# Horizon: Should I eat Meat?



## Maggot (Aug 18, 2014)

*BBC2 tonight (18 August) 9PM, part 2 Wednesday 20th August 9PM*

Another chance for the old veggies Vs Omnis argument to resurface. Scientist Michael Mosley looks at the recent reports about the dangers of eating processed meat. Part 2 looks at the environmental impact of meat production.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 18, 2014)

Starting now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2014)

All that food, it's a good job I've had my dinner.


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 18, 2014)

The stats are scaring me a bit. Add the lifetime-reducingness of meat to the shorter life expectancy for people with MH issues, then chuck in diabetes and prematureness.... I think I might have about a week left.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 18, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> The stats are scaring me a bit. Add the lifetime-reducingness of meat to the shorter life expectancy for people with MH issues, then chuck in diabetes and prematureness.... I think I might have about a week left.


They might not be cumulative.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 18, 2014)

Yes, of course you should eat meat.


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 18, 2014)

*clutches onto 8115 's 'might'

Cheers for the heads up, Maggot - interesting stuff.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 18, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Yes, of course you should eat meat.


Why?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2014)

Maggot said:


> Why?


Because it's a good source of nutrients and it tastes nice.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

So what's the conclusion thus far from the programme?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 18, 2014)

Maggot said:


> Why?



Because it's delicious and humans have always eaten meat.

I don't eat meat all the time btw (and I include fish as meat); I try to keep it to 4x a week.  However, a life without a bloody steak, lamb chops or chicken with crispy skin doesn't seem like a good life.


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

Haven't watched it and cannot comment on it. But as far as the environmental cost is concerned, I long ago took the decision never to have children, partly because of the environmental cost to the planet, and I reckon that buys me a lifetime of meat consumption with a clear conscience.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> Haven't watched it and cannot comment on it. But as far as the environmental cost is concerned, I long ago took the decision never to have children, partly because of the environmental cost to the planet, and I reckon that buys me a lifetime of meat consumption with a clear conscience.



And you can't eat children anyway.


----------



## JTG (Aug 18, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Yes, of course you should eat meat.


Do what you like mate, don't tell me what I should do though


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 18, 2014)

JTG said:


> Do what you like mate, don't tell me what I should do though



Did you think I was going to come round your house and force feed you half a cow?


----------



## Maggot (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> So what's the conclusion thus far from the programme?


Eating any amount of processed red meat, or eating lots of any red meat is bad for you, but eating a bit of red meat is ok. Also saturated fats don't cause heart disease.


----------



## JTG (Aug 18, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Did you think I was going to come round your house and force feed you half a cow?


That doesn't really follow from what was said


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Because it's delicious and humans have always eaten meat.


Humans haven't always eaten the intensively-farmed, over-processed shit that's passed off as meat though.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 18, 2014)

This is a fair summary of the programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28797106

Low but not zero consumption of meat seems to be the optimum due to the nutrients it provides.  But processed meat is not good full stop.


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

I hope chorizo doesn't count as processed meat


----------



## colacubes (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> I hope chorizo doesn't count as processed meat



Afraid so


----------



## Maggot (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> Haven't watched it and cannot comment on it. But as far as the environmental cost is concerned, I long ago took the decision never to have children, partly because of the environmental cost to the planet, and I reckon that buys me a lifetime of meat consumption with a clear conscience.


That's a strange logic: Because you're not harming the planet in one way, it's ok to harm it in another.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 18, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> and it tastes nice.


your ability to tell what it tastes like is not something you are in control of as much as you think
if i consciously fed you your pet dog it would taste disgusting, but if i told you it was mutton and cooked it youd like it and say it was delicious - its all in the mind, and all in your emotions for the animal you are eating



T & P said:


> Haven't watched it and cannot comment on it. But as far as the environmental cost is concerned, I long ago took the decision never to have children, partly because of the environmental cost to the planet, and I reckon that buys me a lifetime of meat consumption with a clear conscience.


you should eat children


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> <snip>you should eat children



I eat cannibals


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I eat cannibals



My friend married one of them.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 19, 2014)

The changes in the gut they expected to detect (through a fecal test) weren't as they expected and they attributed that to the high vegetable content of his diet. So. Eat some lettuce and tomato with your bacon


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 19, 2014)

Or just eat more vegetables in general, really


----------



## T & P (Aug 19, 2014)

Maggot said:


> That's a strange logic: Because you're not harming the planet in one way, it's ok to harm it in another.


It is and isn't, depending on your viewpoint. If you believe any and all sources of negative environmental impact should be avoided, then it will not seem an acceptable trade-off. If you believe one can balance cutting down your environmental footprint and having a lifestyle that appeals to you and gives you a few perks and pleasures, then it seems an acceptable compromise to me.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).


----------



## story (Aug 19, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> The changes in the gut they expected to detect (through a fecal test) weren't as they expected and they attributed that to the high vegetable content of his diet. So. Eat some lettuce and tomato with your bacon



Although nothing was said in that programme about the microbiome. I'd wager that the bacterial population of the gut is material to the health outcomes of any diet. I was curious about that faecal result particularly In this respect.


----------



## story (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).



I hate it. It's the reason I became vegetarian.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).


I more concerned with the shit they do after its farmed such as injecting the meat with water and shit.


----------



## story (Aug 19, 2014)

Gromit said:


> I more concerned with the shit they do after its farmed such as injecting the meat with water and shit.



You can choose to spend your money on decent meat. Since we really don't need to eat as much red meat as we do, it makes sense to have it far less often, but choose to buy far more expensive but much less problematic meat.

Having said that, I'll add that it is indeed shit that cheap shitty meat is passed off as decent food and people are obliged (often by circumstance) to spend their pennies on something that is shamefully devalued at every point of the process.


----------



## xenon (Aug 19, 2014)

I dont care to tell the rest of you what to eat. But i should eat eat meat because i like it. It works for me.


----------



## bmd (Aug 19, 2014)

I will eat meat if I find a decent butchers but there aren't any where I live. I just don't think it makes sense to eat bog standard meat. I once worked in a bacon factory and some of the pigs had cancerous tumours in them that had turned the meat to gangrene, god knows what agony the pigs were in. The gangrene was washed out with a power washer and the frilly bits trimmed off and then they were sent on their way. I saw that three or four times a day and I didn't see all the pigs by any means.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2014)

I've switched my diet from probably 10% fruit and vegetables, 90% meat, grain, and sugar-based foods; to 50% fruit and vegetable, 25% meat [none of it processed], and 25% grain, and avoiding refined sugar as much as possible.

I feel immensely better for it.


----------



## bmd (Aug 19, 2014)

I remember when I first stopped eating meat I felt much more chilled out. I'm not even sure why but it was definitely noticeable. Kind of like the opposite of what people are like when they stop smoking.


----------



## Supine (Aug 19, 2014)

Tried to watch but seeing meat being eaten made me feel sick


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

story said:


> I hate it. It's the reason I became vegetarian.



Do you still eat non-organic dairy?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 19, 2014)

Watched it last night. Really interesting stuff - especially the new analysis on saturated fats suggesting they aren't the big problem after all and rather it's more likely that the by-products of the over-processed meats and microwave meals are in fact more likely to be causing overweight issues. I'm not vegetarian but my wife is and so I eat a lot of vegetarian food, and try to keep meat (especially processed meat) to a minimum. Home cooking and balanced diet ftw.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Maggot said:


> That's a strange logic: Because you're not harming the planet in one way, it's ok to harm it in another.



Except that's nothing close to what he said though, is it?

The only sensible way to control one's environmental impact is to take an overall view.

As far as the effects of intensively farmed meat is concerned, most people would probably prefer to contribute to it in as small a way as possible but of course not everyone can afford that luxury and still eat meat.

All of us have varying levels of concern for the planet and its occupants. I'll drive a large engined car but I won't sling it's oil down the drain when it's changed etc, etc...

Do you use recreational drugs?

If so you're doing far more social and environmental damage consuming coke and imported weed than those who like the odd well-sourced steak.

Someone who has chosen not to have kids is already* light years* behind a vegetarian family in terms of environmental footprint unless they're burning down rainforests for a laugh, so if that's a primary concern it's a completely valid position.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).


Hate them. Which is why we try to buy all our meat from our local butcher who can practically tell you the name of the cow you're about to eat.


----------



## story (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Do you still eat non-organic dairy?




Are you asking thins because of the heinous practices in the dairy industry?

No, I do not eat non-organic dairy.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

story said:


> Are you asking thins because of the heinous practices in the dairy industry?
> 
> No, I do not eat non-organic dairy.



Yep, just checking. Sorry, shit question really.

I do eat meat but have cut down an enormous amount of late, so much nice veggie food to cook.


----------



## JTG (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Hate them. Which is why we try to buy all our meat from our local butcher who can practically tell you the name of the cow you're about to eat.


 'You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?' whispered 
Trillian to Ford.

'Me?' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, 'I don't mean 
anything.'

'That's absolutely horrible,' exclaimed Arthur, 'the most revolting 
thing I've ever heard.'

'What's the problem Earthman?' said Zaphod, now transfering his 
attention to the animal's enormous rump.

'I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there
inviting me to,' said Arthur, 'It's heartless.'

'Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be
eaten,' said Zaphod.

'That's not the point,' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it 
for a moment. 'Alright,' he said, 'maybe it is the point. I don't 
care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ... I 
think I'll just have a green salad,' he muttered.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).


i think an informed meat eater will find a level they are comfortable with.
for me - i find barn raised hens ok. but feel pigs need more space. 
I will buy pork and beef that is very high quality, and any eggs/chicken that aren't from caged hens.
although i don't care enough about their welfare to be fussy when eating out, getting takeaway, or eating any product that contains egg (which is loads of stuff).


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

lol at thread, again


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

JTG said:


> 'You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?' whispered
> Trillian to Ford.
> 
> 'Me?' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, 'I don't mean
> ...


tbh a pig could stand in front of me and deliver an impassioned speech on the joys of vegetarianism and I'd still eat it.

Birds eat insects. Sharks eat seals. Cats eat mice. Lions eat wildebeest. Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 19, 2014)

As ever there was no conclusion from the program. I did food science graduating in 1995 and I'm still perplexed it's so fucking complex to come up with an optimum diet people can broadly stick to.

My favorite and the one I try live is Micheall Pollens elegant advice: "Eat food, not too much, mainly plants". My own not so elegant addition is "excercise daily and lift weights twice a week at least".


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> tbh a pig could stand in front of me and deliver an impassioned speech on the joys of vegetarianism and I'd still eat it.
> 
> Birds eat insects. Sharks eat seals. Cats eat mice. Lions eat wildebeest. Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.


I really wouldn't bother. I think this is a 'vegetarians are better than meat eaters' thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).



In many cases they are highly objectionable.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Manter said:


> I really wouldn't bother. I think this is a 'vegetarians are better than meat eaters' thread.


go on, make it so, it's itching to turn into the usual bullshit, started already, as ususal


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> go on, make it so, it's itching to turn into the usual bullshit, started already, as ususal



 I don't see how.

A vegetarian asked meat eaters what they thought about the environmental aspects of doing so and some meat eaters have responded, is all.


----------



## JTG (Aug 19, 2014)

Manter said:


> I really wouldn't bother. I think this is a 'vegetarians are better than meat eaters' thread.


is it?


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> i think an informed meat eater will find a level they are comfortable with.
> for me - i find barn raised hens ok. but feel pigs need more space.
> I will buy pork and beef that is very high quality, and any eggs/chicken that aren't from caged hens.
> although i don't care enough about their welfare to be fussy when eating out, getting takeaway, or eating any product that contains egg (which is loads of stuff).



Yeah, pretty much my position. Although wish it was easier to tell what level of intensity chickens have been reared at. Would be nice to see pictures of dairy sources stamped across the various dairy products too.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

JTG said:


> is it?


it has been decreed so


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> go on, make it so, it's itching to turn into the usual bullshit, *started already, as ususal*


Show me where.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Show me where.



It hasn't. Draig's being a touchy fucker, as _ususal_!


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yeah, pretty much my position. Although wish it was easier to tell what level of intensity chickens have been reared at. Would be nice to see pictures of dairy sources stamped across the various dairy products too.


I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to remove caged egg products from my diet, without a drastic change to what I eat.
Egg is in loads of stuff if you look at the stuff on a supermarket shelf. And I assume pretty much all of that is from torture hens.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

and this is why i shouldn't even have bothered


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and this is why i shouldn't even have bothered



Well yes.

If you're going to object to meat eaters answering vegetarian's questions then this is most certainly not the thread for you!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

ever so sorry boss!


----------



## ska invita (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> tbh a pig could stand in front of me and deliver an impassioned speech on the joys of vegetarianism and I'd still eat it.
> 
> Birds eat insects. Sharks eat seals. Cats eat mice. Lions eat wildebeest. Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.


yeah i agree. thats why i like war so much. when i see someone pleading for their life i like to deliver a kick to the stomach before smashing their heads in with a rock. its just nature. i didnt make the rules...


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ever so sorry boss!



Apology accepted.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.


Not all. C'est la vie.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and this is why i shouldn't even have bothered


I asked a pretty straight forward question.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yeah, pretty much my position. Although wish it was easier to tell what level of intensity chickens have been reared at. Would be nice to see pictures of dairy sources stamped across the various dairy products too.



Aye. We only buy free range eggs but life's too short to be researching the provenance of all the egg ingredients of every product we buy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Unless you are relatively wealthy or very disciplined, it is hard to be a consistently ethical meat eater. It's also hard to be a consistently ethical veggie, too, mind. Meat/not-meat isn't the only ethical dividing line.

There are limits to what can be achieved through individual consumer choices. Some changes need to come from _collective action_.

Any collective action to improve animal welfare in farming will need vegetarians to make alliances with meat-eaters who want to improve the lot of the animals they eat. A vegetarian (well vegan, strictly speaking - dairy involves the killing of calves) who wants to make a difference has to go beyond shouting 'nobody needs to eat meat'. That kind of hectoring will achieve the sum total of fuck all.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Supine said:


> Tried to watch but seeing meat being eaten made me feel sick



Your life must be very difficult.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Any collective action to improve animal welfare in farming will need vegetarians to make alliances with meat-eaters who want to improve the lot of the animals they eat.



Make us an organic lamb bhuna every now and then?


----------



## co-op (Aug 19, 2014)

story said:


> Are you asking thins because of the heinous practices in the dairy industry?
> 
> No, I do not eat non-organic dairy.



Isn't there a problem with dairy in general? I mean that in effect, meat is a by-product of the dairy industry rather than the other way round.(This argument only really applies to cows/beef obviously).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

co-op said:


> Isn't there a problem with dairy in general? I mean that in effect, meat is a by-product of the dairy industry rather than the other way round.(This argument only really applies to cows/beef obviously).


Specifically, veal is a by-product of dairy.


----------



## co-op (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's also hard to be a consistently ethical veggie, too, mind.



This ^^. 

I lived ayear or two in Almeria province in Spain where most of the winter salads, tomatoes, aubergines etc are grown because it's frost free all winter down on the coast. They are grown in gigantic polytunnels called plasticos locally. They are horrible places, worked in by illegal workers, originally mostly Moroccans, now mostly Senegalese who are subjected to terrible exploitation and poisoned by chemicals and pesticides. They are massively ecologically destructive and (since products like tomatoes & lettuces are mostly water) they involve the de facto export of water from the driest place in Europe to countries like the UK and Germany. Apparently this is market-driven "efficiency".

The food is also shit since it has to be driven thousands of miles in refrigerator lorries and therefore has to be picked way early. It's mind-boggling the bullshit involved in the production & delivery of some utterly pointless Iceberg lettuce the vast majority of which which will be thrown away but is grown and driven all that way simply in order to decorate a plate of pub food as an unwanted "garnish" to give an impression of 'freshness' or 'healthiness'. 

Food production under capitalism will always involve immense amounts of cruelty and ecological destruction.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Specifically, veal is a by-product of dairy.



It's _only_ veal isn't it?


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Unless you are relatively wealthy or very disciplined, it is hard to be a consistently ethical meat eater. It's also hard to be a consistently ethical veggie, too, mind. Meat/not-meat isn't the only ethical dividing line.
> 
> There are limits to what can be achieved through individual consumer choices. Some changes need to come from _collective action_.
> 
> Any collective action to improve animal welfare in farming will need vegetarians to make alliances with meat-eaters who want to improve the lot of the animals they eat. A vegetarian (well vegan, strictly speaking - dairy involves the killing of calves) who wants to make a difference has to go beyond shouting 'nobody needs to eat meat'. That kind of hectoring will achieve the sum total of fuck all.



I'm in agreement that in order to bring about social change collective action is often necessary.  However, for me, meat is a direct representation of an animal which would have invariably suffered to end up on a plate.  I simply couldn't enjoy eating meat - especially in the knowledge that an average Westenor is responsible for the lives of around 200 animals a year.

The collective action argument is also a way to absolve personal responsibility, blame the system and carry on with business as usual.  eg Why should I give a shit about global warming while China continues to build coal power stations etc.

I also think the 'nobody needs to eat meat' hectoring that you attribute to vegetarians is very much in the minority.  For me I accept that eating meat has a place and is simply they way of the world.  The problem I have is the amount of meat that most have come used to and the appalling level of respect that's shown to the majority of meat that's consumed.  Additionally as a rule I don't hector people about their choices, unless they wish to debate them or I am asked to justify my choices.


----------



## co-op (Aug 19, 2014)

FWIW I'd be highly suspicious of any "organic" veg coming from Spain, particularly that from Almeria or Murcia. The plasticos are like the wild west - if a producer can get loads of extra money for finding a bit of paperwork showing that they are organic, they'll find the paperwork but it will be mostly meaningless. It's absolutely clear there's no meaningful organic growing going on there - and I knew people who were working to try and enforce standards there. Really, if you're going to buy from southern Spain buy the non-organic, it'll be exactly the same stuff but cheaper.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's _only_ veal isn't it?


Yes. Beef cows are different from dairy cows but veal comes from dairy cows. Ethically speaking if you eat cheese you may as well also eat veal. Bit ironic given veal's rep but pink veal can be very ethical.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> - especially in the knowledge that an average Westenor is responsible for the lives of around 200 animals a year.



Where's that from?


----------



## story (Aug 19, 2014)

co-op said:


> Isn't there a problem with dairy in general? I mean that in effect, meat is a by-product of the dairy industry rather than the other way round.(This argument only really applies to cows/beef obviously).



Yes, it's all pretty nasty.

I actually don't drink milk at all, and I try only to eat cheese and butter that comes from a small local producer rather than a large conglomerate.

We do what we can while living as we want to. Priorities shift over time.

I used to only eat wild fish because I thought it better for my health, but then had a bit of the think about the depletion of the oceans so I switched to farmed fish.

I stopped eating meat in the eighties, but recently started again. My own health is better for it, and it is now fairly easy to source properly husbanded meat. I pay through the nose for it (unless it's free game meat) but I only have it rarely. That option wasn't available in the eighties.

I have eaten veal since I started eating meat again. It was at a pub connected to an organic dairy and beef farm. The farmers had decided that killing the calves and simply throwing them away was worse than raising them for veal, and I am minded to agree. This particular place is very involved with decent respectful animal husbandry. I'd not eat veal elsewhere because of the cruelty involved, but I did at this place because the cruelty was diminished, and it seemed less wasteful, less sinful to eat the animal than to dispose of it as surplus.

I used to be far more absolute about stuff like this. As I get older, I seem to be less so.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> The collective action argument is also a way to absolve personal responsibility, blame the system and carry on with business as usual.



It's also absolutely logically correct though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Unless you are relatively wealthy or very disciplined, it is hard to be a consistently ethical meat eater. It's also hard to be a consistently ethical veggie, too, mind. Meat/not-meat isn't the only ethical dividing line.
> 
> There are limits to what can be achieved through individual consumer choices. Some changes need to come from _collective action_.
> 
> Any collective action to improve animal welfare in farming will need vegetarians to make alliances with meat-eaters who want to improve the lot of the animals they eat. A vegetarian (well vegan, strictly speaking - dairy involves the killing of calves) who wants to make a difference has to go beyond shouting 'nobody needs to eat meat'. That kind of hectoring will achieve the sum total of fuck all.



I agree that hectoring isn't going going to get vegetarians/vegans very far, but respectful dialogues about the ethics of meat eating are important. For many veggies their diets are not a mere life-style choice but a matter of justice to animals. 

And again, I agree about the need for collective action for animals but you are assuming that the goal of such campaigns is to 'improve animal welfare in farming'. While I'm not against some involvements in such campaigns, you are simply projecting what you want _as meat eater_ onto the goals of vegetarians and vegans. Many Veggies - at least vegans anyway - want an end to the killing of animals for human consumption, not to better regulate it. The sort of collective action I'm primarily interested in is the kind that promotes alternatives to relying on animal products. 

What you seem to be saying is that for us veggies/vegans to be effective we have to effectively shut up about what we believe in. That's not a good start for the sort of alliance you claim to be advocating.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

T & P said:


> Haven't watched it and cannot comment on it. But as far as the environmental cost is concerned, I long ago took the decision never to have children, partly because of the environmental cost to the planet, and I reckon that buys me a lifetime of meat consumption with a clear conscience.



I find that stance quite odd.  I don't want to criticise, just explore your choices...

Would it be more honest to say that you are not interested in having children.  Additionally you also enjoy meat, enjoy it enough to be unconcerned about the environmental impact of your diet, at least not enough to stop eating meat?

On a personal level regardless of other choices in my life I just wouldn't feel comfortable with eating meat - so I don't.  It's an absolute and as it's something I don't do.  It's no sacrifice.

In jest I have used a similar argument to yours to justify my decisions.  I recently splashed out on a big fuck off TV.  When being questioned on how this fits with in my lifestyle choices which are generally low carbon leaning (vege, rarely drive etc) I used the same argument.  The reality is that I wanted a big fuck off TV.


----------



## co-op (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I find that stance quite odd.  I don't want to criticise, just explore your choices...
> 
> Would it be more honest to say that you are not interested in having children.  Additionally you also enjoy meat, enjoy it enough to be unconcerned about the environmental impact of your diet, at least not enough to stop eating meat?
> 
> ...





Fair point this. I stopped flying years ago but then had to make an 'emergency' flight and God the whole experience is so shit from start to finish that now I hardly feel I can claim any credit for not flying, frankly I wouldn't unless I had to.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's also absolutely logically correct though.



No, not really.  I would say _both _individual and collective action is usually required for social change.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

thanks Jeff Robinson 
you are wasting your time and effort tho, sadly


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> thanks Jeff Robinson
> you are wasting your time and effort tho, sadly



Not at all.

Historically Jeff has been the ONLY vegetarian worth reading on these boards, though Fred seems also to be providing some level of debate, in contrast to the usual vacuousness delivered by yourself and other veggies on these threads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I Many Veggies - at least vegans anyway - want an end to the killing of animals for human consumption,


But this will never, ever happen. So let's aim for something achievable instead - the reduction of intensive farming methods, more humane farming practices, a reduction in the use of pesticides, embrace the idea of locally grown/reared food to reduce transport mileage etc etc


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I simply couldn't enjoy eating meat - especially in the knowledge that an average Westenor is responsible for the lives of around 200 animals a year.


Where does that stat come from?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Not all. C'est la vie.


History would seem to suggest otherwise.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> History would seem to suggest otherwise.


How far back you going with this?

Did prehistoric man eat intensely farmed processed meat then?


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Historically Jeff has been the ONLY vegetarian worth reading on these boards, though Fred seems also to be providing some level of debate, in contrast to the usual vacuousness delivered by yourself and other veggies on these threads.


What a really, really stupid and insulting remark.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> How far back you going with this?
> 
> Did prehistoric man eat intensely farmed processed meat then?


Yep, that's _exactly_ what I said.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep, that's _exactly_ what I said.


Be sure to elaborate on how far back you'd like to go here then, and be sure to make a meaningful comparison.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Be sure to elaborate on how far back you'd like to go here then, and be sure to make a meaningful comparison.


Are you honestly trying to deny that humankind has eaten meat since we first crawled out of the swamp


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

editor, you will be told and told and questioned and picked and demanded evidence of until you shut up or get fed up
it is how all these threads go these days


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> But this will never, ever happen. So let's aim for something achievable instead - the reduction of intensive farming methods, more humane farming practices, a reduction in the use of pesticides, embrace the idea of locally grown/reared food to reduce transport mileage etc etc



It will never, ever happen whilst we continue to accept the logic and inevitability of our current use of animals. We can as individuals reject that in the here in and now. We can also come together collectively to create alternatives. Our current practices are a choice we make as individuals and as a society, let us not pretend otherwise.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are you honestly trying to deny that humankind has eaten meat since we first crawled out of the swamp


I'm sorry to disappoint you here, but you are indeed Lord Wrong, ruler of Incorrectland. 



> *Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians*
> 
> Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Humans can get all the nutrition we need in a variety of ways, hence our success on every continent save antarctica. 

Problem is that you can't win the argument that meat is wrong. Too many people are just fine with eating meat. But imo an argument centred on welfare, environment and sustainability can gain plenty of traction. But to do that you need to stop telling meat eaters they are doing an evil thing.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).


Certainly most of the red meat you get in shops is not produced using intensive farming methods, poultry is another story and I would search out free range stuff.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It will never, ever happen whilst we continue to accept the logic and inevitability of our current use of animals. We can as individuals reject that in the here in and now. We can also come together collectively to create alternatives. Our current practices are a choice we make as individuals and as a society, let us not pretend otherwise.


But I don't see how or why we're suddenly going to change thousands of years of well, what humans do. Let's get rid of all the horrible farming practices first, then see where we might go after that.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> What a really, really stupid and insulting remark.



Didn't man to insult (well perhaps Draig) but it's true. 

These threads always go the same way. A few vegetarians bring up environmental impact and animal suffering, they're addressed by the meat eaters whom they largely ignore, moral high ground is sought by all, bunfight ensues, and Draig sits on the sidelines occasionally popping in to intimate that it's the meat eaters who are obviously in the wrong and debate is pointless.

JR engages in a polite and informed way that requires some thought to respond to.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> editor, you will be told and told and questioned and picked and demanded evidence of until you shut up or get fed up
> it is how all these threads go these days



See what I mean!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you here, but you are indeed Lord Wrong, ruler of Incorrectland.


Oh look, I can do a quick Google too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-discovery-ancient-childs-skull-proves.html


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Humans can get all the nutrition we need in a variety of ways, hence our success on every continent save antarctica.
> 
> Problem is that you can't win the argument that meat is wrong. Too many people are just fine with eating meat. But imo an argument centred on welfare, environment and sustainability can gain plenty of traction. But to do that you need to stop telling meat eaters they are doing an evil thing.


I'm not saying meat is wrong, but I will say that many of the intensive farming methods are wrong  (to my ethics, maybe not yours), and there's growing evidence that a meat heavy diet can lead to fairly catastrophic environmental and health problems.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

everything in moderation

especially anchovies


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh look, I can do a quick Google too:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-discovery-ancient-childs-skull-proves.html


Exactly how does that contradict the article I posted?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Or this maybe:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html#.U_M1WEtH1lI


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you here, but you are indeed Lord Wrong, ruler of Incorrectland.


This is bullshit. The inuit are proof of that. Total speculative bullshit. On my phone, but i've linked to decent science on this before. Humans have eaten meat for as long as humans have been around. And we are flexible. That is our evolutionary heritage.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Or this maybe:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html#.U_M1WEtH1lI


Except its opening paragraph contradicts your claims!



> *Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots* and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus _Homo_, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Didn't man to insult (well perhaps Draig) but it's true.
> 
> These threads always go the same way. A few vegetarians bring up environmental impact and animal suffering, they're addressed by the meat eaters whom they largely ignore, moral high ground is sought by all, bunfight ensues, and Draig sits on the sidelines occasionally popping in to intimate that it's the meat eaters who are obviously in the wrong and debate is pointless.
> 
> JR engages in a polite and informed way that requires some thought to respond to.


why do you want to insult me?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Except its opening paragraph contradicts your claims!


So, we're only trying to undo 2.5 million years then? Brilliant, we should have that cracked by teatime


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is bullshit. The inuit are proof of that. Total speculative bullshit. On my phone, but i've linked to decent science on this before. Humans have eaten meat for as long as humans have been around. And we are flexible. That is our evolutionary heritage.


Oh OK. You must know better than the professor emeritus at Cornell University, what with all your qualifications and shizzle. I'll look forward to your peer reviewed paper refuting his claims.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, we're only trying to undo 2.5 million years then? Brilliant, we should have that cracked by teatime


I think you've already forgotten what you posted. Weird.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

now now ed, argue in an acceptable way for meat eaters!


----------



## Supine (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Your life must be very difficult.



Lol,  it was just a bit too much on my wide  screen tv. I don't mind it in real life thank god!


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that you can't win the argument that meat is wrong. Too many people are just fine with eating meat. But imo an argument centred on welfare, environment and sustainability can gain plenty of traction.


I think too many people are fine with the poor welfare and environmental aspects, as well.
I think the majority of people don't really care, when it comes down to it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I think you've already forgotten what you posted. Weird.


What the fuck are you on about


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

How long have domesticated plant species been around I wonder?


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> Where does that stat come from?



If you are interested look it up!  There's a large degree of variance depending where you go.  Here's one that suggest the toll for an average British person is 11,000 animals in a lifetime

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why do you want to insult me?


probably because you post like a dickhead on these types of threads.
most people are having a normal conversation about stuff, with interesting points put in from both sides.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I think too many people are fine with the poor welfare and environmental aspects, as well.
> I think the majority of people don't really care, when it comes down to it.


Wonder if anyone has considered the existence of meat animals.
If we didn't eat meat, millions of cows, pigs, chickens etc would not exist at all.
Would it be better that they didn't exist than they exist in less than perfect conditions?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2014)

Eat meat YES!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> probably because you post like a dickhead on these types of threads.
> most people are having a normal conversation about stuff, with interesting points put in from both sides.


what have i posted that is so bad?
does anyone on the meat eating side post like a dickhead in your opinion?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Wonder if anyone has considered the existence of meat animals.
> If we didn't eat meat, millions of cows, pigs, chickens etc would not exist at all.
> Would it be better that they didn't exist than they exist in less than perfect conditions?


hear hear!!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

That isn't to say that animals shouldn't be kept in good circumstances, they should.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Wonder if anyone has considered the existence of meat animals.
> If we didn't eat meat, millions of cows, pigs, chickens etc would not exist at all.
> Would it be better that they didn't exist than they exist in less than perfect conditions?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What the fuck are you on about


Ed is proving that we haven't been eating meat since a genetic ancestor "crawled out of the swamp" - he took your post literally.
You are proving the our species has always eaten meat.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why do you want to insult me?



I find it hard not to sometimes. I don't think I've ever seen you argue your own position on this topic. Just sniping and riding the coat tails of other posters.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what have i posted that is so bad?
> does anyone on the meat eating side post like a dickhead in your opinion?


Sometimes, you get a someone posting about bacon and making jokes about vegans being unhealthy and weak. I don't really see much, if any thing like that on this thread.
your contributions have just been childish jibes.
There is a bit of a silly backandforth between Ed and Bees trying to out quote each other. 
But other than that vegetarians and meat eaters alike are mostly agreeing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

H





editor said:


> Oh OK. You must know better than the professor emeritus at Cornell University, what with all your qualifications and shizzle. I'll look forward to your peer reviewed paper refuting his claims.


Hmm. Appeal to authority after finding the first scientific opinion that you like and then simply deferring to it. The racists who wrote The Bell Curve were also professors. 

On my phone so cannot debunk bad science atm but i linked to some decent stuff last time we did this.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> How long have domesticated plant species been around I wonder?



Settled agriculture dates from the neolithic period - i.e. late stone age.  People were hunting and fishing for millennia before that, though.

I'm in agreement with beesonthewhatnow here.  People aren't just going to stop eating meat: it's far too culturally ingrained, animal welfare isn't enough of a priority, and frankly many people enjoy it too much.  Trying to stop people doing it altogether is pissing in the wind.  Encouraging people to eat less but better-quality meat and cut out the processed and factory-farmed stuff is much more realistic, and might actually deliver some real benefits.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I think too many people are fine with the poor welfare and environmental aspects, as well.
> I think the majority of people don't really care, when it comes down to it.


 

this is exactly it.  most people don't give a fuck.  half of meat eaters are hypocrites who don't care what happens to the animals as long as they don't have to see any suffering, and the other half get hard ons for animals being killed and fantasise about eating endangered species. fact.

fuck the lot of them.  and don't get me started on vegans


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I think too many people are fine with the poor welfare and environmental aspects, as well.
> I think the majority of people don't really care, when it comes down to it.


I don't think that's true and the rise of free range eggs shows that many people care at least a bit. Not strongky but at least a bit.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> H
> Hmm. Appeal to authority after finding the first scientific opinion that you like and then simply deferring to it. The racists who wrote The Bell Curve were also professors.
> 
> On my phone so cannot debunk bad science atm but i linked to some decent stuff last time we did this.


The idea of a retired professor makes me think of a dusty old man thats a bit confused, too


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Ed is proving that we haven't been eating meat since a genetic ancestor "crawled out of the swamp" - he took your post literally.
> You are proving the our species has always eaten meat.


I'd say the fact that _homo erectus_ (stop sniggering at the back), the first human ancestor to share what we consider our basic human physical attributes, ate meat kinda proves my point.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Settled agriculture dates from the neolithic period - i.e. late stone age.  People were hunting and fishing for millennia before that, though.
> 
> I'm in agreement with beesonthewhatnow here.  People aren't just going to stop eating meat: it's far too culturally ingrained, animal welfare isn't enough of a priority, and frankly many people enjoy it too much.  Trying to stop people doing it altogether is pissing in the wind.  Encouraging people to eat less but better-quality meat and cut out the processed and factory-farmed stuff is much more realistic, and might actually deliver some real benefits.



Yeah, sorry - was being facetious. Point being that if you're going to make an argument from ancestral diet it's probably worth noting that pretty much nothing we eat today would be in it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> People aren't just going to stop eating meat: it's far too culturally ingrained,


I'd say incisor teeth are somewhat more than merely "culture".


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think that's true and the rise of free range eggs shows that many people care at least a bit. Not strongky but at least a bit.


Some people care a bit. I'd agree.
A lot of people don't. 
A lot of people make empty token gestures (like me). I won't buy pork thats from a poor welfare environment, but I will eat a bacon butty from the greasyspoon over the road.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'd say incisor teeth are somewhat more than merely "culture".



Good point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Some people care a bit. I'd agree.
> A lot of people don't.
> A lot of people make empty token gestures (like me). I won't buy pork thats from a poor welfare environment, but I will eat a bacon butty from the greasyspoon over the road.


Yep. Similar to me.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Sometimes, you get a someone posting about bacon and making jokes about vegans being unhealthy and weak. I don't really see much, if any thing like that on this thread.
> your contributions have just been childish jibes.
> There is a bit of a silly backandforth between Ed and Bees trying to out quote each other.
> But other than that vegetarians and meat eaters alike are mostly agreeing.


what have i posted on this thread that is so bad?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you here, but you are indeed Lord Wrong, ruler of Incorrectland.


What do you think incisors are for, eating celery?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what have i posted on this thread that is so bad?


Oooh Mr editor toe the line or you will be attacked
Oooh theres no point discussing someone will call you a weakling veggy
etc

Infact, just scanning back, I don't think you've tried to add to any of the conversation with your posts. Just jibing away from the sides.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Oooh Mr editor toe the line or you will be attacked
> Oooh theres no point discussing someone will call you a weakling veggy
> etc
> 
> Infact, just scanning back, I don't think you've tried to add to any of the conversation with your posts. Just jibing away from the sides.


maybe because it has been done ad infinitum and is fucking tedious and boring?
plus you spy, bees and bj are all correct of course so there is absolutely no point
and that is ignoring the dickhead jonny v's of this world


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Some people care a bit. I'd agree.
> A lot of people don't.



And that's where the realistic environmental and animal welfare gains can be made; in seeking to change the outlooks of the latter. Telling people not to eat meat is futile. Suggesting that vegetarianism is a morally superior choice is not just bullshit, it's bullshit that'll achieve nothing but to piss people off.



> A lot of people make empty token gestures (like me). I won't buy pork thats from a poor welfare environment, but I will eat a bacon butty from the greasyspoon over the road.



That's not an empty gesture. It increases demand for high welfare meat. Buying the odd bacon sarnie from Sid's Spoon doesn't negate that.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what have i posted on this thread that is so bad?




This...Just coat-tailing and indulging your persecution complex...



ddraig said:


> editor, you will be told and told and questioned and picked and demanded evidence of until you shut up or get fed up
> it is how all these threads go these days



and this...



ddraig said:


> now now ed, argue in an acceptable way for meat eaters!


 What?

and this...



ddraig said:


> lol at thread, again


 - Not much of a contribution.



ddraig said:


> go on, make it so, it's itching to turn into the usual bullshit, started already, as ususal


 - Except it's you that ballses up these threads - Others try to have a debate, you just foam at the mouth and flap excitedly. Still it's fun to watch so crack on AFAIC 




ddraig said:


> ever so sorry boss!


 If only you meant it.

So, in answer to your question - Pretty much everything.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

As it happens I don't eat very much meat. I do like a steak every so often and eat pasta Bolognese with mince. It does concern me how much fat comes off processed meat when you cook it, I don't really want to be ingesting all that if I can help it. As part of a balanced diet I think meat has its place.

That said I do think animal welfare is important. Sure cows pigs chickens only exist because we eat them but that does not mean factory farming is right, massed chicken sheds are just wrong but equally you can't expect people to not buy chicken that is so much cheaper than free range. People do shop with value in mind.

Then there is the feeling I have that supermarket shoppers just don't register that beef is from cows, pork is from pigs. I think people have forgotten that meat comes from animals. Broadly speaking people live in cities these days and the number of people who have killed and prepared meat is smaller and smaller. To a certain extent I think people should only be allowed to eat meat that they have killed and prepared!


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> maybe because it has been done ad infinitum and is fucking tedious and boring?
> plus you spy, bees and bj are all correct of course so there is absolutely no point
> and that is ignoring the dickhead jonny v's of this world


My opinion on meat has changed a lot of the years. I am open to taking in info and forming new ideas.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> <snip> To a certain extent I think people should only be allowed to eat meat that they have killed and prepared!



That'd be fuckin _great._ I'd quite enjoy that I reckon.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:
			
		

> That'd be fuckin _great._ I'd quite enjoy that I reckon.





There's only one Frankie Lengel .... One Frankie Leeengel ......


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Fuck off frances, fuck right off


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's not an empty gesture. It increases demand for high welfare meat. Buying the odd bacon sarnie from Sid's Spoon doesn't negate that.


Its such a drop in the ocean. 
A pork roast once a month or two. A steak once a fortnight. 
Compared to the eggs in my tesco sandwich, the egg powder in all the groceries, the takeaway pizzas, kebabs, burgers, sausages, the meals out.
And the sad part is. It doesn't even bother me - I don't pay it a second thought.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> To a certain extent I think people should only be allowed to eat meat that they have killed and prepared!


a londoner hacking away at a cow with his penknife, then hanging it up in his studio flat for four weeks to age.
seems do able.

I've killed and prepared a good range of animals. Its a bit horrible tos tart with. But you get used to it. And now I think nothing of it.
All though, I can't be fucked with plucking a bird ever again. Its a right fuck on


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that you can't win the argument that meat is wrong. Too many people are just fine with eating meat. But imo an argument centred on welfare, environment and sustainability can gain plenty of traction. But to do that you need to stop telling meat eaters they are doing an evil thing.



The problem with most vegetarians and vegans ime is precisely the opposite. On the whole we are mealy mouthed and awkward about our ethical standpoint - we present our diets as mere personal preferences or lifestyle choices and maybe make secondary (much weaker imo) ethical points about diet and the environment. This is hardly surprising given how deeply embedded violence against animals and speciesism are in our culture, but in my experience people are actually very receptive to arguments for vegetarianism and veganism from an animal rights perspective, if they are presented in the right way. Veggies/Vegans imo need both to be tactical as well as not pussy-footing around their deeply held convictions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> That'd be fuckin _great._ I'd quite enjoy that I reckon.



I used to think along these lines, to the extent of doing it to show myself that I'm not a hypocrite. 

But I've changed my mind. We are a society. Everybody doesn't have to be able to do everthing.


----------



## mack (Aug 19, 2014)

I think if you stood outside McDonalds with a "pretty cow"  and educated the little nippers about where their happy meal starts from then they might not be so keen.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

It is the disconnect we have between shrink wrapped meat in the supermarket and actual live animals on a farm that bothers me.

It is why we don't buy sheep rather we buy mutton, we don't buy cow rather we buy beef, we don't buy pig rather we buy pork. All organised neatly to disconnect us from what is actually happening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is the disconnect we have between shrink wrapped meat in the supermarket and actual live animals on a farm that bothers me.
> 
> It is why we don't buy sheep rather we buy mutton, we don't buy cow rather we buy beef, we don't buy pig rather we buy pork. All organised neatly to disconnect us from what is actually happening.


Kind of. Product of 1066, that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

mack said:


> I think if you stood outside McDonalds with a "pretty cow"  and educated the little nippers about where their happy meal starts from then they might not be so keen.


I think we should all defer to the opinions of small children.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kind of. Product of 1066, that.


Yes, I am aware the names didn't come out of some Machiavellian meat marketing board tactic. In fact I think we have discussed it on here before. Still the disconnect happens, at least I would argue it does.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Compared to the eggs in my tesco sandwich, the egg powder in all the groceries, the takeaway pizzas, kebabs, burgers, sausages, the meals out.



Well if you eat a lot of that shit then you may have a point! 

I don't find it particularly difficult to find well sourced burgers when I'm out and about and I generally only eat kebabs when I'm pissed. I will look for organic and 'ethically reared' options in restaurants, though granted, it's not always easy. Decent sausages are easy to find.

As I said I'm not overly concerned about the eggs in other products but thinking about it we don't buy that much processed stuff.

The point is that people pick a point at which they feel comfortable. If that point can be encouraged gradually to the 'greener' side then welfare and environmental improvements will follow. Those trying to stop people eating meat or using animal products altogether are on a hiding to nothing, and those playing the morality card are just uppish wankers.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson  The reason why vegetarians tend towards being mealy mouthed about it is because when you say, actually, i think it's wrong to cause suffering to animals simply for our own pleasure and i think that people who do so are lacking some sort of basic morality, like psychopaths or Tories...

well, that causes offence, doesn't it.  meat eaters are generally very pleased with being meat eaters and think they;'re really big and clever every time they fire up a barbeque.  and most of us have friends who are meat eaters.  so you learn not to bother banging on about it, cos the meat eaters get all offended or they start getting angry with you or throwing meat at you.  if you cut off all ties with people who you like apart from the fact that they're sadistic towards animals you end up in those weird vegan only cults and that's even more unhealthy than putting up with your mates sick eating habits 

so in the end you keep schtum about it, except on the internet, of course, which is made for arguments.  and don't get me started on when someone you don't know finds out you don't eat meat.  fucking hell, you might as well admit to being a child molester or a nazi re-enactor.  they take it as a challenge to try and prove that animals are meant for eating. 

the three stages of meat-twat arguing at vegetarians.  my apologies to those who have made these arguments already on this thread, but they're stupid and you know it.

1. human beings have always eaten meat.

response:  fuck off, dickhead.  that's too stupid to even argue with.

2. but what would happen to all the cows?

response: fuck off dickhead, that's too stupid even to argue with.

3. but if we weren;'t supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat.

response: fuck off dickhead, that's from the simpsons and it was used ironically to demonstrate the poor quality debating skills of homer simpson if you don't know how stupid that is, you probably shoulndn't be allowed to make your own decisions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I am aware the names didn't come out of some Machiavellian meat marketing board tactic. In fact I think we have discussed it on here before. Still the disconnect happens, at least I would argue it does.


Yes. I agree that it makes a contribution to that disconnect.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

[QUOTE="weltweit, post: 13345189, member: 32888"... Sure cows pigs chickens only exist because we eat them but that does not mean factory farming is right, massed chicken sheds are just wrong but equally you can't expect people to not buy chicken that is so much cheaper than free range. People do shop with value in mind..[/QUOTE]

I object to this stance - but accept it's down to my personal beliefs regarding the sentience of animals.  I think low welfare meat it absolutely unnecessary, shows no compassion, and it is ultimately disrespectful to use affordability as a justification for low animal welfare.

If cheap meat was necessary for a healthy life I'd be more accepting, however the output of factory farming is generally processed meat, which as we have seen is probably detrimental to health.  For some cost can always be used as a justification for cruel treatment of animals - if find this objectionable.

I do appreciate that this point of view is crossing the line for some and moving into hectoring and preaching.  However animals are powerless to change things.  Humans have the capacity to stop a huge amount of unnecessary suffering by raising minimum levels of animal welfare.

Environmental impact is another issue.  As far as I understand low welfare is often equates to low emissions.  Battery chicken is one of the most efficient forms of using animals to provide nutrition.  Personally I think the only solution is to eat higher welfare meat less often - or if people choose not to eat meat at all.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah, I don't go around calling people I see eating steaks 'murderers' and so forth because obviously that would be counter-productive. However, if I'm at a restaurant or a dinner party or a wedding or a bbq or whatever and people notice I am eating vegan they often ask me why. At that point I explain my reasoning and don't hide behind relativist arguments or whatnot for fear of offending - they asked after all! I often hear the extremely weak arguments for meat eating that you listed, but they obviously don't withstand scrutiny. In the end most people I talk with concede that they can't justify meat eating and would like to stop, but lack the will or the discipline or something like that. Veggies and Vegans must stop hiding our views imo - especially when we're asked about them!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I object to this stance - but accept it's down to my personal beliefs regarding the sentience of animals.  I think low welfare meat it absolutely unnecessary, shows no compassion, and it is ultimately disrespectful to use affordability as a justification for low animal welfare.


But there have been experiments to try to get people to pay for more expensive and ethically reared meats and people in the main revert to buying cheaply. I am not saying it is right but people are used to looking for value when they shop and the disconnect between animal welfare and value in the shops is real. It would be best if all meat was ethically raised.



fredfelt said:


> If cheap meat was necessary for a healthy life I'd be more accepting, however the output of factory farming is generally processed meat, which as we have seen is probably detrimental to health.  For some cost can always be used as a justification for cruel treatment of animals - if find this objectionable.


It is objectionable. But it is a mass movement I am afraid.



fredfelt said:


> I do appreciate that this point of view is crossing the line for some and moving into hectoring and preaching.  However animals are powerless to change things.  Humans have the capacity to stop a huge amount of unnecessary suffering by raising minimum levels of animal welfare.


What particular animal welfare issues are you concerned about?
For me, battery/factory chicken is wrong, crated veal, lamb ..



fredfelt said:


> Environmental impact is another issue.  As far as I understand low welfare is often equates to low emissions.  Battery chicken is one of the most efficient forms of using animals to provide nutrition.  Personally I think the only solution is to eat higher welfare meat less often - or if people choose not to eat meat at all.


But how would you go about persuading people who are used to eating meat a few times a week?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

life's too short i guess, jeff.  maybe you move in more civilised circles than me, but i got sick of it the arguments, and of presenting myself as a sanctimonious joyless moral puritan.

these days i don't do drugs, so the only pleasure i get is in being morally superior to other people, hence half-heartedly joining in this thread.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is the disconnect we have between shrink wrapped meat in the supermarket and actual live animals on a farm that bothers me.
> 
> It is why *we don't buy sheep rather we buy mutton*, we don't buy cow rather we buy beef, we don't buy pig rather we buy pork. All organised neatly to disconnect us from what is actually happening.



But we don't buy mutton, we buy lamb.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Fuck off frances, fuck right off



Good point well made, thraigo - Another sterling contribution to the thread. Keep up the good work


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> But we don't buy mutton, we buy lamb.




Indeed. And oddly we use the anglosaxon chicken for animal and meat even though there's a posh french word poultry for the meat.

I agree with ww that there's a disconnect between the meat and how it is produced. This is a recent yhing though, a product of industrialisation.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you think incisors are for, eating celery?


Logic fail.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> this is exactly it.  most people don't give a fuck.  half of meat eaters are hypocrites who don't care what happens to the animals as long as they don't have to see any suffering, and the other half get hard ons for animals being killed and fantasise about eating endangered species. fact.
> 
> fuck the lot of them.  and don't get me started on vegans


Well according to most veggies meat is got from animals that are kept in cages and force fed, after being separated from mummy and daddy, despite this they will eat food containing animal byproducts and wear leather, at least vegans are ethically consistent.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well according to most veggies meat is got from animals that are kept in cages and force fed, after being separated from mummy and daddy, despite this they will eat food containing animal byproducts and wear leather, at least vegans are ethically consistent.


I've never striven for 'ethical consistency' but I think people can - and have - made a difference by voting with their wallets/getting involved in campaigns when it comes to the ethics of the meat/animal industry.

The campaign against animal testing is a good example of that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

There is an argument that to eat cheese but not veal is ethically less sound than eating both.

But all farmers kill animals that eat crops such as rabbits. And take up land that animals would otherwise inhabit. The moral lines on this are fuzzy for all of us, vegans included.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Logic fail.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html



What part of that are you suggesting bolsters your position?

That humans have only been eating meat for 2.5 million years?


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What part of that are you suggesting bolsters your position?
> 
> That humans have only been eating meat for 2.5 million years?


The bit where it was claimed that humans ate meat from the second they 'crawled out of the swamp.' HTH.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> E
> Do you use recreational drugs?
> 
> If so you're doing far more social and environmental damage consuming coke and imported weed than those who like the odd well-sourced steak.


 can you explain the environmental damage of imported weed?  

And of course that's true, it's not the odd well-sourced steak that's the problem, it's the intensive factory farming where most of our meat is produced.


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> [
> 
> I object to this stance - but accept it's down to my personal beliefs regarding the sentience of animals.  I think low welfare meat it absolutely unnecessary, shows no compassion, and it is ultimately disrespectful to use affordability as a justification for low animal welfare.
> 
> ...


completely agree with you.  Intensive and factory farming is disgusting, morally and ethically*.  Having seen it once I am very careful about what I eat now- but I do still eat meat. And drink milk.   Organic, free range, etc, but I still eat it.  Everyone has their own ethical code, I guess

*and probably a false economy- the amount of problems caused by animals being fed mashed up bits of other animals or inbreeding or over treatment with growth hormones or antibiotics must reach a tipping point where even those who don't feel revulsion feel it no longer makes sense, i'd have thought

edited to correct quoting fuck up


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> The bit where it was claimed that humans ate meat from the second they 'crawled out of the swamp.' HTH.



Well given that modern humans have been on the planet for around 200,000 years and the article that you've linked to suggests that our ancestors were butchering meat 2.5 million years ago, I'd say you've proved his point for him, no?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Good point well made, thraigo - Another sterling contribution to the thread. Keep up the good work


these threads have been going on since before you were here and attached to spy's coat tails permanently
i've made my arguments, they will never be good enough for the chest beating meat eaters of urban

and after being somewhere last night where no food was involved and i did not mention being vegi to be questioned on it and hear their excuses and how they only eat this meat or that thing rarely etc for the 20 thousandth time after someone else mentioned it, i am just fed up with it


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well given that modern humans have been on the planet for around 200,000 years and the article that you've linked to suggests that our ancestors were butchering meat 2.5 million years ago, I'd say you've proved his point for him, no?


Ah, so it was "modern humans" who crawled out of the swamp then, yes?

Want to try again?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Maggot said:


> can you explain the environmental damage of imported weed?



Transporting it. But we're considering social impact too aren't we?



> And of course that's true, it's not the odd well-sourced steak that's the problem, it's the intensive factory farming where most of our meat is produced.



No argument from me on that.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, so it was "modern humans" who crawled out of the swamp then, yes?
> 
> Want to try again?



Cor blimey talk about a back-pedal!!!

LOLOL! 

Yeah ok, you win, "humans" have only been eating meat for *2.5 MILLION YEARS!
*
Well done!


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Cor blimey talk about a back-pedal!!!
> 
> LOLOL!
> 
> ...


All of them? really?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> All of them? really?



Do you really want to do this?

It might be fun to debate the possibilities of vegetarianism in Homo Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal communities but I'll leave the research to you! 

Probably better just to accept that you blew your foot off with that link.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Do you really want to do this?
> 
> It might be fun to debate the possibilities of vegetarianism in Homo Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal communities but I'll leave the research to you!
> 
> Probably better just to accept that you blew your foot off with that link.


My response to the original claim was completely correct and accurate. Now please shut the fuck up with your weird ranting because it's not making any kind of sense even when you employ capitals and *BOLD WORDS*. Thanks.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, that causes offence, doesn't it.  meat eaters are generally very pleased with being meat eaters and think they;'re really big and clever every time they fire up a barbeque.  and most of us have friends who are meat eaters.  so you learn not to bother banging on about it, cos the meat eaters get all offended or they start getting angry with you or throwing meat at you.  if you cut off all ties with people who you like apart from the fact that they're sadistic towards animals you end up in those weird vegan only cults and that's even more unhealthy than putting up with your mates sick eating habits



I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but if not that's OTT.  I don't think people are generally pleased with being meat-eaters; they just are.  Let's face it, for most of western society - and non-western, for that matter - it's the default option, and a lot of people don't even think about it, still less think they're being 'big and clever' every time they fire up the barbecue or put some sausages under the grill.  That's what you're up against; not hordes of fanatical flesh-addicts, but an overwhelming bulk of people who in many cases won't even have considered whether eating meat is a good thing to do or not.  Problem is, if you try and change that by suggesting people's eating habits are 'sick' or accusing them of being 'sadistic towards animals,' they're very unlikely to change their minds and very likely to call you a self-righteous dick.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> If you are interested look it up!  There's a large degree of variance depending where you go.  Here's one that suggest the toll for an average British person is 11,000 animals in a lifetime
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment



So shellfish is an animal now? Quoting this bullshit does nobody any good in a debate like this.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> My response to the original claim was completely correct and accurate.



Humans never "crawled out of the swamp", but as you know that was a figure of speech by which he meant "for a fucking, fucking, long time"!

So in what way was your response "completely correct" given that you linked to an article confirming that even Homo ergaster was butchering meat 2.5 million years ago????



> Now please shut the fuck up with your weird ranting because it's not making any kind of sense even when you employ capitals and *BOLD WORDS*. Thanks.



By "weird ranting" I take it you mean my calmly pointing out that you're posting arrant nonsense?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> So shellfish is an animal now? Quoting this bullshit does nobody any good in a debate like this.


 
shellfish have always been animals.  according to science, that is.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But all farmers kill animals that eat crops such as rabbits. And take up land that animals would otherwise inhabit. The moral lines on this are fuzzy for all of us, vegans included.



Silly argument. Vegans are not opposed to all animal deaths, merely deaths that are unnecessary. Killing animals to defend your crops may be legitimate (important qualifier - only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so). Similarly, killing animals as an unintended side effect of cultivating land may also be justified (with the same proviso). At any rate, given that the meat industry requires the cultivation of crops to use as animal feed, ending the meat industry would also result in the reduction of 'collateral' deaths of animals stemming from agriculture (as a side note, I'm a big fan of urban food growing - something which I think could mitigate these problems if there was a bigger uptake of it).

Furthermore, even if there are fuzzy moral boundaries here these should not be used disingenuously to distract from the core issues at stake i.e. the killing of tens of millions of animals for food etc in the UK every year and whether that is justified. For example, I could point out that we are all in someway implicated in killing humans because we pay taxes that have been used to fight wars. If I used this fact to question whether the prohibition against murder was sound I would correctly be dismissed for being facetious.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

Whether or not humans have been eating meat for 2 million years or 2 days tells us nothing about whether we should continue to do so in the present day.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Whether or not humans have been eating meat for 2 million years or 2 days tells us nothing about whether we should continue to do so in the present day.



That's neither here nor there.

Editor has been trying to argue that humans are natural vegetarians against beesonthewhatnow 's assertion that we've been eating meat "since we crawled out of the swamp", figuratively speaking.

Editor linked to a National Geographic article which actually supported Bees' position, not his, then furiously tried to back-pedal when I pointed that out!

You can argue the "is-ought problem" with them but the fact remains that Bees was right and Ed was wrong.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Whether or not humans have been eating meat for 2 million years or 2 days tells us nothing about whether we should continue to do so in the present day.


It does however somewhat skewer the arguments against it that so often appear that run along the lines of "it's bad for you" and "unnatural"  etc.

So, it just leaves the ethical arguments. And I have no problem whatsoever eating animals. I do have issues with the industry that has grown around it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's neither here nor there.
> 
> Editor has been trying to argue that humans are natural vegetarians against beesonthewhatnow 's assertion that we've been eating meat "since we crawled out of the swamp", figuratively speaking.
> 
> ...



I wasn't taking a position on who was right or wrong, merely pointing out that it doesn't matter one bit.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I wasn't taking a position on who was right or wrong, merely pointing out that it doesn't matter one bit.



And I'm not currently taking a position on whether or not it matters, merely pointing out that Bees was right and Editor wrong.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It does however somewhat skewer the arguments against it that so often appear that run along the lines of "it's bad for you" and "unnatural"  etc.
> 
> So, it just leaves the ethical arguments. And I have no problem whatsoever eating animals. I do have issues with the industry that has grown around it.



I'm sorry you have said



> Birds eat insects. Sharks eat seals. Cats eat mice. Lions eat wildebeest. Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.



and



> But I don't see how or why we're suddenly going to change thousands of years of well, what humans do.



Hence you were implying that meat eating is 'natural' and therefore 'ethical'.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hence you were implying that meat eating is 'natural' and therefore 'ethical'.



Depends on how you want to define "natural" and argue the ethics but those are your words not his. At that point I don't think he'd mentioned either.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 19, 2014)

Pre- modern industrialised society, not eating meat would be to cut yourself off from an excellent source of protein - as well as very useful stuff like bone, furs and skins.  Furthermore, animal husbandry and agriculture are intertwined and evolved over thousands of years in a symbiotic relationship (you have some land - introduce sheep or goats to eat the grass, then introduce pigs who dig up and eat all the roots, then introduce chickens who eat up the seeds - you now have a patch of well dug over, weed free soil, well fertilised with animal dung  and perfect for crops - rotate and rinse and repeat). 

The problem is we have a  global population of 6 billion, genetically programmed to like fatty protein, with a predominantly meat eating culture (where it is widely and historically associated with being strength giving and denoting social status) being served by  a vast, hyper-industrialised, cruel, unhealthy, environmentally toxic but ultimately unsustainable meat production process. 

Calling meat eaters 'sadists' or 'murderers' or 'psychopaths' will get nowhere. The focus needs to be on promoting sustainable, less industrialised, more localised food production. But it also needs to make economic sense - most people will not - and cant afford to shell out for ethically sourced  meat which costs three times its equivalent in Morrisons.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Depends on how you want to define "natural" and argue the ethics but those are your words not his. At that point I don't think he'd mentioned either.



Fair point, but he was sailing close enough to the naturalistic fallacy for my liking. I think its wrong and self-defeating when veggies/vegans do it as well.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm sorry you have said
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, let me put it this way: I believe that eating meat is a perfectly natural, normal, healthy thing that humans have evolved to do. As such I have no ethical problem with it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Calling meat eaters 'sadists' or 'murderers' or 'psychopaths' will get nowhere.



I agree but really who on earth does this? Seems like a bit of a straw man.



Kaka Tim said:


> The focus needs to be on promoting sustainable, less industrialised, more localised food production. But it also needs to make economic sense - most people will not - and cant afford to shell out for ethically sourced  meat which costs three times its equivalent in Morrisons.



A focus needs to be on that sure, but not _the _focus_. _The environmental ethic is distinct from (albeit connected to) the animal protection/rights ethic. Its not either/or.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yep, just checking. Sorry, shit question really.
> 
> I do eat meat but have cut down an enormous amount of late, so much nice veggie food to cook.


Sorry if this has already been covered but Organic dairy doesn't necessarily mean that the cows have been well treated. 
I think it only means that they have been fed organic feed and not given vaccinations etc. 
I think. 

It's really difficult to find milk, in a city, when your skint, where you know the cow it came from is well treated.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> OK, let me put it this way: I believe that eating meat is a perfectly natural, normal, healthy thing that humans have evolved to do. As such I have no ethical problem with it.



I'm sorry but that won't do! Go read the wiki link


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Yes, of course you should eat meat.





Johnny Vodka said:


> Because it's delicious and humans have always eaten meat.
> 
> I don't eat meat all the time btw (and I include fish as meat); I try to keep it to 4x a week.  However, a life without a bloody steak, lamb chops or chicken with crispy skin doesn't seem like a good life.





Johnny Vodka said:


> Did you think I was going to come round your house and force feed you half a cow?





T & P said:


> I hope chorizo doesn't count as processed meat





ShiftyBagLady said:


> The changes in the gut they expected to detect (through a fecal test) weren't as they expected and they attributed that to the high vegetable content of his diet. So. Eat some lettuce and tomato with your bacon





Cid said:


> Do you still eat non-organic dairy?





beesonthewhatnow said:


> tbh a pig could stand in front of me and deliver an impassioned speech on the joys of vegetarianism and I'd still eat it.
> 
> Birds eat insects. Sharks eat seals. Cats eat mice. Lions eat wildebeest. Humans eat meat. C'est la vie.





Manter said:


> I really wouldn't bother. I think this is a 'vegetarians are better than meat eaters' thread.





Spymaster said:


> It hasn't. Draig's being a touchy fucker, as _ususal_!





Spymaster said:


> Your life must be very difficult.





Spymaster said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Historically Jeff has been the ONLY vegetarian worth reading on these boards, though Fred seems also to be providing some level of debate, in contrast to the usual vacuousness delivered by yourself and other veggies on these threads.





littlebabyjesus said:


> Humans can get all the nutrition we need in a variety of ways, hence our success on every continent save antarctica.
> 
> Problem is that you can't win the argument that meat is wrong. Too many people are just fine with eating meat. But imo an argument centred on welfare, environment and sustainability can gain plenty of traction. But to do that you need to stop telling meat eaters they are doing an evil thing.





littlebabyjesus said:


> This is bullshit. The inuit are proof of that. Total speculative bullshit. On my phone, but i've linked to decent science on this before. Humans have eaten meat for as long as humans have been around. And we are flexible. That is our evolutionary heritage.





TopCat said:


> Eat meat YES!





littlebabyjesus said:


> I think we should all defer to the opinions of small children.





littlebabyjesus said:


> There is an argument that to eat cheese but not veal is ethically less sound than eating both.
> 
> But all farmers kill animals that eat crops such as rabbits. And take up land that animals would otherwise inhabit. The moral lines on this are fuzzy for all of us, vegans included.





Mr Retro said:


> So shellfish is an animal now? Quoting this bullshit does nobody any good in a debate like this.


And some more of bj's waffly posts couldn't be bothered with


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> And some more of bj's waffly posts couldn't be bothered with



Surprised you bothered at all for all the sense it made.

Response: Wibble.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

meat-twat argument number 4: veggie-sanctimony!  self-righteousness!  oh noes! 

this argument normally comes after you've kept quiet in the debate or refused to explain your moral decisions.  after insisting that you explain why you don't eat meat, the meat-twat will attempt to portray you as some sort of taliban, one step away from shooting schoolgirls.*

response:  fuck off, dickhead.

*e2a:  remember, your morality is dangerous extremism.  their morality is, naturally, infallible.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm sorry but that won't do! Go read the wiki link


Except, errr, it works perfectly for me. I am happy to eat meat. I am perfectly happy to kill and prepare an animal for eating and have done so. If my long term dream of ending up in the countryside ever comes off I plan to keep a bird of prey and regularly hunt for the purpose of acquiring food for my table. My conscience is and will be clear.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> And some more of bj's waffly posts couldn't be bothered with


 
and i'm the only non-meat eater on this thread even remotely approaching being rude!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> and i'm the only non-meat eater on this thread even remotely approaching being rude!



Aye, but nobody's taking you seriously. 

Draigo quoting that lot says more about him than those he's quoted!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

I'm the easier target tho
They love it
E2a to JTG


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Aye, but nobody's taking you seriously.
> 
> Draigo quoting that lot says more about him than those he's quoted!


Can u stop pissing with my username please cunty


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

do you get to decide if your own conscience is clear?  if so, what's the point of having a conscience?  after all, almost no-one deliverately does stuff they think is wrong unless they believe themselves to have no choice.  using your own conscience as a judge is kind of pointless, because you're always going to find yourself innocent.  you should throw yourself before a jury of your peers, bees!

oh wait, isn;'t that what we''re doing?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> I'm the easier target tho



((((draig))))

You make yourself a bigger target by being a bigger dick!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Except, errr, it works perfectly for me. I am happy to eat meat. I am perfectly happy to kill and prepare an animal for eating and have done so. If my long term dream of ending up in the countryside ever comes off I plan to keep a bird of prey and regularly hunt for the purpose of acquiring food for my table. My conscience is and will be clear.



No it doesn't, it shows that your reasoning is based on a logical fallacy, i.e. you are using facts about the way the world is (we eat meat [x]) to argue about how the world _ought_ to be (we should or are permitted to eat meat [y] *). *Yet [x] does not automatically generate [y]. See for comparison: racism is widespread [x] therefore racism should be widespread [y]. You need additional arguments beyond meat eating being 'natural'.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> do you get to decide if your own conscience is clear?


I do, yes. An advantage of genuinely not really giving a fuck what others think about me 

I have my own moral compass. Shaped by external factors and people undoubtably but ultimately defined by me. As long as I get to the end of my days on earth without having deviated from it too much I'll be happy.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> do you get to decide if your own conscience is clear?  if so, what's the point of having a conscience?  after all, almost no-one deliverately does stuff they think is wrong unless they believe themselves to have no choice.  using your own conscience as a judge is kind of pointless, because you're always going to find yourself innocent.  you should throw yourself before a jury of your peers, bees!
> 
> oh wait, isn;'t that what we''re doing?



What objective standard do you base your moral decisions on then ?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You need additional arguments beyond meat eating being 'natural'


No, I don't. Unless "and it tastes fucking great" is acceptable?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> What objective standard do you base your moral decisions on then ?


 
elahrairah's big book of right and wrong.  you'd better be sure to have lived according to it, or you're going to be in trouble come the second wave of post-revolutionary purges.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I don't. Unless "and it tastes fucking great" is acceptable?


Must be if you say it is


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I don't. Unless "and it tastes fucking great" is acceptable?



So far that's all you've got, because your point about it being 'natural' carries no moral salience. And 'it tastes fucking great' isn't a very good stand alone argument. You can think of your own counter-examples.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

things that bring you pleasure are always good.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So far that's all you've got, because your point about it being 'natural' carries no moral salience. And 'it tastes fucking great' isn't a very good stand alone argument. You can think of your own counter-examples.


Well, what more do I/should I need? Let's take the example of me going off to live in the countryside  - I raise a pig, keep it well fed in suitable conditions etc. When the time comes it becomes bacon. This process has harmed nobody. Unless you equate a pigs life with that of a human. And I don't.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

And what you says goes!
No one has equated the life of an animal with a human so you can stop that shit


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> No one has equated the life of an animal with a human


I didn't say they had you hysterical tit, I was stating my position.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

so what you're saying is that you can only cause harm to a human?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> so what you're saying is that you can only cause harm to a human?


No, of course not. Do I support hunting a fox for the sole purpose of entertaining a few people on horseback? No. Do I support the hunting of game that will be eaten? Yes.

etc. etc.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to eat animals but not cause them unnecessary suffering, neglect or pain. That clear enough?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

but you said the process of raising and slaughtering a pigs harms no-one.

how do you slaughter a pig without harming it?

do you wait for it to die of natural causes?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I didn't say they had you hysterical tit, I was stating my position.


Stop projecting dear
Just get on with your normal righteous life, no need to defend or explain your reasons is there now. You are correct and others are wrong.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

oh, i see.  necessary suffering is ok.  where necessary is definited as "something that brings me pleasure"


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I believe it is perfectly acceptable to eat animals but not cause them unnecessary suffering, neglect or pain. That clear enough?


But seeing as it's not technically necessary to eat them and they must have some pain from death then you are causing unnecessary suffering. Just that your wants come above that, pretty straightforward


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

actually, because i've got to leave now and i can't pick this thread up until tomorrow, i will say that actually, apart from the bit where you kill the beloved family pet, i am less opposed to bees' ideas than i am to the capitalist-industrial model of animal farming.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Me too


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> That'd be fuckin _great._ I'd quite enjoy that I reckon.





joustmaster said:


> I've killed and prepared a good range of animals. Its a bit horrible tos tart with. But you get used to it. And now I think nothing of it.
> All though, I can't be fucked with plucking a bird ever again. Its a right fuck on



I'd have no problem with this. I've killed and eaten rabbit, pheasant, duck, pigeon and all manner of fish. It's a messy job but it does make you appreciate/respect the animal a bit more than if you bought it from Tesco.

I hate the idea of intensively farmed meat. I don't buy it, which means I eat less meat but about twice a week I eat locally farmed, really nice, 21 day dry-aged steak. It's wonderful!

I think I'd rather not eat meat than than knowingly eat intensively farmed meat... Unless of course it's bacon, then I couldn't give a rat's arse where it comes from.

E2A... Joustmaster, if you coat the bird in mud, and roast it in the embers of a fire, the feathers fall out as you peel the mud off it.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> but you said the process of raising and slaughtering a pigs harms no-one.
> 
> how do you slaughter a pig without harming it?



"No one" is generally accepted to refer to 'no human'.

Do you consider a pig to be 'someone'?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

We've done this slow cunt


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> shellfish have always been animals.  according to science, that is.


But it doesn't help the vegetarian argument to say that somebody who eats a couple of dozen mussels is responsible for the deaths of 24 animals. It dilutes the argument and makes it weak and makes the person claiming it look ridiculous. 

I see also ddraig (who must have serious time on his hands) has lumped what I said in with the other quotes apparently showing I'm overly for meat eating. Which isn't the case. Arguing like that is senseless. It makes no point.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> But seeing as it's not technically necessary to eat them and they must have some pain from death then you are causing unnecessary suffering. Just that your wants come above that, pretty straightforward



Absolutely. 

Most people exploit animals in one way or another, be that for transport, clothing, food, medical or cosmetic experimentation, or for company/interest. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Must be if you say it is



Of course it is with reference to the way he's comfortable living his own life. Whose say so is it otherwise, yours?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Most people exploit animals in one way or another, be that for transport, clothing, food, medical or cosmetic experimentation, or for company/interest. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.


 nice try sunshine!
Fuck off with the hypocrisy hunting.
There is a world of difference between the things you've tried to relate


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it is with reference to the way he's comfortable living his own life. Whose say so is it otherwise, yours?


Of course not
Why don't you eat dog or cat spy?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> We've done this slow cunt



Not in any coherent way. But that's probably because it was you who responded!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Of course not
> Why don't you eat dog or cat spy?



I have eaten dog, and I'd give cat a go if it were readily available.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Why isn't it readily available?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> But it doesn't help the vegetarian argument to say that somebody who eats a couple of dozen mussels is responsible for the deaths of 24 animals. It dilutes the argument and makes it weak and makes the person claiming it look ridiculous.
> 
> I see also ddraig (who must have serious time on his hands) has lumped what I said in with the other quotes apparently showing I'm overly for meat eating. Which isn't the case. Arguing like that is senseless. It makes no point.


Have you not seen the multi quote option? Took 2 mins, just a few clicks really


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Why isn't it readily available?


Because most cat owners would probably object to their kitty ending up in a curry.

((((dderail)))))


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Why isn't it readily available?



Broadly speaking, in the west we don't regularly eat carnivores, but more specifically because of illogically sentimental attitudes to animals that are also kept as pets.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Broadly speaking, in the west we don't regularly eat carnivores, but more specifically because of illogically sentimental attitudes to animals that are also kept as pets.


Who is this "we in the west" you speak of?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Who is this "we in the west" you speak of?



"We" is "us meat eaters", but you knew that didn't you, slow cunt.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2014)

Personally I base my dietary habits on a combination of encephalization quotient, problem solving ability, availability of controlled slaughter methods and predictability of impact on wider ecosystems.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson makes a lot of sense. I reckon there would be a lot more vegetarians if the likes of ddraig didn't put himself forward as a self-appointed spokesperson for them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Broadly speaking, in the west we don't regularly eat carnivores, but more specifically because of illogically sentimental attitudes to animals that are also kept as pets.


None of our positions is logical. Logic does not produce morality. Emotion does, and emotion is informed by many things.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 19, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> So shellfish is an animal now? Quoting this bullshit does nobody any good in a debate like this.



Like I said.  If you are interested look it up yourself. 

I also did not quote, or claim to quote anything from that link I provided.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Jeff Robinson makes a lot of sense. I reckon there would be a lot more vegetarians if the likes of ddraig didn't put himself forward as a self-appointed spokesperson for them.


I don't and you can fuck off with your homer Bacon crap


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Jeff Robinson makes a lot of sense. I reckon there would be a lot more vegetarians if the likes of ddraig didn't put himself forward as a self-appointed spokesperson for them.



Like any group of folk there's a broad range of veggies.

You've got the thoughtful types like JR at one end, the benighted, spittle-flecked, peanuts like Draig at the other, and everything in between.

C'est la vie!


----------



## xenon (Aug 19, 2014)

mack said:


> I think if you stood outside McDonalds with a "pretty cow"  and educated the little nippers about where their happy meal starts from then they might not be so keen.



You say that but at school we went to visit Godstone farm. Saw cows, pigs etc. Allbeit I went to McDonalds about twice before age 16, I still ate meat. My sister was a vedgeterian for years though. Has gone back to eating some meat for health reasons.

I'll try and buy from the local butcher. Mainly because I hate going into the local supermarket, it makes me want to go postal. And the stuff from the butcher is better quality.

I don't eat meat necessarily every day. Certainly not for every meal.





el-ahrairah said:


> Jeff Robinson  The reason why vegetarians tend towards being mealy mouthed about it is because when you say, actually, i think it's wrong to cause suffering to animals simply for our own pleasure and i think that people who do so are lacking some sort of basic morality, like psychopaths or Tories...
> 
> well, that causes offence, doesn't it.  meat eaters are generally very pleased with being meat eaters and think they;'re really big and clever every time they fire up a barbeque.  and most of us have friends who are meat eaters.  so you learn not to bother banging on about it, cos the meat eaters get all offended or they start getting angry with you or throwing meat at you.  if you cut off all ties with people who you like apart from the fact that they're sadistic towards animals you end up in those weird vegan only cults and that's even more unhealthy than putting up with your mates sick eating habits
> 
> ...



Yeah all meat eaters are exactly like that. You tit.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 19, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> Like I said.  If you are interested look it up yourself.
> 
> I also did not quote, or claim to quote anything from that link I provided.


↑
You said: 
"- especially in the knowledge that an average Westenor is responsible for the lives of around 200 animals a year"

Am I missing something??


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> *these threads have been going on since before you were here and attached to spy's coat tails permanently*
> i've made my arguments, they will never be good enough for the chest beating meat eaters of urban


The highlighted bit's just childish. The second sentence is equally silly though - "Chest beating" What? You seem to equate eating meat with some sort of weird machismo type thing. That's not how I roll, I can assure you.



ddraig said:


> and after being somewhere last night where no food was involved and i did not mention being vegi to be questioned on it *and hear their excuses and how they only eat this meat or that thing rarely* etc for the 20 thousandth time after someone else mentioned it, i am just fed up with it



Why do you assume meat eaters need to make excuses? I'm quite happy to eat intensively farmed meat products etc - It's a shame the animals have to suffer and that but they're suffering for a noble cause if they're feeding me cheaply, so so be it AFAIC. I'm not making any excuses, I want meat to figure in my diet but I don't want to pay silly money for the privilege - I know what goes on in abbatoirs and such & I'm just not that bothered by it. No excuses, no hipocrisy nor any chest beating.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

good, glad to hear it
i don't want to hear their excuses and don't care, my point was that they were offered with no promting


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> But seeing as it's not technically necessary to eat them and they must have some pain from death then you are causing unnecessary suffering. Just that your wants come above that, pretty straightforward


Not really, the animals are unconscious for most slaughter methods.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> oh, i see.  necessary suffering is ok.  where necessary is definited as "something that brings me pleasure"


You seem to be equating killing something with it suffering.

If someone walked up behind me now and put a bullet into my brain I wouldn't suffer one little bit. I'd be dead in a heartbeat.

However, if someone kept me in a tight pen with no natural light and force fed me for months on end and then put a bullet in my head? You might have a point.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, what more do I/should I need? Let's take the example of me going off to live in the countryside  - I raise a pig, keep it well fed in suitable conditions etc. When the time comes it becomes bacon. This process has harmed nobody. Unless you equate a pigs life with that of a human. And I don't.



Firstly, there are problems with trying to extrapolate principles from individual and somewhat idealised scenarios like the one you outline here whilst ignoring the reality of wider animal use within the meat industry. Its a bit like when people defend capitalism by setting up a scenario like the following 'so A wants to hire B to do some work for him. B is happy to do the work for the wage that A offers him: everyone's a winner!' In the abstract that sounds great, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the operation of the capitalist system in practice. It ignores the structural inequalities between the capitalist and the labourer and the alienating and exploitative system of wage labour that flows from that. Similarly, the rearing of animals for food and crucially for profit produces its own logic. Treating animals as profitable commodities or mere tools for our purposes generally gravitates against their welfare interests. Most pigs who are raised for meat are not treated in the way you describe, they are intensively farmed are mutilated without anaesthetic as piglets. See the following clip:

 

I accept that you are against these practices and want to raise animals 'humanely' for meat, but for me these practices are all on the same continuum of violence against animals for unimportant human interests (i.e. liking the taste of their flesh). For me they cannot be separated in a superficial way for that reason. 

Now, having said all of that, I do think that even in your scenario you have seriously harmed the pig. The act of killing the pig is wrong because you have deprived that pig of the all the future good experiences he could have had and you've done that for an entirely frivolous reason: because you like the taste of his flesh. Furthermore by treating the pig as tool for your purposes in this way you have completely distorted the ethic of care: by raising the pig you have assumed a duty of care over him that you have betrayed by terminating his life for nothing more than your own pleasure. Because you have raised the pig that imo places you under a special duty not to interfere with his welfare interest, it doesn't give you licence to kill him for your own purposes.  

(there's also the question of whether you have you separated the piglet from the sow - a practice that causes distress and fear).


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> None of our positions is logical. Logic does not produce morality. Emotion does, and emotion is informed by many things.



This is premised upon a false dichotomy between 'reason' and 'emotion'. Surely you've read Damasio LBJ?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2014)

fuckin A post Jeff! thanks


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Jeff Robinson makes a lot of sense. I reckon there would be a lot more vegetarians if the likes of ddraig didn't put himself forward as a self-appointed spokesperson for them.



Thank you for saying so. I understand ddraig's frustration and sadness at the widespread institutionalised human violence against animals and the sort of rationalisations that are used to justify it, but its important to be cool headed when debating people on this. You don't need to respect your interlocutor's views on meat to respect them as people. You're more likely to win them over when you do so.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I do think that even in your scenario you have seriously harmed the pig. The act of killing the pig is wrong because you have deprived that pig of the all the future good experiences he could have had


You're getting rather close to anthropomorphic bollocks there.



> Furthermore by treating the pig as tool for your purposes in this way you have completely distorted the ethic of care: by raising the pig you have assumed a duty of care over him that you have betrayed


Again, I'm not sure I could betray a pig. IMO you're projecting human experiences onto something that, well, isn't human.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You're getting rather close to anthropomorphic bollocks there.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not sure I could betray a pig. IMO you're projecting human experiences onto something that, well, isn't human.



How so? Are you denying that pigs can have good and bad experiences, feel pleasure and pain etc? And I didn't say you betrayed the pig I said you betrayed your duty of care to the pig.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How so? Are you denying that pigs can have good and bad experiences, feel pleasure and pain etc? And I didn't say you betrayed the pig I said you betrayed your duty of care to the pig.


They can feel pain certainly. Whether what they feel is "pleasure" could be somewhat open to debate as it's a word that, to my mind anyway, has certain emotional aspects attached to it. And yes it could have a "good" experience in a spacious pen and a "bad" one trapped in a crate in a dark shed. So you avoid that.

As for the duty of care - that stops the moment I kill it. My duty would be to raise a pig free of pain and in a comfortable environment etc for it's lifetime. But its life would ultimately have the purpose of being food. I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They can feel pain certainly. Whether what they feel is "pleasure" could be somewhat open to debate as it's a word that, to my mind anyway, has certain emotional aspects attached to it. And yes it could have a "good" experience in a spacious pen and a "bad" one trapped in a crate in a dark shed. So you avoid that.
> 
> As for the duty of care - that stops the moment I kill it. My duty would be to raise a pig free of pain and in a comfortable environment etc for it's lifetime. But its life would ultimately have the purpose of being food. I don't have a problem with that.



It's fairly well documented that pigs can feel pleasure, Jonathan Balcombe has written a number of books on this. You also accept that they have good experiences. Therefore my assertion that you deprive your pig of future good experiences by killing him still stands. You think that your interest in eating the pig's flesh outweighs the pig's interest in all of those future good experiences. I think you're wrong here. Your interest is trivial. The pig's interest is fundamental: it's is the interest in having the possibility of any good experiences at all.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

Why would depriving the pig of future good experiences matter?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You think that your interest in eating the pig's flesh outweighs the pig's interest in all of those future good experiences.


Put bluntly, yes, I do.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

I entirely agree with Bees. 
Eating a nice bit of slow roast shoulder of pork with some crackling every now and then, far outweighs the pigs right to live, imo


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Put bluntly, yes, I do.



That's at the heart of the problem for me. Its the belief that minor human interests can trump the fundamental interests of other sentient creatures. It's that attitude that allows the widespread atrocities that are inflicted against millions of animals everyday.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> But it doesn't help the vegetarian argument to say that somebody who eats a couple of dozen mussels is responsible for the deaths of 24 animals. It dilutes the argument and makes it weak and makes the person claiming it look ridiculous.



are you reading what you're writing here?  what you're saying is that the truth is ridiculous!  we should pretend that meat eaters eat less animals than they do because meat eaters don't think that some of the animals they eat are animals?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> None of our positions is logical. Logic does not produce morality. Emotion does, and emotion is informed by many things.



that sounds like an excuse to me.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 19, 2014)

.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You're getting rather close to anthropomorphic bollocks there.



fucking hell bees, i had sympathy to your position earlier, now you're being a self-deluded meat-twat


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

xenon said:


> Yeah all meat eaters are exactly like that. You tit.



stop bleating and prove me wrong.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That's at the heart of the problem for me. Its the belief that minor human interests can trump the fundamental interests of other sentient creatures. It's that attitude that allows the widespread atrocities that are inflicted against millions of animals everyday.


I don't view feeding myself, or the love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it as a minor interest. I think it's a fundamental part of us.

As for that allowing atrocities - I've stated several times that I'd be happy to see the back of a huge swathe of farming practices.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not really, the animals are unconscious for most slaughter methods.



no they're not.


----------



## xenon (Aug 19, 2014)

Hmm. Depriving the pig of future good experiences by slaughtering it. 
Or leaving wild pigs to be killed by disease, grow weak, old and possibly fall prey to animal predators. Culling would be out of the question should the population grow beyond the capacity of the local environment to support them.

It might be a shortlived ethical conundrum of course, as those breeds kept for food die out in the wild. I imagine arrible farmers aren't likely to refuse shooting them should they threaten crops. But not eat them, that would be wrong.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> fucking hell bees, i had sympathy to your position earlier, now you're being a self-deluded meat-twat


How is not viewing the life of a pig through loaded human terms being deluded?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You seem to be equating killing something with it suffering.
> 
> If someone walked up behind me now and put a bullet into my brain I wouldn't suffer one little bit. I'd be dead in a heartbeat.
> 
> However, if someone kept me in a tight pen with no natural light and force fed me for months on end and then put a bullet in my head? You might have a point.



christ on a  fucking bike.  if we're in imaginary killing animals land, why don;t you tell me you're going to stroke it to death on a waterbed whilst its favourite record plays.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How is not viewing the life of a pig through loaded human terms being deluded?



except that you're viewing it through loaded human terms in the other direction.  have you ever had pets?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> except that you're viewing it through loaded human terms in the other direction.  have you ever had pets?


Yep. Your point is?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

more later.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

I assume we're heading towards a "well why don't you eat them" question?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. Your point is?



this first,

so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?  

you'll recognise that that they feel pain and can exhibit signs of what we'd call pleasure when well treated or the like?

will you accept those points?

or is that anthropomorphic?

now i;m going to do something else and come back!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

xenon said:


> Hmm. Depriving the pig of future good experiences by slaughtering it.
> Or leaving wild pigs to be killed by disease, grow weak, old and possibly fall prey to animal predators. Culling would be out of the question should the population grow beyond the capacity of the local environment to support them.
> 
> It might be a shortlived ethical conundrum of course, as those breeds kept for food die out in the wild. I imagine arrible farmers aren't likely to refuse shooting them should they threaten crops. But not eat them, that would be wrong.



That's obviously a caricature of my position. I'm not advocating liberating all farmyard pigs into the wild - I'm not a fuckwit!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I assume we're heading towards a "well why don't you eat them" question?



nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two.  i always assumed my angy vegetarianism was due to growing up in a house full of animals.

as an aside, i'm in a gerbil group on facebook and there's a little girl in there with a sick pet gerbil whose parents won't let her take it to the vet because its a rodent.  they're wealthy enough, it's not the money, apparently, but they don't think anything smaller than a rabbit is important enough.  imagine making your children watch their beloved pet die slowly and in pain because you don't think it deserves anything else.  

really must got now!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> this first,
> 
> so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?
> 
> ...


OK, fine. So, as I've said, you provide the animals with as good an environment/life as possible. Then, when the time comes you kill them as swiftly as possible.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two.


*shrugs* I can, quite easily. As a pet owner you're ultimately taking on a "godlike" role, with ultimate responsibility for its welfare. You make choices as to how that animal will live its life and may one day have to decide to end it. It's not that great a leap to make those choices based on the animal being a source of food rather than companionship.




> as an aside, i'm in a gerbil group on facebook and there's a little girl in there with a sick pet gerbil whose parents won't let her take it to the vet because its a rodent.  they're wealthy enough, it's not the money, apparently, but they don't think anything smaller than a rabbit is important enough.  imagine making your children watch their beloved pet die slowly and in pain because you don't think it deserves anything else.


That's fucking awful


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I don't view feeding myself, or the love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it as a minor interest. I think it's a fundamental part of us.
> 
> As for that allowing atrocities - I've stated several times that I'd be happy to see the back of a huge swathe of farming practices.



I've acknowledged that you personally don't like those practices but what I'm suggesting is that your attitude to animals helps to perpetuate them nevertheless because of the limited weight you attach to animal interests. For example, if you think you can kill an animal because of your 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' then a poor person who cannot afford to buy free range or organic meat* can easily also say their 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' cannot be trumped by the interests of a 'mere' pig or chicken or whatever not suffering in intensive farming. Under your framework, that objection is entirely justified. 

The point is that for all of us there is an alternative: there's an amazing variety of plant-based food sources that can form a healthy, cheap and delicious diet and that doesn't involve the direct infliction of death and suffering on animals. It's such a non-brainer, I really hope that one day we'll collectively come to our senses as a species on this matter! 


* and these are not at all guarantees of good animal welfare imo


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I've acknowledged that you personally don't like those practices but what I'm suggesting is that your attitude to animals helps to perpetuate them nevertheless because of the limited weight you attach to animal interests. For example, if you think you can kill an animal because of your 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' then a poor person who cannot afford to buy free range or organic meat* can easily also say their 'love and experience of food and the socialising that comes with it' cannot be trumped by the interests of a 'mere' pig or chicken or whatever not suffering in intensive farming. Under your framework, that objection is entirely justified.


Which brings us (as usual) to an argument against a capitalist system that can make a factory chicken, shipped from a farm on the other side of the country, cheaper than one from a local organic farm. It's not an argument against eating the chicken though.



> The point is that for all of us there is an alternative: there's an amazing variety of plant-based food sources that can form a healthy, cheap and delicious diet


By definition it's a diet that's limited in terms of tastes available to it. Not one I'm prepared to go for I'm afraid.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 19, 2014)

You see, I'd prefer that all animals have a better life before being killed for food. But if they don't, I'm not too fussed.

The dog thing is interesting. I have known:
Pet dogs that are loved and live in a house and sleep on a bed.
Working dogs that live outside in a cage and get shot if not working well enough.
And have seen, and eaten, dogs for food.

I'm happy with all three situations.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> no they're not.


Yes they are, it's the law. The only exemption is for religious reasons and even then the vast majority are unconscious.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...uNN8hCl_42HZ1rw&bvm=bv.73231344,d.ZGU&cad=rja


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> nope, though that is a good question - the distinction between pet animal and food animal is a curious one and i have never in my life been able to understand why someone can distinguish so strongly between the two.  i always assumed my angy vegetarianism was due to growing up in a house full of animals.


No, we had cats and dogs growing up. You don't get attached to farm animals as easily and vice versa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is premised upon a false dichotomy between 'reason' and 'emotion'. Surely you've read Damasio LBJ?


I have and his point would be that we need emotion to think to consider and,crucially, to decide between conflicting ideas, actions or opinions. 

I agree that the dichotomy between reason and emotion is false. But i said logic and by that I meant the thing that a computer can work with. Computers are great at sums, shit at making decisions. And I'm not sure a computer could do morality. To do morality you have to feel.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> this first,
> 
> so you understand that animals have desires, needs, characters even, that are independent of each other -that each e.g. dog has a different 'personality' and that animals aren't automatons?
> 
> ...


It's totally anthropomorphic, dogs have "characters" because they've become socialised through interaction with humans down the millennia. Cattle do not. Don't project your experiences of pets onto all animals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's totally anthropomorphic, dogs have "characters" because they've become socialised through interaction with humans down the millennia. Cattle do not. Don't project your experiences of pets onto all animals.


Cows have characters sure. They have friends in the herd different favourite spots, are spooked by different stuff. Have emotional responses peculiar to them. 

What else do you think character is. Often people do a reverse of anthropomorphising, which is thinking humans are more different from other animals than we really are.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

> Which brings us (as usual) to an argument against a capitalist system that can make a factory chicken, shipped from a farm on the other side of the country, cheaper than one from a local organic farm. It's not an argument against eating the chicken though.



Forget the other side of the country, try the other side of the world. Pizza express use chicken from fucking Thailand for example. My point is that the 'humane' raising of an animal to kill and cruel intensive factory farming of animals exist on a continuum of violence against animals that serve to legitimate each other. Because the human interests are not significant here (ask a veggie or a vegan - we really don't lead impoverished lives if we do it right!) then its easy for most people to justify an action that harms animal interests if it accrues a benefit to a human being. See for example Joustmaster above: 'You see, I'd prefer that all animals have a better life before being killed for food. But if they don't, I'm not too fussed.' 



> By definition it's a diet that's limited in terms of tastes available to it. Not one I'm prepared to go for I'm afraid.



Not at all, the combination of textures and flavours available to a creative vegan chef are for all intents and purposes unlimited. Its just that people aren't aware of it!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Cows have characters sure. They have friends in the herd different favourite spots, are spooked by different stuff. Have emotional responses peculiar to them.


For me character indicates a depth of emotional response I've never witnessed in cattle, they are very simple animals. I've honestly never seen this "friends in the herd" business.  . 
They can develop habits, is that what you're thinking of?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Good dairy farmers know to pay attention to friendships in the herd. Lining cows up next to their mates at milking time increases yields.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2014)

> Not at all, the combination of textures and flavours available to a creative vegan chef are for all intents and purposes unlimited. Its just that people aren't aware of it!


Basic maths says that by voluntarily choosing to exclude a huge range of ingredients you reduce the available choices. But vegan food can be great, of course. Fuck, I even had some once


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good dairy farmers know to pay attention to friendships in the herd. Lining cows up next to their mates at milking time increases yields.


I haven't seen any dairy farmer I know doing that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

Got shit internet access this week. Jeffr you've made a load of points I want to reply to but can't do them justice tonight. Sorry, they are good points that deserve a full reply. Stupid countryside.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Basic maths says that by voluntarily choosing to exclude a huge range of ingredients you reduce the available choices. But vegan food can be great, of course. Fuck, I even had some once



Sure basic maths would but by cutting out many of the basic staples of a British diet (Meat, fish, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, yogurt etc) it forces you to think outside the side the box and get creative with ingredients. Since I've become vegan I can honestly say I cook with a much wider variety of ingredients than back in the day when I used to fall back on the usual meat and two veg formula. Also, if you really think that you'll miss the taste of meat, cheese and so on, veggies are becoming incredibly creative at developing convincing substitutions. Check out some of the shit these crazy bastards are coming up with! https://www.youtube.com/user/everydaydish (seriously doubt I'm gonna persuade you, but hopefully I might sway somebody who's reading!)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Got shit internet access this week. Jeffr you've made a load of points I want to reply to but can't do them justice tonight. Sorry, they are good points that deserve a full reply. Stupid countryside.



Please don't do it tomorrow. I ended up doing no work today and I don't want to get sucked in for another day!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2014)

am stuck here all week


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2014)

Going to watch the program now.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 19, 2014)

It definitively proves that meat eaters deserve a painful death from bowel cancer.

Unless there's a massive twist at the end...


----------



## 8ball (Aug 20, 2014)

Whoah!! Polyp-zapping-fuck!!!


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 20, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, of course not. Do I support hunting a fox for the sole purpose of entertaining a few people on horseback? No. Do I support the hunting of game that will be eaten? Yes.
> 
> etc. etc.



I thought I'd dip back into this thread again after coming back from the pub.  

I'm quite relaxed about fox hunting.  This may be an unfamiliar POV for a veggie to have.  Let me explain.  In terms of unnecessary cruelty this pastime is way down the list.  Up until the fox's death it has been able to be a fox.  It has had a chance to live.  Even in the chase it has a chance of survival - given the chance of a natural death if you like.  The hunt has also given a lot of pleasure to a pack of people who have a direct connection with the death of the animal.

Compare this to an animal which has not been given the chance to feel the sun, to go outside.  The only reason for it to exist has been for it to be eaten.  What kind of life is this?	

We have complete dominion over an animal raised for food.  The quality of its life is completely under our control.  There's no excuse for enforcing a miserable existence on the animals in our care.  It is in our power to give animals raised for food a good life.  For me it's far more important that an animal is able to know what it is to be an animal in it's life over the purpose we assign to it in it's death.  

For the animal that's killed for our utility its irrelevant if we eat it or if we rub its blood on our face.  Surely how it lives its life is more pertinent than what happens after its death?

In short it matters more how an animal is able to live its life over that of what we assign it's purpose to.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 20, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I thought I'd dip back into this thread again after coming back from the pub.
> 
> I'm quite relaxed about fox hunting.  This may be an unfamiliar POV for a veggie to have.  Let me explain.  In terms of unnecessary cruelty this pastime is way down the list.  *Up until the fox's death it has been able to be a fox.*  It has had a chance to live.  Even in the chase it has a chance of survival - given the chance of a natural death if you like.  The hunt has also given a lot of pleasure to a pack of people who have a direct connection with the death of the animal.



I feel that way about not just foxhunting but bullfighting as well. And those daft traditions in spain where they push a goat of a church steeple on saints days. That must be a right laugh.


----------



## Chick Webb (Aug 20, 2014)

I didn't watch the whole thing (I had a shower halfway through and I was knitting for the start and end of the show) but the presenter seemed to be taking a pretty lackadaisical attitude to his health. "Yeah, we all know it's bad for us, but we like it and anyway, it's not that bad".  And the conclusion he came to was entirely predictable as well.  Eat less red and especially processed meat.  Didn't Horizon used to be an interesting and informative show, or am I having false memories of how it was years ago?  Lately any time I've seen it it's been simply "investigating" things everyone already knows.  Then again, I went for my shower, so maybe I missed the groundbreaking bits.  

I think he overstated the unique health and nutrition benefits of meat quite a bit as well, in the parts I saw.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

Comparing tofu with minced beef weight for weight was surely not a realistic comparison ?
The only thing I worry about is B12 - though I hardly ever took a supplement all the 20 years I was 100 percent vegan, and my diet since then has hardly been any better in that regard.

I've learned recently to see *fish *as appetising food, but I couldn't watch most of that programme.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I've learned recently to see *fish *as appetising food, but I couldn't watch most of that programme.



FWIW I really cannot see any case at all for eating fish but not meat.  If you have an ethical problem with eating living creatures then there's no reason why that should not apply as much to fish as to meat, especially since some methods of catching fish, trawling especially, are not exactly designed to give the fish a painless end.  Meanwhile, fish farming (which is only practical for some species) has a lot of the same welfare issues as intensive farming on land as well as serious environmental implications, whilst a lot of wild species are being seriously overfished.  In fact, IMO you can make a good case for saying that eating fish is ethically less defensible than eating meat, factory-farmed meat and its by-products excepted.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

Manter said:


> I really wouldn't bother. I think this is a 'vegetarians are better than meat eaters' thread.


They also tend to have weaker immune systems and are more prone to illness. You don't get omega oils from lettuce.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> They also tend to have weaker immune systems and are more prone to illness. You don't get omega oils from lettuce.


pardon? massive generalisation there


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> They also tend to have weaker immune systems and are more prone to illness. You don't get omega oils from lettuce.


You do from flaxseed oil and other nuts and seeds as well as fresh sources such as leafy greens and mangos though


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> pardon? massive generalisation there



Perhaps not all. However, My BIL had to concede and start eating fish and chicken recently because of deficiencies caused with his diet. My OH's sister has a permanent cold and she doesn't eat meat. I used to be veggie too btw.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> are you reading what you're writing here?  what you're saying is that the truth is ridiculous!  we should pretend that meat eaters eat less animals than they do because meat eaters don't think that some of the animals they eat are animals?


Do you equate the death of a mussel with the death of say, a cow? Because that's what you are saying. And if you think that doesn't dilute your argument you can never win it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> You do from flaxseed oil and other nuts and seeds as well as fresh sources such as leafy greens and mangos though



And what about Iron?


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Perhaps not all. However, My BIL had to concede and start eating fish and chicken recently because of deficiencies caused with his diet. My OH's sister has a permanent cold and she doesn't eat meat. I used to be veggie too btw.


You can be vegetarian or vegan and have an unbalanced diet though  It's not necessarily that you *can't* obtain the vitamins and minerals that you need, but that you *don't*. This applies to meat eaters too.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> And what about Iron?



I really think you need to do your homework before spouting off like a plonker in denial about arse cancer.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> You can be vegetarian or vegan and have an unbalanced diet though  It's not necessarily that you *can't* obtain the vitamins and minerals that you need, but that you *don't*. This applies to meat eaters too.



But it's *harder* to do on vegetables alone. You can sit there all day naming the nuts veg that contain iron and essential oils etc but actually going out and sourcing all that stuff and making interesting meals out of them and having the time to mess about with all the ingredients is altogether a different task. Not to mention expensive.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> And what about Iron?



Lentils, soybeans etc. And spinach. Plus vit c rich foods to maximise absorption. Iron's a myth, if you're going to home in on possible deficiencies you should stick to B12


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> I really think you need to do your homework before spouting off like a plonker in denial about arse cancer.



A bowl of asparagus and nuts with spinach for tea then. Sounds fucking lush.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But it's *harder* to do on vegetables alone. You can sit there all day naming the nuts veg that contain iron and essential oils etc but actually going out and sourcing all that stuff and making interesting meals out of them and having the time to mess about with all the ingredients is altogether a different task. Not to mention expensive.


Nuts are more expensive than meat, yes. But pulses, no.  I agree that eating well is expensive though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> Iron's a myth



In isolation maybe. But you can have a condition where a deficiency can make it more serious.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> In isolation maybe. But you can have a condition where a deficiency can make it more serious.


Anaemia is common amongst meat eaters too. I haven't seen any decent source that shows anaemia prevalence in vegans and vegetarians - have you got one?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Firstly, there are problems with trying to extrapolate principles from individual and somewhat idealised scenarios like the one you outline here whilst ignoring the reality of wider animal use within the meat industry. Its a bit like when people defend capitalism by setting up a scenario like the following 'so A wants to hire B to do some work for him. B is happy to do the work for the wage that A offers him: everyone's a winner!' In the abstract that sounds great, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the operation of the capitalist system in practice. It ignores the structural inequalities between the capitalist and the labourer and the alienating and exploitative system of wage labour that flows from that. Similarly, the rearing of animals for food and crucially for profit produces its own logic. Treating animals as profitable commodities or mere tools for our purposes generally gravitates against their welfare interests. Most pigs who are raised for meat are not treated in the way you describe, they are intensively farmed are mutilated without anaesthetic as piglets. See the following clip:
> 
> 
> I accept that you are against these practices and want to raise animals 'humanely' for meat, but for me these practices are all on the same continuum of violence against animals for unimportant human interests (i.e. liking the taste of their flesh). For me they cannot be separated in a superficial way for that reason.



Interesting post but there's a fundamental disconnect between this view and that of most meat eaters.

So long as they're not endangered, or peoples pets, I don't care whether animals live or die. In fact I _require_ them to die in order for them to be eaten/worn, etc ...

My only concern is their welfare whilst they're alive. I take your point that the trade in high welfare meat exists alongside the intensive industry but disagree that the two can't be separated. The growing availability of organic/assured meat points to an increase in demand for it which has to be coming from somewhere. I'd contend that that's more and people eschewing low welfare produce. Everyone isn't going to stop eating meat. Everyone isn't going to switch to organic/high welfare, but there's a lot of time for things to change. As Editor showed yesterday hominids have been eating meat for 2.5 million years, but it's only in the last 20 or so that genuine consumer concern for the welfare of food animals has developed.



> Now, having said all of that, I do think that even in your scenario you have seriously harmed the pig. The act of killing the pig is wrong because you have deprived that pig of the all the future good experiences he could have had and you've done that for an entirely frivolous reason: because you like the taste of his flesh. Furthermore by treating the pig as tool for your purposes in this way you have completely distorted the ethic of care: by raising the pig you have assumed a duty of care over him that you have betrayed by terminating his life for nothing more than your own pleasure. Because you have raised the pig that imo places you under a special duty not to interfere with his welfare interest, it doesn't give you licence to kill him for your own purposes.



Do pigs have a cognisant concept of "future"? Do they actively look forward to future good experiences? If not then it doesn't matter that they're deprived of them. If they do then once again, I see them as lesser beings to the extent that my pleasure and convenience in eating or wearing them, to me, is paramount to those future experiences.

As far as the raising of the pig in your above scenario is concerned I just don't agree at all. I am raising the pig specifically to be killed for meat. My duty of care to it exists only whilst it's alive and places me under no obligation whatsoever to maintain its welfare beyond the point necessary for its slaughter.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> Anaemia is common amongst meat eaters too. I haven't seen any decent source that shows anaemia prevalence in vegans and vegetarians - have you got one?



Nah. Just my BIL's doctor ordering him to start eating meat and fish.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nah. Just my BIL's doctor ordering him to start eating meat and fish.


It's the simplest solution, and requires the least thought, planning and possibly expense. I totally understand why a medic would suggest that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nah. Just my BIL's doctor ordering him to start eating meat and fish.



Sounds like a shit GP


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

ffs citizen
as cesare says, you can be an unhealthy vegan living on chips and sandwiches
you'll agree that there are a lot of unhealthy meat eaters?

i've said it before and i'll say it again, my dad is/was a fat vegan, because he ate fried stuff and doesn't do much excercise
thankfully that is changing now


----------



## mr steev (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nah. Just my BIL's doctor ordering him to start eating meat and fish.



The doc is wrong I'm afraid. There is no difference in the risk of anemia in vegetarians, vegans or meat eaters. Your
gender is far more of a factor. It is very rare for male vegetarians to become anemic.

A blood test my daughter had a while ago showed that she was slightly anemic. I told my doctor that I thought we ate pretty healthily and that I would be surprised that it was her diet. He agreed. Told me that veggies were of no more risk and there could be many other reasons for it (fighting infection, growth spurt, or just that she naturally has a low iron marker.)


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm not a vegetarian or vegan myself, Citizen66 but that's due to laziness.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ffs citizen
> as cesare says, you can be an unhealthy vegan living on chips and sandwiches
> you'll agree that there are a lot of unhealthy meat eaters?
> 
> ...



I try to eat healthily. Mainly chicken or mackerel salads through the week (that contain mixed nuts!  ). A fillet steak as an occasional treat. Of course booze undoes all the good effort.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> I'm not a vegetarian or vegan myself, Citizen66 but that's due to laziness.



I used to be veggie. My diet was terrible (laziness too!)


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

will you admit that vegetarians and vegans can have perfectly healthy diets then (tho they take effort obviously)


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I used to be veggie. My diet was terrible (laziness too!)


so it was you not the diet then


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so it was you not the diet then



What was me?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

being lazy


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> ...  we should pretend that meat eaters eat less animals than they do because meat eaters don't think that some of the animals they eat are animals?



Where's the line drawn though? Is an elephant more worthy of life than a mouse or a sardine?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> will you admit that vegetarians and vegans can have perfectly healthy diets then (tho they take effort obviously)



Is this to me? I will admit that but also that meat in moderation forms part of a healthy diet too.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I used to be veggie. My diet was terrible (laziness too!)


Aye, other half was a vegan for a few years too but isn't now. We eat a lot of vegan/veggie meals so it isn't a taste issue. I just have to accept that I'm lazy. I also don't live near a decent fruit and veg market which makes a difference.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> being lazy



Being lazy was down to me yes. Not sure what that has to do with what we've been discussing.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Being lazy was down to me yes. Not sure what that has to do with what we've been discussing.


it has everything to do with your initial generalisation


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the line drawn though? Is an elephant more worthy of life than a mouse or a sardine?


this is it. we all draw our lines in different places.
to some a life is a life and that's it
to most there are lives that are more important than others which gives us the pet issue

e2a - can tell what's coming!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Is this to me? I will admit that but also that meat in moderation forms part of a healthy diet too.


so you healthier than me because you eat meat? sure now?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> it has everything to do with your initial generalisation



I stopped being veggie because I made a mistake at a party, got tired of the fact that eating something by accident constituted a mistake, so ate a bacon sarnie the next day. 

What I was arguing above relates to people I know who are veggie who have either stopped or always seem to be ill. But yes I concede that it might not just be from being veggie. But the faff of vegetarianism can't help.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so you healthier than me because you eat meat? sure now?



Nice strawman.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Not at all, the combination of textures and flavours available to a creative vegan chef are for all intents and purposes unlimited. Its just that people aren't aware of it!



When a vegan chef creates a dish that tastes like steak, I'll convert!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nice strawman.


how is it a strawman?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> how is it a strawman?



Because I didn't mention once being healthier than you. I said meat as part of a balanced diet is healthy.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

ok. as is a vegi/vegan diet done right, right?
i'm guilty of being lax with my diet sometimes, can happen to anyone on any diet


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> FWIW I really cannot see any case at all for eating fish but not meat.  If you have an ethical problem with eating living creatures then there's no reason why that should not apply as much to fish as to meat, especially since some methods of catching fish, trawling especially, are not exactly designed to give the fish a painless end.  Meanwhile, fish farming (which is only practical for some species) has a lot of the same welfare issues as intensive farming on land as well as serious environmental implications, whilst a lot of wild species are being seriously overfished.  In fact, IMO you can make a good case for saying that eating fish is ethically less defensible than eating meat, factory-farmed meat and its by-products excepted.


No. The meat simply looked like human body parts.

A necessary ethical step for me was taking up fishing again - only a token gesture I know, but with a mind to catching all the fish I eat in retirement.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ok. as is a vegi/vegan diet done right, right?



Yes, I don't dispute that. I just think it's a major faff to actually attain and the veggies who argue it struggle to do so themselves.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

so?


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

I think it would be easier to be a vegan than a veggie. The thought of cheese and dairy laden veggie meals makes me feel nauseous


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> this is it. we all draw our lines in different places.
> to some a life is a life and that's it
> to most there are lives that are more important than others which gives us the pet issue



I agree. But those lines are illogical.

I was out with 5t3IIa the other day and she went out of her way to pick up a stranded worm from the pavement and put it into the flowerbed.

Then we went for a burger.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Being a vegan cuts out foods. So its harder to get the right nutrition. 
It doesn't mean a vegan is less healthy. Just that its more effort to cover all your needs.

And the argument that a prawn isn't an animal is just daft.
Eating seafood is the same as eating a steak.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so?



There wasn't going to be a follow on sentence.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> I think it would be easier to be a vegan than a veggie. The thought of cheese and dairy laden veggie meals makes me feel nauseous


i sort of see what you mean but would be difficult to go out for food, have takeaways and eat on holiday if not in major cities etc


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> I think it would be easier to be a vegan than a veggie. The thought of cheese and dairy laden veggie meals makes me feel nauseous



I couldn't be vegan. I do like the odd bit of weetabix.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

yay! we're all in agreement 
got to do some work today and not do this all day again


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I couldn't be vegan. I do like the odd bit of weetabix.


Whither soya milk ?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Whither soya milk ?



Is that nice on scones?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

i can't do soya mile on cereals so don't do cereals
partner does but then they also have fruit juice with their cereal if no soya milk, the weirdo
ych a fi


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i sort of see what you mean but would be difficult to go out for food, have takeaways and eat on holiday if not in major cities etc


I suppose it depends where in the world you are/go on holiday. I don't think it would be too hard in the Mediterranean/Middle East/Far East. It'd be harder in Northern Europe and the UK.


----------



## mr steev (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> I think it would be easier to be a vegan than a veggie. The thought of cheese and dairy laden veggie meals makes me feel nauseous



Obvioulsy veggies can eat vegan meals too. Everything really doesn't have to be dairy laden


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> I suppose it depends where in the world you are/go on holiday. I don't think it would be too hard in the Mediterranean/Middle East/Far East. It'd be harder in Northern Europe and the UK.


yup
and it is so much better these days than even a few years ago
more decent vegan places in Barca of a decent price range than last time i was in London for example


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i can't do soya mile on cereals so don't do cereals
> partner does but then they also have fruit juice with their cereal if no soya milk, the weirdo
> ych a fi


I don't have cereals cos I don't like the taste of milk. Porridge made with water and maple syrup added is nice.

That oat milk is ok - I don't like soya milk much.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

mr steev said:


> Obvioulsy veggies can eat vegan meals too. Everything really doesn't have to be dairy laden


I know it doesn't have to be. I was expressing a personal preference rather than generalising. I find dairy hard to digest so if I wasn't lazy I'd be far more likely to become a vegan than a vegetarian.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> That oat milk is ok - I don't like soya milk much.



Have you tried rice milk? I found that nicer than soya.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Is that nice on scones?


It's nice on everything.

When I first bought it back in the 80s, it must have been concentrated - I seem to remember diluting it.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Have you tried rice milk? I found that nicer than soya.


No I haven't. I'd like to try almond milk too. Part of the laziness is not getting round to it


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2014)

I thought the program was interesting but not so conclusive. It was interesting that after eating a high meat diet for just a month the presenter's cholesterol had gone up and that his fat level had also raised I think by a couple of kilos. Frustrating though that the US survey and the European one did not match in results terms.

The conclusion he came to, to have a mixed diet, was boringly predictable.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Do pigs have a cognisant concept of "future"? Do they actively look forward to future good experiences? If not then it doesn't matter that they're deprived of them. If they do then once again, I see them as lesser beings to the extent that my pleasure and convenience in eating or wearing them, to me, is paramount to those future experiences.
> 
> As far as the raising of the pig in your above scenario is concerned I just don't agree at all. I am raising the pig specifically to be killed for meat. My duty of care to it exists only whilst it's alive and places me under no obligation whatsoever to maintain its welfare beyond the point necessary for its slaughter.



I see you've hedged your bets there in that first paragraph! I don't pretend to be an expert in animal psychology but most of the evidence seems to that pigs are pretty smart and do have some concept of the future. However, even if they don't (I can hedge my bets too!) the idea that it is therefore okay to deprive them of future good experiences that they are not aware of seems a bit strange. If I knew that your mates had thrown you a surprise birthday party at your house and I deliberately diverted you away from the party, I have wronged you by depriving you of that experience even though you had no knowledge of it.

But, ultimately, that's not the nub of your stance. Your position rests upon your belief that pigs are 'lesser beings'. I disagree entirely. To me to discard or minimise the interests of a being purely on the basis of its species is as arbitrary as racism or sexism. For me all beings with similar interests deserve to have those interests protected equally. This is not to say that all beings should be treated equally, but that equal weight should be placed on their _similar_ interests irrespective of species. When those interests are fundamental enough they should be protected as rights. I believe that all sentient creatures should have fundamental rights to life and freedom from suffering that can't be trumped by things like mere human pleasure, convenience or entertainment. To exclude or minimise the interests of other beings merely because they are of a different species requires a good explanation, one that I have yet to be presented with.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> When a vegan chef creates a dish that tastes like steak, I'll convert!



Was never a huge fan of steak myself, too heavy on the digestive system. But its amazing how meaty a portobello mushroom can taste, especially with the right seasoning etc.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> No I haven't. I'd like to try almond milk too. Part of the laziness is not getting round to it



Almond milk is my personal favourite. Its particularly great for porridge. You can easily make your own too. You just need some almonds, some water and a cheese cloth.


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Almond milk is my personal favourite. Its particularly great for porridge. You can easily make your own too. You just need some almonds, some water and a cheese cloth.


Ground almonds? How long do you steep them for? Is muslin the same as a cheesecloth? Cheers for the suggestion


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> But, ultimately, that's not the nub of your stance. Your position rests upon your belief that pigs are 'lesser beings'. I disagree entirely. To me to discard or minimise the interests of a being purely on the basis of its species is as arbitrary as racism or sexism. For me all beings with similar interests deserve to have those interests protected equally. This is not to say that all beings should be treated equally, but that equal weight should be placed on their _similar_ interests irrespective of species. When those interests are fundamental enough they should be protected as rights. I believe that all sentient creatures should have fundamental rights to life and freedom from suffering that can't be trumped by things like mere human pleasure, convenience or entertainment. To exclude or minimise the interests of other beings merely because they are of a different species requires a good explanation, one that I have yet to be presented with.



Well, thats exactly the difference. 
I find that statement so silly that it actually made me laugh. 
Each to their own though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

cesare said:


> Ground almonds? How long do you steep them for? Is muslin the same as a cheesecloth? Cheers for the suggestion



No, whole almonds. See:


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Well, thats exactly the difference.
> I find that statement so silly that it actually made me laugh.
> Each to their own though.



Yeah, but thing is its attitudes like yours that are the problem. You've admitted on the thread that you're not really bothered if animals suffer for your pleasure. Yet its my position that says inflicting avoidable suffering is wrong that's the silly one apparently.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> But, ultimately, that's not the nub of your stance. Your position rests upon your belief that pigs are 'lesser beings'. I disagree entirely. To me to discard or minimise the interests of a being purely on the basis of its species is as arbitrary as racism or sexism. For me all beings with similar interests deserve to have those interests protected equally. This is not to say that all beings should be treated equally, but that equal weight should be placed on their _similar_ interests irrespective of species. When those interests are fundamental enough they should be protected as rights. I believe that all sentient creatures should have fundamental rights to life and freedom from suffering that can't be trumped by things like mere human pleasure, convenience or entertainment. To exclude or minimise the interests of other beings merely because they are of a different species requires a good explanation, one that I have yet to be presented with.



What do you mean by beings with _similar interests irrespective of species_? 

I've a feeling you may be hedging again!


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> But, ultimately, that's not the nub of your stance. Your position rests upon your belief that pigs are 'lesser beings'. I disagree entirely. To me to discard or minimise the interests of a being purely on the basis of its species is as arbitrary as racism or sexism. For me all beings with similar interests deserve to have those interests protected equally. This is not to say that all beings should be treated equally, but that equal weight should be placed on their _similar_ interests irrespective of species. When those interests are fundamental enough they should be protected as rights. I believe that all sentient creatures should have fundamental rights to life and freedom from suffering that can't be trumped by things like mere human pleasure, convenience or entertainment. To exclude or minimise the interests of other beings merely because they are of a different species requires a good explanation, one that I have yet to be presented with.



If you found you had an infestation of rats in your house, what would you do about it?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> If you found you had an infestation of rats in your house, what would you do about it?



If your neighbour was torturing their dog, what would you do?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> If you found you had an infestation of rats in your house, what would you do about it?


really?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yeah, but thing is its attitudes like yours that are the problem. You've admitted on the thread that you're not really bothered if animals suffer for your pleasure. Yet its my position that says inflicting avoidable suffering is wrong that's the silly one apparently.


I'd prefer them not to suffer. I don't care if they die.
It's just a chicken.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Well, thats exactly the difference.
> I find that statement so silly that it actually made me laugh.
> Each to their own though.


so you've answered the thread title for yourself
animals being killed for your tastebuds and tummy are fine and even funny


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> If your neighbour was torturing their dog, what would you do?


the same thing I'd do if I came across anyone was needlessly hurting any animal.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I'd prefer them not to suffer. I don't care if they die.
> It's just a chicken.


why do you care if they suffer? is that not funny?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> If your neighbour was torturing their dog, what would you do?



Stop or report them. 

How's this relevant though?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so you've answered the thread title for yourself
> animals being killed for your tastebuds and tummy are fine and even funny


sure.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> the same thing I'd do if I came across anyone was needlessly hurting any animal.


but you don't need to eat animals so you are causing them hurt needlessly
don't you see?


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> really?



Yes, really. 

No need for the  - it was a serious question.  I want to see whether Jeff Robinson's prepared to take his argument to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> If your neighbour was torturing their dog, what would you do?



Report them to the OB and the RSPCA.  Your point?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why do you care if they suffer? is that not funny?


why would it be funny?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> why would it be funny?


because they're just a chicken and there for your pleasure
does it not taste as good if it has suffered or something? why else would you care if it is just a chicken/pig/cow/lamb etc?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

WTF?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> but you don't need to eat animals so you are causing them hurt needlessly
> don't you see?


no. I want to eat animals. I enjoy it. so there is the need for them to be farmed and slaughtered.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> No need for the  - it was a serious question.  I want to see whether Jeff Robinson's prepared to take his argument to its logical conclusion.


do you expect a unified answer?
you are hypocrisy hunting


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> no. I want to eat animals. I enjoy it. so there is the need for them to be farmed and slaughtered.


i understand you think that 
but why do you care if they've suffered or not?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because they're just a chicken and there for your pleasure
> does it not taste as good if it has suffered or something? why else would you care if it is just a chicken/pig/cow/lamb etc?


there is some argument that a distressed animal tastes worse. I'm undecided.
my choices are to have my dinner be distressed through its life, or not.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> If you found you had an infestation of rats in your house, what would you do about it?



Given that rats carry potentially fatal diseases, I wouldn't have a problem with killing them as an act of self-defence. I've had mice in the past and I used non-injury inflicting traps to get them and then release them back into the wild.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i understand you think that
> but why do you care if they've suffered or not?


erm, because i prefer animals not to be in pain?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> erm, because i prefer animals not to be in pain?


but they are only a chicken and going to die for your plate anyway
why does it matter to you?


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you expect a unified answer?
> you are hypocrisy hunting



I've no idea what you mean by a 'unified answer.'  All I'm doing - as I said before - is seeing whether Jeff Robinson is prepared to take his position to its logical conclusion.

I think you said yesterday this is an old argument, and so it is, but that's no reason to try and shut it down by throwing abuse and facepalms at anyone whose position differs from yours.   In other words, butt out.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because they're just a chicken and there for your pleasure


I think you're trying to take the piss a bit with that line.
But its true. that chicken is there for my pleasure. the reason it has been born, fed, looked after, and killed, is just for my £7's worth of pleasure.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> but they are only a chicken and going to die for your plate anyway
> why does it matter to you?



He's answered that. 

He has no problem with animals dying but prefers them not to live or die in pain and distress. 

What's difficult about that?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What do you mean by beings with _similar interests irrespective of species_?
> 
> I've a feeling you may be hedging again!



Not at all. For example, in so far as a non-human animal feels pain to the same extent as a human animal does, then that should not be given less weight morally merely because she is not a human.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> but they are only a chicken and going to die for your plate anyway
> why does it matter to you?


because i prefer an animal to suffer as little as conveniently possible, before its killed (or I kill it) for my meal.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Given that rats carry potentially fatal diseases, I wouldn't have a problem with killing them as an act of self-defence. I've had mice in the past and I used non-injury inflicting traps to get them and then release them back into the wild.



Fair enough.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I'd prefer them not to suffer. I don't care if they die.
> It's just a chicken.



Your exact words were 'You see, I'd prefer that all animals have a better life before being killed for food. But if they don't, I'm not too fussed.' You don't really care, lets face it.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> I've no idea what you mean by a 'unified answer.'  All I'm doing - as I said before - is seeing whether Jeff Robinson is prepared to take his position to its logical conclusion.
> 
> I think you said yesterday this is an old argument, and so it is, but that's no reason to try and shut it down by throwing abuse and facepalms at anyone whose position differs from yours.   In other words, butt out.


i've not abused you, it is just tedious
if a rat was threatening me and my imaginary family health then it would have to die, survival init
you do not need to eat meat to survive so you are making a choice based on your taste, desire, convenience etc


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He's answered that.
> 
> He has no problem with animals dying but prefers them not to live or die in pain and distress.
> 
> What's difficult about that?


because they still die a needless death

it's fine, you don't agree and i don't have time to go round and round in circles


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Your exact words were 'You see, I'd prefer that all animals have a better life before being killed for food. But if they don't, I'm not too fussed.' You don't really care, lets face it.


As I said very early on in the thread - I care a bit. enough to only buy high quality beef and pork. barn raised hens and eggs. but when it comes to eating out, takeaways, milk and egg products in other stuff, leather and other animal products, I can't be arsed.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> For example, in so far as a non-human animal feels pain to the same extent as a human animal does, then that should not be given less weight morally merely because she is not a human.



Ok, so we're back to pain again.

So I'll return to this:



> For me all beings with similar interests deserve to have those interests protected equally. This is not to say that all beings should be treated equally, but that equal weight should be placed on their _similar_ interests irrespective of species. When those interests are fundamental enough they should be protected as rights. I believe that all sentient creatures should have fundamental rights to life and freedom from suffering that can't be trumped by things like mere human pleasure, convenience or entertainment. To exclude or minimise the interests of other beings merely because they are of a different species requires a good explanation, one that I have yet to be presented with.



Why do you believe that animals have a right to life?

I see the right to life as a purely human concept that is completely absent in nature. Why are we beholden to uphold an animals "right to life" any more than a tiger or a shark would respect a human's or any other animal's?

You say "_mere_ human pleasure" but I'd argue that there is nothing _mere_ about it and that human pleasure is one of the most _fundamentally important_ aspects of human life.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> As I said very early on in the thread - I care a bit. enough to only buy high quality beef and pork. barn raised hens and eggs. but when it comes to eating out, takeaways, milk and egg products in other stuff, leather and other animal products, I can't be arsed.



And you think this stance is so enlightened and mine so crazy because? Presumably because yours is closer to the status quo


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And you think this stance is so enlightened and mine so crazy because? Presumably because yours is closer to the status quo


no, because yours is so different that it seems silly.
in much the same way mine does to you, i'm sure.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, so we're back to pain again.
> 
> So I'll return to this:
> 
> ...


But animals killing other animals to survive is nature and the food chain
You will of course say that so is humans killing animals and we are top of the food chain
But we have evolved and there is a choice (with usual caveats) so you actively choose to have animals killed for your pleasure. I don't. We'll never agree that either is right


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, so we're back to pain again.
> 
> So I'll return to this:
> 
> ...


 
Because the difference between us and other living things on the planet is that we can choose. We have self awareness. And we are at the top of the food chain, expanding every year and we are wiping everything else out because of that fact.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you believe that animals have a right to life?
> 
> I see the right to life as a human concept that is completely absent in nature. Why are we beholden to respect an animals "right to life" any more than a tiger or a shark would respect a humans?
> 
> You say "_mere_ human pleasure" but I'd argue that there is nothing _mere_ about it and that human pleasure is one of the most _fundamentally important_ aspects of human life.



I've already explained why I think life is important to all sentient beings - because it is a necessary precondition for having good experiences. I have also outlined a secondary argument which is that I think that killing animals for non-essential reasons cheapens them as beings and opens the door to all the other abuses we inflict upon animals. I think this interest is of such fundamental importance it should be translated into a right - which means nothing more than a protected interest for me.

The reason why we are 'beholden' to respect the right to life of animals as humans is because we are moral agents. Tigers and sharks are not. That means that we owe duties to animals that they do not owe to us. Just like adults owe duties to children that they do not owe to adults and the mentally well owe duties to the mentally ill that the mentally ill do not owe them. 

I agree that pleasure is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life, its also the one of the most fundamental aspects of life for most sentient creatures. We cannot inflict any harm in the pursuit of pleasure, we can't torture cats for pleasure for example. And the pleasure of using animal products is a trivial one weighed against the death and suffering we inflict on animals to have it.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Aug 20, 2014)

I've stopped eating mammals and I'm about to cease eating dairy products too, including milk.

I hate to see my fellow mammals slaughtered.  But as for birds, eggs and fish... I do feel less guilty about consuming them, so I will continue to do so.


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I've already explained why I think life is important to all sentient beings - because it is a necessary precondition for having good experiences. I have also outlined a secondary argument which is that I think that killing animals for non-essential reasons cheapens them as beings and opens the door to all the other abuses we inflict upon. I think this interest is of such fundamental importance it should be translated into a right - which means nothing more than a protected interest for me.
> 
> The reason why we are 'beholden' to respect the right to life of animals as humans is because we are moral agents. Tigers and sharks are not. That means that we owe duties to animals that they do not owe to us. Just like adults owe duties to children that they do not owe to adults and the mentally well owe duties to the mentally ill that the mentally ill do not owe them.
> 
> I agree that pleasure is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life, its also the one of the most fundamental aspects of life for most sentient creatures. We cannot inflict any harm in the pursuit on pleasure, we can't torture cats for pleasure for example. And the pleasure of using animal products is a trivial one weighed against the death and suffering we inflict on animals to have it.


 
Too fucking right. Spot on.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Aug 20, 2014)

How cute is this little bugger?  Eh?


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

It wants to eat you.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Countdown "yeah but bacon..." Post


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I've already explained why I think life is important to all sentient beings - because it is a necessary precondition for having good experiences. I have also outlined a secondary argument which is that I think that killing animals for non-essential reasons cheapens them as beings and opens the door to all the other abuses we inflict upon. I think this interest is of such fundamental importance it should be translated into a right - which means nothing more than a protected interest for me.
> 
> The reason why we are 'beholden' to respect the right to life of animals as humans is because we are moral agents. Tigers and sharks are not. That means that we owe duties to animals that they do not owe to us. Just like adults owe duties to children that they do not owe to adults and the mentally well owe duties to the mentally ill that the mentally ill do not owe them.
> 
> I agree that pleasure is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life, its also the one of the most fundamental aspects of life for most sentient creatures. We cannot inflict any harm in the pursuit on pleasure, we can't torture cats for pleasure for example. And the pleasure of using animal products is a trivial one weighed against the death and suffering we inflict on animals to have it.



Touché.

I disagree with the notion of animals _right to life_. I also disagree that we owe any duty to animals that aren't pets or endangered, beyond trying our best to ensure they suffer as little as possible for our pleasure, and given that the death of one cow can give pleasure to a couple of hundred people I think it's a fair trade. To me their deaths are of no consequence.

You've made good points and it's been interesting. I'll watch to see how you get on with LBJ now!


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Countdown "yeah but bacon..." Post


 
Will you PLEASE stop doing this. It's passive/aggressive nonsense and doesn't help. If you want to address an argument that hasn't been made yet then make it and counter it.


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Touché.
> 
> I disagree with the notion of animals _right to life_. I also disagree that we owe any duty to animals that aren't pets or endangered, beyond trying our best to ensure they suffer as little as possible for our pleasure, and given that the death of one cow can give pleasure to a couple of hundred people I think it's a fair trade.
> 
> You've made good points and it's been interesting. I'll watch to see how you get on with LBJ now!


 
Given that we have just reached the tipping point with the elephant population in Africa, that there are more of them being killed that are born every year, what is your view about the elephants right to life? I know that they are killed for Ivory but still, I think it's the same argument. That some people like Ivory and therefore the elephant should provide it with the loss of their life being a given.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> Because the difference between us and other living things on the planet is that we can choose. We have self awareness. And we are at the top of the food chain, expanding every year and we are wiping everything else out because of that fact.



Sure, but that doesn't address the _right to life _or convince me to choose not too!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> Given that we have just reached the tipping point with the elephant population in Africa, that there are more of them being killed that are born every year, what is your view about the elephants right to life?



I'm wholly against any species being exploited to extinction.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm wholly against any species being exploited to extinction.



Forget extinction. What about killing one elephant for its ivory? Assuming that the ivory brings pleasure to human beings?


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Sure, but that doesn't address the _right to life _or convince me to choose not too!


 
Fair point. I think that as human beings we choose whether any other living thing on this planet has the right to live or not. I believe that by having that responsibility we need to factor into our decision making process what their rights should be. My belief is that their fundamental right is to life, to not take second place to us just because we can kill them.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Forget extinction. What about killing one elephant for its ivory? Assuming that the ivory brings pleasure to human beings?



 I was just thinking about that.

I suppose the logical extension of my position would be that it's ok if they don't suffer and aren't endangered, but that's not the way I feel. I guess that's where I draw _my_ line, but accept the hypocrisy therein.


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm wholly against any species being exploited to extinction.


 
So if we could farm elephants for ivory you would be ok with that? I can see where you're coming from and don't misunderstand me, I am not sat here peering down on you from the moral high ground. Not at all. Stupid place to be lol. 

I couldn't bear to think of elephants being farmed for ivory. I keep coming back to a picture of humans in a pen being farmed. You might find that daft but that's pretty much where all my beliefs come from. That animals can feel things and that they would live in terrible conditions and then be killed for me.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> So if we could farm elephants for ivory you would be ok with that? I can see where you're coming from and don't misunderstand me, I am not sat here peering down on you from the moral high ground. Not at all. Stupid place to be lol.
> 
> I couldn't bear to think of elephants being farmed for ivory.



Yep. See #439.


----------



## maomao (Aug 20, 2014)

Has anyone made any jolly remarks about how nice bacon is yet? That's normally what a meat-eating thread needs.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

maomao said:


> Has anyone made any jolly remarks about how nice bacon is yet? That's normally what a meat-eating thread needs.


just ddraig


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Forget extinction. What about killing one elephant for its ivory? Assuming that the ivory brings pleasure to human beings?


As long as its farmed well or is in abundance.
I feel the same about fur and hunting


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> just ddraig


no one else made those comments of course, oh no
earlier on and they prob would have been made if not headed off

just reading for now!
Jeff doing a much much better job than me


----------



## maomao (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Forget extinction. What about killing one elephant for its ivory? Assuming that the ivory brings pleasure to human beings?


If there were an excess of elephants in the world then yes. I'd rather it was hunted than farmed though. And I wouldn't eat chickens or cows if they were endangered species.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> no one else made those comments of course, oh no
> earlier on and they prob would have been made if not headed off
> 
> just reading for now!
> Jeff doing a much much better job than me


bacon has been mentioned a few times. but not as a dig at vegans.
but its good that you're defending the thread from things that aren't being said.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

nm


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> As long as its farmed well or is in abundance.
> I feel the same about fur and hunting



Again, your attitude precisely exemplifies the problem here, the speciesism I was talking about earlier. Because an elephant is not a human you think it can be killed to satisfy utterly trivial human preferences. Elephants are up there with the great apes and cetaceans as being amongst the most intelligent animals in the world. They are self-aware and exhibit a wide variety of behaviours including those associated with grief, learning, play, altruism, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory and language. Killing such a beautiful and complex creature for no better a reason than for its ivory should be regarded by right-thinking people as utterly outrageous.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Again, your attitude precisely exemplifies the problem here, the speciesism I was talking about earlier. Because an elephant is not a human you think it can be killed to satisfy utterly trivial human preferences. Elephants are up there with the great apes and cetaceans as being amongst the most intelligent animals in the world. They are self-aware and exhibit a wide variety of behaviours including those associated with grief, learning, play, altruism, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory and language. Killing such a beautiful and complex creature for no better a reason than for its ivory should be regarded by right-thinking people as utterly outrageous.


I disagree.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> As long as its farmed well or is in abundance.
> I feel the same about fur and hunting



I'm not bothered by fur either but elephants are different. Not sure why. Probably something daft like "cos I think they're cool"

Edit> Or what Jeff said!


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

pigs can be cool too!


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff is right in some ways. There is a line, and its not just below humans. 
I wouldn't be happy with Chimps and Gorillas and Orangutans being killed. Its either because i think they are too close to being human, or I watch too many planet of the apes films as a child.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

Not bothered about the other monkeys though.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

the line is moveable! hurrah


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> the line is moveable! hurrah


not sure about that. i think its always been there.
The thing thats moving is the amount of 'tortured' food i am eating.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 20, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> Do you equate the death of a mussel with the death of say, a cow? Because that's what you are saying. And if you think that doesn't dilute your argument you can never win it.



whoever said anything about equivalence?  if you're counting animals, each animal counts as one.  because it is one animal.  

fucking hell.  

no wonder we can't win.  you lot have your own weird set of maths, facts, and morals that are different to the ones i use because they are shifting and inconsistent.

can't be arsed with this thread any more, it's pointless trying to debate with people who have their own facts, when it's something that actually matters.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> whoever said anything about equivalence?  if you're counting animals, each animal counts as one.  because it is one animal.
> 
> fucking hell.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone has agreed with him...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I don't think anyone has agreed with him...



fair enough, i only read that reply because whilst i was in a combative mood last night i am really not today.  i genuinely don't think this thread is going to bring me any pleasure whatsoever so i really am going to bow out.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> fair enough, i only read that reply because whilst i was in a combative mood last night i am really not today.  i genuinely don't think this thread is going to bring me any pleasure whatsoever so i really am going to bow out.


I think its dying anyway.
Its been quite a good thread. Its usually very hard to have two groups of people with very different opinions talk about stuff. But, on the whole, people have mostly held it together and put forward good points.
And you're good at swearing.


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 20, 2014)

Part 2 on tonight.....


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 20, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> If your neighbour was torturing their dog, what would you do?



Ask to join in probably.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Ask to join in probably.


.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> *because they're just a chicken and there for your pleasure*
> does it not taste as good if it has suffered or something? why else would you care if it is just a chicken/pig/cow/lamb etc?



Sheep are there for your pleasure. Coz you're _Welsh_ 

Christ, but I'm on form today.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Sheep are there for your pleasure. Coz you're _Welsh_
> 
> Christ, but I'm on form today.


any chance you can stop being a childish prick?

what's with the liking sleaterkinney


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Again, your attitude precisely exemplifies the problem here, the speciesism I was talking about earlier. Because an elephant is not a human you think it can be killed to satisfy utterly trivial human preferences.


Wanting ivory trinkets? I agree, utterly trivial and is abhorent.

But we're talking about the killing animals for food, something I view as anything but trivial.


Going back to something from earlier re: seafood. I bloody love the stuff. But I actually have more worries about it than I do meat. Overfishing and the collapse of stocks is a huge problem (Roadkill knows a lot about this iirc) that doesn't seem to quite the attention it deserves compared to meat production. I certainly don't have the organic/local*/traceability options open to me round here in the way I do meat.



*the idea of local seafood in Birmingham being somewhat difficult


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

Why not eat insects ?

One of my Youtube subscriptions came up with this today :-



Spoiler


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Why not eat insects ?
> 
> One of my Youtube subscriptions came up with this today :-
> 
> ...



I'd get over my laziness double quick if insects were to replace animal flesh.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 20, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Why not eat insects ?


We really should. I certainly wouldn't mind, but the choice in Tesco is rubbish


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> whoever said anything about equivalence?  if you're counting animals, each animal counts as one.  because it is one animal.
> 
> fucking hell.
> 
> ...


If you don't think quoting that people in the west are responsible for 200 animal deaths a year and counting a fucking prawn as equivalent to a cow in that count doesn't dilute your argument you are never going to win it. That's all I'm saying. The other stuff you are saying about maths and morals etc is a rant.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

killing a baby pig is the same as killing half of a sheep.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 20, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I've stopped eating mammals and I'm about to cease eating dairy products too, including milk.
> 
> I hate to see my fellow mammals slaughtered.  But as for birds, eggs and fish... I do feel less guilty about consuming them, so I will continue to do so.



I know fish are free range and live happy lives, but they generally suffer the cruellest deaths of all animals when being caught for the table - slow suffocation.  I don't get the 'veggie' stance of 'it's okay to eat fish'.  What the fuck do they think a fish is?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

They certainly aren't kittens.


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I know fish are free range and live happy lives, but they generally suffer the cruellest deaths of all animals when being caught for the table - slow suffocation.  I don't get the 'veggie' stance of 'it's okay to eat fish'.  What the fuck do they think a fish is?


 
Vegetarians dont eat fish.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I know fish are free range and live happy lives, but they generally suffer the cruellest deaths of all animals when being caught for the table - slow suffocation.  I don't get the 'veggie' stance of 'it's okay to eat fish'.  What the fuck do they think a fish is?


wtf?? i am a vegi and don't think it is ok to eat fish, nor do most vegi's
people who eat fish and claim to be vegi are making it difficult for the rest of us


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> Vegetarians dont eat fish.



They shouldn't, but I'm sure some do.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

they are taking the pesca-tarians


----------



## bmd (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> They shouldn't, but I'm sure some do.


 
Youre thinking of people who eat fish, not vegetarians.


----------



## mr steev (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I know fish are free range and live happy lives



Most fish comes from aquafarms and is far from free range or happy


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

mr steev said:


> Most fish comes from aquafarms


No it doesn't.


----------



## mr steev (Aug 20, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> No it doesn't.



I've just read that it is over 50% and predicted to be two thirds by 2020. I'll see if I can find the link


----------



## 8ball (Aug 20, 2014)

mr steev said:


> Most fish comes from aquafarms and is far from free range or happy



Most fish are depressed most of the time anyway.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 20, 2014)

They can't remember that they ever had a good time.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

you're one of them init


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> Most fish are depressed most of the time anyway.


This is true... I won a goldfish at the fair when I was 8 years old and it committed suicide a few weeks later.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 20, 2014)

Was it any good tonight, I'm away working so couldn't catch it?


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> killing a baby pig is the same as killing half of a sheep.


Which half of the sheep? The front or the back or from head to tail?


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 20, 2014)

I suppose the most efficient solution is for everyone to just eat _less_ meat, a change of habit is probably easier than some of the alternatives.....


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> Was it any good tonight, I'm away working so couldn't catch it?


Didn't realise there was more than last night  might watch it now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Someone who has chosen not to have kids is already* light years* behind a vegetarian family in terms of environmental footprint .




Interesting to think of children in terms of lightening one's 'environmental footprint'; as if they were to be tallied up with plastic shopping bags, and leaving the lights on when out of the room.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you here, but you are indeed Lord Wrong, ruler of Incorrectland.



Over the course of the last 200 years, humans from the so called 'civilized world' [within which term is included the use of agricultural methods], have made contact with aboriginal people in various parts of the world who still lived a hunter-gatherer existence. Not only did they obtain sustenance from plants, they also got it from insects and animals, as available.

No reason to think that the forebears of the people who eventually developed agriculture were any different.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Interesting to think of children in terms of lightening one's 'environmental footprint'; as if they were to be tallied up with plastic shopping bags, and leaving the lights on when out of the room.



There's no 'need' to have children.  There are enough people on this planet.  The more people there are, the greater enviromental impact humans have.


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2014)

Ah, the march of the Johnnies.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> There's no 'need' to have children. .



There's no 'need' to do anything. But just like every other living organism on the planet, humans have children. It's just what happens. It's more integral to the life of the world than are any calculations about necessity.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's no 'need' to do anything. But just like every other living organism on the planet, humans have children. It's just what happens. It's more integral to the life of the world than are any calculations about necessity.



So are you saying 'practicality' doesn't come into deciding if you have kids and how many?  Just some fuzzy idea of 'kids are nice'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2014)

People have been having kids, or choosing not to have them, forever. What is novel is that recently, they are apparently doing it out of a desire to bring about planetary betterment.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 20, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> So are you saying 'practicality' doesn't come into deciding if you have kids and how many?  Just some fuzzy idea of 'kids are nice'.


In much of the modern world there is no economic reason to have kids. Indeed there are many direct reasons not to. So yes it mostly boils down to fuzzy 'kids are nice'. Tbh I find it a strange perversion to laud childlessness. To bring up a child is to subordinate your individual needs for a wider good. Anyone who does not have kids owes something to those who do for their future wellbeing. The reverse is not true.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2014)

Apparently we should all be mussel farmers!!
Mussels yum !


----------



## zenie (Aug 20, 2014)

Internal arguments about this right now....you can buy free range and locally sourced but the animal still gets killed, it does still suffer.

I thought maybe I could do pescetarianism as I love seafood. Then I remembered the hermit crab taught to ring a bell and it made me sad.

I will watch the.programme tomorrow and feel guilty for a bit I expect.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> wtf?? i am a vegi and don't think it is ok to eat fish, nor do most vegi's
> people who eat fish and claim to be vegi are making it difficult for the rest of us


I have a vegetarian friend. She eats fish.

And pork chops and sausage.
And beef burgers.
And chicken. But only the skin.

She is not a very good vegetarian.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 20, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I have a vegetarian friend. She eats fish...
> And chicken. But only the skin.
> 
> She is not a very good vegetarian.



I'll say.  You can only be a chicken-eating vegetarian by *not* eating the skin.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> wtf?? i am a vegi and don't think it is ok to eat fish, nor do most vegi's
> people who eat fish and claim to be vegi are making it difficult for the rest of us



 As much as I generally disagree with you; I respect your consistency.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 20, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'll say.  You can only be a chicken-eating vegetarian by *not* eating the skin.


its as mad as a box of spiders.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 20, 2014)

what do they say when people say they're not a vegi?


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 21, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> So are you saying 'practicality' doesn't come into deciding if you have kids and how many?  Just some fuzzy idea of 'kids are nice'.



Pretty much


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Aug 21, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I know fish are free range and live happy lives, but they generally suffer the cruellest deaths of all animals when being caught for the table - slow suffocation.  I don't get the 'veggie' stance of 'it's okay to eat fish'.  What the fuck do they think a fish is?


I'm not a vegetarian... I'm a mammal who chooses not to each my fellow mammals.  It might be morally wrong for me to eat fish and birds, but at least I'm moving in the right direction.  Maybe when I am more able to control my own life, I'll stop eating them.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 21, 2014)

Don't listen to jv


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 21, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because they're just a chicken and there for your pleasure



They're not there for people's pleasure unless you're into fucking them.

Are you denying they're a food source?


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 21, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what do they say when people say they're not a vegi?


she spent the first 37 years of her life as a very strict one. brought up that way. then one day she just went and bought a cheeseburger.
so she knows she really isn't one anymore. just refuses to say it out loud.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 21, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> she spent the first 37 years of her life as a very strict one. brought up that way. then one day she just went and bought a cheeseburger.
> so she knows she really isn't one anymore. just refuses to say it out loud.



Kind of a 'cultural veggie'...


----------



## ddraig (Aug 21, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> They're not there for people's pleasure unless you're into fucking them.
> 
> Are you denying they're a food source?


So people don't get pleasure from eating them?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 21, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I'm not a vegetarian... I'm a mammal who chooses not to each my fellow mammals.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 21, 2014)

ddraig said:


> So people don't get pleasure from eating them?



Surely that's subjective? They _can_. But food is fuel be it animal or vegetable.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 21, 2014)

Grow up c66


----------



## ddraig (Aug 21, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Surely that's subjective? They _can_. But food is fuel be it animal or vegetable.


Lots even most gain pleasure from food


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 21, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Lots even most gain pleasure from food



There's a reason for it too. It's the brain saying "yes you need more of this." The bastard psychos.


----------



## mod (Jan 6, 2015)

editor said:


> What do meat eaters think about some of the more intensive farming methods (i.e. the methods by which a large amount of meat is produced?).



Have you seen Food Inc yet?


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 6, 2015)

I've not had meat this year. 6 days is probably the longest I have gone without meat.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 6, 2015)

da iawn! dal ati


----------



## maomao (Jan 6, 2015)

cael brechdan bacwn neis i wobrwyo eich hun


----------



## ddraig (Jan 6, 2015)

tyfwch fynny


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 6, 2015)

Bacon is far too close to people.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 6, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Bacon is far too close to people.



Mine's downstairs in the fridge which isn't close enough for me right now imo.


----------



## maomao (Jan 6, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Bacon is far too close to people.


Literally. I used to work at a taxi office in a tube station nearly twenty years ago. One evening me and two drivers smelled a cooking bacon smell coming from what we thought was the direction of the office so we thought the station manager was making himself a bacon sarnie. Turned out to be a pissed bloke had got off the train, fallen on the electric line and was smoking away. Remarkably similar odour.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 6, 2015)

lovely!
it is cooking flesh after all


----------



## maomao (Jan 6, 2015)

ddraig said:


> lovely!
> it is cooking flesh after all


Yes, but it didn't smell like beef, mutton or chicken, it smelled like bacon.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 6, 2015)

I won't even eat Linda Mccartney's sausages - too realistic


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

maomao said:


> Turned out to be a pissed bloke had got off the train, fallen on the electric line and was smoking away.



What did he taste like?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2015)

maomao said:


> Yes, but it didn't smell like beef, mutton or chicken, it smelled like bacon.


Pigs and humans have similar anatomy, so perhaps we also taste similar.


----------



## maomao (Jan 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> What did he taste like?


Probably beer! But I was a veggie back then so would have turned it down even if someone had got a carving knife and a fresh loaf out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

human meat cooking is always described as smelling like roasting pork. With such frequency and by so many different sources that it must be true.

I once read a sci fi story where the mega rich had replacement organs grown in their own personal GM pig- new heart, liver, lungs, the works. No problems with rejection see? big ethical problems with that one though


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pigs and humans have similar anatomy, so perhaps we also taste similar.


Recall reading that the Norwegian(?) army used to shoot them so their medics could practise battlefield wound dressing/surgery on similar flesh, but may not be true.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Recall reading that the Norwegian(?) army used to shoot them so their medics could practise battlefield wound dressing/surgery on similar flesh, but may not be true.


Good for practicing tattooists too, apparently.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Recall reading that the Norwegian(?) army used to shoot them so their medics could practise battlefield wound dressing/surgery on similar flesh, but may not be true.


denmark, and apparently some brit army medics went there to train with em


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Recall reading that the Norwegian(?) army used to shoot them so their medics could practise battlefield wound dressing/surgery on similar flesh, but may not be true.


British too. 

Operation Danish Bacon.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Recall reading that the Norwegian(?) army used to shoot them so their medics could practise battlefield wound dressing/surgery on similar flesh, but may not be true.



It's very true. And an excellent use of pigs, imo.


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's very true. And an excellent use of pigs, imo.


Only if they arm the pigs too and make it a fair fight.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Only if they arm the pigs too and make it a fair fight.



It's not meant to be a fight, silly. They're practicing life saving medical techniques. Not for the pigs, admittedly.


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's not meant to be a fight, silly. They're practicing life saving medical techniques. Not for the pigs, admittedly.


But they wouldn't have to save the pigs' lives if they didn't shoot them, silly yourself.

/doing it on purpose


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 6, 2015)

tufty79 said:


> Good for practicing tattooists too, apparently.


Maybe veggies shouldn't get tattooed then


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> But they wouldn't have to save the pigs' lives if they didn't shoot them, silly yourself.



Catch-22 innit?


----------



## maomao (Jan 6, 2015)

How do they get the pig to sit still?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 6, 2015)

Drugs.


----------



## prunus (Jan 6, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Drugs.



Yes please.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 6, 2015)

JimW said:


> Only if they arm the pigs too and make it a fair fight.


 
Armed pigs? For a proper fight you want aggressive Nazi super-cows: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-herd-of-nazi-cows-into-sausages-9958988.html


----------



## diond (Jan 6, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> I won't even eat Linda Mccartney's sausages - too realistic


I've just had some of those today and you're right - they're probably the closest tasting to meat sausage out there. I am not vegetarian, but I have made an conscious effort to eat less meat. The only meat I have in my freezer is chicken, the rest is quorn based stuff or foodstuffs made up of vegetables.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 6, 2015)

some forensic science people dress dead pigs up to learn about body decay for murders iirc


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 7, 2015)

Had a quorn/celery/carrot/passata bolognaise last night, it was delicious...the kids said they preferred it to the minced beef version. The only thing is that theirs still had a spoonful of Bovril in, mine didn't.

Is there a veggie alternative to Bovril?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 7, 2015)

Yeast extract - not necessarily Marmite or similarly salty alternatives.
If you've never tried this, it's a bit of a revelation :-



Very expensive as it's specially made from molasses rather than being recycled brewers' waste -  but the small jars work are cost-effective - it doesn't last for years like Marmite - dries out - though that leaves it fine for use as bouillon.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 7, 2015)

I thought about using Marmite, I always have it in and love the taste. Wasn't sure you could cook with it though.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 7, 2015)

It was a standard ingredient in my mum's kitchen.
I remember especially her using it as a glaze on cheese and onion flan.


----------



## prunus (Jan 7, 2015)

ddraig said:


> some forensic science people dress dead pigs up to learn about body decay for murders iirc



Some people do it just because they're lonely.

So I've heard, that is.


----------



## diond (Jan 7, 2015)

mwgdrwg said:


> I thought about using Marmite, I always have it in and love the taste. Wasn't sure you could cook with it though.


I use marmite (or supermarket own brand equivalent) when making a a veggie curry / bolognese and cook with it no problems. As I'm extremely new to this meat substitute malarkly, I can say that a bit of yeast extract adds a more 'beefy' flavour to the mix.


----------



## maomao (Jan 7, 2015)

diond said:


> I can say that a bit of yeast extract adds a more 'beefy' flavour to the mix


'Umami' is the proper word for that flavour.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 15, 2015)

14 days, still not had any meat (well, except fish). I'm going pescatarian until at least the end of the month.

Funny thing, very nearly made myself a hot OXO drink as it's freezing and I had some in the drawer here at work. Just stopped myself in time....read the ingredients and it has such stuff as 'dried beef bonestock', so I'm glad I didn't drink it.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 15, 2015)

There's miso as well - comes in several types - and of course two different kinds of soy sauce - shoyu and tamari which is richer.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 15, 2015)

as i was going  veggy i stopped eating meat and fish for a month and then when i tried to eat a tuna sandwich after that month i found i just couldnt handle the texture and digestive strain - a month without seemed to completely reset my system. There were other mental factors going on too though, but at that point i was up for sticking with fish, but my body refused it. 
good luck mwgdrwg


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2015)

ddraig said:


> some forensic science people dress dead pigs up to learn about body decay for murders iirc


 
As in skimpy dresses and stuff?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> as i was going  veggy i stopped eating meat and fish for a month and then when i tried to eat a tuna sandwich after that month i found i just couldnt handle the texture and digestive strain - a month without seemed to completely reset my system.


 
Funny you say that - I'm not very well at the moment and I'm really noticing the difference in the effort required to digest meat as opposed to veggie stuff.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 15, 2015)

all kinds of clothes
e2a to post 558


----------



## ska invita (Jan 15, 2015)

8ball said:


> Funny you say that - I'm not very well at the moment and I'm really noticing the difference in the effort required to digest meat as opposed to veggie stuff.


humans are not carnivores - we have a long intestine which we inherited from herbivore primates - okay, not strictly true as our branch of primate cousins are technically omnivorous and eat a tiny amount of meat, but usually this is the dead bodies of other monkeys which theyve killed in fights and feast on in victory and give to femal monkeys to show off! IIRC  Remember reading that once...

Anyhow It is not a major part of their diet. So yeah, humans are omnivorous, but heavily at the herbivore end of that scale...our intestines and digestive system just isn't designed to deal with meat


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> humans are not carnivores ...humans are omnivorous


 
Further editing services available at very reasonable rates.


----------



## maomao (Jan 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> humans are omnivorous, but heavily at the herbivore end of that scale...our intestines and digestive system just isn't designed to deal with meat


Inuits and Mongolians must be very unhealthy then.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2015)

maomao said:


> Inuits and Mongolians must be very unhealthy then.


 
And Eskimos!


----------



## ska invita (Jan 15, 2015)

maomao said:


> Inuits and Mongolians must be very unhealthy then.


fish is easier to digest than red meats, but fact is long intestine is long and is evolutionary speaking designed for herbivorousness

article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html



> Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
> 
> Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.
> 
> But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.





8ball said:


> Further editing services available at very reasonable rates.


i was going for maximum outrage and point making


----------

