Watch out, I'm coming at Meat Eaters AND Vegans!

[WoodwindWhistler]

Color Key:

Red is for ethics.

Green is for resources. 

Blue is for dietary info.  

 

Industrial practices for slaughter and meat processing that harm humans are not elaborated upon in each subset here, but know that large animals such as 900 lb aggressive pigs are prone to injuring people in their desperate attempts to live, PTSD has been recorded in slaughterhouses, and that gathering ocean animals is most often a dangerous profession foisted upon people by seafood demand, also. 

 

Accepts Eating Red Meat: Basic normie. Is probably unaware that red meat is linked to global hunger, poverty, and that eventually the misuse of land space will cause food scarcity on a grand scale. Has little to no interest in the world around them and most likely mindlessly clocks a numbing 9 to 5 day job. 

 

IS probably aware that red meat causes cancer and heart disease, but does not have enough self-compassion for discipline. 

 

Accepts Eating Chicken and Turkey: Probably doing it or promoting it for health reasons. Probably goes to the gym and has a subscription to one of the many oodles of workout apps. 

 

Probably not doing it for environmental reasons, though it does improve slightly upon large animal ag. 

 

Is probably unaware that chickens have their own language. But honestly, I can’t come up with a lot of ethical defenses for turkeys. They’re pretty dumb. But if you own a finch, a cockatiel, or lovebird, you're a hypocrite. 

 

Accepts Eating Fish: Probably got stuck at the omega-3 DHA and EPA issue. Or, just couldn’t empathize with fish-eyed stares. Treat with understanding and patience. 

 

Complex, because there are dozens of different fish species and at least four different ways to source them, though it is like pulling teeth to try to find out where exactly fish come from because the information is not readily available to the consumer. 

 

 Is probably aware that fish populations are on the brink of collapse, but some combination of factors keeps them from acting on it. 

 

Accepts Eating Shellfish: Is probably unaware that shellfish cause the most allergic reactions with no prior incidents, due to high toxicity content. (Meat is also the leading cause of choking incidents. I wonder if we have more wimpy swallowing muscles than a proper predator like a crocodile or a lion that rapidly tears huge chunks of raw flesh in competition over each other in groups, or is it just that, like the rest of our digestive system’s suitedness to plants, our throat is narrow and used to receiving juicy sweet fruit and savory nuts?)

 

Ethically and resource wise, one of the most defensible consumptions. Shrimp nets do not kill dolphins and tortoises like fish nets do, nor are they as endangered as fish because they're so tiny and they can reproduce rapidly. 

 

So, better for the environment, but more poisonous to the human system. Ironic, huh? 

 

Accepts Eating Cricket Flour Products such as cookies and meal bars: Probably the most practical of any position, especially resource-wise, but maybe ethically, too, when factoring in animals harmed by plant farming practices such as songbirds killed in olive gathering and mice ground up in harvesting equipment. Also, human and child slavery, usually POC, involved in some staple crops. Solves DHA and EPA without resorting to obscure, complex-to-produce means that may or may not be able to meet billion-strong demand. 

 

Accepts Dairy: Thinks that they’re in the clear, while financially supporting veal. Or, if they are buying local, doesn’t put together the math of having more and more babies for more and more clunky resource consumption, but not being able to slaughter them.
 

Dietary and capitalistic issues with small farm dairy are too complex to be covered in one to two sentences. Besides, not only is true no-slaughter dairy practically unavailable, the environmental and human food resource concerns more than outweigh these things. 

 

Accepts Eggs: Much better, in terms of animal welfare and resources, but still ignores concerns about chickens’ physical health due to being bred for eggs. May be alleviated by selecting chicken breeds that have a lower laying rate!

 

 

Accepts Honey: Is probably unaware that honey bees are an invasive species killing off native pollinators. 

 

Accepts a ‘90% or 95% vegan’: Is sensitive to the human condition and the difficult place the stress of modernism puts us in. 

 

Accepts only Pure Veganism: Pedantic. Probably has anxiety. Controlling. Has probably alienated a lot of people and put the cause back instead of advancing it. 

 

Has no food cause to champion whatsoever: A robot drone of the capitalist machine. Differs from someone who accepts red meat but may desire reform in the industry. Best not to engage if showing signs of hostility towards any ethics, and no receptiveness, because if it encounters anything that makes it uncomfortable, it will poison those on the fence and spread more hostility to other drones like a virus. 

 

Bonus Round: 

Accepts Hunted Meat: Again, a practical position that, barring for instance, the re-introduction of wolves to all of the continental U.S., is probably necessary for the transition period to avoid deer dying from starvation from overpopulation, but will be phased out eventually. Eating boars is ill-advised for the same reasons domestic hogs is. Probably more so, because they don't receive any vet care and therefore are even more overrun with things like Hepatitis E and natural parasites that do not bother the hog's system as much. Plus, you wouldn't eat a dog or a wolf, would you? Deer hunting enables some independence from the capitalist machine at the very least.

 

Accepts Eating Pork. Is probably unaware that pork causes far and away the most severe medical issues of ANY type of meat. Is either unaware that pigs are smarter than dogs, or so thoroughly brainwashed into being unfeeling that this makes no difference. Has probably never tried one of the many brands of delicious pepperoni and bacon stand ins. Their loss. 

[Oberon Jasper]

I say let people eat. We all feel slightly different about it and have different reasons for eating what we eat. So long as you're not killing and eating other people I don't care. Keep yourself healthy to the best of your ability and just vibe through life.

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 minute ago, Kieran said:

I say let people eat. We all feel slightly different about it and have different reasons for eating what we eat. So long as you're not killing and eating other people I don't care. Keep yourself healthy to the best of your ability and just vibe through life.

You are in effect maiming and killing other people when you specifically eat cow, pig, and seafood. Chicken, not as much, but processing plants still have amputations twice a week. 

 

Dairy and eggs don't kill humans, at the very least. 

 

You are also in effect killing people by starvation by demanding meat at ALL meals of the day. The majority of meat producers use land in impoverished countries which could be better served tending to their own population with more efficient means. 

[Oberon Jasper]

1 minute ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

You are in effect maiming and killing other people when you specifically eat cow, pig, and seafood. Chicken, not as much, but processing plants still have amputations twice a week. 

 

Dairy and eggs don't kill humans, at the very least. 

 

You are also in effect killing people by starvation by demanding meat at ALL meals of the day. The majority of meat producers use land in impoverished countries which could be better served tending to their own population with more efficient means. 

A.) I never told you what I eat so attacking me doesn't serve any point.

B.) I was simply expressing my personal opinion.

C.) You went from facts (which I appreciate being told facts though you shared them in a rather aggressive form) to pulling at my emotions which is just manipulation and doesn't encourage intelligent conversation which is what I responded for. Just civil discussion of differing opinions.

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 minute ago, Kieran said:

A.) I never told you what I eat so attacking me doesn't serve any point.

B.) I was simply expressing my personal opinion.

C.) You went from facts (which I appreciate being told facts though you shared them in a rather aggressive form) to pulling at my emotions which is just manipulation and doesn't encourage intelligent conversation which is what I responded for. Just civil discussion of differing opinions.

The 'you' was a rhetorical 'you.' 

 

These are facts. If they affect your emotions, maybe consider why. You can't blame me for having a conscience. That's a good thing! 

[Rockblossom]

So we should all embrace Breatharianism ?  

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 minute ago, Rockblossom said:

So we should all embrace Breatharianism ?  

No, I think I made a pretty clear case for the consumption of cricket products. 

 

Jainism is pretty rocking, as well.

[MarRister]

I am really not sure what the point of this thread is. Is there one?

 

It seems the only thing you are actually okay with is 90-95% veganism, which I'm not even sure could be considered veganism. 

 

Also some of the judgements you have attached to individuals who choose to eat this or that are not constructive. If you want to change people's minds on this topic I'd suggest getting off your moral high horse and providing facts in a neutral and understanding way. 

[Iam9man]

Third dimensional life forms needs to get energy from somewhere. Some can get it from the sun, or other heat sources, the rest of us sadly have to take life to live (be it plant, animal or other).

 

I look up to the respect Native American and other native peoples show for all life; we could certainly learn from them.

[SweetTart]

Just curious, what is your stance on owning pets?

[Oberon Jasper]

Just now, WoodwindWhistler said:

The 'you' was a rhetorical 'you.' 

 

These are facts. If they affect your emotions, maybe consider why. You can't blame me for having a conscience. That's a good thing! 

Again, chill. Being aggressive isn't going to get this conversation or your message anywhere. It turns people away from your message. They affect my emotions personally because I'm hyper sensitive to how things affect others emotions. Not mine. What you wrote was presented in a manipulative manner. I'm not disagreeing with your stance or movement. I'm disagreeing with your execution and manner in which you are spreading it. I simply want to help you present your message in a way that will make others more willing to listen. Manipulation and aggression tends to throw others off.

[Gloomy]

Ha, I’ve been many of those things throughout my life, from eating lots of red meat without giving a damn that an animal died so I could have a delicious burger, to being a pure vegan (well, I tried to be pure vegan anyway....). But the vegan birthday cake I made for myself really sucked so I decided I just couldn’t do it anymore and went and bought a sausage egg and cheese sandwich and it was the best damn sandwich I ever ate.

[Missing]

18 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Has probably alienated a lot of people and put the cause back instead of advancing it.

Is an aggressively titled thread which emphasizes negative stereotypes of people based on their dietary ethics going to advance your cause or set it back by alienating people?

[Purple Red Panda]

32 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Is probably unaware that red meat is linked to global hunger, poverty, and that eventually the misuse of land space will cause food scarcity on a grand scale.

One could just as easily argue that the problem isn't in eating meat (which I do although though not daily and I'm about to revert to vegetarianism for a bit) but overpopulation.

[Phalena]

Honestly, since I'm not bothering with all these eating-discussions anymore, I'm doing a lot better. Like grandma says, it's the balance. Eat many different things but do so moderately.

[Guest]

Quick, hide the lions and wolves.

[Fraggle Underdark]

As someone who's versed in the best arguments for veganism, against factory-farming, etc, there's something admirable in just how exceptionally unhelpful these arguments are. Alienating to practically anyone who might be persuaded in the first place while demonstrating intense over-confidence while critiquing over-confidence and hypocrisy. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

You are in effect maiming and killing other people when you specifically eat cow, pig, and seafood. Chicken, not as much, but processing plants still have amputations twice a week. 

 

Dairy and eggs don't kill humans, at the very least. 

 

You are also in effect killing people by starvation by demanding meat at ALL meals of the day. The majority of meat producers use land in impoverished countries which could be better served tending to their own population with more efficient means. 

You're funny.

[Purple Red Panda]

1 hour ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

You are also in effect killing people by starvation by demanding meat at ALL meals of the day.

I'm in effect killing people every time I spend money on anything I don't need to sustain my existence. I spent £30 on books yesterday, that is money that probably could have saved several lives if I had donated it to a charity that say provides free healthcare in the developing world.

[Phalena]

Just now, Purple Red Panda said:

I'm in effect killing people every time I spend money on anything I don't need to sustain my existence. I spent £30 on books yesterday, that is money that probably could have saved several lives if I had donated it to a charity that say provides free healthcare in the developing world.

Aaaaand you keep the system of authors being underpaid going. Woooooh, spooky! (But don't worry too much I'm doing the exact same thing all the time)--

[Purple Red Panda]

1 minute ago, MiffKeks said:

Aaaaand you keep the system of authors being underpaid going. Woooooh, spooky! (But don't worry too much I'm doing the exact same thing all the time)--

We are both monsters 🙂

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 hour ago, Marsa said:

I am really not sure what the point of this thread is. Is there one?

 

It seems the only thing you are actually okay with is 90-95% veganism, which I'm not even sure could be considered veganism. 

 

Also some of the judgements you have attached to individuals who choose to eat this or that are not constructive. If you want to change people's minds on this topic I'd suggest getting off your moral high horse and providing facts in a neutral and understanding way. 

The purpose was to do a detailed breakdown of an issue that is vastly oversimplified by both sides. 
 

type by type, and collective and individual concerns. 

 

Also a bit of a ‘vent’ for me, who is perpetually frustrated by humanity shuffling unconcerned towards self annihilation, and not being able to do much about it despite being armed with facts. 

Depending on the situation, being sensational or offensive can get more attention or affect people the deepest. So, it’s something that must be wielded with care, but is not by default ‘bad.’ For instance, this thread has a clear warning in the title that you as a reader are probably going to be offended, and yet y’all clicked and read anyway. Human psychology is interesting! 
 

It is now marked ‘Hot’ in activity level. 
 

I wouldn’t even call it ‘Click Bait’y  would you? Maybe. IDK. 
 

I think the good thing about it is that it’s balanced. It doesn’t take sides (well sorta) and doesn’t let anyone off the hook.

 

Acceptance of someone who makes an effort to adhere to as much veganism as their lifestyle and temperament will allow for is slowly but surely gaining acceptance among the vegan-as-ethics people. (the vegan-for-health people didn’t care one way or another about labels) 

 

‘Moral high horse’ is not an argument against facts. It is employed when a person has no other recourses in a debate. 
 

The way ‘they feel’ is somehow more important than facts or ethics. It baffles me. 

 

I thought I made it pretty clear that cricket products are objectively superior in all four factual dimensions to just knee-jerk veganism, but maybe I need to somehow make it even more painfully obvious?? Don’t know how to go about that. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

It would be better to aim for better conditions for animals and workers. It's unrealistic that humans will stop eating meat.

Myself, I want to be vegetarian, not vegan. I'm not at the moment because of circumstances, but still want to be vegetarian once I live in a better area with more options and.. other stuff.

[WoodwindWhistler]

12 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

It would be better to aim for better conditions for animals and workers. It's unrealistic that humans will stop eating meat.

Myself, I want to be vegetarian, not vegan. I'm not at the moment because of circumstances, but still want to be vegetarian once I live in a better area with more options and.. other stuff.

Honestly, personal health-wise and animal-ethics-wise, eating fish but not dairy is probably better. It depends on your motivations. 
 

It’s not ‘unrealistic,’ but physically impossible for humans to continue to consume in their current patterns, so that should be your concern. Not whether total abolition is attainable in the near future or not. 

[Rockblossom]

1. Has anyone tried Impossible Meat?  It is still hard to find around here and is very expensive.  If "fake meat" can be made close to the taste and texture or meat at an affordable price, would more people accept?  As for me - definitely!

 

2. What about lab-grown meat from actual animal cells?  Still experimental, but would that be an acceptable substitute?

 

I still think the first step is population control, so I'm a bit resistant to the "gloom-and-doom" environmentalists who ignore the problem or outright resist birth control. 

[WoodwindWhistler]

4 minutes ago, CBC said:

I wish this was Facebook, because I'd just quietly laugh react to the post.

 

But I can't, so...

 

😂

I know, humans dying and animals suffering for their entire lives in confinement are just hilarious. 

[WoodwindWhistler]

Just now, Rockblossom said:

1. Has anyone tried Impossible Meat?  It is still hard to find around here and is very expensive.  If "fake meat" can be made close to the taste and texture or meat at an affordable price, would more people accept?  As for me - definitely!

 

2. What about lab-grown meat from actual animal cells?  Still experimental, but would that be an acceptable substitute?

 

I still think the first step is population control, so I'm a bit resistant to the "gloom-and-doom" environmentalists who ignore the problem or outright resist birth control. 

Lab-grown meat might be more resource efficient, but I’m not sure?? Do you have info on that? 
 

If you have not studied the disproportionate resource impact of first world countries, please do so. A person eating meat three times a day and demanding all modern conveniences consumes up to eight times or more the amount of resources as an average person on the globe. It is not an overpopulation problem in the least.

[Phalena]

2 minutes ago, Rockblossom said:

1. Has anyone tried Impossible Meat?  It is still hard to find around here and is very expensive.  If "fake meat" can be made close to the taste and texture or meat at an affordable price, would more people accept?  As for me - definitely!

 

2. What about lab-grown meat from actual animal cells?  Still experimental, but would that be an acceptable substitute?

 

I still think the first step is population control, so I'm a bit resistant to the "gloom-and-doom" environmentalists who ignore the problem or outright resist birth control. 

To 1: Depends on what it's made of. If I can't decifer the ingredients without the help of my old chemistry school book, then I'm concerned--

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Color Key:

Red is for ethics.

Green is for resources. 

Blue is for dietary info.  

Do you know there's cobalt in the technology you're using? Do you know cobalt is mined in horrific conditions by children who are practically slaves, many of whom die every year of injuries sustained mining this shit so you can use that phone/computer/whatever to rant about eithics?

 

What colour would that be?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Honestly, personal health-wise and animal-ethics-wise, eating fish but not dairy is probably better. It depends on your motivations. 
 

It’s not ‘unrealistic,’ but physically impossible for humans to continue to consume in their current patterns, so that should be your concern. Not whether total abolition is attainable in the near future or not. 

Then we're doomed. No but it is irrealistic. It's better to promote non-eating-meat lifestyles without pushing so hard, which has the opposite effect, of pissing people off, and focus on better conditions.

As for fish.. I mean, I would rather just get off meat entirely, but for health I suppose I'd be willing to eat certain seafoods, maybe, I dunno. I'll see about that later on.