• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...56789
Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
Posted:I would just like to mention out of general irritation that some veggie friends give me. They always ask how can I have a clean conscience because I eat meat? Uusally giving me a long lasting lecture also about how much healthier it is. I have no rpoblem with the healthy part. But I would like to inform you that plants have feelings too. If you have come across kirlian photography (aura photography) you can see strands coming from them. Well we know plants are alive of course but what about other tests that have been undergone? Plants react to the atmosphere around them eg music, smells, people talking.

Albeit they are a different form of life I just wish some veggies would stop taking the moral highground because I like meat.

All I can say is I appreciate every morsel of food that passes through my lips and I wonder where it came from and how that piece of food lived.

Views people?

Heres some linkage to show I aint a complete raving loony

linky link

Oh and if there are any fruitarians about who can give me a kick up the bum then go ahead.... I respect that you try not to harm anything to get your grub.


Delete Topic

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Stone

Jeff, while the "guilt approach" has had some success in changing public opinion, there are couple of differences here. Many people consider meat a natural part of the diet. The advertising by the Livestock associations is very good. We have different opinions on what is moral. I grew up a farm so I have a different moral opinion than someone who grew up in city.


Natural does not equal Moral. Murder, slavery and rape all occur in nature, that doesn't change whether or not they cause unneccasary suffering. Additionally, your own beliefs on morality are also irrelevent as to whether your lifestle causes unneccasary suffering. A psychopath may believe that murder is moral for them, but that doesn't alter the effects.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:what is unnecessary pain could be considered relative as well, though.
if your dog has cancer do you spend all the money to extend his life or do you try and make him comfortable or do you put him down to save him the pain, three examples
extreme examples do not prove your point, jeff. we can all think of an extreme example to prove ourselves right...like the girl on ANTM who would be ok with wearing fur if we went in the jungle and harvested "naturally" killed animals...then we can wear fur
you are probably going to say that they aren't extreme examples for whatever reason, and i don't care why you don't think they are extreme...you might even equate the killing of cows or other meat sources as murder...some people see it as a form of harvesting, like milk...
pyschopaths don't know what they are doing is wrong...you're thinking sociopath, and they don't think it's moral, they just don't care
some of us may say that meat eating does not necessarily mean unneccessary suffering...we all agree that big corporate farms often treat their animals unimaginably, but there are "humane" meat sources, and are do not cause unneccessary suffering


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I side that. What is (un)necessary suffering certainly lies in the eye of the beholder, so does "morality". It already is a human prerogative to minimize suffering, which is not necessarily natural (cross-species in general and especially towards prey).

But I also agree, that it's not moral, simply because it's natural.

"Murder" is (acc to Wiki) the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another. The term doesn't apply to the act, where a human being takes the life of an animal or plant for food(turning them into second and third class beings). Even though it's the truth - IMHO - the usage of said term in this context is to create a certain emotional reaction - and is therefore polemic.

Faith: Personally I would "put down" (i.e. "kill") that dog in said example. But to extend this: If your grandmother would have to go to hospital (aged 78) for chemotheraphy, or removal of her kidneys and would ask for "being put to rest" - would you support that? (offtopic)

"Harvesting" animals or plants clearly is a belittlement of the process - one could use the term "murder", as well as "genocide". But - and that's what this thread points at - who draws the line between animals and plants (and humans).

As OWD has put it already: We have to care about the conditions under which the animals are bred and kept and we have to get aware of our habits and their impact on our environment. A diet solely or mainly based upon meat is inflicting great damage to the environment and creates suffering.

It's up to the individual to neglect these facts, or to acknowledge them (and do something about it to an appropriate extent). It should be self-regulatory due to empathy, unfortunately it is not, because the facts get hidden away too often.

(Is a smot poker still "veggie"?) umm ubblol wink footinmouth


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:i still think my supplement argument should have a little consideration, wait, was it this thread?
the harm to the environment is relative too...it's like the mcd's thing mentioned in the other thread, just because you're a vegetarian doesn't mean you aren't causing environmental harm
i have sat by my grandmother's side, and my grandfather's, mostly we tried to make them comfortable because at one point or another we had to admit defeat
i was searching for a word that wouldn't start a fight over, i went with harvest, apparently i was wrong
oops


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:"fight" is relative as well - but "harvest" was an appropriate term (one that needed consideration) hug

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
Posted:I daresay that all our perceptions grown through time to niggle this little matter won't ever resolve anything. Provoke thought yes, enlighten maybe, nark off more likely. We are all confused and remain confused by permanent change. This or that protocol to follow, conditioning throughout this life. We're all imperfect (or perfect doesnt matter), I'm still a little high.... all I do is encourage everyone to think. Chew the fat pardon the pun.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Jeff, by natural I suppose I mean normal. Most people would consider eating meat normal, as part of part of a natural diet. Murder and rape are not considered natural or normal. The trouble with moral arguments is we all have different standards. Psychopaths are not normal, they are people with an antisocial personality disorders that manifest in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse (dictionarydotcom).

Dave, B12 is generally found in all animal foods (except honey). The overwhelming consensus in the mainstream nutrition community, as well as among vegan health professionals, is that plant foods do not provide vitamin B12. (Luckily, vitamin B12 is made by bacterial fermentation such that no animal products are necessary to provide it.) Despite this, some vegan advocates still believe that "plant foods provide all the nutrients necessary for optimal health" and, therefore, do not address vitamin B12 when promoting the vegan diet. Other vegan advocates acknowledge the need for B12, but only as an afterthought.The result is that many vegans do not eat B12 fortified foods or supplements. Many have developed overt B12 deficiency. Are you getting it? Vitamin B12







wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone

Dave, “B12 is generally found in all animal foods (except honey). The overwhelming consensus in the mainstream nutrition community, as well as among vegan health professionals, is that plant foods do not provide vitamin B12. (Luckily, vitamin B12 is made by bacterial fermentation such that no animal products are necessary to provide it.)





I know- I've pretty much said the same in previous posts.



The important thing is that a vegan can easily supplement for B12 using none animal sources.



i.e. B12 is not a problem for vegans.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



i still think my supplement argument should have a little consideration, wait, was it this thread?









It comes down to scale- a vegan contributes much less to animal suffering and harm to the environment, than does someone who eats lots of meat.



If that vegan uses a few supplements, then yes, obviously production of those supplements involves manufacture and therefore harm- but very little compared to what is saved by being vegan.





 Written by: faithinfire



i was searching for a word that wouldn't start a fight over, i went with harvest, apparently i was wrong

oops





Some meat-eaters protest against the slogan 'meat is murder' on the grounds that 'murder' according to most dictionary definitions, applies to humans.



They say therefore, that 'meat is murder' is a misuse of the term and an attempt to humanise animals.



The same argument applies to your use of 'harvest'- according to the dictionary, 'harvesting' is done to crops, and, according to the dictionary, 'crops' means vegatables/plants.



So, if 'murder' can't apply to animals, neither can 'harvest'.



Why anyway would we eant to mis-apply the term 'harvest' to animals? The only reason would seem to be that it sounds nicer than 'killing' them?



But 'killing' or 'slaughtering' are perfectly appropriate term- that's what happens to meat animals.



"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, it doesnt necessarily follow that because someone is a vegan they contribute much less harm to the environment, than a meat eater. As to animal suffering, it depends on how you define suffering. As far as Buddhism goes, the first of the 10 precepts, in my book, reads Refrain from destroying life. This would include reframing from destroying both plant and animal life. Bacteria is not yeast, and we reap crops wink

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


Dave, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because someone is a vegan they contribute much less harm to the environment, than a meat eater.



It does necessarily follow, for reasons outlined in my previous posts concerning the fact that meat-eaters cause far more plant deaths than do vegetarians/vegans.

Some people seem to be having problems following that line of reason, but I assure you, it's valid logic.

Vegans kill plants.

Meat eaters kill animals plus far more plants than a vegan.

Therefore, by logic alone, meat eaters cause more harm than vegans.

Because, whatever harm a vegan causes by eating plants, meat eaters necessarily, by being responsible for more plant deaths, cause more harm.

If meat-eaters could somehow cause less plant deaths than vegans, they would cause less harm, but that could only happen if meat animals appeared fully formed and ready to eat, out of nowhere.

They don't- they (the animals) have to live long lives and eat lots of plants for sustenance.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Now under the flux of "vegetarians cause less harm/ damage/ suffering than meat-eaters", I have to admit that it's extremely hard (to me), NOT to find an implied guilt pattern put on meat eaters.

The terms "murder" and "slaughter" applies to "harvesting" plants just as much as it applies to the killing of animals - I find it valid shrug

Sidenote: Currently there are researches going on to produce meat from cell solutions (lab grown), but it may take a long time to develop a source of meat with no animal (and subsequently plant) suffering included.

Following your logic, Dave (and with that one I guess we'll be touching the essence of what I tried to point at in appropriate words and without me looking like a larda55 all the time) - now following your logic, the worst (harming) case would be

- a meatlover, who drives a recreational SUV, never turns off his engine or TV, decorates his home with 20.000 Watts worth of x-mas decoration, flies around the globe 50 times a year... etc.

as in opposition to

- a fruitarian, who lives in a cave, uses a bicycle, goes to bed at sunset and - if at all - uses his bike or legs for travel... etc.

Now: how about all those in between? How about a fruitarian, who has a fable for exotic holiday destinations (by plane)? Or one who is a gardener and plants a tree on his property every day, who is having his own cattle, treats them nicely and occasionally kills one of them for food?

How about a vegetarian, who starts a war in which 12 Million people die?

What I am strongly opposing are these slogans:

 Written by: OWD

Meat eaters kill animals plus far more plants than a vegan.

Therefore, by logic alone, meat eaters cause more harm than vegans.

Because, whatever harm a vegan causes by eating plants, meat eaters necessarily, by being responsible for more plant deaths, cause more harm.




To read a guilt pattern (put on meat-eaters by vegetarians) out of this - IMHO - isn't rocket-science. This is nothing but to paint a black and white world, dividing society in (conditioned) "good" and (conditioned) "evil". But it's "child logic", and one which is misleading, erroneous and nothing but ego-polishing and ego-battling. If this doesn't get obvious to yourself- with all due respect, Dave - then I don't know how far your awareness goes.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I've made my views on 'implied guilt patterns' abundantly clear over several posts.



If some feel guilt when reading objective and indisputable facts, then that's unfortunate- but really it's something they need to be dealing with themselves, I won't stop using valid arguments and proven objective facts just cos a minority find them unpleasant reading.



(For more details, see those previous posts).



-------------



In this case I was responding to stones-



 Written by: Stone



Dave, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because someone is a vegan they contribute much less harm to the environment, than a meat eater.





which is quite simply untrue.



Hence I posted an argument demonstrating that the above comment is untrue.



Personally, in the context of a debate, i feel it's important to challenge statements which are false.



----------



An analogy-



Some meat-eaters find statements pointing out that vegans cause less harm then meat-eaters, provoke guilt-feelings.



If I read of the good that Bob Geldof caused, it's obvious that he's good a lot more good than me.



Do I feel guilty on reading of the good caused by Bob?



No.



Do I feel that I need to be doing more good?



No.



I'm secure in my views and at ease with the lines I've drawn.



Respect to Bob, we could use more like him.



But I'm not going to, as stone seems to, deny the objective fact that Bobs done much more good than me, or, as Firetom does, accuse those mentioning Bobs good work, as somehow trying to put a 'guilt pattern' on me.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Even if I read OWD's posts with my most hypersensitive glasses on,,I still can't read a guilt trip into the posts he's making. Personally, I'd never made the connection about the meat industry and it's relationship to the amount of plant "harm" nor the relationship to global warming ( other than the cow farts, which we've been hearing about since the 1970's )

Maybe, we as meat eaters have become so accustomed to guilt trips from vegetarians/vegans that we just expect that style of communication on this as an issue?


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Cheers Stout smile

On reflection, I wonder if perhaps there's a misunderstanding here? Particularly between me and Firetom/Stone?

I'm saying that it's undeniable that vegans cause less harm than meat-eaters- they seem to be questioning that.

Perhaps I've not been strict enough in making my case and should have said that which I thought didn't need to be said, that I'm talking purely about the vegan vs. meat-eating aspect of the equation.

i.e. that al other things being roughly equal, so that the vegan and meateater in question drive similar cars, make similar recycling efforts, fly pretty much the same etc.

In that case, surely it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater?

Of course I'm aware that it's possible for a vegan, in an extreme case, to cause more harm- for example, a strict vegan who's chairman of a company who's sole business is the hacking down of rain forest to make wood for furniture.

But, that is an isolated extreme.

Apologies if my failure to make that assumption clear has led to misunderstanding.

In return and, in the interests of clarifying the debate, would firetom and stone agree that-

all other things being roughly equal, so that the vegan and meateater in question drive similar cars, make similar recycling efforts, fly pretty much the same etc, etc:

then it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.


Or, do you say otherwise?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.

Or, do you say otherwise?



Yes. I do. (And at the same time no I don't...)

Unfortunately you're statement is still too general, it is easy to think of examples to the contrary and resultantly expose your black and white, vegan good carnivore bad logic...

Someone eating occasional meat and dairy products grown in local organic farms alongside locally produced unpackaged fruit veg and cereals will more than likely have a far lesser environmental impact than a vegan eating processed foods imported halfway round the world (nuts, soya, etc - things lots of vegans consume to get protein and cant be grown in the UK), which has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using a plethora of pesticides and insecticides and whose food comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled.

That doesn't mean your statement isn't true for the vast majority of cases - indeed you might be better off saying something like

'eating a diet largely composed of imported factory farmed meat which is imported halfway round the world, has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using pesticides and insecticides and comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled is the most destructive diet you can have both in terms of the environment and animal suffering'

however the logic of meat bad veg good merely presents a false opposition which ignores all other factors.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, sorry I dont follow your logic. All things are not equal, so I really dont see how you can say that its undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater. Thats pure speculation and wishful thinking. For a start you dont consider the impact that growing plants like soybean (a mainstay in veg diets) have on the environment.

Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, have reported that both soybean cultivation and the threat to increase soybean cultivation in Brazil is destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and encouraging deforestation. Besides destruction of the rainforest, it destroys unique biodiversity and causes a billion dollar's loss on technology from bionics revenue (wiki).


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Dream-

 Written by:


Someone eating occasional meat and dairy products grown in local organic farms alongside locally produced unpackaged fruit veg and cereals will more than likely have a far lesser environmental impact than a vegan eating processed foods imported halfway round the world (nuts, soya, etc - things lots of vegans consume to get protein and cant be grown in the UK), which has been grown on arable land that has recently seen the clearance of old growth forest, has been grown using a plethora of pesticides and insecticides and whose food comes wrapped up in loads of plastics which are then not recycled.




It's a good point you make, that some of the food vegans eat is shipped long distances, with environmental damage as a result.

It's something for vegans who care about the environment to think about.

However, how valid is the comparison you suggest, between a vegan eating produce shipped halfway around the world & a meat-eater eating locally produced organic meat/animal produce?

Firstly, this is why I used the term 'all other things being roughly equal'- the comparison you suggest is a bit dubious on those terms.

If the majority of meat eaters got their animal produce from local, organic farms, then great.

Unfortunately, the majority do not- they get their food from unethical, non-local, non-organic sources, with a fair chance that it's also been shipped substanial distances.

Let's not compare the (rare) super-ethical meat-eater to the less aware vegan whose food is shipped long distance.

Instead, remebering 'all other things being roughly equal', let's compare the super-ethical meat-eater to the super-ethical vegan.

In that case, the vegan causes less harm.

Let's also not forget the other big thing that has been established in this thread-

meat is fed on plants- lots of plants

While the typical vegans nuts have been shipped long distance, so has the (approximately 10 x quantity) vegetation that makes up animal feed.

Same goes for the pestisides etc you mention- meat involves far more plant use (and therefore pesticide, land clearance etc) than a vegan could ever get through.

Despite that, I agree about the value of organic, local and well cared for, animal produce farming.

However, that is nothing like where the vast majority of animal produce comes from and, has several have pointed out already, that kind of system never will be capeable of producing meat at the levels used today.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: stone


Dave, sorry I don’t follow your logic. All things are not equal...........



Sorry, I've put it as clearly as I possibly can, I can't really do more.



 Written by: stone


“Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, have reported that both soybean cultivation and the threat to increase soybean cultivation in Brazil is destroying huge areas of Amazon rainforest and encouraging deforestation. Besides destruction of the rainforest, it destroys unique biodiversity and causes a billion dollar's loss on technology from bionics revenue” (wiki).




Is it of particular relevance to vegans?

Do meat-eaters consume less soy beans than vegans?

Do the animals the meat comes from consume no soy beans in their feed?

If you can show that the soybeans produced in brazil/the amazon are mainly going to feed vegans, then you'll have a decent argument and ethical vegans can consider boycotting soybeans from those areas.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:While you're developing your argument. you may want to consider these:

from: http://www.sustainweb.org/page.php?id=144
 Written by:



Soya's main use in the UK is as feed for livestock. After the oil has been extracted the resulting high-protein meal is widely used in animal feed, forming an essential fuel for intensively reared cattle, pigs and poultry.





from: http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a05-kerley.htm

 Written by:



The animal feed industry uses 77% of the soybean meal produced primarily as an amino acid and protein source in diets. Consequently, soybeans are an integral component of the US agriculture industry, and use of the soybean in animal feed formulations is important to the viability of the agriculture industry. The continued dominance of soybean use in animal feed applications is dependent upon designing soybean seed compositions that will benefit animal production





Just a couple of pages I turned up on a search- now I'm not saying that they're necessarily correct, but if you think they're not, it would be a good idea to find some evidence to the contrary.

Cos, what they're saying is that most soybeans are produced to feed animals, rather than vegans.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

However, how valid is the comparison you suggest, between a vegan eating produce shipped halfway around the world & a meat-eater eating locally produced organic meat/animal produce?

I used the term 'all other things being roughly equal'- the comparison you suggest is a bit dubious on those terms.



Dave... If soybeans and cashew nuts were grown in the West Country you might have an argument.

However I think you'll find that unlike cows and chickens, they HAVE to be imported from far off places where the climate will support them.

As such your 'all things being equal' argument works only at the level of abstract ideas... it has no relevance to the real world or real people.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:For most vegans cashew nuts are an occasional and very minor part of the diet.

Many vegans have a ethical focus on the environmetal impact of lifestyles and, for that reason, minimise use of produce that has to be shipped long-distance.

Remember than meat-animals need plant feed- much of which is shipped long-distance.

To the extent that vegans are responsible for the 'footprint' of their luxury items (like cashews), then meat-eaters are responsible for the footprint of all the plant food their animal consumes while living.

Whichever way you look at it, on the wholel, vegans, compared like-for-like, are involved in much less harm (both environemtal and in terms of animal suffering) than are meat-eaters.

(incidently, if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?)


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: OWD

if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?



If you need me to state the completely obvious than i will...

 Written by: soil association

Organic cows graze on pastures which have not been treated with artificial pesticides and fertilisers



This being from the association which certifies farms as organic.

As the UK doesn't have pastures of soya as it isn't a viable crop under UK climate (source UNFAO - http://faostat.fao.org/site/340/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=340 they list what nations produce what crops) its fairly safe to say that the pastures these animals graze on aren't soy.

So organic meat eaters are responsible for the devastating carbon footprint of locally grown grass.

Whereas soymilk not only involves the food miles, but is responsible for deforestation - as you've pointed out.

I don't know the relative footprints of locally grown grass and imported soya responsible for the felling of the amazon, but I'd guess that the grass has a footprint less than one tenth of the soy.

However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.

Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.

I've gotten somewhat bored with pointing that out to you... You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.

I'm outta here...


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: dream

You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.


That's clearly NOT what Dave is saying. His comments are directed at which lifestyles have what kinds of impacts and why. From the posts his position appears to be vastly better thought out and reasoned than your own.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: dream



 Written by: OWD

if meat-eaters are going to continue using soy in their arguments against veganism, could they address the point I posted above, which is that the majority of soy seems to be used for animal feed, not vegans?





If you need me to state the completely obvious than i will...



 Written by: soil association

Organic cows graze on pastures which have not been treated with artificial pesticides and fertilisers





This being from the association which certifies farms as organic.



As the UK doesn't have pastures of soya as it isn't a viable crop under UK climate (source UNFAO - http://faostat.fao.org/site/340/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=340 they list what nations produce what crops) its fairly safe to say that the pastures these animals graze on aren't soy.



So organic meat eaters are responsible for the devastating carbon footprint of locally grown grass.



Whereas soymilk not only involves the food miles, but is responsible for deforestation - as you've pointed out.



I don't know the relative footprints of locally grown grass and imported soya responsible for the felling of the amazon, but I'd guess that the grass has a footprint less than one tenth of the soy.



However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.



Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.



I've gotten somewhat bored with pointing that out to you... You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans.







I think I've made it clear that I'm not comaparing vegans to organic meat-eaters.



Why would I? Those eating purely organic meat are a tiny minority of the meat industries output.



Let me state to those who eat only organic meat/organic animal produce-



I'm not talking about you, how your carbon footprint compares to the average vegan, i don't know, maybe it compares favourably? I don't know.



I am, of course, instead, comparing vegans to those who eat the produce of the much more common, non-organic meat industry.



Which is the main user of environmentally destructive soy production and which feeds its animals on the cheapest food it can get i.e. often shipped long distance.



On which we seem to be in complete agreement?



 Written by: dream





However, on the other hand intensive factory farming requires the importation of vast amounts of feed for their vast number of animals housed on small areas of land (often in sheds 24/7). As soy is a high protein food it is used to bulk up factory farmed animals. So these animals have 10x the footprint of the vegans who eat the same soy.







 Written by: dream





Once again you manage to homogenize the evil meat industry rather than dealing with the specific case I presented.







I've clearly stated that I'm dealing with the intensive meat industry.



Said it many times, very clearly.



If you want to debate vegan vs. organic meat, then fine- I've nothing to say on it other than, yes, for that tiny minority who eat purely organic meat/animal produce- great- you're causing less harm than that majority who eat intensively farmed meat.







 Written by: dream





You clearly have no desire to listen to anything beyond a childlike good/bad binary between meat eaters and vegans....



...I'm outta here...







wave


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:actually, there is growing demand for organic meats.
a store just opened in my neighborhood,and is doing very well. milwaukee has the public market which has tons of local organic foods. bf got some meat there that was out of this world in taste.
organic meat demand is growing because many cooking shows are promoting buying locally and organicly. it's even been on oprah, the difference in taste of organic foods, including meat. most of the cooking shows that i watch, encourage organic meats. my family is starting to cook with organic meats, my friends cook with organics...they feel better about their foods and thinks it has a better taste

point being, the organic meat industry is growing and cannot be so easily dismissed...maybe now you can, but i would argue against it at least in this concientious forum.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Icarus
GOLD Member since Sep 2003

member


Total posts: 165
Posted:Dave, much admiration hug

... simplify ...

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



actually, there is growing demand for organic meats.

a store just opened in my neighborhood,and is doing very well. milwaukee has the public market which has tons of local organic foods. bf got some meat there that was out of this world in taste.

organic meat demand is growing because many cooking shows are promoting buying locally and organicly. it's even been on oprah, the difference in taste of organic foods, including meat. most of the cooking shows that i watch, encourage organic meats. my family is starting to cook with organic meats, my friends cook with organics...they feel better about their foods and thinks it has a better taste



point being, the organic meat industry is growing and cannot be so easily dismissed...maybe now you can, but i would argue against it at least in this concientious forum.





I'm not dismissing organic meat- no-one in this thread is dismissing it.



In my previous post, I gave credit to those who eat organic meat rather than intensively farmed meat.



What i was pointing out was that, in reply to posts claiming that vegans were behind the destruction of forests cleared for soy bean production, that, in reality, most of that soy was to feed intensively farmed livestock.



On that issue, which is the one I was dealing with, organic meat production is irrelevant.



In this thread, I am arguing that-



a diet consisting of intensively farmed meat (which currently constitutes the vast majority of meat bought) is more damaging than a vegan diet



I'm not commenting on organic meat, other than to state the obvious, that, in it's current state, of course it is less damaging that intensively farmed meat.



(With the reservation, that many here have pointed out, that organic meat production on the same scale as current intensive meat production, would likely not be viable).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I've been pretty diplomatic in this thread, despite having the strong feeling that i'm banging my head against a brick wall smile



I've put off saying what I'm about to say, cos it's likely to not be taken too well by some.



But, it needs to be said-



I'm fairly shocked at what seems to be a fundamental ability of many of the pro-meaters here, to engage in basic reason, to address fairly straightforward points that I've made and just to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion/debate.



Instead you seem to just go off on extraordinary side-issues that, in the main, have no bearing on the point you're aiming to address.



Denial and avoidance seem to be the main strategies.



I'm not going to say it's frustrating, cos, obviously, i'm still sticking with it and could choose to leave it if I wished.



But, I want you to know that my motivation at this point is not to try and convince the pro-meaters here, or change their minds, or even to try and get them to examine their basic reasoning ability.



Cos there's no point. nothing I can say is going to get them to look at their basic beliefs, or question them.



I'm still here cos this is a public thread and, when I spend my time replying to these pro-meaters 'arguments', I'm not doing so with the belief that they'll either listen, or understand, what I'm saying.



It's for those who stumble in here out of interest, or from an internet search.



I would suggest to the pro-meaters, that they reflect on the fact that I'm getting some occasional credit on this thread, not cos they necessarily agree with me, or because they support veganism/vegetarianism, but, purely and simply cos i'm making sense and engaging with the debating process.



And the pro-meaters opposing me, aren't.



And that's my comfort here, in this innane denial that the pro-meaters are putting forth, they're doing far more to damage their pro-meat cause, than any vegan ever could.



(Again, let me remind, that the above does not apply to organic-meat eaters).

EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1173224407)


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:i don't think you are the only one who feels like they are banging their head against a wall because people won't listen
pro-meat have been discounted simply because what we see as acceptable, anti-meat does not
one might even say it's discrimination smile
this is no different than the flying thread...some people fly and hurt the environment, other people eat meat
and personally, discounting the strawberries is a bit rash. these illegal wells are significantly reducing the water table according to the article, thereby not just hurting the land the strawberries are on but other land lower on the water table. they are grown as organic foods, but are hurting the environment...
for us the environmental cost of eating meat, we consider as acceptable as those who fly
as i said, for the most part, i do not fly, and shall continue to eat meat in moderation


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Page: 1...56789

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [vegetarianism plant* feeling*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Your nickname, and you, your feelings and your friends! [120 replies]
2. Forums > A story of feelings true. [34 replies]
3. Forums > Vegetarianism.... Plants have feelings too [267 replies]
4. Forums > feeling down and expressing feelings [5 replies]
5. Forums > Nice Feelings [24 replies]

     Show more..