Vegan and Veggie Update!

[aquarius moon]

Why do so many people have a problem with Thomas's OP?

All the people on here complaining, should embrace the fact that he and his group

are trying to make a difference.

Why knock a lifestyle that is healthier and kinder to animals?

If you feel strongly about something, promote it. Use forums such as this one to

try and make people see sense.

Loz = The reason that vegetarian establishments do not serve a meat alternative is

simple: Most places that serve meat, only serve a veggie option to satisfy their

customers, so they have to add a vegetarian alternative, or face a backlash, not

through choice. They have no opinions about animals, one way or another.

Vegetarian restaurants/pubs etc however, do not agree with eating/cooking meat, so

would not even consider contaminating their kitchens with the blood of animals.

On moral grounds, they could not possibly serve a meat alternative.

That is the difference.

Woof, RosieH, MichaelP, Horsebox, Karter, Huguenot = Could it be that various posters

actually feel guilty about eating meat and contributing to the death of animals, but

would never dare to admit it to themselves, let alone anyone else, or even think about it?

Much easier to bury their heads in the sand, make silly jokes, take the p*** out of

vegetarians & try to hijack Thomas's original thread with their own sick sense of humour.

Alec John Moore = As always, I think your comments are very fair & unbiased. I like the

fact that you can get your point across without the need to be rude or offensive.

Thomas M = Keep up the good work. Good luck. I think you will need it in East Dulwich!!

[RosieH]

Aquarius Moon, if there was any hijacking done, it was by Thomas himself.

As I said in my first post, he posted the exact same post here, in the What's On section, and on someone else's entirely unrelated thread in the ED issues section. Three identical posts in three separate sections borders on spamming, and is not in the spirit of the forum (whether it actually breaks any rules, I'm sure Admin or one of the moderators could advise), and that's what I take issue with.

I can assure you that I feel no guilt for my omnivorous ways. There is no projection on my part. I have thought about it. I have visited farms and abattoirs and remain of the fully-informed opinion that I am happy to eat meat.

Tell me, did the stars suggest you write your supercilious and flounderingly inaccurate post? I find that Mystic Meg doesn't always get it quite on the button, so not to worry.

Edited to add that I've just looked at the forum's terms of use and it doesn't say anything about blanket posting, and I'm quite sure that Thomas acted out of tremendous enthusiasm rather than a lentil-fuelled desire to conquer East Dulwich.

[woofmarkthedog]

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Woof, RosieH, MichaelP, Horsebox, Karter, Huguenot

> = Could it be that various posters

> actually feel guilty about eating meat and

> contributing to the death of animals, but

> would never dare to admit it to themselves, let

> alone anyone else, or even think about it?

> Much easier to bury their heads in the sand, make

> silly jokes, take the p*** out of

> vegetarians & try to hijack Thomas's original

> thread with their own sick sense of humour.

================================================

No....

No guilt in eating or even shooting them, as I shall do during the game season.

I've looked many a meal in the eye before I've prepared & eaten it

I do though take umbrage at the needless waste of good food, meat or otherwise.

Anyway, Thomas has got broad shoulders & he can take a little "ribbing"

* licks lips thinking about ribs *

W**F

[silverfox]

Damn, meant to click on the colon or whatever it is that means I don't have to read this thread.

[Thomas Micklewright]

Well it is great to see we have a discussion going on this subject.

It would be wonderful if we could stage a debate some time in Dulwich - Im sure there would be people willing on both sides.

Thanks

Thomas

[Huguenot]

The one thing you don't need is a debate.

There's nothing winnable about vegetarianism, because there's no arguable absolutes. You'll merely be hoping to cram the room with emotional screechy 'moralistic' kids.

If you want to win vegetarian arguments you'll do it through subterfuge, not righteousness.

[Thomas Micklewright]

How did you come to that conclusion? 'Screechy moral kids' - not sure where that stereotype fits in with this?

Human health, animal welfare, environment and links with developing countries - please research the meat and dairy industry in this context.

Its more about being practical with the earths resources, meat and dairy is terribly inefficient and damaging, the earth cannot sustainably support the typical western diet.

Reflecting on your last message I think we do need a debate Huguenot - it is a great tool of education as long as it is done properly and in a controlled manner.

Thomas

[Alec John Moore]

Huguenot, you've hit the nail on the head, in a way and if you think it's a contest between completely polarised positions. The reality is more complex and more interesting in my view. I'm open to a discussion about the topics Thomas mentions above but I'm not interested in a contest that attempts to establish the right or wrong way to eat for East Dulwich. There was an interesting event as part of the Dulwich Fetival with the playful/provocative title, Can Dulwich feed itself? Two really experienced commentators on food production discussed some of the issues around the way what we eat is produced, distributed and consumed. I'm sure DVV could produce something equally edifying but it would require a more open minded attitude amongst the participants than we have seen from some of the contributors to the forum when the V word is mentioned.

[RosieH]

I am interested in discussions around vegetarianism, but I know what Huguenot means about screechy moralising - I've encountered that in the past, and frankly I think there's a tiny bit on this thread.

However, I'm aware that eating less meat would be better for the environment. Did any of the meat eaters play along with Meat Free Mondays? I never did, which isn't to say that I don't have any meat-free days, just that they fall naturally within my diet rather than occurring on a given day.

What sort of topics would you like to debate TM?

[wee quinnie]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am interested in discussions around

> vegetarianism, but I know what Huguenot means

> about screechy moralising - I've encountered that

> in the past, and frankly I think there's a tiny

> bit on this thread.

Speaking as a veggie, I've got to say, that I have frequently been asked why I am a veggie, and when I give my reasons (which are briefly about factory farming and environmental sustainablity), often the questioner seems to take this as a judgement upon themselves and starts to defend why they eat meat (or whatever). I refer to this as "the conversation". I find it slightly stressful to be honest, as I don't wish to force others to do anything against their will. As far as I am concerned, what they choose to eat is none of my business.

However, on this and other threads, I have noticed that people will frequently contribute in a way that seems slightly...hostile, and then say "oh, it's a joke." The ultimate way of trying to stymie a reasoned objection.

Is this a no win situation?

[wee quinnie]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As Frankie Boyle said about dinner parties that he

> and his wife hosted:

>

> "Yes of course there is a vegetarian option..

>

> Eat the meat or fcuk off..."

>

>I liked that, but I would never be so crude as to ever repeat it

....Erm.....except on here?!

[Huguenot]

There you go Thomas - again presenting unwinnable arguments: "Human health, animal welfare, environment and links with developing countries"

From a health persepctive, as any fule kno, it's a varied diet you need. The 'V's can't get by without, for example, vitamin B12. This is why rabbits are also insectivores. Don't even get me going on cholesterol or triglycerides, mineral imblalances or the fact that vegetarian parents are blindly damaging kids because children are more sensitive to these imbalances, whilst parents are more dogmatic.

Any 'debate' is going to come out with some blustery claptrap about 'animal fat' that has no basis in reality but an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers.

Animal welfare arguments are plainly stupid. Any argument that gives an animal a 'right' that supercedes human oppression clearly defaults to the fact that the best way to resolve the problem is to remove humans altogether. Even then it won't stop them suffering tortuous deaths through predators or disease. Why differentiate between a human and a fox when it comes to killing chickens? The chicken won't differentiate, and 'scale' doesn't impact on the moral argument. Intensive agriculture is just as damaging to animals as consumption, but veggies conveniently overlook that fact.

Any 'debate' is going to have pictures of battery chickens and halal slaughter that doesn't adddress the issue, but has an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers.

Environmental arguments are reductionist. Not only are animals less efficient than vegetables, but some vegetables are less effficient than others. Why bother drawing a line? If you pursue this argument then you'll be rejecting tomatoes in favour of rice. We don't because we celebrate variety, only a vegetarian would be stupid enough to start drawing arbitrary disinctions based on whether the food in question could make a noise or not.

Any 'debate' is going to focus on the carbon footprint of a cow with no reference to the pointlessness of drawing lines in the sand on protein yield. It has no basis in logic, but an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers.

Links with developing countries are just as constructive/destructive for ominvores as vegetarians. Any attempt by vegetarians to take the moral high ground is not only false, but vain.

Any 'debate' is likely to be full of Oxfam photos of bloated kids suffering from malnutrition, and whilst patently immature, it has an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers.

To be honest I'm not too bothered that all the arguments for vegetarianism are crap, but I am bothered that vegetarians are so smug and self centred, so conceited in their conviction, that they they call for a 'public debate'.

Get over yerself for Crissakes. You like animals because they're cuddly. You don't like people killing your teddy bear. That's nice, it means you're nice and sesitive. Well done. But your arguments are post-rationalised and unwinnable simply because of the arbitrary distinctions between flora and fauna, and humans and other predators.

[Alec John Moore]

Thank you, wee quinnie, for putting so clearly what I've been concerned about for some time in this discussion.

I must say I haven't noticed any screechy moralising on the part of the Vegan/Veggies but then people take what they want or expect from what they see, read and hear - myself included.

Despite that, I still think there's potential for a discussion about the consequences of what we eat which could cover a wide spectrum from veganism to carnivorism. I don't expect any such event would conclude for or against a particular diet but it might inform a few of the participants about their respective positions. I think it could be worth it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You are conflating a lot of issues there Huguenot, in what comes across as a rather-too-keen attempt at being dismissive

It makes no difference whether chicken are battery-farmed or free-range? Really?

I can see why people might want to do become vegetarians - it's not going to happen to me, but I can understand some of the motivation if not the answers. But to be quite so dismissive of so many people (and drag meat-eaters into the same bracket) is a bit OTT. Your arguments are over-reductive

I'm happy to be a meat-eater but if someone has looked battery-farming in the metaphorical eye, shrugs and says "I don't care" then that lessens them significantly in my eye.

Yours

A pasty-faced-teenager

etc etc

[Huguenot]

I'm not disagreeing with views about animal welfare, I'm just saying it's a rubbish justification for vegetarianism.

I'm not conflating the issues, I'm just taking his points one by one:

Vegetarianism isn't healthy. Environmental issues don't alter the fact that vegetarianism is an arbitrary line in the sand that might as well be anywhere. 'Links with developing countries' has nothing to do with vegetarianism at all.

They're all nonsense.

[wee quinnie]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > From a health persepctive, as any fule kno, it's a

> varied diet you need. The 'V's can't get by

> without, for example, vitamin B12. This is why

> rabbits are also insectivores. Don't even get me

> going on cholesterol or triglycerides, mineral

> imblalances or the fact that vegetarian parents

> are blindly damaging kids because children are

> more sensitive to these imbalances, whilst parents

> are more dogmatic.

>

Well the NHS don't seem overly concerned:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegetarianhealthqanda.aspx

> > Animal welfare arguments are plainly stupid.

See Sean remarks.

>

> >

> Any attempt by vegetarians to take

> the moral high ground is not only false, but

> vain.

I must have missed the moral high ground bit.

>

> Any 'debate' is likely to be full of Oxfam photos

> of bloated kids suffering from malnutrition, and

> whilst patently immature, it has an awful lot of

> cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers.

>

This is pure speculation on your part.

> To be honest I'm not too bothered that all the

> arguments for vegetarianism are crap, but I am

> bothered that vegetarians are so smug and self

> centred, so conceited in their conviction, that

> they they call for a 'public debate'.

>

You've never met me! Why would you think this of me?

> Get over yerself for Crissakes. You like animals

> because they're cuddly. You don't like people

> killing your teddy bear. That's nice, it means

> you're nice and sesitive. Well done.

Vegetarians are individuals who make their choices for a variety of reasons. I disagree with some of their reasons, and I am sure many would disagree with mine. Why the generalisations?

From Pasty faced 42 year old teenager Wee Quinnie.

[Huguenot]

Why would you think I was talking about you wee queenie? Bit defensive ;-)

I wasn't aware you were calling for a public debate?

As for the NHS not being overly concerned, then why would they write an extended piece about how to solve the challenges of vitamin and mineral deficiency?

If you don't think that suggesting overseas cattle and dairy farm overseas activity as a reason to be vegetarian is moralising then you haven't come across this definition: "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority"

[wee quinnie]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would you think I was talking about you wee

> queenie? Bit defensive ;-)

>

"...vegetarians are so smug and defensive..." etc

Although you refer to the public debate, I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that your tone is rather forceful, and appears to denigrate vegetarians as a group. Maybe this was not your intention, but this is my interpretation, right or wrong.

> I wasn't aware you were calling for a public

> debate?

>

Personally I'm not. However I still don't see what's wrong with it. As far as I am aware no one is being forced to attend/take part.

> As for the NHS not being overly concerned, then

> why would they write an extended piece about how

> to solve the challenges of vitamin and mineral

> deficiency?

>

I think they mention that this could also be applied to most people in this country regardless of whether they are a vegetarian or not.

> If you don't think that suggesting overseas cattle

> and dairy farm overseas activity as a reason to be

> vegetarian is moralising then you haven't come

> across this definition: "comment on issues of

> right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air

> of superiority"

Whose definition is this?

[Huguenot]

Once more cracking on about the health debate, in a study of 76,000 people researchers could find no evidence that vegetarianism has any contribution to longevity.

I quote :"There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined"

Although vegetarians did live longer on average, the evidence suggested that this was almost solely down to their smoking habits.

Vegans, incidentally, were right up sh1t creek.

The only thing that did come out is that they had a lower prevalence of ischemic heart disease, but it made no difference because something else got them.

So if there's only one disease that might get you more as a non vegetarian, but as a vegetarian you're going to suffer from vitamin, mineral and protein deficiencies unless you're very careful - then there is no evidence that there is on balance any health benefits to vegetarianism at all.

So that's all those 'arguments' for vegetarianism thoroughly debunked.

[woofmarkthedog]

My Friend , male 45 yrs old, a veggie & light drinker, cycling enthusiast, not overweight either has just had a heart attack whilst lecturing in the USA.

Discuss ?

W**F

[Huguenot]

That's very sad :(

In a typically lighthearted British approach to the subject though, it is a clear signal about the dangers of lecturing.

[Narnia]

.......or cycling?

Anyway, someone once told me that all meat eating animals lick water when they drink and vegetarian ones suck it. That would put humans in the latter group and proves that it is unnatural for us to eat meat.

[Huguenot]

But he wasn't actually cycling when it happened was he? Correlation / causation etc. It's self-apparently life threatening to hold forth on an opinion.

[Narnia]

You must be very ill then Hughie. How are you feeling?

[Huguenot]

Well, here in Singers it's beer o'clock. So I'm feeling like a shandy in a highball.