Today in Stupid (pardon my french): Sea Kittens

[joepunk]

"Would people think twice
about ordering fish sticks
if they were called
sea kitten sticks?"

That is what PETA wants fish to be called from now on: sea kittens. This is to make the eating of fish—pardon, sea kittens—seem less appealing. Their website (http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp) has been accordingly infantilized. You can even create your own sea kitten (http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/game.asp), giving it a tiara, or a litterbox, or an elephant disguise, or leather chaps (I think).

(Typing all this out while eating my Battered Halibut—I mean sea kittens)

[dmr727]

Awesome. Just friggin' awesome.

PETA cracks me up.

[ucfgrad93]

Awesome. Just friggin' awesome.

PETA cracks me up.

Agreed. What a bunch of loons!

[Desertrat]

The sad thing about PETA is the con job they've done on folks who think it's a variety of animal shelter group, protecting critters against thirst and starvation and such.

Ingrid Newkirk with her "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" BS is just as nutty as Wayne Purcell's HSUS--Humane Society of the United States--and his anti-hunting/fishing/pets efforts. If they had their way, no more milk or eggs, either. "Exploitation" and "abuse", by their definition.

PETA raises millions of dollars per year from cat&dog owners who don't realize that PETA's legislative efforts call for outlawing having pets.

'Rat

[zioxide]

food chain, bitches.

peta should learn it.

[.Andy]

If they had their way, no more milk or eggs, either. "Exploitation" and "abuse", by their definition.
How are milk an eggs (as the majority are produced) not exploiting and abusing cows and hens?

[themoonisdown09]

I hate PETA. I had catfish on Monday night and I'm having Tilapia tomorrow night.

PETA could start calling them "sea children" for all I care... I'll still eat it.

[.Andy]

food chain, bitches.
This is no way to shape your ethics.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I hate PETA. I had catfish on Monday night and I'm having Tilapia tomorrow night.

PETA could start calling them "sea children" for all I care... I'll still eat it.

.... Cat Sea Kittens.

[Ugg]

How are milk an eggs (as the majority are produced) not exploiting and abusing cows and hens?

Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire (http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375760393) is a good look at how plants have come to depend on humans for their advancement.

One of the most interesting points he makes is that marijuana hybridization has advanced more since the "War on Drugs" than in the last two centuries.

I think the same could be said for cows and chickens. although I agree with you that the average feedlot cow or battery chicken leads a pretty miserable life.

[brad.c]

Now I want to eat a cat.

[.Andy]

Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire (http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375760393) is a good look at how plants have come to depend on humans for their advancement.

One of the most interesting points he makes is that marijuana hybridization has advanced more since the "War on Drugs" than in the last two centuries.

I think the same could be said for cows and chickens. although I agree with you that the average feedlot cow or battery chicken leads a pretty miserable life.
The difference between plants and animals is intelligence and the ability to perceive pain and suffer. I completely agree that some animals and plants have become absolutely dependent on us to live, but that by no means diminishes our ethical responsibility to ensure that they are treated humanely (this includes their slaughter). We should always be striving to treat animals (including other humans) more humanely. One of the best ways is to eat less of them (closer to our proper RDIs in western countries) and to not consider them such a flippant food source.

[Desertrat]

.Andy, if your job is to keep McDonald's and Safeway supplied with a reliable amount in a timely manner, how else ya gonna do it? Same for KFC and Church's, as well.

Me, I prefer yard eggs, but that means having a large yard in a place where the law allows chickens. Then you have the fun of rats, snakes, owls and weasels. "Competition" comes in many forms.

Ugg, you reckon a chicken is aware of his misery? Heck, the only difference between a chicken-factory chicken and a couch potato is that the chicken doesn't get to watch TV. :D:D:D

'Rat

[.Andy]

.Andy, if your job is to keep McDonald's and Safeway supplied with a reliable amount in a timely manner, how else ya gonna do it? Same for KFC and Church's, as well.
I don't see how the suffering and exploitation of animals can be justified based on the punctuality of deliveries to fast food restaurants :confused:.

Me, I prefer yard eggs, but that means having a large yard in a place where the law allows chickens. Then you have the fun of rats, snakes, owls and weasels. "Competition" comes in many forms.
I used to keep my own chickens as well. I used to live and work on a dairy farm. Snakes only ever snagged a few chicks, owls were no problem because we had a roost for our chickens, rats only ate the occasional egg, and we don't have weasels. On the scale of things this small amount of suffering is far, far, far, less than the assured suffering of battery cages or overcrowded barns with cut-off beaks.

you reckon a chicken is aware of his misery?
Yes. They most definitely can perceive pain and fear. This is fact.

[Desertrat]

.Andy, don't focus on Mickey D's and KFC as fast food joints; think of them as a few among many sources of food for many tens millions of people. If it will help, forget fast food and think of the myriad grocery stores. What I'm saying is that our society isn't gonna go without its eggs and its chicken--and there's no way to meet the demand with yard eggs.

There might be some possible way, but folks will come unspooled at eggs for ten bucks a dozen, or fried chicken costing as much as a Ruth's Chris steak.

[No1451]

My parents raised chickens for a long time, and let me tell you, they know a lot about misery WITHOUT human intervention.

When we had them, the bigger dominant chickens ALWAYS selected 2-3 of our collection to brutalize. I'm talking pecking them till they BLEED, we had one we had to put down because there was internal bleeding from the wounds they gave it, they clawed and pecked it until it was getting sores and infections from the wounds.

Fact of the matter is, animals will create their own misery if they to take care of themselves. We of course can still strive to make sure we don't cage animals up so they can't move, but I am never going to stop eating meat, eggs or milk, no matter what some PETA animal loving nutjobs say.

In fact, thats the reason that until recently(I moved into a city) my family raised our own chickens for eggs/meat. Ethical treatment is a far cry from what some of these associations seem to want though.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

.... Cat Sea Kittens.

ahhh come on guys! Cat Sea kittens is a funny thing to call catfish. I'll probably call them that from now on... in fact...

Star sea kittens, rat sea kittens, turkey sea kittens, lion sea kittens.

Those are all gem names!

[remmy]

I don't like fish much, sea kittens sounds so much more appetising.

Peta seems to cause more problems than they solve by being so extreme in message that they are either ignore or give a poorer image to other animal rights groups as well as making the whole idea seem like some hippie thing rather than just humane practise.

[Chundles]

See again, PETA isn't thinking it through.

They think that by calling fish "Sea Kittens" it'll make fish far less appetising...?

That's just underestimating how much I hate cats.

[remmy]

Sorry to but in again, but I originally thought this thread was going to be about strange animal shaped foods like dinosaur shaped nuggets (that may contain chicken or something that may of been part of a chicken)

Does PETA ever think these things through?

[Dagless]

Peta you nutters!

Did anyone see their recent Cooking Mama game? T'was hilarious. Apparently when you cracked chicken eggs blood pours out :D

[chilipie]

Did anyone see their recent Cooking Mama game? T'was hilarious. Apparently when you cracked chicken eggs blood pours out :D

NOMNOMNOM :D

[Queso]

PETA shouldn't bother. One day soon nobody will be eating fish, as we'll have bottom trawled everything out of the seas anyway.

Humans won't stop until we've only got each other to eat.

Discarded toenail and hair hors d'oeuvre anyone? :)

[johnmartin78]

In northern Canada it's quite popular for fisherman to use actual kittens for fish bait.......just thought I'd throw that out there.

[mactastic]

.Andy, don't focus on Mickey D's and KFC as fast food joints; think of them as a few among many sources of food for many tens millions of people. If it will help, forget fast food and think of the myriad grocery stores. What I'm saying is that our society isn't gonna go without its eggs and its chicken--and there's no way to meet the demand with yard eggs.

There might be some possible way, but folks will come unspooled at eggs for ten bucks a dozen, or fried chicken costing as much as a Ruth's Chris steak.
Our society currently gets many of it's goods and services for far less than the actual cost to society. All we pay is for the direct manufacturing and transportation costs. So what if pollution causes some number of dollars in health care costs? Who cares if it costs as much money to dispose of a product as it cost to make the product in the first place?

Think of it this way: Society has been getting a hell of a good deal on their goods and services, but at some point the sale price will end, and we'll need to pay the piper.

If the actual cost of eggs are $10/dozen, why should we keep costs artificially low? Why shouldn't purchasers and producers be responsible for the life-cycle costs of the products they use and create?

The fact that they don't is yet another giant tax on the rest of us who are forced to deal with the aftermath.

[adroit]

I would eat a kitten if I thought it would be as tasty as salmon.

[bobber205]

Lol.

I Would rather eat Sea Kittens then "Fish". :D

[PlaceofDis]

this is just silly. PETA, when started, had some good goals. now... its just a bloated mis managed directionless entity. much like GreenPeace.

[Ugg]

The difference between plants and animals is intelligence and the ability to perceive pain and suffer. I completely agree that some animals and plants have become absolutely dependent on us to live, but that by no means diminishes our ethical responsibility to ensure that they are treated humanely (this includes their slaughter). We should always be striving to treat animals (including other humans) more humanely. One of the best ways is to eat less of them (closer to our proper RDIs in western countries) and to not consider them such a flippant food source.

I agree that overconsumption of meat is one of the biggest factors in poor animal treatment but another is simply the lack of awareness of our food chain.

I don't believe that animals have become "dependent" on humans rather that a symbiotic relationship has been created.


Ugg, you reckon a chicken is aware of his misery? Heck, the only difference between a chicken-factory chicken and a couch potato is that the chicken doesn't get to watch TV. :D:D:D

'Rat

I've seen some miserable chickens in my time. I have no idea how you'd compare their misery to a human's but I do know that breeding birds so busty that they can't stand up is hardly humane. Cutting off their beaks and combs can hardly be considered humane either. I'm a firm believer that happy chickens (and pigs and cows) are much better tasting than miserable ones.

I grew up in Montana on grass fed beef. How anyone can stand the taste of corn fed, feedlot beef is beyond me.



When we had them, the bigger dominant chickens ALWAYS selected 2-3 of our collection to brutalize. I'm talking pecking them till they BLEED, we had one we had to put down because there was internal bleeding from the wounds they gave it, they clawed and pecked it until it was getting sores and infections from the wounds.



Ah, and there's the rub. It would have been interesting to have an autopsy done on those chickens to see if they were ill or genetically unfit. It's also possible that the chickens were too crowded.

To be shocked that animals are capable of reducing their own ranks because of illness or genetic unfitness is rather naive, don't you think?

[Desertrat]

PlaceofDis, Newkirk has from her earliest efforts in England, before coming to the U.S., had the goal of outlawing having pets, and of ending the eating of any meat. Those are good?

[.Andy]

PlaceofDis, Newkirk has from her earliest efforts in England, before coming to the U.S., had the goal of outlawing having pets, and of ending the eating of any meat.
Keeping pets and eating meat are non-essential in western societies (with few limited exceptions).

Those are good?
That's what's debated. Why don't you think not eating meat and not keeping pets is bad? Is it good enough ethically to justify eating meat and keeping pets because it's an enjoyable experience to humans?

[Peterkro]

are you nuts?

fwiw, my dog seems perfectly happy being owned by me.

He may appear happy but he's probably planning something serious.

[leishan]

Meat is murder...tasty, tasty murder...hehe

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Lol.

I Would rather eat Sea Kittens then "Fish". :D

I think you would be full after the sea kitten.

[johnmartin78]

I personally find cat meat a bit too stringy..

[EricNau]

Considering the taste of fish, I'd suspect kittens actually taste better.

...Not that I'm ever going to find out.

[NT1440]

Considering the taste of fish, I'd suspect kittens actually taste better.

...Not that I'm ever going to find out.

You'd think that, but suprisingly its actually the opposite.


Dont ask me how I know that:(

[EricNau]

Meanwhile, I love my new Sea Kitten! Look, it's wearing floaties! :D

[NT1440]

Meanwhile, I love my new Sea Kitten! Look, it's wearing floaties! :D

I like the floaties:o

[EricNau]

This one's an elephant sea kitty! :p

[Tilpots]

If it smells like sea kitten, don't eat the *****.:D

[brad.c]

This one's an elephant sea kitty! :p

I hope that's not bottled water in the bowl.

[glocke12]

Keeping pets and eating meat are non-essential in western societies (with few limited exceptions).


That's what's debated. Why don't you think not eating meat and not keeping pets is bad? Is it good enough ethically to justify eating meat and keeping pets because it's an enjoyable experience to humans?

ok...i'll bite...

Why should I not eat meat?

It is good for you in moderation, it tastes great when prepared well, and supplies protein, and no I dont like many of the other forms of food that you are probably going to tell me I can get protein from.

Why should I not keep a pet?

My dog provides me with companionship, she makes me happy, and is alot of fun to be around. In return she gets a higher qaulity of life that she would not have if she were to allowed to roam free in a wild state. In addition, she seems perfectly happy in this situation.

fwiw, my dog seems perfectly happy being owned by me.

[EV0LUTION]

fish sticks are pretty gross anyways.

[Nadav]

I remember learning in Biology last year, that when humans started to eat meat, there was a massive increase in brain size and intelligence. I don't understand why people justify eating plants, but not meat. Plants are also trying to survive, while they might not have feelings or thoughts, that doesn't mean that their main goal in life is to produce offspring. Plants are alive, and so are animals, its absurd to say that eating one is right and the other is wrong.

PETA is crazy, if they actually wanted to change anything, they would come up with better ideas than Sea Kittens.

[johnmartin78]

Not to mention the simple biological traits humans have that are typical in meat eaters,like overlapping vision for example.

[EricNau]

. . .I don't understand why people justify eating plants, but not meat. Plants are also trying to survive, while they might not have feelings or thoughts, that doesn't mean that their main goal in life is to produce offspring. Plants are alive, and so are animals, its absurd to say that eating one is right and the other is wrong.
Your conclusion is absurd; the fact that animals are uniquely capable of thought and perception make them enormously different than plants.

Based on your logic, there's absolutely no difference between eating a three-year-old child begging for her life and a pinto bean. Do you honestly believe this to be the case?

[.Andy]

Massive cathartic post that I don't expect any of you to read :D!

ok...i'll bite...

Why should I not eat meat?

It is good for you in moderation, it tastes great when prepared well, and supplies protein
OK my point. Using animals for food inextricably causes pain and suffering to animals. I don't see it justified that tasting great, it being good for us, and supplies protein justifies that pain and suffering. Especially when tasting great, it being good for us, and supplies protein can be easily achieved through other avenues.

and no I dont like many of the other forms of food that you are probably going to tell me I can get protein from.
There are literally thousands of sources of protein out there. You can't possibly discount them all as unpalatable. Meat is easily substitutable with a infinitesimal amount of initial effort to explore other sources. All you need is to break out of your comfort zone. You'll realise that there is a whole world outside the western diet paradigm that is amazing.


My dog provides me with companionship, she makes me happy, and is alot of fun to be around.
But again this is all about you. Does your happiness, companionship, and fun justify the owning of your animal? These are the reasons we own an animal, very few did it with the benefit of the pet.

Here's a few links from a quick google to illustrate how our society views pets as expendable commodity. Numbers like this are only the start.

Roughly 5 million dogs and cats put down because they are without homes in the US per year. (http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/)

This is directly because of the consumer demand for pets and people being negligent and not getting their animals desexed. Pets stores should not be able to sell animals. They encourages impulse purchasing with no waiting time and no checks to see if a person is capable of caring for an animal (emotionally/physically/financially).

Nationwide, rural cats probably kill over a billion small mammals and hundreds of millions of birds each year. (http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm)

Pets kill up to 18 million native animals in Australia a year. (http://www.brunswickvalleylandcare.org.au/animal.html)
We keep our cats inside at night - this still doesn't stop them bringing home native mammals and birds as trophies (even though they are well fed). They still have their wild instincts whether we acknowledge them or not.

1.6 million pets put down in the UK because vet bills are too expensive. 2.5 million pets prevented from getting treatment to relieve pain and suffering on price. (http://www.money.co.uk/article/1001340-1.6-million-animals-put-down-due-to-vet-bill-costs.htm)

I could go on with links but I won't. The figures on how our society treats animals as an expendable possession and overlooks their pain and suffering is horrific. We might treat our own pets as royalty (as we see it) but the impact pet ownership has on animal suffering by the large is revolting.

In return she gets a higher qaulity of life that she would not have if she were to allowed to roam free in a wild state.
Or if there wasn't consumer demand or responsible desexing programs she might have existed at all. Which perhaps for the millions of homeless animals that suffer in pain and fear in shelters before being euthanised would be a better outcome.


Just to emphasise this point - my wife and I currently own a couple of cats and I've had a dogs/cats/fish/frogs/chickens/birds/tortoises etc in the past. I very much get enjoyment out of caring for these animals and admiring their beauty, but the statistics about the damage my animals do and that my demand for animals does is something that constantly gives me pause for thought. There are most certainly other ways that I can get enjoyment that doesn't put pressure on animals.

fwiw, my dog seems perfectly happy being owned by me.
As have my animals. And I crave their love and affection. They're wonderful. There's still ethical questions about pet ownership to overcome though.

I remember learning in Biology last year, that when humans started to eat meat, there was a massive increase in brain size and intelligence.
You have to take this in context. Meat was an excellent energy and nutrient-rich food source for our ancestors who were hunters/foragers. In western society we now have a scientific understanding of diet and plentiful and varied food through modern farming practices. Meat is completely unnecessary to reach our RDIs of any nutrient.

I don't understand why people justify eating plants, but not meat. Plants are also trying to survive, while they might not have feelings or thoughts, that doesn't mean that their main goal in life is to produce offspring. Plants are alive, and so are animals, its absurd to say that eating one is right and the other is wrong.
The problem with this line of argument (which has been addressed earlier in the thread) is that plants do not have a nervous system that is capable of pain, fear, learning, intelligence. Animals (including ourselves) experience all this, and hence farming them for food puts them through this pain and suffering. These are my reasons put forth to restrict the unnecessary eating of animals. It has nothing to do with being alive and having a main goal in life of reproducing.

Not to mention the simple biological traits humans have that are typical in meat eaters,like overlapping vision for example.
Biological traits aren't any way to guide ethics. Should we determine age of consent by puberty?

[skunk]

Based on your logic, there's absolutely no difference between eating a three-year-old child begging for her life and a pinto bean.This is in fact completely in line with the teachings of Pythagoras. :)

[NT1440]

Well, I'm designed to eat meat, I like it, so I will.

Simple:)

[skunk]

Well, I'm designed to eat meatNo, you are designed to be omnivorous. You choose your diet.

[NT1440]

No, you are designed to be omnivorous. You choose your diet.

Did I really have to state everything I eat skunk? I know your smarter than that. I was giving my reason for choosing to eat meat. Of course I'm not eating JUST meat!:)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, you are designed to be omnivorous. You choose your diet.

But you aren't designed to choose your diet. You're designed to eat both meat and plants, not one or the other. It is very unhealthy to choose one or the other.

[Peterkro]

Humans are not designed they have evolved.

[NT1440]

Humans are not designed they have evolved.

to be omnivores.....

[Peterkro]

to be omnivores.....

I wasn't getting involved in the diet debate just pointing out that humans are not designed.:)

[.Andy]

But you aren't designed to choose your diet.
Yes you are. You should have more than the required mental capacity to decide what food you pursue and ingest.

It is very unhealthy to choose one or the other.
Not in the slightest (except for eating exclusively meat). That a vegetarian diet is very unhealthy is an absolute myth. It's quite the opposite.

[brad.c]

When I was young (30 odd years ago) my Grandmother took in a stray, which promptly had kittens. She tried to give them away, but then THEY had kittens. Since there was no shelter, and no homes to take them, my father and uncle drowned all the kittens save the original cat.

At least we didn't have to eat them, since there was plenty of fish.

[skunk]

When I was young (30 odd years ago) my Grandmother took in a stray, which promptly had kittens. She tried to give them away, but then THEY had kittens. Since there was no shelter, and no homes to take them, my father and uncle drowned all the kittens save the original cat.

At least we didn't have to eat them, since there was plenty of fish.

Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Yes you are. You should have more than the required mental capacity to decide what food you pursue and ingest.Oh, good shot! :)

[anjinha]

Here's what a lot of people don't know:

- Most people who eat meat eat TOO MUCH protein, about 2 to 3 times the amount required which is very unhealthy for several reasons.
- Meat protein is the most difficult food to digest
- (About meat being good for the brain) Einstein was a vegetarian.

[.Andy]

- (About meat being good for the brain) Einstein was a vegetarian.
As a vegetarian I strongly cancel out Einstein :D!

[MyDesktopBroke]

Not in the slightest (except for eating exclusively meat). That a vegetarian diet is very unhealthy is an absolute myth. It's quite the opposite.

Thank you. How that myth got started . . . I'll never know.

[MacTraveller]

LMAO.

PETA needs to die already.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

LMAO.

PETA needs to die already.

*Sigh*
At first they had such good intentions...

[brad.c]

Thanks for that. :rolleyes:
My pleasure.:D
Thank you. How that myth got started . . . I'll never know.
Ask Oprah. Or these (http://www.texasbeef.org/) guys.

[Sdashiki]

.andy

You have to realize saying "NO MORE PETS" is one of the most ludicrous statements put out by PETA and its attractors like yourself.

These "horribly mistreated because they arent 'free'" animals are no longer capable of fending for themselves in the capacity you honestly want them to.

You cant let Rover go and hope for the best. Its too late. Tens of thousands of years too late to say "no pets" when it comes to domestication and the animals under its oppressive cane.

No zoos, aquariums...seems like a wonderful world we would be living in. No place to learn about these animals PETA wants the world to save....makes total sense to me.


Eating meat is part and parcel of being descended from an omnivorous mammal millions of years ago. You can change that by habit, but not design. Dont put your proteins on me. The world is larger than your local community. The world does not care how you feel about eating tofu instead of chicken, they want clean water and access to ANY food regardless if it bleeds.

Pushing your ideals on others, especially when it comes to food, is like pushing a large wad of meat up a hill greased with the blood of a thousand Sea Kittens.

[MacTraveller]

I would eat a kitten if I thought it would be as tasty as salmon.

Don't be silly. Salmon is neither fish nor kitten.

Salmon is "sea teddy bear". Get your facts right, man!

[rhett7660]

You know who will be really confussed about this is Jessica Simpson... Poor Tony Romo.... I can hear this conversation now.....

[leekohler]

Not in the slightest (except for eating exclusively meat). That a vegetarian diet is very unhealthy is an absolute myth. It's quite the opposite.

It depends on your body type. A vegetarian diet can indeed be quite unhealthy for some people, but of course not all.

[.Andy]

You have to realize saying "NO MORE PETS" is one of the most ludicrous statements put out by PETA and its attractors like yourself.
PETA isn't an attractor of mine :confused:. I'm can see the ethics behind some of their decisions though and discussing them causes no harm. I must say as worked up as you guys get over them, their campaigns work remarkably well. If they didn't come up with this "sea-kitten" rubbish the treatment of animals certainly would not be up for discussion so regularly. They're animal-loving trolls.

These "horribly mistreated because they arent 'free'" animals are no longer capable of fending for themselves in the capacity you honestly want them to.

You cant let Rover go and hope for the best. Its too late. Tens of thousands of years too late to say "no pets" when it comes to domestication and the animals under its oppressive cane.
I never said this. I'd appreciate it if you addressed my arguments and not make stuff up to suit. My point is that through excessive breeding, impulse purchasing, negligent desexing, and purchasing of animals by people with no vetting program to ensure they are capable (mentally/physically/financially) of caring for animals leads to immense pain and suffering. Some links to rudimentary statistics are in my previous post. These are points in which society can easily do better that shouldn't be ignored.

Pushing your ideals on others, especially when it comes to food, is like pushing a large wad of meat up a hill greased with the blood of a thousand Sea Kittens.
I suggest you re-read my post again. This strawman is unnecessary and a knee-jerk argument.

Eating meat is part and parcel of being descended from an omnivorous mammal millions of years ago. You can change that by habit, but not design.
Gorillas are descended from the same ape ancestors we are and have a vegetarian diet. If they can do it why is it that humans can't change the "design"? Or should I let the gorillas know they're doing it wrong ;)! Besides, the millions of completely healthy vegetarians in the world are an adequate rebuttal to your argument.

The world is larger than your local community. The world does not care how you feel about eating tofu instead of chicken, they want clean water and access to ANY food regardless if it bleeds.
Go back and read my posts - In western society we've got far more access to far more food than we need. My point is that it's unnecessary for us to eat meat - we can get all the nutrients we require just as easily from a vegetarian diet. The welfare of animals is something that we all should take into account when deciding what to consume. Granted being vegetarian isn't for everyone, but reducing meat consumption and being more savvy about the ethics of it's origin is a step in the right direction.

In countries that are low on food, meat is not the easiest form of nutrient to keep people alive. How often do you see food relief programs dropping perishable meat? That's because grains and pulses are a far better source of protein and carbohydrate that have a long shelf-life for those in desperate need. Per kilogram meat requires far more resources to deliver - which is why in most cultures it's only eaten as a delicacy on special occasions, not to the extent it is in our society (i.e. far above our individual RDIs).

It depends on your body type. A vegetarian diet can indeed be quite unhealthy for some people, but of course not all.
Which body types is a vegetarian diet unhealthy for :confused:?

[NT1440]

Now andy, I d just like to know if your the kind of guy that actively pushes for others to change their diets, or the polite vegatarian that lives their own lifestyle without pushing onto others.

[skunk]

Now andy, I d just like to know if your the kind of guy that actively pushes for others to change their diets, or the polite vegatarian that lives their own lifestyle without pushing onto others.All he's doing is setting the record straight. There's a load of crap being posted in this thread and a load of knickers getting twisted.

[NT1440]

All he's doing is setting the record straight. There's a load of crap being posted in this thread and a load of knickers getting twisted.

Hence my question, I'm just wondering which he is, I dont actually know.

[EricNau]

You have to realize saying "NO MORE PETS" is one of the most ludicrous statements put out by PETA and its attractors like yourself.
Not if you understand PETA's stance on this issue.

These "horribly mistreated because they arent 'free'" animals are no longer capable of fending for themselves in the capacity you honestly want them to.

You cant let Rover go and hope for the best. Its too late. Tens of thousands of years too late to say "no pets" when it comes to domestication and the animals under its oppressive cane.
That's a straw man at best. PETA's not advocating the immediate release of all domesticated animals; rather, a dwindling in demand, leading to a gradual collapse of the industry, and eventual extinction of domestic species, essentially restoring animals to their original role in this world.

Please read PETA's official stance (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp):
"We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.
. . .
Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

Eating meat is part and parcel of being descended from an omnivorous mammal millions of years ago. You can change that by habit, but not design. Dont put your proteins on me. The world is larger than your local community. The world does not care how you feel about eating tofu instead of chicken, they want clean water and access to ANY food regardless if it bleeds.

Pushing your ideals on others, especially when it comes to food, is like pushing a large wad of meat up a hill greased with the blood of a thousand Sea Kittens.
You're entitled to your opinion, as are the rest of us.

Ironically, the farming of meat is grossly wasteful and inefficient in comparison to plant products. Perhaps if the meat industry was converted to producing crops, there would be enough food to feed the starving people you speak of.

(For what it's worth, I am not generally a supporter of PETA, or their practices.)

[skunk]

Hence my question, I'm just wondering which he is, I dont actually know.I haven't noticed him pushing any diet on anyone.

[.Andy]

^^^thanks skunk :)

Now andy, I d just like to know if your the kind of guy that actively pushes for others to change their diets, or the polite vegatarian that lives their own lifestyle without pushing onto others.
If that's the only two choices you see on this issue you should just put me on ignore.

[Sdashiki]

All he's doing is setting the record straight. There's a load of crap being posted in this thread and a load of knickers getting twisted.

When people rave about how they are "evolved" and doing things "right" while the rest of the world is struggling to catch up from their barbaric ways...its going to happen.

BTW: Gorillas descended from the same ancestor long ago, so long ago they became herbivore specialist, we omnivorous to feed our hungry brains that grew much larger and faster than our ape counterparts. So, we cant be like they are, we arent Gorilla Gorilla, we are Homo Sapiens.

[skunk]

When people rave about how they are "evolved" and doing things "right" while the rest of the world is struggling to catch up from their barbaric ways...its going to happen.Nobody is raving except those who cannot accept that they have a choice of diet.

Gorillas descended from the same ancestor long ago, so long ago they became herbivore specialist, we omnivorous to feed our hungry brains that grew much larger and faster than our ape counterparts. So, we cant be like they are, we arent Gorilla Gorilla, we are Homo Sapiens.I expect Albert Einstein was a gorilla, right?

BTW: Which species do you think decided to call itself homo sapiens sapiens? Could anthropocentric pride or arrogance have had anything to do with it?

[NT1440]

I haven't noticed him pushing any diet on anyone.

Please READ my damn posts. I wasn't saying he was in this thread, I was asking if he is the kind of person that quietly takes offense to something like meat eating or if he actively pushes against it.

I'm talking real world here, not just on forums, and I in no way said anything even remotely close to "stop pushing your ways on us!" or some nonsense.

.Andy, why would I ignore you?? We were getting along quite well in that other thread last night.


I honestly think people choose not to actually read posts anymore...

[.Andy]

When people rave about how they are "evolved" and doing things "right" while the rest of the world is struggling to catch up from their barbaric ways...its going to happen.
Presumably this is referring to me. Apologies if you see my posts as "raving" about "barbacity" and "righteous". I've tried to reference everything I can and be as genial as possible - it's a failure on my behalf if it's come across as such.

BTW: Gorillas descended from the same ancestor long ago, so long ago they became herbivore specialist, we omnivorous to feed our hungry brains that grew much larger and faster than our ape counterparts. So, we cant be like they are, we arent Gorilla Gorilla, we are Homo Sapiens.
I've addressed the meat=brain argument in context earlier in the thread. To make it short. Meat wasn't eaten by our ancestors to the extent it is today in western society. It was a supplement to their diet when they could attain it by hunting etc. Our society overeats meat, and intensively farms it, which leads to ethical questions about our impact on animals at source. The fact that we can also get all the nutrients we need from other sources complicates these ethics. As I've stated being a vegetarian isn't for everyone, but reducing consumption of meat and/or making ethical choices where possible on the origin of said meat, can go a long way in preventing animal pain and suffering. Which from the love of animals shown in this thread is something we can all agree is a noble goal.

[Sdashiki]

I expect Albert Einstein was a gorilla, right?

BTW: Which species do you think decided to call itself homo sapiens sapiens? Could anthropocentric pride or arrogance have had anything to do with it?

huh?

EDIT: it appears there are people in this thread who just wait for a reply and pounce on it to reply...im out. enjoy.

[skunk]

Please READ my damn posts. I wasn't saying he was in this thread, I was asking if he is the kind of person that quietly takes offense to something like meat eating or if he actively pushes against it.I would have thought that his eminently reasonable posts could speak for themselves.

[NT1440]

I would have thought that his eminently reasonable posts could speak for themselves.

Well people are much different online than in real person, I was merely asking if .Andy happened to be a protester kind of vegatarian or not, in real life.

[.Andy]

.Andy, why would I ignore you?? We were getting along quite well in that other thread last night.
I meant for the context of this thread! I'd miss you elsewhere NT1440 :D!

Well people are much different online than in real person, I was merely asking if .Andy happened to be a protester kind of vegatarian or not, in real life.
If it comes up in conversation I try to respond as I've done here. I'm definitely not an out in the street protestor amongst a mob. I classify myself as a scientist and as think that's the best source of information to form one's views.

[leekohler]

Which body types is a vegetarian diet unhealthy for :confused:?

Ectomorphs, such as myself, have an extremely difficult time maintaining a healthy weight on a vegetarian diet. It definitely would not work for me. You cannot claim that vegetarianism is the right thing for every type of person.

Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.acu-cell.com/veg.html

[Blue Velvet]

I classify myself as a scientist....

Trouble-maker. How dare people rely on peer-reviewed evidence and such things as pesky facts for their view of the world?

[NT1440]

I meant for the context of this thread! I'd miss you elsewhere NT1440 :D!


If it comes up in conversation I try to respond as I've done here. I'm definitely not an out in the street protestor amongst a mob. I classify myself as a scientist and as think that's the best source of information to form one's views.

Thats very admirable. Nothing like whackjobs that only know how to get up in your face with angry rants.

[atszyman]

And in the news from the future:

After successfully convincing the public to consume less seafood, they are now taking on the consumption of land animals. Convincing people that sea kittens should be called sea kittens rather than the archaic term "fish" that was in use a little over a decade ago managed to reduce the consumption of fish by 50% over the last 12 years. From now on cows are to be called "land puppies", pigs shall be referred to as "quadruped babies", and sheep will now be referred to as "fluffies." On the poultry front, chickens will now be called "tropic penguins".

[.Andy]

Ectomorphs, such as myself, have an extremely difficult time maintaining a healthy weight on a vegetarian diet. It definitely would not work for me.
You require the same nutrients as everyone. You just need a higher calorie diet. Nuts, oils, cheeses will easily supply these. See if you can find a scientific article that supports a vegetarian diet being unhealthy for an ectomorph.

You cannot claim that vegetarianism is the right thing for every type of person.
I never claim it's the right thing for everyone, but for reasons other than there being "body types" that require it.

Trouble-maker. How dare people rely on peer-reviewed evidence and such things as pesky facts for their view of the world?
What can I say I'm an pompous ass :D!

Anyway I have to go away for a three day beach holiday and eat lots of legumes! I enjoy seeing the state of the thread on my return. Be genial all :)!

[Blue Velvet]

Anyway I have to go away for a three day beach holiday and eat lots of legumes!

Piss off. :p

[themoonisdown09]

Anyway I have to go away for a three day beach holiday and eat lots of legumes! I enjoy seeing the state of the thread on my return. Be genial all :)!

Quick... everybody talk bad about .Andy while he's gone! :D

[leekohler]

You require the same nutrients as everyone. You just need a higher calorie diet. Nuts, oils, cheeses will easily supply these. See if you can find a scientific article that supports a vegetarian diet being unhealthy for an ectomorph.


Also- B12 is only available from animal sources. Cheese is an animal product as well.

And .Andy- I am speaking for myself. I have a difficult enough time managing my weight and diet. I simply don't have the time to eat as much as I would have to to maintain my weight on a vegetarian diet. It's simply not practical, and would not work for me.

[EricNau]

Also- B12 is only available from animal sources. Cheese is an animal product as well.

And .Andy- I am speaking for myself. I have a difficult enough time managing my weight and diet. I simply don't have the time to eat as much as I would have to to maintain my weight on a vegetarian diet. It's simply not practical, and would not work for me.
It's worth noting that vegetarian diets do not exclude cheese, egg, or dairy products, all of which contain B-12.

Typical vegetarian diets rarely result in deficiencies, assuming they're adequate in calories. Vegan diets (excluding all animal products, not just meat) are indeed more difficult to manage, but still not impossible.

[leekohler]

It's worth noting that vegetarian diets do not exclude cheese, egg, or dairy products, all of which contain B-12.

Typical vegetarian diets rarely result in deficiencies, assuming they're adequate in calories. Vegan diets (excluding all animal products, not just meat) are indeed more difficult to manage, but still not impossible.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that no one can eat a diet totally free of animal product. We need B12, and it only comes from animal sources. Even vegans have to have B12.

And you are correct that vegetarian diets can be quite healthy. Having tried it once, I found it's not for me. It's simply not the best option for everyone, that's the only point I was making.

[EricNau]

However, I think it's worth pointing out that no one can eat a diet totally free of animal product. We need B12, and it only comes from animal sources. Even vegans have to have B12.

And you are correct that vegetarian diets can be quite healthy. Having tried it once, I found it's not for me. It's simply not the best option for everyone, that's the only point I was making.
A fair enough point, to be sure. Also, anyone considering such a change of diet should certainly consult their doctor and/or a licensed nutritionist.

[Peterkro]

Ectomorphs, such as myself, have an extremely difficult time maintaining a healthy weight on a vegetarian diet. It definitely would not work for me. You cannot claim that vegetarianism is the right thing for every type of person.

Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.acu-cell.com/veg.html

I,m a ectomorph and have survived reasonably well on a vegetarian diet for forty years.

P.S. Brewers yeast is a good source of B12.

[leekohler]

I,m a ectomorph and have survived reasonably well on a vegetarian diet for forty years.

P.S. Brewers yeast is a good source of B12.

Depends on what you do, peterkro. Do you lift weights several times a week? The vegetarian thing doesn't work well for me. I'll take my personal experience regarding my own body and what it tells me, and my doctor's advice to be what determines my diet. ;)

FYI from veganhealth.org:

Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 unless they are fortified with it.

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/vegansources

[iCantwait]

i hate people like PETA and hippys in general, they need to get bashed by police more. and then say thank you to the police and apologise for the inconvenience they caused the police, then jump off a bride to be gradually eaten by "sea kittens"

on another note, what about fresh water fish? river/lake/pond/swamp kittens?
and what about fish like a great white? sealion? (oh, wait:))
barracuda would be like "feral sea cat":D

[MacBoobsPro]

I'm a little late to the party but wouldn't calling them '***** sticks' be more effective than 'Sea Kittens?'

I'd like to see a make your own site then.

[iCantwait]

this is my sea kitten

[iCantwait]

this is my sea kitten

and yes, that is a bowl of water for it

[mactastic]

i hate people like PETA and hippys in general, they need to get bashed by police more. and then say thank you to the police and apologise for the inconvenience they caused the police, then jump off a bride to be gradually eaten by "sea kittens"

on another note, what about fresh water fish? river/lake/pond/swamp kittens?
and what about fish like a great white? sealion? (oh, wait:))
barracuda would be like "feral sea cat":D
Glad to know you hate me and wish I would die. Of course, such vile things are easy to say on the internets...

[Peterkro]

i hate people like PETA and hippys in general, they need to get bashed by police more. and then say thank you to the police and apologise for the inconvenience they caused the police, then jump off a bride to be gradually eaten by "sea kittens"



I'm another one you apparently hate,what did I do?

[Peterkro]

Depends on what you do, peterkro. Do you lift weights several times a week? The vegetarian thing doesn't work well for me. I'll take my personal experience regarding my own body and what it tells me, and my doctor's advice to be what determines my diet. ;)

FYI from veganhealth.org:



http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/vegansources

I don't lift weights (perish the thought) but I've worked in the construction industry for many years (much of it tech rather than humping) including some time as a lead roofer good way to get fit believe me. I didn't know about the B12 and brewers yeast although I think it's pretty common for it to be fortified in the U.K. I am a vego not a vegan. I'm sure you know best what suits you. You may know of this guy in the link,not a body builder but I'd say a ectomorph and extremely fit (and a vegan ):

http://www.brendanbrazier.com/bio/index.html

[KingYaba]

*Sigh*
At first they had such good intentions...

"Good intentions pave the road to Hell."

[leekohler]

I don't lift weights (perish the thought) but I've worked in the construction industry for many years (much of it tech rather than humping) including some time as a lead roofer good way to get fit believe me. I didn't know about the B12 and brewers yeast although I think it's pretty common for it to be fortified in the U.K. I am a vego not a vegan. I'm sure you know best what suits you. You may know of this guy in the link,not a body builder but I'd say a ectomorph and extremely fit (and a vegan ):

http://www.brendanbrazier.com/bio/index.html

He IS fit, but he's also super skinny and that's what I am trying to get stay away from.

[apsterling]

Biological traits aren't any way to guide ethics. Should we determine age of consent by puberty?

I'm all for that, actually.

Realistically, as a human race we wouldn't have gotten here were it not for domesticated animals. It's a simple fact, without the work power of domesticated animals it's impossible to have made it as far as a society, no mules to pull carts of trade/building materials before cars, or horses to help move us farther faster, there wouldn't be a United States of America, there wouldn't be computers and there sure as hell wouldn't be Sea Kittens. When the domestic animals that happen to taste good aren't effective workers or capable of working and possibly nearing the end of their lifespan, what sense does it make to keep them alive when it's sense knowing they'll die anyway? And when they're dead, does it really matter if we're eating them or not?

[iCantwait]

I'm another one you apparently hate,what did I do?

do you constantly complain and protest when stuff does not go your way instead of just going with it?

[skunk]

It's a simple fact, without the work power of domesticated animals it's impossible to have made it as far as a society, no mules to pull carts of trade/building materials before cars, or horses to help move us farther faster, there wouldn't be a United States of America, there wouldn't be computers and there sure as hell wouldn't be Sea Kittens.The Incas seemed to manage.
When the domestic animals that happen to taste good aren't effective workers or capable of working and possibly nearing the end of their lifespan, what sense does it make to keep them alive when it's sense knowing they'll die anyway? And when they're dead, does it really matter if we're eating them or not?Most animals we eat did not die of old age.

[apsterling]

The Incas seemed to manage.

Ok, true, you've got me there, but I'm pretty sure they ate meat.

Most animals we eat did not die of old age.
But they'd die of old age or disease eventually, is my point.
No one lives forever.

[mactastic]

do you constantly complain and protest when stuff does not go your way instead of just going with it?
Considering you were the one complaining about PETA and hippies, I wouldn't run your mouth on that one.

[Much Ado]

But they'd die of old age or disease eventually, is my point.
No one lives forever.

But, Mr. Camus, that is an argument for cannibalism.

[atszyman]

But they'd die of old age or disease eventually, is my point.
No one lives forever.

And no human would live forever either, so you might as well just mow down people in the crosswalk while driving. They were going to die anyway, right?

Don't get me wrong, I like and eat meat, and while I understand the arguments against it, I'm not about to change my mind about eating it, but I do prefer that the animal products I do consume are handled with a minimum of suffering inflicted on them. But the "they're going to die anyway, so let's eat them now" excuse doesn't work too well.

[Mord]

Let me be the first to:

http://www.keepitfast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/facepalm.jpeg


Nobody is raving except those who cannot accept that they have a choice of diet.

I'd contest that ;)

[leekohler]

The Incas seemed to manage.


And Incan civilization no longer exists. ;) Just had to throw that in there. :)

[Counterfit]

Let me be the first to:

http://www.keepitfast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/facepalm.jpeg

Can we get a :picard: smiley? :D

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The Incas seemed to manage.

How are they doing right now?

[skunk]

How are they doing right now?Keeping a low profile.

[brad.c]

How are they doing right now?

Vegetating?

[apsterling]

Proceeding into becoming fossil fuels for their descendents to fight over in a few million years!

[.Andy]

Piss off. :p
Pissing back on :D:p!

Ectomorphs, such as myself, have an extremely difficult time maintaining a healthy weight on a vegetarian diet.
Again, there is no "body type" for which being a vegetarian is unhealthy. Even the term ectomorph (or meso/endo) are largely anachronisms. You cannot split the whole of humanity's bodies into three types. This is a over simplistic tool of health and fitness circles. It is not an accepted scientific or medical definition (although it was once proposed to be). You'll struggle to find it in use anywhere else.

If you are an "ectomorph" there is absolutely no reason you can't get the requisite calories to gain weight on a vegetarian diet (other medical conditions aside). A vegetarian diet can be just as high, if not higher in calories than a omnivorous diet. If you tried a vegetarian diet and failed to gain weight chances are you did so because you ate an inadequate vegetarian diet. Just as you'd struggle to gain weight eating an inadequate omnivorous diet. There is most certainly not anything intrinsically lacking or unhealthy about a vegetarian diet.

I'm all for that, actually.
I think you'll be on lonely ground then. The biological capacity and the psychological capacity to give birth and raise children are two entirely distinct entities. Perhaps you could start a thread and argue why age of consent should be reduced to age of puberty. Would make for an interesting thread. I'd enjoy reading your reasoning.

Realistically, as a human race we wouldn't have gotten here were it not for domesticated animals. It's a simple fact, without the work power of domesticated animals it's impossible to have made it as far as a society, no mules to pull carts of trade/building materials before cars, or horses to help move us farther faster, there wouldn't be a United States of America
I'm failing to see your argument here. Sure in the past we've exploited animals to get where we are. My point from my previous posts is that in western society such exploitation is by and large no longer necessary. We have alternate means of production, nutrition, locomotion, textiles etc that doesn't require inflicting pain and suffering on animals. As an analogy; society also made leaps and bounds exploiting slave labour - but that's no argument why it should be morally/ethically acceptable in 2009.

[leekohler]

Again, there is no "body type" for which being a vegetarian is unhealthy. Even the term ectomorph (or meso/endo) are largely anachronisms. You cannot split the whole of humanity's bodies into three types. This is a over simplistic tool of health and fitness circles. It is not an accepted scientific or medical definition (although it was once proposed to be). You'll struggle to find it in use anywhere else.

If you are an "ectomorph" there is absolutely no reason you can't get the requisite calories to gain weight on a vegetarian diet (other medical conditions aside). A vegetarian diet can be just as high, if not higher in calories than a omnivorous diet. If you tried a vegetarian diet and failed to gain weight chances are you did so because you ate an inadequate vegetarian diet. Just as you'd struggle to gain weight eating an inadequate omnivorous diet. There is most certainly not anything intrinsically lacking or unhealthy about a vegetarian diet.

I understand that. I didn't say it wasn't possible, it's just more difficult. I simply am not willing to deal with what I'd need to do to make it work. That's all I said.

[.Andy]

I understand that. I didn't say it wasn't possible, it's just more difficult. I simply am not willing to deal with what I'd need to do to make it work. That's all I said.
And it's the ethics of this situation I'm interested in. Personally is "simply not willing" sufficient to justify inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals? I know you're more complex than that Lee :)! Are there other barriers that prevent you (or people in general) from changing their diet from the norm of their social circles? Personally I found the change the most difficult socially.

[leekohler]

And it's the ethics of this situation I'm interested in. Personally is "simply not willing" sufficient to justify inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals? I know you're more complex than that Lee :)! Are there other barriers that prevent you (or people in general) from changing their diet from the norm of their social circles? Personally I found the change the most difficult socially.

Of course not. I have plenty of friends who are. It would be a lot of extra hassle though. Plus I love meat. I don't find anything immoral about eating animals. I killed and ate them with my own hands growing up. Everyone always says, "You wouldn't eat that if you had to kill it yourself". Well, yes I would. Killing animals for food isn't something I take issue with.

[apsterling]

What about vegetable rights then, do we have the right to harvest vegetables from plants and eat them then? It's pretty much the same argument, sentience aside. (In some cases)

If this has worked so efficiently in the past why not make it continue to work now?

[.Andy]

What about vegetable rights then, do we have the right to harvest vegetables from plants and eat them then? It's pretty much the same argument, sentience aside. (In some cases)
My argument is from the case of pain and suffering which are experiences we share with animals. Plants most definitely can't do this.

If this has worked so efficiently in the past why not make it continue to work now?
So slavery is OK?

[apsterling]

My argument is from the case of pain and suffering which are experiences we share with animals. Plants most definitely can't do this.
So slavery is OK?

The animals aren't in pain or suffering, where they're treated well on farms that do that, which is the argument I'm following, (albeit not so clearly). I have no problem with instituting standards that require the animals to be treated humanely, but it doesn't make sense to me to stop eating meat for these animals.

Another good argument is people like myself who require absurd amounts of caloric intake (~3000 calories a day, to satisfy my metabolism and lifestyle) which simply cannot be easily acquired by eating only plants. Simply put, I have a hard enough time maintaining my weight as it is (at 30% underweight), if I take in less calories a day, I'd go further below the average, and possibly creating medical complications that meat, quite simply, helps solve by merely being a part of my diet.

In all honesty, slavery wasn't nearly as efficient as paid work, however for what its worth there's no direct source on that, but from accounts in my American history book (possibly biased) and numerous videos on the subject (also possibly biased) it wasn't nearly as effective as it would seem on appearance.

[.Andy]

The animals aren't in pain or suffering, where they're treated well on farms that do that, which is the argument I'm following, (albeit not so clearly).
Which is an infinitesimal small proportion of meat production. The majority is farmed and is a horrific exploitation of animals and waste of resources.

Another good argument is people like myself who require absurd amounts of caloric intake (~3000 calories a day, to satisfy my metabolism and lifestyle) which simply cannot be easily acquired by eating only plants. Simply put, I have a hard enough time maintaining my weight as it is (at 30% underweight), if I take in less calories a day, I'd go further below the average, and possibly creating medical complications that meat, quite simply, helps solve by merely being a part of my diet.
As I've said above this isn't true. There are sources of calories such as nuts and dairy that you can derive more than adequate calories from in a vegetarian diet. I aim for a similar caloric intake as you no problems at all.

In all honesty, slavery wasn't nearly as efficient as paid work, however for what its worth there's no direct source on that, but from accounts in my American history book (possibly biased) and numerous videos on the subject (also possibly biased) it wasn't nearly as effective as it would seem on appearance.
Eating meat in the past/now is by no means as efficient either. Because something was used in the past does not by any means justify it's continued use currently. That line of reasoning is a dead end.

[apsterling]

As I've said above this isn't true. There are sources of calories such as nuts and dairy that you can derive more than adequate calories from in a vegetarian diet. I aim for a similar caloric intake as you no problems at all.


Except once again dairy is coming from these animals you're so hellbent on not using for food production. If that's the way this works, you may as well milk them nicely until they're too old and then wait till they're near death and then get the meat.

[takao]

My argument is from the case of pain and suffering which are experiences we share with animals. Plants most definitely can't do this.


since you keep repeating this: actually i read about this not being so clear at all in the scientific field and still a current research topic

[.Andy]

Except once again dairy is coming from these animals you're so hellbent on not using for food production. If that's the way this works, you may as well milk them nicely until they're too old and then wait till they're near death and then get the meat.
I'm not hellbent on anything. I'm an advocate on reducing our reliance and exploitation of animals as much as possible and if we must, utilising them in ways that don't result in their pain, suffering or excessive consumption. It not an all or nothing situation. Reducing your meat consumption, only eating meat from "ethical" sources, or using animal products that lessen the impact on animals is all a step in the right direction. Much better than western society is currently doing. Meat for us has very little value and is treated as a expendable commodity and that needs to change.

since you keep repeating this: actually i read about this not being so clear at all in the scientific field and still a current research topic
Plants do have a primitive system of organism wide communication but they don't have the cephalisation or brain constituents to experience fear, pain, or suffering as animals do. Our nervous systems and the ways we interpret/experience are completely different to plants. A plants "nervous" system is more analogous to our endocrine system. If you've a scientific paper to the contrary (or even the one you references) feel free to post it.

[apsterling]

I'm not hellbent on anything. I'm an advocate on reducing our reliance and exploitation of animals as much as possible and if we must, utilising them in ways that don't result in their pain, suffering or excessive consumption. It not an all or nothing situation. Reducing your meat consumption, only eating meat from "ethical" sources, or using animal products that lessen the impact on animals is all a step in the right direction. Much better than western society is currently doing. Meat for us has very little value and is treated as a expendable commodity and that needs to change.

All right, so meat is okay, if it's humane, and in moderation.
The problem then lies with the people. So I'll ask you, what do you think most people will say to that?

The biggest problem is it's a change most people, who may or may not see your point, are going to see as useless, and a waste of time.

I'm okay with "ethical" meat if it's no different in price or availability than "non-ethical" meat, but otherwise, the difference is hard to justify purely cost: product.

It's like getting the US to switch to metric, it'd be great but unlikely.

[EricNau]

since you keep repeating this: actually i read about this not being so clear at all in the scientific field and still a current research topic
It's absolutely clear; there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that plants are cognizant. The notion of plant perception is classified as paranormal, thus specifically separate from the realm of science (and in all probability, bogus).

As always, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," of which there is none.

[.Andy]

All right, so meat is okay, if it's humane, and in moderation.
The problem then lies with the people. So I'll ask you, what do you think most people will say to that?

The biggest problem is it's a change most people, who may or may not see your point, are going to see as useless, and a waste of time.
The best thing to do is keep on bringing it to attention. To let people see what intensive farming of animals does. To know where their food originates. To address misconceptions that a vegetarian diet is bland or lacking or unhealthy. To point out the health problems of eating too much meat. It'll be slow but through education or necessity, reducing meat consumption is inevitable.

I'm okay with "ethical" meat if it's no different in price or availability than "non-ethical" meat, but otherwise, the difference is hard to justify purely cost: product.
Your ethics shouldn't be so easily swayed by price. Next time you see an animal in pain/suffering think about saving a dollar or two per kilogram for it's flesh. It's harder to do when the pain is tangible.

[apsterling]

Your ethics shouldn't be so easily swayed by price. Next time you see an animal in pain/suffering think about saving a dollar or two per kilogram for it's flesh. It's harder to do when the pain is tangible.

Right, but tell that to someone planning on extremely limited budget who's preparing himself economically for a college lifestyle in less than two years. I understand your logic, and it's not right to treat these animals like product, but realistically expecting and end to killing them for meat is not realistic at all. They're going to die, so it makes no sense to stop producing meat. Premature killing makes less sense than just letting them get old and then solving it.

[EricNau]

Right, but tell that to someone planning on extremely limited budget who's preparing himself economically for a college lifestyle in less than two years.
Nissin brand Top Ramen, oriental flavor is vegetarian. :D

Premature killing makes less sense than just letting them get old and then solving it.
You can't expect a decrease in supply before there's a decrease in demand.

[.Andy]

Right, but tell that to someone planning on extremely limited budget who's preparing himself economically for a college lifestyle in less than two years.
I'm at uni and manage quite capably. Economics isn't an excuse not to decrease you meat consumption. That's a furphy. Noodles and pastas are your friend. And there's less washing up without meat :)!

I understand your logic, and it's not right to treat these animals like product, but realistically expecting and end to killing them for meat is not realistic at all. They're going to die, so it makes no sense to stop producing meat. Premature killing makes less sense than just letting them get old and then solving it.
This has already been addressed. If society decreases demand for animals this doesn't result in more animals that aren't slaughtered and die of old age. It means that less animals are bred. Less animals being bred for food production = less pain, suffering, exploitation.

[apsterling]

Nissin brand Top Ramen, oriental flavor is vegetarian. :D


You can't expect a decrease in supply before there's a decrease in demand.

So allow the proportion to go off and meat prices to go up until ethical meat is as economic as the non ethical meat. It seems to be the answer you'd all be happy with, ethical meat at temporary cost.

Thanks for the Ramen advice, I'll save that. :p

[mactastic]

Right, but tell that to someone planning on extremely limited budget who's preparing himself economically for a college lifestyle in less than two years.
Is meat a right? If not, why not purchase cheaper food products rather than arguing that meat is something college students somehow deserve.

[apsterling]

Is meat a right? If not, why not purchase cheaper food products rather than arguing that meat is something college students somehow deserve.

Meat is a very good low cost way to get nutrients through less price than other food choices yielding similar nutrients. The whole problem is in people who believe that inhumane treatment is okay with the meat, but in effect it's very very difficult to eradicate that treatment while maintaining supply. And how do you expect to lower demand. Most people really, when it comes down to it, don't care how the food was treated before it made it to the table, as long as it's safe for them to eat. Which, more or less, is the problem.

[EricNau]

Meat is a very good low cost way to get nutrients through less price than other food choices yielding similar nutrients.
I don't see how this is the case. I know this is over-simplifying the issue, but it's far easier and cheaper to grow a field a peanuts that raise a cow. Quicker too.

The whole problem is in people who believe that inhumane treatment is okay with the meat, but in effect it's very very difficult to eradicate that treatment while maintaining supply. And how do you expect to lower demand. Most people really, when it comes down to it, don't care how the food was treated before it made it to the table, as long as it's safe for them to eat. Which, more or less, is the problem.
I think people do care but they just don't know, in which case the solution lies in education.

California proved this last November by passing Proposition 2 by 63% (the highest margin among all winning ballot measures), which established minimum standards for the confinement of farm animals. This was done despite a myriad of disingenuous TV ads claiming that food safety would be compromised and prices would increase exorbitantly. People clearly care.

[CalBoy]

Meat is a very good low cost way to get nutrients through less price than other food choices yielding similar nutrients.

Ummm....no, it's not.

Raising animals for meat is by definition biologically inefficient, because it introduces another medium through which energy must travel before getting to your body.

If we simplify the flow of energy from source to your body, we get the following for non-meat foods:

Solar>>>Plant>>>Body

In order to get the same calories from meat, the flow looks like this:

Solar>>>Plant>>>Animal digestion>>>Body

Not to mention the fact that meat generally requires more processing and energy expenditure in order to move, raise, maintain, kill, and cook.

From a calorie and nutritional and energy standpoint on a global scale, meat is inefficient.

The only trouble is, it tastes so darn good. :o

And how do you expect to lower demand. Most people really, when it comes down to it, don't care how the food was treated before it made it to the table, as long as it's safe for them to eat. Which, more or less, is the problem.

To be frank, Americans eat too much meat. The standard serving of meat for your heaviest meal of the day should be no larger than a deck of cards (and this is for a 2,000 calorie diet; if you are smaller, even less meat for you). American meat portions are grossly out of line and have not only contributed to our higher carbon foot print, but also our ever increasingly larger waist sizes.

[Counterfit]

Nissin brand Top Ramen, oriental flavor is vegetarian. :D

I can hear our blood pressure rising from here. How much sodium is in one of those?

[takao]

Plants do have a primitive system of organism wide communication but they don't have the cephalisation or brain constituents to experience fear, pain, or suffering as animals do. Our nervous systems and the ways we interpret/experience are completely different to plants. A plants "nervous" system is more analogous to our endocrine system. If you've a scientific paper to the contrary (or even the one you references) feel free to post it.

so if achievable through genetic engineering to make farm animals completely pain free would you still object ?


and side question ? do you drink coffee/tea or eat peanuts/bananas ? because those industries are causing a lot of suffering for people


(side note: i eat meat rarely, with perhaps 1 serving of meat and occasionally 1 serving of fish per week and then only small portions)

[.Andy]

so if achievable through genetic engineering to make farm animals completely pain free would you still object ?
The question is a little absurd given the scientific advances required, but yes I feel I'd still object. I don't believe we should be making animals without the ability to feel and interpret pain. It's an important experience for any animal. Remember too that suffering doesn't necessarily occur as a result of pain. Some of our deepest sadness results from experiences other than physical pain.

If however we had synthetic sources of growing test-tube muscle I'd have no qualms - depending on it's nutritional value!

and side question ? do you drink coffee/tea or eat peanuts/bananas ? because those industries are causing a lot of suffering for people
We only buy fair trade coffee for our home machine, don't eat many peanuts (don't like them much), eat a reasonable amount of bananas which are sourced in Australia where possible (as with all our fruit and veg). Caring for animals and humans is not mutually exclusive. They're sympathetic goals.

Just to reiterate my earlier point as it seems to quickly get lost. I'm not proposing that everyone adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. It's an attractive goal for a lot of reasons but I admit largely unrealistic. However moving towards reducing your impact on animals (including humans as you point out) by reducing your demand for meat, meat products, and/or products that result in exploitation is a major step in the right direction. In western society we currently over-consume meat and animal products and treat them all too much as a disposable commodity. There is no reason why this can't and shouldn't change. It sounds as if you're an example of eating a moderate, healthy, omnivorous diet as far as meat goes already.
(side note: i eat meat rarely, with perhaps 1 serving of meat and occasionally 1 serving of fish per week and then only small portions)

[Iscariot]

…

You are some variety of doctor or doctor-related dude. From one vegetarian to another, I question.

While comparative anatomy tends to render a verdict of "herbivore/frugivore", anthropological data seems to indicate that from the emergence of Homo Sapiens — and even delving further into the rich delicious hominid soup — meat has played a very large role in satisfying our nutritional demands. There is a wealth of information from the neolithic and monolithic periods that seems to demonstrate that naturally sourced meat is in fact a good thing. This raises the idea that eating meat is "natural" in the sense that it posses a certain biological je ne sais quoi.

However, meat itself is environmentally disastrous. Calamitous. We are many, and our utter subjugation of the natural world is a ticking time bomb that will not be dispensing party favours like a piñata. Vegetarianism then becomes "natural" in the sense that it could in fact preserve what nature we have, and even start reversing the damage we have done with from our agricultural hive of scum and villainy.

Do you agree that there is a conflict between these two divergent takes on how a natural diet is defined? If so, how do you reconcile it? I have obviously chosen the latter over the former, despite being an individual interested in pushing it to the limit. And, to follow up, would you consider there to be a similar moral conflict in having adamantium claws installed?

[skunk]

While comparative anatomy tends to render a verdict of "herbivore/frugivore", anthropological data seems to indicate that from the emergence of Homo Sapiens — and even delving further into the rich delicious hominid soup — meat has played a very large role in satisfying our nutritional demands. There is a wealth of information from the neolithic and monolithic periods that seems to demonstrate that naturally sourced meat is in fact a good thing.Well, in fact the evidence is not nearly so clear cut: much weight is placed on the bones of deer, pigs and so on found in palaeolithic, mesolithic and neolithic middens, but actually the numbers tell a different story. Middens in use for hundreds of years typically yield the remains of remarkably few individual animals, leading to the conclusion that perhaps hunting and meat eating were more to do with male prestige and ceremonial feasts, whereas the vast bulk of food supplies came from the traditional gathering and horticultural activities of the women. It was ever thus, and remains so in many tribal societies today: the men spend most of their time sitting around comparing scars and boasting of their derring-do - and very occasionally getting off their arses to acquire more scars to talk about - while the women do the majority of the work, sowing, harvesting, gathering, cooking and child-rearing.

[Thomas Veil]

Now I want to eat a cat.Okay, now I'm trying to figure out if you're ALF or a Pak'Ma'Ra.

[mactastic]

Meat is a very good low cost way to get nutrients through less price than other food choices yielding similar nutrients.
No, it's really not, as has been pointed out already. Also, the low-cost meat is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics to get otherwise unhealthy animals to slaughter. Sustainably produced meat is much better tasting.

The whole problem is in people who believe that inhumane treatment is okay with the meat, but in effect it's very very difficult to eradicate that treatment while maintaining supply. And how do you expect to lower demand. Most people really, when it comes down to it, don't care how the food was treated before it made it to the table, as long as it's safe for them to eat. Which, more or less, is the problem.
You want to lower demand? Raise the price. Watch demand drop.

You do realize that for much of the history of the world, meat was a luxury item? It is not a necessity, nor does anyone have a right to cheap meat as you imply.