proces sure as hell isn't.
>> Anonymous
>>167942
You take your lessons on ethics from bears and wolves?? Really? What have they taught you so far?

Of course death happens, and everyone and everything is going to die. That doesn't answer the question about how animals should be treated while alive, nor does it answer the question about HOW something should die.


Animals will die anyway, so we should kill and eat them. Old ladies will die anyway, so we should kill and eat them. Neither statement has any logic to it.


lol @ "vegetarian propaganda" btw.
>> Anonymous
>>167947

The thing you have to consider is the AVAILABLE energy in the food, not just the chemical energy that is technically present.

For example, yes, there IS a lot of energy present in, say, grass or grain. But, to a human that energy is useless. Human beings can't digest that kind of roughage. On the other hand, we CAN digest meat very well.

Suppose you found yourself in the middle of a field somewhere, surrounded by wheat. You could spend all day picking and chewing, but all you'd be doing is wasting your fat reserves chewing away on something that you can't digest anyway. On the other hand, if you found yourself a mouse, rabbit, or some insects and you ate those instead, you would live.

You have to look at the whole scenario: How much energy/nutrition is present. How much of that is actually useable by a human? And how much effort does it take to get at that nutrition?

For example, humans can get some nutrition out of wheat when it is processed, for example, baked into bread. But grinding the wheat, separating the chaff, and cooking the bread all requires energy--turning the grindstone, sorting the wheat, heating the oven, and so on. The process is net negative. It takes more energy to do the process than you get out when you're done. The only solution is to use other resources to do the work (for example, burning wood in the oven and using machinery to drive the grindstone).
>> Anonymous
>>167949
>Not only that, but the act of farming is disruptive to animals as well.

And that's a shame. If you have a solution to that problem, that would be a good thing.

>That tomato might be "natural" but the proces sure as hell isn't.

I agree, and I am also quite confused about how any of that is relevant.
>> Anonymous
>>167957
Hehe. I think part of what I'm saying keeps getting lost in translation.

>For example, humans can get some nutrition out of wheat...

Yes, we both agree on that. The point is, wheat is grown in such ridiculous bulk with the only intention of producing (drastically smaller amounts of) meat that it's a very wasteful process from the get-go. The land, the water, the mechanical processes--all of it could go into producing something that humans eat instead of producing something that cows eat.
>> Anonymous
>>167958

My point with the Tomato was that many vegetarians (though not necissarily you) claim that they can eat their vegetarian diet, which is natural and enviornmentally friendly and animal-safe.

The problem is that this is the product of an equally narrow view. In the modern economy you can go and buy a wide variety of vegetables any time of year. The variety is important becasue A) it is key to having a vegetarian diet that is actually surviveable, and
B) variety keeps people from being bored out of their minds. You'd have very few vegetarians if all they had was the local tuber.

So you can look at a salad and say "nice, no animals killed in here! I'm doing good for the enviornment" Unfortunatley, this is not true. Those vegetables are produced and transported with technology that is often times MORE enviornmentally damaging than eating meat.

If your goal is simply a moral objection against eating animals, then you're A-OK. But if your primary motivation for vegetarianism is to be "enviornmentally friendly", then chances are that those are mutually exclusive goals.

A truly enviornmentally friendly diet avoids factory farms, but it also does include meat.
>> Anonymous
>>167961

Yes, the process of growing plants to feed animals is wasteful. But, even so, it is many times the most efficent option. Yes, a lot of energy is wasted. But less energy is wasted than if humans tried to eat the roughage in the first place.
Four is bigger than one, even though they are both small numbers.
>> Anonymous
I think there's one thing we can all agree on: feeding cattle on wheat, corn or soy is a waste of resources. Cattle do not require such feed, nor is it natural to them.
>> Anonymous
If it wasnt for the fact we eat meat humans would never of had the protein to support a large brain and we would all still be lving in tree's,
>> Anonymous
>>167964
That's an interesting point, but I find that extremely difficult to believe (not impossible). My understanding is that the only real nutritional value meat has is Protein, Fat, and a few vitamins (B12 being the most important). These can easily be reproduced with only a few substitutes (mushrooms have protein and Vitamin B12 right off the bat).

I agree that it's wasteful to use fossil fuels to important vegetables and fruits from other locations, but:

1) I don't think it's more wasteful than the cow-factoids already mentioned.
2) I don't believe that activity would stop regardless of whether 0 people ate meat or 300 million.

I think it's only a tangent to the current discussion, but still a good hypothesis. Do you happen to have any statistics/comparisons/whatnot about how much energy is wasted by transporting vegetables from other places?

(I'm not going to hold it against you, if you don't. I just don't feel like plodding through 10,000 google searches for something that may not exist.)
"More that 1/3 of all fossil fuels produced in the United States go towards animal agriculture. According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1)"
http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/fossilfuels.htm

[this is not a bias-free source]
>> Anonymous
>>167970
There is protein in plants, grains, mushrooms, etc. Meat is only one of the sources with protein in it.
>> Anonymous
>>167967
Please provide some information about why you believe that.
>> Anonymous
Meat is fucking delicious.

/thread
>> Anonymous
>>167979
you have to eat much more grain for the same amount of protein
>> Anonymous
>>167985
Well, for instance, have you heard about all the studies that say Americans are eating far too much protein anyway? (I don't know enough about Europe's eating habits to comment [sorry, Yurope].) Higher obesity, higher cancer, etc. is the result of high-protein diets.

(A quick google search is all you need if you're at all unfamiliar with that nutritional opinion.)

So I would definitely argue that a cut-back in the amount of protein is actually a positive thing and not a negative thing.
>> Anonymous
>>167989
Oh, right. Consuming massive amounts of fats and refined carbohydrates have nothing to do with obesity, it's all due to PROTEIN!

I'd like to see somebody who has grown fat eating little fat and carbs but excessive amounts of protein.
>> Anonymous
>>167994
>I'd like to see somebody who has grown fat eating little fat and carbs but excessive amounts of protein.

Not many people have diets like that except for people who go on those incredibly unhealthy fad diets.

We are in total agreement that eating "massive amounts of fats and refined carbohydrates" is a sure-fire way to lead to obesity and general unhealthiness. (More fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts/legumes is a much better diet.)

What I said about high-protein diets being unhealthy does stand, however.
>> Anonymous
>>167974

OK, a bit more information. Food provides two totally different things to the body:

It provides ENERGY (calories), and it provides nutrients. Nutrients are not used for energy, instead they are "building blocks" for growth, fighting off disease, and bodily function.

Think of it this way: if you are running a business, you need LABOR to actually get the work done, and you need MATERIALS to make whatever product it is that you make.

Meat provides both energy (calories) and it has some nutritional value (the vitamins and so forth that you mentioned).
>> Anonymous
continued...


They KEY, however, is that the human body can extract nearly 100% of the energy and the nutrients from the meat and use it. On the other hand, the human GI tract is not well suited for extracting nutrition from roughage. When we eat many vegetables, we can't extract the nutrition from it and most of it passes out as waste.

Now, we can digest many fruits and vegatables fairly well. But a great number of them we can't.

So, you have to look at the big picture:

Many vegatables contain a lot of nutrition, but the human's digestive tract does a poor job at extracting the nutrition from the vegetables.

On the other hand, the process of growing roughage and feeding it to animals is wasteful. BUT, once that's done, humans are VERY good at extracting the nutrition from the animal at the end of the cycle.

The question is, which is the bigger waste? The human's poor ability to digest roughage, OR the loss in raising animals?

The answer is USUALLY that raising animals is more efficent. Yes, it is wasteful. But it is less wasteful than the alternative. Animals that we raise for food are able to extract the proper nutrition from vegetables becasue they have the proper digestive tract to do it. Ruminiants such as cows have extra stomachs, they chew cud, and they have a much longer intestine (with different bacteria inside) to facilitate digesting plant matter. Animals like rabbits are coprophagic (they eat their own droppings) to extract more nutrition from the grass they eat.

We humans can't get any nutrition from grass. But, we can let a rabbit eat the grass and digest it on our behalf. Then we can eat the rabbit. Sure there is loss there. But there is less loss than if we attempted to eat the grass ourselves.
>> Anonymous
>>168000
I do agree that a small segment of vitamins/minerals are easier to absorb in some forms over others, and that usually, e.g., beef has broccoli beat when it comes to absorbing iron. (You may know this already, but food supplemented with minerals are especially ineffective [though still infinitely better than NOT supplementing]. Just thought I'd share that interesting piece of info if you haven't heard.)

But I don't really see it as being much of an issue, since by all accounts vegetarians are healthier than non-vegetarians. (Also, vegans are healthier than vegetarians [especially about hormone levels], but I have found a vegan diet to be INCREDIBLY difficult to pull off.)

If vegetarians usually suffered from problems with iron or something, I would see it being an issue, but I don't believe that's the case.
>> Anonymous
>>168003

Actually, part of the reason why I gave up on being a vegetarian was because I was constantly fighting anemia. Iron supplements made me throw up, so that was out of the question. It's a much more common problem in females than males, though.
>> Anonymous
>>168005
Oh, I see. I'm surprised that a pill was the only other solution to the problem though. (But I'm also not that well-versed in iron-anemia either.) Not even food supplemented with iron, or beans, or spinach or anything was working?

On whose advice did you switch to a meat-diet?
>> Anonymous
>>168010

The physician's. Due to my occupation at the time, I didn't always have ready access to any of the common vegetable supplements such as fresh dark greens. They lose much, much in the way of nutritional value when dried or canned, unfortunately. It was less dangerous for me to supplement with various animal products such as dried fish/meat and cheese.
>> Anonymous
>>168003
Heath and efficiency are two different things.

Suppose for the sake of argument that "vegetarians" are indeed healthier than omnivores. Fine. But what was the TOTAL enviornmental impact to bring them their diet, compared to, say, an omnivore?

Due to the relative ineffiency of digesting many vegetables, the vegetarian is forced to purchase a broad variety of vegetables from out-of-the-way places and out of season. This means transportation costs, various chemicals used in growing the veggies, and the overall larger volume of food required.

Obviously it varies from region to region. But TYPICALLY the enviornmental impact of the vegetarian diet is higher than that of eating meat becasue those vegetables have to be grown in unnatural ways and transported clear across the globe in order to support that diet.

Animals do a better job of extracting nutrition from the earth than we do, even with genetically modified crops, pesticides, fertilizer, and industrialized production and shipping.

It is possible to come out ahead on enviornmental impact with a vegetarian diet, but most vegetarians aren't willing to put forth the effort to do it. That requires home farming & preservation of food for later. A supermarket vegetarian might feel good about him/herself for not eating any meat, but that person isn't doing the world any favors.
>> Anonymous
>>168015
At this point, I'm going to have to ask for citations.
>> Anonymous
Getting back to the topic at hand (post 167928):

Eating meat is unecissary, only if you are willing to lean on industrialization and its associated enviornmental impact to bring you your diet. Without container ships, aircraft fleets, and many other things that suck up fossil fuels and belch smog, you couldn't even HAVE your balanced vegetarian diet.

Meat is only unhealthy if it is eaten in an improper diet--which is no different than ANY food. Someone that ate nothing but hamburgers would get sick. But so would someone that ate nothing but tomatoes. Nobody is advocating a meat-only diet. We are advocating a BALANCED diet, which includes both meat and plants, both in moderation. (Incidentally, a quick look at a human's teeth and digestive system will tell you that is exactly what we are supposed to eat)

Meat can be wasteful. But it is many times LESS WASTEFUL than eating plants. Animals can turn items that are nutritionally worthless to humans (such as grass and woody vegetation) into useable nutrition.

Meat is immoral, if and only if you consider it wrong for one creature to kill and eat another creature. Personally, this does not bother me. Animals kill and eat other animals all the time. Even plants compete with and kill other plants. It's a natural process. You can try to step above it if you feel like it, but that is only possible for an elite few, thanks to money and globalization (and its associated waste and pollution.) Perhaps you can "stand tall" and not put any meat on your table, but that is only possible by standing on the backs of others who aren't in that elite club. There is no way the world can function like that.
>> racists or regional? Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>167928
good luck trying to convince the south to give up fried chicken and pork/beef BBQ.
>> Anonymous
A vegetarian diet is no healthier than a balanced diet that includes lean meats. That's a myth that vegetarians like to toss around to stroke their egos. Enjoy your B12 deficiency.

>>167974
>>mushrooms have protein and Vitamin B12 right off the bat

wrong, unless they're contaminated with fecal matter. ARE you eating contaminated mushrooms?

LOL at "wasted resources". There's a huge food surplus in this, and many other, countries. The only reason there are people starving in those countries is because most of the food produced is exported. You aren't helping SHIT by not eating meat. People in third world countries don't give a shit about you anyway, why give a shit about them?
>> Anonymous
>>167994
protein almost does not metabolise into energy, only hormones and tissues. The process is only 15% efficient as opposed to 30% for fat and about 45% for carbs

know the FATkins diet? thats what they did, lose weight by eating protein and cellulose

trouble was, kidney failure from uric acid, too much protein
>> Anonymous
>>168348

orly? Protein has 4 calories per gram. Idiot
>> Anonymous
>>168348
sidenote, the energy we can extract from cellulose is oftentimes negative (due to absence of longer small intestines)

meaning eating grass and wheat can get you negative calories, since you waste sugar in muscles chewing and foraging and protein on digestive enzymes and hormones
>> Anonymous
>>168352
if your body burns protein for energy, its nowhere near as efficient as sugar

agree or disagree?
>> Anonymous
How do I ate dog?
>> Anonymous
>>168355

IF? IT DOES. It takes more energy to metabolize protein than carbohydrates, but that doesn't mean it can't provide plenty of energy. Where the hell are you getting your facts from? It's pseudoscience.
>> #fortune Anonymous
omg
>> Anonymous
zomg
>> Anonymous
>>168375
They probably do it because they're crazy fucks who will do anything "natural".
>> Anonymous
I lived with my Aunt for several years and she was a vegetarian and so I ate vegetarian, however I was not barred from having a hamburger or hotdog outside of the home. Naturally I was skinny, but once I moved in with my father and started eating steak and pork for dinner every night and eggs, milk and pork for breakfast my muscle mass doubled and I was able to spar with my older brother in less than a year because of A) All the protein I was getting gave me a lot more energy than bean so I could work as an apprentice for my father and began to adapt to working on a construction site and B) The extra calcium made my bones stronger and I could take a better beating. Then I lived with my mother and started living off of dough, instant soup and soda... yeah...
>> Anonymous
Jin-D'Oh!
>> Anonymous
>>168352

Yes, protein has 4 calories per gram. But, the body can choose what it does with the protein. It can break it down into energy, OR it can be used as building material for the body.

This is why bodybuilders have to eat so much protein. There has to be enough of it so that there is structural protein available after the body has used some of it for energy.

The body needs protein for building new cells above and beyond energy requirements.
>> sage sage
This thread now gets saged. It was nice while it lasted, but it was only a matter of time before some /n/ fags wondered in.
>> Anonymous
>>168551

Yes, I'm a nutrition major, I know what the functions of protein are. but this:

>>protein almost does not metabolise into energy

is incorrect. Also, bodybuilders only need a bit more protein than "normal" people. They just exaggerate it, which is not necessarily harmful unless they have kidney problems, but it's not necessary either. Eating more food in general is what helps them build muscle, not just protein.

>>know the FATkins diet? thats what they did, lose weight by eating protein and cellulose

By your understanding of protein energy metabolism, it would make sense that the atkins diet works in this way. However, this and other carbohydrate restricting diets work by consuming a large amount of fat and little to no carbs. This puts the body in a state of ketosis, in which the body uses ketones rather than glucose for energy. This process has nothing to do with your assumption that protein hardly metabolizes into energy.
>> Moonbarker Osbourne
Jesus Christ ate meat. If you say eating meat is wrong, you're saying Christ sinned
>> #fortune Anonymous
#fortune