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

[Missing]

3 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I take this to mean you didn't even read the first post, because pretty much every kind of eating habit listed has some aspect about it that's being critiqued and judged.

I did. I posted a criticism of it earlier.

[Philip027]

Then I still don't get what you're posting at me for.  Please let it drop.

[Missing]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Please let it drop.

Okay

[WoodwindWhistler]

5 hours ago, Philip027 said:

In the time you took to write this one post, I've eaten three (give or take) of each of the things you listed.  If the post is any indication, I clearly enjoyed myself much more whilst doing so, too.

 

Obviously, the only truly ethical thing for us to do would be for all of us to kill ourselves, because pretty much everything doesn't want to be eaten, and as long as we're alive, we gotta eat stuff.  We don't gotta eat anymore if we're dead.

 

But -- and here's the funny thing -- I pretty much never see any of the people trying to shame/judge others for what they eat adapting that particular train of thought to themselves.  It's almost like they aren't actually Holier Than Thou Rest Of Us as they want everyone else to believe; they can't seem to put their money where their mouth is.  I wonder why that is.

 

(Modly disclaimer, since I know how touchy this place gets: I am not advocating for myself or anyone else to actually kill themselves.  It was purely a theoretical example meant to highlight hypocrisy.  Do Not Try This At Home, etc.)

 

So if something is "dumb", it's okay to eat/kill.  This at the same time we're being preached at about ethics.

 

Wow, you picked a very bizarre hill to die on, there.

 

(Modly disclaimer #2: No actual death has occurred or will occur on said hill.  The hill also isn't real.  It is a figure of speech used to refer to one's such fervent/excessive devotion to a cause that they end up tarnishing or destroying their own argument/reputation in the process of defending it.)

If you were *actually* interested in ethics, you would be at the very least encouraging people to take up Jainism, because it truly is the 'least harmful.' But see, you're not interested in ethics. You are here to be entertained, to play semantics, which is all fine and good, I am enjoying your wit. 

 

But do stop antagonizing me, if you could. That'd be swell. 

 

Let's do a philosophical thought experiment. Someone points a gun at you, and says, look, you have to eat a chimpanzee, or a fish. Which do you choose? Now, change the question to, this animal has to be confined to a body-shaped compartment for its entire life. Does that impact your answer, or the obviousness of it? Don't pretend that ethics don't involve a consideration of a given animal's stimulation needs and mental capacity to suffer. It's intellectually dishonest. 

[Guest]

 

4 hours ago, SithApprentice said:

Most agree that we consume meat by choice, but there's evidence to prove we've evolved to eat both meat and vegetables.

Yeah and I saw a video the other day of a group of large primates (not humans, they were chimps or something) fighting a mother dear off the carcass of an infant deer, which the primates then proceeded to chow down on. Apparently this is very common among primates in the wild. I'm not sure why humans are expected to be the exception! 

 

(I even recently saw a video of a deer eating a live bird, apparently deer are omnivores too just like pigs, humans, and other primates!)

[SithLord]

Just now, PanFicto. said:

 

Yeah and I saw a video the other day of a group of large primates (not humans, they were chimps or something) fighting a mother dear off the carcass of an infant deer, which the primates then proceeded to chow down on. Apparently this is very common among primates in the wild. I'm not sure why humans are expected to be the exception! 

 

(I even saw a video of a deer eating a live bird the other day, apparently they're omnivores just like pigs, and humans, and other primates are!)

I've seen cows eating small birds too. It's not uncommon for herbivores to eat other animals if it's worth the energy. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SithApprentice said:

I've seen cows eating small birds too. It's not uncommon for herbivores to eat other animals if it's worth the energy. 

Those cows are evil and contributing to the suffering of other species when they eat them! Imagine how much the bird suffered! Bad cows! Bad deers! Bad monkeys! Bad humans! 

 

Wait.. birds eat bugs. Birds are bad too. Worms definitely suffer when they're being ripped from the ground and swallowed whole by a bird. Bad birds.

[MarRister]

9 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Don't care about all this. I like my meat and that's that 

Oh no, well according to facts you are then "A robot drone of the capitalist machine" 😋

[LeChat]

I really hope others, especially teens and young adults, don't end up feeling so ashamed, worried and/or guilty about what they eat, that they develop an eating disorder, the way I did when I was younger.

[GingerRose]

For me, Veganism is extreme and unnatural while carnivorous behaviour is unhealthy. There should be an omnivore balance. I also think that people should work to eat less red meat, because of its environmental impact. I think eating less meat in general is okay but cutting it out completely is dangerous.

[Phalena]

10 hours ago, SithApprentice said:

Then I guess there's no reason to bother talking with you since there's literally nothing we can say for you to listen to us. 

 

As for:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/23/how-humans-evolved-to-be-natural-omnivores/?sh=5de74a1f7af5

vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/51664/what-makes-humans-omnivores-and-not-herbivores

/r/biology, Wikipedia, NPR, and biology textbooks agree we're omnivores, etc. etc. 

 

Most agree that we consume meat by choice, but there's evidence to prove we've evolved to eat both meat and vegetables.

I mean, it kinda shows with our teeth. We're basically "bins" that can theoretically consume almost anything if it's hacked small enough.

[Still]

I don't really understand why anyone would put humans on the same level as other primates, since humans are a lot smarter and we should definitely except more from them.

 

Then again, this thread stopped being about debate and turned into an example of the kind of "shouting down" I've talked about in the past where everyone just starts dogpiling on one person. Just look at this shit:

 

6 hours ago, PanFicto. said:

Those cows are evil and contributing to the suffering of other species when they eat them! Imagine how much the bird suffered! Bad cows! Bad deers! Bad monkeys! Bad humans! 

 

Wait.. birds eat bugs. Birds are bad too. Worms definitely suffer when they're being ripped from the ground and swallowed whole by a bird. Bad birds.

Totally adds a lot to the discussion and isn't just meant to pile on 🙄

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Still said:

Totally adds a lot to the discussion and isn't just meant to pile on 🙄

Just switching it around because I can't stand the hypocrisy of people who claim "humans should know better" when they're probably wearing shoes made in a sweat shop in China or ate food they brought at a store or take the bus to work or whatever. The only people who have a right to judge others are those living in the middle of the woods in a house made of leaves eating only twigs and wild berries, with no access to any form of technology. Anyone else who tries to say "you suck because you ate this or that!" is just a hypocrite.

 

Believe me, I have no issue with politely discussing the ways we can make better more environmentally friendly choices (I said that already in the other thread that got locked today) but when someone is rudely yelling and acting all superior, it just makes them a hypocrite. Everyone gets annoyed by hypocrites. So they do the same back because what's the point in intelligent discussion with someone who can't get down off their high horse and look at the argument from a more rational perspective? 

[Guest]

My comment that I actually took time and energy to write from the other thread that got locked;

 

  10 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

but when it comes to being snarky about the fact that meat eaters are in the process of making the planet unlivable for LITERALLY EVERYONE, OF EVERY RACE AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION, suddenly nope, expressing frustration is off the table. 

People get annoyed because it's not something you're not contributing to. Just by owning technology and going about your daily life, you're contributing to the problems you're so angry about. So you flipping out at everyone over it just reflects badly on you because it's hypocritical. 

 

I do not drive or own a car. Full stop. I rarely (maybe 3 times a year) get a lift to town if it's something that absolutely cannot be reached with my own two feet, like a hospital appointment for one of my kids when the hospital is about 4 hours walk away. So I could go around yelling at everyone about how disgusting it is that they get in their car every morning to drive to the office, or for taking the bus to college, when they could just use their damn feet even if it means they have to get up half an hour earlier. The pollution cloud in Auckland (NZs largest city) cleared for the first time in DECADES during NZ lockdown when no one was using their cars. That's frikken massive. So every person who chooses a vehicle over their feet or a bike, when they could otherwise walk, is contributing to the pollution of our environment. Am I going to get on my high horse and go around yelling at everyone about how terrible they are for destroying the planet by driving to work though? about how I am just so superior for never using a car, along with only ever wearing second hand clothes and rarely washing my hair because I feel bad for the bugs in the drain having to drink shampoo bubbles? No. Because I own technology. I also, gasp, buy food from the store. The food you eat, unless you grow every sliver of it yourself, has almost certainly contributed to pollution and environmental harm in some way or another. The clothes you wear, what you wash your hair with, your soap, your shoes, all almost certainly contributed to some form of environmental/animal/human harm in some way or another. The water you drink which probably comes from a reservoir rather than a natural spring, the roads you take to get where you need to go, it's all contributed to environmental damage, or the harming of animals and their environment, or even the harming of humans who are forced into underpaid labor to make your shoes in China or wherever... So I have no right to go around asserting how high and mighty I am, and claiming that everyone is awful and should be ashamed of themselves, just because I do not do some things that others do.

 

So the situations you used as comparisons above in no way equate to what you did the other day when you yelled at everyone, because you yourself are just as guilty as everyone else in different ways. Even if your only food-source is berries from the bush outside your house (which I highly doubt), there are other things you do, other resources you make use of (stores, the internet, technology, shampoo, roads, etc etc etc) which have contributed to environmental harm in some way, making you a massive hypocrite. And no one takes nicely to a massive hypocrite.

 

There's nothing wrong with calmly and politely bringing people's attention to the ways in which they could make changes for the better, but acting like you're literally untouchable and just soooooo much better than everyone else who are all awful and destroying the environment and torturing animals for even looking at meat and killing themselves for eating a plant that was grown with pesticides etc...That's not the way to go about it

[Pandark]

8 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Let's do a philosophical thought experiment. Someone points a gun at you, and says, look, you have to eat a chimpanzee, or a fish. Which do you choose? Now, change the question to, this animal has to be confined to a body-shaped compartment for its entire life. Does that impact your answer, or the obviousness of it? Don't pretend that ethics don't involve a consideration of a given animal's stimulation needs and mental capacity to suffer. It's intellectually dishonest. 

The sidewalk has many tiles. If you lend me a hand, maybe we could polish them into mirrors.

[WoodwindWhistler]

4 hours ago, Pandark said:

The sidewalk has many tiles. If you lend me a hand, maybe we could polish them into mirrors.

I have no clue what this means. It is an axiom? 

[WoodwindWhistler]

5 hours ago, PanFicto. said:

My comment that I actually took time and energy to write from the other thread that got locked;

 

  10 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

but when it comes to being snarky about the fact that meat eaters are in the process of making the planet unlivable for LITERALLY EVERYONE, OF EVERY RACE AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION, suddenly nope, expressing frustration is off the table. 

People get annoyed because it's not something you're not contributing to. Just by owning technology and going about your daily life, you're contributing to the problems you're so angry about. So you flipping out at everyone over it just reflects badly on you because it's hypocritical. 

 

There's nothing wrong with calmly and politely bringing people's attention to the ways in which they could make changes for the better, but acting like you're literally untouchable and just soooooo much better than everyone else who are all awful and destroying the environment and torturing animals for even looking at meat and killing themselves for eating a plant that was grown with pesticides etc...That's not the way to go about it

And I'll repeat what I said, just in case anyone on this thread wants to know what my reply would be, and the other thread sinks because it has been cut off. 

 

'Tone policing.' Yes, that's what we were covering, and what you laughably keep repeating, demonstrating that you've totally and completely MISSED THE POINT. 

 

I ACTUALLY DO obsessively keep a running tally of what fruit trees are in season around my town, help someone plant more, and eat clover out of my backyard. 

 

So. 

 

Thanks for once again MISSING THE POINT. I am FRUSTRATED. That you think my pain and anger is not valid and I should just swallow it all back for the sake of padding other peoples' egos and not hurting their widdle feel-feels on the internet is only making me want to go kick over the trashcan again, just so you know. I should invest in a punching bag too, because the reason you see me as so 'smug and self assured' is because you're doing the VERY SAME THING right at this very moment. 

 

It's a basic Buddhist tenet, and a property of the brain, that you hate that which reminds you of yourself. You are applying it to me, which good, you know what psychological 'projection' is, here have a gold star from teacher, but fail to see that you are acting precisely the same way. 

 

I DON'T go around with a sandwich sign chasing people down and shouting at them. Even though I feel like doing so. This is called 'emotional labor' in the business of feminist analysis.

 

Your victim complex "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" so "why even try WAH WAH" does not impress me. You want there to be nothing constructive you can do about the problem so you can absolve yourself of having to be an activist to gently nudge people in the direction of conscious consumerism, while trying not to panic over the stakes, because like I say, it is a crazy-making burden that you are not prepared to take upon yourself. 

[Guest]

Feels like you haven't acknowledged the fact that many hunters are fully aware of the animal's sentience and still hunt them. I do because it's nature and not a lack of empathy. I rely on a bow and typically refrain from using a rifle when hunting deer. I embrace being a predator and it does not make me some horrible person because of it. I do buy local meat as well and know the people who produce it occasionally. I prefer to get my meat only from fishing and hunting but I don't have that luxury. 

[Guest]

On 11/2/2020 at 12:35 PM, Iam9man said:

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

I try to live my life close to these standards as well. Respecting their life of life is key to solve these problems. 

[SithLord]

9 hours ago, MiffKeks said:

I mean, it kinda shows with our teeth. We're basically "bins" that can theoretically consume almost anything if it's hacked small enough.

I read somewhere that our teeth might be a result of social behaviors like how some apes attack each other in attempts to seduce mates. But I agree that our teeth show we're not really meant for a meat-less diet.

[Pandark]

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I am FRUSTRATED. That you think my pain and anger is not valid and I should just swallow it all back for the sake of padding other peoples' egos and not hurting their widdle feel-feels on the internet is only making me want to go kick over the trashcan again, just so you know.

You're trying to tell people right from wrong, they're telling you everything is a grey area and you are in no position to criticize. Perhaps you go much further in trying to achieve what's ethical than others. You're still not in a position to forcibly change others' behavior. Shouting down at them from your high horse isn't going to help your cause. You can show them your way and hope they'll be inspired and that's that. For context, human rights haven't been established that long, and they are only upheld where the strong decide to.

 

2 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

I should invest in a punching bag too, because

Yes. You could even craft one from natural materials, an already dead animal lying in the forest, plant fibers, rocks.

 

3 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

"there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" so "why even try WAH WAH" does not impress me.

Isn't it all about intentions, though? Some people seek only pleasure, with no regard for others. Other people seek zero pleasure and want only to alleviate suffering of others. Most people are somewhere in between.

 

Speaking of Buddhist tenets, perhaps this will make you feel a bit better.

http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/43

 

[Gatto]

On 11/2/2020 at 2:17 PM, CBC said:

I said the post provoked laughter. I didn't say anything about the issues raised, one way or the other.

 

[Gatto]

On 11/2/2020 at 11:11 PM, natsume said:

Uh so you have a normal diet? The elitism and need to constantly throw digs at vegetarians/vegans that can be associated with meat eaters I don't particularly care for either. 

 

Happens everywhere daily to vegetarians and vegans but I'll use an example from aven, a few days ago I open up aven chat and people are randomly making fun of veganism. This is what you would see every day if people like you weren't on the other side doing this and then publicly complaining about some imaginary "elitism" of vegans (which is really just part of the harassment of vegans and vegetarians). Vegetarians and vegans aren't allowed to make their own choices without being "elitist".

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2019/nov/27/culture-wars-what-row-over-vegan-nursery-meals-really-about

 

Veganism and its associated furores are not really about food; they are a culture war being fought on a tablecloth. When a vegan doesn’t make you angry, it doesn’t follow that you are neutral in the war: it just means your side is winning.

Last year, a chef told Facebook she had spiked a vegan’s pizza, and got death threats. A TV contrarian discovered the Greggs vegan sausage roll and had uncontainable rage. A professional posho quit Waitrose magazine for a joke about killing vegans. A MasterChef winner called a vegan a “dick”. It’s a trigger issue all right, but what is it triggering?

 

Whether the motive is animal welfare or environmentalism – and both are completely sound, by the way; the only way the rest of us can continue eating animal products is by rigorously ignoring how the end up on the plate – the implication is that vegans are improving society by denying themselves gratification. Because they are. This used to be called being “holier than thou” and is now called “virtue signalling” by people who think it’s cool to despise virtue.

 

Underpinning this is a fundamentally political divide: should we try to be the change we want to see in the world, and work collectively towards a brighter future? Or is that all just a pious pipedream, when the reality is that everyone is in it for him or herself? It’s everything: left v right; green v denier; idealist v cynic. At the same time, it’s nothing, because if the vegan can be shown to be a hypocrite or in some other way unlikable (have they sat on a leather seat? Are they shoving their quinoa down your throat?), then their lofty dream will evaporate like … like oat milk.

 

The rift between vegans and meat eaters is always intensely personal; after all, at the conceptual level, it doesn’t exist (what’s it to you, in theory, if another person cares too much about a cow to eat one?). As such, it is very engrossing because all character attacks are. And it is quintessentially 21st-century, because this century sucks.

[WoodwindWhistler]

3 minutes ago, Gatto said:

Whether the motive is animal welfare or environmentalism – and both are completely sound, by the way; the only way the rest of us can continue eating animal products is by rigorously ignoring how the end up on the plate – the implication is that vegans are improving society by denying themselves gratification. Because they are. This used to be called being “holier than thou” and is now called “virtue signalling” by people who think it’s cool to despise virtue.

Let's break it down in a non-vegan way. 

 

You have person A. They don't hurt anyone. They go home and watch TV and entertain themselves. 

 

You have person B. They go to a prison ministry, and a homeless shelter. They help people there. They dedicate lots of hours in their week to alleviating human suffering. Maybe they donate, or micro loan. 

 

Is one of these people more ethical than the other?

You'd have to contort all your mental muscles pretty hard to say "No." 

 

Yet, when it is pointed out that YOU are the one not doing something positive in the world, that you COULD be doing with not even as much effort as Person B, all the walls go up and you are on the defensive. Someone CAN'T be more moral than you are!! They can't have more integrity!! EVERYONE IS EQUAL OMG STOP BEING SO JUDGEMENTAL. 

[Guest]

So lets pick that apart piece by piece. This is where the fun begins.

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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.

So the argument is that people get hurt in the production process. There is a solution for that. Humans are not needed anymore to run an industrial farm with animals. AI and smart management of the behaviour of the animals can replace humans. So humans don't get hurt. There are a lot of concepts about the fully automatized farm.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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. 

That is very broad generalization to the point of turning a right argument into a false one. Yes, intensive animal husbandry needs more place and resources than growing crops. But, there places where you can't grow crops because the soil is too poor. For example the foothills of the alps, the savannas in Africa, the high plateau of Tibet and the plains in Mongolia are so poor and rocky that you can't grow crops there. Animal husbandry is the only way to use this land. In addition, you can integrate animals in agroforestry systems and in permacultures. The feces of the animals is needed to supply the soil with nutrients.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

Accepts Eating Shellfish: Is probably unaware that shellfish cause the most allergic reactions with no prior incidents, due to high toxicity content

This applies to peanuts as well. Peanuts can get fungi diseases that produce strong toxins that were used in WW1.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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 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.

Now we get into an ethical and philosophical issue. Why do value the lives of a chicken higher than the live of a cricket? That is anthropocentrism at its finest. Cognition is human perspective but not an inherent value in itself. Thus it can't be used as an argument and is invalid if you come from an biocentric point of view. It the same is if beavers judged us humans for our lacking ability to chew trees. The cricket might play a more important role in an ecosystem than chickens.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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.

Babies and small children need milk to grow their skeleton. There is no substitute for that because the calcium needs to be organically bound in casein. The human digestion can't really use mineral calcium.

 

Just to add some detail: Cows are breed either towards meat or toward milk production. Especially intensive farms are specialized on one of them. The meat of milk-cows is inferior in comparison to meat-cows. There some old breeds that are more balanced but they are only used in extensive and small farms.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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!

I doubt that chickens have better welfare. Chickens are quite aggressive (They are descendants from the dinosaurs, so what do you expect?). When they're hold in captivity they will (literally) pick on each other. This results in painful wounds and even death. You can't really hold them outside without some kind protection against foxes, martens or against raptors.

 

A side note about breeding. You need breeding to feed the humans. Using natural "breeds" isn't worth the effort. The farmers have to live and earn money too.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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

That is just wrong. Bees are only invasive in Australia and New Zealand because there aren't any natural pollinators there. In the rest of the world there is no competition between natural pollinator and honey bees. Even without beekeepers the honey bees would still do their thing. There is enough pollen and nectar for natural pollinators and for the honey bees. Wild bees have a completely different way of living. Honey bees only kill other natural pollinators if they want to enter the bee hive. They only exception may be the aggressive breeds in South America. But no one uses these breeds because they are able kill humans.

 

One single natural pollinator is more effective (in terms of pollination) than one single honey bee. But, there are far more honey bees than natural pollinators. Without honey bees there are not enough pollinators left to do the job. So, say goodbye to apples and pears.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

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.

Most importantly, it is unhealthy. You won't get vitamin B12 and many essential amino- and fatty-acids form plants alone.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

deer dying from starvation from overpopulation

This contradicts itself. Either deer is dying from starvation or their population will explode. Both can't happen at the same time. Deer dying from the natural way of life. If you feed them in winter, their population will grow. Thus you will need to hunt them, unless you have enough predators (which isn't the case). To prevent hunting you have to starve the deer population by not feeding them.

 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, WoodwindWhistler said:

pigs are smarter than dogs

So, we should eat dogs instead? Like I pointed out before: this is not an argument.

[Gatto]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/meat-and-the-h-word/

 

 

[Missing]

7 minutes ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

Yet, when it is pointed out that YOU are the one not doing something positive in the world, that you COULD be doing with not even as much effort as Person B, all the walls go up and you are on the defensive. Someone CAN'T be more moral than you are!! They can't have more integrity!! EVERYONE IS EQUAL OMG STOP BEING SO JUDGEMENTAL

I recognize that there are people who don’t concede that vegans are behaving more ethically when it comes to their dietary choices than people who eat meat are, but I think even people who do concede that vegans are more ethical in their diets than non-vegans can take issue with certain aggressive approaches to pointing this out. Using your example of the person who doesn’t do much for others but doesn’t especially harm anyone either compared to the person who volunteers, even if that person who isn’t volunteering recognizes that they’re less ethical than the person who is volunteering, they may feel that it’s not okay for others to shame them for this. It’s one thing to say that you believe volunteering or veganism are more ethical than the alternative, but making veganism or volunteering an expectation that you place on others and using guilt and shame as a motivator for them to take up that cause is definitely going to tick people off and ruffle their feathers. And I can’t say I blame them, because weaponizing guilt and shame that way is a manipulative tactic for getting people to do what you wish they would choose to do.

[WoodwindWhistler]

1 minute ago, Windspiel said:

So lets pick that apart piece by piece. This is where the fun begins.

1. So the argument is that people get hurt in the production process. There is a solution for that. Humans are not needed anymore to run an industrial farm with animals. AI and smart management of the behaviour of the animals can replace humans. So humans don't get hurt. There are a lot of concepts about the fully automatized farm.

 

So you solution is to deprive animals of monitoring to prevent skirmishes if they are together, or to deprive them skin to skin contact if they are apart, which has been shown to KILL human babies from 'failure to thrive.'

 

Wow. 

 

2. That is very broad generalization to the point of turning a right argument into a false one. Yes, intensive animal husbandry needs more place and resources than growing crops. But, there places where you can't grow crops because the soil is too poor. For example the foothills of the alps, the savannas in Africa, the high plateau of Tibet and the plains in Mongolia are so poor and rocky that you can't grow crops there. Animal husbandry is the only way to use this land. In addition, you can integrate animals in agroforestry systems and in permacultures. The feces of the animals is needed to supply the soil with nutrients. This applies to peanuts as well. Peanuts can get fungi diseases that produce strong toxins that were used in WW1.

 

I covered that in a previous reply. 

 

3. Now we get into an ethical and philosophical issue. Why do value the lives of a chicken higher than the live of a cricket? That is anthropocentrism at its finest. Cognition is human perspective but not an inherent value in itself. Thus it can't be used as an argument and is invalid if you come from an biocentric point of view. It the same is if beavers judged us humans for our lacking ability to chew trees. The cricket might play a more important role in an ecosystem than chickens.

 

Covered that in a previous reply as well. 

 

4. Babies and small children need milk to grow their skeleton. There is no substitute for that because the calcium needs to be organically bound in casein. The human digestion can't really use mineral calcium.

 

Incorrect. Calcium from plants is better absorbed than from dairy, and in fact, the countries with the highest rate of dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis. The working hypothesis for this, that is being investigated, is that when we strip all the fat out of the natural form of milk to make pleasing butter and cheese, the pH balance causes your body to leech calcium despite the fact that calcium is introduced into your bloodstream. If you blood goes out of a certain pH window, you are screwed. Inflammation and cancer. 

 

5.  Just to add some detail: Cows are breed either towards meat or toward milk production. Especially intensive farms are specialized on one of them. The meat of milk-cows is inferior in comparison to meat-cows. There some old breeds that are more balanced but they are only used in extensive and small farms.

 

Not sure what this has to do with ethics, or ecological destruction or food supply stability. 

 

6. I doubt that chickens have better welfare. Chickens are quite aggressive (They are descendants from the dinosaurs, so what do you expect?). When they're hold in captivity they will (literally) pick on each other. This results in painful wounds and even death. You can't really hold them outside without some kind protection against foxes, martens or against raptors.

 

My friend owns chickens. She has a livestock dog (which is different from a herding dog). Or you could spring for a donkey or a llama. They're a lot meaner than they look. That'd be fun. 

 

Also, you realize that your argument supports NOT keeping four chickens to a small cage, as is usual for egg operations. 

 

7. A side note about breeding. You need breeding to feed the humans. Using natural "breeds" isn't worth the effort. The farmers have to live and earn money too.

 

Hm, I wonder how all those hundreds of thousands of edible vegetables look for making money. 

It's as if people think meat or animal products is the only way to make money. Oh yes. That's because the DEMAND is there. Slipped my mind for a second. 

 

8. That is just wrong. Bees are only invasive in Australia and New Zealand because there aren't any natural pollinators there. In the rest of the world there is no competition between natural pollinator and honey bees.

Don't know where you picked up this disinformation, or filled in assumptions, but I don't particularly care. 

 

9. Most importantly, it is unhealthy. You won't get vitamin B12 and many essential amino- and fatty-acids form plants alone.

 

I agree that essential fats must come from either insects (cricket flour) or seaweed. 

 

Essential proteins, on the other hand, are ALL in the plants, if you diversify your diet, so no. Again factually incorrect. 

 

B12 is an interesting case. How do you think vegans of India have existed for thousands of years with no problems? Turns out, a study revealed they get their B12 from the same place naturally raised cows do. 

 

(cows don't produce B12. Modern industrialized cows are given supplements, so it's really amusing for people to crow about B12 when it, itself, is artificially sourced)

 

10. This contradicts itself. Either deer is dying from starvation or their population will explode. Both can't happen at the same time. Deer dying from the natural way of life. If you feed them in winter, their population will grow. Thus you will need to hunt them, unless you have enough predators (which isn't the case). To prevent hunting you have to starve the deer population by not feeding them.

 

I'm not sure you understood what I typed. Re-read it. You are merely repeating what I said. 

 

11. So, we should eat dogs instead? Like I pointed out before: this is not an argument.

 

That's not what I said either. You need to slow down, and think through. If I have put together some sentence in a confusing way, then my bad. That happens when you're hypomanic. 

[Phalena]

47 minutes ago, Gatto said:

The rift between vegans and meat eaters is always intensely personal; after all, at the conceptual level, it doesn’t exist (what’s it to you, in theory, if another person cares too much about a cow to eat one?). As such, it is very engrossing because all character attacks are. And it is quintessentially 21st-century, because this century sucks.

Not that prior centuries would have "sucked" any less though. (I know this is cynical but still true).

[Fraggle Underdark]

I doubt any readers are taking this thread very seriously, but I would like to chime in that not everyone who takes food ethics seriously adopts the condescending, cocksure, aggressive stance that Woodwind is taking. Personally I think that factory-farming is one of the largest ethical imperfections of our current society but I'm also aware that people are not evil for continuing to support it. It takes work to avoid, you have to look weird, you might be put off by other vegetarian-minded people (nudge nudge), etc. I bring up the ethics of my diet only when it's relevant to the conversation or when asked, and just point out in a neutral tone that these systems are very nasty. I leave people autonomy to make their own choice. I think most people will eventually come around to avoiding it, if they are spoken to with respect, especially when affordable substitutes are available, but the timing is up to them. Shaming people into changing their diets only works for a very small proportion of people.

 

I won't be addressing Woodwinds points in the same style they are using to address others, but if I were to do so there'd be a point in there about whether their ethical concerns translate into any desire to change people's habits or whether they want to feel smart by aggressively attacking them. Notably, the majority of serious activists in this space have found it more effective to take conversational rather than argumentative approaches. From the first guide in a Google result about activism in this space:

 

Quote

Above all, effective one-on-one activism relies on having conversations rather than arguments. Nearly everybody already cares at least somewhat about topics like keeping animals from harm, eating healthfully, and protecting the planet. It’s your job as an activist to ask questions that determine the topics each person cares most about, so you can offer helpful information that will enable them to better align their food choices with their existing beliefs.