“You can produce many more pounds of plants on an acre of land than you can meat. Also, most of the grain produced in the US (and much of it imported from starving regions of the globe) goes to livestock. Won't say there aren't devastating effects to plant ag, but they're minimal as opposed to livestock. And much more manageable.”
sabelmouse on Oct 23, 2012 at 06:47:50
“but no cute little critters are killed for that ! oh... wait...”
“The deforestation initially happens because of the logging industry. Then the soy is planted. Actually most of the soy is used to produced oil and other food products, the animals are fed the waste products from such production.
The article is not making the case that veganism is wrong, just that the moral arguments vegans often make do not hold water. So it isn't actually ad hominem.”
“No where did I put meat consumption on an equal footing of plant consumption. There are many nuances in both types of agriculture. I simply posed a question to the original poster. You are the one intent on making the case that eating meat is the morally inferior choice. I disagree.”
“It is not "semantics" it is a purposeful generalization that ignores a whole lot of science on land management and sustainability using animal inputs.
It is not a "naturalistic fallacy" to say that we are omnivores it is simply reality. It is simply recognizing our evolutionary biology and how we thrive. Even the "right" plant foods are not the answer for many people. To claim that shows a great deal of selective observations or just wishful thinking. It is a nice, romantic idea. It is not reality. The only thing that ensures people have access to unlimited produce year round is an unsustainable ag model that is heavily dependent on fossil fuel and chemicals.”
“Why would you assume I don't know about the horrific conditions in many factory farms? I never claimed to support them nor was I rationalizing anything. Do you know what a straw man is? You may not need to eat animals. Another human being with different nutritional and health status may need to. It does not make them morally deficient. We are omnivores.”
“Or, you could consider that your premise that only eating plants is the most benign is not thorough and does not consider the full scope of the issue. Again, please illustrate what "the meat industry" is, and why you think that there are no alternatives.”
“"Humans don't need to eat meat when plant sources are readily available (read: the U.S., Europe, etc.)."
Sorry but much of the U.S. and Europe do not have plant sources available year round. Not only that, what you state about nutritional needs is an opinion, and has many that are opposing. Human beings have varied nutritional needs and many do not do well on a vegan or vegetarian diet. Also, if you'd paid attention to the full thread you'd see that the phrasing "destructive and costly to the earth" was not my statement but the original poster's. I was simply posing an honest question back at this claim.”
“To conflate any and all meat production/consumption with "the meat industry" (factory farms), and ignoring that there are indeed sustainable and humane meat and animal husbandry operations is where we disagree, and where you might want to research. Unless you also equally apply the term "supporting the vegetable industry" as a blanket to any vegetable consumption (ignoring again that there are harmful, non-sustainable models). If you are presuming that I support factory farms by my question I posed, you might want to back up a bit.”
“Modern plant agriculture, even on a small scale is not free from causing pain and suffering to animals, or humans. To claim that by eating only plants you are contributing less to the pain and suffering of animals (and other humans) and doing less destruction to the earth is not true. Now maybe if you claim to eat only what you grow by strict non-pain and suffering methods (no pest control, no displacing animal habitats) that would be accurate, but that is not the case for most people in the modern world. The rest of your comment is pretty ambiguous. Care to elaborate?”
syzgy on Jul 23, 2012 at 13:09:44
“Your comments are thought-provoking and I will continue to consider them. My main concern are the egregious practices involved in factory farming, which we seem to agree on.
Yes I agree, things get much more complex and nuanced from there. I will continue researching.
Keep in mind that "meat" and "plant food" are terms that are really describing the constituents one needs in their diet: minerals, vitamins, proteins, fiber, etc. Whether you obtain these from a meat or plant source is for most people and purposes irrelevant. Taking this + the effects of meat-eating on non-human animals is enough to question omnivorism, and it is not enough to reply that we are omnivores because we always have been. evolution does not force one to be omnivorous (otherwise wouldn't "thrive" on a vegan diet, as so many do).
Again, I appreciate all that you've said, and will keep it in mind.”
syzgy on Jul 23, 2012 at 11:47:18
“Not all land is occupied by animals, and this land can be used to farm plants. Amazonian rainforest destruction causes lots of suffering, but this nothing like this needs to happen to sustain a vegan diet. In fact, the majority of Amazonian destruction, to do things like plant soybeans, is for the sake of providing feed for farm animals.
Also, the article employs ad hominem, which in reality have nothing to do with supporting an argument (saying vegans are self-righteous or think they don't contribute to suffering, so veganism itself must be wrong).”
syzgy on Jul 23, 2012 at 11:46:55
“I postulated that you are rationalizing because you have been putting meat consumption on an equal footing with plant consumption. They are not equal. The inefficiency of meat eating outweighs the inefficiencies of plant consumption (in general). Read "Livestock's Long Shadow," but perhaps you already have. They are not on equal footing in other ways. The article you linked to makes this same error, an error that is the basis of its argument. A plant based diet, in theory and in practice, has less environmental costs, and has plus that one isn't torturing animals in a factory farm. If you really do eat meat in a way in which animals don't suffer, but are merely killed, this in my opinion is quite a good thing, comparatively speaking. Suicide indeed is the logical consequence to end suffering (unless you factor in the suffering people would feel at your death). The point is not to take it to its logical consequence, it's to do what you can as an individual to reduce suffering, like the vegan quoted says. It's a matter of degree, and not all degrees are equal from a moral standpoint.”
syzgy on Jul 23, 2012 at 11:46:31
“Yes, not all of the meat industry consists of factory farms. So I will be more careful with my semantics in the future. However, I am not "ignoring that there are indeed sustainable and humane meat and animal husbandry operations," because I disagree that there is any humane way to exploit other animals. They are not things to be used. But I agree that there are less egregious animal farming methods than factory farms, and because morality is a matter of degree, these methods are certainly morally superior.
You say some people need meat, and use the old "we are omnivores" statement. This is the "naturalistic fallacy." Also, people don't need meat, they need the right plant foods. Sure, if they don't get this, their health will suffer.
Not all people have access to plant foods. In that case, they should do what they must to maintain their health.”
syzgy on Jul 22, 2012 at 10:55:54
“(i correct myself: my comment did respond to your destruction of the earth comment. clearly, though, it is less destructive and costly to only do x, or x + y, rather than x + y + z, where x, y, and z are all destructive. and, clearly it is even less destructive to only do x and seek to change the destructiveness of x in the meantime. so this is what i had in mind.)”
syzgy on Jul 22, 2012 at 10:40:30
“I don't know what you have in mind when you say "pain and suffering", but if you knew anything about the meat industry, you'd know how egregious it is. Care to elaborate on the effects of these other practices that contribute just as much or more to animal suffering, and how these practices do so? I don't need to eat animals, so I won't kill them, let alone support cruelty towards them. So I need to eat plants, and while I do, I'll do what is in my power to support activities that change the destructive effects of modern farming practices. To me (and many others, of course) this is all a no-brainer, but again, everyone is free to rationalize (and they readily do, for the sake of self-interest).”
syzgy on Jul 22, 2012 at 10:40:14
“Just keep in mind that there are some bad effects you have to keep (unwillingly) contributing to, in order to survive yourself, while in the meantime doing what you can to change these practices (supporting local farmers rather than big ag., for instance, when buying your sustenance), while other practices are entirely unnecessary, in many ways directly more egregious, such that your contributing to it cannot be validated in any respect from a moral standpoint.
I didn't say anything about less destruction to the earth. A lot needs to change in our society's practices with respect to that, including how we farm plant products. In the meantime, I can support small farmers, etc., and other people can too. One person can only do so much, but they should do whatever is fully in their power (like simply refraining from supporting the meat industry).”
syzgy on Jul 22, 2012 at 10:39:48
“I agree that modern plant agriculture is destructive. This needs to change.
By not supporting the meat industry one actually does contribute less to animal suffering. The most suffering that occurs to non-human animals is in factory farms. I could elaborate- but the information is readily available to anyone who cares to look. The living conditions are horrendous. And its billions- literally- of animals a year in the U.S. that live like this. There are cows go through slaughter machines alive. The animals can barely move. They don't see the light of day. They are prevented from doing anything that they would naturally do as a creature free from human torture (except eating what they are fed, defecating, and giving birth- all in closed quarters of course).
Humans don't need to eat meat when plant sources are readily available (read: the U.S., Europe, etc.). So these animals live in horrendous conditions just so humans can have the taste of meat. I would never support an industry that is so cruel to animals (this isn't an abstract phenomena- again, just look up the conditions yourself). If you want to rationalize your continuing to support them, because everything one does has bad effects, that's certainly your choice.”
Jul 6, 2012 at 10:36:56
“"I am very well acquainted with the psychological effects of this, both as a victim and as a healthcare professional."
You were implying here that you knew (or were familiar with) her experience as a rape victim, therefore did not buy her attorney's explanation or her actions that followed. Pretty plain, though you can dance around it with excess verbiage all you'd like.
So you're from El Salvador in the same economic circumstances? Or are you just back-pedaling now because I made a valid point.”
Jul 6, 2012 at 10:29:24
“"...so I don't make assumptions about what people cope with in their private lives--I can't believe your arrogance."
This made me chuckle, as this is exactly what you did as you entered this thread, in fact. Also I never assumed anything about what you cope with. Maybe you should reflect on some of your own admonishments to others. Your tactics are bullying and manipulative. You still keep basing your entire incredibly verbose argument on your fill-in-the blanks assumptions. Feel free to keep at it and apply whatever analyses you'd like to my intentions, attack me personally and my use of vocabulary (classic), and intelligence level. Those are fun ways to spend time I suppose, but they don't add any credibility to your argument.”
Jul 5, 2012 at 23:28:23
“"Has anyone suggested you 'reflect' on the word 'facile'?
Kind of like when you summed up my investment and level of education on this issue by putting forth yet another ridiculous unfounded assumption. Pour on the underhanded jabs all you want sister. It does not make your assertions or "hunches" true. It just makes you look like a bully.
"I don't need to reassure myself with superficial, brainless responses to pleas from unknown persons, with unknown authenticity, to make myself feel like I'm a good person. If that works for you, Care2 and Credo will let you rubberstamp all sorts of unexamined 'causes'. I try to inform myself before signing"
Who are you referring to dear?
And I didn't peg your 'disagreement' as self-serving. Just your biased hogwash assumptions and characterizations.”
Jul 5, 2012 at 23:14:29
“Hate to burst your bubble again but most undocumented immigrants do pay taxes and billions annually into SS, so that premise doesn't fly either.
Secondly, there is nothing objective about your position. Presuming "scam", making unfounded character attacks, postulating, and injecting your own personal experience as comparison is not 'objective'. Convince me you have the welfare of others in mind with that one and I'll reconsider my 'self-serving' claim.
Didn't ask your advice on how to be more productive, but how kind of you, seeing as you have no idea how I spend the majority of my time. Boy we sure love presumptions don't we.
Oh yes and feel free (since you enjoy it so much) to paint my motives however you like also. I don't really care if I "appear" kind or not. I would hate however to cast aspersions on a woman who could have a bright future and a better life, wherever that may be.”
Jul 5, 2012 at 22:57:11
“I'm not presuming to know anything. I'm not the one on a crusade slinging accusations, postulating and vilifying intentions. I know that a woman in this situation would have a great deal of fear and apprehension, and without an advocate may not know how to navigate the system, and may have very little faith in authority figures. That may seem like "emotional manipulation" to you, but to me it is recognizing that human beings do not always act in their own best interest when stressed and in fear.
Were you present at the time of here entry? You seem to be so certain she used coyotes. (more assumptions on your part)
"I'm simply restating them without deflecting from the obvious absurdities via emotional manipulation."
Jul 5, 2012 at 22:47:52
“As if your mention of your own experience in an attempt to compare your experience with this young woman's is not manipulative? Let's be real here: there is indeed a racial motivation behind much of the vilifying rhetoric surrounding this issue, whether you care to admit it or not.”
igtoftc on Jul 6, 2012 at 05:37:54
“What part of Hispanic = Caucasian do you not understand? What part of you have no clue whatsoever about my heritage? You know nothing of Latinos, or you would know that within La Raza there is a lot of antagonism over cultural differences. Vamos, idiota, dime como tu sabes tanto de esta mujer, por favor, dime :) I hope for your sake that you're Hispanic, Maggie, although that's highly unlikely, because you're in for some serious surprises in the next few years. (I had a good friend from TJ named Maggie, so I'm saying that based on your cultural ignorance, not your name.) I will admit, I really detest social workers as a group--not all, as there are always bell curves, and my suggestion that you fit that profile-not the same as assuming you are one--has to do with the passive-aggression that seems endemic to that 'profession'. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's racist....I'm aware that there are some wonderul persons in that field, they're just a minority. And, for gsake, do you have any other word available other than 'villify'? I guess limited vocabulary and limited analytical skills are the Bobbsey Twins of neurolinguistic impairment. There is a rare book available called a 'thesaurus'. It's a wonderland of expanded consciousness... All said, I can't wait for the followup story on Medina, when the background of this woman comes out, or, conversely, the tearjerking telenovela. Hopefully, I'll be in Uruguay or Argentina by then, as the US is a lost cause.”
Jul 5, 2012 at 22:23:24
“Unfortunately for you, giving examples of generalizations and stereotypes are not a means to make a legitimate point. Also, most of the world views North, Central, and South America as 'America', not just Mexicans. It isn't a 'joke', its being geographically accurate. Many other cultures do not view time the way American's do either. Look at Europe and Asian countries as well. Your consistent vilifying of Hispanics is suspect.”
igtoftc on Jul 6, 2012 at 04:05:27
“You have absolutely no understanding of humor, as evidenced in another 'concrete' interpretation of a joke. (If not in SW, go there, you're a perfect fit.)
The use of 'American' is a joke on the US. If you were Latina and able to speak with Mexicans en espanol, you would get the joke. They immensely enjoy that the US is so self-absorbed that it thinks that everyone is just grateful as h- to be here, and, oh, so proud, to say they're American, even though, for many of them, it has nothing to do with being in the US.
And, no, most of the world does not consider other than US citizens as Americans. he worldwide distaste for 'Americans' is directed solely at the US, and those who represent that stereotype :)
I'm sorry you think stating what is well known throughout the Latin American world is 'villifying', showing your imposition of your own values on what is 'good' v. 'evil', and unwillingness to recognize behavioral trends within cultures have pro's and con's, and some cons' are not in the interest of other populations.
You appear to imply that 'generalizations and stereotypes' re different cultures have no merit. Ergo, there's no point in being culturally sensitive. Machismo, and all that implies is just a stereotype, the consequences to the female victims of this attitude are delusionary, and even mentioning that is further evidence of my 'villifying' Hispanics. Good. Got that.”
Jul 5, 2012 at 22:19:26
“It is completely bogus and unfair to claim to know her experience. Not only on an individual personality profile level but as follows: You come from different cultural backgrounds, different gender concepts/identities, different levels of economic and sociological empowerment, you have access to much more resources and options as well. You. Have. No. Idea. Okay?”
igtoftc on Jul 6, 2012 at 00:29:46
“I just had to respond to this other comment of yours, Maggie, one you made as part of your attempt to attack my argument as based on assumptions: (It was too ironic to pass up :)
'you have access to much more resources and options as well'
How on earth do you presume to know what options either Blanca Medina or I have access to?
All you know is that I have access to the internet. Period. Everything else is pure conjecture/assumption on your part. You don't even know if I represented myself accurately. I could be male. I could be Blanca ella misma.
Your very behavior demonstrates why it is idiotic to take attempts to rally emotional support to circumvent law enforcement via social pressure as legitimate, prima facie. And, I know, this last sentence is probably incredibly taxing for someone with minimal reading comprehension skill. Relax. I wasn't saying you needed to be taxed. You needn't get all riled up :)
(Plus, it's 'many' not 'more' resources, si tu quieres hablar en ingles, hable correctamente, por favor...)
I'm tired of this. I'm not writing any more, thank you. I need to play with someone with a brain who can offer a decent argument, not misconstrue jokes and fabricate statements they feel capable of handling, rather than try to deal the actual ones. All you have are regurgitations from your cultural sensitivity training that are completely unrelated to what I actually said.”
igtoftc on Jul 6, 2012 at 00:04:48
“I'm sorry, Maggie. Are you using Karl Rove's playbook, or have you simply zero reading comprehension skills?
'It is completely bogus and unfair to claim to know her experience.'
'Please quote where I said I knew her experience. Quote where you think I said that, as I never said it. That tactic is to make up a 'bogus' statement, one which undermines a person's credibility, then attack it, despite the fact that the person never said anything close to it.
"You come from different cultural backgrounds, different gender concepts/identities, different levels of economic and sociological empowerment, you have access to much more resources and options as well. You. Have. No. Idea. Okay?"
So you know where I came from y que no soy una guanaca? O que tenga mas educacion o no soy una pobre y mi familia estan aqui con papeles? And you know this because? Y tu no haces suposiciones? Just because I said some of our group went to El Salvador in the worst of times didn't mean no es mi patria. And, there are plenty of highly accomplished first generation, professional guanacas in LA, Sonia Molina, for one, made it to the state board of dentistry after going to Harvard. But, then again, I could be from anywhere: