Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Meat is murder, tasty, tasty murder . . .

1567810

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    How painful is particularly painful? I saw both practices being done as a child and it horrified me. The farmer in question even told me it hurt (when I asked why they were so distressed...in regards to de-horning this is), perhaps he was talking through his hole. All I know is that if a practice looks cruel it more often than not is.

    No. I disagree, in the grand scheme of things, maybe. The slaughtering of cattle is better than chickens for example. But I guess it would be difficult for me to accept any method of slaughter as humane tbh.

    Look, at the end of the day it's killing something. The key issue for is does the animal needlessly suffer in the run up and actual execution of said slaughter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    ScumLord wrote: »
    But is is humane, our method of killing is done with the most respect for animals. We try our best to give them the best death possible, that is the very definition of a humane death. If it wasn't a humane death we'd just shot them once and wait for them to bleed out, other animals that kill quickly do so to protect themselves from injury not to reduce the suffering of their prey. Comparing our method of killing to any other animal you'll quickly see our prey get a much, much, much better deal.

    No I didn't mean that we use more humane methods of killing than other animals I meant that cattle slaughter is more humane than the slaughter of other animals. Surely it would be much more humane to shoot them on the farms than transport them in cramped conditions to the slaughter houses in the 1st place.

    You might not like the simple fact that things have to die so that you can live but it's a fundamental part of nature. Living things will die so you can live. Respect and morals are things that only exist inside the heads of people, they usually don't work at all in the real world and no wild animal would return the respect you give them.

    Things don't have to die so that I can live. That's the point. Obviously if it was a choice between my life and a chicken's I choice mine, same if it was between me and you. As far as I'm concerned I'm the most important being in my life but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of compassion. I don't need to eat/wear/kill animals, so why would I?

    Just because some animals don't have morals as highly developed as humans does not give us the all clear to eat them. I'm not sure what "real world" you are referring to but my morals have worked out ok thus far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    Surely it would be much more humane to shoot them on the farms than transport them in cramped conditions to the slaughter houses in the 1st place.

    Not really, i assume you have never been present as a large farm animal has had to be put down due to injury or illness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    No I have not. So I could easily be wrong on the point, I would have just assumed it would be much less traumatising for them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    No I have not. So I could easily be wrong on the point, I would have just assumed it would be much less traumatising for them.

    The point is that the idea that you shoot something on a farm is flawed. Maybe a predatory animal like a fox or something, that would be it. A large animal that needs to be put down would be handled by a vet via administered euthanasia.

    If you are talking about killing an animal for meat processing on a farm then you are opening up a huge bag of possible issues regarding transport, meat spoiling and disease.

    In short, things are the way they are for a reason, normally a pretty good one.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    The point is that the idea that you shoot something on a farm is flawed. Maybe a predatory animal like a fox or something, that would be it. A large animal that needs to be put down would be handled by a vet via administered euthanasia.

    If you are talking about killing an animal for meat processing on a farm then you are opening up a huge bag of possible issues regarding transport, meat spoiling and disease.

    In short, things are the way they are for a reason, normally a pretty good one.

    While I'll think you're probably right in some respects I still don't see why people don't stop consuming animals. There is no perfect way of farming, it is a cruel practice by nature and I can't understand why so many seemingly sensible people support it. Animals are born just as free as people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    I think that the thing that irritates me most in the "is it ethical to kill animals for food" debate is how many people believe that crop farming has no animal casualties.

    Many rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, harvest mice etc. die when the field is ploughed. Many birds lose there nesting sites when woodland is cleared for agriculture, killing off entire generations. Many birds die from pesticides and from deliberate poisoning.

    Also, what incentive would there be to keep cattle, pigs and sheep (wool price has collapsed) if there is no demand for meat or dairy.

    Fox numbers in England are in decline now that fox hunting is banned because farmers have no financial incentive to keep them on their land so they are treated as vermin and trapped, shot and poisoned.

    This blinkered view that "if everyone became vegetarians then the world would be a better place and all animals would live in peace and harmony" needs to be thoroughly debunked.

    On the other hand, continued pressure needs to be brought to bear to keep improving the conditions in which animals are kept and the methods of slaughter. There is still a lot of stress that the animals suffer in abattoirs because of the way they're moved and because of the smell of blood and entrails. Studies indicate that abattoirs with large storage yards which allow animals to acclimatise before slaughter and with more efficient waste disposal systems not only reduce stress in animals but produce better quality meat as well. They are also better places to work.

    I have been to the facility in Kildare Town and have seen it in operation. They have no longer term storage pens. Animals have to be slaughtered the day they're shipped in, often requiring workers to work late and causing the process to be rushed, resulting in additional stress and injury in both animals and staff. Staff turnover is high with many foreign workers with poor English. Often the workers are not adequately competent in the handling of the animals and equipment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    I think that the thing that irritates me most in the "is it ethical to kill animals for food" debate is how many people believe that crop farming has no animal casualties.

    Many rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, harvest mice etc. die when the field is ploughed. Many birds lose there nesting sites when woodland is cleared for agriculture, killing off entire generations. Many birds die from pesticides and from deliberate poisoning.

    Also, what incentive would there be to keep cattle, pigs and sheep (wool price has collapsed) if there is no demand for meat or dairy.

    Fox numbers in England are in decline now that fox hunting is banned because farmers have no financial incentive to keep them on their land so they are treated as vermin and trapped, shot and poisoned.

    This blinkered view that "if everyone became vegetarians then the world would be a better place and all animals would live in peace and harmony" needs to be thoroughly debunked.
    Yes but this is also true of animal farming and the farming of grain that is fed to the animals. But surely it's more ethical to accidentally kill something than purposefully breed it to be killed. This is one of those "We can never be perfect so why bother trying?" arguments.

    First off it's never going to be the case that literally everybody on the entire planet is going to be vegetarian. Even if that did happen it would be a gradual thing so the number of farm animals would be greatly reduced anyway. Unlike foxes, farm animals are domestic and I already know people who keep pigs, sheep and chickens as pets. Cows are obviously more difficult but I would be 100% certain that some one would find them interesting.
    And of course, while I can't speak for other people (or species) I would much rather that humans didn't exist at all that exist solely for the consumption of a "superior" specious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    While I'll think you're probably right in some respects I still don't see why people don't stop consuming animals. There is no perfect way of farming, it is a cruel practice by nature and I can't understand why so many seemingly sensible people support it. Animals are born just as free as people.

    So what would you suggest we eat, because if you think a vegetarian or vegan diet does not involved the death of animals you are crazy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    So what would you suggest we eat, because if you think a vegetarian or vegan diet does not involved the death of animals you are crazy.

    I assume you're not actually looking for a list of all the food that don't contain animal product and you are in fact referring to the fact that some animals inevitably die in harvesting crops etc. like rich.d.berry has already mentioned. So...basically you're also just arguing from the "We can't be perfect so we shouldn't try" point of view.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    I assume you're not actually looking for a list of all the food that don't contain animal product and you are in fact referring to the fact that some animals inevitably die in harvesting crops etc. like rich.d.berry has already mentioned. So...basically you're also just arguing from the "We can't be perfect so we shouldn't try" point of view.

    Nope, i am asking you to explain why the logic of "we shouldn't harm animals" applies to the production of meat, but is not applied to the production of grains, fruits and vegetables.

    Interesting attempt to derail though, now please make with a logical reason.

    The issue of one being a main objective and the other being an unfortunate side affect is not up to muster. You have said we shouldn't kill to eat, yet admit that we kill to produce crops.

    I want you to explain why you have chosen this particular middle ground.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    Keela11 wrote: »
    Yes but this is also true of animal farming and the farming of grain that is fed to the animals. But surely it's more ethical to accidentally kill something than purposefully breed it to be killed. This is one of those "We can never be perfect so why bother trying?" arguments.

    I'd rather be raised humanely on a farm, fed, watered and sheltered for a couple of years and then be slaughtered humanely rather than be brutally eviserated by a combine harvester


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    Nope, i am asking you to explain why the logic of "we shouldn't harm animals" applies to the production of meat, but is not applied to the production of grains, fruits and vegetables.

    Interesting attempt to derail though, now please make with a logical reason.

    The issue of one being a main objective and the other being an unfortunate side affect is not up to muster. You have said we shouldn't kill to eat, yet admit that we kill to produce crops.

    I want you to explain why you have chosen this particular middle ground.

    I genuinely don't understand why you have a problem with this.:confused:

    I need to eat to live but I don't need to eat animals, therefore I don't see why we should farm them. But I still need to eat something. I an animal happens to die because of that then that's highly unfortunate but regardless, I need to eat.

    But not eating meat I am still killing considerably less animals and I would avoid killing any if it was at all possible. I mean if we were to look at it in terms of people surely it would make sense? Accidentally killing someone is tragic and should be avoided but killing someone on purpose when you had other options is a terrible thing to do


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Keela11 wrote: »
    I genuinely don't understand why you have a problem with this.:confused:

    I need to eat to live but I don't need to eat animals, therefore I don't see why we should farm them. But I still need to eat something. I an animal happens to die because of that then that's highly unfortunate but regardless, I need to eat.

    But not eating meat I am still killing considerably less animals and I would avoid killing any if it was at all possible. I mean if we were to look at it in terms of people surely it would make sense? Accidentally killing someone is tragic and should be avoided but killing someone on purpose when you had other options is a terrible thing to do

    But what about people who simply cannot eat the things you eat? Personally i cannot eat wheat or gluten. As such, you eat a host of things that result in the death of animals that i do not...so am I allowed to have a few chickens killed every now and then so i can live?

    I can't take any kind of medication outside of the ones that are absolutely essential to my health due to the effect they have on my stomach and intestines. I can't take any kind of vitamin or mineral supplement for the same reason. I need to eat calorie dense, protein and iron rich foods.

    So are you not just applying a moral model that you physiology allows you to have to me and assuming i should live the way you do?

    I eat free range chicken and field farmed , grass fed beef. I do not agree with battery farming or the mistreatment of animals. But i also grew up on farms. My opinions are born of necessity and experience yet i don't feel the need to imply that others should live the way i do, as some vegetarians/vegans have done in this thread and others like it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    Keela11 wrote: »
    This is one of those "We can never be perfect so why bother trying?" arguments.
    No, not for me it isn't. I have no desire to stop animal husbandry for meat production. Not having the option to eat meat is about as far from my idea of perfection as heaven is from hell.

    I like meat, I'm choosy about the quality of the meat and will opt for free-range and organically farmed products when I can get them. I don't eat a lot of meat either and will often eat a meal with no meat. But I want to have that option.
    Keela11 wrote: »
    First off it's never going to be the case that literally everybody on the entire planet is going to be vegetarian.
    I agree, and I doubt that we will even get close to a majority who opt to forego meat consumption. It is just too delicious!
    Keela11 wrote: »
    And of course, while I can't speak for other people (or species) I would much rather that humans didn't exist at all that exist solely for the consumption of a "superior" specious.
    I agree here too. I think the difference is the cognitive ability. We humans would understand that we're being kept for food and will rebel or commit suicide, rather than become someone's dinner.

    Of the three people I know well who have chosen a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle there is only one who's company I actively seek. He has no problem with my choices and I have none with his. He doesn't preach to me and I don't ask him whether he misses bacon (though he has confessed to me, without prompting, that he does).

    My brother and a work colleague, by comparison, are obnoxious. Constantly reminding people that their choice is healthier and morally superior. Constantly complaining about the aromas in the shared canteen or about the lack of options or the boring food that they are served. "Can't the restaurants be more imaginative than vegetarian lasagna, and I don't even eat cheese either." Or else there's "Do you know the conditions in which the chicken that laid the egg you're eating is kept." My response "No, and neither do you!"

    So, excuse me for coming to this thread with a bee in my bonnet and with a lot of baggage. I have been subjected to my fair share of vilification by the vegan lunatic fringe. I have heard all the arguments, received all the e-mails with links to The China Study and King Corn (strange one this, I know, but it somehow is supposed to support the vegan viewpoint), been given lifestyle books as gifts and generally been harassed to the point of relationship failure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Keela11 wrote: »
    No I didn't mean that we use more humane methods of killing than other animals I meant that cattle slaughter is more humane than the slaughter of other animals. Surely it would be much more humane to shoot them on the farms than transport them in cramped conditions to the slaughter houses in the 1st place.
    Domestic animals are used to being transported, it's a part of their life and for the most part a trip in a vehicle doesn't mean they're on their way to slaughter, they are probably looking forward to the bit of feed they know is coming when they get to the other side.



    Things don't have to die so that I can live. That's the point.
    Life is a great big organism and in the modern world your existence is bound to result in the death of many living things, even people. Animals don't just die for food. I'd say if we all looked into it we could see our actions indirectly result in the death of many hundreds of different animals.

    Just because some animals don't have morals as highly developed as humans does not give us the all clear to eat them. I'm not sure what "real world" you are referring to but my morals have worked out ok thus far.
    The real world is the ecosystem as we know it. Humans are animals no more important than any other animal on the planet, we are part of that ecosystem and for us to universally stop doing something would have a huge impact. It's seen time and time again if you take one animal out of an ecosystem it causes chaos. We cannot live outside the natural world we are a part of it. Our domestic animals have a symbiotic relationship with us. They also benefit from living beside us and now need us to survive. What your basically promoting is genocide to prevent murder.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 Keela11


    But what about people who simply cannot eat the things you eat? Personally i cannot eat wheat or gluten. As such, you eat a host of things that result in the death of animals that i do not...so am I allowed to have a few chickens killed every now and then so i can live?

    I can't take any kind of medication outside of the ones that are absolutely essential to my health due to the effect they have on my stomach and intestines. I can't take any kind of vitamin or mineral supplement for the same reason. I need to eat calorie dense, protein and iron rich foods.

    So are you not just applying a moral model that you physiology allows you to have to me and assuming i should live the way you do?

    I eat free range chicken and field farmed , grass fed beef. I do not agree with battery farming or the mistreatment of animals. But i also grew up on farms. My opinions are born of necessity and experience yet i don't feel the need to imply that others should live the way i do, as some vegetarians/vegans have done in this thread and others like it.

    Well I'm sure you still eat fruit and veg which undoubtedly also result in animal death?

    Honestly though if I was in your position I don't know if I would have gone vegetarian when I did but I think I would have come to it eventually. I do know of two vegetarians who are coeliac and one of them is also lactose intolerant and allergic to soy. I also know a vegan who is on a high protein diet and has crohns disease (I think) so it is possible though I don't have intimate knowledge of any of their diets. If I was to develop such a condition now I would not be able to go back to meat unless it was literally a necessity but I would go straight to a dietitian.

    I'm sorry but this thread was started to belittle my dietary and lifestyle choices I think it's perfectly acceptable that I got a little defensive. I have to put up with people mocking me in really life but on the internet I can argue back without being "preachy".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    But what about people who simply cannot eat the things you eat? Personally i cannot eat wheat or gluten. As such, you eat a host of things that result in the death of animals that i do not...so am I allowed to have a few chickens killed every now and then so i can live?

    I can't take any kind of medication outside of the ones that are absolutely essential to my health due to the effect they have on my stomach and intestines. I can't take any kind of vitamin or mineral supplement for the same reason. I need to eat calorie dense, protein and iron rich foods.

    So are you not just applying a moral model that you physiology allows you to have to me and assuming i should live the way you do?

    I eat free range chicken and field farmed , grass fed beef. I do not agree with battery farming or the mistreatment of animals. But i also grew up on farms. My opinions are born of necessity and experience yet i don't feel the need to imply that others should live the way i do, as some vegetarians/vegans have done in this thread and others like it.
    Personally I found that my digestion improved a great deal when I switched to a vegetarian diet. It was pretty much my normal state to have stomach upset before. Now I only get one if there is aspecific cause of it. I can eat pizza, soft drinks, sweets - sugary food, salty food, fatty food - pretty much anything and my digestive system stays happy.

    Another surprising and welcome effect of it was on my smell. Before I would need to shower very often to avoid BO. Now I dont. There's published research on the link between body odour and meat consumption incidentally. I know from personal experience that taste is effected too tbh.

    For calorie-rich, nutrient dense food, you probably can't get better than quinoa tbh. It's high in protein and iron too...and it contains a full spectrum of amino acids, unlike most vegetable protein sources. ...and it doesn't contain gluten. ...and research indicates it causes a natural boost in IGF1 levels, at least in some contexts.

    I'm not telling you your business here. I'm just providing information and equivalent personal experiences.

    There's a huge difference between free range chicken farming and battery farming. However sometimes free range chickens dont experience an acceptable quality of life before they are killed in any case tbh. It comes down to the breed of chicken as much as the environment. They breed and grow faster than mammals, so the effects of selective breeding are more prononced. Broilers are chickens which have been bred for the specific purpose of providing meat. They get very big very fast. Some breeds of this type grow so big so fast that it is typical for their legs to break under the strain of carrying their own weight. Meanwhile layers produce high volumes of eggs, and the instinct to actually look after them has often been bred out of them. They've actually lost the ability to reproduce by themselves in other words. So chicks are always hatched from eggs in artificial incubators.

    That leads into the argument that farm animals have become symbiotic with humans. It's true, though it's highly flawed as a moral argument. I see nothing good or right about maintaining such breeds as the broiler hens I referred to. Meanwhile the United Nations are actively trying to discourage meat consumption because of the huge imact it has on the environment. An impact which is increasing greatly as meat consumption is growing a great deal in the world as a whole (mainly in South Asian countries). So again - there's nothing morally good about giving some pig the opportunity for a short artificial kind of life by condescending to eat it.
    A 400-page United Nations report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that the livestock sector is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions".[41] [42] The production of cattle to feed and clothe humans stresses ecosystems around the world,[39] and is assessed to be one of the top three environmental problems in the world on a local to global scale.[42]

    The impact of those greenhouse gases is in addition to the impact of cleared forests to make room for pastures of course.

    Which leads onto the argument that vegetarians are being hypocritical by objecting to the killing of animals because animals die as a result of crop farming too. My mind boggles a bit at that one tbh, but I'll provide the obvious rational answer: Fewer animals are killed in crop farming than in animal farming. Aside from not involving slaughtering farm animals - much less space is required overall, so far fewer habitats are destroyed.

    All in all, not eating meat is the rational and ethical choice. It's much better for the environment, it minimises the suffering caused to animals, it's demonstrably healthier, it's demonstrably cleaner (on a personal level as well as an environmental one), and it is more economical. A number of compelling reasons not to do it. Whereas the only reason I see in favour of eating meat is indulgence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    All in all, not eating meat is the rational and ethical choice. It's much better for the environment, it minimises the suffering caused to animals, it's demonstrably healthier, it's demonstrably cleaner (on a personal level as well as an envirnmental one), and it is more economical. A number of compelling reasons not to do it. Whereas the only reason I see in fvour of eating meat is indulgence.

    Why choose this particular soap-box?

    For instance, why not espouse the benefits of cycling over driving. Not only do you get exercise, which is a healthy lifestyle choice, you cause less congestion, don't consume fossil fuels, produce less greenhouse gasses and pose a smaller risk to other road users.

    Then there's Christianity. It's a proven fact that people who place faith in God live longer and happier lives. Are less likely to get divorced if married and are less likely to be convicted of an offence.

    How about smoking? Despite the known health risks, a large percentage of the population continues to indulge in this "selfish" and "dirty" habit. They expose their children to dangerous toxins and are burdens on our health care system. If they were to give up then they would live longer, sleep better, their sense of taste and smell would improve, their body odour would improve and they save money on life insurance and not supporting the habit.

    Here's a list of other soapboxes that you could hop onto as well. I'm sure you can do your own research on these:
    • Binge drinking
    • Drug abuse
    • Overeating
    • Consumption and reliance on plastics in packaging
    • Impact of inadequately insulated homes on fossil fuel reserves and the environment
    • Unsafe sex

    All, and more, would be other worthy candidates for your soap-boxing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Here's a list of other soapboxes that you could hop onto as well. I'm sure you can do your own research on these:
    • Binge drinking
    • Drug abuse
    • Overeating
    • Consumption and reliance on plastics in packaging
    • Impact of inadequately insulated homes on fossil fuel reserves and the environment
    • Unsafe sex

    All, and more, would be other worthy candidates for your soap-boxing.

    That's true. Let me know when there is a thread on here going on how great it is to overeat and get STDs and I'll be all over it.

    None of those topics suffer from the same level of predjudice and misinformation imo - as demonstrated by a lot of people here.


    Then there's Christianity. It's a proven fact that people who place faith in God live longer and happier lives. Are less likely to get divorced if married and are less likely to be convicted of an offence.


    I dont know your source about about any of that. I've only seen any research about the last point, and that indicates the opposite to what you say. If you look at statistics of American convicts, very very few of them are atheist or agnostic.

    That's completely off-topic for this thread though - which is kinda the point. Not really sure what your point is though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    There's published research on the link between body odour and meat consumption incidentally.
    Yes, it's called the meat sweats.
    For calorie-rich, nutrient dense food, you probably can't get better than quinoa tbh. It's high in protein and iron too...and it contains a full spectrum of amino acids, unlike most vegetable protein sources. ...and it doesn't contain gluten. ...and research indicates it causes a natural boost in IGF1 levels, at least in some contexts.
    The only problem being it comes from the other side of the planet. I'm not having a go at you but I think it's an important point that vegetarians can't source their diet locally and are therefore big contributors to global pollution.


    That leads into the argument that farm animals have become symbiotic with humans. It's true, though it's highly flawed as a moral argument. I see nothing good or right about maintaining such breeds as the broiler hens I referred to.
    I'd agree, intensive farming is an abuse of our relationship with our livestock animals. These animals where always given the height of respect in the past, Bovine where almost divine in Irish culture, we centred our life's and culture around them. We've lost that respect in the last century.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    None of those topics suffer from the same level of predjudice and misinformation imo - as demonstrated by a lot of people here.
    So why add to the misinformation then, as you did with your previous post?
    Personally I found that my digestion improved a great deal when I switched to a vegetarian diet. It was pretty much my normal state to have stomach upset before. Now I only get one if there is aspecific cause of it. I can eat pizza, soft drinks, sweets - sugary food, salty food, fatty food - pretty much anything and my digestive system stays happy.
    This is your perception which has no foundation in fact. Eating too much fruit is guaranteed to upset your digestive tract and lead to loose stools. Eating too much protein can lead to constipation.
    Another surprising and welcome effect of it was on my smell. Before I would need to shower very often to avoid BO. Now I dont. There's published research on the link between body odour and meat consumption incidentally. I know from personal experience that taste is effected too tbh.
    So you like the smell of farts do you? The biggest cause of flatulence is from polysaccharides, almost exclusively obtained from fruit, vegetables and grains, the notable exception being dairy. I've noticed that my bowel movements smell especially bad after cabbage, Brussels sprouts and broccoli and my body odour is at an all time low when I consume garlic. None of these are derived from animals except for dairy products (which some vegetarians would find an acceptable part of their diet).

    The taste improvement is also totally subjective and has no foundation in science and physiology. Your preferences to flavours will change as you get used to an altered diet, but it does not improve your ability to taste.
    I'm not telling you your business here. I'm just providing information and equivalent personal experiences.
    But you are trying to pass off your own personal experiences and perceived benefits as fact. I'm not denying that you did experience these benefits, but they definitely would not hold true for most people. It may well be that you suffer from a rare allergy to bovine serum albumin or to other similar albumin proteins found in pork, lamb, and chicken. Most people would have looser stools and more body odour from a vegetarian diet than from a normal diet.
    There's a huge difference between free range chicken farming and battery farming. However sometimes free range chickens dont experience an acceptable quality of life before they are killed in any case tbh. It comes down to the breed of chicken as much as the environment. They breed and grow faster than mammals, so the effects of selective breeding are more prononced. Broilers are chickens which have been bred for the specific purpose of providing meat. They get very big very fast. Some breeds of this type grow so big so fast that it is typical for their legs to break under the strain of carrying their own weight. Meanwhile layers produce high volumes of eggs, and the instinct to actually look after them has often been bred out of them. They've actually lost the ability to reproduce by themselves in other words. So chicks are always hatched from eggs in artificial incubators.

    That leads into the argument that farm animals have become symbiotic with humans. It's true, though it's highly flawed as a moral argument. I see nothing good or right about maintaining such breeds as the broiler hens I referred to.
    I have no disagreement with you here. I will continue to support ethically farmed meat in preference to the alternatives. I will also continue to strive to raise standards, especially in the area of slaughtering.
    Meanwhile the United Nations are actively trying to discourage meat consumption because of the huge imact it has on the environment. An impact which is increasing greatly as meat consumption is growing a great deal in the world as a whole (mainly in South Asian countries). So again - there's nothing morally good about giving some pig the opportunity for a short artificial kind of life by condescending to eat it.
    Right, here you are being selective in the statistics that you quote. It is common knowledge by now that there are three kinds of lies, "Lies, damned lies and statistics".

    The statistics you quote conveniently focus on the growing of the product, but fail to take into account the ploughing, sowing, irrigation, fertilisation, harvesting and processing of the product. There is adequate documented proof that modern crop farming methods produce more greenhouse gas per produced calorie (kilojoule if you prefer) than compared to animal husbandry because of the over-reliance on fossil fuels for the production.
    The impact of those greenhouse gases is in addition to the impact of cleared forests to make room for pastures of course.

    Which leads onto the argument that vegetarians are being hypocritical by objecting to the killing of animals because animals die as a result of crop farming too. My mind boggles a bit at that one tbh, but I'll provide the obvious rational answer: Fewer animals are killed in crop farming than in animal farming. Aside from not involving slaughtering farm animals - much less space is required overall, so far fewer habitats are destroyed.
    Sorry, I think you meant to say crop fields instead of pastures in the first paragraph of the quoted section. Unless you are unaware of:
    • the slash and burn techniques used to convert rainforest into soya bean fields which have a very limited production period, the fertility mainly derived from the remnants of the burning process. Once the fields are no longer productive they are abandoned for more slash and burning.
    • the draining of fertile wetlands and floodplains for crop planting. This practice impacts heavily on migrating bird populations, destroys nurseries for fish and has driven many animals to extinction.
    • the damming of rivers to provide water for irrigation schemes which prevents migrations of fish from reaching their spawning grounds, destroys flood plain ecosystems which relied on the annual flooding, the dams themselves often drown rare and sensitive ecosystems.
    • the crop dusting and spraying which not only kills the targeted species but has a huge by-kill and effect that moves up the food chain to humans. The main reason that birds of prey are so rare in Ireland is because their calcium has been so depleted due to pesticides and herbicides that they cannot lay eggs that have sufficiently strong shells to survive.
    • the impact that crop monoculture has on all sorts of wildlife which turn ecosystems into green deserts that destroy entire ecosystems. Pastures can be shared with a diverse wild population without impacting too much on the domesticated animals, the exception being larger predators. The animals that would attempt to cohabit crop fields are destroyed as pests and vermin, these would have formed prey animals for the carnivores which may have been tolerated by the crop farmer if they could survive there, but because there is no prey they starve.
    All in all, not eating meat is the rational and ethical choice. It's much better for the environment, it minimises the suffering caused to animals, it's demonstrably healthier, it's demonstrably cleaner (on a personal level as well as an environmental one), and it is more economical. A number of compelling reasons not to do it. Whereas the only reason I see in favour of eating meat is indulgence.
    All in all, not eating meat is a deluded choice. Allow me to deal with each of your claims in turn:
    • Better for the environment? It is no better for the environment than animal husbandry. When done the economically beneficial, large scale, monoculture way, it is exponentially worse because it destroys entire ecosystems and entire animal populations and promotes even more of an unnatural imbalance than animal husbandry is accused of.
    • Minimises suffering? In my opinion, wiping out an entire animal population and its habitat causes more suffering, not less.
    • Healthier for whom or what? The ecosystems, the decimated animal populations, the depleted fish stocks? Or is it healthier for farm workers who breathe in the crop dusting and spraying chemicals that pollute the environment and are carcinogenic?
    • Cleaner? Because of the petrochemicals used as fertiliser which pollute rivers and aquifers, or because of the exhaust gases from the farm equipment and the generators to drive the pumps for irrigation.
    • More economical? Okay, I'll concede you that one, if we agree to ignore the environmental, social and third world imbalance costs that large scale monoculture contributes to.

    So, I see nothing compelling about your lifestyle choice to make me want to abandon mine. In fact, I see very good reasons to keep promoting mixed agriculture so that the health of our planet does not deteriorate even more rapidly. And if that is your definition of indulgence then I have a clear conscience, and indulge I will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Sorry, I think you meant to say crop fields instead of pastures in the first paragraph of the quoted section. Unless you are unaware of:

    the slash and burn techniques used to convert rainforest into soya bean fields which have a very limited production period, the fertility mainly derived from the remnants of the burning process. Once the fields are no longer productive they are abandoned for more slash and burning.
    the draining of fertile wetlands and floodplains for crop planting. This practice impacts heavily on migrating bird populations, destroys nurseries for fish and has driven many animals to extinction.
    the damming of rivers to provide water for irrigation schemes which prevents migrations of fish from reaching their spawning grounds, destroys flood plain ecosystems which relied on the annual flooding, the dams themselves often drown rare and sensitive ecosystems.
    the crop dusting and spraying which not only kills the targeted species but has a huge by-kill and effect that moves up the food chain to humans. The main reason that birds of prey are so rare in Ireland is because their calcium has been so depleted due to pesticides and herbicides that they cannot lay eggs that have sufficiently strong shells to survive.
    the impact that crop monoculture has on all sorts of wildlife which turn ecosystems into green deserts that destroy entire ecosystems. Pastures can be shared with a diverse wild population without impacting too much on the domesticated animals, the exception being larger predators. The animals that would attempt to cohabit crop fields are destroyed as pests and vermin, these would have formed prey animals for the carnivores which may have been tolerated by the crop farmer if they could survive there, but because there is no prey they starve.

    I'm aware of what you're describing and I agree it is a major concern. I wouldn't consume Monsanto soy at all for these reasons. [Monsanto soy is GM to withstand Monsanto's herbicide, which wipes everything else out basically. The health benfits of eating food which has been regularly drenched in poison are questionable too.] I do like tofu, but the stuff I eat is organic and grown in the EU. That's all I see on the shelves tbh - I wouldn't be able to tell you where to get soy sourced from what you're describing. Maybe it's used in products like soya milk here? I wouldn't be surprised if there is almost no consumption of Monsanto soy in Ireland at all though.
    This is your perception which has no foundation in fact. Eating too much fruit is guaranteed to upset your digestive tract and lead to loose stools. Eating too much protein can lead to constipation

    It is based on the facts of my personal experience. I was responding to a post giving equivalent personal experiences. It's completely valid as such.
    So you like the smell of farts do you? The biggest cause of flatulence is from polysaccharides, almost exclusively obtained from fruit, vegetables and grains, the notable exception being dairy. I've noticed that my bowel movements smell especially bad after cabbage, Brussels sprouts and broccoli and my body odour is at an all time low when I consume garlic. None of these are derived from animals except for dairy products (which some vegetarians would find an acceptable part of their diet).

    The taste improvement is also totally subjective and has no foundation in science and physiology. Your preferences to flavours will change as you get used to an altered diet, but it does not improve your ability to taste.

    There's plenty of research supporting the notion that meat consumption effects body odour. As for farts, a high fibre diet will increase the volume of them sure, but they won't smell too bad, nor will your poop. As for taste, I actually meant how a person tastes tbh, not their ability to taste.
    he statistics you quote conveniently focus on the growing of the product, but fail to take into account the ploughing, sowing, irrigation, fertilisation, harvesting and processing of the product. There is adequate documented proof that modern crop farming methods produce more greenhouse gas per produced calorie (kilojoule if you prefer) than compared to animal husbandry because of the over-reliance on fossil fuels for the production.

    Why do you link to some inane definition of a silly term instead of providing sources for your claims? The UN are pushing to reduce meat consumption because of the environmental impact. That's a fact - not me selectively editing statistics. That quote is from the UN report on the matter. Why would the UN lie or provide recommendations that are contrary to what would be effective?
    All in all, not eating meat is a deluded choice. Allow me to deal with each of your claims in turn:

    Better for the environment? It is no better for the environment than animal husbandry. When done the economically beneficial, large scale, monoculture way, it is exponentially worse because it destroys entire ecosystems and entire animal populations and promotes even more of an unnatural imbalance than animal husbandry is accused of.
    Minimises suffering? In my opinion, wiping out an entire animal population and its habitat causes more suffering, not less.
    Healthier for whom or what? The ecosystems, the decimated animal populations, the depleted fish stocks? Or is it healthier for farm workers who breathe in the crop dusting and spraying chemicals that pollute the environment and are carcinogenic?
    Cleaner? Because of the petrochemicals used as fertiliser which pollute rivers and aquifers, or because of the exhaust gases from the farm equipment and the generators to drive the pumps for irrigation.
    More economical? Okay, I'll concede you that one, if we agree to ignore the environmental, social and third world imbalance costs that large scale monoculture contributes to.

    In the case of Monsanto soy maybe. I dont defend it any more than you defend factory farming. On the other hand I dont say that all animal farming is factory farming, which is pretty much the equivalent of what you're doing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    The UN are pushing to reduce meat consumption because of the environmental impact. That's a fact - not me selectively editing statistics. That quote is from the UN report on the matter. Why would the UN lie or provide recommendations that are contrary to what would be effective?
    But the fact is it's not meat consumption that's the problem, we've been farming meat for millennia without a problem. The problem is abusive intensive farming and huge population growth.

    It still makes sense for the human animal to make the most of our ability to eat just about anything so we spread our consumption across as many different types of food. I just don't see how it could be a good idea to restrict our diets to a smaller range of food meaning we'll need to produce twice as much of it. It seems like a dodo thing to do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    Unfortunately you do not have the choice. The monoculture problem is not about soy at all. We all support monoculture. The biggest culprits are wheat and maize, both of which are inadequately labelled when used in pre-prepared foods. Sauces, pasta, bread etc. are often made with imported wheat, the source and GM status of which is unpublished.

    Also, the current surplus that allows the UN to make such recommendations, as you quoted, is reliant on large scale monoculture. There is no way that we can produce the amount of food required unless these methods continue to be employed.

    I live close to the Curragh where sheep graze happily among pheasants, crows, wagtails, rabbits, frogs, butterflies, hares, bees, moths, badgers, foxes, shrews, mice etc, not to mention the diversity of plants and fungi. I love to walk or cycle on the Curragh and often see wildlife. I cycle in the farmlands too and the difference between a wheat field and a pasture are huge. The wheat fields are barren of life, except for wheat. The pastures have similar sort of variety to the Curragh. The pastures provide a connection for animals to move across and expand their range.

    I would far rather go for a walk through a pasture than a wheat field. Remove the farmer's incentive to maintain pastures and we'll be overrun by wheat fields and other monoculture crops. That is not something I want. Where would you rather go for a walk?

    Therefore, despite the fact that I love meat, I still have an incentive to support the preservation of pastures. And by reducing my reliance on monoculture crops by sourcing a lot of my dietary requirements through animal protein, I have a healthier impact on my environment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    ScumLord wrote: »
    But the fact is it's not meat consumption that's the problem, we've been farming meat for millennia without a problem. The problem is abusive intensive farming and huge population growth.

    It still makes sense for the human animal to make the most of our ability to eat just about anything so we spread our consumption across as many different types of food. I just don't see how it could be a good idea to restrict our diets to a smaller range of food meaning we'll need to produce twice as much of it. It seems like a dodo thing to do.
    It's more efficient to grow plants and eat them, than to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat them. I dont know how much of what I've linked you've read, but cows produce huge amounts of methane, which is many times worse for the environment than CO2. Other livestock produce highly significant amounts too. Plants on the other hand produce oxygen, and remove CO2.
    But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

    Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year).

    Bad farming practices is one problem. Huge population growth is another problem - and a major reason why it's advisable to try to minimise each person's impact on the envirnment and on resources. And increased meat consumption per capita on a global level is another problem. There's loads of stuff published about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    Why do you link to some inane definition of a silly term instead of providing sources for your claims?

    Because I made a lot of claims and I was not going to pick and choose which to support with links and therefore give them more prominence. It is the weight of the sum of the evidence, more than the individual claims, that I wished to convey. Also, I spent long enough just compiling that reply without having to cross reference everything.

    In conclusion I'd like to say that I have gained a lot of respect for you and your willingness to engage in meaningful debate, and I can honestly say that I understand and respect your viewpoint, despite our differences. I hope that it is becoming mutual.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Personally I found that my digestion improved a great deal when I switched to a vegetarian diet. It was pretty much my normal state to have stomach upset before. Now I only get one if there is aspecific cause of it. I can eat pizza, soft drinks, sweets - sugary food, salty food, fatty food - pretty much anything and my digestive system stays happy.

    Another surprising and welcome effect of it was on my smell. Before I would need to shower very often to avoid BO. Now I dont. There's published research on the link between body odour and meat consumption incidentally. I know from personal experience that taste is effected too tbh.

    If i ate any of those foods (pizza, soft drinks etc) I would be in agony to be honest. I tried to stop eating meat but i felt absolutely terrible. I had no energy, was constantly sick...I have issues with iron and zinc levels so red meat and me are just a perfect match. When I eat red meat once a day i feel great, when i stop i feel like ****.

    There are certain vegetables that I also feel much better when i eat - carrots, sweetcorn, peas, onions, garlic...daily must haves. Mushrooms completely **** up my system...which is harsh as i have always loved mushrooms.

    BO wise, ever since i sorted out all the right foods from the wrong foods for me I don't smell like anything, which kind of freaks me out.

    Interesting that you should mention taste - two things i have noticed is that my sense of smell now is through the roof and another is that foods i used to love, even some meats, now taste horrible to me.

    I can't eat bacon or pork or any kind anymore, it just tastes rank but turkey bacon is the tastiest thing in the world to me.

    I think people just need to spend more time paying careful attention to what they eat and how it actually makes them feel I suppose.

    Can't eat dairy at all...once again a shame as i love cheese.
    Why do you link to some inane definition of a silly term instead of providing sources for your claims? The UN are pushing to reduce meat consumption because of the environmental impact. That's a fact - not me selectively editing statistics. That quote is from the UN report on the matter. Why would the UN lie or provide recommendations that are contrary to what would be effective?

    The last part is interesting, look up the Irish governments guidelines on a healthy diet (which they claim is grain heavy) then look at who was on that board of decision makers and their connections to the grain industry.

    As a plan, it was ripped to pieces on the Health forum here by people who know what they are talking about and the connections were all exposed for people to see.

    People push agendas that benefit them and disguise them as something else. Not saying it is the case with the UN...simply pointing out that it happens and it has happened here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    BO wise, ever since i sorted out all the right foods from the wrong foods for me I don't smell like anything, which kind of freaks me out.

    Interesting that you should mention taste - two things i have noticed is that my sense of smell now is through the roof and another is that foods i used to love, even some meats, now taste horrible to me.

    I can't eat bacon or pork or any kind anymore, it just tastes rank but turkey bacon is the tastiest thing in the world to me.

    Strange....since I gave up grains my sense of smell has also improved greatly (it was appalling).
    Hasn't affected my love for bacon thought!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    So any serious responses to this then?
    I think that the thing that irritates me most in the "is it ethical to kill animals for food" debate is how many people believe that crop farming has no animal casualties.

    I don't think anyone who's actually informed about this believes such a thing. I certainly don't and I've never met another veggie who said they believed that. I'm sure they exist, but it's hardly representative of the opposition.

    The thing you conveniently don't mention, whether that's purposeful or because you just don't know, is that most of that crop farming is to feed animals. This, apart from the horror of the billions of animals killed every year so we can eat their flesh, is one of my prime motivations for avoiding meat so please don't try to insinuate that we can only have these opinions if we lack information.
    Many rabbits, hedgehogs, shrews, harvest mice etc. die when the field is ploughed. Many birds lose there nesting sites when woodland is cleared for agriculture, killing off entire generations. Many birds die from pesticides and from deliberate poisoning.

    And that will continue to happen whether or not people eat meat. However, if we stopped eating so much meat we wouldn't have to produce as many crops and hence there would be fewer animals killed altogether, as well as having a surplus of crops that we could feed to the countless humans who could do with them. It's entirely possible for humans to thrive on an animal0free diet. I challenge you to live without eating plants.
    Also, what incentive would there be to keep cattle, pigs and sheep (wool price has collapsed) if there is no demand for meat or dairy.

    None. That's the point.
    Fox numbers in England are in decline now that fox hunting is banned because farmers have no financial incentive to keep them on their land so they are treated as vermin and trapped, shot and poisoned.

    The foxes are considered vermin only because they try to eat the same animals that the farmers sell. If you really have that much concern for foxes then tell people to stop shooting them. Although it's a red herring since we're not talking about the legitimacy of fox hunting.
    This blinkered view that "if everyone became vegetarians then the world would be a better place and all animals would live in peace and harmony" needs to be thoroughly debunked.

    I don't think it does since the only people I ever hear spout this are meat-eaters setting up a straw man.
    On the other hand, continued pressure needs to be brought to bear to keep improving the conditions in which animals are kept and the methods of slaughter. There is still a lot of stress that the animals suffer in abattoirs because of the way they're moved and because of the smell of blood and entrails. Studies indicate that abattoirs with large storage yards which allow animals to acclimatise before slaughter and with more efficient waste disposal systems not only reduce stress in animals but produce better quality meat as well. They are also better places to work.

    I have been to the facility in Kildare Town and have seen it in operation. They have no longer term storage pens. Animals have to be slaughtered the day they're shipped in, often requiring workers to work late and causing the process to be rushed, resulting in additional stress and injury in both animals and staff. Staff turnover is high with many foreign workers with poor English. Often the workers are not adequately competent in the handling of the animals and equipment.

    An even easier way to avoid all of this would be to discontinue farming, killing and eating them.


Advertisement