Why Has The Killing Of A Lion Spawned Widespread Outrage?

[Leonard James]

I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.

Which is to be expected when we try to exist on a vegetarian diet and ignore the fact that we evolved as an omnivorous species.

[Shaker]

I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.

No, even that isn't true.

I don't know if you're being led astray by these occasional reports you hear of people living on cheese and tomato pizzas, crisps and Coke and the like - unimpeachably vegetarian in the strict sense, true, but hardly a broad, varied and balanced diet. Being a vegetarian/vegan in and of itself doesn't prevent anybody from being a clueless doofus about their diet any more than does being the lazy, thoughtless, shovel-it-in omnivore keeping Burger King in business on these shores; but personal experience as well as umpteen studies shows that vegetarians and vegans tend to be rather better informed about their diets as well as more adventurous, eating a broader range of food groups, and more interested in general health and fitness (such as not smoking and not drinking excessively, for example).

[jeremyp]

Jeremyp:
The probabable consequence of a single shot from a crossbow is the deaths of several lions.

How is that not true?

I wasn't arguing about the consequences for Cecil's off spring, I was bringing people's attention to the fact that it was worse for Cecil than simply being killed cleanly.  No criticism of your post ws intended.

[Shaker]

I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.

Which is to be expected when we try to exist on a vegetarian diet and ignore the fact that we evolved as an omnivorous species.

The trouble with that is twofold, Len.

The first is that omnivory is a fact and not an obligation - it tells us what is the case (humans can digest flesh as well as plants) and not what should be the case. In philosophical terms it's a fact and not a value, and you can't get the latter from the former.

Secondly, as I've very recently said, there have been happy and healthy thriving vegetarians and vegans by the millions for thousands of years, predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. Almost all of this vegetarian/veganism has been religiously inspired even amongst non-theists such as Buddhists, Jains and many Hindus, it's true, but the point is that if the nutritional illiteracy on display in this thread had been a feature of these people, say, two and half thousand years ago they'd have died out pretty sharpish. They didn't know, but we're now in a position to know, that well-planned and varied vegetarian diets protect against certain diseases and conditions - principally the big killers of overweight and obese people living sedentary, affluent lives: cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various types of cancer first and foremost - and may well even extend lifespan. 

[Udayana]

...
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.

Do you have any examples? Anyway I don't see why it would be a problem to supplement any nutrient that anyone might think they or their children might be missing - whatever their chosen diet.

[Rhiannon]

Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.

There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.

[Leonard James]

The trouble with that is twofold, Len.

The first is that omnivory is a fact and not an obligation - it tells us what is the case (humans can digest flesh as well as plants) and not what should be the case.

If we have evolved the ability to eat flesh, it follows that doing so is the natural way for us to live. Ignoring that will certainly bring problems. On what basis do you think that we should ignore it?

 

In philosophical terms it's a fact and not a value, and you can't get the latter from the former.

You know that it is pointless to point philosophical stuff at me, as I am an ignoramus on the subject.

Secondly, as I've very recently said, there have been happy and healthy thriving vegetarians and vegans by the millions for thousands of years, predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. Almost all of this vegetarian/veganism has been religiously inspired even amongst non-theists such as Buddhists, Jains and many Hindus, it's true, but the point is that if the nutritional illiteracy on display in this thread had been a feature of these people, say, two and half thousand years ago they'd have died out pretty sharpish. They didn't know, but we're now in a position to know, that well-planned and varied vegetarian diets protect against certain diseases and conditions - principally the big killers of overweight and obese people living sedentary, affluent lives: cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various types of cancer first and foremost - and may well even extend lifespan.

I don't deny it, and if that is what people want to do, fine.

But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.

[ad_orientem]

Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.

My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.

Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.

Simply not so.

Don't be a bloody fool in defence of your addiction to meat, it'll make people think you've got early atherosclerosis coming on. Of course if you eat a varied and balanced diet there's no need for supplements - in vegetarian and even vegan terms rather a lot of Hindus and Buddhists and Jains have been thriving on this for several thousand years; and while admittedly it's hardly a stiff challenge, they know rather more about it than you do.

You're being silly. Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.

[Shaker]

If we have evolved the ability to eat flesh, it follows that doing so is the natural way for us to live. Ignoring that will certainly bring problems. On what basis do you think that we should ignore it?

On the basis that ignoring it doesn't bring problems - in fact it positively and actively helps avoid them in many cases. "The natural way to live" is a fallacy as it's an appeal to nature - it's automatically equating "natural" with "right/good," and goodness only knows there's an almost unlimited supply of counter-examples to that

But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.

Well, all diets have to be balanced if you're to achieve optimum health by ingesting all the stuff you need - this surely is only a problem for the terminally lazy?

[Shaker]

You're being silly.

Hey, you started the silliness with the "Simply not so" twaddle.

Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.

Vitamin D is a good example of what?

[Harrowby Hall]

Jeremyp:
The probabable consequence of a single shot from a crossbow is the deaths of several lions.

How is that not true?

I wasn't arguing about the consequences for Cecil's off spring, I was bringing people's attention to the fact that it was worse for Cecil than simply being killed cleanly.  No criticism of your post ws intended.

You are absolutely correct - he was not killed cleanly.

And that is one of the most dispicable things about this affair. The stupid American wasn't even bothered by this consequence of his cretinous behaviour. I hope he is forced to close his dental practice.

(No offence intended to cretins.)

[Sriram]

But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.

Actually...that's not true. People in various parts of the world have for millennia been eating varied kinds of food and surviving very well. Its all a case of adaptation.

If you (your ancestors), after centuries of eating meat ...suddenly start a vegan diet... its possible that you could get deficiency. But people who have for generations been eating only a veggie/vegan diet, the body adapts and learns to extract nutrition from their daily foods. 

To get protein..one need not eat protein. Elephants  do not eat meat but have the largest and strongest bodies on earth. They extract and produce proteins from the bamboo and grass that they eat.  Many animals can digest cellulose that we cannot...though we are related to them.

Many saintly people in India don't even eat veggies and rice regularly. They often survive on  few locally available variety of fruits and still manage to walk  all over the country and live to be 80+.  One particular saint (Kanchi Paramacharya) ate only three handfuls of rice a day and a few bananas. He walked from city to city across India till he was 80 years old and lived to be more than 100. There are many like him. 

So...diet is a very complicated thing and... 'eat protein to get protein' equations are simplistic.

[Harrowby Hall]

Shaker

Why don't you just start a thread of your own instead of hijacking this one?

[ad_orientem]

You're being silly.

Hey, you started the silliness with the "Simply not so" twaddle.

Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.

Vitamin D is a good example of what?

That you can't get enough from whatever diet, which is why supplementation is recommended for all here, at least during the winter months.

The thing is meat is an effecient energy source. Think how much easier it is to eat some meat and vegetables compared to a shit load of vegetables (because it's a fact that you have to eat more to make up for the lack of meat).

[ad_orientem]

Shaker

Why don't you just start a thread of your own instead of hijacking this one?

Why can't he just live and let live. Humans eat meat and for good reason. By itself it is morally neutral. No one is forcing you to eat it, so shut up. Now go and eat your beans.

[Shaker]

Why can't he just live and let live. Humans eat meat and for good reason. By itself it is morally neutral.

It isn't.

No one is forcing you to eat it, so shut up. Now go and eat your beans.

When can we expect you to shut up about the witless, backward superstitious garbage that you call your religion (whichever one it may be this month)?

Never, so there's your answer.

[Udayana]

Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.

There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.

Thanks Rhianon.

Though, it's true that we should be able to discuss animal rights topics without making them into veg diet  threads.

Zimbabwe is now asking for Palmer to be extradited, alternatively the US could prosecute him under the US Lacey act.

[ad_orientem]

Again, Shaker, you just assert. You have done nothing to actually demonstrate your point except compare unlke with unlike. Well, if all veggies are like you it's no suprise people generally ignore them. You're worse than Paul McCartney.

[Rhiannon]

It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients).  If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.

Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.

[Shaker]

It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients).  If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.

Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.

All perfectly true but be careful Rhi - chop'n'change Paul will say you're just asserting

[Rhiannon]

Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.

There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.

Thanks Rhianon.

Though, it's true that we should be able to discuss animal rights topics without making them into veg diet  threads.

Zimbabwe is now asking for Palmer to be extradited, alternatively the US could prosecute him under the US Lacey act.

Has he turned up? Last I knew he was in hiding.

[Leonard James]

On the basis that ignoring it doesn't bring problems...

I'm sure you are aware that it can and does in many people.

- in fact it positively and actively helps avoid them in many cases.

It can, and in those cases people are well-advised to follow it.

"The natural way to live" is a fallacy as it's an appeal to nature - it's automatically equating "natural" with "right/good," and goodness only knows there's an almost unlimited supply of counter-examples to that

Nature made us, and gave us the optimum dietary needs. Nature also produces people who need to watch their diet because some can't cope without doing so, but the majority of us are happy and healthy eating both meat and vegetables. We have evolved to do so.

Well, all diets have to be balanced if you're to achieve optimum health by ingesting all the stuff you need - this surely is only a problem for the terminally lazy?

I think that diets and their promoters have only become a fashion fad in comparatively recent times ... before that people just ate what they could get, and remained healthy enough to survive and reproduce. Modern man has become obsessed with being "healthy" and living long past his sell-by date, otherwise I wouldn't be here posting.

[Udayana]

...
Has he turned up? Last I knew he was in hiding.

He is in hiding from the public but in contact with the US authorities. One result of his cruel actions is a huge increase in the donations to the conservation project that was working with Cecil the lion.

[ad_orientem]

It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients).  If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.

Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.

All perfectly true but be careful Rhi - chop'n'change Paul will say you're just asserting

Well, you haven't done anything but assert. Neither have I said that meat eaters don't need to watch their diet. Everyone does to a lesser or greater extent. My point was that meat always has been and remains the most effecient of protein and many vitamins and minerals for humans, which is a very good reason to eat it. So don't give us any of that fanny about comparing killing for food with killing for trophy. They are simply not the same. As I said, it's unlike with unlike.

[Shaker]

Well, you haven't done anything but assert.

One thing you certainly don't lack in your diet is irony, that's for sure.

My point was that meat always has been and remains the most effecient of protein and many vitamins and minerals for humans, which is a very good reason to eat it.

It's unnecessary to eat it when (a) eating it involves grotesque cruelty and (b) whatever it provides can be provided by means which don't involve grotesque cruelty. Therefore (a) is the immoral option and (b) the moral one. It's not difficult.

So don't give us any of that fanny about comparing killing for food with killing for trophy. They are simply not the same. As I said, it's unlike with unlike.

I've already explained why the comparison is not only direct but even obvious ... but I can understand why this makes you brittle and defensive