rubadub wrote: » I guess already mentionedhttp://www.newstalk.com/Dairyfree-vegan-friendly-Baileys-coming-to-Irish-shelves
The Baileys story began in Dublin in 1974. David Dand had a vision for something new, and began his mission to create the Baileys recipe with a blend of two Irish ingredients: dairy cream and whiskey.Baileys says "every single drop" of its cream is supplied by small, local Irish family farms. Each year, 38,000 top-bred Irish dairy cows - known to us as the Baileys Ladies - produce over 220 million litres of fresh cream specifically for the creation of Baileys.
gozunda wrote: » To be called "Bailey's Almande" ... The article details that The article doesn't seem to detail what the ingredients actually are in this new product but going from the name I would imagine 'Almonds" ? ... Well that's anyone with a nut allergy out if that is the case anyway and those with environmental concerns with almond monocrop plantations and food miles ...
[Deleted User] wrote: » Jaysus Gozunda you’re some man for cherry picking and not understanding the bigger picture. It makes it impossible to interact with you and I’m not surprised (and hopeful) that you’re not given any oxygen on this forum as time goes on. Thankfully not all the other farmers see things as you do.
Tar.Aldrion wrote: ...environmentalism is a vital part of veganism as it maximizes the wellbeing of all of us on the planet. Anybody that lays the blame on others and not themselves also is not taking to heart the whole point of veganism - that we are no better than anybody else, every movement will have anger and outrage however it's never a reflection of the true meaning. I can understand that it is hard to see past that when people are threatening or trying to get a reaction.
Deleted User wrote: » Jaysus Gozunda you’re some man for cherry picking and not understanding the bigger picture. It makes it impossible to interact with you and I’m not surprised (and hopeful) that you’re not given any oxygen on this forum as time goes on. Thankfully not all the other farmers see things as you do.
gozunda wrote: » With respect Klopparama- That is the BIGGER PICTURE. The discussion at hand is the dairy / plant based milk industries. So yes the post is to point and not picking cherries (sic). The endless sniping is getting tiresome. See your first and subsequent posts directed at me in this thread ... :mad: And as much as I hate when posters attack the poster and not the post - but I have to say so far your interactions imo have been anything but constructive. I've already pointed this out. I try to be polite and give as much background and detail my posts as much as possible. I'm sorry if that does not suit you. To paraphrase 'thankfully I know that not all other vegans see things as you do" ....
[Deleted User] wrote: » Ah I just find it very hard to follow what you’re saying is all. Could very well be my lack of ability to comprehend your points. On topic though - it’s great to see the amount of people switching to plant based milk. There’s a good chance that what people have seen and learned over the last few years (difficult previously because of the privacy that’s been afforded to ‘farming’) has led to this change. With the evidence showing that consuming cows milk, which should be used to fatten calves, is unhealthy for humans and indeed the consumption of dairy in general leading to weight gain and it’s cancer causing ability then it’s easier to understand the change. Thankfully people are making a change and some have stopped lazily following the governments suggestions for a healthy lifestyle. Hopefully this change and a move away from dairy can benefit the health of a nation.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Isn’t it weird that some humans think it’s normal to consume the milk from a cow but are repulsed at the idea of drinking cats milk or dogs milk or even a donkeys milk. I don’t see the difference.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Big post so I didn’t want to reply but on this - ‘Most of the 'evidence" available showing that such things 'are bad' for you is at best slightly suspect and many those studies are disputed. There are many equally strident studies for the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’" It’s not ‘evidence’ it’s evidence.The tobacco industry paid ‘scientists’ to dispute the findings on tobacco (that it was cancer causing) for a long time to confuse the consumer.
There are many equally strident studies (proving) the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’
gozunda wrote: » I was referring to all research undertaken by vested interests. Vested interests can be found everywhere - not only in the tobacco industry . As I said this is relevant to both sides of any argument For every claim of evidence This is where it is necessary to put on sceptical goggles. Otherwise discussions simply descend into a game of snap ... Here are two articles as an example of this.. see: https://africacheck.org/reports/dairy-products-increase-risk-cancer-verdict/http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/soy-may-turn-on-genes-linked-to-cancer Please note I am not presenting that the claims are correct or otherwise - just an example of conflicting 'evidence
[Deleted User] wrote: » And yes I agree ‘not only in the tobacco industry’ but I was using that as an example of vested interest and comparing it to the meat and dairy industry because the same thing is happening.
klopparama wrote: For every claim of evidence there’ll always be a counter claim. It’s the validity of the claim that matters. Sure some people think we haven’t been on the moon. Sometimes it’s easier to cut through the BS especially when it’s obviously nonsensical.
The evidence that meat and dairy is harmful to humans is pretty conclusive and accepted by most reasonable people. Slowly but surely more people are becoming aware.
gozunda wrote: » Yet vested interests can also be found both inside and outside industry. Pressure groups or even religous groups may also have vested interests in presenting data to prove or highlight their own beliefs or interests. Identifying which evidence comes from relevant vested interests is not always easy. It would be just as valid to claim that the soya industry is a vested interest in this instance. Btw how does anyone determine the 'validity' of a claim? And remember their is a clear difference between a 'claim' and independent reseach. Who decides what is 'nonsensical' - where for example you have two respected scientific papers which both give diametrically opposite results for the claim "that eating bananas causes cancer" vs "eating bananas cures cancer"? In my last post (where I gave links for two different studies examples) I presented the findings of two studies that "dairy products do not cause cancer " and that "soya causes cancer". That is an example of how easy it is to present research to support just about any viewpoint. You are also making the mistake of making an appeal to "most reasonable people" - who are these people? Vegans? In Ireland it has been estimated that vegans make up perhaps only a very small proportion of the population. Are all the rest of the population 'unreasonable people' because they don't hold those views? An important part of this is that he majority of studies examining the link between diet and disease are observational studies which actually use statistics to estimate the relationship between diet and the risk of developing specific diseases. Observational studies cannot prove that a specific food causes a disease - only whether there is an observed statistical relationship between the diet and the disease in question. With observational studies there are limitations and the findings have occasionally are shown as being false in controlled trials (which are higher quality studies).
[Deleted User] wrote: » I can’t respond to each point using ‘reply’ as don’t know how. The truth usually outs. The vested interest usually comes from those with the most money to gain and spend.
klopparama wrote: Im not making any mistakes. I never suggested vegans were the reasonable people.
klopparama wrote: Yes like people that smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. Just because some don’t it doesn’t make the statistical data any less relevant.
klopparama wrote: Have you read ‘the China study’ ,and if yes, what do you think of the information gathered and what do you think are the motives of the people behind it ? What do you think their vested interest might be ?
Initially, the atherosclerosis was a bit of a surprise, because much research has linked heart disease to the couch-potato lifestyle and calorie-rich foods of the modern world, Zink said. But in recent research, as scientists conducted CT scans on mummies from the Aleutian Islands to ancient Egypt, they realized that heart disease and atherosclerosis were prevalent throughout antiquity, in people who had dramatically different diets and lifestyles, he said. "It really looks like the disease was already frequent in ancient times, so it's not a pure civilizational disease,"
[Deleted User] wrote: » So you think eating dairy and meat meat is fine. I don’t. Health has very little to do with it for me anyway. I was just pointing out why some may be shunning dairy and meat but there are other reasons too. I can’t condone the imprisonment, torture and slaughter of sentient animals so I refuse to pay someone else to do it for me. It makes me happy not to financially support that behaviour. You think Campbell wrote that book for money. I don’t. I’ve nothing else to say on it really. The original question was about people moving from calves milk to plant based milk.
gozunda wrote: » It's an exchange of views. That's all. I appreciate there is more than one reason why some choose to go vegan. Tbh I think it's always best to stay with personal reasoning as throwing everything into the mix in an effort to disprove others views or proselytizing can be detrimental overall. Ya you keep on repeating the same mantra about slaughter imprisonment. Reality as I've said is not like that as we do not have American style industrial farming as show in the mainstream vegan videos online. Life in the wild is no picnic whatsoever if looked at objectively tbh. But I do appreciate you don't wish to eat meat and that's fine. But yeah the Bailey's thing and dairy farms got a bit side tracked all right after that post. I didnt go into Campbells reasoning too much really- however Campbell's book did make him a mint one way or the other and the reality is that the findings are now very out of date relative to the study which was undertaken in China. Interesting book all the same.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The reality is that animals are imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered in every country that they are bred for human consumption. There’s no hiding behind ‘America is worse’ in my opinion.
I don’t get the ‘animals in the wild’ comments you make either. We are not wild animals. Why compare ourselves to wild animals ? I understand the difference and thank fcuk we are not wild as that looks a pretty harsh environment and I doubt I’d last long. Humans have been long removed from the survival of the fittest.
How are the findings in the China study very out of date now ?
gozunda wrote: » That's your opinion - however I believe its not based on the farming reality in this country. You see I've seen those exact same words repeated on a number of websites. Its nearly as its repeating that without really knowing how animals actually spend their lives on farms here. Nearly all the vegan videos that are on youtube use US farming footage where animals are not free to eat grass or roam or do other things that most cows and sheep etc get to do here. Cows and sheep are generally well looked after and get to roam and graze and lie around if they wish. Are there exceptions? For sure. I get it you don't eat meat but the majority of people do and don't share any of those opinions. Do you think using the same is really the best way you can to explain your position? No not humans - I mean the animals which survive in the wild. Yes i agree it's a very harsh environment for wild animals as well. Do you agree with stoping wild animals slaughtering each other? Have you read the book yourself? What do you think of yer man not being a vegan?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Correct. It is my opinion and the concept is enough to be abhorrent to me. And I know very well how animals live in captivity so I’ve no idea why you think I don’t. I don’t need to explain my position. I’m not doing anything. I’m not torturing and slaughtering animals for my own pleasure. It’s none of my business what wild animals do. I couldn’t care less. I am reading the China study but very slowly. It’s a lot of information and not something I can read as I would other books. I’m taking it slowly so I can absorb as much information as possible. I’ve re-read the chapter on casein and how it’s a cancer causing agent and every time I read it I find something I didnt get first time. I’ll be reading that book for months. I’d no idea ‘yer man’ is not a vegan and again I couldn’t care less. It’s none of my business. I myself don’t like identify to ‘groups’ (other than LFC fans maybe) but as carnists are at pain to label me a vegan it’s hard to avoid. It’s also a handy reference for when I’m out socialising as it helps waiting staff understand my requests. I don’t like using it though. Peoples seem to have a picture in their heads as to what one is. I find that funny too.
...“The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted). In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.
gozunda wrote: » I'm familiar with the concepts of veganism - this from veganism.com - "which aims to avoid consuming products, services, and activities that are the result of the exploitation of or intentional harm to sentient beings"* The point is that by simply being alive on this planet at this point in time - all humans even vegans actively cause harm both intentional and otherwise. All forms of agriculture directly harm other animals including wild animals to the extent that many many millions suffer and die as a result of the most basic agricultural practices. It is important to understand - "that is doing something" to animals which activly causes death and suffering. So not caring about wild animals is problematic as it ignores at least half of the equation. All eating is pleasure at the most basic level so by that definition both vegans and others are responsible for what you would describe as the 'slaughtering and torturing of animals" even if they are non domesticated ones. I have found that many vegans self label and freely use the tern 'vegan' when referring to themselves. I personally would agree with you regarding labelling and groups although I note you choose to label others with the term "carnist'. I prefer to not apply such labels but I would prefer the more honest descriptor of 'meat eater" etc. As to Colin T. Campbells book "'The China Study". The book itself was written almost 14 years ago and in the most part is is loosely based on a study conducted over 25 years ago in China. Many of the findings have been critically examined and much of Campbells metbodology and interpretations have been found to be flawed. There are a number of interesting critiques available which cover this. For example: ...“The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted). In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.[/quite] See: https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ Post post
...“The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted). In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.[/quite] See: https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
gozunda wrote: » I'm familiar with the concepts of veganism - this from veganism.com - "which aims to avoid consuming products, services, and activities that are the result of the exploitation of or intentional harm to sentient beings"* The point is that by simply being alive on this planet at this point in time - all humans even vegans actively cause harm both intentional and otherwise. All forms of agriculture directly harm other animals including wild animals to the extent that many many millions suffer and die as a result of the most basic agricultural practices. It is important to understand - "that is doing something" to animals which activly causes death and suffering. So not caring about wild animals is problematic as it ignores at least half of the equation. All eating is pleasure at the most basic level so by that definition both vegans and others are responsible for what you would describe as the 'slaughtering and torturing of animals" even if they are non domesticated ones. I have found that many vegans self label and freely use the tern 'vegan' when referring to themselves. I personally would agree with you regarding labelling and groups although I note you choose to label others with the term "carnist'. I prefer to not apply such labels but I would prefer the more honest descriptor of 'meat eater" etc. As to Colin T. Campbells book "'The China Study". The book itself was written almost 14 years ago and in the most part is is loosely based on a study conducted over 25 years ago in China. Many of the findings have been critically examined and much of Campbells metbodology and interpretations have been found to be flawed. There are a number of interesting critiques available which cover this. For example: ...“The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted). In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.[/quite] See: https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ All I can infer from those first two paragraphs is - in for a penny in for a pound. Carte Blanche. That’s not how I roll. In short Gozunda we are different types of human. For whatever reason my empathy levels are different to yours. I sleep happy at night treating all animals the best way I can and you choose to treat animals as your property but you also sleep happy at night. It is what it is. Nice talking with you but I’ll leave it there. We won’t see things in the same way anytime soon.
[Deleted User] wrote: » [ All I can infer from those first two paragraphs is - in for a penny in for a pound. Carte Blanche. That’s not how I roll. In short Gozunda we are different types of human. For whatever reason my empathy levels are different to yours. I sleep happy at night treating all animals the best way I can and you choose to treat animals as your property but you also sleep happy at night. It is what it is. Nice talking with you but I’ll leave it there. We won’t see things in the same way anytime soon.
gozunda wrote: » At the end of the day I'm a realist who realises that our existence on this planet as a dominant species means that our presence here effects every other living organism. You appear to have internalised an idea that by default everyone else treats animals without care and respect - however I and many others I know seek to look after animals in a way that ensures they have as good and as natural life as possible and allow wildlife to activly thrive where possible with minimal interference. I am a believer in reducing food miles and mitigating overt use of imported resources which not only strip many of the environments from which they come but also in supporting local people and services so that these impacts can be managed. That is it really.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Well that’s certainly one way of looking at it but i am a realist and my idea of care does not involve the slaughter of a sentient animal or profiting from it.
gozunda wrote: » Whatever about not liking meat - as a human no-one can physically remove themselves from the responsibility of the impacts that our civilisation has on every other species on the planet - either because you do not recognise it or perhaps do not care. Everyone eating foodstuffs produced by any branch of agriculture and by default involves the 'slaughter' of wild sentient animals - but anyone choosing not to make those choices wisely will profit from it even where they are not the producer. Bare and uncloaked that is how it is.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Who said I don’t (didn’t) like meat ? No doubt you are correct in the fact that my being here impacts other species but that wasn’t my choice. Two people fcuked and hey presto. I can however lessen the torture of fellow sentient animals through my choices thus proving I do actually care unlike those who choose to profit and gain pleasure from that torture.
gozunda wrote: » Sorry - it was a general comment.Do most vegans propose not to like meat.? Fact is you are here and how the issue of harm applies to all animal species. And that remains the point. By being here you cannot not "profit" one way or the other. Other animals are going to suffer harm because of the human race and the mass production of all types of food - arable horticultural or animal. It doesn't matter if someone chooses to be self-righteous about one specific part and metaphorically beat up others - that doesn't absolve or remove ones responsibility towards other animals no matter what. Edit: Just to go back to the use of the certain phrases like "gain pleasure from torture" - this is another one of the phrases which I have seen heavily used online and I don't fully understand. What exactly do you mean by this? Is it that people stand around gleefully rubbing their hands in farmyard grinning from ear to ear whilst they do something (unspecified?) to animals or is that by eating meat that there is pleasure gained?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0f9dcd3c171b8509db497e3a438e4fb.svg)
