Veganinanitarianism

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by spoke- *
Scylla wrote:

I also think we’re seeing a lot of hyperbole concerning the raising of beef.

Which is one reason the threads questioning the vegetarian lifestyle are important. (You listening, yosemitebabe? )

Ooooh. So all those threads being started are questioning the information out there about raising beef? Oh really? And pray tell, why the need to “question” the “vegetarian lifestyle”? What are we, Moonies or something?

Well, since the boards are pretty fast this time of night, I thought I’d take a look.

I put in a search for any date, using the keywords “vegetarian” and “vegan” in the title. Between the two words, about 50 threads popped up. Now, I have to give credit, a lot of the threads were pretty harmless. Some seemed rather polite. I didn’t peruse each thread in their entirety, however, to see if they stayed polite.

About 6 were recipe threads, started by veggies or people interested in veggie recipes. Several more threads were asking innocuous questions about vegetarianism, asking if Jesus or Einstein were veggie, and so on.

Here are the rest, with my notes:

Vegetarianism - eating disorder?
What are vegetarians thinking?
(Lame ass question for veggies)
Can vegetarians drink blood? (lame ass question)
Vegetarians who eat potatoes (thinly veiled plants have feelings too)
Thinly veiled expectation for ovo-lactos to “justify” themselves.
Plants have feelings too
plants have feelings too
vegans who eat organic - are organically grown vegetables dependant on the meat industry? (thinly veiled “hypocrite” thread.)
Hey vegetarian Catholics - What about communion? (Milossarian’s brilliant question) :rolleyes:
I hate “vegatarians”
Vegan pet owners (I suspect - a “hypocrite” question)
Do vegans swallow? (yeah - you know…)
Do vegans eat honey? (possibly a thinly veiled hypocrite thread.)
Vegans breastfeeding?
vegan debate (just a flat out debate - started by meat-eater.)
Vegans - how far should they go?
Vegan BBQ (flame thread)
A Question for Vegans (thinly veiled hypocrite thread)
There were a few vegetarians starting threads too - but I didn’t see anything directly ragging on meat-eaters’ habits. One thread was mine, (basically asking to be left alone.) Another was a question asked by a veggie, wanting to know why meat-eaters always have to describe their meat dishes to him. (Gee - it isn’t just me they do it to! :rolleyes: )

How many OPs here are asking about factory farming? How many trying to dispel the so-called “hyperbole”? I don’t really see that many here. Why do these people want to know if vegans will “swallow”? Why do they want to know if veggies will drink blood? What is the point here? Are these the kind of questions you think are “important” to ask about the “vegetarian lifestyle”? I mean, I guess they’re as good questions as any, and some are probably asked out of innocent curiosity. But after a while, when I see so many of these kinds of questions, I start to smell a motivation like “ooooh - I think vegetarians are hypocrites because they feed their pets regular dog food! I’ll start a thread!”

I don’t see any “hard hitting” questions about the “hyperbole”. I see lame-ass questions, silly questions, or “I think vegetarians are hypocrites because they do ____! I’ll start a thread!”

On the other hand, I just don’t see any “in your face” threads started by veggies. I put in the keywords “meat eater”, “carnivore” and “omnivore”, and didn’t find much.

[ITR_champion]

Milo:

I’d venture a guess that most vegetarianism (I refuse to use the Oprah-fied word) is a shallow, emotion-based decision that does not stand up to logical scrutiny

A survey taken by the LA Times found the following reasons:
Health 54% (including me)
Religion 17%
Morality/ethics 11%
Personal taste 11%
Cost 4%
Other 2%

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Before you cry bullshit it might be nice if you had the barest glimmer of what you are talking about.

Uh, I guess that means you’re going for my “potted plant” hypothesis? Because I pretty much guarantee you I know defamation law one heck of a lot better than either you or Mick Foley, Scylla.

[SPOOFE]

Scylla, just try to cool it, all right? The only time I ever give a shit about what someone eats is when they start telling me how horrible I am for munching on beef. That’s when I rip 'em a new asshole…

But, jeez, you’re insulting a lot of people who deserve no insulting…

[bobojoe]

Nonsense, plants can’t feel pain because they lack a central nervous system. No brain, no pain

to me, large assumtion. One assumes one’s own nervous system or something very similar is the only thign out there. Maybe true, but one is silly to assume it until all life forms are thoroughly researched, and every little thing is known about them, and further, and possibly more important, it is known that every little thing is known about them. Otherwise one is blowing smoke- 'Oh, I say this or that, and that’s all there iis to this area of knowledge- been a downfall of many a person/group. There are those studies that show plants reacting to not only damage, but the ones who caused that damage. Implies not only some kind of physical sensation network, but also a sensing mechanism for the external world, as does phototropism, seeds germinating when conditions are favorable, etc. But the experiments mentioned in ‘the secret life of plants’, even if one wants to poopoo them, imply more- they imply intelligence and ability to feel at least damage, in a negative way, as would be expected from any damage-sensing system, like our own pain networks.

Chickens, of course, do have consciousness, as anyone who has observed them thoughtfully could tell. They learn, they have moods, they fight and carry grudges- my hen died after the rooster was killed, in the same way a human whose mate, usually elderly, will sometimes die soon after that mate has died.

There is a large difference between an unconscious individual, or a rock, and this type of behaviour. Even ants, in my observation, have at least a modicum of consciousness and self-awareness. They display agitation when injured, when damaged, when lost. How much this translates into what you and I know as ‘pain’ I don’t know. But it is a negative sensation, by definiton of any threat/damage sesning network- it’s how evolution has set life up. This, I would think, is as obvious as the pain one feels when one smacks oneself in the face. But I would not be suprised to be asked to provide cites…heh. I won’t.

Indeed, these are the things, IMO, that define that which we call ‘life’, these things and the ability to adapt, which is another word for ‘learn’. And chickens most definitely adapt. And even the simple concept of pecking order indicates other/self-awareness and therefore consciousness. As does the fact that they can watch your every action with wary trpidation, or eagerness, when you are their feeder and not abusive, as does Opals chickens behaviour.

Unless you mean that only humans, at their level, qualify as having consciousness, this is a silly concept/statement. No. It is a silly thing anyway, and immensely un-seeing, to say the least.

Certainly more attenuated than that of humans, but it’s possible there are lifeforms who are enough advanced from where we are that by the same logic, they would consider us as not being conscious…just a scenario, built on this faulty logic.
Not a vegetarian, BTW. Or vegan.

OP, seems like, is just picking on a pet peeve, or had enough or something. Maybe drunk, as hinted at, or going off on goat-killing fantasies and took this kind of twisty turn…heh…

coulda been any one of several adolescent-type holier-than-thous.

The ones who are better/smarter/cooler/more in the know than everybody else and the world, in their in-experienced, smug viewpoints, should do what they say- this one just happened to be about that particular sub-set of vegetarian/vegans. That particular subset is not ideosyncratic to vpeople, that particular subset is endemic to humanity as a whole, and like hiv, reaches across all boundaries.

I’d be pissed too, was I a v person.

now- cows- yeah, yuck on slaughterhouses and such, but it’s there, period. FWIW, they usually try to minimize any stress, because it makes the meat darker, and eminently less salable.

Killing things period- you like a clean house? Clean bathtub? You one of those who uses that blue shit in your toilet?

Use lots of 409, Windex, tub shit, that spray stuff after a shower so you dont’ have to clean the stall/tub?

You have colored clothes? Drive? Use any wood-based paper? Do you benefit in any way from rubber? Tires, anything?

Do you eat anything from Del Monte? Pineapple? Bananas?

Use electricity? That comes from, sometimes, depends on who got what bid, a dam that has totally re-configured a river, and like as not seriously fucked with or even displaced a populationi of this or that native species?

Ever watch a field being harvested and even just planted? Ever see how many gophers, mice, ground-dwelling birds or others that are anhialated?

Conditions of food animals, by and large, are in fact, detestable, painful, and prolonged. For many types, anyway. And they feel it.
A person eating just plants is being less intrusive and consumptive on the world than a person who eats plants and meat- only observe educatedly, and it will be seen. But the world will survive anon anyway- this type of thing does not have the largeness to save/kill the world, not by itself, anyway. As a constituent of a constellation of situations, yes, it is a part of what could very negatively affect this world as we know it. Our lives as we know them. Still does not take away one scyntylla…of validity of those who have honestly come by their motivations for being v.

Vperson/non-vperson- argument is as silly as jewish/catholic, usa/canadian, geek/jock- none of it is usefull, and simply an argument.

Problem is the argumentative impulse which helps nothing, changes nothing. Smugness, self-righteousness, I’m-better-than-you- none of these are productive.

Fun though.

[kabbes]

Kimstu - that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to get at for the last 2 pages! (And when I say exactly, I really do mean word for word exactly). And now, just when Scylla has finally admitted that there is suffering associated with eating meat, allowing me to inflict my coup de gras, you get in there first!

But you said it better than I would have done anyway. So I’ll just turn to Scylla, jerk my thumb at your post and go “hrrh!”

pan

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Before you cry bullshit it might be nice if you had the barest glimmer of what you are talking about.

Uh, I guess that means you’re going for my “potted plant” hypothesis? Because I pretty much guarantee you I know defamation law one heck of a lot better than either you or Mick Foley, Scylla. **

Forgive me, I did not realize I was dealing with such a very great authority that your very word, should be accepted without question.

I’ve never known a competant authority or professional willing to render an opinion over a situation he knows nothing about, especially when the facts of what I described are easily verifiable.

So, your guarrantee is as worthless as the electrons it’s written on.
Kabbes:

I can’t recall ever saying that animals that were eaten didn’t suffeer.

[Vivamus]

I’ve been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I didn’t want to leave this particular comment untouched…

Scylla maintains that:

Around 1997 you started seeing less and less of this. Horses were selling for more, and they were generally in better shape.

The reason?

Horse meat was gaining popularity in Europe, particularly France. The broken down horses suddenly had value, and they were treated better.

It seems to me disingenuous to suggest that this ‘suddenly’ came about in 1997. France (as well as many other countries in continental Europe) has a long and established history of horse meat consumption, viz. this article:

Where horse is harnessed à la carte

wherein a M. Claustres claims:

“I was brought up eating horse sausages and mince by my mother but many French people have never tried it,”… “The market has become a niche because, since Napoleonic times, the horse butcher has been completely separate from other butchers.”

And are there not enough horses available for slaughter in Europe to satisify the (relatively small) French market? There are frequently articles in the British press detailing horse theft, allegedly to ultimately supply French horse butchers. Between that and the free-range sorts of horse farms described in the above-linked article, I would think supply would more than meet demand, without having to resort to N. American stock- It seems to me that, regardless of how cheap the horseflesh was, the transport costs alone would be prohibitive.

I’m not claiming that BSE didn’t drive people to alternative meat sources. However, I don’t think it happened in France overnight, and ‘around 1997’, and with such a direct correlation to horse welfare across the Atlantic. Here’s an article detailing British wild pony slaughter for the French market, because of BSE fears, but dating to the end of 2000:

Wild ponies pay price of BSE

If Mr. Froggy Restauranteur can get an entire New Forest pony for £1, why should he have recourse to American horses? And if these cheap British horses are treated in the following manner:

CIWF’s six-month investiga tion into the trade, which included undercover filming, revealed cruel and illegal treatment of the animals. Government guidelines state that horses require calm, sympathetic and unhurried handling, but the investigators saw ponies being slapped, kicked, wrestled to the floor and grabbed and lifted by the neck and tail. They also trailed tightly packed animals on their seven hour journey to an abattoir in Cheshire.

how can you possibly argue that:

, the simple fact is that human consumption of horses has resulted in their better treatment.

They are in better shape, well-fed, and their is a lot less suffering then when they were typically rendered for byproducts or turned into dog food.

?

As a personal aside, I was last offered horse meat in a Swiss friend’s restaurant around 1995, and it had nothing to do with the BSE crisis. The subsequent BSE scare (and we were much more blase about it on the continent, and for longer than in Britain) had no effect whatsoever on his sales.

[Vivamus]

While I’m busy quoting Guardian articles, and in answer to the argument as to whether the vegetarian lifestyle is any healthier than the omnivore alternative, here’s what I opened my paper up to yesterday:

Insurer offers vegetarians a carrot

Granted, the company in question (‘Animal Friends Insurance’) whiffs of treehuggery, but this bit is interesting:

A succession of studies have illustrated the health benefits of giving up meat. An Oxford University study of 11,000 people found that a vegetarian diet can reduce the chances of suffering from a variety of cancer types by up to 40%.

[Scylla]

Kimstu:

Interesting thought, but I’m pretty sure that’s not where I’m coming from.

Vivamus:

That’s nice. My information is first hand. One can check out The Paper Horse or hang out at local auctions, like I do in Smithsburg, MD, and Dillsburg, PA, and talk to the other bidders to confirm what I’m saying. Slaughter horses are being purchased in the U.S. and shipped to Europe in increasing numbers. This got noticeable in 1997 or so.

It’s a matter of verifiable fact.

[Vivamus]

Scylla:

I defer to your greater knowledge of the horsey set in your area and what happens therein (although I’ll admit I was tempted to quote back at you the first sentence of your latest reply to minty green).

However, I did browse try to browse through The Paper Horse site (I put 'paper horse through Google and the third hit was something called The Equine Protection Network- Paper Horse Chronicles: http://members.tripod.com/~EPN/slaughter/render.htm).

I can’t seem to find a link to selling specifically to France, as a result of the BSE scare, or any significant speeding-up of slaughter circa 1997. There is much dire description of the state of horses led to slaughter, in this sort of vein:

Horses will have to go through the arduous and inhumane collection process until enough horses are gathered for a full load for shipment to the slaughterhouse.

Horses will have to be transported excessive distances to slaughter, often without food, water or rest.

and

Hope died 10 days later while under a veterinarian’s care. The option of sending her to slaughter did not prevent her owners from starving her…

(accompanied by gruesome pic), but I fail to see how this helps your argument that:

You see very few badly neglected horses at auction. Most are well-fed.

While unhappy to see riding horses sold for slaughter, and very ambivalent about their rising popularity as a human food item, the simple fact is that human consumption of horses has resulted in their better treatment.

They are in better shape, well-fed, and their is a lot less suffering then when they were typically rendered for byproducts or turned into dog food.

…In fact, that site seems to have dedicated itself to refuting your last assertion in the above quote.

You know, it occured to me that if that site substituted ‘cattle’ for each incidence where it describes the horse care-and-transport-for-slaughter procedure, it would qualify as one of those ‘vegan tract’ or ‘vegetarian propaganda’ sites mentioned earlier in this thread.

Please let me know if I got the wrong site. I can’t seem to follow your link, and ‘paper horse’ brings up all sorts of things in Google.

[Scylla]

Vivamus:

Paper Horse is a local magazine about the horse market, not that site.

BTW. I’m not saying that things are great, just that they’ve improved. I’m seeing fewer of the worst cases of neglected horses going through at auction. Knowing that slaughter buyers have much deeper pockets now that they’re not just selling to the rendering plants, I put two and two together.

[Scylla]

A couple of links about a large auction, I attend occasionally.

http://members.tripod.com/p3_acres/id112.htm

http://www.cadcol.com/eylers/article.htm

and this is a good place to get a feel for the horse market.

http://horses-etc.com/Horses_For_Sale_Lists.shtml

[Scylla]

Minty:

I’ll post some quotes and a link if I can find it, so that one of us backs up what they’re saying.

[minty_green]

CANTRELL v. FOREST CITY PUBLISHING CO., 419 U.S. 245 (1974) (reinstating jury’s verdict for plaintiff after trial judge instructed the jury that after instructing the jurors that liability could be imposed against the defendant newspaper only if they found that the false statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth).

ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO., 433 U.S. 562 (1977) (“The interest protected” in permitting recovery for placing the plaintiff in a false light “is clearly that of reputation, with the same overtones of mental distress as in defamation.” Prosser, supra, 48 Calif. L. Rev., at 400.)

KAELIN v GLOBE COMMUNICATIONS, 162 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that Kato gets to sue the Globe for falsely implying that the police suspected him of murder, rather than the perjury they really suspected him of doing)

WEYRICH V. NEW REPUBLIC, INC., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (reversing trial court’s dismissal of defamation and related claims because parts of defendant publisher’s article were susceptible of defamatory meaning and arguably placed plaintiff in a false light)

Want me to go on?

[minty_green]

I don’t know why those links aren’t working properly, but all four cases are available at http://www.findlaw.com Just search on the party names under the U.S. Supreme Court or circuit court opinions and they should pop right up.

I also neglected to mention that Cantrell is indeed a false light case.

[Scylla]

Network news magazines arew bot held to the same strict standards of reporting.

I quote from Mick’s book, pg. 57

I was livid. How could they do this? Obviously, there has to be some law that prevents a huge media conglomerate likee ABC from blatantly ttaking quotes out of context and making innocent people look like uncaring scumbags by doing so. The next day I called the world Wrestling Federation and voiced my concern. We had our own videeotatpe–surely we could use it to get an apology. “Sorry,” I was told, “There’s nothing we can do. That is an acceptable form of reporting.”

So Minty, I’m faced with a conundrum. If Mick was lying wouldn’t 20/20 be able to sue Mick? This also did make quite a stir on the Wrestling programs, and I have seen both versions of the tape.

Infotainment TV “magazine” style shows are well-known not to be held to the same standards. Tom Wolfe himself lambasted the situation in “Ambush at Fort Bragg.”

By granting an interview to 20/20 Mick Foley has consented to editing of content, and has no recourse.

The lawyers recognized this and rather than pursue the issue legally, they publicized their version of the tape and story over the course of several shows, showing precisely how Mick was taken out of context.

If you search the archives of articles at WWF.com you’ll probably be able to find more details (I’d looked it over at one point but don’t recall specifically.)

Hopefully you can see how I don’t think that your guarrantee is worth much when compared to the weight of evidence, I’ve read about it. Sure it’s possible that the WWF Lawyers are incompetant, and you’re a world acknowledged expert in the matter. But, you’d have to prove that.

Find cases won against network news magazines for misattribution through editing, and we’d be getting somewhere. Newspaper reporters are held to different standards than theseee schmucks.

THe lady condicting the interview with Mick was Tanya Roberts I believe.

[minty_green]

Me: U.S. Supreme Court (twice), Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Court of Appeals.

Scylla: WWF.com.

Yep, I sure lost that legal debate.
Incidentally, Scylla, while I’m far from “a world acknowledged expert,” I have published a law review article on defamation law. So I like to think that I know a thing or two about this subject. But if you want to learn about the law from pro wreslters, knock yourself out.

[SPOOFE]

Minty, what you’re missing is that the 20/20 report with Mick didn’t actually say that he believed violent backyard wrestling to be positive. They implied it, but didn’t directly say it.

Perhaps this has something to do with 20/20 getting away with it. In any case, despite the legality of the situation, it does indicate that many infotainment venues are willing to stretch/bend/mutilate the truth in order to get ratings.

[Scylla]

Ahh. The appeal to authority. Ever useful in place of substantive debate. The last bastion of the inept.

You can either address the different standards of print and media, news and news magazine (i.e. infotainment,) find a site to back up what you said, explain the conundrum between what actually happened (which you seem to think is legally impossible,) and what you think should have happened, or stick the whole thing up your monkey ass.

Your authority is merely a claim, by itself, in any debate it’s 100% worthless, unless you back it up with knowledge and evidence. Your argument is basically “because I said so.” Pardon me, but that’s not good enough. Why don’t I just claim to be a Supreme Court judge and overrule you?

You have “because I said so.”

I have he WWF, its lawyers, Mick Foley, the videotapes, 20/20, and the incident, which are all known to exist and are well-documented, and corroborated evidence.

Ok Perry Mason, why don’t you tell me which is the better evidence?