I have to disagree with your issue against animal cruelty. They way I see it, I would put thousands of cows through pain and kill them if I could feed just one human. Animals are a natural resource, they are not even close to being equal with humans.
I can watch a movie where a thousand people are killed in nasty ways and barely notice, but if someone even says that a dog or a horse is mildly inconvenienced, I become very sad.
I can watch a movie where a thousand people are killed in nasty ways and barely notice, but if someone even says that a dog or a horse is mildly inconvenienced, I become very sad.
This reminds me of a great scene from American Psycho, which I can not spoil.
I won't touch crabs or prawns because I think they are freakin' adorable.
I just noticed that. You, madam, are an odd one.
EDIT: Also, I eat lean meats because they have a lot of protein and other goodies, and because animals are damn tasty.
Would it be fair to say the genesis of vegetarianism is usually whether you like the taste of meat, and that vegetarians tend to build an ideological conviction around that? A sweeping generalization, I know, but an anecdotal observation with 90 percent of the VTs I know.
They way I see it, I would put thousands of cows through pain and kill them if I could feed just one human. Animals are a natural resource, they are not even close to being equal with humans.
I would gladly trade Rush Limbaugh to have Barbaro back.
I've always been a firm beliver of "to each their own". You do what you want, I do what I want, and it's all cool. I just hate how some vegetarians, vegans, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, seem to think they can force their beliefs on me. I had a friend like that in high school. We went out to eat and I got a steak, he got a cesar salad. He told me that he "wouldn't eat anything with a face". I picked up the place and showed him the juicy T-bone steak and said "I don't see a face on this. Do you?"
Good god, I hated hearing about Barbaro. I couldn't care less how that one turned out. For some reason the worldwide leader thought it was sportscenter-worthy.
Good god, I hated hearing about Barbaro. I couldn't care less how that one turned out. For some reason the worldwide leader thought it was sportscenter-worthy.
That's why I only listen to PTI. They talked about Barbaro, but Wilbon knows the score.
Being from Philadelphia, where the sports fans are so hungry for anything even CLOSELY resembling a sports championship that they'll latch onto something even as lame as horse racing as an acceptable "win", you could hardly go a day without hearing news on Barbaro's condition. Now that he's dead I say good riddance, I was tried of hearing about him, and they probably kept him alive a lot longer than they should have anyway. To hear people whine and moan about the loss of a horse seems rather silly in a city with, say, one of the highest murder rates in the country.
I kinda go by the same "would I kill it myself" criteria. I'd have trouble dealing with a pig or a cow, but chickens I think I could handle. There are even chickens I would go after willingly such as dear Precious the Rooster who was in the habit of chasing me around the yard trying to punch a large hole in my leg. And I fish, so was I ever stranded on the shores of a lake I think I could get myself sustenance.
The animal cruelty argument doesn't go very far, because you're generally just replacing animal cruelty with plant cruelty. The only difference is that a plant can't vocalize its distress, so it doesn't appear to be cruel.
In order to survive, you must eat SOMETHING. Pretty it up however you want, you still have to end the life of something in order to continue your own.
Whale-kun my dear biologist, I am assuming it was an attempt at sarcasm on your part, but I shall reply none the less. Plants, as you are well aware, have a far less complicated nervous system, and therefore presumably do not experience "suffering" and "distress" in the same manner as, say, a pig would. My thing is, the closer it is to me genetically and the more mental facility it has, the less I am likely to indulge in its meat. The whole "things with faces" argument might be an extension of the same. A face would indicate a somewhat complex sensory/nervous system, or at least something of a brain. Maybe that is what it is about, eh?
I have to disagree with your issue against animal cruelty. They way I see it, I would put thousands of cows through pain and kill them if I could feed just one human. Animals are a natural resource, they are not even close to being equal with humans.
And don't you think we should use our "natural resources" responsibly? The question is not "Should one kill a cow to feed a starving man" (to which the answer, I think, is surely a resounding "Yes") but "Should we torture cows from birth until slaughter to provide Americans with their copious amounts of red meat cheaply?" If it comes down to feeding starving people, If all the land used to raise meat animals plus the crop land to grow their feed was converted land for food crops, it could feed far more people far more economically. Meat takes a great amount of resources and energy and is something of a luxury.
While I am not suggesting that everyone must become completely vegan, people should maybe become less defensive when the idea of vegetarianism comes up. I think that perhaps a modicum of conscientious behavior on the part of the consumer, however, might do some good all around, for humans and otherwise.
So this is an old thread, but it's kinda relevant to me since I have a bunch of friends who are trying to convince me to stop eating meat for Lent. None of us are religious, but it's one tradition that kind of carries over into the secular world, much like Christmas. Anyway, I've never tried to be vegetarian because I believe in the science and history that tells me that we have always been an omnivorous people. So any arguments about whether or not humans were "meant" to eat meat don't count in my mind. I know we are designed to eat it.
Animal cruelty aside, the big thing these days, and what my friends try to tell me, is that vegetarians and vegans make the argument that meat is less healthy to eat because of diseases and such. So, I've seen studies and such that go both ways on this issue. How much validity is there to the claim that meat products have more diseases in them than fruits and vegetables? I'm assuming that our resident food inspector knows a great deal, but I'm also sure others know just as much.
So this is an old thread, but it's kinda relevant to me since I have a bunch of friends who are trying to convince me to stop eating meat for Lent. None of us are religious, but it's one tradition that kind of carries over into the secular world, much like Christmas.
In that case, you weigh the social currency of the tradition against the tastiness of meat. Hint: meat wins.
Animal cruelty aside, the big thing these days, and what my friends try to tell me, is that vegetarians and vegans make the argument that meat is less healthy to eat because of diseases and such. So, I've seen studies and such that go both ways on this issue. How much validity is there to the claim that meat products have more diseases in them than fruits and vegetables? I'm assuming that our resident food inspector knows a great deal, but I'm also sure others know just as much.
In summary, raw foods of animal origin present the greatest risk, especially those that are a mixture of products from many animals. Raw fruits and vegetables are a lesser but still significant concern.
This is just a hypothesis of mine, and I'm not claiming it's original, but I would think that the closer the conditions of the food are to your own body, the greater risk it poses to you. As such, animals would be more dangerous than plants for consumption. In particular, human meat ought to be very dangerous to consume. Proper preparation removes most of the risk, however.
Animal cruelty aside, the big thing these days, and what my friends try to tell me, is that vegetarians and vegans make the argument that meat is less healthy to eat because of diseases and such. So, I've seen studies and such that go both ways on this issue. How much validity is there to the claim that meat products have more diseases in them than fruits and vegetables? I'm assuming that our resident food inspector knows a great deal, but I'm also sure others know just as much.
That's some straight Randi bullshit if I've ever heard it. Anthony Bourdain states in Kitchen Confidential that the only food-borne illness he saw in a fine restaurant was a busboy who got a nasty amoeba from improperly washed produce. The only way to ensure that produce is completely safe is blasting it with UV-C or other irradiation, cooking it, washing it thoroughly, and staying away from any questionable sources. However, as we all tend to enjoy a good salad, you're likely not just going to stop eating produce.
Freshly-butchered, clean, properly cooked steak shouldn't pose much of a risk to you, and neither should fresh seafood if properly prepared. It seems to me all food safety comes down to preparation, and I don't think anyone can say that anything is either perfectly safe or absolutely unsafe (with the exception of certain things that are blindingly obvious like raw chicken and unpasteurized milk). They're theorizing that parts of humanity survived the Ice Age by gulping down raw oysters (fascinating read, by the way).
Vegetarianism and veganism are just lifestyle choices, and any "health benefit" beyond making calorie, fat, and cholesterol management easier is about as silly as how Owsley Stanley exclusively eats animal products and claims that consumption of plants and their pigments causes aging and slow poisoning over a lifetime.
Vegetarianism and veganism are just lifestyle choices, and any "health benefit" beyond making calorie, fat, and cholesterol management easier is about as silly as howOwsley Stanleyexclusively eats animal products and claims that consumption of plants and their pigments causes aging and slow poisoning over a lifetime.
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't posted in this thread. As a vegan for over five years, I actually agree pretty much entirely with this statement. It does make "managing" those things easier -- easier as in basically automatic. I lost 60 pounds after becoming a vegetarian, and I basically have no cholesterol.
Vegetarianism and veganism are just lifestyle choices, and any "health benefit" beyond making calorie, fat, and cholesterol management easier is about as silly as howOwsley Stanleyexclusively eats animal products and claims that consumption of plants and their pigments causes aging and slow poisoning over a lifetime.
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't posted in this thread. As a vegan for over five years, I actually agree pretty much entirely with this statement. Itdoesmake "managing" those things easier -- easier as in basically automatic. I lost 60 pounds after becoming a vegetarian, and I basically have no cholesterol.
See, that makes total sense. My buddy is a vegan both for humane and health purposes, and my uncle (as carnivorous as they come without totally eschewing produce) is largely a vegetarian right now to help manage cholesterol.
I think they're fine choices; however, I find it ridiculous how certain people who have made those dietary choices try to manufacture excuses to "convert" others. I'd certainly switch over if weight, cholesterol, or health ever gave me issues, but for the time being I'm going to stay the omnivore's course.
I think they're fine choices; however, I find it ridiculous how certain people who have made those dietary choices try to manufacture excuses to "convert" others.
Me too. To clarify, I'm a vegan for ethical reasons -- the rest of it is just a bonus. But I don't try to pressure anyone else, and if I am going to talk to someone about it, I'm going to explain my reasons for being a vegan, not whatever "benefits" they can get from it.
Isn't vegetarian rather than vegan enough from an ethical standpoint?
My main complaint with dairy and eggs is the conditions in commercial farming. My girlfriend and I have talked about getting some chickens, and I would gladly eat those eggs.
Isn't vegetarian rather than vegan enough from an ethical standpoint?
My main complaint with dairy and eggs is the conditions in commercial farming. My girlfriend and I have talked about getting some chickens, and I would gladly eat those eggs.
I would assume that it's possible to buy more humanely produced eggs as well.
Isn't vegetarian rather than vegan enough from an ethical standpoint?
My main complaint with dairy and eggs is the conditions in commercial farming. My girlfriend and I have talked about getting some chickens, and I would gladly eat those eggs.
I would assume that it's possible to buy more humanely produced eggs as well.
It's actually really difficult if you don't live near a farmers market or food co-op. I do (on both counts; U of I is a big ag school), but if you're in a city, you likely don't. Even supermarket "free-range" and "organic" eggs aren't much more humane than the standard factory stuff.
I would assume that it's possible to buy more humanely produced eggs as well.
It may be, but for me, I doubt it would be worth the effort or expense. As I understand it (and a quick Wikipedia check confirms it), the terms "free-range" and "cage-free" in regards to eggs aren't regulated in the US, so they can put that on any eggs, regardless of how they're produced. And anything made with eggs purchased from a restaurant or a grocery store is still right out.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I'd want to eat eggs at this point, even if all my ethical concerns were met. Meat and especially cheese are actually just gross to me now -- the jury's still out on eggs.
Isn't vegetarian rather than vegan enough from an ethical standpoint?
My main complaint with dairy and eggs is the conditions in commercial farming. My girlfriend and I have talked about getting some chickens, and I would gladly eat those eggs.
I would assume that it's possible to buy more humanely produced eggs as well.
It's actually really difficult if you don't live near a farmers market or food co-op. I do (on both counts; U of I is a big ag school), but if you're in a city, you likely don't. Even supermarket "free-range" and "organic" eggs aren't much more humane than the standard factory stuff.
Yeah, I read that because of a lack of regulation on those labels in the USA, they're essentially meaningless.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I'd want to eat eggs at this point, even if all my ethical concerns were met. Meat and especially cheese are actually just gross to me now -- the jury's still out on eggs.
I don't know. Milk alone seems a little gross to me, but not that bad. I'd probably eat ice cream if I could be sure it was ethically produced. Cheese just smells repulsive to me now.
Comments
EDIT: Also, I eat lean meats because they have a lot of protein and other goodies, and because animals are damn tasty.
While I am not suggesting that everyone must become completely vegan, people should maybe become less defensive when the idea of vegetarianism comes up. I think that perhaps a modicum of conscientious behavior on the part of the consumer, however, might do some good all around, for humans and otherwise.
Animal cruelty aside, the big thing these days, and what my friends try to tell me, is that vegetarians and vegans make the argument that meat is less healthy to eat because of diseases and such. So, I've seen studies and such that go both ways on this issue. How much validity is there to the claim that meat products have more diseases in them than fruits and vegetables? I'm assuming that our resident food inspector knows a great deal, but I'm also sure others know just as much.
In summary, raw foods of animal origin present the greatest risk, especially those that are a mixture of products from many animals. Raw fruits and vegetables are a lesser but still significant concern.
Freshly-butchered, clean, properly cooked steak shouldn't pose much of a risk to you, and neither should fresh seafood if properly prepared. It seems to me all food safety comes down to preparation, and I don't think anyone can say that anything is either perfectly safe or absolutely unsafe (with the exception of certain things that are blindingly obvious like raw chicken and unpasteurized milk). They're theorizing that parts of humanity survived the Ice Age by gulping down raw oysters (fascinating read, by the way).
Vegetarianism and veganism are just lifestyle choices, and any "health benefit" beyond making calorie, fat, and cholesterol management easier is about as silly as how Owsley Stanley exclusively eats animal products and claims that consumption of plants and their pigments causes aging and slow poisoning over a lifetime.
I think they're fine choices; however, I find it ridiculous how certain people who have made those dietary choices try to manufacture excuses to "convert" others. I'd certainly switch over if weight, cholesterol, or health ever gave me issues, but for the time being I'm going to stay the omnivore's course.
I may love eggs, but that shit ain't pretty.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I'd want to eat eggs at this point, even if all my ethical concerns were met. Meat and especially cheese are actually just gross to me now -- the jury's still out on eggs.
anyway.