The morality behind veganism

[Jeeves]

I kinda' wonder if vegetarians have cats or dogs?

Yes. many do. This is a reality of nature we have to either work through or ignore. I had a vegetarian friend once who raised his cat without meat, but treated him like a king - cream, not milk, for Rudi, who had his name painted on his own wicker chair, and got home-made custard for breakfast on Sundays. He didn't look unhappy and grew large and strong. I've heard of dogs being fed ovo-lacto vegetarian diets, as well. When you read the labels on pet-food, they're mostly cereal anyway. The very expensive ones advertise that they use rice instead of corn- that is better, actually, and add beet pulp or peas or something equally unnecessary. Or even ground peanut shells, for fiber. Want to pay extra for peanut shells?
Some of us simply accept that, unlike us, with our unlimited choice of foods, our pet is an obligate carnivore. Most domestic cats are not good enough at hunting to sustain themselves, or have no rodents in their house, and their humans frown on and all-songbird diet (not enough nourishment in a sparrow or chickadee, anyway, to offset much more than the energy required to catch and subdue it). So I buy kibble (mostly corn, soybeans and chicken-beaks) canned food (mostly grains and chicken skin and gristle) and sometimes an actual chicken or turkey, which i cook and debone and mix with yeast, vitamins, calcium, wheat germ and cooked barley.
Did you know cats can eat around a grain of barley, leaving it perfectly intact and clean?
Now i grind it up.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I kinda' wonder if vegetarians have cats or dogs?

Im vegetarian an ive had cats an 1 dog.!!!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Did you know cats can eat around a grain of barley, leaving it perfectly intact and clean?

Does this mean cats are immoral, or just being cats?

Rhetorical question.

 

[Jeeves]

Fastidious.
(Hah! They're total pigs!)

 

[kx000]

I imagine it would be a bit charred.

Or charbroiled, sounds good lets eat.

 

[TheFrogger]

Veganism on the grounds of cruelty to animals is commendable. You may still drink milk (this is not cruel) and eat chicken eggs (they lay unfertilised eggs.) Are you aware vegetarians may eat smoky bacon flavour crisps but not cheese and onion? Bizarre!

 

[birch]

The moral issue isnt whether we eat meat but that they are raised humanely and have a good life before slaughtered humanely. This is because it really doesnt matter to a dead animal what you do with its carcass. What is wrong with eating it?

If we are going to take their life, we owe it to them to give them the best life possible including raising their young, allowed to graze, comfort etc.

You know those wonderful idyllic chicken farms where they run free and natural, fed healthy etc. Kobe beef is from cows who get regular massages and beer etc.

As for health, the better you treat and feed livestock, the better for you.

Also, the insane and cruel practices is based on stupidity plus greed. Its not just about overproduction but faster when, check this out, its totally unnnecessary!!

There is overproduction so mosr meat goes to waste anyways. The incessant blind emphasis on speedy production so cutting corners especially humane practices is also unnecessary.

The solution is theoretically right, as usual, right in front of us, yet our bad character keeps us from implementing it.

Ridiculous and insane isnt it?

 

[billvon]

The solution is theoretically right, as usual, right in front of us, yet our bad character keeps us from implementing it.
Ridiculous and insane isnt it?

You realize you can get beef, eggs, chicken etc from farms that raise their animals humanely, right?

 

[birch]

Yes but not all of them do that. All factory farming of livestock should be stopped. Its not even necessary. A meatcutter at safeway told me they waste more meat than selling over hundreds of pounds a week and just because you might see some that are discounted before expiration date but behind the scenes, they make calls to throw out literally batches at a time when they dont sell or when a new item of the week has to take its place.

That means that factory farming for fatter livestock and faster processing at any cost isnt even necessary because its not feeding necessity anyone anyways, its just superfluous and about greed/abundance.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes but not all of them do that. All factory farming of livestock should be stopped. Its not even necessary. A meatcutter at safeway told me they waste more meat than selling over hundreds of pounds a week and just because you might see some that are discounted before expiration date but behind the scenes, they make calls to throw out literally batches at a time when they dont sell or when a new item of the week has to take its place.

That means that factory farming for fatter livestock and faster processing at any cost isnt even necessary because its not feeding necessity anyone anyways, its just superfluous and about greed/abundance.

Well... that isn't strictly true. It wouldn't be necessary (and in fact, factory farming of any sort wouldn't be necessary) if we all had cropshares or even personal gardens and raised livestock of our own.

However, currently, less than 2% of American citizens are farmers... so they have to feed themselves and the other 98%. That... is a tad bit lopsided all things considered, especially given how much landspace is used for feed for animals/livestock.

 

[birch]

Farmers also throw away millions of tons of fresh produce a year because its not picture perfect or ideal for the market enough to feed two billion people or more. Your body does not care what it looks like or if it has a superficial blemish, its the nutrition. There are people who would not care about that and be grateful to get that or buy at discount. Waste is unethical when there are those who could use it besides the fact there is nothing inherently wrong with the food at all except for some superficial cosmetic reasons for being dumped. It should just be donated or sold at discount.

Wasting food by overproduction also pollutes and wastes resources to produce it. In developed countries, its the waste of retailers by buying bulk and most going to waste. There is no good reason to be overproducing that obscene amount of food when most of it is not distributed across the globe as in perishables. The shame is the planet produces enough food, trillions of tons that go to waste every year, but there are still starving people either due to logistics or politics.

When you go to the meat counter or fish market or pick out produce, most of that will just rot away and not be bought. Beautiful whole fish and nice cuts of meat and abundance of fresh produce besides the ones that never made it to market. Every week. Uh yeah. Its a shame if you consider there are people who could use that.

 

[sideshowbob]

Your body does not care what it looks like or if it has a superficial blemish, its the nutrition.

So when you buy produce, do you deliberately pick out the ones with the blemishes? Most people don't. At the end of the day the blemished ones are left in the bin. If the grocer leaves them there they'll still be there tomorrow. If they weren't thrown out by the grocer or the wholesaler or the farmer, they'd just be left to rot anyway.

 

[birch]

So when you buy produce, do you deliberately pick out the ones with the blemishes? Most people don't. At the end of the day the blemished ones are left in the bin. If the grocer leaves them there they'll still be there tomorrow. If they weren't thrown out by the grocer or the wholesaler or the farmer, they'd just be left to rot anyway.

Please dont make me laugh about the textbook reasons we all know its not marketable in retail. Dont take things out of context. I sure would buy them if they were discounted. Why not and i do even now when there are discounted but still good blemished produce but its usually that its getting stale not just blemished. The point is that food that doesnt make it to market could feed a lot of people. The blemish could be smaller or larger than standard or maybe mishappen too etc. I would have no problem with it, i would be grateful to sacrifice the cosmetic reasons for saving for other expenses or that it went to feed people who cant afford otherwise. You underestimate that there are many people who WOULD buy them! There are different types of markets and there could be one created for this type of produce. By the way, its already on the way as some problem solvers/conscientious citizens recognize the waste and trying to find ways it can be utilized. Not everyone is like you or thinks like you and vice versa.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

uhm... not sure i understand that whole post...

The point is that food that doesnt make it to market could feed a lot of people.

and i think the point @sideshowbob made still is valid: a blemish is a blemish, and most of that will not sell at all to the typical buyer, even under the conditions of reduced cost

You underestimate that there are many people who WOULD buy them!

and i don't see that either.
some people might, but the typical person doesn't

Not everyone is like you or thinks like you and vice versa.

if that were the case, there wouldn't be waste because of blemishes IMHO

i would be grateful to sacrifice the cosmetic reasons for saving for other expenses or that it went to feed people who cant afford otherwise.

but are you "typical"?
i don't think so... especially considering the fact that most markets throw away so much blemished food because it won't sell
now, that doesn't mean there isn't a market for blemished products... it just means that the typical buyer doesn't buy blemished product

Not everyone is like you or thinks like you and vice versa.

this is true, but you're confusing thoughts and beliefs with typical behaviour, IMHO

what is easily shown simply by looking at the markets and analyzing the sales and waste is that the typical buyer does not purchase blemished product

so it doesn't matter what someone says, nor what someone thinks
it matters what actually happens when someone has to put out money for a product

 

[birch]

and i think the point @sideshowbob made still is valid: a blemish is a blemish, and most of that will not sell at all to the typical buyer, even under the conditions of reduced cost

Nope, you are wrong. I really doubt you have shopped at places like sav-a-lot etc so dont speak for everyone. Just as there are those even with money who would or go to thrift stores, a narrow focus on one demographic isnt the truth. You are assuming what a typical buyer is and ignoring everything outside of a median standard you are used to. There are discount grocer chains where they sell 'dated' produce at discount, has blemishes because of it and that is bought. Most of the general public isnt aware that there is fresh produce but dumped because of some aberrations of the ideal. Given some knowledge and a choice, fresh and viable would trump dated and going stale but some superficial standard size. Besides just the market, it could also go to feed others who are needy instead of just dumped.

Just as well, when you have a personal garden, most people dont throw out the vegetables that arent a perfect ideal size, weight or shape etc. They are fine with using it and there exist people who will go to markets for that if its created just because of some quirks isnt going to put everyone off, you assume it will. The context is different than a regular market. Inta regular market, one would pick the ideal standard because that is what is most available. A different market will attract those who maybe savings outweighs looks etc. Just as there are discount premium outlets with even slightly irregular items made sold at discount that never made it to usual retail and they are a booming business and attracts their own version of clientele.

what is easily shown simply by looking at the markets and analyzing the sales and waste is that the typical buyer does not purchase blemished product

so it doesn't matter what someone says, nor what someone thinks
it matters what actually happens when someone has to put out money for a product

Sorry again, not true. If there isnt a market created for it, of course. Even i or anyone, when i go to a mainstream grocer chain will pick out best and ideal produce because i know that is what im paying for but still given the chance and choice i would not be objectionable to going to a market that sells less than ideal for savings. I have gone to farmers markets when they sometimes have quirky looking veges and i had no problem buying it.

Besides, you cant speak for everyone or even the typical buyer as not everyone shops at whole foods etc and can afford such. I doubt you shop at kmart, family dollar, dollar tree, sav-a-lot etc or probably ever stepped in most of those types of stores so dont speak for the 'typical' buyer. Some people can hack the generic or quirky.

Also a typical buyer changes over time just as now organic and more conscientious, sustainable and earth-friendly is more important to more consumers than before.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Nope, you are wrong

i see. so the typical buyer doesn't care about blemishes?
so... why is there so much waste?
and why is most of that due to blemishes?
perhaps you can link some case studies from marketing or some similar source?
thanks

I really doubt you have shopped at places like sav-a-lot etc so dont speak for everyone.

1- i never said i spoke for everyone

2- i've visited sav-a-lot or similar stores because i am not only poor, i am on a fixed and very low income, so you're very wrong there, bubba

3- the point wasn't what i do, nor what everyone believes etc, but what is typical

You are assuming what a typical buyer is and ignoring everything outside of a median standard you are used to.

actually no, i'm not
i was using what i've seen and observed by local and other grocers and markets in the area
of course, i have no problem with blemishes - but i also tend to grow/hunt must of my own food as well as utilise the markets who are willing to redact prices for blemishes

Most of the general public isnt aware that there is fresh produce but dumped because of some aberrations of the ideal.

perhaps in your neck of the woods this is true
i live rural - it is common knowledge out here
especially among us lower income groups as well as local food banks

you assume it will.

no, i didn't
again, i am simply stating what i observed and know based upon what i see as well as analysis done in marketing and other areas

careless or indifferent clerk can, unintentionally or otherwise, by a single act blemish an otherwise

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1247580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

it isn't a matter of debate: marketing studies are out there
blemishes don't sell very well

The context is different than a regular market.

and specialised markets are not typical nor do they represent typical buyers, otherwise they would be regular (typical) markets

A different market will attract those who maybe savings outweighs looks etc.

which still wasn't the point, IMHO
the point was the typical purchaser in the typical market


hence my intentional boldface of the word typical above in my post

Just as there are discount premium outlets with even slightly irregular items made sold at discount that never made it to usual retail and they are a booming business and attracts their own version of clientele.

which is the same thing as saying you have a specialty market (or specialised market)
and is that the typical market?
nope
hence the attraction of certain users and not the attempt to open to the broad typical market

now, you can use the term "typical shopper" in said specialised market, but that isn't the same as the typical shopper in a typical market

typical is a reference to the average overall shopper. in this case, we're talking about the average shopper in the average typical market, not any special markets or shopper

hence (again) my boldfacing

Sorry again, not true.

please re-read that: typical user, typical market
it is true, and it's supported by the link i left
it's not like this is a source of contention: product placement, display, visual appeal (blemishes) and all that is a very well studied area of marketing as well as utilised in behavioural science studying practices of... (wait for it)... the typical shopper

Besides, you cant speak for everyone or even the typical buyer as not everyone shops at whole foods etc and can afford such.

sigh
read the beginning of this post again, please

I doubt you shop at kmart, family dollar, dollar tree, sav-a-lot etc or probably ever stepped in most of those types of stores so dont speak for the 'typical' buyer. Some people can hack the generic or quirky.

wanna bet?
i live on my mlitary disability - i don't even make enough to pay taxes
i am not at the poverty level, i am well below it

and i rather like k-mart (except they closed almost all in my state), and regularly use the dollar stores as well as cash-saver/save-a-lot stores
because i'm poor


but being poor doesn't excuse being stupid
mind you, i aint talking ignorance or the failure to learn, but blatantly ignoring information for the sake of a belief or delusion

the simple fact is: the typical shopper doesn't purchase blemished products
us poor folk do... us local rural farm types do... us logical people who don't utilise the criteria of form over function do
however, that is atypical in society and the US/first world culture - meaning that is not typical
hence my comments and post, as well as that link above

Even i when i go to a mainstream grocer chain will pick out best and ideal produce because i know that is what im paying for but still given the chance and choice i would not be objectionable to going to a market that sells less than ideal for savings. I have gone to farmers markets when they sometimes have quirky looking veges and i had no problem buying it.

wait...
so what you are saying is:
you, yourself, are a typical shopper when in a typical market

but you are saying that that isn't typical behaviour in typical markets because you're not typical?

HOW IS THAT LOGICAL?

you just validated my point for me with your own words (as well as @sideshowbob 's point)

 

[billvon]

Nope, you are wrong. I really doubt you have shopped at places like sav-a-lot etc so dont speak for everyone. Just as there are those even with money who would or go to thrift stores, a narrow focus on one demographic isnt the truth. You are assuming what a typical buyer is and ignoring everything outside of a median standard you are used to. There are discount grocer chains where they sell 'dated' produce at discount, has blemishes because of it and that is bought.

If what you claim is true, then there's no problem. Discount it and sell it through discount stores; problem solved.

Just as well, when you have a personal garden, most people dont throw out the vegetables that arent a perfect ideal size, weight or shape etc.

We have a garden. We use most of it as-is. We use some of the uglier stuff for soups, stews and the like. We throw out the rest. (Which is what agriculture in this country does in general.)

Yes but not all of them do that. All factory farming of livestock should be stopped.

I buy meat/eggs/milk from animals that are treated humanely, and you can do so too. But if all factory farms were shut down a lot more people would go hungry, and that cost is too high to assuage your (or my) feelings.

Its not even necessary. A meatcutter at safeway told me they waste more meat than selling over hundreds of pounds a week and just because you might see some that are discounted before expiration date but behind the scenes, they make calls to throw out literally batches at a time when they dont sell or when a new item of the week has to take its place.

And exactly the same thing would happen with meat from animals that were treated better.

 

[birch]

i see. so the typical buyer doesn't care about blemishes?
so... why is there so much waste?
and why is most of that due to blemishes?
perhaps you can link some case studies from marketing or some similar source?
thanks


1- i never said i spoke for everyone

2- i've visited sav-a-lot or similar stores because i am not only poor, i am on a fixed and very low income, so you're very wrong there, bubba

3- the point wasn't what i do, nor what everyone believes etc, but what is typical



actually no, i'm not
i was using what i've seen and observed by local and other grocers and markets in the area
of course, i have no problem with blemishes - but i also tend to grow/hunt must of my own food as well as utilise the markets who are willing to redact prices for blemishes

perhaps in your neck of the woods this is true
i live rural - it is common knowledge out here
especially among us lower income groups as well as local food banks


no, i didn't
again, i am simply stating what i observed and know based upon what i see as well as analysis done in marketing and other areas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1247580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

it isn't a matter of debate: marketing studies are out there
blemishes don't sell very well

and specialised markets are not typical nor do they represent typical buyers, otherwise they would be regular (typical) markets


which still wasn't the point, IMHO
the point was the typical purchaser in the typical market


hence my intentional boldface of the word typical above in my post


which is the same thing as saying you have a specialty market (or specialised market)
and is that the typical market?
nope
hence the attraction of certain users and not the attempt to open to the broad typical market

now, you can use the term "typical shopper" in said specialised market, but that isn't the same as the typical shopper in a typical market

typical is a reference to the average overall shopper. in this case, we're talking about the average shopper in the average typical market, not any special markets or shopper

hence (again) my boldfacing


please re-read that: typical user, typical market
it is true, and it's supported by the link i left
it's not like this is a source of contention: product placement, display, visual appeal (blemishes) and all that is a very well studied area of marketing as well as utilised in behavioural science studying practices of... (wait for it)... the typical shopper


sigh
read the beginning of this post again, please


wanna bet?
i live on my mlitary disability - i don't even make enough to pay taxes
i am not at the poverty level, i am well below it

and i rather like k-mart (except they closed almost all in my state), and regularly use the dollar stores as well as cash-saver/save-a-lot stores
because i'm poor


but being poor doesn't excuse being stupid
mind you, i aint talking ignorance or the failure to learn, but blatantly ignoring information for the sake of a belief or delusion

the simple fact is: the typical shopper doesn't purchase blemished products
us poor folk do... us local rural farm types do... us logical people who don't utilise the criteria of form over function do
however, that is atypical in society and the US/first world culture - meaning that is not typical
hence my comments and post, as well as that link above



wait...
so what you are saying is:
you, yourself, are a typical shopper when in a typical market

but you are saying that that isn't typical behaviour in typical markets because you're not typical?

HOW IS THAT LOGICAL?

you just validated my point for me with your own words (as well as @sideshowbob 's point)

Excuse me, one can be obstinate and do the rhetoric of the status quo at any time but the fact is again, that waste wasnt concern before as is now. Do you have or some others have some type of problem that there may be those who are trying to change some things or bring awareness so that others who may be interested in those things which in your view is so atypical, dont care about? Before there were those who laughed at the very idea that bottled water would take off with the amongst other changes. Now even walmart is trying to make affordable , organic, humane and ecofriendly products available to the masses a reality.

You think you are arguing with my point of view when its not just me. There is movement as we speak on the way to utilize this surplus that is just going to waste. With your type of thinking, it would never be attempted or tried. Besides the market, do you have problem with its distribution to needy, poor and other creative ways it can be used besides a typical market? When i visited another country, there were your typical grocers and open air markets selling all types of outside of standard veges, fruit and other goods and it was bustling not only by the poor but every demographic. If you dont try or make something marketable, then of course it wont change. Its also timing when things wouldnt have worked before could later as society does.

Keep on harping about what is or was, thats what you are cemented about. Thats all. Even a couple decades ago recycling, organic, more humane treatment of animals etc was not as much a typical concern or of majority public consciousness as now.

Sorry, its you who is failing to learn.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Excuse me, one can be obstinate and do the rhetoric of the status quo at any time

ok
so stop your use of rhetoric

but the fact is again, that waste wasnt concern before as is now.

i never said that it wasn't fact, nor that i wasn't concerned
that is your own personal strawman argument (and not anchored in reality to boot)

Do you have or some others have some type of problem that there may be those who are trying to change some things or bring awareness so that others who may be interested in those things which in your view is so atypical, dont care about?

ok so... let me get this straight:
you make an argument from your personal opinion but when the facts are introduced, it is my "problem" because you're "trying to change some things or bring awareness so that others who may be interested in those things"???

how does ignoring fact or making strawman arguments from personal opinion, delusion or belief somehow define that i am the one with the problem?

i made a point of fact, and i shared just a single link that pretty much validated said fact
you even validated that fact !!

you are the one ignoring the fact that your atypical belief system is not typical, or representative of the average person

hell, you even admitted as much!
shall i quote you again?

it aint rocket surgery ...

You think you are arguing with my point of view when its not just me.

no, i am arguing that you're atypical and not representative of the typical user, especially when your argument is about atypical behaviour when i am discussing typical average users and behaviour
AND
i am arguing that the typical user (the average shopper, etc) is superficial and, as you even admitted yourself, that blemishes don't sell
not even to you!

you are the one attempting to build a supreme court case based upon your delusional reading of something into my comment and a strawman argument

There is movement as we speak on the way to utilize this surplus that is just going to waste.

bravo
that wasn't my point nor was i ever contesting this
do you want a cookie for that, or are you attempting to build yet another strawman?

With your type of thinking, it would never be attempted or tried.

ah, so you're going for the strawman argument...

so tell me: what is "my type of thinking" exactly?
i would like to know so that i can formulate an argument in small monosyllabic words equivalent to your reading comprehension levels
thanks

do you have problem with its distribution to needy, poor and other creative ways it can be used besides a typical market?

well, i would answer this but you will simply make up your own answer and consider it valid, so why bother?
after all, that is what you're doing with everything else i have posted to you so far...

make up a reply and let me know what i think, ok?
thanks

When i visited another country, there were your typical grocers and open air markets selling all types of outside of standard veges, fruit and other goods and it was bustling not only by the poor but every demographic.

so?
i've likely lived in more countries than you will ever visit...
what's your point?

If you dont try or make something marketable, then of course it wont change. Its also timing when things wouldnt have worked before could later as society does.

really?
so you think i am arguing otherwise?
hey bubba, who is the one that linked marketing information (a study) above?
hint: not you

Keep on harping about what is or was, thats what you are cemented about.

wow, from strawman to flat out delusional strawman... did you get training lessons in logic from realitycheck or is this a special case of oxygen deprivation?

where, exactly, in my posts to you did i ever harp about what is or was?
and where did i ever mention that i was cemented about anything ??

what i said was that typical users don't buy blemished items... hell, you admitted when you shop in markets you don't either

so the problem isn't what i said... it is what you believe i said and what you believe is being said

is there a problem with reading and comprehension here?
is english not your first language?
or perhaps this is about your culture or something??

Even a couple decades ago recycling, organic, more humane treatment of animals etc was not as much a typical concern or of majority public consciousness as now.

Sorry, its you who is failing to learn.

and in my culture, we've been talking this exact point for centuries

we've talked about promoting a sustainable lifestyle that doesn't harm the ecosystem or Earth and is humane to animals and others
it is built into our belief system and culture
it is often mistaken for a religion because of our connection to Earth
here is a good starter book for you to learn a little about the culture: black elk speaks

Black Elk Speaks: The Complete Edition Paperback
by John G. Neihardt

 

[sideshowbob]

You underestimate that there are many people who WOULD buy them!

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how many people would buy the blemished produce. It matters how many wouldn't. That's where the waste is. You can't just magically move all of the blemished produce from stores where people won't buy it to other stores where people will buy it. That would only add to the distribution cost (not to mention the pollution).