Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ForEverAfter]

No, I didn't imply that.

...

It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?

Okay, what's your point?

I don't eat a lot of soy, nor do I eat a lot of organic produce...
What does it (the sustainability of organic / soy farming) have to do with veganism / vegetarianism?

And yet you label me the hypocrite while overlooking the fact that you deny your own omnivorism at base level. I never said that humans should live more naturally, I said that we should eat more naturally, there's sort of a difference. ..

I'm not denying that I am an omnivore... (which wouldn't make me a hypocrite, anyway.) I'm saying that despite the fact that I am an omnivore, I chose not to be... I don't see the harm in making this choice, and - aside from repeating that "it's not natural!" - you haven't really provided any explanation to the contrary.

And, you still haven't answered the computer question. I know you're making comments about eating naturally, but why draw the line there? Why is it okay to live our lives completely "unnaturally" (for the record, I don't think there's any such thing) but it isn't okay to eat "unnaturally"?

Until you answer these questions, I'll assume that you don't have an answer.
Therein lies the hypocrisy. You apply different standards to different aspects of human lifestyles.
You justify personally contributing to the suffering of animals by insisting that we should eat naturally.
You mentioned that our teeth are strong enough to eat meat... Yet we consume many types of meat that require cooking and tenderizing. Should we use knives, forks and spoons? Is that natural?
Should we cook our food? Is that natural?
Should we use preservatives?
These questions all fit into your guidelines; they are all related to eating.

I never said that humans should live more naturally, I said that we should eat more naturally, there's sort of a difference.

Why? What is the difference; what is the significance of the difference?
You're making about as much sense as an episode of Pokemon.

i'm willing to bet the majority of vegans/veggies probably tend to think they're being such good boys and girls by only eating organically farmed, supposedly sustainable, veggies and fruits?

Don't assume such things.
There aren't that many fruits and vegetables that are produced organically, in comparison to non-organically produced fruits and vegetables... and I know a lot of meat-eaters that consume organic produce (organic meat / organic grain / organic fruits / organic vegetables)... You can't, out of convenience, just equate the ethical implications of whether or not to be vegan / vegetarian with the ethical implications of whether or not to consume organic produce.
They aren't the same thing.

 

[swilow]

really willow? What is wrong with you and why do you like to make an ass of yourself by always ass-uming I am talking to you when I am talking to murphy again.

You wrote directly under my post. Its not my fault you can't use basic forum software. You're being weak and unpleasant.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Can anyone here tell me if they would consider eating raw mussels vegan?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I started a thread in healthy living about that and it turned into a mess of people insisting that molluscs cannot be included in a vegan diet, even though I made it clear - repeatedly - that, although it isn't technically vegan, the ethical considerations are the same... since molluscs don't have brains...

I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs and (occasionally) wild game.
There's no point in being absolute about meat, when consuming some types of meat isn't ethically questionable (IMO).
I am not a vegan, I just refer to myself as one for convenience sake.
If I'm out to dinner with someone, I don't want to have a long conversation about ethics.
So, for convenience, I'll just say "I'm vegan"... When really I do eat meat but there's nothing on the menu that I can eat.

 

[swilow]

Can anyone here tell me if they would consider eating raw mussels vegan?

Well, as veganism and the accompanying dietary choices are somewhat subjective (I eat honey, Miss Willow doesn't) its hard to answer in anything but broad terms.

IMO, yes, things like raw mussels, oysters, etc. could be considered vegan by some vegans. I, however, don't actually eat them but that's more a taste thing. Miss Willow doesn't because she thinks its unethical and not vegan. Well known ethicist Peter Singer, an advocate of animal rights and vegetarianism, wrote in his book, Animal Liberation (incredibly dry but well thought out) about such a thing where he considers oyster consumption to be ethical.

If I enjoyed them, I'd probably eat them.

There's no point in being absolute about meat, when consuming some types of meat isn't ethically questionable (IMO).

Agreed. I think there is value in being absolute in regards to consumption of specific meats (for example, its almost always unethical to eat anything endangered though hunger/poverty/shitworld). Perhaps its okay to be absolute about consuming meats farmed in specific ways; I have a friend who is omnivorous but only eats free-range chicken, pigs and no cow or fish. I think we can do without veal and foie gras. I think its okay to be absolute about avoiding factory farmed animals.

It doesn't make sense to hold absolute values about anything that is as diverse as what we call meat. It would be like someone who dislikes only wine but claims to dislike all liquids. Its too broad of a thing for absolute claims to hold any water (pun intended).

 

[ForEverAfter]

The honey thing is a good point. I really should have thought about that, back in my vegan-oyster thread.
Are people who claim to be vegans and eat honey actually non-vegan?
It is an animal product.

Miss Willow doesn't because she thinks its unethical and not vegan.

Why unethical?
I'm curious.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I still refer to myself as vegan, but I consume molluscs and (occasionally) wild game.

Lol.

So, for convenience, I'll just say "I'm vegan"... When really I do eat meat but there's nothing on the menu that I can eat.

I'm Caucasian but for convenience sake I say I'm African American.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm Caucasian but for convenience sake I say I'm African American.

Okay. The difference between you and me is: I don't care how you refer to yourself.
If you'd like to identify as African American, that's up to you.
I have no investment in how you self-identity.

You're trying to make me look foolish, across multiple threads.
Maybe you should find something better to do.
Because, frankly, I don't care what you think.



Have a nice day.

 

[swilow]

The honey thing is a good point. I really should have thought about that, back in my vegan-oyster thread.
Are people who claim to be vegans and eat honey actually non-vegan?
It is an animal product.

Hmm. Who knows? Maybe. I totally understand that it would be seen as non-vegan, but if you buy it locally in a more raw, from somewhere that operates ethically, and in a more raw state, I don't see a problem.

That is the same context in which I will occasionally comsume raw organic cow or goats milk, which is maybe twice a year.

Why unethical?
I'm curious.

She think its unethical because it is taking something from something without its consent (I think...)

I try to be flexible to some degree

 

[ForEverAfter]

The consent of a mollusc is much like the consent of a carrot, but fair enough.
I just wanted to know if there was a genuine reason, so I could adjust my diet accordingly.
If, ever, I discover that molluscs are sentient I will stop consuming them (farmed).

If it turns out that carrots are sentient, I will stop consuming farmed food altogether.

 

[turkalurk]

You wrote directly under my post. Its not my fault you can't use basic forum software. You're being weak and unpleasant.

you clearly did not know if it was directed at you or not. You decided to assume it was. Given our history, that was stupid.

 

[turkalurk]

Okay. The difference between you and me is: I don't care how you refer to yourself.
If you'd like to identify as African American, that's up to you.
I have no investment in how you self-identity.

You're trying to make me look foolish, across multiple threads.
Maybe you should find something better to do.
Because, frankly, I don't care what you think.



Have a nice day.

you do a fine job of that yourself. You want to write about your delusions of being asian, then you have to expect people are going to laugh.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't have delusions.
It was a clearly a joke thread.
People were supposed to laugh.

Are you going to stop being hostile towards people on this thread, at some point? You're not targeting me across multiple threads, calling me a crackpot and telling me to "get off the bath salts"... so you're not as bad as him... don't get me wrong... but, don't you have something better to do than make personal comments at people on the internet? Isn't it getting boring?

You're not even particularly good at it.
You don't offend me. At your worst, you're mildly annoying.

 

[turkalurk]

The consent of a mollusc is much like the consent of a carrot, but fair enough.
I just wanted to know if there was a genuine reason, so I could adjust my diet accordingly.
If, ever, I discover that molluscs are sentient I will stop consuming them (farmed).

If it turns out that carrots are sentient, I will stop consuming farmed food altogether.

ignorance is bliss. all molluscs have a nervous system. The mollusca phylum is a diverse group that includes the octopus which has a sophisticated nervous system. Molluscs are part of the animalia kingdom. All animals are considered sentient, which is what the word means, to be "animated."

 

[turkalurk]

I don't have delusions.
It was a clearly a joke thread.
People were supposed to laugh.

Are you going to stop being hostile towards people on this thread, at some point? You're not targeting me across multiple threads, calling me a crackpot and telling me to "get off the bath salts"... so you're not as bad as him... don't get me wrong... but, don't you have something better to do than make personal comments at people on the internet? Isn't it getting boring?

You're not even particularly good at it.
You don't offend me. At your worst, you're mildly annoying.

hahaha, a joke thread my ass! you were getting pissed off that people wouldn't take you serious. You are a weird dude, own it. I am voicing my genuine observations as inspired by your posts. No more no less.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I realize I used the wrong word, and I have been using the wrong word for some time.
Octopus is not included in my diet. What I meant by mollusc is oysters / mussels / scallops.
I don't want to attempt to reclassify them as something else, until I investigate what specific family they belong.

But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that oysters / mussels / scallops are not sentient.
I've already had the discussion with numerous people, at length.
I've yet to encounter a compelling counter-argument.

The presence of a nervous system is not evidence of sentience.

All animals are considered sentient, which is what the word means to be animated.

Animation is not sentience. I'd like you to back up the statement in bold, if you can. I'm not going to engage you in a long discussion about this, partly because I've already had the discussion with other people (as I said) and because you've been a bit hostile and unpleasant towards me in this thread. But, if you provide some compelling evidence that suggests that (let's say) oysters are sentient, please do.

Ignorance is bliss hardly applies.
On the contrary, I'm on a mission to determine what is ethical to consume and construct a diet around that.
If you can prove that I shouldn't be eating oysters / mussels / scallops, I'll happily take them out of my diet.
In the end, I want the truth.
But I don't want to bicker.

hahaha, a joke thread my ass! you were getting pissed off that people wouldn't take you serious. You are a weird dude, own it.

I talked about it being a joke thread, and - beyond that - it was obvious. Numerous contributors knew that it was a joke thread (or, at least, highly suspected it) and many people who read it told me (either via PM or on the thread itself) they thought it was funny... I'm not sure if you read the whole thread... Maybe read it again, keeping in mind that it's a joke... It's seriously pretty fucking obvious, man. This seems like a classic example of how off the mark you are, sometimes... Like you really don't hear what people are saying. You read the words, but you totally miss the tone and the point.

I am voicing my genuine observations as inspired by your posts. No more no less.

I know.
Your perception is distorted.

 

[murphythecat]

about mollusk.
you should do reasearch at how sea animals get hurts in the process of harvesting mollusk. thats enough for me to say that even if mollusk cannot feel pain, the way we harvest them kill and harm many sentient sea animals. its unethical to eat them imo

 

[turkalurk]

I realize I used the wrong word, and I have been using the wrong word for some time.
Octopus is not included in my diet. What I meant by mollusc is oysters / mussels / scallops.
I don't want to attempt to reclassify them as something else, until I investigate what specific family they belong.

But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that oysters / mussels / scallops are not sentient.
I've already had the discussion with numerous people, at length.
I've yet to encounter a compelling counter-argument.

The presence of a nervous system is not evidence of sentience.



Animation is not sentience. I'd like you to back up the statement in bold, if you can. I'm not going to engage you in a long discussion about this, partly because I've already had the discussion with other people (as I said) and because you've been a bit hostile and unpleasant towards me in this thread. But, if you provide some compelling evidence that suggests that (let's say) oysters are sentient, please do.

Ignorance is bliss hardly applies.
On the contrary, I'm on a mission to determine what is ethical to consume and construct a diet around that.
If you can prove that I shouldn't be eating oysters / mussels / scallops, I'll happily take them out of my diet.
In the end, I want the truth.
But I don't want to bicker.



I talked about it being a joke thread, and - beyond that - it was obvious. Numerous contributors knew that it was a joke thread (or, at least, highly suspected it) and many people who read it told me (either via PM or on the thread itself) they thought it was funny... I'm not sure if you read the whole thread... Maybe read it again, keeping in mind that it's a joke... It's seriously pretty fucking obvious, man. This seems like a classic example of how off the mark you are, sometimes... Like you really don't hear what people are saying. You read the words, but you totally miss the tone and the point.



I know.
Your perception is distorted.

sentience and animation used to mean the same thing. To be sentient meant to be alive. The word has evolved to include a subjective perception. The problem in determining which organisms are "sentient" is we must first define what qualifies an organism as being sentient. So, we say it must have an awareness, a subjective experience. We really don't know what organisms experience "feelings" we only know which organisms possess structures similar to a centralized nervous system like ours. We can only compare anatomical structures and look for similar mechanisms for processing information in a way that can be interpreted as an experience. But, its all mostly bullshit because in the end, we don't know what another other organism experiences. They might have a system made of entirely different components that interacts in a way that produces an experience of "feeling."

Perhaps you mean sapience? Cause anything with a centralized nervous system is capable of experiencing sensation. We are also now realizing things can also be sentient without one. Sentience can occur in animals that have similar structures that operate under similar mechanisms.

 

[ForEverAfter]

you should do reasearch at how sea animals get hurts in the process of harvesting mollusk.

I eat farmed molluscs, so that isn't an issue.

Perhaps you mean sapience?

You're so patronizing, sometimes. I told you I've already had this discussion a couple of times.
I know what sentience is and I meant sentience.
There is considerable debate about the issue.
I don't really want to discuss it (with you).
Let's not.

 

[turkalurk]

I eat farmed molluscs, so that isn't an issue.



You're so patronizing, sometimes. I told you I've already had this discussion a couple of times.
I know what sentience is and I meant sentience.
There is considerable debate about the issue.
I don't really want to discuss it (with you).
Let's not.

Right, must be very hard being so confused on where to draw the line.