Conquer Club

Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Firstly - If you live in a developed nation other than Canada, the US, parts of Eastern Europe, or Australia and aren't a vegetarian you - for all intents and purposes - are saying that your satisfaction and well-being is superior to that of any other person. The aforementioned list are the only places in the first world that can legitimately self-sustain a meat production industry. Every other place is contributing to episodic malnutrition and periodic famine in the third world by forcing developing nations to produce vegetable protein for animal feed rather than people feed.

Secondly - If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all. Meat production generates 1/5 of global CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter how many hippie headbands you wear or Earth-Aid concerts you attend or energy efficient lightbulbs you use, you will not be able to eliminate your contribution from meat consumption. If you complain about climate change and are a meat-eater you are the biggest hypocrite on Earth. You like being part of the climate change "brand" (in the same way some people like wearing the Banana Republic brand, etc.); you like making yourself feel good by imagining yourself as a caring person. In the end, though, you could give a f*ck about the Earth or anyone else. A person who does not believe in climate change at all is morally superior to you because they are failing to actualize on a problem they don't see. You are failing to actualize on a problem you do see.

That's all, gang!
Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

What is a vegetarians most important food? Important as in necessary? That would probably be whatever is being used as a proteen source for that particular vegetarian's diet.

Note that I am not a vegetarian, but I do know of a lot of them. There are several options one could have (especially since we are talking about vegetarian and not vegan which restricts the selection even more). You can find the top ten here.

1. Legumes
2. Nuts and seeds
3. Dairy products
4. Cereals & food grains
5. Algae
6. Soybean
7. Seitan
8. Vegtable
9. Fruit
10. Egg

I have a nut allergy, so if I were a vegetarian (I am not) I would proably go with legumes.

Beans, beans, American fruit
The more you eat, the more you "toot"
The more you "toot," the better you feel
So let's have beans with every meal!

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Saxi, that's a brilliant post and I have to agree with you on this one. On the other hand, there is a binary assumption that is not necessarily true, it is not an either or case. It has only been in recent times that the average meal is assumed to have a full meat portion. In older times, meat was a infrequent or rare event. So you don't have to go cold turkey as it were. If a person were to cut down meat intake to once a week, that would be a 6/7th reduction in their meat consumption. Likewise the use of methods to use 100% of the meat and avoid the general massive waste we have today can also allow less production to meet the demand. It is possible to be a frugal meat eater, it was done in Europe for centuries.

That was why, in medieval times, the general Christian fast of meat on Fridays wasn't that much of a big deal; the average person probably had meat once a month at most.

Hey gang,

Just wanted you to know that if you do any of the following things, you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all:

- Drive a gasoline-powered car
- Wear leather shoes or a leather jacket
- Use a gas-powered stove or have gas-powered heating
- Use an air-conditioner
- Leave your appliances plugged in when you're not using them

You see, us hippies reject anyone who isn't a true believer in preventing the damages to our environment. Admittedly it means we get nothing done, but what's more important - causing actual change, or proving our point that the environment is screwed?

Metsfanmax wrote:Hey gang,

Just wanted you to know that if you do any of the following things, you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all:

- Drive a gasoline-powered car
- Wear leather shoes or a leather jacket
- Use a gas-powered stove or have gas-powered heating
- Use an air-conditioner
- Leave your appliances plugged in when you're not using them

You see, us hippies reject anyone who isn't a true believer in preventing the damages to our environment. Admittedly it means we get nothing done, but what's more important - causing actual change, or proving our point that the environment is screwed?

This is a rejection of the antecedent, a logical fallacy.

My thesis was couched on the morality of engaging in the single largest, controllable contributor to CO2 emissions, which is meat production - a contribution activity larger than the entire transport sector.

You can propose your own thesis, of course, but your paradigm is irreconcilable within the framework of the one I've presented, which is the position of argument you've self-established.

And now I have to head to the greyhound tracks. Goodbye to one and to all!

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

well i am a carnivore of the condescending, militant, voracious type.

i eat meat, but i am refined see - for i only eat the flesh of vegetarian animals.

cows, elephants, gorillas, hippies if i must... and so on. these critters need to be shade-grown though!

in this way, i get the tasty meat i desire, but also the good vibes of knowing i am helping keep the evil blight of vegetarianism in check.

and yeah, saxi, if you get near me, i'd cook you up and woof you down in a heartbeat!

saxitoxin wrote:My thesis was couched on the morality of engaging in the single largest, controllable contributor to CO2 emissions, which is meat production - a contribution activity larger than the entire transport sector.

I hate to break my self-imposed ban on actually responding to your inane posts, but this one was just too much to take.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissi ... human.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1203.html

*** Self-imposed ban reinstated ***

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:My thesis was couched on the morality of engaging in the single largest, controllable contributor to CO2 emissions, which is meat production - a contribution activity larger than the entire transport sector.

I hate to break my self-imposed ban on actually responding to your inane posts, but this one was just too much to take.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissi ... human.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1203.html

*** Self-imposed ban reinstated ***

Really?

In your sources do you note that the meat production industry is not itemized anywhere?

Is that because:
(a) It has a zero percent contribution to CO2 emissions?
(b) It's not segmented?

FYI - the answer is "B." Meat production is not a segmented category.

Meat production includes a cornucopia composed of a percentage of transportation emissions (meat distribution), a percentage of industrial emissions (slaughter line machinery,packing & refrigeration), a percentage of ... you get the picture (well, probably not, but I trust the logic-minded posters in this thread do).

This attempted retort is so utterly inane that it caused me to, quite literally, ROTFL. I actually threw out my knee ROTFL'ing. Had I ROTFL'ed any harder I might have had to activate my medic alert bracelet for assistance in getting up off the floor.

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Firstly - If you live in a developed nation other than Canada, the US, parts of Eastern Europe, or Australia and aren't a vegetarian you - for all intents and purposes - are saying that your satisfaction and well-being is superior to that of any other person. The aforementioned list are the only places in the first world that can legitimately self-sustain a meat production industry.

This is absolutely 100% untrue. What is true is that agribusiness has been heavily promoted and now does dominate US Agriculture to such an extent that for most people living within the US, buying food -- including many vegetable products such as soy -- means using far more water, using petroleum based pesticides and other generally negative impacts. Also, I have to note that when you talk pesticides and herbicides, there are definite trade-offs, but that gets rather complex.

The answer, though is not to just "go vegetarian", that just means more soy, etc. The answer is to buy sustainably produced meat and vegetables. That builds the better form of agriculture, which is what we need. This country absolutely CAN sustain itself well, if things are managed correctly.

I, in fact, DO buy my meat from a fully self-sustaining Amish farmer. I grow or buy (live in town, so no animals and limited produce for now ) produce from other farmers who also produce sustainably, orangically, etc. I buy Alaskan canned salmon, managed in a sustainable fashion and purchase fish such as Tilapia, which are all managed in sustainable fashion..though in the case of Tilapia, it is difficult to trace the exact processes. (you can more or less get an idea by looking at country of origin and understanding how their aquaculture works).

I DO purchase milk that comes from Eastern farms that I am sure use antibiotics and is likely even from genetically modified stock, but that industry is so heavily controlled and regulated it is almost impossible not to do that. (in California, antibiotics are not generally used, because their production is already high. However, many of those farms have been shut down as people find it more beneficial to have a 2 story house and yard than to have a few more farms to feed us.) Organic milk is not available here locally, except unpasturized goat milk. And, while I trust that source, it is just too far away for ready daily travel.

saxitoxin wrote:Every other place is contributing to episodic malnutrition and periodic famine in the third world by forcing developing nations to produce vegetable protein for animal feed rather than people feed.

The famine these areas experience has far, far more to do with economic and political conditions.. things like the IMF only offering loans after a country "opens up" their markets to "other nations" .. meaning that local farmers are shut out, unable to compete with the mass-produced food from the US. (but note, that is exported competing food, not food sold here.. a big difference!).

Also, too often "brilliant" agriculture "experts" came in and told native farmers to change practices... without understanding WHY those practices began from the start.

Monsanto can take a big share of the blame there!

saxitoxin wrote:Secondly - If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all. Meat production generates 1/5 of global CO2 emissions. .

This is another gross distortion. In a self-sustaining system, the plants are fertilized by the animal waste.. it is fully organic and better for plants in many ways, even than compost (the extra step helps reduce transmission of pathogens, but there are other benefits). Traditionally, Animals were fed the "leavings"..the things that we could not eat. We ate the grain, but the cattle ate the chaf. The system ensured there was little or no waste. People did eat meat, but not the way we do today.

saxitoxin wrote:That's all, gang!
Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

You are off your field this time... sorry, but true.

i'd point out that the vast, vast majority of vegetarians are not so by choice, but simply because they cannot afford to eat meat.

on a personal level pedro, seeing as this thread is directed at my answer in another one, whenever i'm questioned about my reasons for not eating meat, i usually just mumble 'ethical'.

clearly nobody needs to eat meat. that much is certain. if you do it's simply out of pleasure, wherein lies the rub.

a dilemma for you: if something higher in the food chain, far more intelligent than humanity etc. were to develop a taste for human flesh, what ethical defence'd you be reaching for to escape from the homo-farm? given that we've been blessed with the twin gifts of intelligence and sentience enough to rationalise such decisions and the agricultural/technological wherewithal simply to render eating meat as obsolete for health/survival reasons, i could not in good conscience, nor can faathom how others, continue to eat meat other than those twin pillars of programming, unthinking and blind continuity that blight much of our shared existence.

p.s - i'm not a hippy

pps - i see i mentioned a trio of pillars. and threw in some pretty random commas.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Firstly - If you live in a developed nation other than Canada, the US, parts of Eastern Europe, or Australia and aren't a vegetarian you - for all intents and purposes - are saying that your satisfaction and well-being is superior to that of any other person. The aforementioned list are the only places in the first world that can legitimately self-sustain a meat production industry.

This is absolutely 100% untrue. What is true is that agribusiness has been heavily promoted and now does dominate US Agriculture to such an extent that for most people living within the US, buying food -- including many vegetable products such as soy -- means using far more water, using petroleum based pesticides and other generally negative impacts. Also, I have to note that when you talk pesticides and herbicides, there are definite trade-offs, but that gets rather complex.

The answer, though is not to just "go vegetarian", that just means more soy, etc. The answer is to buy sustainably produced meat and vegetables. That builds the better form of agriculture, which is what we need. This country absolutely CAN sustain itself well, if things are managed correctly.

I, in fact, DO buy my meat from a fully self-sustaining Amish farmer. I grow or buy (live in town, so no animals and limited produce for now ) produce from other farmers who also produce sustainably, orangically, etc. I buy Alaskan canned salmon, managed in a sustainable fashion and purchase fish such as Tilapia, which are all managed in sustainable fashion..though in the case of Tilapia, it is difficult to trace the exact processes. (you can more or less get an idea by looking at country of origin and understanding how their aquaculture works).

I DO purchase milk that comes from Eastern farms that I am sure use antibiotics and is likely even from genetically modified stock, but that industry is so heavily controlled and regulated it is almost impossible not to do that. (in California, antibiotics are not generally used, because their production is already high. However, many of those farms have been shut down as people find it more beneficial to have a 2 story house and yard than to have a few more farms to feed us.) Organic milk is not available here locally, except unpasturized goat milk. And, while I trust that source, it is just too far away for ready daily travel.

saxitoxin wrote:Every other place is contributing to episodic malnutrition and periodic famine in the third world by forcing developing nations to produce vegetable protein for animal feed rather than people feed.

The famine these areas experience has far, far more to do with economic and political conditions.. things like the IMF only offering loans after a country "opens up" their markets to "other nations" .. meaning that local farmers are shut out, unable to compete with the mass-produced food from the US. (but note, that is exported competing food, not food sold here.. a big difference!).

Also, too often "brilliant" agriculture "experts" came in and told native farmers to change practices... without understanding WHY those practices began from the start.

Monsanto can take a big share of the blame there!

saxitoxin wrote:Secondly - If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all. Meat production generates 1/5 of global CO2 emissions. .

This is another gross distortion. In a self-sustaining system, the plants are fertilized by the animal waste.. it is fully organic and better for plants in many ways, even than compost (the extra step helps reduce transmission of pathogens, but there are other benefits). Traditionally, Animals were fed the "leavings"..the things that we could not eat. We ate the grain, but the cattle ate the chaf. The system ensured there was little or no waste. People did eat meat, but not the way we do today.

saxitoxin wrote:That's all, gang!
Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

You are off your field this time... sorry, but true.

So much effort responding to a comment.

So little effort reading the comment to which you were responding.

(Note, line 2, the words "other than." )

Now go back to sleep, dear. There's a good girl.

Vegans are extinct in Wyoming with Vegetarians (other than maybe Jackson) are on the endangered species list.

Did I mention I consider fetuses to be veggie-friendly?

V.I. wrote:your vagina smells like surf, fitz.

I have no vagina, but concede my ass smells like crap....

like your mouth.

Yogurt

Queen_Herpes wrote:Yogurt

good shout.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Traditionally, Animals were fed the "leavings"..the things that we could not eat. We ate the grain, but the cattle ate the chaf. The system ensured there was little or no waste. People did eat meat, but not the way we do today.

At least I have chaf.

AAFitz wrote:

V.I. wrote:your vagina smells like surf, fitz.

I have no vagina, but concede my ass smells like crap....

like your mouth.

Word on the street is that you have a vagina.

a big stanky one


Honibaz

I know lots of veggies, many of whom tried being vegan for a while then gave up cos it's too difficult. In all cases but one it's a moral thing, which I think is true for most people.

I was puzzled when one day one of them said to me, "It's hard to make sure you get your 5 portions of fruit and veg, isn't it?".

Sonmeone once asked, "What do begans use instead of eggs?" while attempting a vegan-friendly version of some dish or another.
The vegan replied "They bear their young alive like other mammals"

There is also a type of vegetarian that won't eat root vegetables because they believe that because you rip up the root, the plant dies, but eating the leaves allows the plant a chance to regrow.

None of these veggies ever mention that the farmer will probably harvest the leaves, get out the tractor and plough, plough the field and sow new seeds.

khazalid wrote:i'd point out that the vast, vast majority of vegetarians are not so by choice, but simply because they cannot afford to eat meat.

100% true.

khazalid wrote:clearly nobody needs to eat meat. that much is certain. if you do it's simply out of pleasure, wherein lies the rub.

Going from "nobody needs to eat meat" to "if you do, its simply out of pleasure" is a big leap. The REAL truth is that people eat meat becuase it does make sense ecologically, etc.

I went into a lot of that in my answer to saxitoxin. But here is the thing. Cattle, ruminents eat the "chaff", the parts the we cannot process in our bodies. That represents a LOT of material. In return, they provide the farmer with nice, organic fertilizer that, given it goes through the stomache, is often less likely to have nasty pathogens. Note that, yes, we can get around the pathogen issue, to a point, with modern composting methods. Even so, having meat is not the waste that some "eco-vegheads" like to make it out to be.

This is even more true when you talk about rangelands. There are reasons why nomadic farmers tend to have livestock. Rangelands are typically lands not highly suited to crops. Today we do grow crops on many of these lands, but only with a LOT of added water and chemical additives. Those additives AND the fully natural salts, etc tend to accumulate and cause the land to be unusable for ANY use in a generation or less (this is happening all over California and has happened elsewhere). So, sure, you can get crops -- for a few years. OR, you can have properly managed grazing animals for a lifetime.

We have, in this country, lands set aside for public grazing (much as we have public forest lands, etc.) because it was foreseen that these lands were valuable, but it was often too unproductive to be owned. A lot of former grazing land was sold off to builders and/or crop farmers. (In a lot of cases, the government actually encouraged this transition, experts not paying attention to or not understanding long-term consequences).

khazalid wrote:a dilemma for you: if something higher in the food chain, far more intelligent than humanity etc. were to develop a taste for human flesh, what ethical defence'd you be reaching for to escape from the homo-farm? given that we've been blessed with the twin gifts of intelligence and sentience enough to rationalise such decisions and the agricultural/technological wherewithal simply to render eating meat as obsolete for health/survival reasons, i could not in good conscience, nor can faathom how others, continue to eat meat other than those twin pillars of programming, unthinking and blind continuity that blight much of our shared existence.

The point here is that the animals we eat (at least the ones most of us eat) do not have anything close to human intelligence. Your argument is among one of several for not eating whales, the apes, etc.

khazalid wrote:p.s - i'm not a hippy

good chance I am more of one that you (I was born not too far from Berkeley, CA)

P.S. intelligent debate boosts mental capacity/recovery ... so keep it up!

I wouldn't have a big problem eating human flesh if we had a meat crisis of some radical kind. I can live on fruits and vegetables for a couple weeks and then something has to die.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:I wouldn't have a big problem eating human flesh if we had a meat crisis of some radical kind. I can live on fruits and vegetables for a couple weeks and then something has to die.


Honibaz

Well, you are what you eat. So if the only human meat you eat is vegetarians, they are what they eat and that makes them vegetables too.

jonesthecurl wrote:
Well, you are what you eat.

I suppose that would make me a vagina.


Honibaz