2006-06-25 12:53:44 · 8 answers · asked by transporters 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Neither. Vegetable is good but there are nutrients you need that you can't get by eating veggies alone. You also need to eat meat. Also, there are things you can get from veggies that you can't get from meat. I'd say eat vegetables AND meat -- but in a balanced diet.
2006-06-25 16:17:53 · answer #1 · answered by malko 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Being vegetarian would be better than non-vegetarian. I assume non-vegetarian means you can't eat vegetables? Sorry about that.
2006-06-25 13:02:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone has their own ideas and preferences. I would lean more
to being a vegetarian. I love vegetables. I do eat some meat at times, but I could pretty much do without it. In considering renal diets, a patient is able to eat more vegetables than meats if he
is restricted on protein etc.
2006-06-25 13:03:07 · answer #3 · answered by Bethany 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many more additives in meat than in veggies. I say go vegetarian as much as you can.
I am vegetarian when home, and semi-vegetarian when out of the house (I eat chicken and fish).
2006-07-02 03:39:24 · answer #4 · answered by lrad1952 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Non-vegetarian. A good T-bone steak.
2006-06-25 12:56:54 · answer #5 · answered by Training Chick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
being non vegetarian.
being a vegetarian is the same as being non, except maybe you eat healthier(and sometimes you dont)
plus vegetarians are always having
VEGETARIAN PRIDE!!
...Its really annoying
2006-06-25 12:57:02 · answer #6 · answered by lilfroggy992 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
non-vegetarian-u can eat anyone who annoys you.
2006-06-25 13:03:45 · answer #7 · answered by The Riddler 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for god's sake!!
of course non vegetarian.
u never eat steak 'n pizza 'n burger in your entire life, do u?
2006-06-25 16:06:42 · answer #8 · answered by toxicgirl32 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋