The Veganism Thread

[Patchelicious]

Article’s behind a paywall

Stop buying Beyond Meat shares and you could afford the subscription

[Edition 507]

Article’s behind a paywall

Got the article from a FB post, but I'm too dumb to figure out how to share it here, I think my synapses have been congealed in animal fat.

Basically it says that vegans are kidding themselves if they think no animal has died in order for them to be fed, directly, maybe not, indirectly, as much as meat eaters.

We are at the top of the food chain, stuff dies in order for us to eat, c'est la vie!

[Odinson]

The coffee shop in our building is a Hank and Ginger, very anti plastic (corn straws, biodegradable cups etc) and lots of good veggie options, so helps with the meat free days.

 

Nice! How many days a week are you doing meatless? 

[Odinson]

 

Got the article from a FB post, but I'm too dumb to figure out how to share it here, I think my synapses have been congealed in animal fat.

Basically it says that vegans are kidding themselves if they think no animal has died in order for them to be fed, directly, maybe not, indirectly, as much as meat eaters.

We are at the top of the food chain, stuff dies in order for us to eat, c'est la vie!

 

 

Ah, I think I know you the article you're referring to. It's by Matthew Evans - he's promoting his new book on how to be an 'ethical omnivore'. Considering he's a farmer and restaurateur, he most definitely has an angle he's playing. 

 

His whole book and position is premised on the 'crop deaths tho!' argument. It's a Joe Rogan classic. I think we've covered this before on this thread, but in short, what Evans completely misunderstands or misrepresents about veganism is that it isn't a zero harm ethical stance. It's not some kind of 'roided up Jainism. For reference: 

 

 

 

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

 

That "far as is possible and practicable" is they key. A vegan makes the choice to not contribute to a system which is based on the exploitation and suffering of animals.

 

It's also important to remember that "[t]wenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production." "55% of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed. And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses." 

 

Thus, an omnivore still has a significantly larger net contribution to animal deaths. 

 

At the end of the day, it's the ethical principle that's important. Do you choose to contribute to the suffering and exploitation of animals or do you choose not to? 

[Edition 507]

At the end of the day, it's the ethical principle that's important. Do you choose to contribute to the suffering and exploitation of animals or do you choose not to? 

Like I said, we are at the top of the food chain, stuff dies in order for us to eat, I have absolutely zero ethical or moral concerns around this.

I am human and exploitation is our nature. Humans exploit humans, humans exploit animals, humans exploit the earth itself. It is our evolution, our progress and our advancement, it is our success as a species! Ultimately, one day, it will also be our demise as  a species.

[Odinson]

Like I said, we are at the top of the food chain, stuff dies in order for us to eat, I have absolutely zero ethical or moral concerns around this.

I am human and exploitation is our nature. Humans exploit humans, humans exploit animals, humans exploit the earth itself. It is our evolution, our progress and our advancement, it is our success as a species! Ultimately, one day, it will also be our demise as  a species.

 

So, might is right? Just because we can do something, does not make it moral for us to do so, whether we are at the top of the proverbial 'food chain' or not. 

 

Do we not criminalize behavior such as assault, rape, murder and so forth because we have collectively agreed that such actions are morally reprehensible, in that they cause unnecessary suffering to the victims? Veganism asks you to look at the situation not from your perspective, but from that of the victim. If you have a choice to not harm an animal and to not cause them a life of suffering and misery, why would you choose not to? 

[Patchelicious]

Nice! How many days a week are you doing meatless? 

2 sometimes 3, but I have found that its also simpler to reduce meat consumption.

So even though the other aren't meat free, it might only be incorporated in 1 meal instead of 2 or 3. 

 

So even though only 2-3 days are meat free, over all meat consumption is probably down 70%, however that does mean egg and dairy is up...

[Odinson]

Pro-meat protesters fined for eating raw squirrels at vegan stall

Pair ate fur-covered dead animals in front of children in London despite pleas to stop

Press Association

 

 

 Gatis Lagzdins was asked by onlookers to stop eating the squirrel but continued, the CPS said. Photograph: central/Central News

 

 

Two pro-meat protesters have been fined after eating raw squirrels at a food market.

 

 

Deonisy Khlebnikov, 22, and Gatis Lagzdins, 29, ate the still fur-covered dead animals in front of members of the public, including young children, outside a vegan stall in Soho, the West End of London.

The pair were asked to stop by onlookers, including the parent of an upset child, but continued their protest at the Soho vegan food market in Rupert Street on 30 March, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.

Natalie Clines, a senior CPS prosecutor, said: “Deonisy Khlebnikov and Gatis Lagzdins claimed they were against veganism and were raising awareness about the dangers of not eating meat when they publicly consumed raw squirrels.

“But by choosing to do this outside a vegan food stall and continuing with their disgusting and unnecessary behaviour despite requests to stop, including from a parent whose child was upset by their actions, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had planned and intended to cause distress to the public.

Leave grey squirrels and all animals alone | Letters

 

 

Read more

“Their premeditated actions caused significant distress to members of the public, including young children.”

The pair denied using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress at a trial but were both convicted.

Khlebnikov, from Westminster, was fined £200 plus costs and a surcharge, while Lagzdins, from Ealing in west London, who did not attend the hearing, was fined £400 plus costs and a surcharge.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Odinson

[Mudsimus]

Thats just wrong, who eats raw squirrels? Everyone knows that deep fried squirrel is the best.

[Chris_]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/no-beyond-burrito-chipotle-s-ceo-says-faux-meat-s-too-processed

 

Chipotle CEO says faux meat is too processed and won't be adding it to their menu. Interesting.

[Patchelicious]

 

 

 

Pro-meat protesters fined for eating raw squirrels at vegan stall

 

Pair ate fur-covered dead animals in front of children in London despite pleas to stop

 

Press Association

 

 

 

 

Gatis Lagzdins was asked by onlookers to stop eating the squirrel but continued, the CPS said. Photograph: central/Central News

 

 

Two pro-meat protesters have been fined after eating raw squirrels at a food market.

 

 

Deonisy Khlebnikov, 22, and Gatis Lagzdins, 29, ate the still fur-covered dead animals in front of members of the public, including young children, outside a vegan stall in Soho, the West End of London.

The pair were asked to stop by onlookers, including the parent of an upset child, but continued their protest at the Soho vegan food market in Rupert Street on 30 March, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.

Natalie Clines, a senior CPS prosecutor, said: “Deonisy Khlebnikov and Gatis Lagzdins claimed they were against veganism and were raising awareness about the dangers of not eating meat when they publicly consumed raw squirrels.

“But by choosing to do this outside a vegan food stall and continuing with their disgusting and unnecessary behaviour despite requests to stop, including from a parent whose child was upset by their actions, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had planned and intended to cause distress to the public.

 

 

Leave grey squirrels and all animals alone | Letters

 

Read more

“Their premeditated actions caused significant distress to members of the public, including young children.”

The pair denied using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress at a trial but were both convicted.

Khlebnikov, from Westminster, was fined £200 plus costs and a surcharge, while Lagzdins, from Ealing in west London, who did not attend the hearing, was fined £400 plus costs and a surcharge.

I thought you were against using individual nutcase examples as a mechanism to reaffirm a broader position?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

Pro-meat protesters fined for eating raw squirrels at vegan stall

Pair ate fur-covered dead animals in front of children in London despite pleas to stop

Press Association

 

 

 Gatis Lagzdins was asked by onlookers to stop eating the squirrel but continued, the CPS said. Photograph: central/Central News

 

 

Two pro-meat protesters have been fined after eating raw squirrels at a food market.

 

 

Deonisy Khlebnikov, 22, and Gatis Lagzdins, 29, ate the still fur-covered dead animals in front of members of the public, including young children, outside a vegan stall in Soho, the West End of London.

The pair were asked to stop by onlookers, including the parent of an upset child, but continued their protest at the Soho vegan food market in Rupert Street on 30 March, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.

Natalie Clines, a senior CPS prosecutor, said: “Deonisy Khlebnikov and Gatis Lagzdins claimed they were against veganism and were raising awareness about the dangers of not eating meat when they publicly consumed raw squirrels.

“But by choosing to do this outside a vegan food stall and continuing with their disgusting and unnecessary behaviour despite requests to stop, including from a parent whose child was upset by their actions, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had planned and intended to cause distress to the public.

Leave grey squirrels and all animals alone | Letters

 

 

Read more

“Their premeditated actions caused significant distress to members of the public, including young children.”

The pair denied using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress at a trial but were both convicted.

Khlebnikov, from Westminster, was fined £200 plus costs and a surcharge, while Lagzdins, from Ealing in west London, who did not attend the hearing, was fined £400 plus costs and a surcharge.

 

I'll say it. Those okes were just idiotic. Doesn't accomplish anything. 

[Odinson]

I'll say it. Those okes were just idiotic. Doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

No need to be coy. These okes are batshit crazy roadkill chomping flat-earthers. 

[Chris_]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/22/20706073/arkansas-tofurky-veggie-burger-ban-aclu

 

Does anyone agree with this? Not allowing products to be called 'milk' 'burger' 'sausage' 'bacon' etc if they are made from veggie/other products? So veggie burger has to be called something else, almond mild something else. This is by law now in a few places as its being called confusing to customers.

[IceCreamMan]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/22/20706073/arkansas-tofurky-veggie-burger-ban-aclu

 

Does anyone agree with this? Not allowing products to be called 'milk' 'burger' 'sausage' 'bacon' etc if they are made from veggie/other products? So veggie burger has to be called something else, almond mild something else. This is by law now in a few places as its being called confusing to customers.

Like Champagne or Port I guess this is fair.

[cfcjim]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/22/20706073/arkansas-tofurky-veggie-burger-ban-aclu

 

Does anyone agree with this? Not allowing products to be called 'milk' 'burger' 'sausage' 'bacon' etc if they are made from veggie/other products? So veggie burger has to be called something else, almond mild something else. This is by law now in a few places as its being called confusing to customers.

The most pertinent part of that article is: "Utah Sen. Mike Lee put it, “No one buys almond milk under the false illusion that it came from a cow. They buy almond milk because it didn’t come from a cow.”

 

There seem to be more victories from the plant based product companies than the meat and dairy industry based pressure for packaging law amendments.

 

i.e. common sense.