UKC

Hat a heated discussion with a non-meat eater(except that he eats fish). I asked him why it was he didn't eat meat and he claimed it was because of the cruelty involved in intensive farming and the slaughtering. I reminded him that he ate fish. "Ah, yes" he said, "that comes from the sea". I asked him if he'd given any thought to the way fish were left to die in the holds of trawler, effectively suffocating to death. His response consisted of "well" "yes...", but..." etc...

In reply to FesteringSore:

If you eat fish you aren't a vegetarian.

In reply to Tall Clare:


OK, agreed, but I still found his argument hypocritical.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Can't remember who said it, but being a vegetarian who eats fish is like being a pacifist who kills Canadians.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I agree with you there. Probably in Denial to Assuage his guilt

I also get narked at people who dont eat Meat on Compassion grounds, then wolf down dairy.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I'm a vegetarian, and I eat fish, and other animals that can swim such as pigs and cattle.

In reply to Choss: The fish were once in de Nile

In reply to Ramblin dave:

You can't eat fish and claim to be veggie. Simple.

People who eat fish but not meat, like me, are pescetarian.

However, pescetarian diets are usually based on food choice, not animal rights / ethics.

As such, his reasons for being pescetarian, in my view, are a bit odd.

In reply to Removed User:


Nice one!

In reply to FesteringSore:

Some meat eaters don't eat red meat, or don't eat veal, or don't eat foie gras for ethical reasons. Does that make them hypocritical? People make their own minds up about what's acceptable, their decisions aren't always completely logical.

Some "vegetarians" eat some produce that isn't strictly veggie, there are traces of animal produce in a surprising range of foods that aren't meat (some beers, cheese, wine gums). Should vegetarians use leather products? down? feathers?

If he only eats veg and fish, that probably means he has a healthier diet, causes less animal suffering and causes less damage to the environment. Good on him.

In reply to FesteringSore:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e7_1385170108

In reply to plyometrics:





+1.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I see nothing wrong with either of those.

In reply to Removed User:

Now where is that new like button

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Excellent - made this tedious thread worthwhile

In reply to FesteringSore:

Inconsistent, possibly, but you have no idea what the word 'hypocritical' means.

jcm

In reply to FesteringSore:

I live with vegetarians and I eat what I want . Anything with an ex heartbeat normally.
I've not had my tea yet, but have been vegetarian for longer than all of them. Cunningly, I made their tea with Lloyd gross man puttanesca sauce which has anchovies in it they need their omega 3's

In reply to FesteringSore:

So by your rationale it is ok for the animals you eat to suffer uneccesarily ?

Maybe one day you wont be at the top of the food chain and meet your Shark/Lion/Killer whale doppelganger which will ensure you die an agonising uncomfortable an insanitary death.

In reply to FesteringSore:

The main hypocrisy with vegetarians is that they are happy enough to enslave animals, despite not eating them.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Damn you Cookson! You've exposed my evil vegetarian plan to rule the world with an army of zombie hamsters.

In reply to muppetfilter:

Sharks have teethe which give you anaesthetic when they bite you

In reply to the thread:

Yeah.

yeah. Yeah. Unarguably.

Yeah.

I agree.

Hmm.

Yeah.

but

Bacon.

/thread

In reply to Franco Cookson:





I think it's actually the killing bit that most vegetarians are a bit dubious about.

In reply to the OP. The difference between eating, or rather killing, fish and pigs or cows is in degree of sentience they possess. Anyway I imagine your pal has been involved in the deaths of fewer sentient beings than you have.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Much fish is arguably just as intensively farmed as regular livestock. Very little of what ends up on the supermarket counter is wild...

In reply to FesteringSore:

You should take him to arable farmland (which is actually an industrial landscape) during the spraying of pesticides and see how he reacts to the poisoning of wildlife.

I'm veggie but freely admit there's no moral high ground in it, unites fully vegan (a good way to irritate other veggies too ). Of course animals die for dairy and eggs, females can produce them so what do these veggies think happens to the males?
I have also been known to eat the occasionalprawn, and pastry from a pork pie!
What I don't get is vegans not eating honey?! Anyone explain?

In reply to mountain.martin:


^^ This.

When I was veggie it appeared to somehow promote a culture of playground unpleasantness amongst some people who felt that what I ate was somehow now their business. It would be "well, you are veggie, but you once had a leather jacket, See, hypocrite!! Ner Ner Ner", etc.

I never quite understood this. I didn't promote vegetarianism, the only reason they knew was that I was at a restaurant with them.

In early veggie days I tried to explain that the leather jacket was very old, and dated from a time when I wasn't veggie, that every burger I didn't consume reduced demand for meat, which meant that less animals suffered, and that I was happy with my choices and didn't see how it impacted them in any way.

By a year or so in I was just saying "Please explain why my choices about what I eat are any of your f*cking business?". Which got the conversation over much faster and discouraged repeat questioning.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I think there is an argument that fish feel no pain?....

Any animal when caught with a hook will move towards the direction of pull to try and reduce the pain. However, fish pull against it. So they feel no pain.

I fully accept this may be total bollocks. I heard it from someone in the pub

In reply to FesteringSore:


To be honest, I think it's easier on the conscience to eat meat raised in poor conditions than fish. Modern trawlers, fishing in depths of up to 2000m are completely destroying a fragile environment. Huge nets sweep-up everything whilst at the same time pulverising corals and plant-life. Thousands of tons of immature fish are tossed back into the sea with no hope of survival. This type of fishing is an ecological disaster.

Think again before buying deep-water species, such as cutlassfish, blue-ling and grenadier.

In reply to Kemics:

Here's an experiment to try at home, put one of the rings on your cooker hob on and wait until it's good and hot (waiting time depends on whether you have gas or electric rings) place your hand (or other bit of your anatomy) on the ring.

Do you try to reduce the pain by pulling away or pushing down?

I think you'll find the results show that, like fish, you don't feel pain either.

In reply to Kemics:

Think of animals caught in noose-style wire traps, they don't sit quietly to reduce pain but pull away against it.

In reply to red.stiletto:


This is why we should all be eating British rose veal. Veal has such a bad name, but rose veal is reared in fields, and is litteraly the waste product of our dairy produce. Start eating it people!

Eating can mean eating farmed animals, and provided it's well sourced it's pretty ethical. But eating *any* fish/seafood is ridiculous. Also fish don't compete with arable crops for resources as land animals do.

That said I think you either need to be a vegie or an ethical meat eater - there is no pescatarian middle-ground.

In reply to girlymonkey:


I find it disturbing to call a Living Sentient feeling animal with emotions Like ours a waste Product.

Alternatively, ditch dairy. Good for cows, good for badgers, and good for your Health.

In reply to Choss:


But it is - what happens to it if we don't eat it?! They aren't kept as pets!

In reply to Philip:


Why not? People should eat what they please for whatever reason they see fit, it's none of your business and none of mine.

jk

In reply to girlymonkey:

Its that Industrial view of animals i find disturbing. They are Sentient beings, not a waste Product.

If you simply must have dairy Produce, buy From a 100% slaughter Free UK dairy Producer.

http://www.ahimsamilk.org/

In reply to Choss:


Well that's why we should eat them, so they don't become waste but rather a useful part of our food chain. All farming is industrial, the animals are there for us to use, if we didn't, they wouldn't exist. If you have an issue with it, then I guess you should be vegan.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I am Vegan.

In reply to Choss:


It's only a waste product because we, as the consumer, choose not to use it. As mentioned above, British pink veal would effectively reduce this waste to nothing, and instead produce a relatively healthy (yes, yes, I know, red meat and all that, but in moderation), relatively cheap and high welfare food (granted the high welfare would only be if we only bought high welfare, much like all other meat products really...)


I disagree with this... Dairy products, in moderation, are not bad for you, in fact with the mix of natural sugars, fats and the fable high calcium levels, they're actually pretty good for you. Good for cows? Increasingly dairy welfare is improving, it has a long way to go, but it is getting better. However, just hypothetically, lets say we all adopted your view and all stopped eating ALL dairy products, totally. How many cows do you think would be culled? Many, I think (if memory serves the national dairy herd is about 1.8 million. There simply would be no need for dairy cows, the meat is not really of high enough quality to be sold as prime cuts, so there'd be a lot of mince and burgers about. Which would generate lots of 'waste'. May i refer you back to your first point!

In general though I think I agree with people above that say that we're all free to eat what we want. It would be nice though if the reasons given are informed, rather than speculative. IMO veggies that say they don;t eat meat because they just don't like the taste/idea of eating meat are the ones that I respect the most.

In reply to Choss: Ditch dairy? No cheese, potatoes dauphinoise, cream cakes, crumpets, toast, chicken tikka masala...? You're a sick, sick man.

In reply to FesteringSore:

A report by K. Cobain, 1991, observed that it was okay to eat fish, because they don't have any feelings. I'm not sure what his credentials were, however.

youtube.com/watch?v=rg-yYi8saZY&

In reply to FesteringSore:

You have discovered that a human being is consistent. Well done!

Usually finding and worrying about your *own* inconsistencies is more productive than worrying about other people's.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I find it odd that as you participate in the Abhorent practice of torturing and killing animals for some sick fun, that you feel you have any right to Question anyones Eating Habits?

Your house is Built of sand.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I follow vegetarian diet

I tried eating a carnivore once and wasn't that impressed

so I will stick to eating vegetarians

In reply to Choss:

Nothing abhorent about getting rid of vermin.

In reply to FesteringSore:

About 75 to 80% of Britons consistently say there is something wrong with it.

And Nobody is really buying the old vermin Argument anymore. Its done for some Anachronistic Twisted pleasure plain and simple. Thats why the English "gentry" took Foxes to Australia.

or foxes.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Well, at Least you Admit Foxes arent vermin.

Not food, not vermin control.

So you do torture and Kill them for "fun" then. Thats a deeply unpleasant character Trait.

In reply to FesteringSore:

interesting topic. It strikes me that the conversation on this thread takes a very western view of vegetarianism - that is to say, based on a lifestyle/ethical choice.

My wife's family are Jain, so like Hindus and Buddhists, the vegetarian diet is a fundamental part of both their culture and belief system. Dairy products are allowed, but eggs are not (symbolically they represent an animal life). In fact, some will only eat foods that are harvested (so as not to 'kill' the donor plan), so rice is okay but potatoes or onions are not.

Fascinating stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism

In reply to FesteringSore:


That is the very reason why at the age of 14 I gave up eating all fish and seafood.

IMVHO your friend is no more vegetarian than I am. Nothing wrong with choosing to eat fish and not meat, but you can't then claim to be veggie.

In reply to Choss:


That actually explains a lot, all round.

Still doesn't Explain your Sticky Shift key Though.

In reply to Choss:


I know, but its difficult to think of many complimentary names for Daily Mail readers.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I've just come home with 8 brace of pheasants, 2 brace of partridge and a whole lamb carcass (from a friend), all in the shed waiting for butchery tomorrow - then freezer. My choice in life.

I have nothing against vegetarians (I have some very good friends who are), that is their choice. But their arguments on the 'ethics' of their vegetarianism simply don't bear scrutiny.

Maybe a strict vegan who uses no animal products whatsoever and doesn't kill any animals have a case, but few of them about.

In reply to Moley:



Maybe, just maybe, ethical consideration may not be a black and white, all or nothing affair.
If it's hard to recycle plastic does that mean it isn't worth recycling glass?
Any reduced animal suffering is a good thing; the only question really is what this is worth to an individual in terms of hassle or reduced food choice. To many people it seems still to be worth very little.

In reply to Moley:




What a load of nonsense. So if you care about the environment you have to have a zero carbon footprint or not bother at all?

What's wrong with doing your best but accepting that it is almost impossible to be ethically pure?

In reply to FesteringSore:

oh for f*cks sake.

He is not a vegetarian, he is a posturingtw*t.

Tell him to f*ck off and look at by-catch, black fish and educate himself. I have several veggie/ vegan friends and they are very educated on their subject and I have learned a lot from them, but those that do the fish is ok thing are basically posturing wankers.

Those posturing wankers have absolutely no knowledge of MCA guidelines, fishing impact studies, sustainable sourcing yadda yadda.

In fact, over fishing and deleterious techniques have a far ore deleterious ipact than a meat farming.

In reply to mountain.martin:


bollocks.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Good to see such a well reasoned argument.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



You could be right, but do you know this person?

Some of my friends eat mainly vegetarian food but might occasionally (once a weekish) have some fish that they try and ensure is sustainable. Don't you think that is a healthier more environmentally sustainable diet than the vast majority if not all meat eaters?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Every Meal you have that excludes Meat is good for you, good for the animals you dont eat, and good for the Environment.

Meat Free Mondays is Supported by people Like David Attenborough who Know their shizzle.

Eating more vegetables is not only great for your health but also good for the planet too! UN’s top climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri states that “People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming. UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.”

In reply to Choss:

You mean the Attenborough who jetted to 30 countries to film Life on Earth?
And then went on to make a series called The Fragile Planet ( which no doubt involved more air miles than any of us will accrue collectively in our lives)
Now THAT'S what I call hypocrisy.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

You seem to have missed the Point of that post Entirely.

top UN Climate scientist says UN figures Suggests Meat Production is more to Blame for global warming than Transport.

I was trying to show Meat Free Mondays is one small thing they can do to improve things for themselves, animals, and the planet.

all you seen to want to do is pick fault in what Other people say.

In reply to Choss:
I'm not saying that Meat Free Mondays is a Bad Idea.
I'm not even saying that Attenborough doesn't know his Shizzle.
I don't particularly want to find fault with what Other People say.
I was simply trying to rock the Great Man's Pedestal because he is a Two FacedTw*t.

Can someone send me their spare copy of the "Rules of being a Vegetarian". Seems that when I signed up (30 odd years ago), mine must have got lost in the post...

Don't know how I've managed so long really.

In reply to mountain.martin:



By all means do your best and follow a vegetarian diet if it makes you (anyone, not you personally) feel better. But don't take the moral high ground - which many do - that not being responsible for animals being killed makes them better than us omnivores.

I don't think I've met a vegetarian yet, that is even aware that the production of cows milk (and all it's by products) involves cows having calves and they can provide an alternative of what to do with all those (boy) calves.

Perhaps the planet covered in cereals, rice and soya would be a better option? Not for me thanks.

In reply to Moley:

In my experience the only vegetarians that take the moral high ground are those provoked by other people that take an unnatural interest in what someone else is having for dinner?

In reply to Moley:


On the contrary, most veggies are well aware of it. It's only a problem if you are trying to turn whole world veggie. As I understand humanities demand for meat far outstrips it's demand for dairy products, so reducing our meat intake will not cause a cheese shortage.

Being an ovo-lacto veggie is, for me, a workable compromise between the ethical issues and the practicalities of living in a world where meat and dairy is the norm. And liking cheese.


Me neither, I like seeing cows and sheep in fields. But not in sheds, being artificially fattened up. And how much of the crops that are covering the planet, and for which rain forests are being destroyed for, are being feed to those animals - a very wasteful way of getting our nutrition.

Is it really hypocritical to suggest that it would be better if the western world ate less meat ?

In reply to SteveRi:


+1

In reply to FesteringSore:

If we are really going to make an impact on the planet - stop having kids! What we eat is relevant, but bringing more people into the world to eat more stuff will have a much bigger impact!

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:





I think IainRUK may have a thing or two to say on that.

Here's a thread from a few months back that discusses the most eco friendly way of packing one's face.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=556662&v=1#x7419724

In reply to Jenny C:

I say I am vegetarian, I do eat seafood but most people don't understand what a pescetarian is. I also have a leather sofa, motorcycle clothing, jacket and shoes just to mess with peoples heads who 'can't understand how I can live without a steak'

In reply to FesteringSore:



He's a fussy or picky eater, but vegetarian sounds cooler..to him at least. Seems to be the case with most young 'vege's' I meet. They eat meat alright, I think what they really mean is 'I don't buy meat' also usually the owner of a leather good or two.

In reply to Edd Reed: You can call yourself whatever you want, but you're not a vegetarian because you eat animals - confusing, I know.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's just easier that way

In reply to FesteringSore:

Ask him what his shoes are made of.

In reply to Choss:


Care to back these three assertions up with evidence? Particularly the first and third claim.

In reply to Shani:


Meat is not good for you. contains no nutrients easily Obtained elsewhere.

and

see quote From UN chief scientist above.

In reply to Choss:


Your statements lack credibility. The first part is just assertion with no evidence. The latter part dismisses the nutrient rich status of meat and the bioavailability of the nutrients therein - again lacking any evidence.

Our lass stopped eating meat during the radiation scare on Welsh lamb following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. On that basis she stopped eating meat period, and hasn't done so since.

She wears leather as it wasn't affected by the disaster.

Is that ok? or should I reprimand her for double standards?

In reply to Shani:

well, thats your Lookout.

theres Plenty of evidence for both, Look them up if you want.

Take it or Leave it.

not to mention the enormous waste of crops fed to food animals, that if it was Transferred to human consumption would feed the Entire world many many Times over.

cant quote a science paper for that for you either, but its true. something to do with trophic levels.

In reply to Tony the Blade:




According to many on here, you should Reprimand her for only Making small Step Changes that help improve things, rather than Living in a hole in the ground and self punishing every day.

oh, and did she show you the scientific Journals Proving her Point? 7;^)

In reply to Chris the Tall:




My nephew (22 year old) has recently become vegetarian (with some lapses) mainly for some of reasons given on here, basically, concerns about animal welfare and saving the planet - please excuse this simplistic expression.

My argument to him is that he should eat meat if he wants to, but ensure he sources meat that is produced to higher standards, quality not quantity. That way he puts pressure on producers to raise animal welfare and lower production. The same principal with fish, which many ignore but is mentioned on this thread.

I believe it is easier to change the system from inside than by opting out of it.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Pescetarianism /ˌpɛskɨˈtɛəriən/ (also spelled pescatarianism) is the practice of a diet that includes seafood, but not the flesh of other animals. A pescetarian diet typically shares many of its components with a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet and includes vegetables, fruit, nuts, grains, beans, eggs, dairy, and insect byproducts (such as honey, carmine, or shellac), but unlike a vegetarian diet it also includes fish and shellfish. The Merriam-Webster dictionary dates the origin of the term "pescetarian" to 1993 and defines it as: "one whose diet includes fish but no other meat."


Why do you give a crap?

In reply to Choss:




You said 'meat is not good for you'. That is a testable claim and one that YOU need to support if it is to be taken seriously. If I look at indigenous peoples who still follow an ancestral (meat heavy) diet such as populations of Inuit, your assertion is clearly false as historically they've enjoyed excellent health.

In reply to Shani:

you dont have to Take it Seriously if you choose not too.

you Take your truth and ill Take mine.

In reply to Kemics:


"They told me that the fish were cold blooded, cared little, and felt no pain.....

But they weren't fish that told me."

In reply to Moley:


Really? Not one? Either you have very ignorant friends, or you haven't actually asked them.
Incidentally, high-end dairy herds use sexed semen to produce their replacement heifers, so reducing the production of "waste" holstein males.

In reply to Tony the Blade:




Do her feet glow in the dark?

In reply to FesteringSore:


No, but her thong does!

In reply to Moley:


Everyone's different and got different reasons for what they do. Some veggies are evangelical, others merely try to expose the worst aspects of the meat industry. Some meat eaters are so defensive that they assume every veggie is trying to convert them and start silly threads like this.

I have no wish to eat meat or fish and the ethical issue is just one part of it. I try not to preach to anyone, but certainly don't criticise anyone who eats well-sourced meat

In reply to Choss:



I am taking it seriously. That is why I have asked you to back up your claim with evidence. It looks like you are unable to provide evidence.

You do know that veg*nism still involves death and killing don't you? It just pushes the killing to where it can't be seen!

In reply to ceri:



I lie and you are correct, one of my best mates who was a Veggie knew his facts, that's about it. I respected his way and he mine, I also appreciated that he had thought deeply about his decisions and he knew I thought my ways were right.

The vast majority of the rest I have met are nearly all youngsters - typically teenagers - who give the reason "Eating meat is cruel to animals", they have little substance to their arguments and virtually no knowledge of animal production. You would call them ignorant, I agree, young vegetarians I've met are ignorant.

In reply to Choss:



Although you see a human looking back at you when you look in the mirror you are in fact a chimpanzee with three ears and a bright red bum where your forehead should be. You don't have to take that seriously if you choose not to. You take your truth and I'll take mine, with a healthy dose of red meat.

In reply to FesteringSore:
If your friend has chosen to be a vegetarian because of cruelty to animals and still eats eggs and milk then yes he is a bit hypocritical. If he is happy with his choice then who are we to judge.
He is No more hypocritical than the average meat eater who will love his dog or cat say they love animals then eat meat. Speciesism is something a lot of us are guilty of.
The meat industry on a whole is a industry that deals in misery for profit. No animal skips off to the slaughter house, or likes having its calf removed , or living in pens etc .. ( they might if temple Grandin has been about
Most meat eaters either don't understand the misery or don't care, and put their desire to eat meat over he life of the animals we eat and use every day.

In reply to Choss:


I Doubt that Very mUch, iF I gave you a large bowl of under Cooked kiDney beans, I doubt veRy Much It wOuld be heaLthy as my BIGmAC.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

With respect to the UK:

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/vegitermsgn.pdf

Currently not a legal standard, but according to something on the Vegetarian Society website on its way to become an EU standard.

As for the pescetarian/vegetarian thing, I do find it interesting that the most commonly eaten animals are also some of the most intelligent (mammals and birds). As much as people make fun of the intelligence of cows and sheep, they are still much more intelligent than fish. I have a few fish and they are not bright.

In response to the person who suggested putting your hand on a hot hob and seeing if you withdraw your hand (as a test for pain), it isn't actually pain that makes your hand withdraw - it is a reflex which happens before your brain gets involved. So it is possible fish have the reflexes, but not the concious understanding of pain. Equally I would rate the significance of eating insects fairly low (and insect-derived ingredients are a concern for vegetarians - specifically the use of cochineal in lots of sweets). I am fairly easy-going with insect ingredients, but tend to stick to 'pure' vegetarianism because it is easier (most stuff is labelled 'vegetarian' or not, but no more information is given).

I am vegetarian; I recognise that this is far from perfect with regard to dairy, eggs and honey but I am just not hardcore enough (yet?) to go vegan :P particularly since Quorn contains egg. I do avoid leather, and therefore get the stinky Evolv shoes

Mostly the environmental benefits of vegetarianism are just a cheeky (but significant) bonus for me.

In reply to krikoman:

That's a stupid response. If I gave you a bowl of frozen Quorn it would obviously be better than giving you a bowl of frozen raw chicken, but what is your point?

In reply to FesteringSore: The only real reason people eat meat is because it tastes good. Farm animals live pretty sorry lives on the whole, and are slaughtered because we like how their flesh tastes. I think most people who eat meat feel a bit guilty about this, but rather than do anything about it, they pick fault with anybody who does make an effort. This makes them feel better about themselves.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
^^ what he said + 1.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Yep. You got that Spot on.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


So far so good


Animals in the wild live a pretty sorry life by our standards and the end is very rarely as clean as that encountered in a slaughter house

>I think most people who eat meat feel a bit guilty about this, but rather than do anything about it, they pick fault with anybody who does make an effort. This makes them feel better about themselves.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if its bollocks. Most meat eaters I know are happy with their life choice and equally happy with the life choices of different varieties of vegetarian

In reply to GrahamD:
If you think the end for animals in any Abattoir is Clean, youve Obviously never worked in one.

I have. Its distressing, horrifying, brutal, animals starting to be skinned, Dismembered Whilst still conscious sometimes.

Ps. That was 26 years ago. left in disgust and been a Vegan ever since. I am still haunted by what i did and saw. Suggest all Meat Eaters do the same, rather than buy the Packet of Prepared Meat in a supermarket or butchers.

In reply to GrahamD:
> >I think most people who eat meat feel a bit guilty about this, but rather than do anything about it, they pick fault with anybody who does make an effort. This makes them feel better about themselves.


What fresh bullshit is this, no one is comparing wild animals lives with our standards, that would be silly wouldn't it? There is a natural way to live and one involves slavery and exploitation and an untimely death. Let's not forget that most sheep we eat are not even a year old.
sure most meat eaters are happy with their choices , but most meat eaters are in denial about the meat industry or are oblivious of it.
It's easy to be happy with our choices if they are ill informed.
I studied food production at university as part of my biology degree, I have been to plenty of farms and seen all kinds of practices, even the free range chicken has a poor existence when farmed on a large scale.

youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to&
youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4uqw&
youtube.com/watch?v=f69TUDbPdLs&
youtube.com/watch?v=uB28agK73h8&

In reply to jkarran:



You mistake what I meant. People are free to eat what they want, what I meant was there is no middle ground between ethical non-meat eater and ethical meat-eater. There is no way of ethically justifying fish eating that wouldn't also allow some other meat. People who only eat meat in the form of fish are simply fish eaters, nothing more complicated.

In reply to Choss:


I didn't say it was clean, I said it was better than the end many animals suffer in the wild (for animals such as sheep it will be getting trapped somewhere and starving, or falling off a crag, breaking limbs and starving, or disease, or torn apart by predators)



That is not a fundamental of meat eating, though, is it ? it is about people breaking the law.

In reply to gd303uk:




Pretty sweeping generalization based on your prejudice. For a start, most meat eaters aren't going to be in the western world because most of the world's population isn't

In reply to Philip:


I think you are right. The two ethically self consistent stand points are veganism (don't exploit animals) or meat eating (we are the top of the food chain).

In reply to GrahamD:


Eh?

Not sure what you Mean. Just a Standard Legal Meat Processing plant?

In reply to Choss:

...not behaving legally.

In reply to Choss:
A clean kill with a rifle or twelve bore(or road kill) is the answer. When I catch trout I stun them immediately; far less suffering than catching them merely to put them back in.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Yes it is hypocritical.

For the ethical reasons I am a veggie I should also be a vegan but I'm not. However in the scheme of things I can go to bed and sleep well every night being called a hypocrite by people who needlessly subject animals to pain fear and death.

I would never say I'm perfect. But pulling someone down because they are trying to make the world a better place but they don't do everything, all the time is just a bit weak.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


And this is a valid statement is it?

"> Every Meal you have that excludes Meat is good for you," WouLd You like Some PolOnium wiTh yOur Soup?

In reply to GrahamD:

Do you know what is in the meat you eat and what the meat/animal went through before ending up on your plate?
Genuine question.

In reply to gd303uk:


When I pick up a pheasant off the road I know what it's probably been through - somebody's radiator grille.

Joking aside I don't see why anyone should have any hang ups about meat if it has NOT been "produced" by intensive farming techniques.

In reply to FesteringSore:

eating meat and fish is a bit like telling lies;the less you do it,the less suffering,on the whole.
I eat fish occasionally.Supposed to be good for theeheart and brain.I am aware tht suffering is caused to the fish.

The more things you cause to be killed,the more suffering you cause.
The guys on the trawlwers suffer and the guys in the abattoir,too.

Bacon sandwich eaters should carry on blocking up their arteries.
I often see windowless animal factories in the Derbyshire countryside.
There is no ecxuse for the overcrowding and cruelty in those places.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Wow. Go tell that to all the bees kilked by Monsanto's pesticides. If I look out on to animal pasture I can see a rich and bio diverse habitat. When I look out on to arable land i see a mono cropped industrial landscape where wildlife is poisoned to protect the crops. A land that isn't fertilised by animal dung so has nutrients infused by an oil-driven alternative. Where harvesting causes precious topsoil to be washed in to the water course and kill aquatic life.

Veg*nism pushes the killing to where it can't be seen. But death is still there.

In reply to Shani:

I think your perception is incorrect.

When I look out on animal pasture I do not see a rich and bio-diverse habitat. Sheep for example lead to a monoculture of grass - look at the devastation caused to the Lakes for example. Furthermore, where do you think the food for animals comes from? True, in the extremely low-density mountainous pastures that 'look pretty', animals eat grass, but this is a very inefficient use of land and does not supply a large fraction of our food. If you consider chicken, pork or beef, these are largely raised on animal feed - and this animal feed comes from the same mono-cropped industrial arable landscape you hate.

The total amount of land/water/resources required to raise and then eat animals far exceeds the amount required to just grow some crops.

In reply to SteveRi:

"In my experience the only vegetarians that take the moral high ground are those provoked by other people that take an unnatural interest in what someone else is having for dinner?"

+1

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Take a look at Stanage: home to ringed ouzels and lots of other birds which feed on the bug life that thrive on the rich vegetation. Vegetation on which herbivores graze and produce human-edible protein from plant matter inedible to humans.


Actually land in Africa that was desertified by arable farming has been restored to fertility through the reintroduction of herbivores whose manure fertilises the land. Whatsmore, once the ecosystem was restored complete with large herbivores, the watercourse became fixed for much of the year. Herbivores are an integrated part of just about every fertile ecosystem. They're kept in check by predators.

In reply to Shani:

You can probably find any given 'ecosystem' where herbivores appear to be beneficial/detrimental to the environment.

However it will ALWAYS be true that it takes more resources/energy to take food from further up the food chain. If you are talking about food from purely land-based sources and so from plants and natural sunlight, then it will always take substantially more land to grow the same number of calories of food in the form of meat than in the form of vegetables.

In reply to andrewmcleod:



Agreed, it does take more resource to sustain 'high order' species in an ecosystem. But complex, biodiverse ecosystems require high order species - and this is where we come in as predators to 'manage' the herbivore population. But how do you capture/measure the fact that land farmed with animals can require less managed input? That the animals themselves contribute to the land through manure and trampling the nutrients in to the soil? That the land can be shared with lots of other diverse wildlife? How do you price this in to your model?

A diet based solely on monocropped plants leads to us competing with other species at the base of the food chain. No other species is allowed to compete with the farming nor tolerated. Monocropping fields is seen as more productive but is not sustainable as many of the are costs are hidden. Think about how the soil is denuded and has to be managed with fertilizer. Or think about how the crop is protected from pests and parasites which in and of themselves are part of a wider wildlife food chain. Your chemicals that kill these pests have a wider impact on (wild) animal life.

In reply to Shani:


Can you run this model with global human population of 7bn and rising?

In reply to Shani:

You appear to be believe that mono-cropping - which I agree is not a good thing - is done to meet the demands of veggies and vegans.

I thinks you'll find that far more mono-cropped products are used in animal feed than veggie meals.

Meat production is inherently wasteful and an inefficient method of producing nutrition. This would be less of a problem if all the animal are grazing in fields, but this is less common as modern factory farming methods seek to meet the insatiable desire for meat

In reply to Franco Cookson:


For you to make this statement should we presume you've asked all of them and this was their response? Sweeping generalisations are a weak argument.

In reply to The New NickB:

Any model

Any model with 7bn and rising population won't do well! We are over populated,no matter what diet we eat, we need to stop popping sproglets out to have any real impact.

In reply to girlymonkey: Well quite, if the entire population went over to a vegetarian diet, it might briefly delay the inevitable over-population crisis, but that is not going to happen and in any case, it represents no sort of solution (while also being pretty miserable by condemning us all to eat mush, just so that the feckless can pop out ever more sprogs).

Why on earth would anyone want to maximise the human population anyway, rather than sensibly curbing its increase, or still better, reversing it? What possible benefit can it bring, to remotely compensate for all the harm it does? But then of course politicians would have to stop buying votes by pandering to "hard working families", and that is not likely to happen.

A curious thread, in which several vegetarians claim they are not preachy or prosletysing, nor do they try to claim the moral high ground - then they immediately get all preachy and tell us ominvores (the natural state of the human species), how wicked we are. We do not generally tell them that they must have steak for their tea, even if we think they slightly cranky.

It was said, I believe in the Edwardian era that :

"Vegetarianism is mostly harmless, though it does make a man prone to wind and self-righteousness".

This thread tends to confirm that piece of wisdom.

In reply to Simon4:

(Beware, we are about to agree on something)

I agree completely; the world is over-populated and unsustainable at current levels and taking into account the speed of growth.
The issue is how to deal with over-population though, which is nigh-on impossible, even on a purely domestic scale. Do we enforce an authoritarian Chinese-style one-child policy? Discourage breeding through financial penalties and removal of incentives/assistance for parents (which will inevitably harm the children more than the parents)? Or let carnivores eat the vegetarians?

Something needs to be done and soon, and I don't think going veggie will solve it. More contraception may help though.