Revolted by seeing others eat meat

[hibbledibble]

I am struggling with this a little, and wondering how to deal with it.

I am just starting being vegan with veganuary, but have been a lifelong veggie. Never eaten meat and have no desire to. The idea of eating flesh disgusts me.

I however realise that others have different beliefs and respect that. I don't expect others to be veggie around me.

Last night I went out with a friend for dinner. He got a huge plate of meat (pretty much 2 dead birds) and was pulling apart at it with fingers. The smell and sight was revolting for me. I didn't say anything or do anything as I don't think it would have been right, but honestly it bothered me a lot, and it is still bothering me the next day.

Any idea how I can best manage this? I accept most of my friends aren't veggie. Should I not go out for dinner with them? Is it acceptable to suggest veggie places?

@Peggy2479 - veganism cannot be natural for humans if we cannot get a vital nutrient on it. And when you are telling people with science degrees that your A level biology means you know more than they do about human biology, you ARE saying that your qualification/knowledge trumps theirs!

By all means argue the ethics of meat eating vs vegetarianism or veganism - but stop peddling huge inaccuracies about human biology, in an attempt to back up your views!

SDTG
Huh? How have you come to that conclusion?
Stating my qualifications is not a way of saying I know more, I'm sure I do not know more

Someone with a degree in biology obviously worked very hard and knows what they're talking about.
Although, nutrition is a whole other story, as is animal rights.
We are constantly evolving and realising we do not need meat in our diet to thrive.
This has to be taught at uni's/colleges for individuals to learn about it and currently, it is not being taught.

We are constantly evolving and realising we do not need meat in our diet to thrive.

This only applies in wealthy Western societies like ours. Or do you mean that societies with meat heavy diets are not as 'evolved' as us?

But biology proves that we cannot thrive on a vegan diet, unless we take an artificial supplement. And it proves that humans are designed to be omnivores (the prefix omni is Latin, btw, and means everything - so an omnivore eats everything, a carnivore eats only meat, and a herbivore eats only plant matter).

If we were designed to be vegan/herbivore, we would be able to get ALL the nutrients we need from a solely plant based diet. We can’t do that, so we are not designed to be vegan - we are designed to be omnivores.

Saying veganism is natural for humans, and we are not designed to eat meat is just plain wrong, and you have argued this despite being told the facts that prove your opinion wrong. The biological facts. The facts of human geography - human beings who thrive in areas where they have to eat a largely meat based diet (an example was given earlier in the thread). The archeological facts - remains that show our ancestors eating meat as well as vegetables and grains. The historical facts - accounts of meals eaten through history, which include meat and vegetables.

None of this changes the fact that, thanks to science, you can now thrive on a vegan diet, nor that you have every right to do so, and to promote it as the ethical choice - but please stop using inaccurate ‘facts’ to do so. That is all I am saying.

What's "natural" is irrelevant and a logical fallacy. "Nature" does not equal "moral" or right.

OP, do what you feel comfortable with. Personally I would encourage friends to pick somewhere with good vegan options as a minimum. If they have a range of vegan options, then it may be that more friends are inclined to try out a veggie/vegan option themselves, especially if they're thoughtful sorts who may have considered that you might be made to feel uncomfortable by them eating a bird in a bird in a bird or whatever that thing is. I've only really eaten at a few places where the food presentation was such that it was distressing to me....

Whether it's okay to suggest a veggie place depends on your friends.
I have some friends who would suggest a veggie place themself, and see it as an opportunity to try something new...and some other friends who will eat a chicken wing challenge because watching me watch them will be "funny". I decline invites with these friends if it involves food and just meet them for drinks after...

P.S. the bit about nature applies both to the poster claiming veganism is "natural", and to those implying that it isn't natural, and therefore eating animals products is justified.

Pseudoscience isn't doing the vegan cause any good.

@dirtybadger - what's 'natural' is entirely relevant when one is debating with a poster who makes that statement, as I was. How was I supposed to counter @Peggy2479's statements that humans were designed to be vegans, not omnivores, and can thrive on a vegan diet, without talking about nature and science?

Sorry, but you aren't the thread police and don't get to decide what is and is not relevant in a discussion between two other posters.

I was pointing out that its irrelevant to "the vegan" argument. Obviously if youre countering someone elses (innaccurate) assertion you have to make reference to their argument (its nature yahyahyah). I just wanted to reinforce that what is and isnt natural doesnt matter. From either position.

I didnt realise I wasnt allowed to points without invitation. Meh.

”I was pointing out that its irrelevant to "the vegan" argument...”

That was not at all clear, @dirtybadger - indeed, as it came immediately after my post, I felt it was a clear response to it, and was saying that my comments were irrelevant.

And for the record, I did not say you were not allowed to post (or point) without invitation - I said you didn’t have the right to tell me (or, indeed, any poster) what points were relevant in a discussion that I was having with another poster.

Does it help the moral and ethical debate about veganism if some of its supporters back up their arguments with factual inaccuracies? I don’t think it does.

This thread is becoming rather tiresome!
It really is crazy to think that expressing the view that animals should not be slaughtered/raped/exploited/gassed causes such outrage amongst the animal-eating community!
Everyone feeling the need to defend their murderous actions, I hope for the sake of animals none of you own any pets.
I can only imagine how they feel, probably constantly worrying they're next on your list 🔪😂
Enjoy the murder everyone!
Thanks for providing my friends and me with such comedic/rather worrying comments! ❤️

peggy2467 As a vegan I mostly agree with you. However in order for you to have a proper debate you must get your facts correct, and using emotive language like ‘rape’ & ‘gassed’ will just close peoples ears to anything sensible you may have to say. You are not helping animals and you are ruining the vegan cause.

"Thanks for providing my friends and me with such comedic/rather worrying comments! ❤️"

And thank you for providing the rest of us with your entertaining and inaccurate comments

And the pet comment is rather childish and ridiculous.

Teetotal
Funny you should mention the "emotive" language.
I purposefully use this language as it gets other people's attention.
It is an affective way of encouraging individuals to realise what animals are being put through really is rape. The gassing comment is not emotive. It's a fact. Pigs are put into chambers, lowered into the ground and gassed.
As for pets Lonicera, how is that childish? You have drawn an arbitrary line as to where and when you think it is acceptable to abuse, exploit and kill animals. On one side of the line you have cats, dogs, guinea pigs, hamsters, horses etc, and on the other side you have pigs, cows, chickens, sheep etc. Whereas for me, there is no line. All animals should be treated equally. Some should not be killed for human consumption whilst others are sitting on the sofa eating dentastix being stroked by their owners.
If you can't handle the truth, you shouldn't be eating living beings.

It really is crazy to think that expressing the view that animals should not be slaughtered/raped/exploited/gassed causes such outrage amongst the animal-eating community!

You haven't done that though have you?

You have come out with a load a pseudo bullshit, refused to answer perfectly valid questions about your ethics and generally made yourself look like a massive plonker.

Since we are here again Peggy:

Do you think that Inuit people are 'murderers'? I have literally asked you this question about 5 times on this thread and you have never answered.

I think groups of people like this (the Masai are another group frequently brought up) should be considered the last people to convert. Because they don't have access to the resources we have in richer parts of the world, I give them a pass for now. I focus my energy on getting people who have no excuse to convert first. After that happens, we can approach some of these more insular cultures and help them get on the same page as the rest of the world. As it stands now, I feel it's pointless to worry about those who will be the most difficult to affect.

Because they don't have access to the resources we have in richer parts of the world, I give them a pass for now.

But didn't you say that eating animals is inherently wrong and that humans are not designed to eat them?

After that happens, we can approach some of these more insular cultures and help them get on the same page as the rest of the world.

This sounds kinda racist.

Do the seals in the Arctic feel suffer less because Inuit people don't have much else to eat, than a cow who is killed for he plate of someone who does have a choice about whether or not to eat animals?

Yes, I do believe the slaughter of animals for human consumption is wrong, we also are not designed to eat meat.
Inuit people do plenty of things western people have chosen to not take part in.
Living in North Canada, Alaska, Greenland etc with no contact with the rest of the world, nor are food stores readily available, this gives you no option but to kill animals for warmth, food etc. That's just how it is, sadly.
Don't try to reflect this off of YOU, an individual living in a developed first world country with options.
You have the ability to go to your local supermarket and buy some baked beans and bread, Inuit people do not.
Stop trying to make excuses for your actions.

I'm sorry you feel my comment came across as racist, that obviously was not my intention.

So....are Inuit people herbivores? Being human and all? Wouldn't they be terribly ill and in fact have died out, eating an all-meat diet for so long?

No, seals feel them same as a cow.
Just because Inuit people have no option but to kill animals does not make it okay.
The point I'm trying to make is you and others have no reason to eat animals. Inuit people do.
The killing of animals is never excusable, but it can't be helped for the time being in some cultures.

If we are designed not to eat meat, why can we not get a vital nutrient from a vegan diet, without taking a man made supplement?

And how do you explain the people’s, like the Inuit, who eat a largely meat based diet? If we are not designed to eat meat, surely they should have died out by now?

Inuit peoples health_" Mummified remains of Eskimos dating back 2,000 years have shown extensive hardening of the arteries throughout their brains, hearts and limbs; as a direct consequence of following a carnivorous diet of birds, caribou, seals, walrus, polar bears, whales, and fish.
The June 1987 issue of National Geographic magazine carried an article about two Eskimo women, one in her twenties and the other in her forties, frozen for five centuries in a tomb of ice. When discovered and medically examined they both showed signs of severe osteoporosis and also suffered extensive atherosclerosis, “probably the result of a heavy diet of whale and seal blubber.”

We weren't 'designed'