[Closed] Please explain Veganism to me . . .

Tom please dont ever try to lecture me on logic or try to do analogies again. Its amusing stand up I grant you but it is not meaningful.

Its still a binary choice tom there is no middle way between eats meat and does not eat meat and your floundering attempts to prevent yourself just admitting this error are risible.

there's been far more provocation and attempted flaming from the meat eating side of the fence in here.

Careful now, they'll accuse you of oppressing them with your forum name. 🙂

FWIW i have had people pour meat gravy on my food deliberately so there are nutters on all sides.

Which "nutters" action on other sides are you attempting to equate this with?

How does pouring gravy on food make someone a "nutter" ?

It's not been huge on this thread, but at least two posters have mentioned eating "dead animal" and "flesh" instead of the far more neutral "meat" - of course it's technically correct, but it's also a fairly interesting choice of vocabulary that seems (maybe subconciously) calculated to make meat eating less appetising, and a vegetarian lifestyle moreso.

I'm guilty of this. For my part, I'm not using those words to be deliberately inflammatory, rather as an explanation of how it feels to me. I don't equate meat with food, I equate it to dead flesh; I find it revolting, and my choice of words are intended to explain that. Plus, y'know, there's an inherent comedic value. (-: Sorry if that wasn't clear, but it wasn't my intent to be derisory.

there's been far more flaming from the meat eating side of the fence in here.

I equate it to dead flesh, but this does not revolt me.

Which "nutters" action on other sides are you attempting to equate this with?

Presumably the girl knocking a tray of ham sandwiches to the floor.

How does pouring gravy on food make someone a "nutter" ?

Reaching over someone else's food who you know is a vegan and pouring gravy on it - that's being a nutter, don't you think?

Its still a binary choice tom there is no middle way between eats meat and does not eat meat and your floundering attempts to prevent yourself just admitting this error are risible.

Again, you've misunderstood. You genuinely think I give a shit about what veggies eat, all I care about is the arguments you and others have used to justify your choice. You are pro-abortion yes Junky? If so, do not pretend any well thought out philosophical standpoint ever influenced your decision to not eat meat.

You are pro-abortion yes Junky? If so, do not pretend any well thought out philosophical standpoint ever influenced your decision to not eat meat.

There you go again. Strange.

I just have a psychotic dislike for poor logic.

You are pro-abortion yes Junky? If so, do not pretend any well thought out philosophical standpoint ever influenced your decision to not eat meat.

Life must be a struggle.

Again I am not against peoples decision to eat or not eat meat, just their arguments for doing so.

Fair enough. Care to deconstruct the flaw in my argument, then?

In case you missed it: I don't eat meat because I find the concept of eating lumps of animals to be gross and barbaric, and I'm lucky enough to live in a society where it's wholly optional, so I choose not to.

I'd have problems with handling bleeding lumps of flesh and innards, and consider that it would be massively hypocritical of me to cheerfully put something in my mouth that earlier I'd have been squeamish about putting in my hands, so long as someone deals with the wetwork for me first.

What have you got for me, logic boy?

I think that the best way around the disassociation between killing animals and the food we eat would be to introduce hunting onto the primary school curriculum. Maybe with spears.

That way, once you've stalked an animal, ended its life with a well aimed sharp implement, ripped its guts out while 'blooding' your mates with its entrails, then roasted it on an open spit, you can make a decision on your future dietry requirements from there.

I've suggested this to the local education authority, but the bloody Guardian reading veggies were aghast at the idea, and immediately dismissed it.

There's simply no bloody pleasing some people!

so the best you can come up with is they used technically correct words you dont like.

Which is why I said "it's not been huge on this thread" and explicitly mentioned that they are indeed technically correct.

As to whether or not "meat" as a term is used to make it subconciously easier to handle, maybe for some but in general I doubt it - the word for "flesh" and "meat" is the same in Spain, and there are far fewer vegetarians here for example. I think most people like meat and don't particularly care about where it comes from.

Fair enough. Care to deconstruct the flaw in my argument, then?

In case you missed it: I don't eat meat because I find the concept of eating lumps of animals to be gross and barbaric, and I'm lucky enough to live in a society where it's wholly optional, so I choose not to.

Then it's an emotional choice, nothing more. But your use of the term barbaric implies that you think that others are barbaric. At least dead chickens get used for something, what do dead foetuses get used for?

I'm genuinely struggling to understand the link to Abortion that Tom keeps mentioning...

How does pouring gravy on food make someone a "nutter" ?

Would you eat a burger I'd urinated on? That's exactly how it feels to me when someone tips meat juices all over my food. Is deliberately (as opposed to innocently / accidentally) ruining someone's dinner "normal behaviour"?

You are pro-abortion yes Junky?

It's about agency, chickens have none - nor do foetuses. That is partly why we justify killing the latter. What is so barbaric about killing the former, if you are willing to do the latter.

Then it's an emotional choice, nothing more.

Arguably. What if it is?

But your use of the term barbaric implies that you think that others are barbaric. At least dead chickens get used for something, what do dead foetuses get used for?

You really are reaching now, aren't you. Dead foetuses get used for, as a random example, preserving the long-term sanity of rape victims.

Are you here for the five minutes or the full half hour?

So let me get this straight, you think that because I may support a woman over her choice of what happens to her own body, my choice of not eating meat is some-how morally* bankrupt?

Really?

* suggests of course that you only see one reason not to eat meat...

{quote] You really are reaching now, aren't you. Dead foetuses get used for, as a random example, preserving the long-term sanity of rape victims.

Chickens can be used for food in areas that can't grow arable crops. Importing arable food to these places increases CO2 output, killing more fluffy bunnies. Plenty of utilitarian uses for eating meat to justify the practice.

Do you only support aborttion for rape cases then?

So let me get this straight, you think that because I may support a woman over her choice of what happens to her own body, my choice of not eating meat is some-how morally bankrupt?

Really?

Pretty much, with the caveat...only if you think you are morally superior to those who do eat meat.

So, in summary, there are two main arguments for/against vegetarianism: are you pro-choice and does preparing meat (aka flesh) make you feel icky?

What is so barbaric about killing the former, if you are willing to do the latter.

Fundamentally, I don't believe that I have a right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their bodies. Which is why I'm not a preachy vegetarian and why I don't think women should be banned from removing a bunch of cells from their bodies before it turns into something they'll have to look after 24/7 for the next two decades of their life.

As straw men go, this is a particularly good one.

Killing animals for no other reason than we really like it, on the other hand, sounds like the sort of thing they'll be reading about with disbelief in text books in a millennium or two.

[i]only if you think you are morally superior to those who do eat meat[/i]

I think that's only going on in your head TBH.

I haven't seen one veggie on this thread claim moral superiority, most of us are pretty aware of the caveats and compromises we have chosen to make.

what do dead foetuses get used for?

Do you only support aborttion for rape cases then?

Tom are you feeling ok? Have you considered exercising this obsession with aborted feotuses on another thread?

only if you think you are morally superior to those who do eat meat

I think I'm morally superior to those who make rubbish straw man arguments. Does that mean I'm not allowed to be pro-choice?

In case you missed it: I don't eat meat because I find the concept of eating lumps of animals to be gross and barbaric, and I'm lucky enough to live in a society where it's wholly optional, so I choose not to.

And I fully support your choice not to

In fact can't think of any significant voice within the meat eating community that would oppose your choice not to, or would try to impose their own moral code on you and demand that veggie burgers were banned or force you to eat meat.

There are actual organisations however, with real significant membership numbers, that seek to impose that on the meat eating community, and to remove or undermine their choice to eat what they want.

Please don't.
It might be irrelevant but at least it's irrelevant in one place.

Chickens can be used for food in areas that can't grow arable crops. Importing arable food to these places increases CO2 output, killing more fluffy bunnies. Plenty of utilitarian uses for eating meat to justify the practice.

This affects me how?

Do you only support aborttion for rape cases then?

Sorry, I thought an example would be sufficient to counter your frankly barking argument, I didn't realise you'd need a full and exhaustive list.

Pretty much, with the caveat...only if you think you are morally superior to those who do eat meat.

Never really gave it much thought to be honest. Can't really see the logic in why I would though, as I've said several times now I'm not (primarily) vegetarian for moral reasons, it's just a happy side-effect.

There are actual organisations however that seek to impose that on the meat eating community, and to undermine their choice to eat what they want.

Go on then, which ones?

There are actual organisations however that seek to impose that on the meat eating community, and to undermine their choice to eat what they want.

And you were doing so well for a moment there. Why do you keep repeating the same point when I've already answered it several times now?

Because trying to point to them as a small minority of 'extremists' doesnt reflect many meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies.

How often do you interact with extremists? I'm not even sure who you're referring to, they're such a large part of my experience.

Again, you've misunderstood.

Reading the thread so you think is working for you

* I'm not for or against eating meat,
for fear or repeating myself you either are for it and eat meat or you are against it and dont eat meat. There is no other option available - well there is the one you are doing now but its unhinged gibberish that makes you look bonkers.

Which "nutters" action on other sides are you attempting to equate this with?

How does pouring gravy on food make someone a "nutter" ?

well campylobacter is less of an issue for veggies so less flame needed

its easy to cross contaminate though.

on the flip side, if you are an organic veggie there is a significant increase risk of faecal bacteria on your food.

How often do you interact with extremists?

Because trying to point to them as a small minority of 'extremists' doesnt reflect many meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies.

Because trying to point to them as a small minority of 'extremists' doesnt reflect many meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies.

And your logical fallacy is... *spins the wheel*...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Most meat-eaters'experience of interacting with most veggies day to day will go unnoticed as we don't wear signs and usually only mention it when we have to. And when you do find out, it only sticks as memorable when you find a shouty one. This is basically the "all cyclists are..." argument again; [i]"trying to point to [s]them[/s] [b]idiots on bikes[/b] as a small minority of 'extremists' doesnt reflect many [s]meat eaters[/s] [b]car drivers'[/b] experience of interacting with [s]veggies[/s] [b]cyclists[/b]."[/i]

You and a couple of others keep implying that the world is seemingly overrun by militant vegetarians on a mission to take over the world armed with lentils and tofu. Yet, often go all quiet when asked if this actually happens to them on a regular basis, if ever. It's lazy, tedious and inaccurate.

And even if you were right, the fact remains that they [i]are[/i] extremists, they aren't representative, so these 'many meat eaters' perceptions are skewed.

Because trying to point to them as a small minority of 'extremists' doesnt reflect many meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies.

So most veggies are extremists? They must all be members of these organisations who you still haven't named yet who want to force everyone to be veggie.

You and a couple of others keep implying that the world is seemingly overrun by militant vegetarians on a mission to take over the world armed with lentils and tofu

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them

Your posts on here are cast iron proof of that.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them

Is it me or has this thread got a bit silly this lunchtime?

It's just you. It's been a bit silly for way longer than that. (-:

many meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies.

Been thinking about this and I reckon most meat eaters experience of interacting with veggies goes something like...

- Oh so do you eat fish then?
- No

Extremists indeed 🙂

I don't think I've ever really encountered nutty aggressive vegetarians/vegans.

I think what D0nk alluded to earlier is true though. Vegans/vegetarians here aren't being preachy but when you say you aren't claiming any moral high ground - when you say you are vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons you are inherently claiming some kind of moral superiority.

You could argue it's insecurity on the part of meat eaters knowing they should at least eat less meat, I'm sure there's an element of that sometimes. I reckon I should eat less meat, and should definitely pretty much never eat factory produced meat. There does seem to be a bit of an assumption though that vegetarian/vegan = people who care about animal welfare and ethical consumption, omnivore = someone who doesn't. Maybe it's all in my head but I don't think so.

Killing animals for no other reason than we really like it, on the other hand, sounds like the sort of thing they'll be reading about with disbelief in text books in a millennium or two.

You mean a bit like people carrying out abortions because they like sex a bit too much? 😆

when you say you are vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons you are inherently claiming some kind of moral superiority

That is BS what I am saying is that you are morally inferior 😉

See cougar point above

I think meat eaters can care and they can make it nicer/better with more ethical choices but the basic sticking point,for some, is is it good or bad to kill animals for food ?

No matter how nicely you do it it will still be considered bad by some non meat eaters.

In the same way we can have a "humane" execution or death by a thousand cuts . I am note sure either is good but one is certainly worse

Killing animals for no other reason than we really like it, on the other hand, sounds like the sort of thing they'll be reading about with disbelief in text books in a millennium or two.

You mean a bit like people aborting because they liked sex a bit too much? 😀

Keep up with the ad hom though guys.

This affects me how?

Because omnivore diets with a little bit of meat are a bit greener, you selfish planet destroyer. 😀 I suppose you pollute the planet with your toxic prius batteries and reduce food security for the developing world by buying organic as well 😀 ......you barbarian Cougar

when you say you are vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons you are inherently claiming some kind of moral superiority.

The assumption I suppose hinges on whether not eating meat really [i]is[/i] the more moral choice or whether it's subjective opinion. Is moral superiority being implied or inferred here?

Ie, the veggie states "I don't eat meat because I think it's the right thing to do," then either the meat eater doesn't agree that it's the right thing to do in which case there's no moral advantage to either party; or the meat-eater agrees that it's the right thing to do but can't bring themselves to do it, in which case their feeling of moral inferiority is because in that instance they are actually morally inferior.

I could be talking toot of course, cod (substitute) philosophy isn't really my forté.

Which post by Cougar JY?

I'm not quite following his claim not to be vegetarian for moral reasons but then saying he doesn't eat meat because it's barbaric.

Personally I'm quite strongly into scientific scepticism and I think it pays to challenge ones assumptions and preconceptions. I'm not sure that assuming that vegetarian = better for animals without thinking through other factors is good logic. As above I know veges who eat a lot of eggs and have never considered how many chickens die to produce those eggs. But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something.

You mean a bit like people carrying out abortions because they like sex a bit too much?

Yes, because that's exactly why most people typically have abortions, as a convenient form of birth control. 🙄

I'm not quite following his claim not to be vegetarian for moral reasons but then saying he doesn't eat meat because it's barbaric.

I think you may have misunderstood (or cherry-picked) there. That's not really what I said. Or at least, it is, but that wasn't the crux of the explanation.

The assumption I suppose hinges on whether not eating meat really is the more moral choice or whether it's subjective opinion. Is moral superiority being implied or inferred here?

Both.

Personally, by and large I reckon veganism is morally superior to eating meat. Vegetarianism I'm not entirely convinced about and tend towards thinking it's more an emotional decision than a moral/logical one.

Is moral superiority being implied or inferred here?

I think there could be some implied there too, if I do something you think immoral (or barbaric) then I suspect you consider yourself above me in some way even if only in a minor/subconscious way that you would never vocalise.

(and if I've got implied/inferred the right way round there I'll be happy)

Vegetarianism I'm not entirely convinced about and tend towards thinking it's more an emotional decision than a moral/logical one.

An immediate and undeniable moral reason is the manner in which meat is typically produced, as it relates to the animals themselves. Factory-farmed animals are treated pretty badly. If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced. This would make vegetarianism a moral stance.

EDIT: I've just read that back, and although it sounds preachy, I'm just trying to give and example of a moral reasoning.

As above I know veges who eat a lot of eggs and have never considered how many chickens die to produce those eggs. But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something.

Chances are that,

a) they already know,

b) they will have put considerably more effort into researching a vegetarian diet than your average meat eater,

c) you will be the seven hundred and thirty-ninth person to helpfully mansplain it to them and,

d) they've made a decision what to eat or avoid based on their own personal view as to what they can cheerfully live without eating from a nutritional and satisfaction point of view. Ultimately, most people don't want to be martyrs, spending their lives being bloody miserable for the sake of a boiled egg.

That last point may sound hypocritical but (again) that's because you're assuming it's an all-or-nothing decision. It's a balancing act. You'd like to be vegetarian but couldn't give up bacon? Fine, be vegetarian except for bacon (just please don't tell everyone you're veggie as it confuses people and provides ammo for shitwits).

We all love analogies, right? Say I'd like to reduce my carbon footprint so decide to cycle to work every day instead of driving. At the weekend I get the shopping in, so take the car. Should I be lambasted for that? I could do it on the bike, but it'd take hours and multiple trips, so whilst technically possible it's not really practical and probably not sustainable long-term. Should I give up riding completely just because I need to drive at weekends? Or should I be sensible and do what I can when I can without it impacting unacceptably severely on my life?

I think meat eaters can care and they can make it nicer/better with more ethical choices but the basic sticking point,for some, is is it good or bad to kill animals for food ?

Well.

My Father in Law, in Wisconsin, likes to deer hunt. There are too many deer in Wisconsin because people have killed most of the apex predators. This means that the deer will eventually ruin the environment for all the other lovely fluffy cute critters. So they would have to be culled, for the greater good, if there weren't so many trigger happy Americans (joking) looking for something at which to shoot. To my knowledge, this is always eaten - if not by the hunter then it's given away to friends, relatives or even food banks.

I can't come up with a reason for this being unethical, except for the historical actions of settlers killing all the bears, wolves, coyotes and lions.

An immediate and undeniable moral reason is the manner in which meat is typically produced, as it relates to the animals themselves. Factory-farmed animals are treated pretty badly. If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced.

I think eating industrially produced meat is pretty clearly morally indefensible. I still do it sometimes but I have signicantly cut down and am trying to cut it out altogether.

However, I'm reasonably confident that eg eating a bit of game now and then is probably ethically superior to regularly eating mass-produced (even free-range) eggs. I'm not sure about dairy.

And cougar you either misunderstand or are misrepresenting me. I've already said I'm not of the opinion that people have to be ethically pure or shouldn't even try. What I'm questioning is the assumption that not eating meat is actually the best way of making a difference to animal welfare. I'm not saying this to have a go at vegetarians but I think people should at least consider these things a bit more. Some people have and accept that there are compromises and that's fine, but some people are adopting an emotional stance that is more about making themselves feel better than anything else, IMO. That's human nature to some extent but I think it's always worth examining these things.

If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced. This would make vegetarianism a moral stance.

It's pretty debateable how much sentience a chicken or a trout has, though. I don't want either to suffer, but at the same time I find it very hard to get upset about them dying.

Tom and others, a couple of thoughts:

I'm veggie. My initial reasons were moral ones. And these moral reasons apply to me. Just me, not you, not anyone else. I couldn't give a flying whatsit what you eat, or think about eating. I'm really not judging anyone except myself and I'm not comparing myself to anyone else. (I'm a complete dick in many ways, so if I did, I'd cancel myself out anyway.)

Secondly, those moral reasons aren't black and white. There's no logic, no absolutes. I'd just quite like it if, as I see it, I had less negative impact on the world. It's a sliding scale. Yes, I'd eat meat on a desert island. Yes, I'm pro-choice. I drink beer. My shoes are leather. I eat eggs (although, after reading this thread and doing some googling, I kind of don't want to). If I think I'm doing enough of what I see as the 'right' thing (in any situation), then I'm happy.

So, my 'moral' reasons apply to me alone, they're not logical and for me, and many other veggies, there are no absolutes. Can you accept that and move on - maybe back to the OP?

I can't come up with a reason for this being unethical, except for the historical actions of settlers killing all the bears, wolves, coyotes and lions.

I think you've answered your own question there. Maybe the ethical thing to do would be to reintroduce those apex predators. (They'd probably be hungry, I think apexes are extinct.) Though arguably we've replaced those predators with ourselves.

I do broadly agree; I can't see much that's unethical about the situation you describe. I suppose you could argue that he's still exploiting animals for his own gain (you said yourself, he [i]likes [/i]to hunt, rather than does it out of necessity) but it's a pretty weak argument.

I think eating industrially produced meat is pretty clearly morally indefensible

Agreed, and like grum I buy it as ethically as I can, but I transgress sometimes. Generally when I am travelling, because not many restaurants offer ethically sourced meat.

I'd be interested in how many others would have a moral objection to eating the Wisconsin venison?

you said yourself, he likes to hunt, rather than does it out of necessity

Well yes - wanting to hunt when you don't have to is, on the face of it, morally unpleasant. However given the pretty significant mitigating circumstances in this case, it's a much greyer area. He *does* enjoy it, but is it the pleasure of killing, the skill of the hunt, or the satisfaction of catching your own food?

Incidentally, deer hunting generates a decent amount of revenue for the state directly, because hunting licenses (strictly limited and carefully calculated numbers of animals allowed to be taken) are quite expensive; and on top of that a lot of people travel into or around the state, spending money in local businesses and so on.

And cougar you either misunderstand or are misrepresenting me.

The former. That makes much more sense.

Brown > very well said. That's broadly how I feel too, reasonings aside.

[i]However, I'm reasonably confident that eg eating a bit of game now and then is probably ethically superior to regularly eating mass-produced[/i]

Yep. Agreed. However, given meat scares in the past (horse being passed off as beef) , and the difficulty for the average consumer of being sure of provenance, then not eating meat at all (the same logic you've applied)...is the better option still?

[i]It's pretty debateable how much sentience a chicken or a trout has, though[/i]

Probably. Although why not just err on the side of caution, and presume they have?

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2024133,00.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

There was a journal entry by stanford which calculated how an omnivore diet could be greener than a vegetarian/vegan diet, can't seem to find it right now though.

No amount of bean-eating or Prius-driving will compensate for reproducing, and it’s the childless, not the vegetarians, who are more likely to save the planet.

Hands up who has kids? 😆 You disgusting, immoral planet destroying barbarous apes.

Molly, how do you feel if your Wisconsin hunter is replaced with folk riding horses following deer with dogs?

Is that not the same argument?

given meat scares in the past (horse being passed off as beef)

Oh, that's an interesting one. How / why is that scary?

We don't generally eat horse for, as far as I know, purely cultural reasons. Popular in France I believe. Koreans famously eat dog, and other countries eat all manner of horrors.

Extrapolating from that, we eat the meats we eat (and avoid the ones we don't) because we always have. Is that really good reasoning? What's inherently wrong with Shergar and chips for tea?

nickc - Member

Molly, how do you feel if your Wisconsin hunter is replaced with folk riding horses following deer with dogs?

Is that not the same argument?

hunting deer with a rifle: all's quiet, BANG! deer is dead.

at least, that's the intention of the hunter.

hunting animals with dogs: if it was as quick and simple and clean as using a rifle, they wouldn't bother.

I don't think sentience is a measure of wether or not it's ethical. It's to do with the emotional complexity of a creature, for me. There's a sliding scale. It's probably ok to swat a fly. Eating a fish, fine for me. Sheep - well, we're getting close. Dogs and cats - tricky. Apes - definitely not.

There was a journal entry by stanford which calculated how an omnivore diet could be greener than a vegetarian/vegan diet

I mentioned this earlier.

From that Time link:

I was a vegetarian from 18 to 24 years old, and I gave up meat partly because I had misgivings about the cruelty to animals. But I began eating meat again when I moved to the [English] countryside and started keeping goats. I had to do something with the male goats. They wouldn't produce milk or offspring, so I started eating them.

Interesting.

Cougar, good point, it really isn't scary is it?

I think I'm guilty of using lazy "Headline" speak.

hunting deer with a rifle: all's quiet, BANG! deer is dead.

Assuming a proficient hunter who never misses a kill shot, of course. How many end up wounded and bleeding for hours, I wonder? Not something I know a great deal about, the only deer I've ever shot have been pictures on a field archery target (and it's harder than it looks).

On this point:

c) you will be the seven hundred and thirty-ninth person to helpfully mansplain it to them

Both the vegetarians I've mentioned this too had no idea and had broadly assumed that free-range eggs meant 'no animals were harmed/killed in the production of these eggs'. They were shocked to realise that all the male chicks are killed and that all the females are killed once they get past peak productivity. Also that conditions in some free range farms are not exactly the image of hens clucking away in a field.

How many end up wounded and bleeding for hours, I wonder?

Quite a few.

Cougar, good point, it really isn't scary is it?

Wrong word perhaps. But I don't really see how it's any different to ordering shepherd's pie and getting cottage pie by mistake (assuming you're not a Hindu, at any rate). At worst it's merely [i]passing off,[/i] you're not getting what you thought you were getting. Beyond that, why does it matter?

Another complication - it says 2kg of feed goes to making 1kg of chicken. Where does the other 1kg go? Most of it is poo I'd guess. Which then gets used as fertiliser to grow all those vegetables. Better than using crude oil for this, no?

I have enjoyed a horse steak in France a few times and see no problem eating it. I think the media hysteria was a bit ridiculous but the main real issue was about provenance/traceability. Go to a decent butcher and he can tell you which local farm the meat came from. You could probably go and have a look round of you really wanted to.

Both the vegetarians I've mentioned this too had no idea

Ah, fair comment, I stand corrected.

Could you elaborate then on what you meant by: [i]"But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something."[/i] Who's deeming this? The people you told? I'd have thought that in the cases you describe they'd have been grateful?

Hands up who has kids?

So as well as abortions, having kids is also not compatible with vegetarianism? Aside from the fact that those two positions would seem to be contradictory, it's funny that the vegetarians are accused of being the abnormal extremists.

I think the media hysteria was a bit ridiculous but the main real issue was about provenance/traceability.

That makes perfect sense, though I thought the main issue was "oh my gods I've just eaten horse!!1!" from the populace. Hard for me to tell given that I was busy feeling all morally superior about not being affected at the time. (-:

Does the rat, poisoned because it’s a threat to the grain stores, count for less than the pig, raised and slaughtered with care?

I love a complex issue, I do.

Hands up who has kids?

Me, but only two....

Hands up who has kids?

I'm idly wondering what trolls feed on. Perhaps they'd be a little less argumentative if they ate less red meat. (-: