by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,6791,6801,6811,6821,6831,6841,685. . .2,6342,635»

Verdant Haven wrote:With regards to if they're healthy, I think it would depend what your measure of healthiness is, and what you're comparing it to. A lot of non-meat burgers are basically made from grains, so they're carb-loaded....
...

The whole idea of eating “healthy” food is very individual. If it makes you sick, it’s not healthy for you.

Some people have health issues related to some foods that a lot of vegans and vegetarians take for granted, like grains (wheat, rice, corn, etc.), legumes, nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, bell peppers, eggplants), onions, mushrooms, and/or nuts and seeds. That does not leave much vegan food.

If they also have problems with seafood, dairy products and eggs, then it doesn’t leave much vegetarian food either. What is left is a lot of vegetables and some fruits and meats.

If you also require organic, sustainable and/ or local foods, and reject additives, preservatives, artificial colors and flavor enhancers, then there’s not much food left at all.

The point is that what’s healthy for you or for me is very relative, and it will almost certainly vary over the course of a typical lifetime.

In re food ethics, it’s also important to keep in mind that these are “first world” problems. There are a lot of people in the world who eat things we might disdain, because they don’t have a lot of choices.

And if your priority is environmental protection, then you must factor in the environmental costs of large-scale agriculture - think pest control, irrigation, fertilizer, machinery, fuel, soil depletion, erosion, and impacts on native plants, animals and insects. Then there’s the subsequent packaging (plastics and plastic-coated papers), transportation, refrigeration and waste.

In other words, if you’re going to debate food practices, think about the whole picture, not just the micro-part that you believe makes your lifestyle more or less responsible compared to someone else’s.

Armenico-myordas wrote:Do vegetarians even think about plant rights?

Yeah, vegetarians only are thinking about animal rights and how we should not eat them but vegetarians don't have a care in the world for the plant's own life lol. (All the vegetarians reading this, this is a joke.)

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Kinectia, and Sean fiobha

Kinectia wrote:The point is that what’s healthy for you or for me is very relative, and it will almost certainly vary over the course of a typical lifetime.

In re food ethics, it’s also important to keep in mind that these are “first world” problems. There are a lot of people in the world who eat things we might disdain, because they don’t have a lot of choices.

Love these two lines.

Cameroi, Verdant Haven, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersKinectia, Lousykitty, and Sean fiobha

Anyone ever read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer?

A philosophy/atheism/and more recently veganism YouTuber I follows and used to have great time for and thought was an intellectual powerhouse recommended it in his 2020 50 books to read video. According to him on the basis of chapter one alone he became a vegan and he challenged his friends that he would buy them the book and they would also go vegan. Five of his friends accepted and became vegans.

I read chapter one with an open mind. I did not become a vegan. I know think yer man on youtube and his friends are actually weak minded fools. It was not the airtight philosophical justification for veganism that I had expected.

Kinectia wrote:The whole idea of eating “healthy” food is very individual. If it makes you sick, it’s not healthy for you.

Some people have health issues related to some foods that a lot of vegans and vegetarians take for granted, like grains (wheat, rice, corn, etc.), legumes, nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, bell peppers, eggplants), onions, mushrooms, and/or nuts and seeds. That does not leave much vegan food.

If they also have problems with seafood, dairy products and eggs, then it doesn’t leave much vegetarian food either. What is left is a lot of vegetables and some fruits and meats.

If you also require organic, sustainable and/ or local foods, and reject additives, preservatives, artificial colors and flavor enhancers, then there’s not much food left at all.

The point is that what’s healthy for you or for me is very relative, and it will almost certainly vary over the course of a typical lifetime.

In re food ethics, it’s also important to keep in mind that these are “first world” problems. There are a lot of people in the world who eat things we might disdain, because they don’t have a lot of choices.

And if your priority is environmental protection, then you must factor in the environmental costs of large-scale agriculture - think pest control, irrigation, fertilizer, machinery, fuel, soil depletion, erosion, and impacts on native plants, animals and insects. Then there’s the subsequent packaging (plastics and plastic-coated papers), transportation, refrigeration and waste.

In other words, if you’re going to debate food practices, think about the whole picture, not just the micro-part that you believe makes your lifestyle more or less responsible compared to someone else’s.

Insightful! It is awful that the food industry largely tramples the personal choice element! I encourage people to garden and eat homegrown fruits and veggies whenever possible! The American food system as a whole is broken:

"The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable."--Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S–663S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660s

I suggest reading the entire article. Here is a link: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S

Armenico-myordas wrote:Do vegetarians even think about plant rights?

I do, but I cannot survive by eating gravel.

Cameroi, Love and Nature, Lord Dominator, Refuge Isle, and 2 othersKinectia, and Salvezia

Turbeaux wrote:I do, but I cannot survive by eating gravel.

Is that a bet?

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Kinectia, Sean fiobha, and 2 othersLura, and Salvezia

Bananaistan wrote:Anyone ever read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer?
A philosophy/atheism/and more recently veganism YouTuber I follows and used to have great time for and thought was an intellectual powerhouse recommended it in his 2020 50 books to read video. According to him on the basis of chapter one alone he became a vegan and he challenged his friends that he would buy them the book and they would also go vegan. Five of his friends accepted and became vegans.
I read chapter one with an open mind. I did not become a vegan. I know think yer man on youtube and his friends are actually weak minded fools. It was not the airtight philosophical justification for veganism that I had expected.

I did actually read Animal Liberation in college (voluntarily, not assigned). And I stopped eating animals about the same time. I also thought a lot about Singer's idea of speciesism: "discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species." Then a couple of years later I got really, really sick. After that I was just glad to be able to eat anything that didn't eat me first.

More recently, I read The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate―Discoveries from A Secret World, by Peter Wohlleben (2016). Apparently, forests are ecosystems where the trees and their microscopic friends (fungi, etc.) engage in individual and collective defensive maneuvers, and interact in many other unseen ways. So Mcclandia and Armenico-myordas are more right than they may realize.

Post self-deleted by Mcclandia.

Mcclandia

Kinectia wrote:I did actually read Animal Liberation in college (voluntarily, not assigned). And I stopped eating animals about the same time. I also thought a lot about Singer's idea of speciesism: "discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species." Then a couple of years later I got really, really sick. After that I was just glad to be able to eat anything that didn't eat me first.

More recently, I read The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate―Discoveries from A Secret World, by Peter Wohlleben (2016). Apparently, forests are ecosystems where the trees and their microscopic friends (fungi, etc.) engage in individual and collective defensive maneuvers, and interact in many other unseen ways. So Mcclandia and Armenico-myordas are more right than they may realize.

Wow, I was actually pretty right about something for once! Thanks Kinectia for actually recognizing something I said people usually just ignore whatver i say. Also if you guys are every bored go to this site ---> http://ozh.github.io/cookieclicker/

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and Kinectia

Lousykitty wrote:Is that a bet?

Sure, loser gives the winner one hundred million dollars (unless they die)! (◠‿◕)

Lord Dominator, Kinectia, and Lousykitty

Cameroi wrote:the meat of the day mentioned that at the restaurant at the end of the universe.
hot grease smells way better then anything cooked in it tastes, meat or veg.
humans evolved eating meat, but a lot less of it then most of us do today.
sort of like being vegetarian every day that isn't some kind of holiday, and only eating meat to celebrate them.
that's pretty much the way most people ate before food animals were mistreated so we could have lots of it.
and if we had to butcher it ourselves, most of us wouldn't eat that much of it very often.

There are actually people in Africa and in the far north who live almost exclusively on meat diets. They apparently get full nutrition because they eat the whole animal. I have not-so-distant ancestors who trapped and hunted most of their food in Alaska. I would have to be very hungry before I could kill an animal for food.

There are also many people in parts of the world who eat larvae, crickets, grasshoppers and ants. Makes me wonder how my nation’s people lost in the wilderness could possibly starve. Guess they get eaten by wolves... or vultures. Eventually we all become food for something, don’t we?

Also, as I recall in the above-mentioned restaurant the meat of the day (while still alive) was brought around and tried to persuade the diners to eat it. And I thought choosing live lobsters was too creepy.

Cameroi, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and Salvezia

Salvezia

Actually, if you consider petroleum a mineral, TEORICALLY you course live on gravel, or better say, minerale... there are various kind of rocks that contains near every elements you need, Just have to industrially produce vitamins, carbos, proteins and fat..

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Kinectia, and Sean fiobha

Armenico-myordas wrote:Do vegetarians even think about plant rights?

Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

If I had omnipotent power, I would create a universe that aligns to my morality that it's wrong to eat other beings and all organisms would be powered directly by sunlight. Or I would create a system of meat production that meant everything that died to nourish another was treated with dignity, care, kindness, and respect. But I don't have that power, so I do the best I can and I have to eat something. Generally speaking, plants tolerate being eaten much better than animals do. Animals tend to resist being eaten, whereas plants (fruit trees, for example), encourage the consumption of their fruits. True, not all plants do, but trying to hold out for one perfect solution that will apply to all instances is a logical fallacy (the perfect solution fallacy, also sometimes called the nirvana fallacy).

In addition, the raising of plants for consumption does not create the conditions of suffering common in large-scale industrial meat production. Plants in a green house do not suffer the way pigs in a factory farm do.

For these reasons, my moral code is to reduce suffering as much as I am able. There may be times one is morally justified to kill, such as self-defense or to protect one's family. But causing suffering is never justified. I can reduce suffering in the world by lessening the demand for meat, which relaxes the pressure on the supply. Because I have the extensive resources and economic privileges inherent to being a middle class American citizen, it's incumbent upon me to act as such. Simply put, I can afford to eat in a way that reduces suffering for other beings. Not everyone has this option, but I do, so that's what I do. I do not pass judgment on those for whom fresh produce is prohibitively expensive and who can't afford the local organic farmer's market, whose environments create conditions favoring meat over plants (i.e. the Inuit), or other considerations.

Turbeaux wrote:Healthy feels better than ham tastes. Also, we do not sit around eating cardboard every day (at least I don't).

I do eat cardboard a lot.
*munches cardboard*

Armenico-myordas wrote:Do vegetarians even think about plant rights?

I despise plants with every fibre of my being.

Eryndlynd wrote:Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

A believe their wis a study dun an the restults where that plants don't feel pain like animals but they do have sum sort o conscious as they respond tae music (a cannae rember how tho). With ma moral code a wid leave it an let it fall doon an leave it fir the wee beesties (insects) tae eat, as chopin it doon might also be killin/starvin the fugus (sum fungi are parasitic).

Cameroi, Lord Dominator, and Turbeaux

Long-term capital gains

Sean fiobha wrote:Sorry Long-term capital gains a tryed tae have a look around on baeth the uk an American website, the only thing a can tell ye is that its in stock in the uk.

See, I looked there cause I'll totally pay, but I cannot see a "add to cart" anywhere unless I've gone blind.

Eryndlynd wrote:I've been a vegetarian for fourteen years. During that time, I've been an amateur boxer, a backpacker and backwoods trail builder, and most recently I have been splitting my own firewood with an axe for heat for my wood stove. A balanced vegetarian/vegan diet provides more than enough fuel to build strength and live vigorously, if that's what one wishes to do. I'll be your second data point for this test🙂

That's a line, aka a trend. Stick a QED in it folks, were done. Now, where'd I put the Twinkies...

Salvezia wrote:I envy you For the succes in stay vegetarian, i’m trying hard but the dark side is strong (they have ham!)

It helps when economic factors -- produce cooked at home is cheap -- are the primary motivation.

It also helps to really like oatmeal cause you'll be eating a crapton of it :D

Turbeaux wrote:Healthy feels better than ham tastes. Also, we do not sit around eating cardboard every day (at least I don't).

To be fair, cardboard is basically cellulose, of which I eat absurd amounts.

With blueberries. That's the trick.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:As a non-vegetarian who generally avoids fast food, I didn't expect to be in this position, but I can offer an endorsement here of Burger King's new Rebel Whopper, which is basically a whopper made from vegetable protein.

I have no idea if it is healthy at all, or if there's a hidden environmental impact, but I ate one yesterday (with mayo left off) and it was really quite good.

Had a Beyond Burger a while ago. Thought the texture and taste was more like sausage.

So a local coffee shop sold me a Beyond egg and sausage sandwich, which is basically perfect unless you're a vegan.

I suspect the sodium is still through the roof, but I'll bet many people cannot tell the difference.

Bananaistan wrote:Anyone ever read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer?

A philosophy/atheism/and more recently veganism YouTuber I follows and used to have great time for and thought was an intellectual powerhouse recommended it in his 2020 50 books to read video. According to him on the basis of chapter one alone he became a vegan and he challenged his friends that he would buy them the book and they would also go vegan. Five of his friends accepted and became vegans.

I read chapter one with an open mind. I did not become a vegan. I know think yer man on youtube and his friends are actually weak minded fools. It was not the airtight philosophical justification for veganism that I had expected.

I have read Animal Liberation, and loads of other Singer works. I honestly don't see how Veganism necessarily follows from any of them. Veganism is a morally absolutist position, where as Singer (at least when he wrote Animal Lib) approached the problem from a consequentialist perspective.

Thus, he concludes that most animal agriculture and scientific testing is unnecessary and immoral, but he cannot absolutely condemn all such practices, as in principle there can be some situation where the consequences justify them. He's going to hold your feet to the fire to demonstrate that justification, but he'll hear you out. By contrast, a Vegan will reject the notion of justification from the start, as an inherent and insurmountable rules violation (don't use sentient species as a means, period)

In most day to day concerns, he's effectively a vegan, but in philosophical terms, that's a clear line in the sand.

So yeah, how one reads Animal Lib and arrives at a morally absolutist position...is bizarre. Someone wasn't reading very carefully.

EDIT: or, to be more fair, Animal Lib was a popular work that just assumed all the dry and boring philosophical stuff as given. Reading that philosophical stuff first, to establish the proper context, would help.

Long-term capital gains wrote:I have read Animal Liberation, and loads of other Singer works. I honestly don't see how Veganism necessarily follows from any of them. Veganism is a morally absolutist position, where as Singer (at least when he wrote Animal Lib) approached the problem from a consequentialist perspective.

Thus, he concludes that most animal agriculture and scientific testing is unnecessary and immoral, but he cannot absolutely condemn all such practices, as in principle there can be some situation where the consequences justify them. He's going to hold your feet to the fire to demonstrate that justification, but he'll hear you out. By contrast, a Vegan will reject the notion of justification from the start, as an inherent and insurmountable rules violation (don't use sentient species as a means, period)

In most day to day concerns, he's effectively a vegan, but in philosophical terms, that's a clear line in the sand.

So yeah, how one reads Animal Lib and arrives at a morally absolutist position...is bizarre. Someone wasn't reading very carefully.

EDIT: or, to be more fair, Animal Lib was a popular work that just assumed all the dry and boring philosophical stuff as given. Reading that philosophical stuff first, to establish the proper context, would help.

I assumed the same thing about Dawkins' The God Delusion, so when I actually read it, the good stuff was all in the first two chapters and seemed more like personal incredulity than any serious case against God or even religion in general. The rest of the book was... fluff, just fluff.

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Kinectia, and Sean fiobha

Long-term capital gains

Darths and Droids wrote:I assumed the same thing about Dawkins' The God Delusion, so when I actually read it, the good stuff was all in the first two chapters and seemed more like personal incredulity than any serious case against God or even religion in general. The rest of the book was... fluff, just fluff.

Just to clarify, I'm not being critical of Animal Liberation. I simply don't think it's even trying to make the case for Veganism. It's making a case for 1) consequential ethics, and 2) that the vast majority of animal agriculture and scientific testing is immoral on consequentialist grounds.

That Vegans will also reject the use of animals is a coincidence, not proof that Animal Lib is a Vegan work.

So it's not that surprising if it fails to make more Vegans, and honestly, I think, surprising if it does. There is nothing I've read in Singer i'd call "fluff."

Lord Dominator and Kinectia

quote=long-term_capital_gains;37482927]

...Veganism is a morally absolutist position...[/quote]
Perhaps for some, but I wear leather shoes (in all fairness to myself, I purchased them before I transitioned). A brace that I have to wear has not fit in any other brand of shoe but it still makes me uneasy. Additionally, I am curious about why you capitalize "vegan" and "veganism." Despite how the more annoying vegans act, it is not a religion.

Thalasse wrote:I do eat cardboard a lot.
*munches cardboard*
I despise plants with every fibre of my being.

There would not be cardboard without plants. It looks like you have some cognitive dissonance to work on.
¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

Lord Dominator, Kinectia, and Long-term capital gains

Long-term capital gains

Turbeaux wrote:. Additionally, I am curious about why you capitalize "vegan" and "veganism." Despite how the more annoying vegans act, it is not a religion.

It is a specific philosophical position, that needs in my post to be differentiated from another proper noun (Singer).

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and Kinectia

Eryndlynd wrote:Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

It's my understanding from what I read in The Hidden Life of Trees that cutting a tree does not necessarily kill it. Sometimes the forest will keep "dead" trees and even stumps alive, through shared root systems and fungi and bacteria that convey nourishment. I know it sounds absurd, and I have no proof, but that's what the author said, and their proof sounded pretty solid to me. It's worth thinking about anyway. I recommend the book - it's very engaging and entertaining as well as informative. I listened to the audio version as I was walking in the forest, and it's totally changed how I see the trees.

Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, The void territories, and 1 otherSean fiobha

Long-term capital gains

Eryndlynd wrote:

If I had omnipotent power, I would create a universe that aligns to my morality that it's wrong to eat other beings and all organisms would be powered directly by sunlight.

Strictly speaking, the nutrient content of most plants is generated by photosynthesis, which means as a vegetarian I'm technically solar powered.

Thanks God!

Eryndlynd, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and Lousykitty

The Council of Jutsa has voted AGAINST the current WA resolution at vote, par request of the creator of said proposal. We hope Forest, and in particular Ransium, will do the same, despite our confidence that it's probably too late and that a repeal will most likely be necessary for the desired modifications to take place.

Also hi everyone <3

Verdant Haven, Mount Seymour, Lord Dominator, Lousykitty, and 1 otherSean fiobha

Just unfollowed an Instagram meme page after the guy running it made 10 posts in a row that were more or less mocking Kobe’s death. Each had about 300 likes.

The ability for people to shut off all empathy and emotion for haha funnies and internet points that mean nothing is astounding.

Eryndlynd wrote:Constantly. Currently, I have several trees on my property that are beginning to fail and succumb to infection. Is it more moral to kill them now by cutting them down? Or should I leave them alone so they can experience as much life remaining as possible. The trees are in a wooded area, far from my house, so there is no danger to me if I leave them alone and allow nature to take its course. Are they suffering? What's the right thing to do, according to my moral philosophy? I think about things like this all the time.

I don’t see the point of keeping alive diseased trees. It’s not like they’re sentient and they can be a pretty big health hazard depending on what type of infection they have.

Lord Dominator and Sean fiobha

those who point out that the dietary needs of no two people are entirely identical are absolutely right.

i will say this about something you grow in your own garden compared to the nearly identical item you can purchase in a store,
what you grow will be often be less uniformly shaped, and less resistent to brusing, neither of which will matter a damd bit when transporting it two steps from where you grow it to your kitchen. in return, the flavor is just so much better, its sometimes hard to believe, its the same species.
i don't know if this is also true for meat, but that would seriously not surprise me either.

with meat though, its hard to kill, butcher and eat a pet, and its hard to not make a pet out of any animal you raise in non-stressful conditions.
obviously people can do it. i probably could. but i'm just as glad not to have to do my own butchering, or even slaughtering.

i have done each, with feral mule deer that were local to where i lived. just not all three, or even two of the three, with the same animal.

and for arctic or other extreme conditions where meat is more abundant then plant material, sure, of course.
but other then such extreme places, people without advanced technology eating meat heavy diets, is pure hollywood.

meat was a treat, and whatever plant material grew locally, is what kept you alive.

Lord Dominator, Kinectia, and Sean fiobha

«12. . .1,6791,6801,6811,6821,6831,6841,685. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement