|
DrBox posted:Did you actually watch the video I linked? Even the first few minutes is enough to convince me that zoos in the conventional sense cannot be done well. Yes I did, and I did not come to that conclusion. The video shows some really awful zoos. It does not make a good argument that being awful in this way is inherent to zoos. DrBox posted:I'm sure there is some value in exposing people to animals they will not otherwise see but that's not a good argument for chaining up a lion on my front lawn. The harm outweighs the good. Where in anything I have said do you get the idea that I would think this is a moral thing to do? I say "well cared for' and "stimulated" and you jump to a lion chained up in the front lawn. If you aren't actually going to address what I say in good faith, why bother? You are a zealot, and you only see to hear what you want to hear. If you are looking for an example of something I think is in the right direction, I think the San Diego zoo's wild animal park is more in the mode of what I am thinking, but I think you could go even further that direction. But honestly, I don't think you care. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 10, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Yes I did, and I did not come to that conclusion. The video shows some really awful zoos. It does not make a good argument that being awful in this way is inherent to zoos. Yeah those are, as you say, some "really awful zoos".  I think it comes down to how we define a zoo and how open it can be. Is Yellowstone Park a zoo? If we walled in all of Kenya and had raised trolleys for people to ride and see the animals, would that be a zoo? What about all of Africa, or if we left Earth and let it go back to nature, would that be a zoo?I think the main issue I would object to is capturing or breeding animals and keeping them in an enclosure. But if you don't do that, then it can be okay. There are places that you might call "vegan zoos" such as the Gentle Barn. It's sort of a combination animal rescue/animal ambassador, I've been to the one in Tennessee and it was great. Here's a video: https://vimeo.com/636482394
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Yes I did, and I did not come to that conclusion. The video shows some really awful zoos. It does not make a good argument that being awful in this way is inherent to zoos. However since you're making what is essentially a utilitarian argument I'm not sure you really need to argue about the actual conditions? It sounds like you're basically saying that as long as it improves the welfare of other animals it's acceptable. I think you will have trouble convincing animal rights activists who are opposed to zoos because they will probably not accept utilitarianism with respect to animals any more than they would for people In fact, if you do not otherwise consider yourself a utilitarian, you should probably recognize that people who advocate for animal rights from a deontological perspective are inherently not going to be able to accept your position because there is an implicit assumption in your argument that moral rules do not apply to animals in the same way as they do to humans. mystes fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
mystes posted:Even in the better zoos like the San Diego Zoo, most animals are given a tiny fraction of the space area they would normally roam around in and they aren't in anything that's really close to their natural habitat. To me, the important thing is that the animals are happy and healthy. Not that their enclosure is exactly the same size as they would roam in the wild. mystes posted:It sounds like you're basically saying that as long as it improves the welfare of other animals it's acceptable. I am not, no. I do think the healthy and happy bit matters. If that can be achieved for an animal in captivity, I don't see an issue with doing so. mystes posted:In fact, if you do not otherwise consider yourself a utilitarian, you should probably recognize that people who advocate for animal rights from a deontological perspective are inherently not going to be able to accept your position because there is an implicit assumption in your argument that moral rules do not apply to animals in the same way as they do to humans. You're right, we would disagree on this point. I think the life of a human is worth more, morally, than the life of a chicken. If someone truly has that belief, I would think they would need to live a lifestyle similar to those who follow Jainism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Yes I did, and I did not come to that conclusion. The video shows some really awful zoos. It does not make a good argument that being awful in this way is inherent to zoos I'll look into the wild animal park but initial reaction is still not great. It's certainly better but it still houses 3600 animals in an area smaller than 2km by 2km. The opportunity cost alone is really frustrating. They could do so much for actual nature preserves and wildlife sanctuaries for the money they spend here. DeadlyMuffin posted:Where in anything I have said do you get the idea that I would think this is a moral thing to do? DeadlyMuffin posted:To me, the important thing is that the animals are happy and healthy. Not that their enclosure is exactly the same size as they would roam in the wild. DeadlyMuffin posted:You're right, we would disagree on this point. I think the life of a human is worth more, morally, than the life of a chicken. If someone truly has that belief, I would think they would need to live a lifestyle similar to those who follow Jainism. I guess this is a fundamental disagreement where you see zoos as a promising endeavor and I see the evidence pointing to a failed experiment. I'm not sure what studies I could show to change your mind. For me the only logical answer would be to abandon the zoo concept and move towards nature preserves and national parks. Anything less is simply exploitation for entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:The problem is those zoos were mostly well run and regulated. Those stats on psychiatric drug use among zoo animals came from EASA zoos, not some shady roadside operations. Your implication here is that it is impossible to keep animals happy and healthy in captivity. I disagree, and think those zoos could do much better. "Mostly well run and regulated" is implying they can't do any better. DrBox posted:Yikes, I was being facetious. I didn't meant to trigger you! Nah, you were being a jerk and now you're backpedaling. Don't do this "gosh you're so triggered!" routine, it is gross. DrBox posted:I don't think cats are the same as humans but I cringe every time I walk by a pet store window regardless of how hard the employees try to entertain them. Can you explain why? If the cats you're seeing are happy, then why cringe? DrBox posted:I guess this is a fundamental disagreement where you see zoos as a promising endeavor and I see the evidence pointing to a failed experiment. I'm not sure what studies I could show to change your mind. For me the only logical answer would be to abandon the zoo concept and move towards nature preserves and national parks. I think that the exposure that people get to animals in captivity in places like zoos and aquariums encourages empathy and curiosity towards animals that a Disney movie does not. While not impossible, I think you would have a harder time convincing people that the habitats of some of these animals was worth protecting if they had never actually seen one and never would unless they had the money to go visit one in habitat or some rehabilitation center (which would likely be near habitat anyway). Maybe a personal example would help: I scuba dive so I visit local marine habitat pretty regularly. Climate change and fishing are hitting it hard, and there is generally far less empathy towards marine animals than cute tigers and elephants. There is a large aquarium nearby that has many of the same animals I see in the wild. I think that aquarium exposes a much larger audience to the marine environment that I care very much about than will *ever* see it while diving. Seeing those animals in the flesh will help people understand the value in protecting them far more than Finding Nemo will. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Your implication here is that it is impossible to keep animals happy and healthy in captivity. I disagree, and think those zoos could do much better. "Mostly well run and regulated" is implying they can't do any better. DeadlyMuffin posted:Nah, you were being a jerk and now you're backpedaling. Don't do this "gosh you're so triggered!" routine, it is gross. DeadlyMuffin posted:Can you explain why? If the cats you're seeing are happy, then why cringe? DeadlyMuffin posted:I think that the exposure that people get to animals in captivity in places like zoos and aquariums encourages empathy and curiosity towards animals that a Disney movie does not. While not impossible, I think you would have a harder time convincing people that the habitats of some of these animals was worth protecting if they had never actually seen one and never would unless they had the money to go visit one in habitat or some rehabilitation center (which would likely be near habitat anyway).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Pet stores as they exist often confine animals in too small spaces. But you seem to oppose any kind of confinement, is that right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Yikes, I was being facetious. I didn't meant to trigger you! This isn't the comment section of a Ben Shapiro video on Facebook, if you can't converse with others in this thread with some degree of respect for both them and the subject matter at hand you will no longer be permitted the opportunity to attempt to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Pet stores as they exist often confine animals in too small spaces. But you seem to oppose any kind of confinement, is that right? Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think nearly all pet stores [that actually sell animals] are puppy-mill type shops…
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Go to an aquarium and hang out near the fish. You'll hear kids lose their mind when they see a Nemo or a Dory. They did not need to be exposed to the fish in a tank before learning to love those fish. I take people all the time. Kids react to clownfish like seeing their favorite cartoon character. I don't think Mickey Mouse has done much for preserving mouse life. What the aquarium does do is show segments of an ecosystem that I love to people who would otherwise never see it. That's really important to me, because I feel like aquatic animals are really given short shrift, like the questions about if fish have feelings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I take people all the time. Kids react to clownfish like seeing their favorite cartoon character. I don't think Mickey Mouse has done much for preserving mouse life. I think it's wonderful that you love the ocean ecosystem so much that you want to share that with others. I think it's fantastic, myself, I started planning a beach trip literally today. But that's your interest, not the fish's. Have any of those people stopped eating fish because of it? Have you, personally stopped eating these fish who you believe have feelings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:04
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I think it's wonderful that you love the ocean ecosystem so much that you want to share that with others. I think it's fantastic, myself, I started planning a beach trip literally today. But that's your interest, not the fish's. Yeah, actually. I know several divers who no longer eat seafood after diving, and while I don't think my aquarium trips have gotten people completely off fish, I do know it has made them far choosier about what they do eat (some fishing practices being more sustainable, and I would argue ethical than others). The aquarium itself is into it too, check out "seafood watch". I personally do still eat some seafood, but I am careful about what I do and don't eat. It also increases interest in things like marine preserves. Seafood is one of the only wild things we really eat, the ecological impact of farming matters, but pulling things out of habitat at a massive scale is even more direct. If we did to a forest what bottom trawlers do to the sea, there would be massive outrage. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Yeah, actually. I know several divers who no longer eat seafood after diving, and while I don't think my aquarium trips have gotten people completely off fish, I do know it has made them far choosier about what they do eat (some fishing practices being more sustainable, and I would argue ethical than others). The aquarium itself is into it too, check out "seafood watch". Ok, now I'm confused. Careful in what way? Ethical in what way? I've heard the argument that oysters are closer to a plant than an animal and probably okay even for a vegan, and I don't have a strong opinion there. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I'd say it's probably still better not to kill an animal even if they don't feel it, just like with humans, but I wouldn't even argue if someone said oysters were fair game. I always thought they were gross as poo poo as a kid so I never learned to eat them so now it's not an issue for me. I'm also curious whether you eat other animals, like land animals. Fish were actually the first animals I stopped eating, when I was a kid. Decades before even considering going all in. There was a horrific cartoon called Yeh-Shen: A Chinese Cinderella Story where instead of a fairy godmother, she has a sort of "fairy goldfish" and her wicked stepsisters loving kill and eat him in front of Yeh-Shen and brag and mock her just as an act of passive abuse, it really freaked me the gently caress out as a kid and I wouldn't eat fish sticks anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Ok, now I'm confused. Careful in what way? Ethical in what way? I've heard the argument that oysters are closer to a plant than an animal and probably okay even for a vegan, and I don't have a strong opinion there. Is that the kind of thing you mean? I'd say it's probably still better not to kill an animal even if they don't feel it, just like with humans, but I wouldn't even argue if someone said oysters were fair game. I always thought they were gross as poo poo as a kid so I never learned to eat them so now it's not an issue for me. What part are you confused about? Check out seafoodwatch.org and that'll give you a general idea. The oyster argument seems pretty silly to me but I will eat sustainability grown/harvested oysters or scallops. I would eat fish someone I know caught, but otherwise would use the same sort of criteria you see on the seafood watch website. People are so calous about seafood: I was offered live octopus in Korea and was pretty upset by it. I do eat land animals. I don't like factory farming and believe we need stricter rules on the environments these animals are kept in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What part are you confused about? I did check out that website and it mostly seemed to be about ecological sustainability. It doesn't really touch the subject of whether it's okay to kill a living fish that has feelings for our benefit. You think fish have feelings. How can there be an ethical way to kill them? Even if some methods cause less suffering than others, wouldn't no suffering be best? You seem to me to care about animal welfare, but not animal liberation, and problematically not see the difference. But those two issues are incompatible. Have you ever been locked up? Jail, prison, psych ward, reform school, rehab, it doesn't matter how pleasant it is, how nice they are to you, if you're in that situation I bet you'll agree that they're doing harm to you merely by stripping your ability to choose what you think is best for you. We cannot take care of a being and liberate them at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I did check out that website and it mostly seemed to be about ecological sustainability. It doesn't really touch the subject of whether it's okay to kill a living fish that has feelings for our benefit. I was answering a question you asked. Do you feel that someone who chooses not to eat a fish because it was harvested in a damaging way is immoral? I've certainly heard vegans make empassioned environmental arguments for veganism. Different opinions, I suppose. XboxPants posted:You think fish have feelings. How can there be an ethical way to kill them? Even if some methods cause less suffering than others, wouldn't no suffering be best? You seem to me to care about animal welfare, but not animal liberation, and problematically not see the difference. But those two issues are incompatible. An ethical way to kill an animal is quick and as painless as possible. Happy and healthy is how an animal should be kept; up until that point if it's a food animal, or indefinitely if we're talking about something like a zoo. But I don't think animal welfare and animal liberation are inseparable. I'd wager that position would come as a surprise to many people who support animal welfare. Unless this is a no-true-scotsman situation. XboxPants posted:Have you ever been locked up? Jail, prison, psych ward, reform school, rehab, it doesn't matter how pleasant it is, how nice they are to you, if you're in that situation I bet you'll agree that they're doing harm to you merely by stripping your ability to choose what you think is best for you. We cannot take care of a being and liberate them at the same time. Imagine a chicken that lives in an idyllic farmyard. It lives it's life being able to explore a large yard, it is fed, and well taken care of. Do you think that bird would suffer the same psychological pain that a person imprisoned against their will would be? The chicken does not understand that it is imprisoned. The person does. If it helps, my concern for the marine environment is not primarily motivated by my concern for the feelings of it's inhabitants. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 08:36
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I was answering a question you asked. Do you feel that someone who chooses not to eat a fish because it was harvested in a damaging way is immoral? I've certainly heard vegans make empassioned environmental arguments for veganism. Different opinions, I suppose. Thank you, yes that helps. It seems to me as though you view fish almost like one might view art, or treasure. It has great value and beauty to you, but you may do with it as you wish. But, think of that treasure as a stolen cultural relic, instead. It doesn't matter how well you care for it, or how much it helps people appreciate the culture it belongs to. It doesn't belong to you. It's theft. Only, you're advocating the theft of entire beings and their bodies and lives. It doesn't matter if the chicken feels the same pain or even any pain at all. What you're advocating is species based colonialism. That we can choose what's best for another without their input. The fish that's on the hook is fighting for it's life and freedom. I won't go into detail because you probably know way more than me: It doesn't want to be caught and killed. Do you disagree with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It also increases interest in things like marine preserves. Seafood is one of the only wild things we really eat, the ecological impact of farming matters, but pulling things out of habitat at a massive scale is even more direct. If we did to a forest what bottom trawlers do to the sea, there would be massive outrage. FYI, mass deforestation is happening in the Amazon Rainforst, primarily due to the livestock industry. Unfortunately there’s no massive outrage, just a handful of news articles each year. Unless I’m mis-interpreting what you mean by “if we did to a forest what bottom trawlers do to the sea” Kalit fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Yep which is why I was discussing why I deliberately avoid those comparisons. It's for that very reason! You're certainly right on this. I was really enjoying this discussion until the thread took this turn, and it's silly but it honestly has made me completely disregard everything you have said up to this point. What an abhorrent world view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 11:21
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:You're certainly right on this. I was really enjoying this discussion until the thread took this turn, and it's silly but it honestly has made me completely disregard everything you have said up to this point. Does this Holocaust survivor have an abhorrent world view?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I do eat land animals. I don't like factory farming and believe we need stricter rules on the environments these animals are kept in. Do you not like it enough to stop paying for it? People tend to show support for better conditions for the animals and labels such as free range but it rings hollow if they shrug their shoulders and continue to buy the low welfare factory farmed products. Mega Comrade posted:You're certainly right on this. I was really enjoying this discussion until the thread took this turn, and it's silly but it honestly has made me completely disregard everything you have said up to this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Does this Holocaust survivor have an abhorrent world view? It's amusing how often this one person's view has been trotted out in this thread. Yes, I'm sure there are parallels in the logistics of how large numbers of people were moved and treated during the Holocaust and factory farming. I abhor the former and am not particularly bothered by the latter. Once you get past our fundamental disagreement about the relative value of animals compared to humans, what exactly do you believe is novel about this person's view?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Does this Holocaust survivor have an abhorrent world view? Yeah but it's pretty easy to forgive them for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Thank you, yes that helps. No, not at all. They are living things and not inanimate objects. XboxPants posted:But, think of that treasure as a stolen cultural relic, instead. It doesn't matter how well you care for it, or how much it helps people appreciate the culture it belongs to. It doesn't belong to you. It's theft. Only, you're advocating the theft of entire beings and their bodies and lives. Again, no. It matters very much what the chicken feels, which is why I see no issue with the happy and healthy chicken in captivity. XboxPants posted:The fish that's on the hook is fighting for it's life and freedom. I won't go into detail because you probably know way more than me: It doesn't want to be caught and killed. Do you disagree with that? I don't disagree at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Kalit posted:FYI, mass deforestation is happening in the Amazon Rainforst, primarily due to the livestock industry. Unfortunately there’s no massive outrage, just a handful of news articles each year. That is probably the closest analogue, but I don't think it's quite the same. Although obviously also horrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
DrBox posted:The Holocaust involved similar methods to factory farming: So the similarities are only methodological? Would you make the same comparison to a more haphazard mass murder, of which there are many examples? Does smaller scale animal agriculture have the same moral problems? Apologies, your citations aren't really helping me figure out what principles you're applying where this analogy makes sense. DrBox posted:As for slavery the comparisons should be obvious. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
This will be the last post I make on this derail because we have illustrated beautifully how it smothers the conversation. I mentioned Dr Hershaft because of this quote: Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:if i were walking through the public square and someone had signs up equating chicken farms to the actual Holocaust, i would do everything i could to avoid speaking to that person Yashichi posted:So the similarities are only methodological? Would you make the same comparison to a more haphazard mass murder, of which there are many examples? Does smaller scale animal agriculture have the same moral problems? Yes the comparison is to the methods used by the Nazis where Jewish people and others in world war 2 were compared to animals, treated like animals and systematically killed like animals. The point animal rights activists are making when they make the comparison is not to say humans and animals are the same. It's only to point out that there is no morally relevant difference that should encourage this type of treatment for any sentient being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
For the vegans of this thread, what do you typically eat during the week? Breakfast for me is oatmeal, almond milk, frozen blueberries, ground flax seed. For lunch I'll have bean pasta with marinara sauce and chopped kale mixed in, or brown rice and beans. Dinner is hard because my family expects a hunk of meat with sides (the typical American dinner).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
For breakfast I usually have oat porridge (oatmeal) too. I like to slice some fruit on top. For lunch I recently got into burritos (onions and courgettes/zucchini fried with paprika and then mixed with refried beans, then wrapped in the tortilla) For dinner I often make bean chilli (onion, jalapenos and bell peppers fried with cumin, then I put it in a slow cooker with passata, canned tomato, and various cans of beans)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:For the vegans of this thread, what do you typically eat during the week? I worked this weekend. Breakfast was light both days. Granola bar and some grapes. I had some mixed nuts and dried fruit for snacks in between. Yesterday: Lunch was a mock salami sandwich with baby spinach, sprouts, mayo, mustard etc. Dinner was lentils. Dhal Tadka with garlic naan bread. Today: Lunch was a chickpea curry. Dinner is on stove right now. Pasta with a red pepper tomato sauce and some tvp mince add garlic flatbread on the side. We keep it pretty basic. I aspire to eat more whole foods but there's a lot of mock meat thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:For the vegans of this thread, what do you typically eat during the week? This is a large post so feel free to skim. For your dinner issue, I'd just focus on punching up and varying the sides as much as possible to show meat isn't the only tasty food. People will lie and say something else is the same as steak or roast chicken but it isn't. Impossible ground meat is pretty drat close to ground beef, though, you could try it. As for me, I usually go pretty light for breakfast. Actually thanks for the reminder, I love the Sushi Chef instant miso soup packets that you can often find for under a dollar. Otherwise, some combo of nuts/toast/avocado/hummus/peanut butter, or just a half cup of whatever's leftover. Unfrosted pop-tarts and many cereals are vegan if I want to eat something more unhealthy & crave sugar. Anything by Quaker Oats, like Oatmeal Squares and Life, are on the menu. For lunch I often go with a simple sandwich. I've been buying Tofurky deli slices 'cause they're just so goddamn cheap & easy lately. Sandwich with some nice nutty multigrain bread like Dave's, a few slices of Tofurkey, hummus, chard and jalepeno slices. I fried up some mushrooms the other day for one of those sandwiches, that was super good. Those prepackaged sprout salads are great, too, p cheap. Yesterday for lunch I made some buffalo cauliflower with crushed peanuts and jalapenos (I got a poo poo ton of good jalapenos recently so I'm trying to use them before they go bad), that was pretty good. Peanut sauce stir fry for dinner with a variety of vegetables. Like I said I've been cooking with peppers, so I've been making a lot of succotash (corn, pepper, and a bean, butter beans, chickpeas etc, stir-fried with southwestern flavors). I find that super easy, tasty, and filling. I'm not generally a fan of trying to recreate meat with vegetables, "make an eggplant steak!", bullshit. There are plenty of traditional meals made without meat. Vegetable barley stew is another favorite. Roast brussel sprouts is one of the very tops. Love brussel sprouts in general. Sometimes I buy frozen mockmeat stuff but only a few meals a week. It's just more expensive than buying frozen or even raw veg. Of those types, Gardein is good, Morning Star's a strong rival, and Impossible is my favorite. Sweet Earth makes good prepackaged meals, Deep Indian Kitchen's good, lots of brands these days. That's some variety of meals, but overall? Mostly I just make straightforward veggie dishes. Raw or frozen vegetable, broccoli/cauiliflower/peas/carrots/green beans, fried or steamed with salt, pepper, and butter. Add other spices or herbs as appropriate. Target has a line of 99 cent steambag frozen vegetables. They're cheap as poo poo and great quality for frozen, the peas are nice and tender instead of hard and grainy as I often find instead. I mentioned roasted brussel sprouts, roasted carrots are awesome, too. Used to make that a lot, not so much lately. I try to limit my grains & carbs where I can. So, sometimes I use noodles or rice but often I just forego it. I prefer Quinoa anyway which has much less carbs and a large amount of carbs with a full amino acid profile. Ben & Jerry and Magnum both make fantastic ice cream when I'm craving. Oat Milk is my favorite milk, surprisingly. I mentioned not being a fan of "vegan dishes", but the one exception that comes to mind is whole roasted cauliflower. I don't have an over at my new apt so it's been a while, but drat I like it. Sorta combo of these two this recipe or this one. The peanut-tahini paste on the outside turns into this crispy, golden brown, almost breading-like crust, pour on the lemon tahini sauce and it's my go-to centerpiece dish for group meals. pic mine
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
Meal prep is key. Not to shill a specific cookbook but if you’ve got an instant pot I got this cookbook out from the library and it has tons of recipes that you can double up to make big batches so you get tons of leftovers out of em. The spicy peanut noodles and the sweet & sour chickpeas have been big hits in my household.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
I usually have ful medames and pita for breakfast, occasionally oatmeal or muesli depending if I want to cook. Lunch is usually leftovers of dinner, typically a southern Indian lentil dish: dal tadka, sambar, rajma, poha, etc. Or Sichuan tofu dish. I usually mix veg in with the lentils, but will also braise greens on the side because imo Sichuan food has the easiest and tastiest veg. Also spinach baos. I almost never eat any meat replacements and instead eat naturally vegan dishes. My partner cooks more Western pastas and tofu scrambles (divine) but we have no cravings for anything. It took me a couple years of veg to vegan transition and I'm lucky I live in a big city to restock my spice pantry, but it's all easy batch cooking that gets better in the fridge and my blood work is perfect other than slightly low iron since I give blood so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Just went out to a fully vegan pub for dinner and drinks. It's such a good feeling to be able to just pick up the menu and order whatever without having to pull out the magnifying glass and look for where they tried to smuggle in some milk or cheese. It's nice to see a tangible societal shift happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Just went out to a fully vegan pub for dinner and drinks. It's such a good feeling to be able to just pick up the menu and order whatever without having to pull out the magnifying glass and look for where they tried to smuggle in some milk or cheese. It’s getting so much better! In my neighbourhood at least, even most regular pub-style places will have a couple of vegan options specially called out as such on the menu, or even a whole vegan section. I definitely relate to the magnifying glass comment, grocery shopping especially. That was the biggest obstacle for me going from vegetarian to full vegan. Most of the time, if something has meat in it, it’s obvious. Usually it’s the headlining ingredient. But eggs and milk are in all kinds of things they shouldn’t be. Like most brands of salt and vinegar chips have milk in the ingredients, not sure why, so I’ve had to stick with the couple of brands that don’t. Canned soups that are veggie-based and not creamy and which would otherwise be vegan will usually have something like Parmesan cheese or “modified milk ingredients” buried down towards the end of the list. Going from eating meat to vegetarian was actually easier in my opinion than going from vegetarian to vegan, because of all these little booby traps that can trip you up if you’re not vigilant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
 Via Anne Mottet of the FAO
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
What is their definition of nutrient density? I suspect that they are way over-valuing 'micro-nutrients'. I find it very hard to believe that staple foods like pasta, potatoes, white rice, etc. are bad for the environment, as the rightmost plot kind of suggests. Or that some kinds of animal products are many times better for the environment than staple grains. Staple foods in human diets are staple foods because they are extremely efficient to produce (low $/calorie). This usually correlates with low energy inputs or carbon emissions per food calorie. I wonder what a plot of (GHG Emissions)/(Food Calorie) would look like. Still they should be applauded for focusing on the (nutrient density)/(GHG Emissions) figure of merit, even if I take issue with their definition of nutrient density. A lot of people who are into the left-wing politics of food like to focus on strange, misleading figures of merit to make their points. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 11:58
|
|
|
this info seems too shallow to really accomplish anything other than illustrating the point that beef isnt the most ecologically sustainable food
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
DrBox posted:Go to an aquarium and hang out near the fish. You'll hear kids lose their mind when they see a Nemo or a Dory. They did not need to be exposed to the fish in a tank before learning to love those fish. I have never seen a sloth but I don't need to see one in a cage or a pen before being empathetic towards them. Are you telling me kids growing up with books and movies and shows don't actually care about animals until they see one behind bars? As for the habitats, we have a million zoos and not very much money going to the actual wildlife preserves and parks so maybe it's not having that big an impact. I would argue that money put into a documentary showing the habitat and outlining the issues will have way more impact than an animal in a cage with a little picture of their home on it. It's valuable for people to see animals do animal behaviour and respond (or not) to human presence in non-human ways, instead of thinking of Nemo, Dory, Bambi, their pet dog or whoever when they hear about animals later as a politically active adult. We need to understand that animals have different characteristics and requirements from humans on an intuitive level, not just have vaguely positive feelings about them, to promote effective conservation of non-human species and non-human made ecosystems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 17:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!