|
|
|
|
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:42:31 PM | You say I haven't had much success, I wonder what your basis for comparison is? That PETA's legislative efforts have been largely marginalized?
Even more importantly, what's your point? You asked what I did, and I told you. Then you made the illogical assumption that my efforts were ineffective, and then concluded that those same efforts if done by a larger group of people would ALSO be ineffective.
It seems silly to criticize what I DO when you complain about being associated and do nothing. Its also ignorant to believe that a large body of people can't effect change - after all, this is what makes PETA a threat in the first place.
I actually don't find doing what I do easy, its exhausting to actually act on your passions, but at least I don't complain about what I don't try to change.
However, it is your right to support a human-hating organization who demand that rights be taken away from you so that fish don't have to worry about being eaten. A hypocritical group which believes that the life of a pet is undignified, so they actively support the genocide of multiple species. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 7:01:13 PM |
That PETA's legislative efforts have been largely marginalized?
What have you done to marginalize all the bad things happening on the blue planet Tomo?
And yes, my comments are based on the fact that PETA is still around, and with an ever-increasing membership. I made my point, and you understood it, although you pretend otherwise. You want me to waste my time duplicating your unsuccessful efforts. Where is the logic behind jumping on the bandwagon of the losing team? Do I get immunity? When you come up with an effective model for combating radicalism, you can alert the media......
If you are exhausted merely by exerting whatever action you take against PETA, try actually being a vegetarian - that is a real, bona-fide grassroots protest - YOU COULD NOT DO IT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO. Uh-Huh.......
Seems like you should quit now before you entice any other moderates to join the PETA vision......muahhahaha!
Tootles....... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 7:39:36 PM | If you think you're going to leave a snarky post and not have me respond to it, you're sorely mistaken(not to mention you littered it with questions)
>>>You cannot even accept factual information when it doesn't support your viewpoint or side.
Speaking of which, you never did address my challenge to find anything factually wrong with what I've said.
>>>". It is one of mutual benefit where all parties discuss the pros and cons of whatever the subject is, without attacking and defending.
I believe that is what we are doing.
If you feel I am somehow breaking the intended purpose of this topic, then I suggest you take your objections to a moderator. I'm not here to pat you on the back for having morals that justifies violence against other people- If I disagree, I will express it. If I find your arguments have flaws, I will bring them up. And if you are offended by these simple facts, then please remember that this is a voluntary forum and a voluntary discussion- I cannot force you to discuss anything with me, and if you feel I have been unfair in my practises, then I would suggest you no longer respond to my posts. I will not change my style because it makes you feel like I've invalidated the reasons for your beliefs.
>>>But you just sound like an absolutist.
I believe I very well may be- I personally believe there are better ways to live ones life above others, yes, and I do most certainly believe there are certian things that are an absolute fact, and everyone depends on these facts to be absolute to live their lives.
Whats the alterative? That I allow my beliefs to be wishy-washy, and have them change on any whim of any stranger who objects to me having that oh so vulgar belief of being certain of something?
>>>Bet you loved the Patriot Act!
Of course that makes sense- because I disagree with you, I'm a Republican.
>>>And I love how you use language in your posts that attack like 'we' and 'you'. Nice Touch... Makes people think they belong to your camp when reading it.
I use that method to better relate to those around me, and to gain greater insight by attempting to understand it through my eyes.
Of course, one wonders what my writing methods has to do with PeTA, Vegans, and what they would do on a deserted island, but I'm sure I'm simply mistaken, and it has a greater relivance than you ranting about a user rather than the topic.
>>>My moral standards are my own.
Thats a contradiction in terms. A Moral Standard implies it is a morality that everyone either does hold or should hold- its a collective, not a singular.
>>>Not a Philosophy to be applied to pipe fittings or surgeries ... I am talking about food, and how things might be approached differently by Americans if they had to kill their own meat.
Exactly- you were not expressing your morals to get them down and organized- you were presenting them to be accepted by others. I found flaws in your logic- that you claim something is wrong because of ____, but only and solely in that situation and no others. Because I found your morals to be lacking since you only apply it to one situation and no others, I am to be rediculed by you.
>>>Why is that statement threatening to you?
Because you are stating a moral, but equally stating that it can only exist in the void you allow it to. If one were to apply the same morals to anything else, it becomes a farce- but because its applied to livestock, it is noble. I find that to be a horribly short-sighted ethic to live by.
>>>Why not share situations where people might actually eat more meat because of an increased connection to where our food comes from and having to kill it ourselves.
I'm at least willing to hear your point.
Because I choose not to discuss or challenge the spirituality that may or may not come from eating meat. Its really that simple
>>>Got anything to say worth saying other than slander?
Again, if you have an issue with my writing style, take it up with the moderators. I find nothing slanderous with anything I've said.
>>>In looking at your posts Jiperly, it seems you are a parasitic poster. You feed off of attacking other people's posts.You toss out exceptions and misdirections, while rarely really addressing the subject at hand.
I "feed" off them? I wish to discuss issues, and challenge peoples beliefs. I don't see anything parasitic about that- although I should remind you, once again, that my methods have nothing to do with this topic. Its funny- you attack my writing style in a thread dedicated to questioning the conviction of vegans, then immeadiately say that I am not addressing the topic.
>>>You use a ONE PERSON Example with a completely different premise to refute a study of an entire people/culture and their eating habits compared to our own statistics on our people/culture.
No, I presented a direct example against a vague one- a user claims that eating vegatables leads to a longer life, making claims without any actual evidence, and I brought up an actual fact bringing doubt into the simple belief that living a healthy life will always breed a long life. Its simply not true.
Although I've got to ask.....what culture? Senior Citizens?
>>>1. PETA is EVIL and beware Vegans and Vegetarians because they are all the same.
Speaking of slander- did I ever say that Vegans and Vegetarians are all the same?
>>>3. Anyone that doesn't agree with Jipley is subject to deconstruction.
Oh come on- its not that hard
Jip-er-ly. Its pronounced the way it sounds; Jip-er-lee. Not like Ripley, but Jiperly.
But yes, that is fairly accurate. If I disagree with someone, and find multiple objectional things said by a person, I will attempt to address their claims, yes. I find nothing wrong with this method, and if you have an issue with it, please either bring it up with the moderating crew, or stop talking to me.
>>>Really, what kind of man wants anything to do with civil discussion when he says things like....
When someone says that eating meat is unhealthy and unnatural, then yes- I believe they are a cultist. Cults thrive on telling people reality is the opposite of what it is- and eating meat is completely natural to humanity.
>>>And another for the record on Native American beliefs, don't pretend you are some expert either.
I never claimed I was- but it certainly is a broad assumption to assume that the 25-75 million Native Americans that lived in North America all shared the same spirituality.
>>>But as a whole, they had respect for the earth and it's inhabitants that is far greater than this current civilization has expressed since their demise.
That has to be one of the funniest posts you've made yet- aren't you doing exactly the same thing you condemned me for doing- assuming individual beliefs based on association?
>>>Are you stating Native Americans did NOT bless the spirit of the animal that they killed for food?
No, I'm saying you're acting like a hypocrite. You're condemning me for accepting that the organsation that claims to represent you represents you, while at the same time find nothing wrong in accepting that the organsations that claimed to represent Native Americans represented them. There are plenty of examples of natives not respecting mother nature- hell, some tribes were damn near wiped off the face of the Earth because they destoryed forests to build farmland before understanding that they need to regularly till the soil. But I suppose those examples don't count, and its just easier to piegonhole all natives beliefs into a singular system.
>>>Jiperly is not about solutions and living together in harmony or acceptance.
His posts are about being right, while everyone else is wrong.
Which I suppose would explain why I entered this topic to begin with- to encourage people who were outraged by people assuming that a violent organsation represented them to create a counter organsation that promotes peace, tolerance, and acceptence of all people reguardless if they eat meat or not.
Sure sounds like I'm against harmony and acceptance....
>>>but I've never been a fan of arguing with no real valuable exchange of ideas.
Thats odd- the post I'm responding to here is exactly that. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 8:10:28 PM |
Posted By: cheshirecatalyst on 1/21/2009 10:01:13 PM
Subject: Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Message:
That PETA's legislative efforts have been largely marginalized?
What have you done to marginalize all the bad things happening on the blue planet Tomo?
And yes, my comments are based on the fact that PETA is still around, and with an ever-increasing membership. I made my point, and you understood it, although you pretend otherwise. You want me to waste my time duplicating your unsuccessful efforts. Where is the logic behind jumping on the bandwagon of the losing team? Do I get immunity? When you come up with an effective model for combating radicalism, you can alert the media......
If you are exhausted merely by exerting whatever action you take against PETA, try actually being a vegetarian - that is a real, bona-fide grassroots protest - YOU COULD NOT DO IT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO. Uh-Huh.......
Seems like you should quit now before you entice any other moderates to join the PETA vision......muahhahaha!
Tootles.......
Hope doesn't come from calculating whether the good news is winning out over the bad. It's simply a choice to take action. We find no real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 8:59:00 PM |
Hope doesn't come from calculating whether the good news is winning out over the bad. It's simply a choice to take action. We find no real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve.
You’ve just summed up the progressive non-violent goals of the majority of vegetarians and vegans quite nicely.
Namaste....... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 9:10:04 PM | That's everybody, not just vegans, and not just me. The only difference is that while I have a metric for calculating the chance I might be wrong, PETA can only consider that they are right. Dogmatism is extremely dangerous which is why passion should always be tempered by reason.
Thank you for the compliment incidentally, although the words aren't mine -  It's 2 quotes from two people - can't remember their names, but they seemed germane to the spirit of our debate. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 107 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 10:09:14 PM | Threatened by PETA....lol, I live my life well and don't give them a second thought but in the forums
The change is already in the marketplace --free range meat void of hormones, DDT, PCB, etc
There are over 5,000 farmers markets in the USA listed in 2008.
Vegans who hate the taste of meat have probably never had
"fresh butchered"-"still-blood warm-meat" given to them in the form of a dripping wet carcass.
Fresh poultry or rabbit rocks the kitchen just as well as a fresh caught seafood...yum
P.S. Cannibalism (yeah eating other animals)
By ritualizing the consumption of human flesh, it becomes something more than a meal.
Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday wrote, "Cannibalism is never just about eating"
--Perspective --when one considers the Christian practice of communion, which simulates the consumption of Christ's flesh.
This religious ritual simulates cannibalism, and it's widely accepted......
Perhaps the epitomy of hypocrisy in the modern western world. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/21/2009 10:46:27 PM | So it seems that you are only worried about PETA's affect on humans, not on animals, and PETA is only worried about meat-eater's effects on animals, not how it's actions effect humans. It sounds like both are doing the same thing--trying to draw an ethical line where certain things matter and certain things don't.
If it is the terrorism aspect of activism that bothers people about PETA, then why not organize around the issue of terrorism in all its forms, as it manifests in all the different organizations that people place their passions into?
If you could figure out the root causes of terrorism, how it gets triggered, and how to stop it or transform it into something less hazardous, then your information will be in high demand in several governments...
Hmmm, but then you would have to limit your own organizing activities to strictly non-violent, non-terrorist methods yourself, to show how its done. (And to avoid being labeled a hypocrite.)
"It might do many well to take a survival class.
When energy levels plummet in a ice cold, barren, winter wonderland, devoid of many edibles some roasted critter on a stick fuels that internal furnace and stops the shivering. Mental sharpness fades quickly without refueling, hindering your chances to survive. I would challenge people to put their money where their mouth is ..."
I took a Wilderness Survival course in college. It included camping in the winter. Also a course in Orienteering, and one on how to forage for edible wild plants (Ethnobotany.) And I took Botany. (I know my food REALLY well, inside and out. Gross, huh?) I think I could survive in most situations, but probably it would be easier to eat the vegetation than to try to hunt something, even though I know how to shoot a gun, do archery and fencing (in a survival situation I probably won't have a gun or bow and arrow with me anyway.) As for insects, I do like snails, if you can call that an insect. Its kind of an aquired taste.
"I keep a dog as a pet, he's adorable and I take care of him as best I can making sure he's well fed, groomed, and trained (poor training can lead to a dog dieing if they run out into a road or run away)."
I have a pet, too. He's a house rabbit. He's litterbox trained and has the run of the house like a cat--except he doesn't jump up on the kitchen counters. I also have two African Clawed frogs and some pet fish. I have trained the fish to do some things. Fish are smarter than people expect. I never thought about calling them kittens. I think PETA is pulling people's legs a lot. Cats and water are like oil and water--just don't go together. Its a strong, weird image. Very compelling, I think.
Vegetarianism, Veganism, aren't really survivalist subjects, and they aren't really political groups. They are a lifestyle, mostly. Its a lifestyle that is good if you are extremely poor, or it is good if you are well-off enough to care about food more than how it tastes. Like where did it come from, how was it made, and was it aware before becoming food?
PETA is taking the individual philosophical arguments from the ethics books and making them point by point, by a time-honored argumentative method of taking the traditional idea and turning it upside down, or backwards, or using exaggeration to the point of absurdity...we see our own unconscious conformities in a new way by making them seem "strange" for a moment. Its a very spirited method and mostly fun, but the weirdos can't be kept out of any big organization enough to keep them from causing some damage (and using the organization as a framework or as a scapegoat for their own destructive impulses.)
For instance, nobody eats cats. I don't really know why (I mentioned the carnivore thing earlier.) Even in China where they eat dogs, I don't think anybody really eats cats. So PETA chose kittens (cuter, baby cats) to compare to fish...they could have picked hamsters, or snakes, or turtles, or frogs, birds, or chameleons (all are sometimes pets.) Yuck, who would eat a cat?
But I ate sea turtle once when we were in Nicaragua. Tasted like veal. (I was a kid, we were tricked, they said it was chicken.) It was the first time I had met my food face to face before it was eaten. I had seen it roped upside-down in the back of a pick-up truck by the ocean earlier that day (it was HUGE and filled the entire truck) and we were eye-to-eye for a moment. Its head was larger than mine, with huge eyes.
In Nicaragua, the family we were staying with had a pet Paka. It was a huge rodent the size of a dog with red eyes and stripes. It slept in the bathtub to stay cool. They had rescued it as some Mosquito Indians were chasing it down for food, and it ran across their property. It was smaller then, and must have looked looked cuter. I forget its name, but we treated it like a dog. The Indians laughed at us because we were treating food as a pet. My Dad worked in the hospital nearby, which was on stilts because of termites. They kept pigs underneath the hospital. For some reason, nobody thought the pigs were as cute...even though they were probably smarter than the Paka.
I always felt bad that the Indians, who had worked so hard to hunt down their evening meal had to forgoe their dinner because some forgeiners decided to keep it for a pet. The reason was, we also were there to help a village whose entire population was dying of starvation because of a company cutting down the rainforest they depended on the year before. Seeing the starvation, and then seeing the Doctors acting that way about things (they lived like kings compared to the natives) made me think twice about it. When I got back to America, I never complained about caffeteria food again.
I really like the food ethics of the Fair Trade movement. I haven't seen Fair Trade meats yet. But any product can be Fair Trade, its just that we import so much of certain types of food that it greatly affects the local economies of the countries our food is imported from. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 3:54:43 AM | I think care should be taken when legislating moral values or principles into law. The problem with legislating moral beliefs is that in a diverse society, people do not necessarily share the same moral beliefs. This problem is seen in issues such as the right to terminate a pregnancy. Some believe this practice should be made illegal, while others strongly fight to retain its legality. Similar problems would arise if attempts were made to ban the eating of foods derived from animals.
Even so, I think sometimes the law should intervene. Acts of extreme cruelty inflicted to animals should be made criminal offences, especially if they are done for personal pleasure or to please others.
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 4:03:31 AM |
Vegans who hate the taste of meat have probably never had
"fresh butchered"-"still-blood warm-meat" given to them in the form of a dripping wet carcass.
I'm not vegan, but I am vegetarian. I used to eat meat, was raised on it. And I've always loved the taste of a rare, barbequed steak. So why did I become vegetarian? It was a choice I made almost six years ago. I love animals, have pets, and decided that I would no longer eat meat because of it. I still do have dairy products, but again, that is simply a choice. Maybe a bit hypocritical of me to still include dairy in my diet, yes...but again, it's a choice; maybe at some point I will no longer include dairy as well. I did make small changes though, such as only purchasing eggs from hens who have not had added antibiotics, who are fed grains and who are free-range (although the definition of free-range tends to be rather sketchy in the industry). I just decided that on my part I would no longer eat beef, pork, or chicken. And I never have eaten lamb or veal. Simply a choice.
As for the original question, if I were on an island and there was absolutely nothing to eat except animals, I honestly can't say what I'd do, if I were the one who had to kill the animal in order to eat it. Desperation can cause a person to do a great many things they wouldn't normally do in life (e.g., there was a plane crash many years ago where people resorted to cannibalism of the dead bodies in order to survive...I doubt, if those people were in the city and presented with a choice of a rare beef steak or a slice of meat from a dead human, they'd choose the human), so how can one answer that question unless they were actually in the situation? I think the original question presents a situation that is extreme...and even a PETA member, if they were to not hesitate in stating they would never kill and eat an animal in such a situation, would be answering as a guess, at best. In desperation, one never really knows what they will do.
As for PETA, I do not support them because of their (imo) extremist ways and beliefs, which is unfortunate as their cause originally did do some good by bringing to light some of the more barbaric animal treatment in labs. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 111 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 5:52:03 AM | People eating cats --also known as ""roof rabbit" by many.
Felines are the main ingredient in a famous soup .
Guangdong, China-- home to the Cantonese people .
Cat meat fetches approx $1.32 a pound.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/protests-in-china-over-ea_n_152175.html
Basically if it looks like food, one of the 6 Billion people on earth has probably tried it. | |
|
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 6:55:33 AM | Hmmm, so people eat cats? I will have to go call PETA now to tell them to change their ad campaign.
I always say to people, that if it comes down to me or my rabbit, the rabbit will go. I tell my kids that even though we have gotten to know this individual rabbit and have chosen to make it a family member, that it is a food animal. Kinda like keeping a chicken as a pet. If we had to move, or someone living in our home became allergic to the rabbit, we would be sending him back to the Humane Society (where they give them away for free right after Easter when people tend to abandon them. You have to sign something to the effect that you won't eat them.)
Basically, I am kind of a Foodie. I have watched Marc Bittman's show over the years. He's this chef who has his own show, who travels around the world looking for the best food there is and then he challenges the chef to cook with him, and modifies the recipes but uses the same theme or technique the forgein chef employs. So he was on the radio just now. He has a new book out, called "Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating with More Than 75 Recipes." There is also a movie by the same name, produced by different people.
You can hear a clip of the radio interview at NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1053
This guy is a major Foodie. This means he's mainly about cooking, and the taste of food, and eating really, really well, and he's been like that for many years. If he's "converted" or changed his diet--enough to have written a book about it, then this is a big thing. It means you can eat really well (he lives in New York,) and even be a top chef, and have very good reasons to eat with a conscience.
Here's a little more about him:
His book "How to Cook Everything"––won the IACP/Julia Child award, the James Beard Award, and three international cookbook awards––is the bible of basic cooking for millions of Americans, and is in its fifteenth printing; the 10th anniversary, revised edition was published in October, 2008.
The TV show; "Bittman Takes on America's Chefs," first aired in spring 2005, later won the James Beard Award for the best cooking series of that year, and continues to run regularly. The second season, "The Best Recipes in the World," aired a year later. In 2008 he appeared with Gwyneth Paltrow and Mario Batali, in a show called "Spain: On the Road Again." He also appears twice a month on NBC's Today Show, usually on Wednesdays.
In the 90s, Bittman created a best-selling collaboration with the internationally celebrated chef, Jean-Georges Vongerichten. Their classic, "Jean-Georges: Cooking at Home with a Four-Star Chef," is widely considered to be among the most accessible chef's cookbooks available. Mr. Bittman's first book, "Fish—The Complete Guide to Buying and Cooking" is the best-selling contemporary book on the subject. "The Best Recipes in the World" is a companion to his television series.
Anyway, I was a vegetarian before he was, but I did enjoy watching his show. Now I eat some fish, eggs and a little of organic meats. This is essentially what he advocates, now, too.
I think it's about being conscious about how what you are eating affects you, your health, and the well-being of the rest of the world. Its not about "banning" the sale of anything. Isn't it better to promote better lifestyle choices, than to try to legislate some kind of law about it?
If we can ban trans fats, and smoking, we can ban anything. But I think that it doesn't have to come to that if everyone has open discussions about the issues and becomes informed, and makes their own voluntary choices. Then you don't have to waste money "enforcing" a ban, or over-regulating and inspecting things. People will vote with their dollars, and people have already set up their own types of monitoring and regulations with things like Kosher inspections, and different independent evaluations being paid for by the food industry and other food-related businesses like restaurants themselves.
However, sometimes a ban or a law becomes necessary to get people's attention. We banned alcohol once, but removed it later because it didn't work and created a black market. A ban doesn't have to be permanent...but if we think the ban would actually work, then it might level the playing field for businesses so that they can all compete with the same set of rules. We have learned that banning something addicting doesn't work. Witness the failed war on drugs. Bans don't cure people's addictions.
You can try to ban things in creative ways. Like with cigarettes, you can ban where people smoke. But you can't force them to quit. The addiction is too strong--even when people WANT to quit, and everyone agrees that smoking is bad for people.
Note: I am not saying meat eating is an addiction, nor is it morally wrong. I am saying that there are ways in which we could change the meat eating in the country that would greatly improve things for a lot of people, and not just in this country. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 114 | |
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 10:47:01 AM | Hehe...yeah, PETA combined the 2 favorite dishes of China into one delicious animal, the sea kitten!
I largely agree with you Ideoform, except that legislation will not be beneficial because of the reasons you mentioned. When you make a law, people try to figure out how to bend or break it. When you promote or inform against something however you can reduce the effect of a behavior.
As they say, you can't legislate morality. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 12:18:05 PM | Post # 88, well said.
Post # 95, Actually you're wrong, and I'm kind of amazed that you could even miss this simple fact. Pull the carrot from the ground, clean it, eat it. It's alive. This is the whole point of a raw food diet. As Jay Kordich likes to say, "Live foods for live bodies". If you choose to ignore the facts then you'll stay ignorant. See:
"Long Life Now" by Lee Hitchcox, D.C.
"A Diet For All Reasons" by Michael Klaper, M.D.
Foodmatters.
I 100% guarantee that you would loose all your excess body fat by eating a raw food diet. Just do a google search for 'weight loss raw food diet'. There are tons of videos on youtube with success stories. Check out the one titled, "LOVINGRAW 1: Weight Loss Man Loses 125 lbs". For a lot of people, the raw food diet is the only thing that finally rids them of the fat, and from my research, I've never been able to find someone that ate a truly 100% raw food diet and didn't have amazing results.
When you eat raw, you loose your cravings for fatty junk food. It takes effort to make the change. The reason America's obesity rates are through the roof is because our culture has one of the worst diets in the world. Our culture does very little to support people on a raw food diet, so that is a challenge we have to accept, but for people like Philip McCluskey or Angela Stokes, simply to be healthy and happy, it's worth it.
DO NOT generalize about vegetarians and vegans as being wish washy or anything else. WE ARE NOT THE SAME. I am highly offended that people now categorize me just because of what _I_ choose to eat, in order to be happy. It's a choice that I made, FOR MYSELF, at the age of 19. If you want to argue the facts of what's healthy for a human being to eat that's fine, but don't try to claim that I am a certain kind of person because what I choose to eat. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 12:27:20 PM |
"Moderation is the key--too much of anything can kill you--"
Its about way more than just being moderate. If moderation were really a key to American well-being, then we wouldn't have a skyrocketing obesity rate, heart disease rate, colon cancer and diabetes. We all think we are eating moderately already.
In most ethnic cuisines meat is used more as a flavoring to a dish than the main thing on the plate.
Moderation in meat eating can help some; we consume over 10 Billion animals in America each year. If we cut back 10% on meat consumption, we would consume one billion fewer animals. Raising animals for food production is a very inefficient use of our resources, and this level of consumption, about 10 lbs. of meat a week per person, doesn't enhance our lives much if you take into consideration the health care costs of obesity, high cholesterol drugs, and colon cancer treatments.
We pay for our meat over-consumption three times: once when we purchase the meat, again when we have to go to the gym to work it off, and again in high-priced cholesterol-lowering drugs and other expensive treatments like heart surgery.
But moderation doesn't take into account the quality of the food you do eat, or its origin. Food isn't generic. Our food is produced around the world in varying conditions and by varying ways of treating the workers.
For instance, buying organic foods has a triple-benefit: First, you get fewer pesticides (which usually affect neural cells.) Second, you protect the farmer and his family. There is a large increased rate of cancer among farmers and their families who need to use pesticides to produce crops at the level of production we are requiring of them. Third, you protect the people who manufacture and transport the chemicals themselves.
There are safer products to manufacture. Why use something so toxic if we are already producing more than we need to feed ourselves and much of the world? We are an overweight country. Why do we need such a concentrated food protein in such abundance that we are harming our health anyway? We lead sedentary lives. Our livelihoods do not depend on how much energy we burn each day doing our work anymore, like we used to when America was mainly an agrarian society (mostly farmers.)
(Besides which, chemical fertilizer is a bomb ingredient--if we had less of it laying around, terrorists might have a harder time finding the ingredients for their chemical disasters.) Let's reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. I like that better than trying to dictate exactly someone's menu.
The price you pay for organic foods is the true cost of the food, without the artificial incentives and requirements (and regulations) we have placed on our food producers. If your food budget seems tighter eating organic, you might naturally spend less on meat and more on other things, and eat a little less and be healthier. This is how the economy should work. All the other things we are doing to enhance our production only enhances someone else's bottom line who lobbied for some crazy legislation, at the expense of our health by selling us stuff we don't need.
I think that food's cost should reflect it's total lifespan effect on America. Like from when it comes out of the ground to when it goes back into the ground. With all its effects on people's health, the situation and health of those who produce it calculated in between.
The economy can do this if you think about it carefully. Its not totally about banning. Its more about accountability. Its more about having the true costs reflected in the price. If it has a cancer-causing effect, or an obesity effect (think the appetite enhancers like MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, and aspartame) then that is part of the cost of how we are producing food in our country. If you added these not so "hidden" costs to the price of non-organic foods, I believe the prices would end up being the same as organic foods.
If you knew that you could eat all you want, except that there would be a tiny bit of Arsenic or Cyanide in all the food, would you still eat it? | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 12:33:05 PM | You 100% guarantee that I would lose all excess body fat with raw foods, huh?
I guess you are missing out on the tons of peer-reviewed research which demonstrate that the biggest determination for body fat and weight is "calories in - calories out". Granted its likely that raw foods would decrease calorie intake, but you can get plenty fat from a raw food diet.
For example, in my own case I actually gained weight on a raw food diet (my mom had gotten into the kick when I was in high school). However, the amount of calories I was taking in compared to the amount that I was burning caused me to gain weight. *shrugs* That was the net effect after eating raw foods for a year. Granted, this isn't a Q.E.D., but these results have been replicated in many studies. Other factors beyond calorie intake v.s. calories burned do have an effect but are marginal compared to the major effect that calorie consumption has. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 1:56:56 PM |
For instance, nobody eats cats. I don't really know why (I mentioned the carnivore thing earlier.) Even in China where they eat dogs, I don't think anybody really eats cats.
Hello Ideoform, yes - Civet cats were eaten for food in China, and possibly other locales as well. Civet cats are a source (or THE source) of the SARS virus.
They were linked to the animal to human SARS transmission back in 2003. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 3:17:43 PM |
I always say to people, that if it comes down to me or my rabbit, the rabbit will go. I tell my kids that even though we have gotten to know this individual rabbit and have chosen to make it a family member, that it is a food animal. Kinda like keeping a chicken as a pet.
This is one area where I would differ from this poster. I too have a rabbit, and he is as much a part of my family as any human. Could I kill and eat him if I were starving? I truly don't believe I could. Now again, this is what I am assuming, not having been in the situation....as starvation is a desperate place to be in...but I honestly could not tel l you right now that I could do it. It would torture me to even consider the idea, as I look at him as family. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:08:04 PM | Hello fellow rabbit person. I know the feeling.
It was the time when I first looked into the eyes of my food.... the saucer-plate sized eyes of that huge sea turtle...he really seemed to actually LOOK back at me....and then finding out that we were tricked into eating him the next evening...that's I think what really primed me for acting on the ideas in that ethics book on food animals. Because ANYTHING that is alive can be food for humans. That's the consequence of being an omnivore. (Well, don't eat armadillos or monkeys, OK?)
OK. Just to be clear, I didn't mean to say that I tell people I'd eat my pet in a starvation situation.
I meant that he would go back to the Humane Society where he came from if we had to move to a place that didn't allow pets or some other problem like that. I say he's a food animal to people to remind them that he's really, after all, just a rabbit. My yard has several rabbits that have a route around my house they follow, trying to figure out why they smell a rabbit in there...I don't feed them or bring them in the house. We think they are funny, looking for our rabbit. And our rabbit sits on top of the couch, looking out the window at the yard a lot. I am keeping him away from his tribe. I feel bad about that. I give him lots of his favorite vegetable, cilantro, as compensation. He's really quite spoiled.
But I also allow my teenage son to go hunting with his father. Even though I don't own a gun myself and I am for gun control, I think it is a good male bonding kind of thing. Plus, I think its always a good idea if a guy in a wheelchair knows how to shoot a gun...
If I eat hamburger chili for dinner, I am being a real hypocrite if I say that my rabbit's life and well-being is more important than a cow. For one thing the cow is way bigger.
(Its about the same kind of logic that a lot of PETA people are trying to point out...) | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:16:44 PM | >>>If moderation were really a key to American well-being, then we wouldn't have a skyrocketing obesity rate, heart disease rate, colon cancer and diabetes.
You're assuming that Americans and meat eaters already live a life of moderation- and it simply is not true. The cause of skyrocketing obesity, heart disease, colon cancer and diabetes isn't because living in moderation is a flawed system. Its because people are not living in moderation- they are not watching their diet, not being careful to eat healthy foods, and not eating junk foods in moderation.
>>> Raising animals for food production is a very inefficient use of our resources
The use of the word "our resources" kinda irks me, to be honest. It makes the assumption that if a farmer raises a cow, then all of society loses money. And thats not true- the farmer invests his own money, not "our" money, in their livestock, and he does so because of the his increased earnings- not "ours"
To be perfectly frank, the only way it could be argued that raising cows wastes "our resources" is in a communist society. Otherwise, it should always be up to the farmer to make his own risks and his own profits. He doesn't ask you for your permission to invest his own resources, nor should he ever need to.
>>>and this level of consumption, about 10 lbs. of meat a week per person, doesn't enhance our lives much if you take into consideration the health care costs of obesity, high cholesterol drugs, and colon cancer treatments.
Again, you're assuming that eating meat causes unhealthiness and disease- and that is simply not true. Its eating in excess that causes the diseases you mentioned.
>>>Second, you protect the farmer and his family.
By making it so they have a less productive crop? How is the farmer making less and producing less going to help anyone, let alone the farmer? And again, isn't that more a decision to be made by the farmer?
>>>Third, you protect the people who manufacture and transport the chemicals themselves.
Are you actually saying by decreasing the demand for these chemicals, you help the people who manufacture and transport it? Wouldn't that put their jobs at risk? And again- aren't these people grown adults, who can decide to take their own risks?
Can you present any examples of people who have been endangered in the manufacturing and transportation of these chemicals? Is it a greater risk than the number of accidents in, say, the paper industry or any other manufacturing jobs?
>>> I like that better than trying to dictate exactly someone's menu.
It seems like you're dictating what farmers should or should not do instead.
>>>If your food budget seems tighter eating organic, you might naturally spend less on meat and more on other things, and eat a little less and be healthier.
Are you actually saying that if food was more expensive, it'd be better? What about people who can barely afford food as it is, or not at all? What kind of comfort would it bring to people who NEED food to be cheap because its mass produced, that you're helping them by limiting their options further?
>>> at the expense of our health by selling us stuff we don't need.
Shouldn't it be up the individual to decide what they need? If someone choose to live unhealthy, isn't that their choice?
Like you said, vote with your dollar.
>>>Its more about accountability.
and where does personal responsiblity come in?
>>>Its more about having the true costs reflected in the price.
Are you saying we should make cheap food more expensive solely for the purpose of enforcing healthy standard on a society that is apathetic on the issue of health? Its all fine if you wish to pay more for food- but not everyone has that choice.
>>>If it has a cancer-causing effect
Care to present an example?
>>>If you added these not so "hidden" costs to the price of non-organic foods, I believe the prices would end up being the same as organic foods.
I suppose you won't also be adding the "hidden costs" that comes from the increased risk of disease from organic foods that things like some herbicides are supposed to combat? | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:26:40 PM | Dear Jiperly,
You are very young. You can take all the risks you want with your food. You will live forever for sure, at least for now.
Someday you might feel differently. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 124 | |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:30:16 PM | A vast majority of produce, fruits and vegetables are truly quite dead by the time most Americans eat them.
Top 10: America's Healthiest Grocery Stores
--Health magazine asked six prominent health professionals to rank America's grocery stores
1. Whole Foods Market
2. Safeway
3. Harris Teeter
4. Trader Joe's
5. Hannaford
6. Albertsons
7. Food Lion
8. Publix Super Markets
9. Pathmark
10. SuperTarget
Michigan is ranked 6th in the nation for agricultural exports
YET none of the larger Detroit area stores are listed like Meijer, Sams Club, Costco, Kroger, Walmart, etc.
Average people just plain choose to eat mediocre food especially in a state with 11 % unemployment.
Convenience reigns supreme in many metropolitan areas of the USA.
Drive out of your way to a "fancy" grocery store for slightly better produce, unlikely for most of the population.
They'll gladly settle for stuff that got picked 4 weeks ago and shipped across the world. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/22/2009 8:38:22 PM | I don't understand Ideoform- you claim you're all for freedom and letting people decide with their wallets and that people have an inalienable right to decide what they put in their body- but you're equally arguing that people need to be protected from themselves, that people should not be left to decide things for themselves, and that the individuals freedom to decide what they put in their body is irrelivant when it comes to their health.
Which is it? Do you respect each persons ability to decide for themselves, or do you think people should be protected from themselves? Why all this talk of having "the true cost reflect the price"? Isn't that maniplulating the costs to force a healthy standard, rather than allowing people to choose their own healthy standard? Are you honestly saying your stance has no victims? | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 42
|
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 |
|
Home
login 
