04-22-2014, 12:24 AM
Poll: Which meat? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
Beef | 0 | 0% | |
Chicken | 1 | 14.29% | |
Pork | 0 | 0% | |
Venison | 0 | 0% | |
Lamb | 1 | 14.29% | |
Other | 2 | 28.57% | |
I'm a vegetarian | 3 | 42.86% | |
Total | 7 vote(s) | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
What's Your Favorite Meat?
|
04-22-2014, 12:43 AM
(04-22-2014, 12:24 AM)Grungie Wrote:Probably the latter.(04-22-2014, 12:05 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Yeah, the only times it actually works if you have a buddy who's being an asshole to another buddy for no reason, and the whole group tells him to fucking apologize. lol
04-22-2014, 02:28 AM
Sometimes bitching can work long term. After you get over being mad you're like "Yeah, I guess I should change that."
04-22-2014, 06:32 PM
(04-21-2014, 05:08 AM)carlcockatoo Wrote: Generic moral reasons. [continues in spoiler]Pretty much this. But this, however: Quote:I've though about quitting just because of the constant ridicule. I am not vocal about it, but people inevitably find out, leading to stupid threats, constantly being called stupid, and claims of being 'anti-American' (especially in my extended family)...is just, wohaaa... Serioursly, bro, I'm starting to feel more and more like every, single person in your non-internet life sucks and/or is an idiot. Please tell me this isn't true. (04-21-2014, 03:37 PM)Danjo Wrote: Yeah, I think thats a good way to do it. I just when people try to shove it down your throat like "You meat eaters are ruining the planet! You're all murderers!". If instead of bitching at me they got some people and bitched at their government representatives about the things that go on in the meat industry, it would be a lot more productive. Its good to buy stuff that was raised in a more healthy way, but realistically I think the number of animals affected by your choice of what to eat is pretty small. Obviously it builds up with numbers, but those numbers wold be much more effective in changing legislation than by trying to manipulate the economics of the situation.The problem with that is that it wouldn't really be a "democratic" way to do it. Every single person those representatives represent have the option of going super-vegan - or whatever - and pretty much all of them choose not to. For a group of politicans to bind the whole population by law to a life-style choice pretty much none of them want to abide by - no mather how ethical that life style choice may be - would not only be problematic from a democratic standpoint, it would be virtually impossible from a practical one. In order to achieve societal progress (through democratic institutions), you need an informed public - to some extent. Which still doesn't excuse the bitching at you, cause it's annoying and ineffective. I'm not really fond of negative enforcement. Trying to inform and empower you to make you, as an individ, make more ethically choices is not an invalid approach, however - imo. Especially as the representatives may not be affected by your approach, but some of the people they represent might be by the other. And also because many of the people who espouse vegetarianism does so because they believe every single one of that statistically negiglible number of animals is worth the effort. This was all based on a binary interpretation of your post, with con carne vs. vegan, which might not have been your intention even if it came across that way. When it comes to more general regulations to improve livestock welfare, I do believe it'd might have sufficient public support that a more targeted campaign-form would could be of higher efficiency.
04-22-2014, 06:43 PM
(04-22-2014, 06:32 PM)ln cognition Wrote: The problem with that is that it wouldn't really be a "democratic" way to do it. Every single person those representatives represent have the option of going super-vegan - or whatever - and pretty much all of them choose not to. For a group of politicans to bind the whole population by law to a life-style choice pretty much none of them want to abide by - no mather how ethical that life style choice may be - would not only be problematic from a democratic standpoint, it would be virtually impossible from a practical one.Well, the problem is, you can't FORCE people to listen to the pros of...for example, eating more vegetables. Healthwise, we know that you're better off if you eat more vegetables and less red meat. Many people even go completely without meat, because they eat a lot of broccoli (or similar greens) that contain protein and get their daily needed protein that way. So, we can prove scientifically that more veggies, less meat is good. And most people DO NOT CARE. They don't want to listen. For some of them, it's because it's cheaper and more convenient to go to McDonalds for lunch every day than it is to buy fresh greens and pre-prepare them for lunch every day. Others are very much "meat and potatoes" people (which is an idea that worked better 60 years ago, when a larger segment of the Western population was doing physical labor). I'm sure there's a few more examples, but the point is...they just don't care. And they won't listen. I have no idea what to do about those kinds of people. hrug:
04-22-2014, 08:05 PM
(04-22-2014, 06:43 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well, the problem is, you can't FORCE people to listen to the pros of...for example, eating more vegetables. Healthwise, we know that you're better off if you eat more vegetables and less red meat. Many people even go completely without meat, because they eat a lot of broccoli (or similar greens) that contain protein and get their daily needed protein that way. So, we can prove scientifically that more veggies, less meat is good.All of this is why I put "to some extent" in there. To me it seems like you're talking primarily about two groups, with a nuanced difference. People who won't eat less meat because they're culturally conditioned towards eating meat (meat and potato), and people who eat meat because it's the easiest choice available (McDonald's). Group 2 would mostly be a subset of group 1, and as such there would blatantly be an overlap between the two. The second group I'm not all too concerned with; as you said, it's not apparent how one is supposed to reach those people. At the same time, this is probably a group with rather low political capital, and general influence on the direction of society might be negligible - in the sense that if general society moved towards more ethical consumption culture, they wouldn't be able to stop it as much as they'd be able to increase the inertia of such a process. Highly judgemental of me, I know, and probably overly simplistic. Anyhow... The first group is much more interesting, as it probably constitutes most of western society. They eat as much meat as they do becuase that's what they're used to, and comfortable with - and exactly becuase they're used to it and comfortable with it, it is hard to convince them that their behaviour is problematic to the extent that it might be in need of changing. However, this is largely a problem of culture. Change the culture, and much of the problem goes away. Which is what I want from my hypothetical informed public. A decently sized minority of the population that starts to recognize that their behaviour is improbevable, and strives to improve it (or already have) - and with this slowly drags the general culture in the right direction. Then, with the culture, the larger majority follows. Sure it's slow, but as non-vegan vegetarian, I'm confident in slow and steady beating overextending and collapsing. Now, at the same time as one tries to increase the highs, it's also meaningful to decrease the lows. Meat won't be banned in our (projected) lifetimes, but the suffering of livestock can be reduced by regualtions on the providors - which are politically possible to put in place within a short-term perspective, unlike the above. Anyhow, I probably come across as highly pretentious in these posts, I'm sorry for that. The ethical issues relating to meat seems so obvious to me, and it seems that lots of people recognise them as well without actually doing anything in response to it. Which terrifies me some extent on the behalf of humanity. I'm no saint on this matter; I've done pretty much nothing to inform myself on the issues and considerations to be taken - the only thing I've done is stop eating products I know are derived from dead animals, which is actually a really lazy solution. At the same time, however, most people I've talked to about this express recognition of the problem - the suffering of animals for my food is bad -, and yet they are completely disinterested in doing anything to decrease their participation in what they themselves regard as a negative structure. Just as a general trait of humanity, that seems really unfortunate. Disclaimer: Organisms dying for my food is less problematic to me than organisms suffering for it. When I talk about vegan/vegatarianism as opposed to eating less meat, it's because it's easier for me to use when conceptualizing or writing this post. I don't believe that it's would necessarily be ideal for everone to totally stop eating meat. However, it should be rather uncontroversial that there would be an utilitarian benefit if people ate less of it.
04-22-2014, 11:27 PM
(04-22-2014, 06:43 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: For some of them, it's because it's cheaper and more convenient to go to McDonalds for lunch every day than it is to buy fresh greens and pre-prepare them for lunch every day.That's like, no even true on top of that, lol On my part, I'm consciously trying to eat less meat in order to hopefully eventually eat no meat at all. My main difficulty is that I'm a college student and rely a lot on the cafeteria during the week, which has no vegetarian menu. I recognize that there is definitely something messed up about killing weaker life forms for our own benefit, while realizing that everything we eat is derived from living things (including grains and vegetables), and that at a certain point, ethical vegetarianism can easily become contradictory (like how the food chain is a natural part of life - animals eat other animals; this however is not an excuse as murder, rape and theft are also in our nature). That's why some people are pescatarians (which is what I'm going for at the moment) because they believe that fish have a lower moral value than most other animals.
04-23-2014, 12:39 AM
(04-22-2014, 06:43 PM)crazysam23 Wrote:There is nothing you can do.(04-22-2014, 06:32 PM)ln cognition Wrote: The problem with that is that it wouldn't really be a "democratic" way to do it. Every single person those representatives represent have the option of going super-vegan - or whatever - and pretty much all of them choose not to. For a group of politicans to bind the whole population by law to a life-style choice pretty much none of them want to abide by - no mather how ethical that life style choice may be - would not only be problematic from a democratic standpoint, it would be virtually impossible from a practical one.Well, the problem is, you can't FORCE people to listen to the pros of...for example, eating more vegetables. Healthwise, we know that you're better off if you eat more vegetables and less red meat. Many people even go completely without meat, because they eat a lot of broccoli (or similar greens) that contain protein and get their daily needed protein that way. So, we can prove scientifically that more veggies, less meat is good. I get all of your arguments but it doesn't mean I want to follow them. Yea, you can probably get enough protein eating other stuff like broccoli but I don't like broccoli and I really like chicken and steak and pork chops. Especially if you're someone who works out everyday. Fruit and some veggies taste great but they aren't going to give you much energy for some intense exercising or show the same results. I don't know what McDonalds has to do with anything. I rarely if ever eat at fast food places but still eat some form of meat (especially if you count fish) probably 6-7 days of week. Meat at a normal supermarket is not really any cheaper than getting vegetables. And it's also not a one or the other things. I eat a large variety of things. I think you guys are just forgetting that people really really really like a lot of food that is or uses meat. I find the price argument to play a much smaller role than that
04-23-2014, 12:48 AM
(04-23-2014, 12:39 AM)WCPhils Wrote: There is nothing you can do.That's fine. And I wasn't even arguing for vegetarianism, just eating less meat. hrug: Quote:I don't know what McDonalds has to do with anything. I rarely if ever eat at fast food places but still eat some form of meat (especially if you count fish) probably 6-7 days of week.I used McDonalds as an example of convenience. Quote:Meat at a normal supermarket is not really any cheaper than getting vegetables. And it's also not a one or the other things. I eat a large variety of things.Again, a variety is fine. I'm just saying, more veggies is healthier. hrug: Quote:I think you guys are just forgetting that people really really really like a lot of food that is or uses meat.Which is perfectly fine to me. Quote:I find the price argument to play a much smaller role than thatThat may be.
04-23-2014, 12:52 AM
I wasn't really arguing with you, tho it probably came across that way, lol. Just kind of giving a different viewpoint.
I definitely agree that people should eat a variety of things. Eating too much of anything probably isn't very healthy. And there are of course healthy way to eat meat and not in anyway healthy ways. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)