The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

07-03-2018 10:14PM

This guy isn’t happy that only 98% of Britain enjoy dairy products and he’s very concerned about celebrity vegans.

Hope I’ve linked this properly.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-41713987

rubadub · 07-03-2018 10:36PM

I guess already mentioned
http://www.newstalk.com/Dairyfree-vegan-friendly-Baileys-coming-to-Irish-shelves

gozunda · 07-03-2018 11:15PM

rubadub wrote: »

I guess already mentioned
http://www.newstalk.com/Dairyfree-vegan-friendly-Baileys-coming-to-Irish-shelves

To be called "Bailey's Almande" ...

The article details that

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.

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 and those with environmental concerns with almond monocrop plantations and food miles ...

08-03-2018 01:28AM

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 ...

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 · 08-03-2018 09:28AM

[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.

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" ....

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.

Tar.Aldarion · 08-03-2018 11:13AM

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.

klopparama do not post like this about another user again, you are free to discuss the content of their posts and not them.

If you have a problem with a particular post in future then please report it, do not call out a user on a thread.

08-03-2018 12:27PM

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" ....

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.

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.

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.

Tar.Aldarion · 08-03-2018 01:40PM

btw my main gripe with baileys almande is that you can get it for £10 in asda and it's €25 in Dunnes!

gozunda · 08-03-2018 02:18PM

[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.

I will take that at face value. Thanks.

People may or may not choose to drink milk etc for different and varied reasons- that is a moot point. In Ireland a large percentage of people live in rural areas and a many people are involved in agriculture or who have extended family that are. 'Farming' in rural areas is anything other than afforded 'privacy imo - with agriculture being highly regulated and inspected.

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

However reading peer reviewed articles from a range of independent studies indicate that a diet based on a selection of natural foods eaten in moderation is most frequently put forward as a the healthiest type of diet for humans. The corollary of that is that a healthy diet should include as few as possible of highly processed foods and drinks.

It remains that most people in Europe are not in fact lactose intolerant. Human evolution and resulting lactase persistence shows that distribution of the those who are able to consume dairy products without issue is over 50 percent of the population in the south east of Europe to 89 to 96 percent in the north west of Europe. It is also estimated thst up to 100% of Irish people have the genetic ability to tolerate lactose and benefit from consuming dairy products.

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-36

Our high percentage of lactose tolerance is opined as coming from the fact that irish people's have been consuming dairy products as a significant part of their diet both historically and contemporaneously and reply on dairying as an important foodstuff due to our difficult topography and wet climate which favours grass growth over most other forms of agriculture.

[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.

I can understand a person not liking milk or indeed being intolerant of it - but bad science and / or non independent studies or supposition do not help the argument imo.

Seriously have you ever tried to milk a cat? Or even a dog? In general humans and other meat eaters tend not to include other species of meat eaters as part of their regular food supply as there is a biological drive away from the transfer of protein related diseases between these species. Now that said some cultures do consume products from other meat eating species but generally this is frowned upon for biological reasons and sometimes related to cultural and religious prohibitions.

And yes in some countries Asses milk is quite common. Though I dont think we have that many Asses here tbh... There are also significant differences in the chemical make up of milk between species. So yes there is quite a difference.

I'll just leave this here ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VatXYvrtF8

08-03-2018 09:01PM

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.

gozunda · 08-03-2018 09:34PM

[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.

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

There are many equally strident studies (proving) the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’

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 studies are correct or otherwise - just an example of conflicting 'evidence

08-03-2018 10:46PM

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

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.

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 · 08-03-2018 11:46PM

[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.

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. However if you are pointing out that mainly large wealthy industries engage in this practise - then it is just as valid to claim that the soya industry also qualifies as a vested interest in this instance.

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.

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"?

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.

In my last post 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).

08-03-2018 11:58PM

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).

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.

I’m not making any mistakes. I never suggested vegans were the reasonable people.

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.

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 ?

gozunda · 09-03-2018 01:14AM

[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.

OK - "Who defines what the 'truth is? If you are pointing out that it is mainly large wealthy industries who engage in this practice - then it is just as valid to claim that the soya industry also qualifies as a vested interest in this instance or the Vatican or any potentially large wealthy movement or organisation.

klopparama wrote:

Im not making any mistakes. I never suggested vegans were the reasonable people.

I was attempting to determine who you though the 'reasonable' people you detailed were?

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.

Yes that is observed cause and effect. But just because I claim that the earth is flat or because I persuade a large number of people that it is - does not make it so

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 ?

It's a book and people write books all the time. Some people even make decent amounts of money out of writing books - in this instance over one million copies were sold (as of 2013) and the book made the best seller lists there. Nice little earner there tbh.

I believe the basic premise is that modern diets of meat / dairy products / are not recommend and are indeed blamed for a whole host of 'modern' 'Western' diseases and health conditions such as heart disease etc etc.

It is of note that the author T. Colin Campbell (whose original background was vetinary) states he is not a vegan but believes in "the idea is that we should be consuming whole foods"

I would find fault with the idea that eating foods
"that contain any cholesterol above 0mg is unhealthy". Recent information I checked on the Harvard Medical School website details that "most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver - it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat and that the liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not consumed dietary cholesterol"

The other big hole in this book in my opinion thst it ignores the fact that humans have been eating meat right through time since the begining of our evolution and dairy products for at least eight thousand years. So whilst we may be living longer - diseases such as heart disease are still killing us that have been around as long as humans have. Even Otzi the Iceman was found to have had atherosclerosis relating to heart disease

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,"

See:
https://www.livescience.com/47114-otzi-had-heart-disease-genes.html

09-03-2018 01:42AM

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 · 09-03-2018 02:05AM

[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.

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 otherwise 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.

09-03-2018 02:37AM

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.

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 · 09-03-2018 03:18AM

[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.

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?

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.

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?

How are the findings in the China study very out of date now ?

Have you read the book yourself? What do you think of yer man not being a vegan?

09-03-2018 03:45AM

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?

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 cancer causing and every time I read it I find something I didn’t 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. People seem to have a picture in their heads as to what one is. I find that funny too.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 08:09AM

[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.

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.

See: https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

09-03-2018 09:15AM

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

09-03-2018 09:17AM

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.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 09:56AM

[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.

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.

09-03-2018 10:09AM

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.

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 · 09-03-2018 10:33AM

[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.

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.

09-03-2018 12:40PM

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.

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 · 09-03-2018 01:15PM

[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.

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?

Tar.Aldarion · 09-03-2018 05:35PM

Most vegans like the taste of meat, all I ate was steak. I don't want to be vegan, I just logically came to the conclusion I should after a lot of thought.

We have a responsibility to lessen harm, whether it be food miles, non-sweatshop clothes, or not killing others for pleasure of taste. Most people try and do their bit and try to improve what they themselves do. However we are brought up in a society where use of sentient feeling beings has been taught to us as not just acceptable but a right and it's hard to shake world views instilled into you from birth.

Originally man just thought of himself as another animal and there is a good book called Sapiens partly about this that I am just finishing. It goes into how it was universal monotheist religions like Christianity that were the first to elevate us as above other animals in our minds. "We directly communicate with God, we are different than the rest of you!". This then helped justify our oppression of other peoples/animals with our divine authority. It talks about that even if we throw off the yoke of subjugation of the likes of Christianity or an empire like Rome it is too late for us, we think like they wanted us to think, we speak their language, we use their roads, we hold to their values, our world outlook is theirs and our past culture is forever gone. Be born in a Catholic country you grow up as a Catholic, same with Islam, same with any moral beliefs which are instilled by our forebears, always a challenge to change these things. And then when you do you forget how hard tit is for others because you forget how it wasn't obvious to you all along.

09-03-2018 08:58PM

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?

So now you’re accusing me of being self-righteous ? And I’m beating you up ? Jesus.

Well you gain pleasure in many ways from torturing animals - Financially. Taste. Superiority. Social acceptance. Those are just a few that spring to mind.

The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

Comments