KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[physicsisphirst]

Curious--what's the correct definition of vegan? I've always been under the impression "vegan" and your definition of "strict vegetarian" were one and the same. Thanks for the info.

the popular definitions of vegetarian and vegan don't really take into account the actual meaning of the words. vegetarian really refers to diet, while vegan really describes a lifestyle. Here's a brief depicition of vegetarian (from that chess site):

A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk). The 'veg' in vegetarian after all does represent vegetation (vegetables, fruits and other plant-based foods). People who include dairy to an otherwise vegetarian diet consider themselves to be lacto vegetarians. Those who consume both dairy and eggs call themselves lacto-ovo vegetarians. Of course, by that reasoning those who eat everything other than red meat should fancy themselves to be lacto-ovo-pesco-polla-miele vegetarians.

most 'vegatarians' are lacto-ovo vegetarians which is why the term vegetarian is used for them rather than strict vegetarians. this led to the incorrect usage of 'vegan' to define people who are strict vegetarian even in dictionaries (eg http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Vegan)

in fact, you will find that different dictionaries give different definitions for vegetarian.
my randomhouse dictionary defines it something like "someone who for ethical or nutritional reasons doesn't eat meat, fish, poultry, eggs and sometimes even milk and other animal products."
while my merriam-webster says: "one that believes in or practises living soley on plant products" (very veganish, but incorrect because a vegetarian may use leather for instance since he is not eating it)

an examination of the historical roots of the word vegan will show that there is much more than diet involved since its inception in 1944 by Donald Watson in england. i have posted the relevant information below from the article by Joanne Stepaniak.

so just to illustrate with my development as an example - i was a lacto-ovo vegetarian, then became a (strict) vegetarian dropping the milk and eggs, then when i stopped the leather, silk, wool stuff i adopted a vegan lifestyle. by the way, it is pretty difficult to be purely vegan these days simply because there are animal products in so many things (eg tires). however, what is important, i think, is that we do what we can because the principle is to minimize the exploitation of animals which is why so many alternatives to animal-based products have become available.

the common usage of the words, however, is largely the way you have described it.

in friendship,
prad


http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm
Being Vegan

To understand what it means to be vegan, it is vital to reflect on the historical roots and origin of the word. Many people think of the term vegan and its associated lifestyle as something new, faddish, insurgent or radical. In many ways, just the opposite is true. The word vegan was coined in England by Donald Watson in 1944. He, along with several other members of the Vegetarian Society in Leicester, England, wanted to form an alliance of nondairy vegetarians as a subgroup of the Society. When their proposal was rejected, they ventured to start their own organization. They prospected what to call themselves, and, after evaluating a range of ingenious possibilities, agreed that "vegan" (decisively pronounced VEE-gn, with a long "e" and hard "g" ) was best. It was derived from the word "vegetarian" by taking the first three letters (veg) and the last two letters (an) because, as Donald Watson explained, "veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its logical conclusion."

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, followed shortly thereafter by the creation of a manifesto describing their unified mission and perspective. Although the group advocated a totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals' milk, butter and cheese, they also encouraged the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal commodities, including clothing, shoes and other apparel. In addition, the group acknowledged that the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society and emancipate both humans and animals.

(there is more in the article at the website it is from)

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Maybe YOUR morals are culturally defined, but MINE are not. Torturing animals is against MY morals, and therefore I choose not to participate by adopting a vegan, cruelty-free lifestyle. You go ahead, wait for those aliens to land, and have a cocker spaniel steak with 'em. Have fun. This country was founded on freedom of speech--the president of PETA can say whatever she wants, and so can I.

Go right on ahead. I think you may have missed my point(s). I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm not saying we should all torture chickens. I'm not saying I'm more right. I'm merely adopting a 'sort of' devil's advocate approach to my arguments, as Monique (or one of yall) pointed out previously. Thought it's not a full D.A. viewpoint because I still believe in my opinion. I'm just trying to get you all to see the full spectrum of this issue. The whole point to the cultural morality posts is to keep an open-air about other culture's beliefs and our responsibility as another culture of this world to respect their ways (the chinese and their cats, the indians and their cows, the aliens and their cockers). Also, I'm glad you said "Maybe YOUR morals are culturally defined, but MINE are not. Torturing animals is against MY morals" because you pretty much voiced my opinion: not only do cultures have their set of morals, but individuals also host their own, possibly different, moral scales. I'm not suggesting we keep this in mind for murderers or serial killers. I'm just saying in this particular case of the chicken tossers we have to keep in mind that different cultures, and even the individuals within those cultures, have different values about the animals they eat. Some, like me, think that feed animals should not be allowed emotional responsibility (by us). Then others, such as yourself and many people on this thread, try their best to respect any animal, regardless its purpose we have imposed upon it.

There's a lot of discussion now about human's responsibility over animals. I don't think we, as a dominant species, are supposed to have obligation over all other species. As you see in nature, the species at the top of certain food chains don't regulate their inferiors, just themselves. We should just keep after ourselves. By doing so we will let nature have part of its role back; that is, letting nature resume its process of balance and checks.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

So, are you equating humans with bears? That humans have the same kind of cognitive functions as a bear? You're contradicting yourself. You obviously believe that humans are "superior" to bears, yet at the same time you state that since bears don't have feelings, why should we. Which is it?

The "priority" of survival is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. Back then we didn't have grocery stores, fast food chains, foodbanks, etc. And nobody in this country needs to fatten up for anything--we're already the fattest, most unhealthy society in the world.

I brought up the bear example not to say that we are like bears cognitively, but that we should be like bears naturally, meaning we are all a part of nature. You are so quick to disagree with what I'm saying that you may not be completely seeing my point(s).

I disagree about your survival point. Just because we have all these grocery stores, etc, doesn't mean we should 'put off' or lower our priority for survival. The only reason we are here, like i said, is because our ancestors (regardless of their technological level) kept the priority of survival at the top.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I disagree about your survival point. Just because we have all these grocery stores, etc, doesn't mean we should 'put off' or lower our priority for survival. The only reason we are here, like i said, is because our ancestors (regardless of their technological level) kept the priority of survival at the top.

I was going to respond to this, but I'm kinda thinking it's not worth bothering anymore... I think we've gone as far as we can with this one.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Go right on ahead. I think you may have missed my point(s).

I think the real problem is that it is you who have missed the points the others have been making, because you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You have been

1) logically contradictory as Monique, Gokul and Elizabeth have all pointed out

2) factually incorrect regarding this nonsense about needing to eat meat or taking supplements, for example

3) morally inappropriate because if you base your morals in such a relativism as to make them dependent on cultures, yet posture that
a) there is no universal morality or
b) there is no common ground between cultures
then you create an anything goes environment so morality and ethics might as well cease to exist

4) demonstrating grotesque specieism in your attitude towards what you call 'feed animals', which is a purely convenience-fulfilling subjective term that doesn't take into account that they are animals first and hence deserve to be granted at least those dignities that certainly most humans are able to empathize with

Also,

5) your survival rationale wreaks of ridiculous religiosity in that it suggests that we maintain this priority at the top like our ancestors by subjugating other species supposedly the way you think our ancestors did - as if bashing chickens around helps us to stay on red alert

6) you are, finally, claiming that we as the dominant species have no obligations towards other species and then contradict this idea by saying we should regulate just ourselves, which is precisely what all the others have been telling you all along. That is, in fact, what the KFC officials are insisting on - that the specific members of our dominant species known as chicken-slaughterhouse-workers sapiens are regulated so that acts of barbarism and brutality cease to occur - demonstrating obligation

Point #5 happens to be more important than it appears, because the picture you seem to be encouraging for humans is one of irresponsibility, cruelty, violence and destruction. Following this approach, which some humans have done over centuries, there will be little left of the planet or its inhabitants and Sauron can gleefully eye the demise brought about without the slightest assistance from his Orcs!

This sort of thing can happen when we think we are being logical and don't look at the sensibility of even the axioms we start with. Perhaps you intend well, but it would really help if you try to see that your initial premises (for example, 'they are only feed animals undeserving of consideration') can irrepairably skew all subsequent deductions.

Anyway, instead of just attempting to play devil's advocate for the hell of it, how about making an attempt to understand what the others have been saying? If you are going to hold an opinion, surely it is wise to make it a worthwhile one. Since you have already said "I'm not saying I'm more right" follow through on this and you might find that the others are.

You have asked in the other thread that people 'reserve judgements' and not let what has happened in this thread affect their interactions with you. However, if you argue on and on ad nauseum with contradictions, inaccuracies, dogma and axiomatic suicides, then it should come as no surprise that people may be inspired to just ignore you. This is not necessary. Your stamina is admirable and I have no doubt that you wish to contribute meaningfully, but please be aware that you cannot bludgeon your way through the perspectives of others. Please, please on the forums, remember that

"we are fortunate to have the companionship of good people and should feel grateful if some of them find value in what we write"

In friendship,
prad

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

quick response, get back to you later

I think the real problem is that it is you who have missed the points the others have been making, because you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Anyway, instead of just attempting to play devil's advocate for the hell of it, how about making an attempt to understand what the others have been saying? If you are going to hold an opinion, surely it is wise to make it a worthwhile one. Since you have already said "I'm not saying I'm more right" follow through on this and you might find that the others are.

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I skimmed and will only reply to these few comments and will get back to the others later.

I have not missed the points of others including yourself. It is much easier to be-in-agreement/see-the-view of the majority than to see/hold the view of the minority. I understand what you all are saying. I feel the same as you people do, only for different animals/circumstances. If this had happened to a group of Beagles at some animal shelter, then I'd be all in agreement with you. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument because I really believe in what I'm saying. I'm just also trying to get you all to see that there is another side to this, that has a deep root in every aspect of our society. It's not just about bashing chickens. As you have witnessed in this post, it is about moral values, cultural understanding, sociological development, health, psychological understanding, as well as a multitude of side-topics. The only reason I keep posting is because through all I've said, no one has bothered to see all angles to the issue. You say it is me, but if you step outside the box, you will see it is everyone who disagrees with me. I'm still not trying to get you all to agree with me. I'm just asking you to take a look and see that there is some validity worth taking a look at on the other side. Since it is such a touchy, touchy topic it's really hard to step back and analyze it. it's very easy to go with your first emotional instinct and label these actions as wrong. But you have to see that there is so much more to this than just behaviour.

This is a topic just like religion, which we will discuss none of here. I'm an athiest because I truly believe, for my life, that is right. Of course, that is a, pardon the irony, major minority. But I'm not an athiest for the hell of it. Whatever I believe, I believe in firmly because I give it tremendous thought and try to shed all my bias when thinking about it. If you read my post clearly, you would have seen this comment: "I'm merely adopting a 'sort of' devil's advocate approach to my arguments".. taking careful consideration in the phrase in single quotes. Ok now I have time..

#1... Where have I been logically contradictory?

#2... I have NOT been factually incorrect about eating meat. I've said that eating meat is necessary for survival, and it is. Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among scuh an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat.

#3... Please don't call my views morally inappropriate. I've studied enough history/sociology (besides having a bit of common sense) to know that cultures have different scales of morality. Thus since they have these varying scales, you will see that morals are dependent upon the culture you are viewing. Morals and ethics need not cease to exist, since they work very well for the cultures in question.

#4... comments like this are what I've been talking about all along. Despite these last 144 posts, you are still unaware of the fact that there remains another side to this issue. If the issue was totally one-sided, then there would be no doubt, within anyone's mind, about anything regarding it. But since there is such an abundance of posts shows that there is more than one side. Also, the sides are not RIGHT and WRONG. The sides are just sides that deserve worthy attention and appropriate, non-biased, understanding.
There are/have been cultures in this world that have had ritualistic torturing of humans and animals. Where did those civilizations lead? to you. To me. To everyone. but if you can have the gall to look back and say that culture was wrong (based on your cultural bias today), then I'm awfully sorry for you because you are missing out on being educated the right way: open-minded, unbiased views on the happenings of the world.

#5... I never once said bashing chickens was necessary for survival, did I? I said eating meat was, and for that see #2. Also, I never said we should keep the ways of our ancestors in our processing of animal meat. All I said was that we, like our ancestors, need to keep our priority of survival at the top of our list. Meaning we should keep eating meat, keep raising feed animals, etc. if we neglect survival now, it may (or possibly may not, but I'd rather plan for the worst) have consequences down the road.

#6.. you misunderstood my point of "self-regulation". by that I don't mean take (emotional) care of the animals we eat, for that wouldn't be self regulation. I meant we should just regulate ourselves, meaning make sure we are surviving. In this issue, we should regulate the workers for their neglect on our economy. Yes, they should be punished, as I have said ALL along. BUT, they should be punished because they potentially harmed the food industry by damaging the would-have-been meat for chicken tenders. but now, since they bruised the meat, the chicken carcasses are of no value to the industry.

You said, "Point #5 happens to be more important than it appears, because the picture you seem to be encouraging for humans is one of irresponsibility, cruelty, violence and destruction. "
AGAIN, I'm not encouraging this behaviour because it caould have had, or did have consequences on our economy/food industry. I'm just trying to show that there is (yet again) another side to the moral issue. As i answered monique, a man should be punished for beating his wife, a child should be reprimanded for putting a bottle rocket up fee-fee's anal cavity, a serial killer should be shot on the firing range. But careful consideration should be taken with harm is done with feed animals. Yes there was an economic loss. But was there really a moral one? That's the question I've been asking, and defending.

I'm not trying to bludgeon my way into people's perspectives. But like i said before, it seems that people just really aren't listening. It may be that people may never be able to see another side of certain topics. After all, when discussing athiesm to a Catholic, you are shunned, and the topic is never to be talked about again.

 

[Dissident Dan]

#2... I have NOT been factually incorrect about eating meat. I've said that eating meat is necessary for survival, and it is. Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among scuh an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat.

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

Our whole way of life is unnatural (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that). How many other creatures do you know of that use air conditioning or type on computers? How many do you know of that take antiobiotics from a doctor when they get infections? How many do you know of that keep other animals in cages for food?

I don't think that being vegetarian is unnatural. There are many people who, if they had to kill the animals that they eat, would not, and would therefore be vegetarian (except, perhaps, if someone else fed them already-slaughtered meat).

I also don't think that being "natural" or not has any bearing on being correct or ethical. I also think that calling things "unnatural" is risky business because A) No one knows our entire evolutionary history and B) Nature is not static.

 

[JD]

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

Our whole way of life is unnatural (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that). How many other creatures do you know of that use air conditioning or type on computers? How many do you know of that take antiobiotics from a doctor when they get infections? How many do you know of that keep other animals in cages for food?

I don't think that being vegetarian is unnatural. There are many people who, if they had to kill the animals that they eat, would not, and would therefore be vegetarian (except, perhaps, if someone else fed them already-slaughtered meat).

I also don't think that being "natural" or not has any bearing on being correct or ethical. I also think that calling things "unnatural" is risky business because A) No one knows our entire evolutionary history and B) Nature is not static.

I fail to see how we can be anything other than natural - that we are within nature is inescapable.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I skimmed and will only reply to these few comments and will get back to the others later.

thank you for your detailed effort as always.
i am rather busy right now, possibly for a few days, but i will try to do justice to what you have written when i get the chance since i believe i can edit this post at anytime.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

No where do I see that I have contradicted myself. I never said you cannot survive without meat, or by being a vegan/vegetarian. I never said you cannot be healthy by not eating meat. All I said was "eating meat is necessary for survival". Obviously it is, or we'd all be, through evolution, selection, or what have you, vegetarians.

Again I assert the fact that people need to read carefully, for points are often missed through haste and quickness-to-disagree.

 

[chroot]

People eat meat because they like the taste. There is no evidence that it is required for survival. In fact, I know many vegans, and they seem to survive just fine. So do their little vegan children.

I eat meat, but I honestly feel a little guilty about it sometimes. There really is no redeeming reason to eat meat other than the taste. There are environmental, ethical, and health reasons against eating meat; the only positive is that it tastes good. I have read (and will find a substantiated source if anyone wants one) that we have the agricultural capacity to give every man, woman and child on Earth 5,000 calories a day. We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry

That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

 

[Monique]

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren

Didn't you know? Licorice is necessary for survival too :rofl:

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

People eat meat because they like the taste. There is no evidence that it is required for survival. In fact, I know many vegans, and they seem to survive just fine. So do their little vegan children.

Thanks for being yet another person to miss the point within my posts. I'm not saying you CANNOT survive WITHOUT meat. I'm just saying that it has got to be necessary for survival somewhere, including some humans. Now, PLEASE let there be someone out there that reads this... I'll quote from a post I have made previously (at least twice).. """"Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among such an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat. """" Again, I ask you: If meat was unnecessary and there are "so many" alternatives, then why is nature abundant with species that are carnivorous and omnivorous?

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren

I love the fact that people downcast my opinions so quickly, and are so eager to call them stupid. It's rather interesting.

In case you didn't catch it in my previous post(s), and also missed it in the previous paragraph of this post, I'll ask again.. If meat was unnecessary for survival, why do we, among all the other omnivores and carnivores of the world, still eat it? It's not just a "really stupid argument". Think about it. No, seriously.. think about it. After all this world has endured, after all the changes in technology we've made, why are we still eating meat, why are there so many species that still eat meat, why are there no carnivores-turned-vegans out in the wild? Last time I checked, hyenas were still tearing into water buffalo carcasses, not gathering around a pile of gardenburgers.

One reason we still continue to eat meat (even though there's an alternative out there just as equally healthy) is because of the economy. Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed, how much pollution (aesthetic/land value) would be created, if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats. Then, if this culture decided to quit eating meat, and animal products, we would probably shud down shop altogether and end our animal-food trades with other countries, thus leading to a world-wide economic problem. This is where the culture thing comes in. We would be wrong to affect other cultures' economies just because we changed our moral standards on the values of meat and animal products.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry

That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

What about the scenario I mentioned in the last post.. ending the meat market/animal-eating industry would cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs, lose their families, go hungry, become poor, homeless, etc. Not to mention, as i said previously, harming the economies of the countries we trade food(animal) with. And I'm sure you may be thinking "well why don't they just switch to the vegan lifestyle too therefore we can resume trading". And to that I'll reply with what I've said before: you would be wrong to do that.

 

[chroot]

I'm just saying that it has got to be necessary for survival somewhere, including some humans.

Please name this mythical human.

why are there carnivores and omnivores among such an advanced world??

Because meat is tasty.

No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour.

By what logic do you assert that the decision to eat meat is "natural," and the decision to not eat meat is "unnatural?"

Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans!

Perhaps you're confused, but a dictionary might help. An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies. An animal is an herbivore if it eats only veggies. My friend Cindy is an herbivore. You seem to be caught in some circular logic: "some people eat meat, so humans must be omnivores. Since humans are omnivores, people must eat meat." If you really believe this logic, I pity you and any sadly ill-equipped little offspring you'll ever trick a woman into bearing for you.

Again, I ask you: If meat was unnecessary and there are "so many" alternatives, then why is nature abundant with species that are carnivorous and omnivorous?

If you're asserting "if it's good enough for animals, why isn't it good enough for us?" then you're an idiot. There's really no point in bringing lions and tigers into this discussion. Sure, lions and tigers eat meat, but they don't really have the gray matter to sit around pondering ethical questions. I'll turn the question around: if meat were necessary, why are there "so many" vegan people?

I love the fact that people downcast my opinions so quickly, and are so eager to call them stupid. It's rather interesting.

They are, in fact, stupid, as many people have pointed out. No one likes being stupid, but that doesn't make them any smarter.

In case you didn't catch it in my previous post(s), and also missed it in the previous paragraph of this post, I'll ask again.. If meat was unnecessary for survival, why do we, among all the other omnivores and carnivores of the world, still eat it?

Because it's tasty.

It's not just a "really stupid argument". Think about it. No, seriously.. think about it. After all this world has endured, after all the changes in technology we've made, why are we still eating meat

Because it's tasty.

why are there so many species that still eat meat, why are there no carnivores-turned-vegans out in the wild? Last time I checked, hyenas were still tearing into water buffalo carcasses, not gathering around a pile of gardenburgers.

Do I hear an echo in here?

Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed, how much pollution (aesthetic/land value) would be created, if we stopped eating meat.

Since when has soybean farming produced more pollution than cattle farming? Do you have any clue how uninformed you are? :rofl:

Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy

The greasy McD's employee could just as easily serve greasy soyburgers.

all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats.

The people who raise cattle could just as easy farm soybeans.

Then, if this culture decided to quit eating meat, and animal products, we would probably shud down shop altogether and end our animal-food trades with other countries, thus leading to a world-wide economic problem.

And all such food and goods would be easily replaced with other products derived from plant sources. We have plant ice cream. We have plant artificial chicken. We have plant hamburgers. We have plant plastics, and plant seat coverings, and plant-any-goddamn-thing-you-want.

This is where the culture thing comes in. We would be wrong to affect other cultures' economies just because we changed our moral standards on the values of meat and animal products.

In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

You're totally right -- if we stopped eating beef, the entire economy would certainly collapse!

- Warren

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Please name this mythical human.

I know several people that (psychologically) need meat to survive. They love it. There's no reason not to.

Because meat is tasty.

You sit there and call me an idiot for my opinions, but you say that the reason nature includes carnivores and omnivores is that meat is tasty?? The only reason nature has allowed this to continue is because of taste?? That's ridiculous. if that were the case, then all animals would be sweet-potato-ores. I've seen many animals including my dog, my horse, etc eat sweet potatoes and love them because of their sweetness, their taste. But I still see my dog chowing down on rib bones and chasing the occasional mouse or rabbit.

By what logic do you assert that the decision to eat meat is "natural," and the decision to not eat meat is "unnatural?"

The logic of.. logic. Take a look at nature.. Show me the carnivore that decides to not eat meat and change its diet. Show me the omnivore that decided to become herbivore/vegetarian/vegan. That's what I am saying about it being 'unnatural'. You don't see, in nature, omnivores making decisions about changing their diets.

Perhaps you're confused, but a dictionary might help. An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies. An animal is an herbivore if it eats only veggies. My friend Cindy is an herbivore. You seem to be caught in some circular logic: "some people eat meat, so humans must be omnivores. Since humans are omnivores, people must eat meat." If you really believe this logic, I pity you and any sadly ill-equipped little offspring you'll ever trick a woman into bearing for you.

I'm not confused at all. Humans are biologically omnivores. If we weren't we wouldn't need the teeth necessary for gnawing into meat.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. This forum is for discussion of a particular topic and the opinions thereof. NOT for discussion about your pity for my beliefs, my potential children, or any other personal factor. If you disagree with me so much that you have to resort to attacking my personal life, then maybe you should reserve your posts for private messages. Thank you.

If you're asserting "if it's good enough for animals, why isn't it good enough for us?" then you're an idiot. There's really no point in bringing lions and tigers into this discussion. Sure, lions and tigers eat meat, but they don't really have the gray matter to sit around pondering ethical questions. I'll turn the question around: if meat were necessary, why are there "so many" vegan people?

Again, since this post is covering a topic of which many opinions are possible, do not call me an idiot for mine. If I were posting about how I think there is no such thing as gravity, or humans have 17 eyeballs, or bananas are really made out of helium zeppelins, then I would not mind being called an idiot. You, along with your companions, seem to think I am saying "you cannot survive being a vegan" .. for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. ALL i AM saying is that meat is necessary for survival. Whether it be for humans with a psychological disorder, or carnivorous lions, meat is necessary for survival. if humans did not ever need meat to survive, then why are we omnivores (quoting from you: "An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies.")?

They are, in fact, stupid, as many people have pointed out. No one likes being stupid, but that doesn't make them any smarter.

Again, echo echo echo. Do not call me stupid for having an opinion. I'm an athiest, but I do not call believers stupid. If you go around insulting people just for having a different opinion than you, then you are no better than a racist who vows all blacks are stupid becuase their pigment is different.

Since when has soybean farming produced more pollution than cattle farming? Do you have any clue how uninformed you are? :rofl:

Did i say soybean farming? Thank you very much for inserting your own words into mine. By pollution, I meant the vitamin factories that would have to be erected, the millions of gallons of oil that would be used to make the bottles for supplements. Yes there are ways to not have to take supplements, but you know as well as I do that the majority of Americans do not stick to strict diets. Instead, they take the easy route. Bottled meals are huge. Not to mention the time and land value depreciation needed to convert many many many acres of farmland into soybean-ready fields. you can't just go anywhere and expect soybeans to grow. There's only certain areas capable of growing soybeans, whereas cattle can pretty much be grown anywhere, including desertland in Arizona.

In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

You're totally right -- if we stopped eating beef, the entire economy would certainly collapse!

- Warren

Once again, i never said anything about the ENTIRE economy collapsing.. read again: """Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed ... if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats."""

no these farmers can't equally as well just grow soybeans. Like I said, soy doesn't grow everywhere. Also, I'd like to see you talk to the execs at McD's, BK, etc about changing their ingredients to full soy, no animal products.. Then watch as they laugh at you. These people made it big because of meat. Most casinos here in Vegas pull in a good amount of revenue due to their famous steaks, shrimp, etc buffets. Not to mention the elegant steak joints all around the country. Tony Roma's to name one. Most fast food joints and sit downers made it big because of meat. KFC, Taco Bell, McD's, Subway, Applebees, Carl's Jr., Arby's, Long john Silvers, etc etc etc.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

Besides, that statistic is for beef only. Don't forget chicken, pork, fish, and even goat.

Also, when I mentioned all the restaurants, I forgot about companies like Slim Jim, beef jerky makers, all the companies like Jimmy Dean... grocery stores also earn money through meat sales. The list goes on and on.. including sports events, and even fundraisers.. not to mention the quality time i was able to have with family members around a good old fashioned (culture-tradition) BBQ.. without meat, I would have missed out on those times. Yes, you are thinking "well you could have equally joined around for a soy burger". But that was not our tradition. That isn't/wasn't the tradition of millions of families throughout history.

 

[chroot]

I know several people that (psychologically) need meat to survive.

And what would happen to these people if meat were not available? Would they implode? Explode? Catch fire?

You sit there and call me an idiot for my opinions, but you say that the reason nature includes carnivores and omnivores is that meat is tasty??

No, I said the reason humans eat meat is because it's tasty. There's no other reason to eat it. Unlike the lions and tigers of which you are so fond, we have the ability to produce non-animal foods that satisfy all our nutritional needs.

The only reason nature has allowed this to continue is because of taste?? That's ridiculous. if that were the case, then all animals would be sweet-potato-ores. I've seen many animals including my dog, my horse, etc eat sweet potatoes and love them because of their sweetness, their taste. But I still see my dog chowing down on rib bones and chasing the occasional mouse or rabbit.

Once again, why are we bringing lower animals into this discussion? They don't have technology or ethics. Who cares what your dog does? My dog has been known to occasionally eat his own poop.

Show me the omnivore that decided to become herbivore/vegetarian/vegan.

Cindy. Steve. Paul. David. Frank.

That's what I am saying about it being 'unnatural'. You don't see, in nature, omnivores making decisions about changing their diets.

You also don't see, in nature, gazelles drinking double lattes at Starbucks and using laptop computers. You don't see monkey building houses out of wood and stone either, so I suppose we should stop those unnatural practices at once!

I'm not confused at all. Humans are biologically omnivores. If we weren't we wouldn't need the teeth necessary for gnawing into meat.

And we're biologically diggers, too, since we have those pretty fingernails. Why aren't you out digging for termites?

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. This forum is for discussion of a particular topic and the opinions thereof. NOT for discussion about your pity for my beliefs, my potential children, or any other personal factor. If you disagree with me so much that you have to resort to attacking my personal life, then maybe you should reserve your posts for private messages. Thank you.

Part of my responsibility to this forum is deal with people who do not argue coherently, because such people only cause harm in our community -- they start flame wars and other internet detritus. You are one such person.

You, along with your companions, seem to think I am saying "you cannot survive being a vegan" .. for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. ALL i AM saying is that meat is necessary for survival.

Wait... hold on there, Einstein... let me get this straight. You're not saying that people can't survive being vegan... you're just saying you have to eat meat to survive.

OH! Now I get it. :rofl:

Whether it be for humans with a psychological disorder, or carnivorous lions, meat is necessary for survival.

Some people are addicted to cocaine. I suppose that means we cannot try to rid the world of cocaine, because it would be tough on those poor cocaine addicts eh? We could deal with any "meat addiction" in the same way we routinely deal with any other addiction. Addictions don't kill people. People don't go *poof* and disappear when they no longer have any snort. Besides, this argument is very specious: show me a case study of one person who is psychologically addicted to meat.

if humans did not ever need meat to survive, then why are we omnivores (quoting from you: "An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies.")?

Some of us are not omnivores, by definition. Some of us do not eat meat, and thus are herbivores. We are perhaps the first species with the sentience to make such a decision consciously. Why should we not use that sentience?

Do not call me stupid for having an opinion.

Your opinion is not logically sound, and you continue to defend it with increasingly bizarre extrema. Thus, you are stupid. Exempli gratia:

By pollution, I meant the vitamin factories that would have to be erected, the millions of gallons of oil that would be used to make the bottles for supplements.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is the single most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, Ad Infinitum! You have absolutely taken the Stupid Cake today. Wow! All those VITAMIN FACTORIES?? All those PLASTIC BOTTLES?!

43% of Americans have used a prescription drug within the last 30 days (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drugs.htm). Last I checked, these drugs are made in similar factories, and the bottles are almost universally dispensed in plastic. Boy, you're right, if everyone had to take a pill every day, that'd change everything! We'd be up to our ears in used plastic bottles! :rofl: :rofl:

EVEN IF, in the extreme case, every man, woman, and child had to take a vitamin supplement, and these vitamins came in disposable 30-day supply bottles each weighing about 10 grams, we'd be throwing away roughly 40,000 tons of plastic bottles yearly. Compare this to the approximately 229 million tons of garbage we throw away annually (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm ). That's right, wow, those plastic bottles would amount to approximately two hundredths of one percent of what Americans currently throw away annually. That'd certainly choke the system!

(Let's not even mention the fact that these bottles could be quite easily recycled. I've never seen a hyena recycle a plastic bottle, so why should we?)

Yes there are ways to not have to take supplements, but you know as well as I do that the majority of Americans do not stick to strict diets.

Actually, none of the vegans I know take supplements. They simply know how to eat properly. :rofl:

you can't just go anywhere and expect soybeans to grow. There's only certain areas capable of growing soybeans, whereas cattle can pretty much be grown anywhere, including desertland in Arizona.

Excuse me? Cattle can be grown in places where vegetables cannot? :rofl:

It takes an estimated 4.8 pounds of grain, 390 gallons of water, and .25 gallons of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. (http://www.factoryfarm.org/topics/cattle/ )

Somehow this mythical desert location has to have a LOT of water and a LOT of food laying around. Kinda weird for a desert, isn't it?

Let's face it: cows are not efficient. You have to put 4.8 pounds of grain into a cow to get 1 pound of beef back. Obviously it would be a better use of our agricultural resources to just eat that grain directly, wouldn't it?

Why don't you understand that raising cattle uses far more resources than it returns?

Once again, i never said anything about the ENTIRE economy collapsing.. read again: """Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed ... if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats."""

And of course we should continue to eat meat, despite the environmental, ethical, and health effects -- because we need to make sure that poor teenager doesn't have to take a job at a juice bar or a bookstore.

no these farmers can't equally as well just grow soybeans.

Any location that can be used to raise cattle can be used to farm some vegetable. That's the plain fact. Cattle are actually given some of the most desirable land, because they are much less hardy than vegetation is. You seem to have this entirely backwards. I suggest an education.

Also, I'd like to see you talk to the execs at McD's, BK, etc about changing their ingredients to full soy, no animal products.. Then watch as they laugh at you. These people made it big because of meat. Most casinos here in Vegas pull in a good amount of revenue due to their famous steaks, shrimp, etc buffets. Not to mention the elegant steak joints all around the country. Tony Roma's to name one. Most fast food joints and sit downers made it big because of meat. KFC, Taco Bell, McD's, Subway, Applebees, Carl's Jr., Arby's, Long john Silvers, etc etc etc.

And thus we shouldn't eat meat, because it's our moral obligation to supprt McD's, Taco Bell, and Vegas casinos? Do you realize how ludicrous this argument is?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

not to mention the quality time i was able to have with family members around a good old fashioned (culture-tradition) BBQ.. without meat, I would have missed out on those times. Yes, you are thinking "well you could have equally joined around for a soy burger". But that was not our tradition. That isn't/wasn't the tradition of millions of families throughout history.

Certainly, it wasn't the family time that was important, it was the slab of dead pork you ate. Familial love just wouldn't be the same without dead animal carcass!

- Warren

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Any location that can be used to raise cattle can be used to farm some vegetable. That's the plain fact. Cattle are actually given some of the most desirable land, because they are much less hardy than vegetation is. You seem to have this entirely backwards. I suggest an education

I have an education.. thank you. The "plain fact" is that you don't know much about farming. There are many many many places to raise cattle where no vegetable can grow. You seem to be forgetting how advanced transportation is these days. We've got plenty of tractor trailers that are capable of hauling hay, grains, and oats to companies that make their earnings selling feed to cattle farmers in rough locations, such as Arizona deserts. Cattle can be raised anywhere that a diesel can travel. However vegetables like soy, corn, alfalfa, etc require specific land and soil conditions to thrive.

Part of my responsibility to this forum is deal with people who do not argue coherently, because such people only cause harm in our community -- they start flame wars and other internet detritus. You are one such person.

I will get back to your other nonsense later, but for now I would like to address this issue. Just because my viewpoint differs from yours does not mean I am incoherent. If you would read my post "It seems I've made a name for myself" you would see that I am not "such a person" causing flame wars and other "internet detritus". If anything, you are the one that is starting personal attacks and name-calling. I have never once received any warnings in all the time I've been a part of this community (going on 3 years total now) and I'm sure Greg could attest to that (before this name I was 'HyperspaceNAU'). I've always been careful and deliberate with my posts, especially on topics as touchy as religion and this'n here. There are many people in disagreement with me, yes. BUT, none have resorted to the words and phrases that you have. As an administrator I would have expected more courtesy and kinder thought from your posts. If you are so unable to see the harm in your own posts, how am I supposed to take your viewpoints seriously. (meaning how am I able to know you are trying to look at this as objectively as possible). it would really surprise me if there wasn't anyone in agreement with me on this. I understand this topic has the capability of starting huge massive "flame wars", but i think most would agree with me that I have been as careful as i can not to start such wars, by allowing everyone to voice their opinion, not calling anyone or their opinions stupid, idiotic, or wrong. if I have caused as much harm as you say I have, then the nicer thing to do would have been to ask me politely to end the topic, or leave the forums, not personally attack someone who's never had a problem. It's poor administration like this that make me not want to be a part of such a wonderful atmosphere as these forums. Good day.

 

[JD]

Speaking of flames, I think that flame grilled chicken wings would be good at this juncture. Hmmmmmmm...

Though obviously not from KFC.

 

[physicsisphirst]

That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

warren's statement

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

is neither ridiculous nor oversimplified.

a large percent of the pop don't get to eat (much less eat meat). one of the reasons for this is that in their efforts to remain affluent, certain segments of society would rather get things cheaply for themselves even at the expense of suffering elsewhere.

some people starve not just because other people eat too much, but because they find it cheaper to throw resources away rather than redistribute them.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Hurkyl]

a large percent of the pop don't get to eat (much less eat meat). one of the reasons for this is that in their efforts to remain affluent, certain segments of society would rather get things cheaply for themselves even at the expense of suffering elsewhere.

some people starve not just because other people eat too much, but because they find it cheaper to throw resources away rather than redistribute them.

This is ridiculously oversimplified as well. You make it sound as if we could simply package up some food, send it to Somalia, and then everybody would eat for that month. You neglect the local government (or lack thereof) that lies between our food packages and the populace.

 

[physicsisphirst]

This is ridiculously oversimplified as well. You make it sound as if we could simply package up some food, send it to Somalia, and then everybody would eat for that month. You neglect the local government (or lack thereof) that lies between our food packages and the populace.

the issue isn't a matter of bureaucratic logistics, nor am i saying that sending food would solve the starvation problem. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on those specifics.

The issue at hand has to do with the criticism of Warren's statement:

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

For instance, we can also argue in a ridiculously simplified fashion that your food packages would not feed the hungry in Somalia because they get contaminated, or stolen, or eaten by someone else, or spontaneously combust, or crushed by some large object from space, but these fantastic possibilities do not change the fact that there is food to feed the hungry in Somalia (or wherever) that is being used up on cattle so that certain people can eat meat.

Now before you comment again on how ridiculously oversimplified, the above (admittedly) ridiculously oversimplified arguments really are, please consider that one of the reasons things don't get done is that we stop at the obstacles, rather than figure out how to implement the solutions.

Warren's statement essentially does claim and quite accurately that diverting our efforts away from sprouting meat, can produce more food for the pop. This really cannot be argued to the contrary since it is simply a matter of joules. For instance, if one were really interested in feeding the hungry of the world, what makes more sense - feed them grain or feed them meat? Furthermore, when you look at the destruction caused to the environment (often in the vicinity of the starving) as well as who the meat is going to go to, it is not hard to see that his statement is completely valid.

To argue that there exist a variety of other problems causing the starvation of the poor, is irrelevant to the validity of Warren's point.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Hurkyl]

Warren's statement essentially does claim and quite accurately that diverting our efforts away from sprouting meat, can produce more food for the pop.

Warren's post does claim that we could produce more food if we didn't spend effort producing meat.

The statement under discussion:

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

does not. By juxtaposition, this statement insinuates that, if we did not put a large portion of that capacity into raising anamals, the majority of the world's poor would not go hungry.

That is to what I object.

To the contrary, Chroot's post suggests we have enough agricultural capacity to overfeed everybody on Earth by a good amount! There is plenty of food to spare on meat production.

And this isn't just theory; even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I have an education.. thank you. The "plain fact" is that you don't know much about farming. There are many many many places to raise cattle where no vegetable can grow. You seem to be forgetting how advanced transportation is these days. We've got plenty of tractor trailers that are capable of hauling hay, grains, and oats to companies that make their earnings selling feed to cattle farmers in rough locations, such as Arizona deserts. Cattle can be raised anywhere that a diesel can travel. However vegetables like soy, corn, alfalfa, etc require specific land and soil conditions to thrive.

...which means that not only are they using the land their bodies are walking on, but also the land used to grow the plants transported there, which negates your argument.

Anyway, this thread is about chickens, which are raised indoors, mainly on the East Coast, it seems.

 

[physicsisphirst]

To the contrary, Chroot's post suggests we have enough agricultural capacity to overfeed everybody on Earth by a good amount!

if you argue that, i can't disagree too much since a lot of grain is thrown away. however, that is a different line of reasoning than what you originally took in that you claimed his statement was a simplification.

even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.

the first part is true, but the second may not be. if you reduce meat production, you most certainly can increase food production (though this can admittedly be done without reducing meat production).

however, the real point of his statement boils down to

1) efficient use of resources. meat production really isn't efficient (never mind the environmental hazards). furthermore, using the grain to feed animals the way that it is done really isn't taking a long range view. you may claim that right now we have the ability to grow grain enough to feed all these animals and all the people, but this rate of production isn't particularly sustainable which is why new ground is regularly cleared. so warren's statement is still valid in the longer perspective.

2) general affluence, in that some seem to think that it is just fine to get whatever we can out of the Earth for ourselves right now because it suits our fancy, without any consideration to what is happening to others. if a small part of the pop takes as much as it can - and meat production takes a lot - then there will be less to go around for the rest. the solution when you are using more than your fair share may not be to increase production, but to reduce consumption.


i do not find warren's statement to be 'ridiculously oversimplified' at all. rather the real oversimplification is in interpreting it as if we reduce meat production, then we will feed the hungry of the world - which isn't what it is really saying (or even insinuating, imo).

if we look at the implications of his statement as it relates to resources, affluence and our attitudes, it is actually rather profound.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Hurkyl]

If you argue that, i can't disagree too much since a lot of grain is thrown away. however, that is a different line of reasoning than what you originally took in that you claimed his statement was a simplification.

I never wanted to bother arguing whether his statement was right or wrong: I was merely trying to point out that there was an important issue being ignored.

I changed my tack because I thought this would be more clear if I produced a counterargument.

even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.

the first part is true, but the second may not be. if you reduce meat production, you most certainly can increase food production (though this can admittedly be done without reducing meat production).

Why would you say the second may not be true when you agree with it in the next sentence?

1) ...
2) ...

Now try arguing those points again, but this time considering that, even though the US produces meat, we still:
(a) Overfeed our people.
(b) Have significant agricultural exports.
(c) Leave farmland idle.

Your points are certainly valid in a world where every last square inch is being used to produce food, none goes to waste, and we still can't keep up with demand. However, that world is not reality.

I do not find warren's statement to be 'ridiculously oversimplified' at all...

Let me get this straight. Do you argue:

"Warren does not suggest that if we did not use grains to produce meat, then more people would be fed."

 

[physicsisphirst]

I never wanted to bother arguing whether his statement was right or wrong: I was merely trying to point out that there was an important issue being ignored.

fair enough, but i think that happened because of the misinterpretation of the warren's idea to if we reduce meat production, then we will feed the hungry of the world.

now having said this i acknowledge that i may be misinterpreting what he is saying too and that this is exactly what he means. however, i think the gist of his statement is something to the effect as i have argued above and can perhaps be more simply stated as something like if we reduce meat production, then we increase our capacity for food production and therefore have a better shot at feeding the hungry of the world.

(i believe this also answers your last question.)

Why would you say the second may not be true when you agree with it in the next sentence? [specifically] even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.

you are correct. i didn't phrase that very well (i was probably thinking of the nature of food production increase). the idea of course was to have been that while you can increase food production in other ways, reduction of meat production will make a major contribution to the cause by not using up this capacity. sorry for the confusion.

Now try arguing those points again, but this time considering that, even though the US produces meat, we still:
(a) Overfeed our people.
(b) Have significant agricultural exports.
(c) Leave farmland idle.

i did argue in light of these points above. what we have is a lot of wastage admittedly, but that does not justify misusing our resources. even if we eliminated all wastage, got the idle farmland going again and got the excess food to the starving of the world, it still doesn't change the reality that we are dumping enormous resources into producing a form of food that doesn't give us an efficient bang for the buck. the wastage is not only the stuff that gets 'thrown away' through overfeeding or dumping (through exports or otherwise). a lot more is wasted in the production of these billions of carcasses.

Your points are certainly valid in a world where every last square inch is being used to produce food, none goes to waste, and we still can't keep up with demand. However, that world is not reality.

i do not not think we need to wait for that extreme. for instance, one of the reasons that every square inch of farmland isn't going to be utilized is that we have already used up the watertable in parts of the US. there is more involved here than saying we can produce, therefore we shall!


anyway, i think we have strayed somewhat off topic (i admit it was my fault since i questioned your statement originally) and DD may be understandably upset with us. if my answers are sufficient for you, i suggest we get back to the topic of the thread. otherwise, if you want to continue (eg elaboration on the water table or consumption of resources), we probably ought to do so in the Should we eat meat thread.

in friendship,
prad