• 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...6789
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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, this discussion could go on forever. To me, the debate is not about pointing the finger at vegans or meat eaters, but more about transforming the current environmental problems.

Never the less, a few points:

Vegans have to eat at least five times as much food to get the same amount of protein as meat eaters.

As you say : 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.



As far a soy beans go, the bulk of the soybeans are grown for oil production, with the high-protein defatted and "toasted" soy meal used as livestock feed ie. the soy meal is fed to animals after the oil has been extracted.

I think you are pointing the finger at the grain fed meat industry. Cows, sheep and other ruminants are designed to eat grass, which is pretty indigestible, thats why the have four stomachs. In Australia, most red meat would come from sheep or cows grazing perennial pastures. While some areas produce organic meat in a natural system, most would not be strictly organic, though they would have a low environmental impact.


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: faithinfire





pro-meat have been discounted simply because what we see as acceptable, anti-meat does not

one might even say it's discrimination smile





One might, if one was semi-paranoid, unable to deal with basic reason and intent on avoiding addressing the truth smile



But, in reality, it's not discrimination- no one is discounting the opinions of meat-eaters; we're simply exposing any invalid arguments they may put forward that claim that (non-organic) meat production isn't more harmful than the vegan alternative.





 Written by: faithinfire



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





Discounting the strawberries?!?



I'm not going to waste my time bothering (again) to remind you of why strawberries are of no relevance to the issue of (non-organic) meat production being more desctructive than veganism.



Well done for not flying and for moderating your meat intake- by doing so you're reducing harm and that's to be commended.


"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




Vegans have to eat at least five times as much food to get the same amount of protein as meat eaters.





your point being?

 Written by:


As you say : 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.



As far a soy beans go, the bulk of the soybeans are grown for oil production, with the high-protein defatted and "toasted" soy meal used as livestock feed ie. the soy meal is fed to animals after the oil has been extracted.





Good, now you're making a reasonable point- as you say, they're grown for oil production and the remainder is used for animal feed.

Just two problems-

1. who uses the oil.

If soy oil was primarily used by vegans, you'd have an argument, however-

http://www.talksoy.com/FoodIndustry/oOil.htm

 Written by:


Soybean oil is the world's most widely used edible oil. In the United States, soybean oil accounts for nearly 80% of edible oil consumption.

Almost all margarine and shortenings contain soybean oil. It also is frequently found in mayonnaise, salad dressings, frozen foods, imitation dairy and meat products and commercially baked goods.




it's used by everyone, vegan and meat-eater alike.

Whereas your original post seemed to be saying that soya production was primarily due to vegan demand.

2. if it wasn't used for oil, chances are it would still be used for animal feed- there's got to be some reason why it's used for feeding animals in preference to grass.

 Written by:



I think you are pointing the finger at the grain fed meat industry. Cows, sheep and other ruminants are designed to eat grass, which is pretty indigestible, that’s why the have four stomachs.

wink



Whatever they're designed for, the fact is that they get what they're given and, in the vast majority of cases (organic animals aside) it ain't grass, it's soya.


"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 think affecting the spanish water table is a valid point-& that people should be concerned where their produce comes from

just because you don't see it as a valid point does not make it so, just like you seem to think your valid points are so, and we might not

did that make sense wink


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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:It makes sense.

If strawberry growth in that area affects the water table adversly, then, yes, that's an issue.

But what's it got to do with [non-organic] meat vs veganism?

1. meat-eaters eat as much strawberries as vegans, it's thus an everyone problem, not a vegan one.

2. vegans and, in general, everyone (vegan or not), consume very small amounts of strawberries. for most they're an occasional treat.

Strawberry production is in no way comaparable to the scale of meat/animal product production and it's environemtal effects are miniscule in comaparison.


"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:well, if strawberries are produced in this manner...it stands to follow that other produce might benefit from illegal wells
natural or organic may not always mean better


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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: faithinfire


well, if strawberries are produced in this manner...it stands to follow that other produce might benefit from illegal wells





It might, equally it might not.

I've no doubt that much of the fruit and veg most vegans eat does have a bigger carbon footprint than needs to have.

Again, it's pretty irrelevant to the vegan vs meat issue as-

1. meat eaters eat fruit and veg too

2. more important, as meat eaters, they, in effect, consume 10 x the plant matter vegans do cos of what their meat animals consume.

Do you understand that?

The fact that whatever harm a vegan causes by eating plants, a meat eater causes approx 10 x that harm cause, via their meat animals, they're using far more plants than a vegan.

Once you take that on board, then any pro-meat argument relying on the fact that plant production causes harm, is rendered invalid.


 Written by: faithinfire


natural or organic may not always mean better



I agree, i've never said that natural or organic always means better- natural can often be worse, organic can be worse in some ways.

No arguement from me, I agree with you.


"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:it's not really an argument, now that i think about it
it's a lifestyle choice, like smoking, drinking, drugs; maybe just not to the same degree
you can argue with a smoker till you're blue in the face, chances are you cannot convince them to quit
i do not think to eat meat is that outrageous of a choice.
i like vegetables, i like meat, my body can handle eat both


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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I've no problem with people eating a bit of meat- as I've said before, I'm no longer vegan or veggie as I eat occasional fish fingers.

The only things I've really argued against on this thread are the examples of invalid reasoning put forward to try to show that the meat industry (intensive) doesn't cause harm, or that it causes less harm than veganism.

For the 'lifestyle choice'.... I'm not going to get into that now: some previous posts queried it on the grounds that, due to the profound environmental effect, it went beyond lifestyle choice cos it affects future generations.

You're right that you can't convince a smoker to quit- however, you can point out, if they're willing to listen, rational arguements that can show up some of the delusional habitual thought patterns that maintain their addiction; thereby helping them to quit.

(which I have done, on several occasions, leading to (or at least contributing to) them becoming ex-smokers).

But yeah, when it comes to eating a bit of meat, that's your choice, i have no issue with that- the only thing I've quibbled with is the validity of some of the stuff put forward as justification.

If you're happy with your choice, you don't need to justify it and you certainly don't need to be backing some of the really dodgy arguments put forward by the pro-meat industry.

Just be happy with what you're happy with.

I hope you've not felt that my rather direct assualt on some of the reasoning put forward in this thread has been in any way an attempt to put you down as a person.


"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'm happy

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:This seems to be a perpetuum mobile.

Personally I do not feel neither attacked, nor a guilt pattern put on me specifically, because I'm okay with my diet (which occasionally includes animals and their products) - I just voiced my feelings, as I do not think that a guilt pattern or ego battling would have the preferred effects. As nobody seems to (intentionally) do that anyways - shrug it means that you're safe on this one.

But vast generalisations have to be specified:

ubbidea "Vegans" (in their choice of diet) are causing less harm than meat-eaters (with the exception for organically "grown") confused ubblol wink

Whether or not and if, to which extent the works of Bob Geldof really helped Africa is a well disputed topic, completely off the current. I'm not getting into this.

However: a vegan, who is killing humans, is - imho - certainly not much of a better guy, than for say a meat-eating fire-fighter.

"Goodness" isn't exclusively determined by the choice of food and a vegan diet is not automatically providing you free passage at the pearly gates.

This thread seems to have turned into a 100% approval of the vegan or vegetarian diet, as such completely dismissing the topic: "Plants do have feelings, too". Now despite the fact that vegetarians or vegans (in their choice of diet) are having less impact and cause less suffering to both, animals and plants than a meat-based diet (which in essence was never the dispute - I reckon), they still do cause more unnecessary suffering than a fruitarian (if he limits himself to locally grown fruits). wink

All this - to me - sounds much like some kind of "Kyoto protocol on suffering": thee who causes least (unnecessary) harm (which is good, but even better if not exclusively outside their own species that is - whereas it also diminishes unnecessary human suffering, if butchers would not be forced to work in (such) a killing machine)... biggrin

It somehow amazes me, how much compassion some seem to find for animals and plants, but seem to be without a spark of empathy for their own kind... Funny too, that some seem to be so very passionate in highlighting the "vegetarian choice " - as the arguments against a (well balanced) vegetarian diet obviously derive from ignorance.

Not only because it damages the planet and causes unnecessary harm, but as most meat contains (stress) hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, etc. Plant products also contain these, but mostly in a lower concentration. A "regular" meat-eater poisons his own body - not to speak of cholesterol etc.

But maybe you're right: If the "health argument" doesn't make ppl change their dietary habits, maybe the "suffering argument", or the (neverpresent) "guilt factor" might. And in a war (against suffering) all means are a valid option.

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:my goodness we have a sorry state of affairs here in this thread.



There's Dave arguing a very well defined point, that almost no-one seems capable of engaging with (except Stone, on and off).



Summarised: All things equal, veganism is better for the environment.



Two people: Dream and FireTom are attacking the basis of Dave's argument - that you simply cant make and assess statements like that because its too reductionist.



Stone seems to be attacking Dave's argument from a perspective that ranges from somewhere between the anti-reductionist / individualist to even toe to toe with Dave's argument.



Then theres FaithinFire who seems to be throwing in extremely specialised pieces of information about strawberries, and then reaching conclusions based on that, that the whole debate boils down to personal preference. Unfortunately the evidence about strawberries goes nowhere near supporting a conclusion that eating meat is a personal preference.



Have I misrepresented anyone?



I think that the only way for this debate to move forward is for the main players to look at whether or not its valid to make and assess statements like Veganism is better for the Environment.



Personally I think its perfectly valid.



ie - no matter how many lives a firefighter saves, it doesnt alter the carbon footprint of the big mac he ate for lunch - he still contributes to global warming.



He may still go to Heaven or be a hero - but his carbon footprint stays the same. Goodness in one behaviour doesnt balance badness in an unrelated other. Apples and Oranges n that.



If its valid to make statements like Dave's "vegan = positive environmental outcomes" statement then you must then accept his argument, its water tight. And coming up with exceptions like "What about the organic meat farms???" just shoot more holes in contrary arguments - because you are using evidence with minimal weight against an argument with solid support.



The only way I can see to counter Daves argument is to attack the basis of its formation (ie can you or can you not make statements like that). Trying to counter the evidence involved with is argument is fruitless ( ubblol).


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom





But vast generalisations have to be specified:



ubbidea "Vegans" (in their choice of diet) are causing less harm than meat-eaters (with the exception for organically "grown") confused ubblol wink







However: a vegan, who is killing humans, is - imho - certainly not much of a better guy, than for say a meat-eating fire-fighter.











Yes, your'e right- I've at no point said or implied anything that suggests otherwise.



I've made very, very, very clear, on multiple occasions, exactly what I am arguing for- check my previous posts, especially the parts highlighted in bold smile









 Written by: FireTom





This thread seems to have turned into a 100% approval of the vegan or vegetarian diet, as such completely dismissing the topic: "Plants do have feelings, too".







I didn't dismiss it- I proved that it was of no use whatsoever in justifying meat-eating; on the grounds that, if plant suffering exists, then meat-eaters are the main perpetrators of it.



Not a dismissal, more a disproval smile







 Written by: FireTom



Now despite the fact that vegetarians or vegans (in their choice of diet) are having less impact and cause less suffering to both, animals and plants than a meat-based diet (which in essence was never the dispute - I reckon), they still do cause more unnecessary suffering than a fruitarian (if he limits himself to locally grown fruits). wink





Good, you agree that vegans cause less harm; thank you for clarifying your position on that.



You may well be right that fruitarians cause less suffering than vegans, i don't know, it's not something I've dealt with in this thread.



Two relevant issues are that-



1. fruitarianism is not a viable long-term diet, in health terms (unlike veganism).



2. fruitarianism for UK-ers would, of necessity, require imported fruit.



Most vegans eat imported food, but, if they wished, they could eat primarily local stuff.



But mainly it's the fact that 100% fruitarian diet cannot sustain health over the long term.


"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:duplicate post deletion

"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:ubblol ubblol ubblol



The thread's allright, I reckon wink



OWD: Exactly that might explain the western/ European diet, which is based upon meat for a fair bit: You can't sustain yourself (especially in winter)...



Now these habits have developed over a few aeons and it ain't easy to adjust within one generation, is it? The meat-problem origins in Europe and it's ex-colonies, the others do either not produce enough meat, or are simply gifted with a climate warm enough to produce fruits and veggies all year round.



Would you reckon humans can survive on fruits IF they add artificial supplements, or you don't? Excuse me if I have missed that bit out... Woud it be a fair diet?


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: Written by: FireTom



OWD: Exactly that might explain the western/ European diet, which is based upon meat for a fair bit: You can't sustain yourself (especially in winter)...

Now these habits have developed over a few aeons and it ain't easy to adjust within one generation, is it? The meat-problem origins in Europe and it's ex-colonies, the others do either not produce enough meat, or are simply gifted with a climate warm enough to produce fruits and veggies all year round.




Where eskimos living in the trad way are concerned, vegetarianism is an impossible diet- they have to eat meat to survive.

I've often thought that, for Tibetan buddhists, their climate probably goes some way to explaining why, unlike the majority of buddhists, they don't tend to be vegetarians.

(because of the buddhist emphasis on causation and consequence, vegetarianism has always been common in the tradition).

In the UK/USA/Europe in the 21st century, of course vegetarianism is no problem whatsoever.

As most vegetarians know, it's a complete myth that it's in any way difficult to be a vegetarian.

Of course you're right, that cos of culture/tradition, it's often seen as difficult by non-veggies.


 Written by: FireTom




Would you reckon humans can survive on fruits IF they add artificial supplements, or you don't? Excuse me if I have missed that bit out... Woud it be a fair diet?



I don't know- very much depends on just what constitutes 'supplementation' (eg, would protein supplementation count or fat supplemention?).

Is it a fair diet?- for westeners there is a issue as most tasty fruit carries a substantial carbon footprint (eg bananas, satsumas etc, etc) due to the shipping.

Maybe, in theory, in the future, with extensive bio-domes, it could be a non-harmful alternative, but, for now, there are clear issues.

Vegetarianism, is a totally viable diet- accepted by the medical profession as a healthy diet and, in general, less harmful to both animals and environemt than a meat-based diet.

(With some reservations eg, as mentioned in this thread, much vegetable/fruits are shipped long distance and, in terms of animal suffering, the factory-egg industry is horrifically cruel).

It's also a firmly diet established with a significant minority of the west being vegetarian and with extensive infrastucture to supply that demand (cafes, specialist veggie foods etc).

Veganism is even less harmful and, with some extra care and caution, a viable and healthy diet.

(Though far more of a minority diet and less culturally accepted.)

It could well become more popular as the more ethically focused vegetarians start to question some of the bad aspects of egg/dairy production.

Fruitarianism is not accepted as a healthy long-term diet by the medical profession, in general it is seen as a crank diet, it often attracts individuals with issues or those who are outright disfunctional (who may also be led to breatharianism for example).

(Breatharianism being the view that a person can survive without any food or water whatsoever).

Most fruitarians, though initially often doing well on the diet, tend, if they take it long term, to experience extreme cravings and end up binging on, in particualar avocados (for their high fat content) and dates (for their high sugar content).

Denial is also common at that stage with some binging secretly on non-fruitarian foods; there are also recorded instances of ridiculous distortion where, for example, a fruitarian starts eating eggs, on the basis that they are 'hen-fruit' smile

I'm not going to diss fruitarianism completety cos, as I said, I've not much experience or knowledge of it.

Here's a link to a page on it (covers pros and cons but is mainly critical of it)-

http://www.transbay.net/~teb/fruitarian/fruitarian-1.html

Certainly though, I see vegetarianism and veganism as both practical, and excellent alternatives to a meat-based one; I don't see fruitarianism as being practical in that way.

Beyond all that, of course, is the option of being almost vegetarian or vegan.

I feel that it can often be helpful to become veggie or vegan for a period cos to simply, as a regular meat eater, try to 'cut-down' can be problematic as you could be susceptible to troublesome cravings.

A successful year as a vegan will 'clear' such cravings, making maintaining a healthy, environmentially friendly, primarily vegan but including occasional animal produce, very easy and straightforward.

Then it's a matter of maintaining an inquiring and aware attitude when it comes to food- for example, i was shocked to find out that, in the egg industry 'de-beaking' (removal of the hens beak to prevent it pecking other hens) is actually more common in 'free-range' hens than in intensively farmed ones.

Luckily, I live near a supplier who get their eggs from a farm where no hens are de-beaked, so I do eat eggs, but never from a supermarket or anywhere else (whatever they're labelled as)- I get them only from this trusted source.


"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:What I object to in this debate is this attitude that vegans/vegetarians are holier-than-thou, and are not part of the problem. I think its ridiculous to suggest " that its undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater. Because its a negative statement that polarises the community and does little to solve the problem. It suggests that meat-eaters dont care for the environment and are cruel.

The statement is also speculation because its only an opinion, and there is no supporting evidence. While it might be true that a meat-based food system requires more energy, land and water resources than a plant-based food system. However, its all part of the same food system, and the Western food system whether meat-based or plant-based is not sustainable (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2003)

Many arguments are floored because thy lack a basic understanding of agriculture (plant and animal based food systems), how food is processed and ultimately utilised. For example its bean suggested that for some miraculous reason vegans/vegetarians in the UK would not consume soybeans from Brazil. However, it says in the quoted article In 1998 the UK imported over 2,000,000 tonnes of soya products, mainly from the USA and Brazil, over half for animal feed. To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd wink. Also its often the by-products and the low grades of grain that are used for livestock. And somehow, livestock grazed on pasture is omitted from the discussion.

People need to work together on this one. Which to me is a bit like Mother Teresa saying she would not support an anti-war rally, however, she would support a peace rally. If you support an anti-war rally then you accept war



ubbrollsmile


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

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:hmmm confusion has sprung also through the double barrelled question: environment harm and moral harm through causation of unnecessary suffering. Two different kinds of harm.

Now - if we suggest that environmental impact behaviours can offset each other, can we also suggest that moral behaviours offset each other? cuz if so - FireTom's Hero who eats meat argument has some merit.

Doesnt impact on the environmental aspect however.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


What I object to in this debate is this attitude that vegans/vegetarians are holier-than-thou, and are not part of the problem. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest " that it’s undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater.” Because it’s a negative statement that polarises the community and does little to solve the problem. It suggests that meat-eaters don’t care for the environment and are cruel.




I think that, overall, this thread has now achieved a fair degree of resolution and understanding, so all I'll say on this is that it's been well covered, I totally disagree with it, i'm happy for you to continue believing it and I'm not going to engage with you on that issue any longer.

 Written by:

The statement is also speculation because it’s only an opinion, and there is no supporting evidence. While it might be true that a meat-based food system requires more energy, land and water resources than a plant-based food system. However, it’s all part of the same food system...




Pretty much the same as above, as far as I'm concerend there's abundant evidence and reasoning all through this very thread- you obviously can't see it and so there's no point me going over it yet again.

 Written by:

For example it’s bean suggested that for some “miraculous” reason vegans/vegetarians in the UK would not consume soybeans from Brazil. However, it says in the quoted article “In 1998 the UK imported over 2,000,000 tonnes of soya products, mainly from the USA and Brazil, over half for animal feed.” To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd




I'll briefly address this one (again)-

from-

http://www.talksoy.com/FoodIndustry/oOil.htm

 Written by:




Soybean oil is the world's most widely used edible oil. In the United States, soybean oil accounts for nearly 80% of edible oil consumption.

Almost all margarine and shortenings contain soybean oil. It also is frequently found in mayonnaise, salad dressings, frozen foods, imitation dairy and meat products and commercially baked goods.




ie the majoriity of the remaining soy not used for meat production is used in products for general foods- those eaten routinely by meat-eaters as well as vegans.

So, in answer to your question-

 Written by:


'To me, that says slightly under a million tons of soybeans are going for human consumption (who else apart from vegans eats bean curd '




bean curd is a minority use of soy, the people who eat the soy from the forests are everyone, mainly meat-eaters, as they outnumber vegans considerably.


I've posted that quote before, in a direct reply to the last time you raised the point- I'm now through with trying to explain the exact same points in imaginativley different ways- all the issues you're raising have been answered multiple times on this thread, mostly by me- simply read through the thread, the answers to all the questions you're re-raising, are all there.


"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, while you might have convinced yourself, you argument is flawed because its a gross generalization, and you are only looking at one aspect of life. I share a house with a vegetarian, and while he might not eat meat, he derives a clapped out car that pollutes the environment, he takes half 20 min showers and leaves light switches on.

We all have blind spots, so to state categorically that vegan/vegetarians cause less harm environmentally because they dont eat meat, is ludicrous. It is probable, especially since the movie An Inconvenient Truth swept the world, that meat eaters are doing more to reduce their impact on the environment, than perhaps their vegan cousins.

You need to look at the big picture here. As all you arguments seem to be based around meat, you miss most of the picture. You also seem to think that vegan/vegetarians arent part of an unsustainable agricultural system and there is this other agricultural system out there that grows special vegan soy beans


smile


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:Seriously Stone- read the previous posts:

the things you seem to think I'm saying are things that I've not said; the claims you seem to think I'm making, are claims that I've not made.

I've done my absolute best to clarify and explain how what i am claiming differs from what you think I'm claiming.... and it's been futile.

Re-read the posts- it's all in there.


"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

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:Stone - Dave has never claimed that Vegans are better people overall - just the consumption of vegetables instead of meat causes less harm. ie Usually, in a realistic non-extreme context, a Vegan diet causes less harm than a meat based one.

It would apply the same to goldfish as it does to Humans.

If you are suggesting that making such a point alienates meat-eaters then you seem to be 'closing shoulders' with FireTom's 'guilt-pattern' argument.

Unfortunately I equate the guilt-pattern argument to be an argument in support of the status quo, and /or sticking your head in the sand. If your driving down a dead end, is it better to turn back as soon as you know and perhaps get a bit angry or dissappointed that you have to backtrack a bit, or is it better to carry on your merry way all the way to the end of the road, and THEN have to backtrack all the way? Surely its better to know sooner and make the change sooner - even if it causes difficulty sooner?


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Thanks Pyro and, thanks to all the others who have done the same.

Stone, in all seriousness and, totally aside from this argument/discussion on veganism, I genuinely advise you to think about what pyro and several others have said.

Nothing to do with meat, veganism etc, but on your fundamental approach to these kind of debates.

I'm having to be careful with my choice of words, cos obviously, you're likely to doubt my objectivity.

But, I think if you look at my posting history, on those occasions where someone does make a valid point, I generally acknowledge that and, it it proves me wrong, i admit it and change my view.

Hopefully, seeing that will encourage you to see that, in suggesting you take a deep look at your approach to debate, that I'm sincere and trying to be helpful.

It's so frustrating that, just as we're actually getting somewhere on the soy issue and, make no mistake, the point we were getting to is the point where you would have had to either withdraw the soy/forest stuff as being a valid arg against vegans, or, put something else in to validate it- at that point, you cease to engage with the soy issue and drag in your envirionmentally destructive veggie flat-mate!

Out of sheer, in nothing else, politeness, if you raise an issue, at least follow it through, even if (in fact especially if) it ends up showing that you were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong, unless the person who is wrong goes into denial about it.

These debates aren't competitions, they're about coming to the truth and engaging in a process which may result in the participant coming out with a different opinion than the one they went in with.

In my honest opinion, not just in this thread, but in many others, you seriously let yourself down and walk away from them with a lot less than you could have done.


"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:maybe if we just focus on our own carbon (and moral) imprint, however we chose to do so
eating meat is a choice, not doing so is too, each has environmental and moral implications
and as for me discussing the organic meat, it is a growing field of consumption, and i would argue probably more so in this forum and will not and perhaps now cannot be so easily dismissed as an exception
and i was just wondering about the veg. stance on it, because it does encompass both moral and environmental issues


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fair points Pyro, thanks for creating a clearing. I dont mind rubbing shoulders with Fire Tom hug While there are some guilt/moral aspects to this debate, Im not going to get into a moral debate.

Dave, there are two sides to every story, and from my point of view you seem to keep shifting the goal posts until the ball goes through.

For example,  Written by:

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



becomes

 Written by:

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



While this could be seen as clarification, to me the first statement is a broad sweeping generalization that may or may not be true. The second statement while hard to dismiss, is not completely accurate.

Intensively farmed meat does not form the vast majority of meat consumed in Australia or in many parts of America for that matter. Most of the meat produced in Australia comes from low input perennial pasture based grazing systems. It should be noted that no plants are actually killed in a perennial pasture based grazing system as the plants are perennial. Excluding the growing number of people who consume organic meat also narrows the debate.

As far as the environment goes, its not meat production that is killing the Australia environment. Rather, its the shift from low input sustainable grazing systems to growing irrigated crops like cotton, rice and soy that is causing all the environmental problems in Murray Darling basin river system. This river system is the heart of Australia, and people who live in Adelaide would be acutely aware of this crisis.

I think it's completely incorrect to say  Written by:

Whatever they're designed for (ruminants/cows), the fact is that they get what they're given and, in the vast majority of cases (organic animals aside) it ain't grass, it's soya.



Perhaps you mean in the UK, and this could be where the confusion arises - generalising whats happening in the UK to the rest of the world.

You say that  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.



This does not mean that animals are fed whole beans.

Ill clarify this again by saying almost all soybeans harvested throughout the world are processed to oil and meal products. Dave as you quoted The animal feed industry uses 77% of the soybean meal produced primarily as an amino acid and protein source in diets. Its the soy meal or cake that is fed to animals, not the oil. The valuable oil is used for producing products for human consumption, many of which are used as substitutes for meat and other animal products. And yes, as soy is used as a meat substitute, ill happily agree that meat-eaters consume less soy beans than vegans.

So, the bottom line for me is objectivity.

Have a good weekend smile


soapbox


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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:*rubs shoulder* wink

I tried to put it across many times: I am pro vegetarian, I do support this choice of diet and do acknowledge the environmental impact. Personally I favour a diet which includes anything I like to eat (without a moral stance) when I like to eat it. It turns out that meat is anything but a regular part of it.

The majority of arguments against a meat-based diet are obvious and valid - to me. Glad to have solved the topic of "blind spots".

OWD - are we now clear upon the "generalisation issue"? umm wink ubblol

To suppress "cravings" - IMHO - is not a healthy choice.

Growing up in Germany - especially Bavaria - being vegetarian AND eating out means salad, beans and not eve soups. Things have gotten better in the meantime, but not really to a solid extent. Compare Bavaria and Texas and you may get the right idea. It just doesn't help to batter their heads and tell them about the moral aspects of meat, whilst their forks are toppled with it..

As soon as Schwarzenegger outs himself as a veggie (always been one), the bavarian population will be more likely to re-consider. So far many vegetarians do not serve as an example of body-sculpturing...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi Fire Tom wave

Ive done some more back peddling and this an edited version of my last post.

Ok Dave, I totally accept that it's undeniable that the vegan causes less harm, both environmentally and in terms of animal suffering, than does the meat-eater. However, I dont see how that statement makes a difference or improves the environment. To me its divides the community.

There are many examples where meat production is environmentally sustainable, both in Australia and America. Most of the red meat produced in Australia comes from low input perennial pasture based grazing systems. I read recently that if America farmers moved away from grain feeing animals in intensive feed lots to low input grazing systems then they would cut energy inputs for 10 times down to 5 times.

As far as the environment goes, its not meat production that is killing the Australia environment. Rather, its the shift from grazing systems to growing irrigated crops like cotton, rice and soy. I think consumers should be aware that there is high environmental cost in the production of all food, including meat as well as staples used in vegan/vegetarian diets.

It is also interesting to observe that in intensive feed lots animals are not generally fed whole grain as such. Soybean is are oilseed, and all soybeans harvested throughout the world are processed to oil and meal products. The oil is used for producing products for human consumption, many of which are used as substitutes for meat and other animal products. The soy meal or cake is a valuable by product that is included in feed lot mixes to provide protein.

I hope that claries the situation 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

Psyri
SILVER Member since Apr 2003

Psyri

artisan
Location: Berkshire, UK

Total posts: 1576
Posted:Consider with the Biofuel obsession popping up in America now Soya consumption will also go through the roof, as are wheat and rapeseed.

There are always a million + 1 factors to consider at least smile


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


Hi Fire Tom wave

I’ve done some more back peddling and this an edited version of my last post.

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



OK.... I'm a little surprised.

Or perhaps, more accurately, perplexed and wondering what exactly has led to your change of mind?

However, I'll just take it that we're now in agreement over the vegan/harm issue.

 Written by: Stone


However, I don’t see how that statement makes a difference or improves the environment. To me it’s divides the community.




To me, the maim value is that it's information- all those considering becoming vegan can weigh up the objective pros/cons better once they know the facts.

Same with those wishing to lower their environmental harm and looking for ways to do so, one of which may be adopting a vegan or near-vegan diet.

If, in contrast-
 Written by:


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



is something that's unclear in their head, that they think it may not be true, then they have to go through the torturous process that this thread has done, before they can reach any valid decisions.

(I should say here, that their decision may not include becoming vegan- yet, understanding clearly that veganity=less harm, could well lead them to, what is, IMO, for many, the more practical objective of simply moving closer to being a vegan ie eating a lot less animal produce without entirely cutting it out.

Personally, I dont think it does divide a community- like i said before, there's not much can be done if a portion of a group react negatively to established and undeniable facts.


"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:Stone- as you say, all food product categories are involved in environmetal harm, both meat and plant based.

A vegan who focuses on being aware of precisely where their food comes from and it impact- who endevours to, as far as possible, stick to locally grown produce, will cause less harm than the vegan who doesn't.

Same with meat-eaters.


"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

Page: 1...6789

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..