Death or This God-awful threak?

Originally Posted by Dragon

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's interesting how Nosu ignores this, and thinks that it's good for the environment if everyone stops eating beef, but not any worse for the environment if everyone becomes vegetarian.

I don't want to speak for him, but I'd say it's not worth responding to because it's an idiotic argument. First of all, I haven't seen anyone here claim that any sort of agriculture on the scale necessary to support the world's human population is without impact. But please let's not pretend that this thread is full of conscientious meat-eaters who only do so because they are oh, so concerned about the impact of nitrogen fertilizers on the Gulf of Mexico.

It's indisputable that the number of calories obtainable per acre of farmland is much, much higher for grain and vegetables than for meat, even leaving aside the animal suffering involved. Are there major ecological issues with the way all food is produced in the world today? Of course. But then I haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise. Have fun with your straw men.

are macaroni au gratin vegan?

otherwise death...

Originally Posted by samus

Click to expand...

I don't want to speak for him, but I'd say it's not worth responding to because it's an idiotic argument. First of all, I haven't seen anyone here claim that any sort of agriculture on the scale necessary to support the world's human population is without impact. But please let's not pretend that this thread is full of conscientious meat-eaters who only do so because they are oh, so concerned about the impact of nitrogen fertilizers on the Gulf of Mexico.

It's indisputable that the number of calories obtainable per acre of farmland is much, much higher for grain and vegetables than for meat, even leaving aside the animal suffering involved. Are there major ecological issues with the way all food is produced in the world today? Of course. But then I haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise. Have fun with your straw men.

- meat eaters are not arguing that meat eating is good for the environment (or vegetarianism is bad for that matter). they accept that all types of food consumption is bad for the environment and there is some suffering in the process.

- vegetarians are pointing out that meat eating is bad for the environment (for example, raising cows pollutes)

- at the same time they ignore the fact that vegetable farming basically sucks the land dry, reduces tress, pollutes the waters with chemicals, kills dolphins in the process, etc.

My argument is not that one is better than the other, but if you are proposing EVERYONE should convert to vegetarianism on this planet, because eating meat is bad for the environment, you should not ignore the possible effects.

Originally Posted by fritzl

Click to expand...

are macaroni au gratin vegan?

otherwise death...

Only if you can live with soy-based cheese and cream for the gratin

I thought the thread title was "Death or Vaginaism".

Originally Posted by samus

Click to expand...

It's indisputable that the number of calories obtainable per acre of farmland is much, much higher for grain and vegetables than for meat, even leaving aside the animal suffering involved. Are there major ecological issues with the way all food is produced in the world today? Of course. But then I haven't seen anyone claiming otherwise. Have fun with your straw men.

What is also indisputable is that gigantic tracts of non-arable land produce meat.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

Being a vegan would suck harder than keeping kosher.

IMO, it goes:
Eating whatever the **** I want >>>>>> Eating meat but trying to do it humanely (whatever TF that means)>>>>>>>>vegetarian>>> lactose intolerant>> cannibalism >> kosher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vegan

I know this is 11 pages late, so maybe someone else asked this, but how is being vegetarian or lactose intolerant better than being kosher? You can still eat a good amount of meat and dairy if you're kosher!

Originally Posted by origenesprit

Click to expand...

I know this is 11 pages late, so maybe someone else asked this, but how is being vegetarian or lactose intolerant better than being kosher? You can still eat a good amount of meat and dairy if you're kosher!
*****, I don't know. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

One of the most pointed critiques of vegan/vegetarian dining is that it doesn't always work well for pregnant and lactating women. The main issues concern adequate protein, reasonable amounts of fat, and the need for B12, which usually comes from animal sources. Vegetarian and vegan women have to be quite watchful about these things. It is possible for them to have perfectly healthy pregnancies and children, but it takes extra effort.

I am puzzled by all of the absolutism in this thread. Most of the vegans I know want to minimize their impact on the animal world. Hence they do not eat animal products, and they mostly try to avoid leather. It's pretty damned hard to achieve 100% success, and they know it. But what is so bad about trying to achieve an ethical vision? Many of us who eat meat also have some standards about humane treatment of animals, and we try to consume decently-produced meat. Do we succeed 100% of the time? Of course not, but that does not mean that the effort is utterly vain.

Most of the vegetarians I know are perfectly well aware that most dairy products and eggs are produced under questionable conditions. They all prefer organic, etc. As far as I can tell, these vegetarians avoid meat for aesthetic reason rather than out of a sense of ethical purpose. Perhaps there are vegans whose dietary practices are similarly grounded in aesthetics, but I have yet to meet them.

IMO, much of the absolutism stems from the very strident, in your face, and often dangerous voices of veganism. The whole "Meat is Murder" thing is about as absolutist as anything I've ever come across. The quiet, demur vegan that merely wants to go about life minimizing their impact is not what people react to and frankly, not what I think the average person encounters. I do believe I'm the only one to point out Singer and his attempted use of a fairly well established metaphysic for the "ethical" component. I am not an absolutist by any means, but also will not allow veganism to be poised as the "moral" alternative.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

What is also indisputable is that gigantic tracts of non-arable land produce meat.

oceans also strike me as an abundant food source, but a dearth of forestable vegetation

Originally Posted by Dragon

Click to expand...

- meat eaters are not arguing that meat eating is good for the environment (or vegetarianism is bad for that matter). they accept that all types of food consumption is bad for the environment and there is some suffering in the process.

Right - and suffering should be minimized. Vegans would say that using animals to create food products is inherently harmful, whereas the suffering and environmental problems created by vegetable agriculture are not at all inherent, and can be mitigated or stopped using proper techniques. E.g., crop rotation, organics, etc.

- vegetarians are pointing out that meat eating is bad for the environment (for example, raising cows pollutes)

Click to expand...

I'm not vegetarian and I think this is largely true. At least as it is currently practiced. If every farm was Polyface farm and not monstrous CAFOs we'd be having a different discussion.

- at the same time they ignore the fact that vegetable farming basically sucks the land dry, reduces tress, pollutes the waters with chemicals, kills dolphins in the process, etc.

Click to expand...

You're setting up the perfect as the enemy of the good. Are there problems with vegetable agriculture? Of course. Are they fixable? Yes. But if you're vegan, and you believe that using animals is wrong, there's no getting around that.

My argument is not that one is better than the other, but if you are proposing EVERYONE should convert to vegetarianism on this planet, because eating meat is bad for the environment, you should not ignore the possible effects.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone proposing that at all. If you notice, this thread was started calling out vegans and vegetarians, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by philosophe

Click to expand...

I am puzzled by all of the absolutism in this thread. Most of the vegans I know want to minimize their impact on the animal world. Hence they do not eat animal products, and they mostly try to avoid leather. It's pretty damned hard to achieve 100% success, and they know it. But what is so bad about trying to achieve an ethical vision? Many of us who eat meat also have some standards about humane treatment of animals, and we try to consume decently-produced meat. Do we succeed 100% of the time? Of course not, but that does not mean that the effort is utterly vain.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again. When people are confronted with ethical choices that call their own into doubt (or call into question basic assumptions they take for granted), it's far easier to belittle, or accuse of hypocrisy, than to make one's own mind up and live and let live. The threat to the status quo must be extinguished.

Originally Posted by samus

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone proposing that at all. If you notice, this thread was started calling out vegans and vegetarians, not the other way around.

lol wut? No it wasn't. It was started to find out how much the various people here valued eating a highly varied diet. I really don't care what other people eat. Why would I?

Originally Posted by samus

Click to expand...

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again. When people are confronted with ethical choices that call their own into doubt (or call into question basic assumptions they take for granted), it's far easier to belittle, or accuse of hypocrisy, than to make one's own mind up and live and let live. The threat to the status quo must be extinguished.
This is the height of silliness.