|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point. Have you stopped consuming unethical meat, whatever that means to you?
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
As much as possible
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:There's greater genetic diversity amongst fish than amongst all land animals, so it's hard to generalise. But some species of fish pass the mirror test: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000021 Yeah I've looked into the algal oil and it looks promising, the big issue there is that it's way more expensive and my dog doesn't like capsules and he needs it at least as much as I do for his old joints. I figure if all the animal products I consume is a bottle of cod liver oil a month I'm in pretty good shape, mostly just curious about the science/ethics on this point. Is genetic diversity a metric that's used a lot? At a glance it seems to me like the people who years ago would try to find correlations between things and number of genes or complexity of them only to find out it's basically useless for that, like it ended up being a "yep it's cold blooded" sort of thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:As much as possible What steps do you take to accomplish this? No restaurants, no grocery store meat, it must be very different than the average person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
What bearing does my personal ability to abide by my own ethical principles have on any of this? If I chose to be vegan I would be exactly as successful, whatever that may be. I haven't dined in in 3 years so... What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Is genetic diversity a metric that's used a lot? At a glance it seems to me like the people who years ago would try to find correlations between things and number of genes or complexity of them only to find out it's basically useless for that, like it ended up being a "yep it's cold blooded" sort of thing No idea I was just paraphrasing QI! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Yeah I've looked into the algal oil and it looks promising, the big issue there is that it's way more expensive and my dog doesn't like capsules and he needs it at least as much as I do for his old joints. I figure if all the animal products I consume is a bottle of cod liver oil a month I'm in pretty good shape, mostly just curious about the science/ethics on this point. I'm far from an expert, but here's a study done in 2011 for ALA vs EPA/DHA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223874/. Most of it is well above my comprehension, but the conclusion from it is (FA = fatty acid): quote:In conclusion, adults with metabolic syndrome taking (n-3) FA from either plant or marine sources for 8 wk, at doses that were either moderate and obtainable through dietary intake or high and would require supplementation, did not show a reduction in the blood concentrations of selected inflammatory markers. Although the relationship between (n-3) FA supplementation or consumption from fish and decreased cardiovascular events is generally accepted, the mechanism for this effect is not fully understood. The potential health benefits of (n-3) FA may be mediated by a mechanism that has an insignificant effect on specific markers of inflammation in the blood, such as the prevention of fatal arrhythmias (45). Further research is warranted to better elucidate the mechanism of action and ideal consumption of (n-3) FA for potential health benefits. An additional thing to note is that this study was only 8 weeks long, so I don't know if that's a factor in overall conditions either. But yea, I agree that a bottle of cod liver oil/month is nothing in the grand scheme of things anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:As much as possible So you have not, then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm far from an expert, but here's a study done in 2011 for ALA vs EPA/DHA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223874/. Most of it is well above my comprehension, but the conclusion from it is (FA = fatty acid): Thanks, I'll look into it a bit more. The science saying "  we don't know but both seemed to have the same effect" is actually a step in favor of ALA since the last time I looked into it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Falathrim posted:So you have not, then. See the previous posts about vegans driving on roads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What bearing does my personal ability to abide by my own ethical principles have on any of this? If I chose to be vegan I would be exactly as successful, whatever that may be. Harold Fjord posted:I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point. You imply by this quote that to "reach this point" it would be necessary to stop consuming all unethical meat. I'm trying to see if you live in alignment with those principals. I am skeptical and this is why vegans push for what you consider a hardline stance. No animal products is a much easier and consistent position to hold than your fuzzy "ethical meat" idea that would be nearly impossible to live by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:See the previous posts about vegans driving on roads. Driving does not guarantee accidents or harm. A steak guarantees harm. Violence is inherent in the product.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Driving does not guarantee accidents or harm. A steak guarantees harm. Violence is inherent in the product. The discussion was animal by-products used in road materials. Do you engage with media where meat is advertised?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
DrBox posted:You imply by this quote that to "reach this point" it would be necessary to stop consuming all unethical meat. I'm trying to see if you live in alignment with those principals. I'm not implying anything I'm just following the conversation from someone claiming that we would end factory farming through collective economic action. It's not necessary for me to stop buying meat from the guy down the road who doesn't factory farm to achieve that. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Driving does not guarantee accidents or harm. I would say that this is equally applicable to a rodeo that's why the word is accident
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I would say that this is equally applicable to a rodeo that's why the word is accident You don't see a difference in intentionally putting animals in dangerous situations for entertainment vs driving with some potential unintended harm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
I think the way you are using intentional and unintentional is deliberate and incorrect
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
I think there's a pretty good case to be made that the act of driving is one of intentionally putting animals in harms way, I see evidence of this quite often and that's just the direct effects. I've always figured the reason bullfighting was in the spotlight wasn't just because of the obvious stuff, but because it's the centerpoint of a ritual that is very much about the embrace of violence and death and other macho poo poo, which car culture also is but not quite as...nakedly I guess. Like when Clarke needed an example to be made of wonton animal cruelty in Childhood's End it was bullfighting he chose, and he wasn't some hippie or anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I don't see why it is necessary to stop consuming all meat instead of unethically produced meat to reach that point. Because the vast, vast majority of meat comes factory farms that do not treat animals well. It is not possible to consume the amount of meat we do as a society and also raise the animals ethically. Unless you painstakingly research where every cut of meat you buy comes from, and pay a significant price premium, you will certainly consume the majority of your meat from factory farms. Based on that, I don't see how you can hold the belief that factory farming is bad and should go away, while also maintaining steady consumption animal products. Those are incompatible positions. So if your position is to stop consuming unethical animal products, you essentially are advocating for backdoor veganism, since the vast majority of the population would not be able to consume animal products in a world where all animals are raised ethically. Meat would become a luxury item equivalent to caviar that can only be consumed on very special occasions or by the very rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Seph posted:Because the vast, vast majority of meat comes factory farms that do not treat animals well. It is not possible to consume the amount of meat we do as a society and also raise the animals ethically. Please quit doing this goalpost shifting routine. It has already been addressed repeatedly. I think the only person who was hardcore advocating to change nothing was silence kit and they haven't posted in pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:1) Are fish = conscious and meat still as contentious a point as it was like a decade ago last I checked in on it? What about stuff like scallops or oysters? Idk about fish (see other posters) but there was a pretty convincing academic article (which I can no longer find to save my life. Most of the arguments are easy to find in Google results, if less well put) that bivalves are the most likely to be OK. I think there's a huge cloud of uncertainty over what we know which makes strong and precise utilitarian arguments about meat eating challenging, since there are fundamental limitations to our ability to understand the experience of beings other than ourselves. Secondly, and I appreciate that not everyone will take this view, if you're not sure about fish but are about other animals, just stop eating the others! It's not an all or nothing thing, you don't have to make being "vegan" a key part of your identity. This article about (forums enemy) Ezra Klein's attitude was the thing that really enabled me to cut out products that I already considered unethical from my life. https://veganstrategist.org/2016/12/30/the-imperfect-veganism-of-ezra-klein/?doing_wp_cron=1662743427.7378489971160888671875 posted:There is a fair amount of behavioral science evidence that it is important for people to act in ways reasonably consonant with the identity that they have for themselves. (…) And this is something I found because I floated back and forth between veg’ism and not for a long time (…). What happened was I would say “I’m going vegetarian”, and then at some point, I would fail. And having failed, it’s not like what would happen is that I would go to 95% vegetarian: I would completely collapse back into full-on omnivorism. And the reason in part was that if I’d set up the success structure such that I was vegetarian or I was not, then “was not” was almost the same kind of failure, no matter how much meat I was eating, what kind of meat I was eating…” For my partner and me this meant not eating beef, then any meat except the sausages from the farmer's market which we loved. We knew it was bad but it worked for us - and pretty quickly we stopped buying them as well, and so on. By making it not an all or nothing thing we eventually able to get to a place that we hadn't been able to when we considered it a binary choice. distortion park fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Please quit doing this goalpost shifting routine. It has already been addressed repeatedly. I'm not shifting the goal posts. I am saying if your position is "stop eating unethical meat" you are advocating for veganism (or 99% veganism) for society. It's great that you personally can afford to buy ethical meat, but that is not a scalable solution to end animal suffering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
distortion park posted:Secondly, and I appreciate that not everyone will take this view, if you're not sure about fish but are about other animals, just stop eating the others! It's not an all or nothing thing, you don't have to make being "vegan" a key part of your identity. This article about (forums enemy) Ezra Klein's attitude was the thing that really enabled me to cut out products that I already considered unethical from my life. Trying to get everyone I know to go from beef to turkey. Seph posted:I'm not shifting the goal posts. I am saying if your position is "stop eating unethical meat" you are advocating for veganism (or 99% veganism) for society. It's great that you personally can afford to buy ethical meat, but that is not a scalable solution to end animal suffering. ok that's the goalpost I'm talking about. Now it's not about what I'm doing but some vague concept of ending animal suffering (but not in the wild or by having animals and treating them nicely). Maybe it's a side effect of Rotating Vegan theory but one minute it's about personal morality the next it's about real social change at scale Edit- if you think I'm already effectively vegan, great. We have nothing to talk about. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Trying to get everyone I know to go from beef to turkey. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster who was making a different argument. I thought you were against factory farming and would like to get rid of that. I asked you what your solution was, and you said to stop eating unethical meat. I then explained how that is not a scalable solution and would not produce results unless society significantly reduced their animal product consumption. Is there something I'm missing there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Trying to get everyone I know to go from beef to turkey. You've also moved from some beef you can buy is ok, to switch from beef to Turkey. Perhaps you could give some links to actual products available in shops that you consider ethical to consume? (And in what sort of quantity given the good point made by Seph above)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think there's a pretty good case to be made that the act of driving is one of intentionally putting animals in harms way, Harold Fjord posted:Trying to get everyone I know to go from beef to turkey. Vegans aren't shifting goalposts. The vegan position has not changed. The only reason we keep wafflingb in this conversation is when people try to argue personal responsibility does not impact anything and it is society that has to change. At that point we have to talk about how to get society to change and I argue individuals living their values is a big part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Seph posted:Maybe you are confusing me with another poster who was making a different argument. I thought you were against factory farming and would like to get rid of that. I asked you what your solution was, and you said to stop eating unethical meat. I then explained how that is not a scalable solution and would not produce results unless society significantly reduced their animal product consumption. This is a thread about veganism and getting rid of factory farming is one of the arguments in favor of going vegan. I support that goal, but don't see going vegan as necessary. I see veganism as unnecessarily extreme for meeting many of the stated goals. The bolded seems exactly as applicable to veganism as it is to ethically sourcing your meat in terms of achieving that goal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Do you consider this the same for humans? Pedestrians get hit all the time but most people do not agree the act of getting in a car is intentionally putting them at risk. I do, I am profoundly anti-car and I hate them. Driving a car means you are putting lives at risk necessarily, just pretending it isn't heavy equipment that requires constant attention doesn't change the reality of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
DrBox posted:only reason we keep wafflingb in this conversation is when people try to argue personal responsibility does not impact anything and it is society that has to change. At that point we have to talk about how to get society to change and I argue individuals living their values is a big part. On this point, I suppose the question could be phrased as do you think that stopping eating meat makes it more or less likely that society will change? I personally don't see an avenue from me eating meat to society eating less meat, whereas the opposite does seem at least possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
distortion park posted:You've also moved from some beef you can buy is ok, to switch from beef to Turkey. This isn't so much a "move" as "walking while also chewing bubblegum" gently caress turkeys. Calories per life is an absurd metric. Class solidarity, if any.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
I don't understand this bit - veganism is dramatically more scalable in terms of both land use and climate impacts than basically all major forms of animal agriculture
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This is a thread about veganism and getting rid of factory farming is one of the arguments in favor of going vegan. I support that goal, but don't see going vegan as necessary. I see veganism as unnecessarily extreme for meeting many of the stated goals. I am specifically asking you how we can get rid of factory farming without reducing consumption, since you say going vegan isn't necessary. Unless you mean the wealthiest individuals in society can continue to consume ethically raised meat, while the rest go vegan? I don't see how you get the otherwise, which is why I am asking you to explain your solution that doesn't involve veganism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Seph posted:I am specifically asking you how we can get rid of factory farming without reducing consumption, since you say going vegan isn't necessary. This is absurd. Who said not to reduce consumption? What does reducing consumption have to do with veganism? You should start the thread over, you missed something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Not virtue signaling. I'll address that exact issue, then. Not all vegans say TNR is okay. Certainly no one in this thread. You've brought it up as a total strawman. https://www.peta.org/features/does-tnr-really-save-cats/ posted:The bottom line is that TNR makes humans—not cats and certainly not wildlife—feel better. Veterinarian and syndicated animal-advice columnist Dr. Michael W. Fox doesn’t mince words when he says that it’s “unconscionable” to abandon cats who are considered “unadoptable” and calls TNR a “blight” on the animal-sheltering community. “It is time to reevaluate the ‘no-kill’ policies that incentivize these terrible outcomes for cats and wildlife, and it is time to work for responsible solutions,” he says. I don't agree with everything on that page but literally PETA says that euthanasia is probably better than TNR. We're responsible for the welfare of beings in environments or situations we create. So, just as I'm responsible for the pets I've taken into my house, and I've taken them to be euthanized when they reach a pitiable enough state, perhaps so too we should treat the animals we take in on a city wide scale, like feral cats. In other words, if we build a city and that makes life worse for the animals who were living in that space previously then certainly we are accountable for that result. Neither TNR not euthanasia is an ideal situations, and if there is a way to have a good outcome for the cats without TNR and without euthanasia then we should certainly do that. I posted a method I find favorable, which is to make cat shelters and attempt to improve the lives of the cats who live in spaces we create.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This is absurd. Who said not to reduce consumption? What does reducing consumption have to do with veganism? It's not absurd. I'm not sure if you understand how much meat comes from factory farming. Factory farming produces the vast majority of animal products. For most animal products it's around 98-99%. Beef is lower around 70%. So either you're advocating for what is de facto veganism for most of society since it would require a 99% reduction in consumption, or you have some alternative solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I do, I am profoundly anti-car and I hate them. Driving a car means you are putting lives at risk necessarily, just pretending it isn't heavy equipment that requires constant attention doesn't change the reality of it. distortion park posted:On this point, I suppose the question could be phrased as do you think that stopping eating meat makes it more or less likely that society will change? I personally don't see an avenue from me eating meat to society eating less meat, whereas the opposite does seem at least possible. The second more tangible outcome depends on if you believe in voting. The grocery stores look different now than 10 years ago in terms of available specialty vegan products. That is a direct result of more vegans demanding change and voting through consumer habits and societal pressure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Interesting. By that measure every time you order something online and it gets delivered you have a major ethical dilemma. I'll think about that more but with regular day to day driving I don't consider it analogous to the original rodeo discussion. That would be more like stunt driving on busy roads. I think veganism/vegetarianism/animal rights is a topic of discussion where there aren't many things that line up 1:1 for purposes of comparison, which is where a lot of acrimony comes from that isn't from how pretty much every culture will put advocates on the defensive as a strategy to stay sane, and I don't think it's akin to rodeo because driving is primarily an economic/necessity thing versus a strictly social thing. It's more just an acknowledgement that cars and especially their infrastructure really gently caress animals and nature up hard in a lot of ways that rarely get examined, but I notice them because I hate cars and driving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
The argument seems to be that anything less than 100% veganism isn't really veganism since it only greatly reduces animal consumption? I think it's a weird end case like "what would we do with the animals if we ended farms". This is a gradual process that vegans are fighting for, recognizing that their end goals will likely not be achieved but putting forward a morally cogent argument that not breeding and killing animals is the best goal. If we achieve a scenario where only incredibly small numbers of ethically raised animals are bred to be humanely killed for luxury food, vegans would still argue that this is morally wrong, but you're arguing for a scenario that is as incredibly unlikely to achieve and features almost the same goals as full veganism, and a bit pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Seph posted:So either you're advocating for what is de facto veganism for most of society since it would require a 99% reduction in consumption, Ok. So, what's your problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
XboxPants posted:I'll address that exact issue, then. Someone did. and I ask because I strongly agree with the bolded but at this point, its the whole drat planet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:42
|
|