[Spoiler]Winston Churchill would often ask people if they had enemies. If you answered no, the answer most thought they should give, he would dismiss you. If you said yes he would become interested, as you had a viewpoint and the backbone to stand up to those who thought opposingly! You would make a great politician![/spoiler]
Sorry for coming across patronising
Teachers do that some time
I tell my kids I make mistakes, but that's okay because we learn from them
I think @kitteh_on_a_cloud is right.... To live you need to kill. A patch of land that could support a varied bio system is grown to support one... The crop grown. Animals,insects and other fauna is destroyed, to ensure the success of the crop. (I don't believe farmers spray the grass or mountains that cows or sheep graze on so I may be wrong... But raising cattle (apart from in slash and burn circumstances), especially in a free range environment promotes bio diversity...)
Anyway. Malthus is a 200 year old theory... Because it is yet to be disproven? A bit like the theory of gravity...
I am glad you have heard of him though! I presume you are then a fan of his arch enemy! Please for the love of god quote him! He is just waiting to be introduced... I think your case would also become much, much, much stronger if you do
Lastly. The NORM. True, it is not a standpoint for any argument. but i used It in this case as it is normal to have canines as you are human. (Go all the way back to the first post, plus my tiredness at such arguments... you have thrilled me this time as you actually have stood to your principles) And we DO have them to shred meat, even if our teeth are not as developed as a carnivore such as a dog, cat or shark, AS you DO need the goodness MEAT provides. However you can exist without meat just as you can exist eating only meat. You'll just be unhealthy.
Chocolate ingredients for the EU means that it needs animal fat but chocolate from America can get away with using vegetable oil... The other ingredient that causes issue is rennet, that comes from cow... (And milk obtained from slaughtering calves to keep cows pregnant.) Not all is lost though this site has ways to get around it and some other stuff http://vegetarian.about.com/od/shoppingproducts/f/veganchocolate.htm )
@Alnair, another excellently written and thought-out response, completely backed up with references. I will take all you say under advisement and do some thinking. I think you've done about all you can. Enjoy the game - you deserve a break.
@alnair: Are meat-eaters ignorant murderous scumbags then, according to you? If so, I can think of a lot of worse examples of the human species... You're giving me more and more the impression that I'm a jerk just because of what I'm eating, even though I've never commited a crime in my life. I still think it's quite ridiculous to put animals on the same level as human beings. It's worth noting I at least treat our house cat well. Am I now rising in respect on your ethical scale of 'good' and 'bad'? Or should I crawl in the mud in front of a cow and cry my eyes out, begging for mercy? I wonder what you would do if you were to strand on a deserted island with only one living sheep on it... Hunger is a powerful survival tool.
@Kitteh_on_a_cloud I think @alnair was writing to get an emotive response. The problem is many vegans (and I don't believe @alnair is one of them) do it to somehow become better than everyone else around them, when in fact they are just using different resources, that still result in the death of animals. I think @alnair focused on this, but has ignored the good farming practices and husbandry that can result in happy content animals right up to being humanely slaughtered. @alnair disagreed that anything can be humanely slaughtered. But I prefer this term still. If an animal is unaware of what is going to happen, then it is not fearful. But they are still slaughtered.
However when it comes to avoiding cruelty to animals, I think we are all in total agreement.
I do tell my children all about where there food comes from. But when it comes to milk... It is hard. Because it involves, sex, pregnancy and udders... It just ain't gonna work with primary children. Saying you have to kill something to get a burger is easier and more understandable. But I understand your horror @kitteh_on_acloud. But milk is very important. Can you imagine a world without CHEESE! MILKSHAKES OR ICE CREAM... No. Those little calves that go on to make veal cutlets are necessary. Salute them now by drinking a glass of milk! Thank you cow! Thank you!
@Anduin: of course animals can be humanely slaughtered, even though this still isn't done in certain religions (Islam, for example, with their ritual sacrifice thingie). I'm getting the impression vegans just want a world based on synthetics, nothing natural anymore...Where's the fun in that, I wonder? Of course, your conscience would be silenced. But would you be happy eating something resembling cheese while knowing it was artifically produced? Following that logic, you can reduce everything to animal suffering, from the curtains hanging in your room till the shampoo you use every day. It's ridiculous. So the fact that I eat a piece of veal means I'm an animal murderer even though I spoil my cat at home as if he were a little prince. Does anyone see the contradiction here? Am I a hypocrite now or something? I love cows, pigs and sheep just as much and am grateful at them for the meat I eat at dinner. But I won't stop eating meat either. Of course I am against chickens locked up in little cages. That is why I would gladly pay more to buy eggs from chickens who have had a happy life on their farm. But not everyone can possibly afford these more expensive eggs, and sometimes they're just not available in your local supermarket. What would you do then? Eat no eggs at all? I just am wondering what to do now that I have been nicely labeled an 'animal murderer'. As if being falsely labeled 'homophobe' in the past wasn't enough already.
If I can get one point across, it's that a person choosing to live ethically does not mean those who don't are condemned to live unethically. You guys seem to have the "fool" or "holier-than-thou" descriptor in-mind for people who are vegan, this becomes especially distinct when you lend @alnair traits not displayed in their posts.
@Tsyrith Uhm... Okay. I understand the strawman analogy... However...
This thread started as a critique for a poem. @Alnair posted his views on this... On a completely different subject only very slightly linked to the original post... However it made him think... And he posted very thoughtfully and elequently! I have even carefully encouraged him I didn't want it to turn into a flame thread. But...
He labelled me carnal defensive (And patronising... and I apologised for that). He also called Kitteh_on_a_cloud an animal murderer... He however labelled himself as a vegan to start with...
And what is the real argument? I have wrestled in my own head what the real argument is...
Is it... Become vegan and save the planet / animals from cruelty?
This would be the dumbest thing ever. If you want to make a change and you live in a democracy you vote and demand change... Becoming a vegan is like choosing not to smoke, a personal choice and not something to write about. By Voting for change and wanting change to happen by lobbying, putting a winning argument forward that cannot be faulted under scrutiny and discussed at length will create change (usually... eventually...)
So that cannot be the argument... So why the discussion... I believe it is simply because he chose to reveal his choice of becoming a vegan, he has then allowed others to discuss the choice he made... That leads us to your a person choosing to live ethically does not mean those who don't are condemned to live unethically. quote. @Alnair has been in control from the start, he brought the topic up, was emotive with it, had a point to make... And make it he did, and (and this is the important part) invited criticism. No one has condemned anyone!
Because becoming vegan is a choice. And no one has said @Alnair you have made the wrong choice. The main impetus of the whole thread so far is Why have you made that choice @Alnair ?
Anyway, I believe @Alnair after revealing his knowledge of Malthus, then knows Malthuses arch enemy... He could kill this debate neatly, with a thunderclap ending with everyone being friends...
Unfortunately, I may need to switch sides and do it for him. Come on @Alnair reach for the positive conclusion!
It's worth noting I at least treat our house cat well. Am I now rising in respect on your ethical scale of 'good' and 'bad'? Or should I crawl in the mud in front of a cow and cry my eyes out, begging for mercy?
... a sense of persecution for not making ethical decisions. Shame is a low and base tool used by marketing, advocacy and preaching. I don't think any one man can be held responsible for the crimes of the many, and yet, on reading and rereading the offending alnair post, I couldn't identify any such cause for such a response than perhaps a projection of a mind's vegan ideal.
I admit, the writing was convoluted but given I was making a small point that I felt was obvious, I wasn't disposed to go on at length. All I meant to say was simply...
Just because some bloke does a good thing doesn't mean you're a bad guy.
I applaud the stones you have in continuing this discussion. My small contribution; I would say that I don't agree with advocacy, but I would defend the right to live in a manner one chooses until my bones dance (because who knows what will happen if I don't). Also, the poem was good. I hope the kids enjoyed that, I did and I still remember my first poem, something about 'stormy nights' and 'full of frights'.
@Anduin and @Tsyrith: Sorry for getting emotional in my previous comment, but it just made me angry. I'm not an animal murderer. That are the people who kill the animals. And yet them you also can't really condemn. Butchers, for example, are only doing their job. They also need money to feed their families. The real scumbags are those who intentionally mistreat and abuse animals for their own enjoyment. And sometimes the killing of animals just is necessary to bring balance again in nature. I think I already mentined the boar problem in the southern part of my country. There's too many of them. They're dangerous to humans. What would you do then? Leave them to attack humans? Or expect humans to move away, which not everyone is able to do for some or the other reason? If we let rats and rabbits breed, soon they would crowd the world and become a hindrance not only to us humans, but also to the environment they live in. They would take away food from other animals, or cause the extinction of their prey animals by intensively hunting them down. Rats, for example, could cause dangerous diseases to return, like the Black Plague which occurred during the Middle Ages and which caused a lot of deaths. Too much is just too much. I'm an animal murderer? Well, at least I'm not like the bastards who hunt down rhino's and elephants for their tusks, or Siberian tigers for their exotic fur. I have never ever in my life bought a coat with real fur. I always make sure it is synthetic fur. I wouldn't bear carrying around dead animals' pelts on my body. I think there's a moral difference here. I think there's a difference between choosing to eat meat and consciously abusing animals. Meat, however you try to turn it, is still advised by medics to be part of a healthy diet. It still is part of the 'food pyramid'. And is by far not as unhealthy as smoking, drugs, or even candy. It still contains nutrients, such as B12, which you need. The alternative is swallowing pills, and is that so much healthier? Also, let children decide for themselves whether they like to eat meat or not. Don't impose one or the other specific view on them, especially one that can prove to be unhealthy in the end.
Speaking of which... Malthus was a God fearing man. He believed that when resources were all used up, we would start starving or killing each other. This was an act of God. So we would practice less gluttony and more restraint... People thought they could prove Malthuses theory in the population of animals...
@Anduin: How am I not stating facts? I can't really follow with the whole Malthus thing, yet I still try to actively contribute based on my knowledge and insight. So forgive me for not being able to contribute on more specific things I know little of.
Let children decide for themselves whether they like to eat meat or not. Don't impose one or the other specific view on them, especially one that can prove to be unhealthy in the end.
Thus... Teach facts. Not opinions.... You get a burger from a cow. You have to kill the cow to do it. this is teachable...
Eating meat is bad. this is not teachable and I could possibly be lynched by the kid who's Dad works at Wall's
I think we may all be getting tetchy... I don't like the idea of upsetting anyone.
Anyway... Darwin found some finches on an island that had a problem with seeds... You see some of the food resources they had relied on had run out...
@Tsyrith I think the issue is. no one has done a good thing. or more accurately a person believes they have done a good thing, while many disagree
I agree with the rest of your post. Everyone should be free to do what they think is right, as long as it does not hurt or enforce their will on others (humans!)
@Anduin: Don't worry, you didn't upset me. I thought you were referring to the whole Malthus deal, and that I should contribute about that subject. I misinterpreted your post, it seems. No harm done!
But raising cattle (apart from in slash and burn circumstances), especially in a free range environment promotes bio diversity...)
Even if that were true - and I don't believe so, since pastures are the reason for so much deforestation - we'd be talking about not more than 9% of the cattle raised in the world.
Anyway. Malthus is a 200 year old theory... Because it is yet to be disproven? A bit like the theory of gravity...
Comparing physics and economics as if they were both exact sciences isn't really helping your point And however, I wasn't underlining how old the Malthusian theory is in order to discredit it (although one has to admit that so many things have profoundly changed in the last two centuries...).
I presume you are then a fan of his arch enemy! Please for the love of god quote him! He is just waiting to be introduced... I think your case would also become much, much, much stronger if you do
At first I was convinced that you were referring to Marx, but I presume from your last post that you're actually talking about Darwin... and I don't understand why you call him his arch-enemy, seeing how Darwin is often said (although usually overstressing its importance) to have been influenced by Essay on Population... heck, there's even a bunch load of right-wing crap (Social Darwinism) that's also referred to as "Malthusian-Darwinian theory"...
In both cases, anyway, I wonder how you think my case's strength would be influenced by them...
And we DO have them to shred meat, even if our teeth are not as developed as a carnivore such as a dog, cat or shark, AS you DO need the goodness MEAT provides. However you can exist without meat just as you can exist eating only meat. You'll just be unhealthy.
Wrong. We don't need meat, since plant-based diets can provide any "goodness" our bodies need. In fact humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, while eating ONLY meat will kill you in a really short time.
Chocolate ingredients for the EU means that it needs animal fat
I don't know where you're taking this from but, as I said, I consume plenty (I've a sweet tooth, what can I say) of Italian-made chocolate that has no animal ingredients whatsoever. Now, we're not the most flawless lab-abiding members of the EU but I don't think, if such a law existed, that so many brands would infringe it.
I think @alnair was writing to get an emotive response.
I wasn't, actually... but since I get emotional myself on this matter, maybe it was showing.
I think @alnair focused on this, but has ignored the good farming practices and husbandry that can result in happy content animals right up to being humanely slaughtered. @alnair disagreed that anything can be humanely slaughtered. But I prefer this term still. If an animal is unaware of what is going to happen, then it is not fearful. But they are still slaughtered.
So if, at the end of the next school year, someone was to painlessly kill your entire class (which I assume is composed by happy children) without let them knowing beforehand, would you call that "humane"? (I'm using school kids as an example because most animals are killed when they're babies... to have a perfect analogy I'd have to use newborns or pre-school children, actually)
However when it comes to avoiding cruelty to animals, I think we are all in total agreement.
I'm sorry, I don't think so. I believe that killing them IS cruelty, period.
Can you imagine a world without CHEESE! MILKSHAKES OR ICE CREAM... No.
Those little calves that go on to make veal cutlets are necessary. Salute them now by drinking a glass of milk! Thank you cow! Thank you!
I'm sure you have no idea of how offensive and upsetting that is to me, so I won't hold a grudge for it, but please refrain from similar remarks in the future.
He labelled me carnal defensive
"Defensive carnIST", actually, and I jokingly did so only after you used many of the arguments from the Defensive Carnist Bingo. And, you know what, after all you WERE being defensive and you ARE a carnist: here's a pair of definitions, tell me if I'm wrong.
(And patronising... and I apologised for that).
Yeah, no need to apologise... no offence taken for that, and none intended.
He also called Kitteh_on_a_cloud an animal murderer...
No, I didn't.
Is it... Become vegan and save the planet / animals from cruelty? This would be the dumbest thing ever. If you want to make a change and you live in a democracy you vote and demand change...
I've no faith in modern democracy, I firmly believe that if yow want change you have to act for it, from simple "vote with your wallet" attitude to actual direct action.
Becoming a vegan is like choosing not to smoke, a personal choice and not something to write about.
Becoming a vegan is NOT a personal choice. It directly changes the fate of the individuals who would have been slaughtered if the person not eating them had decided differently. And, believe it or not, it has an impact on the society much larger than any amount of lobbying.
The main impetus of the whole thread so far is Why have you made that choice @Alnair ?
And I always welcome the occasion to explain my motives.
Everyone should be free to do what they think is right, as long as it does not hurt or enforce their will on others (humans!)
The core of the argument is in those brackets you had to put at the end of the sentence. Why is it okay to hurt non-humans and dominate them?
Unfortunately, I may need to switch sides and do it for him. Come on @Alnair reach for the positive conclusion!
Assuming that's what you did mentioning Darwin's finches, I still don't understand what you mean. Veganism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's a matter of social justice (so yeah, maybe cultural evolution).
Are meat-eaters ignorant murderous scumbags then, according to you?
When did I say anything like that? Although I do believe that eating meat is usually because of either one of these things: ignorance, i.e. not realising what's behind it, or what you call "scumbagness" (which I call selfishness), i.e. not caring about it. Some people also show both traits, of course, ignorance at first then selfishness...
You're giving me more and more the impression that I'm a jerk just because of what I'm eating,
I believe that's called "guilt"
even though I've never commited a crime in my life
What has breaking the law (I guess that's your definition of "crime") to do with this? Even if something isn't illegal, it doesn't automatically make it right, you know.
I still think it's quite ridiculous to put animals on the same level as human beings.
That's because you're a speciesist. (Although that's a bad thing in my eyes, I'm not using the term as an insult right now, so please don't be offended.) Mind you, "on the same level" in this case means "having the same right to live without suffering and exploitation", I'm not saying they should get the same treatment as people in other respects.
It's worth noting I at least treat our house cat well. Am I now rising in respect on your ethical scale of 'good' and 'bad'?
No, just the same level: you're just keeping being a speciesist, specifically the western flavour of it. You know there are people who eat cats and dogs as well, right?
I wonder what you would do if you were to strand on a deserted island with only one living sheep on it...
How does the outcome of an hypothetical situation (and a pretty unlikely one at that) matter in this discussion?
Besides, do animals feel guilty for killing other animals and humans? No, they don't. They're murderers just as well.
As I said, they don't have a choice while we do (except for self-defence, of course, which by the way also applies to most of the cases of animals killing humans).
of course animals can be humanely slaughtered
What I was actually trying to imply is that slaughtering someone is not humane in itself.
I'm getting the impression vegans just want a world based on synthetics, nothing natural anymore...
Again with the wild assumptions... actually, there are so many different kinds of vegans that maybe some of them would be content with a world like that. Not me, though, I'm more for traditional recipes, self-production of genuine food, organic clothes, handcrafted goods made of natural materials...
But would you be happy eating something resembling cheese while knowing it was artifically produced?
What does "artificial" even mean? Do dairy products grow on trees? They need manufacturing anyway, it's just the ingredients that are different.
Following that logic, you can reduce everything to animal suffering, from the curtains hanging in your room till the shampoo you use every day.
That's true, but while some connections may be far-fetched, some others are undeniably more direct. And since you mention shampoo...
So the fact that I eat a piece of veal means I'm an animal murderer even though I spoil my cat at home as if he were a little prince. Does anyone see the contradiction here? Am I a hypocrite now or something?
Yes, I see a big fat juicy contradiction right there (why is your cat more entitled to get to live than a calf?), and the inevitable hypocrisy to go with it. And it's not just you.
I love cows, pigs and sheep just as much and am grateful at them for the meat I eat at dinner.
I'm sure your love and gratitude will be of great comfort to them while they're dead
Of course I am against chickens locked up in little cages. That is why I would gladly pay more to buy eggs from chickens who have had a happy life on their farm.
I just am wondering what to do now that I have been nicely labeled an 'animal murderer'.
Let me stress again that I did no such thing as "label" anyone.
I'm not an animal murderer. That are the people who kill the animals. And yet them you also can't really condemn. Butchers, for example, are only doing their job.
"Just doing their job" is an excuse that didn't work very well for the last mass-murderers that used it... Actually, however, you're right: I don't blame butchers (or, rather, people working in slaughterhouses) because they are usually so desperate that they have to accept one of the most unsanitary, dangerous and stressful of jobs. People who just buy meat without even thinking about where it comes from, on the other hand, usually have it very easy.
I think I already mentined the boar problem in the southern part of my country.
And I think I already replied to that mention. Cruelty-free methods of controlling animal populations exist; while, in nature, populations of animals regulate themselves by means of mechanics involving resources and predators.
It still contains nutrients, such as B12, which you need. The alternative is swallowing pills, and is that so much healthier?
Yes, it is, since with pills (which, by the way, are not synthetic) you just take B12, without all the negative issues connected with meat. Also, where do you think the B12 present in meat comes from? Animals in farms are regularly fed hormones, antibiotics AND B12 supplements, otherwise there wouldn't be any in meat.
Let children decide for themselves whether they like to eat meat or not. Don't impose one or the other specific view on them, especially one that can prove to be unhealthy in the end.
Exactly! Just what I propose... so, let's stop imposing meat on children right away
I got this dialogue from Faldorn while playing BG today, and it made me think of this thread. Please, I am making no point whatsoever, and I'm not even sure I agree with it. It just made me think of the discussion here. Is there any virtue in embracing "noble" savagery, and going back to hunter/gathering? LOL. Probably not. But still, this little Faldornism made me think.
What this made me think, among other things, was, does it remove the moral onus if your prey actually has a chance to fight back? Can you eat it if you go out and kill it yourself? I wonder how many people would still eat beef if they had to bring down the bull themselves? And butcher it themselves. And eat it before it spoils.
@belgarathmth "...I wonder how many people would still eat beef if they had to bring down the bull themselves? And butcher it themselves. And eat it before it spoils..."
I grew up in an agricultural community, so the scenario you described was commonplace for myself and many others. (though bulls would be a poor choice...)
The cows would occasionally try to flip the script as well. I had a 1500 lb Holstein try to mash me out like cigarette butte, and a black Angus wreck my little Toyota corolla (long story)... I didn't take it personally.
But raising cattle (apart from in slash and burn circumstances), especially in a free range environment promotes bio diversity...)
Even if that were true - and I don't believe so, since pastures are the reason for so much deforestation - we'd be talking about not more than 9% of the cattle raised in the world.
There is 129,709.9 thousand sq km of land in the world. Of that 31% is forested (read into that rainforest, temperate deciduous and wilderness that has high scrub, brush, fern etc), 1.2% can be / is used for crops (good farmland) and 10.8% is arable (you can grow grass on it and it can be used for animals). *There is a flaw in the data, as it does not say how much arable land could be turned to crop growing land*
Personally, I did not like finding that kind a stuff out it scares me... Anyway there is more land on the planet you can grow a bit of grass on... 0.4% of forest was lost 0.2% went to more crop land, 0.2% went to creating more arable land... So were equals... I was so sure crops took more... My bad. Still a lot more land can (is) be used to raise goats, sheep etc...
Anyway. Malthus is a 200 year old theory... Because it is yet to be disproven? A bit like the theory of gravity...
Comparing physics and economics as if they were both exact sciences isn't really helping your point And however, I wasn't underlining how old the Malthusian theory is in order to discredit it (although one has to admit that so many things have profoundly changed in the last two centuries...).
Okay... Silliness. Malthuses natural sciences and Newtons physics are not interchangeable. Picking a well known theory from the natural sciences then... Would Darwins theory of evolution, another 100 plus old theory be outdated... Hang on... Have things changed that much?
I presume you are then a fan of his arch enemy! Please for the love of god quote him! He is just waiting to be introduced... I think your case would also become much, much, much stronger if you do
At first I was convinced that you were referring to Marx, but I presume from your last post that you're actually talking about Darwin... and I don't understand why you call him his arch-enemy, seeing how Darwin is often said (although usually overstressing its importance) to have been influenced by Essay on Population... heck, there's even a bunch load of right-wing crap (Social Darwinism) that's also referred to as "Malthusian-Darwinian theory"...
In both cases, anyway, I wonder how you think my case's strength would be influenced by them...
Oh its coming! Its coming! I was so sure you studied a Human Science or Humanities when you said you recognised Malthus... I had to study these guys, but never have met anyone else who has! (I also had to study that *rse Marx as well...)
And we DO have them to shred meat, even if our teeth are not as developed as a carnivore such as a dog, cat or shark, AS you DO need the goodness MEAT provides. However you can exist without meat just as you can exist eating only meat. You'll just be unhealthy.
Wrong. We don't need meat, since plant-based diets can provide any "goodness" our bodies need. In fact humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, while eating ONLY meat will kill you in a really short time.
Oh. You can eat meat forever and not get ill. How you eat your meat is the important bit...
I must admit, I don't think I could eat meat raw like the Aluets, but there was no wood for them to cook on so, you would be forced to. Eskimos also are forced to forgo vegetables and fruit and eat only fish and seal, however it is the fat that is important. All the goodness, vitamins and minerals is in the fat.
And this is not just for humans who have learnt to endure hardships. When humans ventured onto the semi-permafrost steppe of europe and asia to hunt the mammoth and the other large beast such as the wooly rhino, they would have also had a no vegetable or fruit diet (the only landscape that exists as it did during the last ice age is the siberian steppe to give you an idea what other foods they could forage...)
This amazing when you consider we all go for lean highly processed meat we seem to love today. There is a lesson to be learnt... Processed meat is bad for you. Meat straight from the farm is better. But I get your point... In fact an explorer decided to try and eat meat for an entire year... He did... He survived... But he became ill when they tried to feed him lean meat (you see he had some experience with Eskimos!) It looks like he nearly had a heart attack, even though the experiment deemed to show you could survive eating only meat... Read it here http://www.ergo-log.com/meatonly.html
You can definately survive, most likely with better body odour, on a vegan diet. I think it can be safely said that both dietscan cause some dietry disfunction. But meh... What were vitamin tablets invented for? (And woah! I'm not going to give up strawberries and go on a meat diet... This is just, in theory, you can go vegan or meatagan, if you wanted)
Chocolate ingredients for the EU means that it needs animal fat
I don't know where you're taking this from but, as I said, I consume plenty (I've a sweet tooth, what can I say) of Italian-made chocolate that has no animal ingredients whatsoever. Now, we're not the most flawless lab-abiding members of the EU but I don't think, if such a law existed, that so many brands would infringe it.
I live next to the Cadbury factory. I think we may get a lot anti-EU crud and choco stuff pushed through my letterbox. I looked up what fat they put in Cadbury's now, they use Palm oil. The big chocotiers have changed what fats they are using in their chocolate recently. So I may have used old news... I am aware that this would have only applied to Milk Chocolate. Dark Chocolate does not have that extra creamy texture or milk, I presume you scoff Dark Choccies If you have ever tried Bournville dark chocolate, that is the village next to me! Plus it is one of my faves.
I think @alnair focused on this, but has ignored the good farming practices and husbandry that can result in happy content animals right up to being humanely slaughtered. @alnair disagreed that anything can be humanely slaughtered. But I prefer this term still. If an animal is unaware of what is going to happen, then it is not fearful. But they are still slaughtered.
So if, at the end of the next school year, someone was to painlessly kill your entire class (which I assume is composed by happy children) without let them knowing beforehand, would you call that "humane"? (I'm using school kids as an example because most animals are killed when they're babies... to have a perfect analogy I'd have to use newborns or pre-school children, actually)
I think, and you have already said, you view animals as equals (as in they have an equal right to life). Killing children and killing animals are two wholly different things in my head.
My view. We can talk about it being correct as it is an opinion. Animals are not sentient beings like humans. They do not follow rules so don't feel aggrieved when they are treated unfairly. Jealousy, outrage, anger, love and other feelings we continually, and perhaps wrongly, personify in animals. But they do not feel these emotions as they are human emotions. They are instinctive. Animals all seek food, shelter and chance to reproduce. They flee or attack when endangered. The only emotion that we can see in animals is fear. Even my stone heart is saddened by this...
I never knew! Cool! I bet some of that is healthier too! I have a couple of friends, married, who are vegan and I am going to get her to make some of that milkshake when I next pop over for tea (we try to get 'em to come to ours but they don't want to put us out with the awkward cooking, bless 'em (and I quite like tofu when a recipe does it justice!))
I'm sure you have no idea of how offensive and upsetting that is to me, so I won't hold a grudge for it, but please refrain from similar remarks in the future.
Done. It was an attempt at a humour. But if not everyone is laughing then it is not funny.
I will take greater care in future. You are just outside my normal frame of reference This is a backward way of saying you are an interesting person!
I've no faith in modern democracy, I firmly believe that if yow want change you have to act for it, from simple "vote with your wallet" attitude to actual direct action.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Governments govern. They make the rules. YOU can change how they act. However you need a lot of support from other people, who share what you believe in to make that change. In this country for instance a decision was put forward by the bank of england to put Winston Churchill on the £5 note, this would have bumped off Mrs Fry (Health reformer) from the note and left all of Britians currency without a female role model upon them (apart from the queen of course!). Pressure mounted, a large part of the population was outraged (At least 50%!) and now Jane Austen (Novelist) will be put on the £20 note I could find many other instances, this was the latest to hit the news. On the other hand, I believe I am very lucky to live in such a democratic nation.
Becoming a vegan is like choosing not to smoke, a personal choice and not something to write about.
Becoming a vegan is NOT a personal choice. It directly changes the fate of the individuals who would have been slaughtered if the person not eating them had decided differently. And, believe it or not, it has an impact on the society much larger than any amount of lobbying.
Unfortunately, I may need to switch sides and do it for him. Come on @Alnair reach for the positive conclusion!
Assuming that's what you did mentioning Darwin's finches, I still don't understand what you mean. Veganism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's a matter of social justice (so yeah, maybe cultural evolution).
You are on the right lines! Okay. Next couple of posts I will explain, but this is a long post already.
What this made me think, among other things, was, does it remove the moral onus if your prey actually has a chance to fight back? Can you eat it if you go out and kill it yourself? I wonder how many people would still eat beef if they had to bring down the bull themselves? And butcher it themselves. And eat it before it spoils.
[spoiler]I've caught and skinned a few rabbits in my time with the scouts and the rangers. Also with fish. But they made one meal, for me and a few friends.
A roasted cow would feed a whole village! So no. I would not kill a cow just for me to have a burger (however if I had a village to feed...)
On the other hand, I think you would be surprised how many people would miss their burgers... They would all draw straws and the person with the smallest straw would have to do... Hang on... Is this how farmers get selected?[spoiler]
*sigh* I think it's time to agree to disagree, because I obviously won't bother anymore. I'm on vacation, I got no reason to get pissed off by some random vegan person with a holier-than-thou attitude here on the internet. Let people eat what they want to eat. Obsess over animals all you wish, I got other more important things on my mind. So yeah, you win, @alnair. But it's a useless debate anyway. I had a delicious fish soup yesterday. And you know what? I don't regret one single second of it. I do hope the kids will keep up their creativity in the writing of poems, though. I can only support literary creativity in writing.
I've been vegan for about a year now. It all started with wanting to lose weight but the more research I did the more horrible stuff I discovered about the meat industry. Plus I live in a country where I can walk down the street and find any food I could ever desire...there isn't any reason for me to eat meat or animal products. If you are seriously considering making the change just know that it isn't nearly as hard as it seems, I thought I would be back to meat in a week but after a few days I didn't even crave meat or animal products any more. Plus a vegan diet is a lot more healthy than a meat eaters diet. The only downside is there really aren't any convenient quick meals, you pretty much have to cook/prepare everything (unless you want to spend tons of money getting vegan preprepared meals).
Hey! Plants have feelings too and dream of world domination just like everyone else. My poor cactus... all those chlorophyll thirsty people in this thread give him nightmares.
Comments
[Spoiler]Winston Churchill would often ask people if they had enemies. If you answered no, the answer most thought they should give, he would dismiss you. If you said yes he would become interested, as you had a viewpoint and the backbone to stand up to those who thought opposingly! You would make a great politician![/spoiler]
Sorry for coming across patronising
Teachers do that some time
I tell my kids I make mistakes, but that's okay because we learn from them
I think @kitteh_on_a_cloud is right.... To live you need to kill. A patch of land that could support a varied bio system is grown to support one... The crop grown. Animals,insects and other fauna is destroyed, to ensure the success of the crop. (I don't believe farmers spray the grass or mountains that cows or sheep graze on so I may be wrong... But raising cattle (apart from in slash and burn circumstances), especially in a free range environment promotes bio diversity...)
Anyway. Malthus is a 200 year old theory... Because it is yet to be disproven? A bit like the theory of gravity...
I am glad you have heard of him though! I presume you are then a fan of his arch enemy! Please for the love of god quote him! He is just waiting to be introduced... I think your case would also become much, much, much stronger if you do
Lastly. The NORM. True, it is not a standpoint for any argument. but i used It in this case as it is normal to have canines as you are human. (Go all the way back to the first post, plus my tiredness at such arguments... you have thrilled me this time as you actually have stood to your principles) And we DO have them to shred meat, even if our teeth are not as developed as a carnivore such as a dog, cat or shark, AS you DO need the goodness MEAT provides. However you can exist without meat just as you can exist eating only meat. You'll just be unhealthy.
Chocolate ingredients for the EU means that it needs animal fat but chocolate from America can get away with using vegetable oil... The other ingredient that causes issue is rennet, that comes from cow... (And milk obtained from slaughtering calves to keep cows pregnant.) Not all is lost though this site has ways to get around it and some other stuff http://vegetarian.about.com/od/shoppingproducts/f/veganchocolate.htm )
Keep going @Alnair !
...
My poem started this! Yes! Yes! Yes!
However when it comes to avoiding cruelty to animals, I think we are all in total agreement.
I do tell my children all about where there food comes from. But when it comes to milk... It is hard. Because it involves, sex, pregnancy and udders... It just ain't gonna work with primary children. Saying you have to kill something to get a burger is easier and more understandable. But I understand your horror @kitteh_on_acloud. But milk is very important. Can you imagine a world without CHEESE! MILKSHAKES OR ICE CREAM... No. Those little calves that go on to make veal cutlets are necessary. Salute them now by drinking a glass of milk! Thank you cow! Thank you!
If I can get one point across, it's that a person choosing to live ethically does not mean those who don't are condemned to live unethically. You guys seem to have the "fool" or "holier-than-thou" descriptor in-mind for people who are vegan, this becomes especially distinct when you lend @alnair traits not displayed in their posts.
Just give people the credit they deserve, is all.
This thread started as a critique for a poem. @Alnair posted his views on this... On a completely different subject only very slightly linked to the original post... However it made him think... And he posted very thoughtfully and elequently! I have even carefully encouraged him
He labelled me carnal defensive (And patronising... and I apologised for that). He also called Kitteh_on_a_cloud an animal murderer... He however labelled himself as a vegan to start with...
And what is the real argument? I have wrestled in my own head what the real argument is...
Is it... Become vegan and save the planet / animals from cruelty?
This would be the dumbest thing ever. If you want to make a change and you live in a democracy you vote and demand change... Becoming a vegan is like choosing not to smoke, a personal choice and not something to write about. By Voting for change and wanting change to happen by lobbying, putting a winning argument forward that cannot be faulted under scrutiny and discussed at length will create change (usually... eventually...)
So that cannot be the argument... So why the discussion... I believe it is simply because he chose to reveal his choice of becoming a vegan, he has then allowed others to discuss the choice he made... That leads us to your a person choosing to live ethically does not mean those who don't are condemned to live unethically. quote. @Alnair has been in control from the start, he brought the topic up, was emotive with it, had a point to make... And make it he did, and (and this is the important part) invited criticism. No one has condemned anyone!
Because becoming vegan is a choice. And no one has said @Alnair you have made the wrong choice. The main impetus of the whole thread so far is Why have you made that choice @Alnair ?
Anyway, I believe @Alnair after revealing his knowledge of Malthus, then knows Malthuses arch enemy... He could kill this debate neatly, with a thunderclap ending with everyone being friends...
Unfortunately, I may need to switch sides and do it for him. Come on @Alnair reach for the positive conclusion!
I admit, the writing was convoluted but given I was making a small point that I felt was obvious, I wasn't disposed to go on at length. All I meant to say was simply...
Just because some bloke does a good thing doesn't mean you're a bad guy.
I applaud the stones you have in continuing this discussion. My small contribution; I would say that I don't agree with advocacy, but I would defend the right to live in a manner one chooses until my bones dance (because who knows what will happen if I don't). Also, the poem was good. I hope the kids enjoyed that, I did and I still remember my first poem, something about 'stormy nights' and 'full of frights'.
Speaking of which... Malthus was a God fearing man. He believed that when resources were all used up, we would start starving or killing each other. This was an act of God. So we would practice less gluttony and more restraint... People thought they could prove Malthuses theory in the population of animals...
...
Then this guy Darwin showed up...
Eating meat is bad. this is not teachable and I could possibly be lynched by the kid who's Dad works at Wall's
I think we may all be getting tetchy...
Anyway... Darwin found some finches on an island that had a problem with seeds... You see some of the food resources they had relied on had run out...
@Tsyrith I think the issue is. no one has done a good thing. or more accurately a person believes they have done a good thing, while many disagree
I agree with the rest of your post. Everyone should be free to do what they think is right, as long as it does not hurt or enforce their will on others (humans!)
Thanks for the support. If I had to put a TL;DR on this post, it would probably say the same things you did.
@Anduin
[spoiler] Even if that were true - and I don't believe so, since pastures are the reason for so much deforestation - we'd be talking about not more than 9% of the cattle raised in the world. Comparing physics and economics as if they were both exact sciences isn't really helping your point
And however, I wasn't underlining how old the Malthusian theory is in order to discredit it (although one has to admit that so many things have profoundly changed in the last two centuries...). At first I was convinced that you were referring to Marx, but I presume from your last post that you're actually talking about Darwin... and I don't understand why you call him his arch-enemy, seeing how Darwin is often said (although usually overstressing its importance) to have been influenced by Essay on Population... heck, there's even a bunch load of right-wing crap (Social Darwinism) that's also referred to as "Malthusian-Darwinian theory"...
In both cases, anyway, I wonder how you think my case's strength would be influenced by them... Wrong. We don't need meat, since plant-based diets can provide any "goodness" our bodies need. In fact humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, while eating ONLY meat will kill you in a really short time. I don't know where you're taking this from but, as I said, I consume plenty (I've a sweet tooth, what can I say) of Italian-made chocolate that has no animal ingredients whatsoever. Now, we're not the most flawless lab-abiding members of the EU
(I'm using school kids as an example because most animals are killed when they're babies... to have a perfect analogy I'd have to use newborns or pre-school children, actually) I'm sorry, I don't think so. I believe that killing them IS cruelty, period. And why exactly would you imagine such a world? I'm sure you have no idea of how offensive and upsetting that is to me, so I won't hold a grudge for it, but please refrain from similar remarks in the future. "Defensive carnIST", actually, and I jokingly did so only after you used many of the arguments from the Defensive Carnist Bingo.
And, you know what, after all you WERE being defensive and you ARE a carnist: here's a pair of definitions, tell me if I'm wrong. Yeah, no need to apologise... no offence taken for that, and none intended. No, I didn't. I've no faith in modern democracy, I firmly believe that if yow want change you have to act for it, from simple "vote with your wallet" attitude to actual direct action. Becoming a vegan is NOT a personal choice. It directly changes the fate of the individuals who would have been slaughtered if the person not eating them had decided differently. And, believe it or not, it has an impact on the society much larger than any amount of lobbying. And I always welcome the occasion to explain my motives. The core of the argument is in those brackets you had to put at the end of the sentence. Why is it okay to hurt non-humans and dominate them? Assuming that's what you did mentioning Darwin's finches, I still don't understand what you mean. Veganism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's a matter of social justice (so yeah, maybe cultural evolution).
[/spoiler]
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud
[spoiler] When did I say anything like that?
Although I do believe that eating meat is usually because of either one of these things: ignorance, i.e. not realising what's behind it, or what you call "scumbagness" (which I call selfishness), i.e. not caring about it. Some people also show both traits, of course, ignorance at first then selfishness... I believe that's called "guilt"
Mind you, "on the same level" in this case means "having the same right to live without suffering and exploitation", I'm not saying they should get the same treatment as people in other respects. No, just the same level: you're just keeping being a speciesist, specifically the western flavour of it. You know there are people who eat cats and dogs as well, right? How does the outcome of an hypothetical situation (and a pretty unlikely one at that) matter in this discussion? As I said, they don't have a choice while we do (except for self-defence, of course, which by the way also applies to most of the cases of animals killing humans). What I was actually trying to imply is that slaughtering someone is not humane in itself. Again with the wild assumptions... actually, there are so many different kinds of vegans that maybe some of them would be content with a world like that. Not me, though, I'm more for traditional recipes, self-production of genuine food, organic clothes, handcrafted goods made of natural materials... What does "artificial" even mean? Do dairy products grow on trees? They need manufacturing anyway, it's just the ingredients that are different. That's true, but while some connections may be far-fetched, some others are undeniably more direct. And since you mention shampoo... Yes, I see a big fat juicy contradiction right there (why is your cat more entitled to get to live than a calf?), and the inevitable hypocrisy to go with it. And it's not just you. I'm sure your love and gratitude will be of great comfort to them while they're dead
Actually, however, you're right: I don't blame butchers (or, rather, people working in slaughterhouses) because they are usually so desperate that they have to accept one of the most unsanitary, dangerous and stressful of jobs.
People who just buy meat without even thinking about where it comes from, on the other hand, usually have it very easy. And I think I already replied to that mention. Cruelty-free methods of controlling animal populations exist; while, in nature, populations of animals regulate themselves by means of mechanics involving resources and predators. Yes, it is, since with pills (which, by the way, are not synthetic) you just take B12, without all the negative issues connected with meat. Also, where do you think the B12 present in meat comes from? Animals in farms are regularly fed hormones, antibiotics AND B12 supplements, otherwise there wouldn't be any in meat. Exactly! Just what I propose... so, let's stop imposing meat on children right away
[/spoiler]
What this made me think, among other things, was, does it remove the moral onus if your prey actually has a chance to fight back? Can you eat it if you go out and kill it yourself? I wonder how many people would still eat beef if they had to bring down the bull themselves? And butcher it themselves. And eat it before it spoils.
I grew up in an agricultural community, so the scenario you described was commonplace for myself and many others. (though bulls would be a poor choice...)
The cows would occasionally try to flip the script as well. I had a 1500 lb Holstein try to mash me out like cigarette butte, and a black Angus wreck my little Toyota corolla (long story)... I didn't take it personally.
@alnair from the world development index found here http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.1
There is 129,709.9 thousand sq km of land in the world. Of that 31% is forested (read into that rainforest, temperate deciduous and wilderness that has high scrub, brush, fern etc), 1.2% can be / is used for crops (good farmland) and 10.8% is arable (you can grow grass on it and it can be used for animals). *There is a flaw in the data, as it does not say how much arable land could be turned to crop growing land*
Personally, I did not like finding that kind a stuff out it scares me... Anyway there is more land on the planet you can grow a bit of grass on... 0.4% of forest was lost 0.2% went to more crop land, 0.2% went to creating more arable land... So were equals... I was so sure crops took more... My bad. Still a lot more land can (is) be used to raise goats, sheep etc... Comparing physics and economics as if they were both exact sciences isn't really helping your point
And however, I wasn't underlining how old the Malthusian theory is in order to discredit it (although one has to admit that so many things have profoundly changed in the last two centuries...).
Okay... Silliness. Malthuses natural sciences and Newtons physics are not interchangeable. Picking a well known theory from the natural sciences then... Would Darwins theory of evolution, another 100 plus old theory be outdated... Hang on... Have things changed that much? At first I was convinced that you were referring to Marx, but I presume from your last post that you're actually talking about Darwin... and I don't understand why you call him his arch-enemy, seeing how Darwin is often said (although usually overstressing its importance) to have been influenced by Essay on Population... heck, there's even a bunch load of right-wing crap (Social Darwinism) that's also referred to as "Malthusian-Darwinian theory"...
In both cases, anyway, I wonder how you think my case's strength would be influenced by them...
Oh its coming! Its coming! I was so sure you studied a Human Science or Humanities when you said you recognised Malthus... I had to study these guys, but never have met anyone else who has! (I also had to study that *rse Marx as well...) Wrong. We don't need meat, since plant-based diets can provide any "goodness" our bodies need. In fact humans can be perfectly healthy without meat, while eating ONLY meat will kill you in a really short time.
Oh. You can eat meat forever and not get ill. How you eat your meat is the important bit...
http://www.firstalaskans.org/index.cfm?section=Census-Information-Center&page=Regional-Fact-Sheets&viewpost=2&ContentId=602
I must admit, I don't think I could eat meat raw like the Aluets, but there was no wood for them to cook on so, you would be forced to. Eskimos also are forced to forgo vegetables and fruit and eat only fish and seal, however it is the fat that is important. All the goodness, vitamins and minerals is in the fat.
And this is not just for humans who have learnt to endure hardships. When humans ventured onto the semi-permafrost steppe of europe and asia to hunt the mammoth and the other large beast such as the wooly rhino, they would have also had a no vegetable or fruit diet (the only landscape that exists as it did during the last ice age is the siberian steppe to give you an idea what other foods they could forage...)
This amazing when you consider we all go for lean highly processed meat we seem to love today. There is a lesson to be learnt... Processed meat is bad for you. Meat straight from the farm is better. But I get your point... In fact an explorer decided to try and eat meat for an entire year... He did... He survived... But he became ill when they tried to feed him lean meat (you see he had some experience with Eskimos!) It looks like he nearly had a heart attack, even though the experiment deemed to show you could survive eating only meat... Read it here http://www.ergo-log.com/meatonly.html
You can definately survive, most likely with better body odour, on a vegan diet. I think it can be safely said that both dietscan cause some dietry disfunction. But meh... What were vitamin tablets invented for? (And woah! I'm not going to give up strawberries and go on a meat diet... This is just, in theory, you can go vegan or meatagan, if you wanted)
I don't know where you're taking this from but, as I said, I consume plenty (I've a sweet tooth, what can I say) of Italian-made chocolate that has no animal ingredients whatsoever. Now, we're not the most flawless lab-abiding members of the EU
I live next to the Cadbury factory. I think we may get a lot anti-EU crud and choco stuff pushed through my letterbox. I looked up what fat they put in Cadbury's now, they use Palm oil. The big chocotiers have changed what fats they are using in their chocolate recently. So I may have used old news... I am aware that this would have only applied to Milk Chocolate. Dark Chocolate does not have that extra creamy texture or milk, I presume you scoff Dark Choccies
So if, at the end of the next school year, someone was to painlessly kill your entire class (which I assume is composed by happy children) without let them knowing beforehand, would you call that "humane"?
(I'm using school kids as an example because most animals are killed when they're babies... to have a perfect analogy I'd have to use newborns or pre-school children, actually)
I think, and you have already said, you view animals as equals (as in they have an equal right to life). Killing children and killing animals are two wholly different things in my head.
My view. We can talk about it being correct as it is an opinion. Animals are not sentient beings like humans. They do not follow rules so don't feel aggrieved when they are treated unfairly. Jealousy, outrage, anger, love and other feelings we continually, and perhaps wrongly, personify in animals. But they do not feel these emotions as they are human emotions. They are instinctive. Animals all seek food, shelter and chance to reproduce. They flee or attack when endangered. The only emotion that we can see in animals is fear. Even my stone heart is saddened by this... I'm sorry, I don't think so. I believe that killing them IS cruelty, period.
Okay. Perhaps this can be changed to killing is wrong. I view cruelty as an act that can only be done to the living. And why exactly would you imagine such a world?
I never knew! Cool! I bet some of that is healthier too! I have a couple of friends, married, who are vegan and I am going to get her to make some of that milkshake when I next pop over for tea (we try to get 'em to come to ours but they don't want to put us out with the awkward cooking, bless 'em (and I quite like tofu when a recipe does it justice!)) Done. It was an attempt at a humour. But if not everyone is laughing then it is not funny.
I will take greater care in future. You are just outside my normal frame of reference
How? And I always welcome the occasion to explain my motives.
And if your okay with it, I will critique your motive because they deserve discussion! The core of the argument is in those brackets you had to put at the end of the sentence. Why is it okay to hurt non-humans and dominate them?
Yes. I think that is what should be discussed. I felt I needed to put those brackets in at the time and it did make me ponder... Assuming that's what you did mentioning Darwin's finches, I still don't understand what you mean. Veganism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's a matter of social justice (so yeah, maybe cultural evolution).
You are on the right lines! Okay. Next couple of posts I will explain, but this is a long post already.
I really enjoy debating with you @Alnair .
Never underestimate the power of a poem.
A roasted cow would feed a whole village! So no. I would not kill a cow just for me to have a burger (however if I had a village to feed...)
On the other hand, I think you would be surprised how many people would miss their burgers... They would all draw straws and the person with the smallest straw would have to do... Hang on... Is this how farmers get selected?[spoiler]