Author Topic: Ignorant food consumers  (Read 20546 times)

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #150 on: June 05, 2017, 06:19:03 PM »
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

On a more pleasant note, we now have lambs in the pasture, and they're quite lovely and will have a happy life until late October or so.

Next step: building a chicken coop.

I'm starting to think that straight-up buying a farm would've been more cost-effective. A hell of a lot less effort, anyway.

GreenSheep

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #151 on: June 05, 2017, 08:04:38 PM »
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.

Goldielocks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4770
  • Location: BC
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #152 on: June 05, 2017, 08:39:47 PM »
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.

I know several vegans.  One whom i work with and talk with regularly, that I did not know was vegan for the first two years I knew her...  (she is gluten free vegan, too)

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #153 on: June 06, 2017, 06:59:29 AM »
*sigh*

Okay, here we go again.

First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have?

You can have as many arguments as you want, but it does make it important to keep track of which people are debating which positions.  Instead, you've mixed and matching and trying to use ideas from one argument as a response to people pointing out flaws in your position on a completely different argument.

You're making 3 true/false assertions, which means there are 2*2*2 = 8 possible combinations of outcomes. For example, if killing animals for food is unethical that doesn't make it any more or less likely that eating animals is bad for your health.

Quote
One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?

This is a great example. I've pointed out problems with the statements you claim are evidence for your 2nd and 3rd arguments (meat is unhealthy, and humans eating meat is unnatural), so you've pivoted back to the ethics angle. Which would be fine if I wasn't concerned you'll go right back to asserting the 2nd and 3rd arguments again without regard to the problems previously raised with both once the thread went on a bit further.

Quote
Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.

... (from another post) ...
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208

I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.

But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.

I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*

This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.

*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html

Quote
Please prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.

Surely you'll allow me a rock or a stick? After all, chimpanzees and ravens and sea otters all use tools at at least that level.

Quote
You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.

Again, this was discussed up thread. The way a human being would hunt a rabbit in the absence of any tools is persistence hunting which would indeed end with the rabbit completely tired out and exhausted. The same method used by our ancestors for literally hundreds of thousands of years until the development of the throwing spear made ambush hunting more feasible.

Over a long enough distance, on a hot day, human beings can run practically any other animal on the planet to exhaustion, including cheetahs.*

*Note that in this case the villagers who ran down the cheetah who was eating their goats didn't kill it but turned it over to the local wildlife service for relocation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910

Quote
In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.

Indeed. It could well be argued that the prevalence of atherosclerosis in domesticated animals is an indication that the standard american diet isn't particularly healthy for either us or our companion animals. However, your specific argument up thread was was animals adapted to eat meat cannot get atherosclerosis, therefore the fact that humans do means we are not adapted to eat meat. Cats, at least, are complete obligate carnivores, so the fact that they can indeed develop this condition, regardless of diet, would seem to indicate there are other potential mechanisms that can produce this condition because an animal that doesn't "naturally" eat meat deciding to start eating it.

Quote
At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.

So here the argument appears to be: $X seemed crazy until you thought about it, therefore anything that doesn't make sense must be true, even if you think about it and still think it doesn't make sense.

But since cob is out of this thread now, maybe this can be my last post of the subject?

Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?

If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.

Seriously though, did you watch the speech? That's all I really need to know.
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

On a more pleasant note, we now have lambs in the pasture, and they're quite lovely and will have a happy life until late October or so.

Next step: building a chicken coop.

I'm starting to think that straight-up buying a farm would've been more cost-effective. A hell of a lot less effort, anyway.

It's not proselytizing if you back it up with facts. Otherwise would you say a science teacher is proselytizing to the students? If so then I guess I am. I'm not coming to you with a bible and telling you to take what I say on faith. Nor did I even create this thread. Just trying to spread more information out there to people who I assumed were open-minded, given the nature of this website. If you look at my first post, I gave a simple opinion on why I think that a vegan diet is the best diet for our health and the planet, and provided a link to a speech that does a really good job of explaining these points further. I could tell you all about how my body has reacted the last year in a half but, and correctly I might add, I would get hit with "that's just an anecdote". In addition to the video of the speech from a guy that has been doing this for years and provides his own website with further citations, I also gave information on numerous doctors in relevant fields that also agree that plant based is best. And of course, I got immediate blow back from people who refused to even watch any of  it before replying. I can only assume it is because no one wants to feel they are associated with pain and suffering on a daily basis and try to block out the facts or look for whatever excuses they can to continue to justify their more "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle. Unless you can look at slaughterhouse videos without cringing even slightly, I think it is grounds to rethink your dietary choices. There is a reason why there are agriculture laws that ban filming inside and they try to keep this stuff away from the public. The McD's clown sells burgers a lot better than images of cows getting their throats slit.

Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 07:21:23 AM by cobbb11 »

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #154 on: June 06, 2017, 07:56:40 AM »
Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?
...
Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.

... but in the exact same post you quoted....

I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*

This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.

*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html

Observe the citation to peer reviewed literature providing data consistent with, but not proving, that the risk of death is higher for both those with "average american" levels of meat consumption and zero animal product consumption than those with moderate and/or fish based meat consumption.

If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.

Interesting. So if a human being overcomes an animal based strength or endurance, you're fine with taking another life? But if a human being overcomes that same animal based on intelligence or cunning, then you're not okay with taking another life? I'm guessing you're not that morally inconsistent. Also, now that you've acknowledged that persistence hunting is indeed what our ancestors did to survive another day, does this mean we are finally at the end of the debate on whether eating meat is unnatural?

It's interesting that in this set of responses you've started to adopt several tactics of the false dilemma logical fallacy. Notably, phrases like "don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart" and "your traditional obese American" while obviously not crossing the line into directly putting words into my mouth, definitely try to set up a particular set of cultural values and a particular lifestyle as the only alternative to your position. Obviously this is incorrect as people around the world eat, and thrive, on a wide range of diets, demonstrating that there are many options besides the standard american diet and strictly vegan (and as the meta analysis study I posted above shows, there is at least some evidence these two choices may be among the least healthy options).
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #155 on: June 06, 2017, 08:29:49 AM »
Sorry but this is just too funny not to reply. So you admit that longer lifespan communities all seem to demonstrate eating less meat than your traditional obese American, yet you never thought to maybe follow that thread to it's most logical conclusion that maybe eating no meat can give you the longest average lifespan possible?
...
Still haven't heard anyone with direct refutations to peer-reviewed research showing eating meat gives any special benefit that you can't get equally, if not better, from plants. And please don't waste my time with B12.

... but in the exact same post you quoted....

I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*

This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.

*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html

Observe the citation to peer reviewed literature providing data consistent with, but not proving, that the risk of death is higher for both those with "average american" levels of meat consumption and zero animal product consumption than those with moderate and/or fish based meat consumption.

If the only way people got their meat fix anymore was running all day to chase down one animal, then you know what? Have it. You earned it. The animal had its chance to get away but the better species won. Sadly, we both know that clearly doesn't happen anymore. But don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart to what our ancestors did to survive another day.

Interesting. So if a human being overcomes an animal based strength or endurance, you're fine with taking another life? But if a human being overcomes that same animal based on intelligence or cunning, then you're not okay with taking another life? I'm guessing you're not that morally inconsistent. Also, now that you've acknowledged that persistence hunting is indeed what our ancestors did to survive another day, does this mean we are finally at the end of the debate on whether eating meat is unnatural?

It's interesting that in this set of responses you've started to adopt several tactics of the false dilemma logical fallacy. Notably, phrases like "don't try to justify getting steaks at Walmart" and "your traditional obese American" while obviously not crossing the line into directly putting words into my mouth, definitely try to set up a particular set of cultural values and a particular lifestyle as the only alternative to your position. Obviously this is incorrect as people around the world eat, and thrive, on a wide range of diets, demonstrating that there are many options besides the standard american diet and strictly vegan (and as the meta analysis study I posted above shows, there is at least some evidence these two choices may be among the least healthy options).


I'll see your link and raise you this one, from the same site no less http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.long.

I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine, at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.

One of several reasons why I don't have a problem with a lion eating a gazelle is because the lion doesn't always win. The gazelle does have a chance to escape. That is nature. The way we do things, keeping animals in obscene conditions from birth to death is in no way the same thing. At this point it isn't intelligence or cunning, it's an assembly line that ends in death. I would submit this link to show actual holocaust survivors comparing what the animals go through to what they go through for some perspective. http://bitesizevegan.com/ethics-and-morality/holocaust-survivors-speak-lessons-from-the-death-camps/

Please provide examples of people "thriving" off of meat-centered diets. Like we already discussed, the Inuit had a much more limited life-span, which probably lowered their cancer numbers because they didn't even live long enough to develop them. I wouldn't call that thriving.


Lastly, should I just assume at this point you have no intention of watching the video I linked in my very first post, which was really the only reason I posted at all to begin with?

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #156 on: June 06, 2017, 01:51:04 PM »
I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine, at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.

One of several reasons why I don't have a problem with a lion eating a gazelle is because the lion doesn't always win. The gazelle does have a chance to escape. That is nature. The way we do things, keeping animals in obscene conditions from birth to death is in no way the same thing. At this point it isn't intelligence or cunning, it's an assembly line that ends in death. I would submit this link to show actual holocaust survivors comparing what the animals go through to what they go through for some perspective. http://bitesizevegan.com/ethics-and-morality/holocaust-survivors-speak-lessons-from-the-death-camps/

Why are you saying that animals don't die in order to feed you (ignoring that for some reason we're valuing the lives of animals over the lives of plants)? Just because you're not eating them? Humans, with our industrialized agriculture, modify the environment and kill an incredible amount of creatures in order to grow the food that we require to live. Even your local farmer selling you leeks at the farmers market probably traps and kills groundhogs (I love groundhogs - they're the cutest rodents) because they're destructive to their crop. And then there's the rodent massacre that happens any time a combine goes through a field.

As a former vegetarian that was coming to terms with my different diet, I enjoyed reading this book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Carnivore-Vegetarians-Hunt-Sustenance/dp/B00AZ9DZSA

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #157 on: June 06, 2017, 04:33:24 PM »
I'll see your link and raise you this one, from the same site no less http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.long.

Interesting paper. In your own words would you mind summarizing what you feel the central message or important fact from that manuscript is with regards to our discussion?

After reading the paper, I would summarize the paper has having two primary messages.

1) There are a lot of potential health risks to a vegan diet (iron deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acids, B12, etc). Based on a review of the published literature, most of these potential deficiencies can be managed or overcome with dietary planning and/or supplementation.

"Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made."

2) There are also a lot of potential health benefits to a vegan diet. There are lots of cancer protective secondary metabolites in fruits and vegetables, and since vegans eat more of these foods, we would expect that their incidence of cancer should be lower. However.

"With this wide array of useful phytochemicals in the vegetarian diet, it is surprising that population studies have not shown more pronounced differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians ... Further research is needed to explore the relation between consuming plant-based diets and risk of cancer because there are many unanswered questions about how diet and cancer are connected. To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer."

So I'm not sure how you see this paper as a counter-argument to the one linked above that shows both vegans and standard americian diet level meat eaters dying at higher rates than pescatarians.

The paper also mentions that vegans tend to have lower BMIs than non-vegans, which could be either a good or bad thing for reducing risk of death. It turns out that people with somewhat higher BMIs (25-29.9 the "overweight" category) tend to have lower death rates than people with lower or higher BMIs.*

*http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137 (Note that followup studies looking specifically at body fat percentage, have found that having a high percent body fat is still a bad sign for your health. Low BMI and high body fat percentage are independently associated with increased mortality. The best case scenario seems to be moderately overweight, but to hit that point on the scales using lean body mass rather than fat.)

Quote
I'm not saying being a vegan automatically puts you at the pinnacle of health. Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream now for Christ's sake. But it is proven time and time again that you can be, at worst, just as "healthy" as someone who eats meat/dairy, but also have a much larger chance of being at a better BMI, reduce your risks for many cancers, and, most important, nothing has to be murdered so that you can live. If you knew when you were going to die, and it wouldn't change whether you had to kill animals or didn't, would you not choose the path of least pain and suffering? If not, then clearly there is no changing your mind and that's fine...

I have said over and over again in this thread, that I'm not trying to convince you that eating animals is ethical, so I'll confine my response to the health argument here.

Looking at the paper you linked, at worst, a vegan diet can produce all sorts of nutrient deficiencies that are indeed far worse than a balanced diet that includes a wide range of plant and animal derived foods. Note, I'm not saying it's not possible to also eat a very healthy diet as a vegan, or that every diet that contains meat must be a healthy diet. I am saying the determining factor for whether a diet is healthy or not is not whether or not the diet is entirely free of food from animals.

Earlier in this thread you commented that you were surprised people weren't reacting more to your convincing evidence that eating animals was unhealthy and unnatural, and I have been trying for the last couple of days to show you that the reason people aren't responding to these arguments is because the evidence you're presenting for both isn't actually as convincing to people who don't start out already agreeing with you as you seem to think it is.

Quote
...at least you would admit you're apathetic to the idea instead of trying to do whatever it takes to show that we actually NEED meat to be healthier humans, despite looking around and seeing what our diets have been doing to us for the past several generations.

The standard american diet today is clearly quite bad for human health. Have I ever said otherwise? However, if you went back four of five generations ago, to a time when obesity was a sign of wealth rather than poverty and you compared the food people ate then to the food people ate today, what would the biggest differences in diet and lifestyle be? You've find americans of five generations ago walked and worked with their muscles a lot more than today. You've find far less refined sugar and other sweeteners in the diet. Significantly less white flour too. You've find many more meals cooked from scratch. What you wouldn't find is an absence of meat and animal products in people's diet.

Quote
Please provide examples of people "thriving" off of meat-centered diets. Like we already discussed, the Inuit had a much more limited life-span, which probably lowered their cancer numbers because they didn't even live long enough to develop them. I wouldn't call that thriving.

I've never said meat centered diets. I've said diets containing meat or other animal products. My examples are that of the five places in the world where people live the longest four populations all consume meat and/or animal products and in the remaining population (7th day adventists) the people who eat fish live longer than the people who are purely vegan or purely vegetarian. This seems hard to reconcile with the idea that any and every amount of meat or animal product consumption is unhealthy. If so, I'd expect the longest lived places in the world to be dominated by strictly vegan cultures.

You keep trying to make this an either/or discussion. Either you're a thin vegan, or an obese american who shops a walmart. Either you're an inuit subsisting on whale and seal blubber through the winter, or you never eat so much as a single serving of fish or slice of cheese.

It is not the case that either the diet of the inuit is the healthiest diet or a vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet. I'm pointing out that there is a broad middle ground between those two where it tends to be easier to end up with a healthy diet without putting as much work and thought into it as at either of those extremes.
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #158 on: June 06, 2017, 04:43:28 PM »
Maizeman, you are a hero, a scholar, and a gentleman.  I keep holding myself back from this thread, and then you say it better than I possibly could have.  Bravo.

And now I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and my blood pressure within acceptable parameters.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #159 on: June 06, 2017, 04:56:09 PM »
I've felt bad about how my responses on this thread seem to always turn into walls of text a page or more long. Means an awful lot to hear they are being read -- and appreciated. Thank you, Raenia.
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

jeninco

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #160 on: June 06, 2017, 05:23:48 PM »
I've felt bad about how my responses on this thread seem to always turn into walls of text a page or more long. Means an awful lot to hear they are being read -- and appreciated. Thank you, Raenia.

I'm also enjoying reading your thoughtful, reasonable, patient, well-considered responses. (I have the patience for few of these things, and I am a little in awe of your abilities.) Thank you!

Papa bear

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #161 on: June 06, 2017, 06:17:19 PM »
I've felt bad about how my responses on this thread seem to always turn into walls of text a page or more long. Means an awful lot to hear they are being read -- and appreciated. Thank you, Raenia.

I'm also enjoying reading your thoughtful, reasonable, patient, well-considered responses. (I have the patience for few of these things, and I am a little in awe of your abilities.) Thank you!
+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Civex

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #162 on: June 06, 2017, 06:45:40 PM »
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.

Also follow a plant based diet and haven't proselytized......lead by example; some people will be interested in what you do

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #163 on: June 06, 2017, 08:56:29 PM »
Swear to god, I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time someone tells me that not all vegans proselytize...

Please don't think we all do. I'm vegan and have been reading this thread with interest. I enjoy this community because it's full of intelligent, thoughtful people who make interesting arguments for their way of approaching life. I suspect there are probably other vegans quietly watching this from the sidelines, too. We're the ones you're not hearing from.

Also follow a plant based diet and haven't proselytized......lead by example; some people will be interested in what you do

Haha fair, I stand corrected.

if only Morena people did that, both for diet and religioN. it'd probably be a lot more successful. :)

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #164 on: June 07, 2017, 07:28:18 AM »
It's amazing the amount of lash back you can get by simply linking an amazing lecture that answers so many of the questions and arguments raised here. That's all I was trying to do. But instead of just watching the video and getting back to me on his thoughts, maizeman (ironic with his name which includes corn in it no less), just comes back with all the arguments I've already heard countless times before.

This whole "You have to eat a perfect vegan diet or you can be nutritionally deficient" makes literally no sense because the same can be said about anything. So if I'm not on a vegan diet, does that mean I can eat pizza and ice cream all day and not have to worry about doing it perfectly? Once you accept the fact that ANY diet can be potentially bad if done wrong, and you accept that a vegan diet CAN be extremely beneficial (when it is based off of mainly whole foods like fruit,veg,nuts,seeds,grains), then all you are left with is one very specific diet that doesn't needlessly slaughter billions of animals, and every other diet that does. It seems like a no brainer to me, and if you're still ok with killing some animals but calling possibly still considering yourself an animal lover, then I'm sorry but that makes you a hypocrite. That was the realization I had to come to that had me re-thinking my ways. Also keep in mind that when you eat meat, all the nutrients you're getting from them come from the grains and fruit/veg they ate. There is nothing inherent in meat that is special, except carcinogens I suppose. And B12 comes from bacteria that we used to get from well water and not completely clean plant we would eat. They even have to supplement livestock with B12 now.

You mentioned generations ago when being fat was considered a sign of wealth. You would absolutely find less meat in poor people's diets. Rice and beans are dirt cheap. Eating meat is supposed to be a luxury but its subsidized to hell where a cheese burger is a dollar but a salad (if you can even find one without cheese on it these days) is like 5. Go back even further, the peasants (who yes, also did a lot more physical labor than the royalty), were doing a lot better off health-wise. When you think "peasant food", do you think of filet mignon? http://westernreservepublicmedia.org/middleages/feud_peasants.htm  Yea, it says "some meat". Again, why not take it to its logical conclusion that if a culture that eats a lot of meat is like a 2 out of 10 health wise, and a culture that has little is like 7 out of 10, then maybe a culture that had none would be even higher?

I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.

And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.

One last time people, these were the videos I wanted to share on a thread that talked about ignorant food consumers and i'm sure they will answer many questions. Not sure why everyone is so afraid of maybe learning a new thing or two. And if you watch them come back here and say they didn't absolutely nothing for you, then fine, I have no problem with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=2706s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIkC4OJEx3c
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 07:54:21 AM by cobbb11 »

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2017, 08:32:48 AM »
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.

And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.

The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.

Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #166 on: June 07, 2017, 08:47:55 AM »
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.

And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.



The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.

Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.

Going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths???? Ok clearly there is no rational debate to be had with you after that statement. But I guess I'll take a long shot here.  Did you not hear about the e.coli recall on all the beef?

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2017/recall-059-2017-release

How many animals just had to die for literally no reason at all from that alone? If there is no demand for meat, then there would be no animal agriculture. Farmers would stick to just growing the crops and people would eat that directly. Whatever animals were going to die from the crop growing that vegans ate would die anyway, but the crops needed to feed BILLIONS of land animals and fish (fish farms) wouldn't even be needed. So those crop pests would survive, as would the livestock. And if certain other animals have to die during the crop growing process (again, because they decided to go after those crops) then that is ethically completely different. Those animals were free to make a choice on where to try and get their food. I'm pretty sure the chickens/cows/pigs would love to just run away.

And in all honesty, if our biggest issue as a society was how to minimize the death of farm pests, I'd say that is an extremely good problem to have.

If you're really trying to live with your eyes open, I would suggest not coming up with rebuttals until after you watched the video.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 08:51:31 AM by cobbb11 »

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Texas
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #167 on: June 07, 2017, 09:11:17 AM »
Cobb you should quit while you are way behind.

There have been so many fallacies in your arguments that it is becoming hard to keep track.

Among them are:
Strawman - those you are arguing against(arguing as if their argument is for the standard american diet which the whole point of this thread was discussing how the average person does not make good food choices and many here agreed).
False Cause - Correlation does not mean causation(you fail to respond to maizeman when he indicates that many of the studies aren't accounting for the fact that certain populations that happen to be vegan might also be practicing other behaviors that improve health which seriously puts a question on wether the effect is because of the veganism)
Appeals to Emotion - Whenever you get called out on flaws in your reasoning you instead try to fall back on the moral/ethical case which people have rejected since these morals and ethics are not objective.
Ad hominem - attacking Maizeman's name as a joke instead of effectively arguing his points.
Anecdotal - Just because you or someone you know has managed to survive on a purely vegan diet doesn't mean everyone can(as some including Maizeman have pointed out)
Genetic/Appeal to Nature - Just because something is natural doesn't make it good and just because something is unnatural doesn't make it bad.
Personal Incredulity - Just because you think your arguments are good and can't see the flaw in it doesn't mean you are right.
Moving the goalpost - You make a claim, Maizeman or others disprove it. You then slightly alter what your supposed claim was to try to counter instead of conceding your claim was wrong. Your most persistent case of this is changing your argument from vegan is inherently better to it is better than the standard american diet when it is convenient and later going back to arguing the former.
Black or White - Arguing as if there are only two options in diet, the standard American diet or veganism. Convenient since this is the only situation where you have any chance of saying your option is the superior one and even that is a struggle.
Cherry Picking - You pick data that confirms your moral/ethical opinion despite people disputing it and discount the data provided that counters your moral/ethical opinion.

You might want to see how you are using all these fallacies in your arguments on top of some disingenuous tactics that aren't fallacies but still dishonest and how this might be hurting your believability and actually harming your cause of your cause is minimizing animal suffering.

I have to say Maizeman, hats off to you both in your patience and breadth of information provided in spite of severely lackluster arguments being returned.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #168 on: June 07, 2017, 09:14:37 AM »
Cobbb I think the problem here is that your argument(s) have gotten lost in all of the discussion. Maybe you can summarize/reiterate them (and their evidence) for us?



My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #169 on: June 07, 2017, 09:16:18 AM »
I know you aren't trying to tell me that eating animals is ethical, because there really isn't much ground to stand on there.

And to KCM5: I'm aware that some animals/insects die during the planting and picking of crops. As I've said before, the idea is to minimize it as practically as possible. And there is a HUGE difference between a rodent from the wild that decides to make an attempt at easy food that a farmer decides to shoot, vs a cow/pig/chicken kept locked up its entire life for the sole purpose of becoming food. That's why I have no problem watching a lion kill a zebra. It's about free of choice and free will. I'll swat the crap out of a mosquito that tries to bite me. It's self defense.



The point I'm making is that going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths. Getting your food from wild or foraged sources does. The deer I shoot in the fall leads to one death (and prevents many others as an overpopulation of deer leads to a crash during harsh winters). The wheat I eat in my fancy vegan artisanal pasty resulted in mice that died during harvest and after harvest due to increased predation. I argue that hunting is an honest assessment of the damage that I do as a human being that eats. Consuming food raised by modern agriculture (animal or vegetable) hides the damage from me so I can ignore the destruction that I've caused. I'm trying to live with my eyes wide open.

Of course, our population is too high to support hunting and gathering as a sole food source. Agriculture is a problem and a solution.

Going vegan doesn't minimize animal deaths???? Ok clearly there is no rational debate to be had with you after that statement. But I guess I'll take a long shot here. How much of the population hunts and kills every piece of meat they eat? Did you not hear about the e.coli recall on all the beef? https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2017/recall-059-2017-release

How many animals just had to die for literally no reason at all from that alone? If there is no demand for meat, then there would be no animal agriculture. Farmers would stick to just growing the crops and people would eat that directly. If certain other animals had to die during the process (again, because they decided to go after those crops) then that is ethically completely different. Those animals were free to make a choice on where to try and get their food.

And in all honesty, if our biggest issue as a society was how to minimize the death of farm pests, I'd say that is an extremely good problem to have.

You're a vegan who is trying to do better and minimize animal suffering/death. That's who I'm speaking with. Not someone who thinks that animal agriculture is all hunky-dory and doesn't have a problem with getting a double cheeseburger made from a cow that was kept in a feedlot and fed corn. That e. coli recall is immaterial to this discussion (as it happens, I didn't follow that one. Terrible. I did follow the tragedy caused by the avian flu here in the midwest - millions of bird in confined feeding operations died or were culled. Also terrible). At the end of the day, eating as responsibly as possible means minimizing eating food from industrial agriculture.

Here's a good discussion (written by a vegan, don't worry, you'll agree with her conclusion) on the topic of industrial agriculture, grain harvesting, etc: http://bitesizevegan.com/environmental-societal-impact/do-vegans-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters/

Also, you're blaming the field mouse and its offspring for living/nesting in the field that will eventually be harvested? Harsh, man.

I, a female millennial from a non-hunting family, took up hunting because there are no more apex predators to keep the deer population down where I live. We are the apex predator. And as an environmental scientist, I understand the damage caused by industrial agriculture. I won't accept the argument that veganism is always or even generally better than an omnivorous diet. It can be better, of course. It can be worse.

yakamashii

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Location: Japan
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #170 on: June 07, 2017, 09:35:57 AM »
I watched the video a year ago, and wrestled with the arguments over a week or so. My conclusion was that the speaker is very good at arguing, and that he believes that makes him right, full stop. It's quite a turnoff, and compromises the positive effects of the arguments. Maizeman has done a lot to open my eyes to the way he and Cobbb move the goalposts around between separate arguments.

The speaker and Cobbb came out guns blazing and saying things like "You are responsible for the rape and murder of animals" and "people who are okay with killing animals and call themselves animal lovers are hypocrites." That sounds to me like hunting and gathering (probably just gathering) is the only acceptable way. But you're not doing that, and when called out on it, the rhetoric becomes "minimizing animal deaths." I'd like to see some acknowledgement that the incendiary rhetoric and application of distinctly human-on-human crimes are merely tactics used to make the argument. If the argument is that damn strong, those tactics shouldn't be necessary.
"There isn't time -- so brief is life -- for bickerings, apologies, heartburnings, callings to account. There is only time for loving -- and but an instant, so to speak, for that."

Mark Twain

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #171 on: June 07, 2017, 10:25:25 AM »
Cobbb I think the problem here is that your argument(s) have gotten lost in all of the discussion. Maybe you can summarize/reiterate them (and their evidence) for us?

Here is the summary, because I agree there are too many points being thrown around to keep up with:

Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?

If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?

Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?

Animal agriculture is the one of, if not the worst, offenders of climate change (assuming you believe it exists and man-made and all that stuff not relevant to this discussion). How can you complain about car pollution and the Paris Accord exit, but have no problem contributing to factory farming and all of its problems?

I have already provided plenty of peer-reviewed research that shows a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life and recommended several doctors in the field that back them up. No one has given me a single nutrient you REQUIRE meat for that cannot be gotten through plant-based foods or supplements, because there is none. Now that you know you don't require meat to live, and it's purely a luxury, I am wondering why an animal has to die for your taste buds. There are vegan alternatives to pretty much everything, including something like 10 different vegan milks alone. If you can get those same tastes and textures without killing something, is that not the more ethical choice?

In response to yakamashii: Everything the speaker said had evidence backed up on his website. It wasn't simply rhetoric. "Gathering" like our ancestors doesn't make sense anymore in today's society. Like I have already conceded, something like my house being built has cost animal lives, and I wish it hadn't. We don't live in a perfect world. But eliminating blatant animal products from our lives is ridiculously easy and cuts down tremendously on suffering and death, so why is that not the clear and ethical choice. I'm not sure what you mean by the human-on-human crimes, but I believe the basic idea is that as an average person, you don't want to wish harm on other humans, so why is it ok to do things that you know directly causes hard to other living beings. Why is empathy so difficult in this situation where you know if you were a cow in a slaughterhouse, you would want to leave it alive.

Seriously guys, this is my last post on this topic. I came in with a simple video to people that I thought would be open to a new way of thinking like you already were to the MMM philosophy. It's been scientifically proven to be good for you as long as you aren't stupid and eating oreo cookies all day and eat a variety of whole plant based foods (I can tell you my anecdotes if you really want but I don't believe in anecdotal claims). So if you can be better off health-wise, and not kill animals doing it, why is that not the ideal choice? And if you still don't believe me, what is the harm in trying it for 2 measly weeks and seeing how your body reacts? That's how I got started. The first days were rough, like what I imagine a detox would be. But then it was all uphill.

Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #172 on: June 07, 2017, 10:42:40 AM »
Thanks @prognastat, that's a very useful summary and catches a lot of fallacies that hadn't occurred to me at all.

It seems like it may be time to wrap up because it is clear cobb and I are talking past each other and we're just repeating the same points instead of at least coming up with interesting new arguments for or against to debate. While I was writing this post it seems cobb came to the same conclusion independently (see post above), so that's good.

1) Cobb, you seem to subscribe the the belief that anything that is unhealthy in excess is obviously unhealthy in any amount at all. I disagree with this point both generally (I've cited examples of other things we eat where both too much or too little is harmful to human health), and specifically with regard to animal derived foods, pointing out both studies that find those who eat a little red meat, or fish, or vegetarians tend to die at lower rates than strict vegans, and anecdotal data that the longest lived populations on earth generally consume some amount of meat and/or animal products. Note that even so, I'm not arguing that a vegan diet cannot be healthy, simply that there is absolutely no evidence that such a diet is automatically healthier than a diet containing moderate amounts of meat.

2) It is my position that figuring out whether eating meat is unnatural, or whether eating meat is unhealthy, is a separate debate from whether eating meat is ethical. I seems to me like you don't treat these as separate these concepts, so when people push back on your view that it is obvious any amount of meat in the diet is unhealthy or it is obvious that human beings are naturally herbivores you interpret that as an attack on your choice not to eat animals for ethical reasons.

Less seriously:

3) I have continued to monitor my chewing since you brought up the idea that humans are side to side chewers and we just don't realize it. So far I really don't notice much of any side to side motion. I've tested while eating a sandwich, fried sweet potatoes, chana masala (essentially chickpeas), and a carrot (obviously not all in one sitting). If you think there are other foods that evoke a stronger side to side chewing response, feel free to suggest some. Or if other people notice horizontal chewing motions, I'm certainly open to the idea that my jaw movements and/or skull shape may be non-representative of humans as a whole.

4) What's ironic about my username containing the word for corn?

I'm going to answer one more point again because it really is at the core of the impasse we've had in this discussion.

Again, why not take it to its logical conclusion that if a culture that eats a lot of meat is like a 2 out of 10 health wise, and a culture that has little is like 7 out of 10, then maybe a culture that had none would be even higher?

This would actually be a very logical thing to do if the only people who had ever lived were those who ate a lot of meat and those who ate a little meat. If I was in charge of trying to come up with the diet that would keep people alive and healthy for as long as possible and someone came to me with that result and nothing else, I'm smack my hand against my forehead and say "By gosh, we aughta have some folks try eating no meat at all right away and see what happens!"

However, we don't only have data from "lots of meat" and "less meat" we also have data from "only fish", "no meat, but still eggs and cheese" and "not meat, no animal products." We have this data both in terms of very large population surveys of individuals and their health outcomes, and also looking at health outcomes across whole cultures who have adopted different diets for reasons ranging from economic to religious to "this is what tastes good to us." And we don't see any positive health consequences, and may actually see some negative ones when the average person gives up fish, eggs, and/or small amounts of land meat.*

Maybe it'd be more clear if I flipped your previous statement around:

If a culture that eats no meat or animal products is a 7 out of 10 health wise, but cultures that eat some meat or eggs or fish are 9 out of 10 health wise, wouldn't a logical conclusion be that a culture that ate entirely meat would be a 10 out of 10 health wise?

If those were the only two data points we had, we'd have to agree that seemed like a logical conclusion. Fortunately, we do have more information that that, so we can conclude that maybe cheeseburgers every single data might not be the healthiest thing for a human being. But my hope is that this counterfactual example illustrates how, when you remove a bunch of the data from a comparison, you can get misleading trends. And that's what you're doing by making statements that only consider that data on high and low meat consumption, without including the data on the health of vegans, vegetarians, and fish eaters.

I hope this helps to explain why people aren't being as convinced by this particular argument as it sounded like you were originally expecting them to be. I know it can be a very frustrating or unsettling feeling when people respond to actions or words in ways that aren't at all consistent with how I had been expecting them to react.

*It is also important in these discussions to distinguish between "what an ideal diet X looks like" and "what people actually do when they adopt diet X." This works both ways. It's likely many people eating a vegan diet aren't eating an ideal one, with possible negative health consequences relative to an ideal vegan diet, and it's likely many people who tell themselves they aren't going to adopt any diet with strict rules, just make healthy eating decisions end up circling back towards a standard american diet (with definite negative health consequences relative to the ideal diet for a human) simply because having to make judgement calls each time you sit down to a meal quickly introduces decision fatigue.

I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 10:45:37 AM by maizeman »
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #173 on: June 07, 2017, 10:51:33 AM »
Cobbb I think the problem here is that your argument(s) have gotten lost in all of the discussion. Maybe you can summarize/reiterate them (and their evidence) for us?

Here is the summary, because I agree there are too many points being thrown around to keep up with:

Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?

If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?

Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?

Animal agriculture is the one of, if not the worst, offenders of climate change (assuming you believe it exists and man-made and all that stuff not relevant to this discussion). How can you complain about car pollution and the Paris Accord exit, but have no problem contributing to factory farming and all of its problems?

I have already provided plenty of peer-reviewed research that shows a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life and recommended several doctors in the field that back them up. No one has given me a single nutrient you REQUIRE meat for that cannot be gotten through plant-based foods or supplements, because there is none. Now that you know you don't require meat to live, and it's purely a luxury, I am wondering why an animal has to die for your taste buds. There are vegan alternatives to pretty much everything, including something like 10 different vegan milks alone. If you can get those same tastes and textures without killing something, is that not the more ethical choice?

In response to yakamashii: Everything the speaker said had evidence backed up on his website. It wasn't simply rhetoric. "Gathering" like our ancestors doesn't make sense anymore in today's society. Like I have already conceded, something like my house being built has cost animal lives, and I wish it hadn't. We don't live in a perfect world. But eliminating blatant animal products from our lives is ridiculously easy and cuts down tremendously on suffering and death, so why is that not the clear and ethical choice. I'm not sure what you mean by the human-on-human crimes, but I believe the basic idea is that as an average person, you don't want to wish harm on other humans, so why is it ok to do things that you know directly causes hard to other living beings. Why is empathy so difficult in this situation where you know if you were a cow in a slaughterhouse, you would want to leave it alive.

Seriously guys, this is my last post on this topic. I came in with a simple video to people that I thought would be open to a new way of thinking like you already were to the MMM philosophy. It's been scientifically proven to be good for you as long as you aren't stupid and eating oreo cookies all day and eat a variety of whole plant based foods (I can tell you my anecdotes if you really want but I don't believe in anecdotal claims). So if you can be better off health-wise, and not kill animals doing it, why is that not the ideal choice? And if you still don't believe me, what is the harm in trying it for 2 measly weeks and seeing how your body reacts? That's how I got started. The first days were rough, like what I imagine a detox would be. But then it was all uphill.

Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.


I know you said you're done, but if you see this, I'm curious about your views of other animal uses--specifically where the animal doesn't have to die. This could range from anything to working dogs/horses (herding, service, policing, bearing burdens, etc.) to using their products (milk, wool) to keeping them as companions or using them for entertainment.
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Texas
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #174 on: June 07, 2017, 12:01:06 PM »
Lastly, simply stating the ironical fact that maizeman's name has the word maize(corn) in it, is not an ad-hominem. Nice try though. Hope you all have a fantastic day.

I appreciate you conceding all the other fallacies you are enacting through only addressing this one. I hope it is a learning moment. Keep in mind none of this means you are wrong, simply a learning moment as to what might be undermining your argumentation.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Texas
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2017, 12:37:34 PM »

Do you consider yourself an "animal lover" in any way shape or form?

If yes, and you eat meat, please explain to me how you reconcile with killing certain animals, while passionately crying foul when others are abused. I'm sure everyone has heard about those Asian dog meat fairs they are trying to shut down. How is that any different from factory farming of other animals? Why do the dogs get a pass? You talk about moving goal posts, how do you come up with that arbitrary line between a pet and dinner?

I think this dichotomy is false as in a way I am an animal lover, I love my pets near as much as I love my family. I don't love all animals this way just like I don't love all people this way.

I love my family and friends, yet I am ok with some people being killed. For example I am against the death penalty, but only because it is impossible to have a completely flawless system of law at this time and some innocent people end up convicted. If there were a way of being 100% sure someone was guilty of some of the more heinous crimes I would have no qualms about them being removed from society in a way that minimized their suffering. If we are attacked by another country I accept that in returning in kind will lead to the death of people both on our side and on the other side, but this is in my opinion still the right action to take.

Do you consider yourself someone that cares about the environment?

I do, however you have not addressed other people's concerns with how what you advocate will affect the environment and you have yet to set out a clear way that we could take care of the current population of farm animals without utterly destroying the environment either. In this case there is a kind of clash between what would be good for the animals and what would be good for the environment as a whole. The mass release of animals would undoubtedly harm the environment in many expected and probably plenty of unexpected ways too. Yet keeping the current stock until we run out will mean more animals suffer longer from the mistreatment you intend to fight. There is no way all farm animals will somehow be kept as pets as a decent few are in no shape to act as pets and I doubt there is a large enough group of people willing or capable(city ordinances etc) to take in farm animals on the scale required to make that work.

You also haven't addressed the point of certain species like deer actually having the problem of overpopulation if humans don't intercede in certain areas it actually leads to objectively more suffering of animals(mass starvation) and harm to the direct environment(overgrazing). What in your ethical/moral framework would be the best action, culling the population through hunting where a few animals die a relatively quick death or letting it run it's natural cause and overgrazing the land hurting the eco system and leading to starvation of not only more of that species, but many other species too in a long drawn out death? If the environment and minimizing animal suffering is your ultimate goal then the latter is by far the worse result, yet it would also require a human "unnaturally"(I don't prescribe to the belief humans fall outside nature) ending the lives of animals.

Keep in mind saying I don't know or falling back on your ethical problems with the current system is not going to convince people if you have no viable solution.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 12:56:44 PM by prognastat »

GreenSheep

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #176 on: June 07, 2017, 12:48:33 PM »
I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.

Your thinking seems to match mine when it comes to rules, and I agree that just about any change from the SAD is a good one, but apparently not everyone thinks this way. This is something that it took me a while to realize. When I first switched to a plant-based diet, I didn't understand why people who ate partially plant-based and generally agreed with my outlook on nutrition wouldn't just go 100%, or why people always commented on my "strong willpower." I didn't think willpower had anything to do with it. I had made one over-arching decision, so there were no daily decisions to be made, which, from my perspective, was easy.

Gretchen Rubin's idea of the Four Tendencies (link below) really opened my eyes to the fact that, gasp!, not everyone thinks the way I do! I am an Upholder, so I really enjoy rules. Although I am aware that there are no studies that show that 100% plant-based is any better than 95% plant-based, I find that my life is easier when I just say, "That contains something from an animal, so I don't eat it, any more than I would eat that pen over there. It is simply not food for me." No decision-making required. Of course you could apply that to any diet decisions, not just plant-based versus SAD.

Apparently I'm in the minority, and most other people seem to prefer to have options, to be able to have a little bit of something that contains something they wouldn't normally eat, etc. Each of the Four Tendencies probably approaches their food decisions completely differently. Rebels would probably need to try out a new way of eating for themselves before deciding on whether to keep doing it or not. Questioners would want to know all the research behind it. Obligers would benefit from joining a group or sharing their new eating habits with a friend or family member. Upholders... I'm not sure how we make the initial decision, but once it's made, that's it, no wavering. I like the Four Tendencies idea in general, for lots of aspects of life, and I think it's really interesting to apply it to food decisions. There's so much psychology involved in food.

http://gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2015/01/ta-da-the-launch-of-my-quiz-on-the-four-tendencies-learn-about-yourself/
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 01:02:25 PM by GreenSheep »

Turnbull

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 104
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #177 on: June 07, 2017, 02:36:12 PM »
My wife cooked us up some delicious elk loin last night for supper. Y'all should try that sometime.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #178 on: June 07, 2017, 03:45:37 PM »
I think that is why many folks who adopt almost any diet (vegan, vegetarian, gluten free, carb free, paleo, keto, what have you) end up feeling a lot healthier. Absolute rules take a lot less mental energy to follow, and at this point most changes from the standard american diet tend to be improvements.

Your thinking seems to match mine when it comes to rules, and I agree that just about any change from the SAD is a good one, but apparently not everyone thinks this way. This is something that it took me a while to realize. When I first switched to a plant-based diet, I didn't understand why people who ate partially plant-based and generally agreed with my outlook on nutrition wouldn't just go 100%, or why people always commented on my "strong willpower." I didn't think willpower had anything to do with it. I had made one over-arching decision, so there were no daily decisions to be made, which, from my perspective, was easy.

Gretchen Rubin's idea of the Four Tendencies (link below) really opened my eyes to the fact that, gasp!, not everyone thinks the way I do! I am an Upholder, so I really enjoy rules. Although I am aware that there are no studies that show that 100% plant-based is any better than 95% plant-based, I find that my life is easier when I just say, "That contains something from an animal, so I don't eat it, any more than I would eat that pen over there. It is simply not food for me." No decision-making required. Of course you could apply that to any diet decisions, not just plant-based versus SAD.

Apparently I'm in the minority, and most other people seem to prefer to have options, to be able to have a little bit of something that contains something they wouldn't normally eat, etc.

Various studies have suggested that people are drawn to the idea have having more options, but if they are presented with fewer options they tend to end up much happier with whatever they chose. There's a fun experiment that illustrates this with offering people the chance to taste 2 out of either 6 or 24 flavors of jam in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html

But on top of the difference between what we think will make us happy and what actually ends with us the happiest is the idea of decision fatigue, which you and I have both identified. I certainly am in the group of people who prefer to have options in what I eat, but I also recognize that having options means I spend more of my limited ability to make hard decisions in the day on food, or that I'm likely to ultimately make unhealthy choices because I've exhausted that ability.

Even very simple rules like "I shall never stop get takeout on the way home from work" help sidestep a whole mental argument I used to have several times a week: "Well I'm really tired. It'll just be this once. I don't remember if I have anything to make at home." and so on.

The one time I had to adopt a significantly calorie restricted diet (<1,000 day), I had standard meals I made every single day for breakfast lunch and dinner. Like you I got a lot of complements on my willpower, but after the first couple of days of being really hungry had passed it wasn't actually taking any additional willpower because I wasn't having to make decisions about what I ate from meal to meal.
"Itís a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #179 on: June 07, 2017, 03:46:10 PM »
Over the last few years this has become an issue near and dear to my heart. Long story short, I was raised in rural Wisconsin where we hunt and fish but now live in a trendy Chicago neighborhood. I still hunt and fish every year, so I'm a bit of an outcast. I've had difficulties reconciling the foodie culture surrounding me with the reality that most of those people would look down on me for having killed deer and other animals.

I think I'll get my first shot at a real garden next summer but I'm unsure how to get into foraging. Does anybody have any experience in that regard? I'm assuming it would be best to find someone who knows the local flora and learn from them. Lastly, Hank Shaw's blog Hunter Angler Gardener Cook (link below) is a wonderful window into the world of "weird" foods.

Check out Sam Thayer's books and website (http://www.foragersharvest.com/).  He's actually from Wisconsin, so he tends to talk about midwestern foraging as well.

Also, you could try going on one of the foraging trips run by Iliana Regan, the chef/owner of Elizabeth and Kitsune (in Chicago).  I've done the trip and it was great fun and very educational. 

Or come back up to rural Wisconsin and go foraging with my SO.  She forages blueberries, blackberries, elderberries, sumac, wild apples, ramps, cattails, and a variety of mushrooms (morels, chicken of the woods, hens of the woods, puffballs).



Goldielocks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4770
  • Location: BC
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #180 on: June 07, 2017, 06:02:57 PM »
Cobb11

Okay, I watched the videos, and there is SO MUCH WRONG with the speaker and how he presents his opinion.  (In my opinion)

I will start with the easiest -- vegan foods should not be made to mimic meat foods.   A vegetable patty can be flavorful and wonderful in its own right.   "Vegan Bacon" like "Vegan Mayo" just generally sucks.  IT IS WRONG to try to make VEGETABLES look and TASTE LIKE MEAT, when they are even better than meat!!!

I had to face my opinions about eat meat early on, as I entered a career in food manufacturing / industrial agricultural. Previously I studied environmental science and protection at university.   I had to look with very open eyes at what was really happening, and decide where my values lay, I will be honest, i was expecting to turn vegetarian in the week leading up to my first trip an abbotoir.  But I did not.   So, nearly all of what was shown in the video about industrial agriculture is such a minor minor fraction of a percentage, that I call it hyperbole, false emphasis, compared to what I have seen with my own eyes as a designer, surprise inspector, surveyor, etc.     Most of the worst images in those videos would have the FARMERS calling for laws to prevent this from happening, as it would absolutely kill any potential profit, etc.   Farmers actually want healthy, happy animals and would fire those employees shown immediately.

People abusing living things happens all over the world, to people, children, pets, and yes, farm animals.  It is always wrong, whether you are vegan or not, we can agree on that.

To your question, yes, Asian dog market is no different from a beef or goat market, at its essence.


Of course this is my opinion, but I think that your videos linked are slanted, biased trash opinion pieces, in terms of persuasive arguments, and even insulted Vegans (with its emphasis of vegan meat products promotion).  I can't believe he had the gall to trap an audience for an hour to listen to that, including the exceptionally disturbing videos.

Road42

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #181 on: June 07, 2017, 08:36:50 PM »

I have to say Maizeman, hats off to you both in your patience and breadth of information provided in spite of severely lackluster arguments being returned.

+1

Maizeman, I am in awe of your calm, logic, and patience.

Basenji

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Location: Inside the Beltway
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #182 on: June 09, 2017, 10:53:03 AM »
Many of us, being intelligent, curious people, have done a lot of research (beyond youtube) about environmentally friendly farming and eating choices. In the end, I have been most convinced by the small farm, mixed-use plan, such as that advocated by Joel Salatin. But for it to work we eat some animals that have lived a good life.

So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.

I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #183 on: June 09, 2017, 01:15:07 PM »
Many of us, being intelligent, curious people, have done a lot of research (beyond youtube) about environmentally friendly farming and eating choices. In the end, I have been most convinced by the small farm, mixed-use plan, such as that advocated by Joel Salatin. But for it to work we eat some animals that have lived a good life.

So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.

I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.

Oh man I really like Joel Salatin! I'm pretty sure that in real life we'd disagree about almost everything except food, but hey, common ground starts somewhere, right?

Basenji

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Location: Inside the Beltway
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #184 on: June 09, 2017, 02:46:04 PM »
Many of us, being intelligent, curious people, have done a lot of research (beyond youtube) about environmentally friendly farming and eating choices. In the end, I have been most convinced by the small farm, mixed-use plan, such as that advocated by Joel Salatin. But for it to work we eat some animals that have lived a good life.

So, to get back to the original topic: I pay more for chickens and eggs from a farmer I know has no cages and runs a small operation. His chickens run around outside. I try to buy other meat as locally and from non-factory farm origins as possible.

I've tried a lot of different foods. The one thing that activated an irrational squicky response in me was a dish of scrambled eggs and brains in Spain. It tasted good, but something deep in me freaked out afterwards.

Oh man I really like Joel Salatin! I'm pretty sure that in real life we'd disagree about almost everything except food, but hey, common ground starts somewhere, right?

Same here re Salatin, but the "grass farmer" concept is profound.

big_slacker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #185 on: June 10, 2017, 08:15:54 AM »
Oh yeah, and stop freaking out about protein. You don't need that much. :D
This always makes me want to simultaneously laugh and smack someone. It's like, "Grrrrrr, I'm so tough and rugged I just NEED to eat platefuls of raw meat every day just to stay ALIVE!" Lol, srsly. No one in a developed country above the poverty line who can list three non-meat sources of protein and occasionally thinks about it in passing is going to be protein deficient.

This may apply for the general population but for those of us who engage in strenuous weight training 3-4x per week a bit of extra protein can be the difference between being sore and run down vs. feeling great and recovered for the next workout. You can't build a house without lumber.

Super late and I didn't see this till and missed it with all internet debate club stuff. But I do want to circle back just in case cheapass reads this again or others still labor under the protein mythology.

Of course athletes need a little more protein than an average person, but the oft quoted rule of thumb is 1-1.5x bodyweight (or a little more sane LBM) which is WAY high. When going plant based this is what freaked me out the most but I got over it. These days I average maybe 70 grams or protein a day. Many other athletes are discovering this, focusing on recovery by nutritional density rather than just protein. Tom Brady is a very notable example but there are a lot more.

Pic from a few weeks ago on 'flex friday', this is a 42 year old that eats hella carbs and doesn't get enough protein. I'm 165 lbs and bench 225x3, I'll be going out for a 4.5 hour mountain bike ride with some decent vertical gain a little after I type this.

frugalwitch

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Canada
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #186 on: June 10, 2017, 08:32:26 AM »
I have a mealworm farm that I use for my own consumption. My fiancť was completely traumatized when I brought mealworm in our house, but knowing that I won't let go until I do it, he let it be.

Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.

I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.

Linda_Norway

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #187 on: June 11, 2017, 12:18:38 AM »
I have a mealworm farm that I use for my own consumption. My fiancť was completely traumatized when I brought mealworm in our house, but knowing that I won't let go until I do it, he let it be.

Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.

I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.

Even though I am not really into eating insects, I should let this know to my DH. He tkinks eating insects is the way to go. In Norway you cannot buy them for human consumption, but farming them yourself is a smart move. I would also like to eat proteins that require a smaller footprint.

Maybe I should also learning to eat them without freaking out. Last time, my DH served a salad with some (quite a few) fried insects over it. I ate ut, but fresked out near the end. I guess I need to start with fewer species or disguise them as a burger or something.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #188 on: June 11, 2017, 02:09:13 AM »
This thread makes me want to go and order a great big juicy beef burger.

frugalwitch

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Canada
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #189 on: June 11, 2017, 07:17:45 AM »
I have a mealworm farm that I use for my own consumption. My fiancť was completely traumatized when I brought mealworm in our house, but knowing that I won't let go until I do it, he let it be.

Well I had my second meal of mealworm this week. Cooked in butter and garlic and it was delicious. In a few months my farm will be able to provide me with enough protein source that I'll be able to have a decent amount of food every week. I eat insects for all the nutritional benefits (vit b12, protein, fiber, etc). I mostly eat plant based at home but I don't consider myself a vegetarian or a vegan.

I also garden a lot and try to avoid produce in supermarkets as they don't contain as much vitamins as home grown produce does.

Even though I am not really into eating insects, I should let this know to my DH. He tkinks eating insects is the way to go. In Norway you cannot buy them for human consumption, but farming them yourself is a smart move. I would also like to eat proteins that require a smaller footprint.

Maybe I should also learning to eat them without freaking out. Last time, my DH served a salad with some (quite a few) fried insects over it. I ate ut, but fresked out near the end. I guess I need to start with fewer species or disguise them as a burger or something.

I started eating insects in the form of flour. You cannot tell there's some in muffins or bread. Then, as the price per pound was ridiculous, I wanted to start my own farm in a plastic shoe box. Was able to get a few meal from the second generations and now I think I'll have to upgrade into a few more plastic boxes lol, they reproduce so fast and in quantity.

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Location: UK
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #190 on: June 14, 2017, 08:03:04 AM »
I've scrolled past the recent walls of text but it's reminded me of something someone on this thread might be able to answer. Short answers appreciated!

As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?

Linda_Norway

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #191 on: June 18, 2017, 02:06:15 AM »
I've scrolled past the recent walls of text but it's reminded me of something someone on this thread might be able to answer. Short answers appreciated!

As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?

I don't know about British slaughter houses, but there are different rules for animal care in different countries. In Norway it is said that animal care rules are much stricter than elsewhere i Europe and that therefore there isn't such a big difference between normal meat and organic meat.

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #192 on: June 18, 2017, 07:38:26 AM »
I've scrolled past the recent walls of text but it's reminded me of something someone on this thread might be able to answer. Short answers appreciated!

As a teenager I was really into PETA for a little while and watched all the slaughterhouse etc videos. At some point I also read a thing about how PETA's videos are all American and it's different and not so bad in British "industrial" farms and slaughterhouses because the laws on animal welfare are much stricter here. I've wondered about it ever since. Is this true?

I don't know about British slaughter houses, but there are different rules for animal care in different countries. In Norway it is said that animal care rules are much stricter than elsewhere i Europe and that therefore there isn't such a big difference between normal meat and organic meat.

I also can't speak to Britain, but Quebec-wise: the difference between organic and regular milk is so small as to be non-existant. The milk industry is also regulated like whoa and there's a minimum price set for milk (6.50ish/gallon), which ensures that farmers will have the income necessary to treat their animals well. I've lived near several dairy farms: all the animals go outside regularly in summer (not in winter: they can't graze under 2ft of snow...), cows are milked on a rotating schedule (so my neighbor has a herd of 70, 35 of which are milked during any given period), which gives cows a year "off" for calf-bearing and health. These are healthy well-treated animals who will run up to you for neck-scratches (they're like large cats, when well-socialized), no unnecessary antibiotics, etc. Basically: zero objections, and I've been to multiple dairy farms and they've all been run like this. Our milk is more expensive but frankly I'm good with that trade-off.

Um. Egg and chicken and pork production here is a similar level of fucking horrifying confinement shit and should have people drawn and quartered over it, but small farms selling direct-to-customer do it differently (we buy a whole pig that we split with friends - it works out within 1$/lb of the grocery store price if you buy the whole pig) - the farm we buy from is primarily a beef farm, but It has an outdoor pig run. Pity they can't combine it with the neighbouring orchard, which would be ťbat for everyone, but maybe long-term...

Lamb/sheep/goats here tend to be well-raised... I know of one single farm that confines their sheep and that's because of the amount of predators that kept killing them, so they're inside in a space with windows and a yard and not getting eaten by the literal wolves, so... yeah.

I keep meaning to look into actual slaughterhouses here and see what's up (and hassle my MPs if needed), but honestly that's taking second place to setting up garden, chicken coop, handling our lambs, etc (and raising our kids, working an interesting but demanding job, supporting aging parents... the plate is pretty full). We don't do business with a slaughterhouse and use the local butcher, who works independantly and ethically, so it's a secondary priority. For now. Next winter, once things calm down a bit? I'm on it.

Arktinkerer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #193 on: June 18, 2017, 08:51:13 AM »
To bring back a line of thought from much earlier in this thread--

I like chicken livers (coat with seasoned flour and deep fry) but have not been able to find a way to prepare deer liver in an appetizing way.  Best use I've been able to find is to use it for catfish bait.  Anyone found a good way to prepare deer liver so it winds up more like chicken?  Can't say I've ever really tried pate'.  Maybe I should give it a go.  There is some concern about liver flutes but I read now that this is an aesthetic and not a health issue.

With the discussion of organ meats, one of my favorites is to use the heart and a kidney to make a meat pie.  I've done the tongue as a spread for crackers. 

Arktinkerer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #194 on: June 18, 2017, 08:56:31 AM »
Hesitate to wade into the vegan arguments but I can say, without hunting, it would be very near impossible to maintain a farm property well.  The hogs, deer, and rabbits would take or damage a great portion of the produce.  Even squirrels would take a good portion of any nut production.  The animals appear to learn to bypass any scent or fear based discouragement.  Fencing would have to be very tall, very strong, and very well maintained.

cadillacmike

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Location: FL
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #195 on: June 18, 2017, 11:55:06 AM »
... Chorizo has more weird shit in it than hot dogs.  I've more than once met someone who refused to eat hot dogs because it has "gross parts", but chowed down on some authentic chorizo and eggs for breakfast...

This thread hasn't been locked yet?

As for Chorizo, there is nothing better with your breakfast eggs than authentic choriozo from Spain.

... It's probably easier to be mustachian if you remain food ignorant.  Then you can pay .69 for a dozen factory farmed eggs instead of $3+ for humanely produced eggs.

I wish egg labeling didn't make it so difficult - I want to make humane choices, but then my brain blanks when I have to choose between cage-free, organic, free-range, grass fed, pasture-raised, etc.

As for me, I get eggs from the Target across the road, 18 pack for much less than any organic / schmorganic produced eggs.

Poor cobbb11; 41 posts and half of them are in this thread. Give it up while you're behind (yeah, someone already said that, but I'm not going back to find and quote it).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 12:00:07 PM by cadillacmike »

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #196 on: June 18, 2017, 12:33:24 PM »
To bring back a line of thought from much earlier in this thread--

I like chicken livers (coat with seasoned flour and deep fry) but have not been able to find a way to prepare deer liver in an appetizing way.  Best use I've been able to find is to use it for catfish bait.  Anyone found a good way to prepare deer liver so it winds up more like chicken?  Can't say I've ever really tried pate'.  Maybe I should give it a go.  There is some concern about liver flutes but I read now that this is an aesthetic and not a health issue.

With the discussion of organ meats, one of my favorites is to use the heart and a kidney to make a meat pie.  I've done the tongue as a spread for crackers.

This is originally a recipe for lamb liver pate, but works very well for roe deer. Haven't tried it on larger deer, but it doesn't hurt to try. Sorry for the weird language, this is an on the spot translation from Faroese:

250 g liver
125 g margarine
100 g flour (white flour without baking soda or other weird US additives)
1 onion
1 egg
1/2 tea spoon (ts) salt
1/2 ts ground black pepper
1.5 dl full fat cream

On top:
2 onions
6 pieces bacon
2 apples

Grind the liver and 1 onion 3 times (for young/small animals 2 times might be enough). Stir in egg and spices. Melt margarine in a pot, and stir in the flour. Stir in so much boiling water that the flour mix lets go of the pot (1-2 dl). Set aside to cool. Stir then the liver mixture into the flour mixture together with the cream until smooth (but not longer). Grease a oven proof form, put the liver mixture in this,  and heat the oven to 200 deg Celcius. Bake the pate for 40-50 minutes.

Cut the 2 onions, bacon, and 2 apples in small pieces, and fry them until lightly brown. Pour this on top of the pate when it gets out of the oven.

Serve warm.

BTW; noone has mentioned blood yet. I grew up with black sausage, but it is not my kids' favourite. I have plans to make blood pancakes soon, hope that works out better.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Location: UK
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #197 on: June 19, 2017, 02:01:03 AM »
Ugh, blood. My husband loves black pudding but I just find the texture abhorrent. Not a massive fan of the taste, but it's the texture that gives me the heebie jeebies. I'd be up for blood as a small component of something (a dash in a pie?) but I e read about blood soup... might need to work up to that one.