''It's frowned upon.''

[ThrobbingEgo]

1. Isn't a false dilemma. Meat lasts longer in the freezer and has a more economical cost in regards to gas, travel, and time.

Including the cost of raising and feeding said animals? How much gas, travel, and time does that all cost? What's the shelf life of meat compared to dried beans and grains? And you don't have any vegetables? Well, I'm concerned for your family's survival.

2. You have yet to address the problem in your smoking analogy. Shoes and Addiction are apples and oranges.

Not my example. But lets assume that Bill (or whatever his name was) chose to smoke and wasn't addicted. Doesn't change the validity of his arguments, or the actual dangers of smoking.

3. You haven't actually given me a reason to consider the suffering of chicken. Saying circular logic is nice and all but you haven't given me a convincing argument otherwise. If they suffer and I don't have a reason to care, where is your convincing argument to the contrary.

I didn't seek out to give you a reason to care. You just said you didn't, and you've yet to provide an explanation as to why. I'm not sure why you want to play the "burden of proof" card.

4. Stating I can get fats from another source is cute. It is an empty statement and gives no reason to change. I could shave my entire body and paint it blue but I don't see a reason to do that either. By the way, I believe you would call that metaphor a strawman, still doesn't change the fact that you give no convincing argument.

How is it an empty statement? You can get the fats you need from other sources. Avocados, for example, are high in monounsaturated fat and contain all the essential amino acids. So you can get all the fats that you believe you'd need for your brain. Even though I'm pretty sure nutrition doesn't work in the "more is better" way that you seem to think it does. So long as you're within the healthy range, your body should either expel the excess nutrients or store them as fat.

5. I don't eat meat because hippies wear leather. I eat meat because I choose to and its pros outweigh the cons.

What pros? Which pros outweigh the cost of animal suffering?

6. I have read philosophy and while I find plenty inspiring about, none of it really convinced me that I needed a dietary change. I found Fast Food Nation interesting and it even did a good job of presenting the human side of the problems inherent in the system.

Did you read Animal Liberation.

7. This is why I bring up the suffering ignored. It is a bigger problem and only ignored out of convenience. Just as I find people who read fashion magazines shallow, I find people who want to fight over whether I have chicken instead of a salad at lunch due to suffering equally shallow. You want a fight you thin you can win and dig up all sorts of joyous reasons to as long as it doesn't inconvenience you overmuch. How quaint. While I am sure you will be more than happy to put this back on some nagging guilt in the back of my mind, it still remains that you choose a relatively shallow fight in the name of suffering when more animals suffer for your normal conveniences. It is like freaking out over a scabbed knee instead of the jutting bone in somebody's leg.

Quaint? Dude, what are you even saying? "There are so many problems in the world, why are you fixing any?"

I am not saying to stop your crusade or pet internet fight or whatever you call it, I am simply saying that perhaps, just perhaps, your moral high ground and command of debate fallacies isn't as profound as you may think. Then again, once you said philosophy classes, I kinda predicted the rest of your post.

Are you capable of anything but fallacies, empty rhetoric, and personal attacks? I really hope you reread your posts, and realize how silly you sound. I'm not trying to "convert" you to anything. I'm mostly just pissed at your bad logic.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

that's[/i] what it means. People here are just listing random stuff where people seem ungrateful to- or unwilling to accept- their help. It's not really the same thing.

I've been pissed and then keyed the car of a teacher who made my life hell in high school. That's frowned upon.
I've intentionally thrown up on another guy while drunk.
That's (probably) frowned upon.
I've committed vandalism.
Frowned upon.
I've broken into my former high school while drunk.
Frowned upon.

There is quite a list, and I'm not listing the worst stuff here

I think he meant good deeds gone wrong due to reaction to said good deed.

While I can accept your reasoning here, it still does not make sense at all. People, topic-starter included, shouldn't use words or phrases that they do not know what mean. "Frowned upon" is not something *one* person decides, as I am very sure you know - it's something that goes against the general perception of what is- and is not acceptable behaviour.

"Have you every done something in good faith, only to find that people turn out mad/ungrateful because it doesn't float their particular boat" would be a more proper wording in the topic, methinks.

I concur but I am afraid it is irrelevant due to the nature of the thread itself. Perhaps the OP can be convinced of a more appropriate title.

 

[s0denone]

While I can accept your reasoning here, it still does not make sense at all. People, topic-starter included, shouldn't use words or phrases that they do not know what mean. "Frowned upon" is not something *one* person decides, as I am very sure you know - it's something that goes against the general perception of what is- and is not acceptable behaviour.

"Have you every done something in good faith, only to find that people turn out mad/ungrateful because it doesn't float their particular boat" would be a more proper wording in the topic, methinks.

I concur but I am afraid it is irrelevant due to the nature of the thread itself. Perhaps the OP can be convinced of a more appropriate title.

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is no fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a deeply religious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

I see cows, sheep, chickens and pigs in fields everyday as i go to and from school and a friends house. Explain. Please, i see them in very large fields and i do not understand why they are there. Keeping them there for no reason would be EVEN more expensive than keeping them there honestly.

First, I was talking about chickens. Second, free-range for cows and the like only requires that they have access to grass, not the size of the field they live on.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products are loosely defined as coming from animals who ate grass and lived on a range. No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range." "Free-range" and "free-roaming" facilities are rarely inspected or verified to be in compliance with these two criteria. The USDA relies "upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims."(9)

Even when "free-range" cows, sheep, and pigs are allowed to live outdoors, they are still subjected to excruciating mutilations without painkiller or analgesic, such as castration, branding, dehorning, tail-docking, and tooth-grinding. Once they are fattened to market weight, they are trucked to slaughterhouses. They are denied food, water, and adequate protection from extreme temperatures once in the vehicles, and many die during the trip. These cows, sheep, and pigs are still slaughtered in the same violent ways as factory-farmed animals: They are pushed through narrow chutes, hung upside down on conveyor belts, and have their throats slit; some are dismembered while still fully conscious.

So, yeah, you would see them. That doesn't mean the cows you see outdoors do not suffer and are not confined to a relatively small field.

 

[Camembert]

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is not fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a serious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

Or... the reason he is failing is that his logic isn't sound - or at least certainly less sound than that of the person with whom he is debating...? Seriously. Try reading before you allow your own prejudice to decide for you.

Edit: Or, since the other chap has buggered off, perhaps you could continue where he left off and point out all the flaws in the vegan's argument.

 

[mokes310]

...I was out with my band-mates and we threw a piece of rubbish into someone else's bin. The owner of the house came outside and nagged our ear off about doing so, Better than littering I said...

I did that once too and the homeowner threatened to call the police if I didn't remove it and throw it in another bin. I couldn't believe that someone could be so posessive?

 

[Camembert]

...I was out with my band-mates and we threw a piece of rubbish into someone else's bin. The owner of the house came outside and nagged our ear off about doing so, Better than littering I said...

I did that once too and the homeowner threatened to call the police if I didn't remove it and throw it in another bin. I couldn't believe that someone could be so posessive?

People like that are just sad. I got a massive bollocking from a woman once for sitting on her front wall. She was saying, 'I didn't work my whole life just so I could buy that wall for you to sit on!'

: |

Come to think of it though, I guess it could be classed as trespassing. Still, I hope I don't ever end up becoming the sort of person who gets annoyed by things like that.

 

[s0denone]

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is not fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a serious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

Or... the reason he is failing is that his logic isn't sound - or at least certainly less sound than that of the person with whom he is debating...? Seriously. Try reading before you allow your own prejudice to decide for you.

Edit: Or, since the other chap has buggered off, perhaps you could continue where he left off and point out all the flaws in the vegan's argument.

My point isn't, contrary to your assumption, that one is stupid and the other is right... It is simply that the argument is futile. Will the vegan start eating meat because of it? Will the meat-eater stop eating meat because of it?
No and no.

I am a meat-eater myself, and I find myself agreeing with DeathWyrmNexus rather than ThrobbingEgo.

The only problem here is that ThrobbingEgo has made it his business whether or not me(or DeathWyrmNexus, or anyone) eats meat.

Do you see now, or did you prejudice against meat-eaters blind you from my writing?

I am not here to argue with a vegan - there is no point, as previously pointed out. There is no middleground, there is no agreeing. I can understand why some people would be very concerned about the wellbeing of animals, and such work actively against it by not aiding the industry... But I'm just not one of those people.

My favourite meal consists of a big, fat, bloody, rare steak. Nothing you, or anyone, says, is going to change that.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

I see cows, sheep, chickens and pigs in fields everyday as i go to and from school and a friends house. Explain. Please, i see them in very large fields and i do not understand why they are there. Keeping them there for no reason would be EVEN more expensive than keeping them there honestly.

First, I was talking about chickens. Second, free-range for cows and the like only requires that they have access to grass, not the size of the field they live on.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products are loosely defined as coming from animals who ate grass and lived on a range. No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range." "Free-range" and "free-roaming" facilities are rarely inspected or verified to be in compliance with these two criteria. The USDA relies "upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims."(9)

Even when "free-range" cows, sheep, and pigs are allowed to live outdoors, they are still subjected to excruciating mutilations without painkiller or analgesic, such as castration, branding, dehorning, tail-docking, and tooth-grinding. Once they are fattened to market weight, they are trucked to slaughterhouses. They are denied food, water, and adequate protection from extreme temperatures once in the vehicles, and many die during the trip. These cows, sheep, and pigs are still slaughtered in the same violent ways as factory-farmed animals: They are pushed through narrow chutes, hung upside down on conveyor belts, and have their throats slit; some are dismembered while still fully conscious.

So, yeah, you would see them. That doesn't mean the cows you see outdoors do not suffer and are not confined to a relatively small field.

Firstly this is the UK, i think we have higher standards of free range than you for some reason. The fields are very large and ironically enouhg the cows stick to one corner. I SEE these fields. I SEE these chickens on the grass in a large area of land scratching away looking natural. Honestly if your asking me not to believe my eyes your going to need a lot of evidence.

From my understanding of the human methods employed in europe the animal is stunned and then killed while unconcious. Then these things happen. One thing bugs me (ive seen the ohio videos) is what they do with the male chicks in humane farming. What CAN they do. They have these extra animals and honestly no way of feeding them or enough room to house them. you cannot put chickens into room that does not exist to keep them humanely. I really dont know if there is a way... GM the chickens to produce mostly female offspring and then cut the breeding rate dramatically?

 

[jobu59749]

The simple solution....stop being so nice. The other solution, when you do nice things, don't expect anything but something you don't deserve happening or no thank you for your grand kindness. People are petty and stuck in their own worlds. I had to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

[Camembert]

My point isn't, contrary to your assumption, that one is stupid and the other is right... It is simply that the argument is futile. Will the vegan start eating meat because of it? Will the meat-eater stop eating meat because of it?
No and no.

I am a meat-eater myself, and I find myself agreeing with DeathWyrmNexus rather than ThrobbingEgo.

The only problem here is that ThrobbingEgo has made it his business whether or not me(or DeathWyrmNexus, or anyone) eats meat.

Do you see now, or did you prejudice against meat-eaters blind you from my writing?

I am not here to argue with a vegan - there is no point, as previously pointed out. There is no middleground, there is no agreeing. I can understand why some people would be very concerned about the wellbeing of animals, and such work actively against it by not aiding the industry... But I'm just not one of those people.

My favourite meal consists of a big, fat, bloody, rare steak. Nothing you, or anyone, says, is going to change that.

Yes, but you implied that vegans are irrational morons who will not see sense, whereas meat eaters are the logical ones who have suffered long at the hands of vegans. It was an unnecessary comment.

And I wouldn't care to try and change your eating habits. I am a meat-eater, so... no, I have no prejudice. It doesn't matter to me who made what whose business - that does not change the fact that I thought ThrobbingEgo's arguments to be the better.

 

[the idiot computer]

Ugghhh...They tell you all the way through life to be kind and courteous... They never tell you what to do if a fist comes your way...

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is not fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a serious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

Or... the reason he is failing is that his logic isn't sound - or at least certainly less sound than that of the person with whom he is debating...? Seriously. Try reading before you allow your own prejudice to decide for you.

Edit: Or, since the other chap has buggered off, perhaps you could continue where he left off and point out all the flaws in the vegan's argument.

No, I'm still here, just not into continuing this since it is getting nowhere but I did answer him in pm.

 

[Camembert]

No, I'm still here, just not into continuing this since it is getting nowhere but I did answer him in pm.

Oh, OK Glad to hear you're continuing the debate.

 

[s0denone]

Yes, but you implied that vegans are irrational morons who will not see sense, whereas meat eaters are the logical ones who have suffered long at the hands of vegans. It was an unnecessary comment.

And I wouldn't care to try and change your eating habits. I am a meat-eater, so... no, I have no prejudice. It doesn't matter to me who made what whose business - that does not change the fact that I thought ThrobbingEgo's arguments to be the better.

Organic foods are more expensive.

Eating meat instead of organic food is cheaper.

Eating meat is cheaper than not eating meat.

How is that for logic? Honestly I don't care much for the discussion, but from where I'm sitting the vegans just look like people with too much money and time on their hands.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Yes, but you implied that vegans are irrational morons who will not see sense, whereas meat eaters are the logical ones who have suffered long at the hands of vegans. It was an unnecessary comment.

And I wouldn't care to try and change your eating habits. I am a meat-eater, so... no, I have no prejudice. It doesn't matter to me who made what whose business - that does not change the fact that I thought ThrobbingEgo's arguments to be the better.

Organic foods are more expensive.

Eating meat instead of organic food is cheaper.

Eating meat is cheaper than not eating meat.

How is that for logic? Honestly I don't care much for the discussion, but from where I'm sitting the vegans just look like people with too much money and time on their hands.

http://lifehacker.com/5271178/cook-for-good-plans-meals-for-less-than-two-dollars

 

[the idiot computer]

No, I'm still here, just not into continuing this since it is getting nowhere but I did answer him in pm.

Oh, OK Glad to hear you're continuing the debate.

Hang on a minute were going off topic, i thought this thread was about doing something nice and being frowned on for it?

 

[Camembert]

Organic foods are more expensive.

Not eating organic foods is cheaper than eating meat.

Eating meat is cheaper than not eating meat.

How is that for logic? Honestly I don't care much for the discussion, but from where I'm sitting the vegans just look like people with too much money and time on their hands.

Too much money? Because meat is so much cheaper than vegetarian food : | We aren't talking about organic food here, genius.

It's called empathy. Being able to put yourself in someone or something else's shoes, and to think, 'Hm, how would I feel...? Not good? OK, I won't support that market anymore.' And sometimes enduring inconvenience for what you believe is a good thing, no? I would consider it a positive character trait, at any rate.

 

[johnman]

I once got yelled at for walking past some random guys car with a metal step ladder in my arms. He sticks his head out at the window and tell me to stop playing with it in case I scratch his brand new car, then asks where I stole it from and demands I return it.
1. I wasn't playing with it
2. I had already walked past his car, so even if I decided to start twirling it around his car was safe
3. To be fair I did steal it
4. But it was out of a skip and it was a perfectly good ladder