The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

gozunda · 09-03-2018 8:09am

[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 9:15am

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 9:17am

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 9:56am

[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 1:15pm

[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 5:35pm

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 8:58pm

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.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 9:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

No. If you check they were general comments and refer to the experience of meat eaters being criticised for their activities and / or beliefs whilst an existing dichotomy is evident with the perceived status of domestic versus wild animals as opined by many vegans in my experience. I have already detailed this issue in previous posts.

Ok back to the references of 'Torturing' - first - 'Taste'. I'm trying not to be pedantic - but at the point of 'taste - an animal is ready to be eaten - the animal is dead and cannot feel anything. So imo no there cannot be any torture with this aspect of 'taste'. Where torture is defined as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" - Merriam-webster online Dictionary. 'Financial'? Much of what a farmer earns is ploughed straight back into a farm and the looking after animals including feed - vetinary care - land management for grazing etc etc. So no I do not accept that there is evident 'torture' there. Superiority? Social acceptance - how the frack does any of the above translate into the torture of animals as defined.

Ok can you try and be a bit more specific rather than throwing a bunch of nouns into a sentence. I really am struggling with that specific phrase is in any way relevant to the day to day care of domestic animals. Thanks.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 10:08pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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.

I always got the idea that there was a lot of repulsion by many vegans relative to meat. I suppose I have not thought about it like that previously.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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.

I would agree with most of what you have said there tbh.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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.

Is there a real danger that we have swapped new beliefs such as veganism for old time religion?

Havnt read that book - but I think I'll try a get a copy. Btw I agree and "I blame the Romans" - What did they ever do for us"?

I do find it ironic though that Ireland as one of the few countries in western Europe, not to be invaded by the Romans- it was Ireland alone which adopted the Roman patronym 'Patricius' as a national prenom. Go figure eh...

09-03-2018 10:31pm

gozunda wrote: »

No. If you check they were general comments and refer to the experience of meat eaters being criticised for their activities and / or beliefs whilst an existing dichotomy is evident with the perceived status of domestic versus wild animals as opined by many vegans in my experience. I have already detailed this issue in previous posts.

Ok back to the references of 'Torturing' - first - 'Taste'. I'm trying not to be pedantic - but at the point of 'taste - an animal is ready to be eaten - the animal is dead and cannot feel anything. So imo no there cannot be any torture with this aspect of 'taste'. Where torture is defined as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" - Merriam-webster online Dictionary. 'Financial'? Much of what a farmer earns is ploughed straight back into a farm and the looking after animals including feed - vetinary care - land management for grazing etc etc. So no I do not accept that there is evident 'torture' there. Superiority? Social acceptance - how the frack does any of the above translate into the torture of animals as defined.

Ok can you try and be a bit more specific rather than throwing a bunch of nouns into a sentence. I really am struggling with that specific phrase is in any way relevant to the day to day care of domestic animals. Thanks.

In relation to your first paragraph -

So you aren’t having a discussion with me anymore ?

You’re just taking this opportunity to make general points that you want to make about all carnists or all vegans ?

Sure just do that on your own. Don’t involve me.

And it realtion to your last paragraph -

You don’t care for an animal by imprisoning it, torturing and slaughtering it because that’s what you are doing if it’s your job or if you’re paying someone to do it, for example, buying meat, milk, cheese etc.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 11:08pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In relation to your first paragraph -

So you aren’t having a discussion with me anymore ? You’re just taking this opportunity to make general points that you want to make about all carnists or all vegans ?Sure just do that on your own. Don’t involve me

Seriously - Are you really so determined to appear insulted again? They were general points made as part of the previous posts about domestic/ wild animals and relative values. Those issues had already been discussed with you. Whats not to understand??? :mad:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And it realtion to your last paragraph -
You don’t care for an animal by imprisoning it, torturing and slaughtering it because that’s what you are doing if it’s your job or if you’re paying someone to do it, for example, buying meat, milk, cheese etc.

Simply No - what was asked was how the inclusion of the word 'torture' included in your comments relates to the definition of torture (as given by the Miriam-webster dictionary

definition of torture -
the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Avoiding that question by once again quoting an abused online phrase detailed below and which can be found on any number of websites without qualification or explanation.

Perhaps you would explain where the 'infliction of intense pain ... sadistic pleasure & etc ' comes into your latest comment even if anyone was to agree to the following statement you gave "You don’t care for an animal by imprisoning it, torturing and slaughtering if it’s your job or if you’re paying someone to do it, for example, buying meat, milk, cheese etc".

The use of the phrase "torturing" and it's actual definition completely fail to add up in this and in the previous instance. Explain that.

That is all I am asking. Thanks

11-03-2018 2:25pm

I think torture is the perfect word to describe the period of time from birth to slaughter.

gozunda · 12-03-2018 1:09pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think torture is the perfect word to describe the period of time from birth to slaughter.

Ok you can't provide a bona fide answer to the question asked ...

So no will not do - again how does the definition of torture as given by the Merriam- Webster dictionary relate to your reply?

definition of torture - the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Answer it doesn't - even using the most basic comprehension of the English language

Again you are use much abused terminology found on any number of unsupported websites without knowing what the actual words mean.

It does not help your argument one tiny little bit..

13-03-2018 5:47am

gozunda wrote: »

Ok you can't provide a bona fide answer to the question asked ...

So no will not do - again how does the definition of torture as given by the Merriam- Webster dictionary relate to your reply?

Answer it doesn't - even using the most basic comprehension of the English language

Again you are use much abused terminology found on any number of unsupported websites without knowing what the actual words mean.

It does not help your argument one tiny little bit..

Afraid I’ll not be responding to you anymore Gozunda.

Having seen your comments in the other thread I believe you are just in here for the wind-up and to take the pîss so please don’t expect me to respond to you any more as my time is more valuable than that.

I don’t believe you to be sincere and I should have trusted my gut previously but I wasted my time and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I still refuse to believe all farmers will engage as you do and that some will be interested in a genuine discussion.

I expect you’ll respond with some attempt of sincerity but I’m afraid you’ve blown your cover and I won’t be engaging again.

gozunda · 13-03-2018 6:17am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Afraid I’ll not be responding to you anymore Gozunda.

Having seen your comments in the other thread I believe you are just in here for the wind-up and to take the pîss so please don’t expect me to respond to you any more as my time is more valuable than that. I don’t believe you to be sincere and I should have trusted my gut previously but I wasted my time and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I still refuse to believe all farmers will engage as you do and that some will be interested in a genuine discussion.
I expect you’ll respond with some attempt of sincerity but I’m afraid you’ve blown your cover and I won’t be engaging again.

Klop - I could understand your position if you had genuinely tried to answer the simple question I asked in this thread, however you have clearly refused to do so over many pages and streadfastly failed to engage with that in genuine discussion. You have rather took to taking an occasional strop when suits. And yes I fear you've just done that again...

Rather than engaging fully it is evident you have kept repeating that same phrase - which if you do a quick Google search comes back with at least 250, 000 hits and in as many of those hits which I checked - that same phrase and found it is used again and again without any understanding of what those words actually mean in context.

Copying and pasting such material will never make for any type of convincing argument to anyone with any discernment.

In my opinion that lack of understanding is the main inherent flaw in much of such rhetoric. Using copy and paste phrases instead of a rational discussion does your argument no favours whatsoever. It really is that simple. I do hope you at least understand that now.

As for farmers and many others you will find that they cannot engage in any meaningful way with you - when you default position is to bark the mantra of "imprisonment torture slaughter" at them repeatedly without any understanding.

And yes I'm happy with the other thread - that is AH and yes you will require at least some humour to go there. Monthly Python is always funny. It works both ways ...

Tar.Aldarion · 13-03-2018 11:25am

gozunda wrote: »

I always got the idea that there was a lot of repulsion by many vegans relative to meat. I suppose I have not thought about it like that previously.

I would agree with most of what you have said there tbh.

Is there a real danger that we have swapped new beliefs such as veganism for old time religion?

Havnt read that book - but I think I'll try a get a copy. Btw I agree and "I blame the Romans" - What did they ever do for us"?

I do find it ironic though that Ireland as one of the few countries in western Europe, not to be invaded by the Romans- it was Ireland alone which adopted the Roman patronym 'Patricius' as a national prenom. Go figure eh...

A vegan may come to not like the idea of meat after some time, animals are dissociated from food when you don't eat them. Beforehand, when somebody becomes vegan they've been eating meat their whole lives, possibly argued against veganism and so on. It's generally a position taken from the opposite of what they once believed so you can see they would of course like meat from their previous actions. It's is generally the case that somebody that is vegan has most likely thought to themselves that they will never be a vegan.

There is always a danger of traits of religion entering into any held belief. I'll often see posts on both sides with terrible logic being thanked on boards for instance, because you are throwing your lot in with anything that slightly agrees with you or puts another belief down. Blind following of anything in favour of what you believe... or what you want to believe. Let's just say that on average (zealotry of youth aside), that somebody changing their whole lifestyle, going against society and their whole upbringing to do something they don't want to do, like veganism, causing themselves a lot of hassle in daily life, all stemming from a point of introspection and evaluation of though is unlikely to be a religious zealotry like being raised and conditioned to believe in something.

New Home · 31-03-2018 5:08pm

It's a start, at least.

gozunda · 11-05-2018 6:52pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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.

My apologies- only coming back to this now. Tbh my initial reluctance continue the discussion in general (and not you btw) was somewhat predicated by certain comments which I found unnecessarily nasty and aggressive. I then completely forgot about it.

Anyway to your point about 'liking' meat and your disclosure that as a meat eater- you ate mainly steak. May I ask why was it so and do you think that was inpart influential in your move to a vegan diet?

My own personal experience is that I eat meat - however it is part of what I would describe as a fairly mixed diet. My dietery habits mean that I will happily eat any combination from the main food groups. That said I prefer to eat seasonly and locally produce where possible for a number of reasons which are I suppose at best a mix of eating a healthy diet and a wish to support local enterprise and employment.

Leaving aside the idea that all humans have a inherent mandate or desire to "lessen harm"(?) - I would accept that largescale industrialised farming as it is practised etc is far from a ideal model for food production. However I would put forward that intensive crop production on the same scale has as many detrimental impacts on the environment and other living things. The death large numbers of other animals and organisms is a very real consequence of all the most intensive arable and horticultural practices. The environmental impacts of such intensive cultivation in my experience is a hugely significant issue that deserves at least equal attention to that of animal farming.

Regarding the issue of religion - I do think there is a danger that by viewing ourselves as wholly removed from other animals and the planet's ecology - there is also a very real risk of some seing themselves as almost having a godlike role with regard to other living things. I believe this is in contrast to the largely relict religous ethos of humans having "dominion over animals" .

loveisdivine · 13-12-2018 3:02pm

There's an ad on the radio at the minute that's driving me mad. It's children singing "Connaught Gold Milk is made for us, made for us, made for us" and various other things and I want to scream at the radio everytime and say "It's literally made for baby cows! Not for you stupid children!" But I can't, cos I only hear it at work!

TheFortField · 16-12-2018 3:36pm

Has anyone else noticed a slight tanning of their skin since going vegan/vegetarian?

I’ve had porcelain white skin all my life but since switching to a plant based diet I’ve developed a light tan. A few people have commented on it in a positive way, that I look very healthy or they’ve asked if I had a few days away in the sun :pac:

davidjtaylor · 16-12-2018 4:04pm

TheFortField wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed a slight tanning of their skin since going vegan/vegetarian?

I’ve had porcelain white skin all my life but since switching to a plant based diet I’ve developed a light tan. A few people have commented on it in a positive way, that I look very healthy or they’ve asked if I had a few days away in the sun :pac:

You’ve now got so much iron that you’re going rusty.:)

TheFortField · 16-12-2018 4:48pm

davidjtaylor wrote: »

You’ve now got so much iron that you’re going rusty.:)

Haha, I wish

I have to watch the old iron levels. Does anyone else do the lower eyelid test? I find it’s a fairly reliable indicator of when my iron levels are low.

I take a glass of freshly make juice every day and I think it’s helping my iron levels (it might also be helping the tan

)

Juice - Kale, Spinach, Broccoli, Turmeric, Orange, Apple & Blueberries.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-12-2018 10:29pm

TheFortField wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed a slight tanning of their skin since going vegan/vegetarian?

I’ve had porcelain white skin all my life but since switching to a plant based diet I’ve developed a light tan. A few people have commented on it in a positive way, that I look very healthy or they’ve asked if I had a few days away in the sun :pac:

Careful you don't have Jaundice or something!

TheFortField · 17-12-2018 2:35pm

Thanks very much TA for the friendly advice

My GP informs me that my light tan is a perfectly harmless reaction to my high intake of carotene rich foods. The ‘tan’ will fade as soon as I reduce my intake of these foods..

Tar.Aldarion · 17-12-2018 5:46pm

carrots, squash, and sweet potatoes out the wazoo haha.

Worztron · 17-12-2018 5:57pm

TheFortField wrote: »

Thanks very much TA for the friendly advice My GP informs me that my light tan is a perfectly harmless reaction to my high intake of carotene rich foods. The ‘tan’ will fade as soon as I reduce my intake of these foods..

Hi TheFortField. Your vitamin A levels should be great.

TheFortField · 24-12-2018 1:20pm

Just popping by to wish you all a very Happy Christmas/Holidays and to thank you for all your great recipes, advice and support. My WFPB diet journey has been a bit of a learning curve but overall it’s been a fantastic change for the good! Thank you all

Tar.Aldarion · 25-12-2018 2:25am

And to you, glad it's been positive and that the forum has helped, and long may it continue.

rubadub · 16-01-2019 12:36am

saw these in tesco on offer, might be posted before, I never saw them before

https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=301795243

Goodfella's Vegan Falafel Pizza 377G
Special OfferSAVE 99c Was 3.99 No...
valid until 28/1/2019

Tar.Aldarion · 16-01-2019 1:04am

Cheers for the tip!

Worztron · 16-01-2019 10:48am

rubadub wrote: »

saw these in tesco on offer, might be posted before, I never saw them before

https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=301795243

Goodfella's Vegan Falafel Pizza 377G
Special OfferSAVE 99c Was 3.99 No...
valid until 28/1/2019

Excellent! I must try that.

F1ngers · 24-01-2019 12:39am

Found Almond Baileys in Super Valu in Tallaght, imported from the US by Diageo Ireland.
They may be in other Super Valus'/other shops.

E25 for 0.7L(I think).

davidjtaylor · 24-01-2019 2:14pm

It’s in the offie in the Crescent shopping centre in Limerick too (can’t think of the shop name right now).

rubadub · 24-01-2019 2:26pm

Saw vegan magnums in tesco too, again never heard of them before

Magnum Vegan Almond Ice Cream 270Ml
Special OfferSAVE 1.69 Was 4.69 Now 3.00
valid from 1/1/2019 until 28/1/2019

Magnum Vegan Classic Ice Cream 270Ml
Special OfferSAVE 1.69 Was 4.69 Now 3.00
valid from 1/1/2019 until 28/1/2019

and 2 "dees" products are half price, which I know are usually expensive.
https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=vegan

Tar.Aldarion · 24-01-2019 2:40pm

The Magnums are really great, so are the vegan Ben & Jerry's. Dee's products are really healthy and tasty compared to similar products, they are a steal at half price as they are so handy. I must pick up a ton of her lunch pots, the thai coconut one is delicious.

loveisdivine · 27-02-2019 6:26pm

Greggs vegan sausage rolls now available in a couple of Belfast stores and the Applegreens on the M1 south of Belfast!

thesandeman · 01-03-2019 2:11am

That vegetarian white pudding that Aldi or Lidl were trying out last year is now available in my local SuperValu. It's kept in the same fridge as the Happy Pear stuff.
While I think it's lovely I'm still torn about buying it as the manufacturer is also a butcher and I don't want to be supporting that side of his business.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2019 1:18pm

5 years vegan today :cool:
15 including vegetarian.

davidjtaylor · 01-03-2019 1:31pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

5 years vegan today :cool:
15 including vegetarian.

Well done!

We didn’t note a date when we acknowledged we were following a vegan diet in 2005 because we’d prepared vegan food ‘accidentally’ - unintentionally, simply because we were buying the very occasional cheese on and off for possibly a year or more.

But next year, 15 years defo. plus the preceeding 13 veggie.

Worztron · 01-03-2019 1:41pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

5 years vegan today :cool:
15 including vegetarian.

Well done TA!

I've got some catching up to do.

Vegetarian: since Xmas 2015
Vegan: pretty much since Aug-2016

gozunda · 02-03-2019 8:54am

thesandeman wrote: »

That vegetarian white pudding that Aldi or Lidl were trying out last year is now available in my local SuperValu. It's kept in the same fridge as the Happy Pear stuff.

While I think it's lovely I'm still torn about buying it as the manufacturer is also a butcher and I don't want to be supporting that side of his business.

Tbh for myself I be more concerned about mega corporations and helping support an independent and local food sector. The likes of Unilever and Danone are rowing in on food trends and pushing out small local producers. And they dont care who the sell to or where they source their ingredients from:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/19/unilever-joins-meat-free-revolution-after-buying-the-vegetarian-butcher

davidjtaylor · 02-03-2019 10:32am

Worztron wrote: »

Well done TA!

I've got some catching up to do.
Vegetarian: since Xmas 2015
Vegan: pretty much since Aug-2016

Fair play to ya!

Worztron · 02-03-2019 11:14am

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Fair play to ya!

Thank you David.

Before I turned vegetarian in Xmas 2015 - I ate meat very rarely anyway (about once every few months) for a good few years. Being vegetarian was simple. After going vegan, I did miss the cheese & tomato pizzas but don't anymore - there are now some excellent vegan pizzas around. I just wish so many crisps didn't contain whey.

DoozerT6 · 03-03-2019 12:46pm

I'll be vegetarian three years this month. Try my best to always go for a vegan option when I see it, but have to work on my laziness in terms of not just reaching for biccies, and milk in the coffee at work. Eating a vegan diet is not hard: giving myself a boot in my lazy h*le so that I have vegan food and ingredients to hand to prepare in advance is my problem.

Congrats to all on their vegan-versaries!

davidjtaylor · 03-03-2019 2:08pm

I’m just reading Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. Utterly riveting (all 841 pages of it).

Take heart, Doozer: “Self-control has been credited with one of the greatest reductions of violence in history”. Also: that “Self-control is physical effort turns out to have a kernel of neurobiological reality”.

Risk factors for violence include selfishness, insults, jealousy, tribalism, crowding, hot weather, maleness etc. We’ve all (well, 50% of us in the last case) encountered those feelings but we usually exercise self-control when they occur.

It’s all fascinating stuff and too complex to go into here, but there are strategies which I’m sure you’re aware of. Here’s another Pinker quote about self-control: “In addition to being modulated by Ulyssean constraints, cognitive reframing, an adjustable internal discount rate, improvements in nutrition, and the equivalent of muscle gain with exercise, self-control might be at the mercy of the whims of fasion. In some eras, self-control define the paragon of a decent person…in others it is jeered at.”

Gosh.

Tar.Aldarion · 22-03-2019 1:01pm

I see the whole flora range has gone vegan, and they seem to be only posting vegan recipes these days. Nice to see such a large company make that move.

davidjtaylor · 22-03-2019 1:32pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I see the whole flora range has gone vegan, and they seem to be only posting vegan recipes these days. Nice to see such a large company make that move.

They're living up to their name now!

The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

Comments