When morons breed...

[Katana]

As for their being guilty of neglect (and ignorance), I think is fairly obvious.

However, I don't understand the conviction for murder, specifically. She gave birth in the bathtub, and the parents never took the child to a doctor because they feared germs, it appears.

BUT they did finally take the child to a doc in the end. Yes, the child was dead at that point, but, if they willfully murdered that child, wouldn't they simply try to cover that up?

I'm struggling with what their actions in the end suggested about their motives. If they wanted the child dead, wouldn't they have simply buried the kid in the backyard rather than doing what they had never done before - namely, going to a doc?

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm. If everyone in the developed western world became vegan, how would the countryside be managed? Food animal species would be extinct outside of zoos. We wouldn't need to fence anything, and hedgerow management would only be for cosmetic purposes.

I wouder what they'd do with the land I can see from my window, currently well-populated by sheep and beef cattle, but looking pretty unpromising for growing anything other than tough grass and heather?

Rolfe.

 

[Kerberos]

Hmmm. If everyone in the developed western world became vegan, how would the countryside be managed? Food animal species would be extinct outside of zoos. We wouldn't need to fence anything, and hedgerow management would only be for cosmetic purposes.

I wouder what they'd do with the land I can see from my window, currently well-populated by sheep and beef cattle, but looking pretty unpromising for growing anything other than tough grass and heather?

Rolfe.

Why does it need to be managed? I mean what if rather than grazing area it just became a grass area. I really don't see a problem there.

 

[volatile]

Hmmm. If everyone in the developed western world became vegan, how would the countryside be managed? Food animal species would be extinct outside of zoos. We wouldn't need to fence anything, and hedgerow management would only be for cosmetic purposes.

I wouder what they'd do with the land I can see from my window, currently well-populated by sheep and beef cattle, but looking pretty unpromising for growing anything other than tough grass and heather?

Rolfe.

That's an interesting argument, but though I can see what you're getting at, it's not one I'm totally convinced by. It seems somewhat circular at first glance - "if we didn't farm animals, we wouldn't have farms for animals to live on".

Surely it's just a call for decent "post-omnivorism" environmental mangement rather than an argument to eat meat? There is plenty of hedgerow management happening around land not used to graze livestock, so I'm not sure that holds up. If everyone went vegan there'd obviously be an economic impact on farmers, but I don't see that as convincing either - inventng the car had an economic impact on horse-and-cart builders, but that's not a reason not to buy a car. Buying asbesos keeps asbestos manufacturers in business, but that's not a reason to buy asbestos.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not really "getting at" anything. I'm just pointing out that while a small proportion of vegans will make no difference to our environment, wholesale conversion definitely would.

The hills are the way they are because of grazing animals. If the animals weren't there, lots of different things would happen. We could have an impenetrable jungle - I don't know as much about this as my employer possibly thinks I should, but a grassland management specialist could probably be more exact about what would happen. The animals make it possible for us to use that sort of land productively. How would the owners of these farms (who have farmed that land for generations) survive if they couldn't produce meat animals? Paying them simply to manage the land as "countryside" assumes a lot of spare money in the economy.

What would happen to the overall food supply if that land just lay fallow? Is there enough good arable land to grow enough oats and barley and so on to keep a large, urban, vegan population? (Don't even think about growing soya around here.) Would we see a huge increase in food miles as a result? Could the countries where the preferred vegan crops grow well support that level of export trade? How would we be placed if some future catastrophe - such as global warming - were to force us back on our own resources and we had no means of utilising the poor hill ground we have such a lot of?

What about the animals? Many beef cows and ewes live long and apparently contented lives free on the hills, to die of natural causes or be destroyed only because of debilitating old age. They can only do this because they are producing progeny we want to eat. If we didn't want to eat their calves and lambs, they wouldn't be there. Would they prefer not to exist at all? (This is getting a bit philosophical.)

I don't know the answers to any of that. Some people airily declare that a transition to wholesale veganism could be managed easily, and we'd just keep a few animals in zoos. However, I strongly suspect it isn't as simple as that.

Rolfe.

 

[volatile]

I don't know the answers to any of that. Some people airily declare that a transition to wholesale veganism could be managed easily, and we'd just keep a few animals in zoos. However, I strongly suspect it isn't as simple as that.

You're 100% correct - it would dramatically change the way our country (the UK) would look. It certainly wouldn't be easy if everyone switched overnight. And I don't knowthe answers to your questions either - if it's possible even to speculate - but it certainly wouldn't be easy.

I think there are some presuppositions that this kind of argument makes, though, which aren't necessarily true. The most obvious of these is that we aready import a huge amount of meat from abroad (South America, New Zealand) - th EU "imported 264,300 tonnes of mainly boneless cuts with Brazil keeping its lead position with 60 per cent of the total. Second largest supplier was Argentina with a 23 per cent share." (Source), much of which is "likely to come from Brazilian ranches cleared and worked by slave labour". (Source). On top of this, farms are already closing down, farmers are already being bought out.

If instead of importing beef from cattle fed on plant food, we use that same plant food (soy, I suspect, from reports I've read) to feed people, where's the problem? There are issues of deforestation and the like, of course, but that's a different question, as if we're going to eat beef, the cattle have to be fed anyway.

We're not self-sufficient, the globalised food industry does no revolve around independent hill farmers anymore. In fact, it's almost certain that in terms of environmental impact, growing and eating your own food is less damaging than importing vegan produts from abroad. I'm not an absolutist on this issue, as I've said, and were I even able to raise my own cattle and grown m own veg, that would almost certainly be preferable to industrialised veganism in most cases.

But in the climate in which we in the West live and shop, what's the positive difference between eating a steak from Argentina from a cow fed on soy beans as opposed to a block of tofu? Why is the meat option better?

 

[Thanz]

It's as healthy, not necessarily more healthy. As I said, I haven't been presented with any reasons to eat meat. Why should I NOT be vegan? That's the question that turned me vegan - I had no good reason not to be.

I don't think that it is quite as settled as you put it regarding the health evaluation of veganism. I do believe that the healthiest diet includes at least some fish, due to certain omega-3 fatty acids.

I also dispute your claim that it is just as easy to be a vegan as an omnivore. Not so. It is much easier to have a balanced diet that includes some meat and dairy. It is also easier if you don't have to worry about any animal products in foods that are mostly vegetarian - or at least don't have meat.

Further, the way you phrase your question assumes that one should not eat meat or dairy. It starts from a position that to do so is somehow wrong, and therefore demands a good enough reason to do it. I disagree with that stance.

You may see certain advantages to a vegan lifestyle that outweigh the disadvantages - which certainly exist, no matter what you may claim - and that is fine. I respect that choice. But your persistent stance on this thread has been to imply that eating meat or dairy is for "woos". Omnivores just apply a different cost/benefit analysis than you do.

 

[Rolfe]

But in the climate in which we in the West live and shop, what's the positive difference between eating a steak from Argentina from a cow fed on soy beans as opposed to a block of tofu? Why is the meat option better?

I'm all for eating locally produced food. My point is that if the country were to switch to veganism, part of the huge changes to the landscape would involve not utilising a great deal of land which is at present productive. Thus tying us even more rigidly to imported food, whether we like it (and can continue to obtain it) or not.

In addition, do we know whether the parts of the world that can grow the sorts of crops vegans favour could actually sustain enough production to cope with the current urban wetern populations all becoming vegan?

Rolfe.

 

[Z]

I also dispute your claim that it is just as easy to be a vegan as an omnivore. Not so. It is much easier to have a balanced diet that includes some meat and dairy. It is also easier if you don't have to worry about any animal products in foods that are mostly vegetarian - or at least don't have meat.

I agree with this - it's been a considerable pain in the butt, finding gravy mixes that are vegetarian, for example, or making sure that the ramen or beans or whatever are actually vegetarian.

The only thing less easy than a vegan lifestyle has got to be a food allergy/sensitivity lifestyle.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But in the climate in which we in the West live and shop, what's the positive difference between eating a steak from Argentina from a cow fed on soy beans as opposed to a block of tofu? Why is the meat option better?

Cows and sheep convert grass, which is of little to no food value to a human, into meat, which has significant food value and protein density. In doing so, the grazing land does not require the intense cultivation per acre, complete with long term effects on watersheds, salting the soil, and toxicity of fertilization. Granted, some of the diet of beef cattle is corn, which does tend to call for the aforementioned added demand on the land, which could have gone to a direct caloric source, but corn's protein density is inferior to that of beef.

I don't eat grass, but I can eat a sheep or cow who does. It's a win win, so long as the breeding stock is kept alive.

That is part of why meat is the better option. It's better to eat than grass.

DR

 

[DoubtingStephen]

I agree with this - it's been a considerable pain in the butt, finding gravy mixes that are vegetarian, for example, or making sure that the ramen or beans or whatever are actually vegetarian.

The only thing less easy than a vegan lifestyle has got to be a food allergy/sensitivity lifestyle.

I happen to have a genetically mediated autoimmune disorder called celiac disease in addition to being vegan. This makes my diet fairly restricted. Well, quite restricted. Very restricted actually.

One area of difficulty is with meat substitute products intended for vegetarians. These often contain wheat gluten which is exactly what I must avoid.

I can confirm your statement as true.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have six children, and two step-children. Two of those suffered briefly from 'failure to thrive'. One of those two is allergic to animal proteins. Today, they're both right on track, healthy, and in great shape. My wife and I have done everything in our power for our children - even changing our own lifestyles to accomodate the needs of our children.

Good, you answered my question.

So don't preach to me, Rotor.

Not trying to preach. I found that my PoV on children, and parenting, changed radically once the missus and I had ours.

Since you do have children, and went through the joy and angst of each one being born, and more now that you elaborate, I would expect you to empathize with their loss. As I read the story, their actions were not willful, but a gross case of misguided action. For you to call that a post partum abortion strikes me as bogus.

If you want to argue that people need to get a license before they breed, you and I would probably be in complete accord.

But there is no license requirement, save perhaps in China where one is limited to the number of kids? Not sure how that parses.

It is my view that it is their business, their family, and primarily, their tragedy, not mine. I am not their child's keeper. They can try again, and one would hope that they'd get a freaking clue the next time around.

I understand you having greater compassion than me toward another's child and responsibility. I just don't share that Pov.

DR

 

[Rolfe]

Just wondering, if veganasm is so satisfying, why all the effort to make ersatz copies of carnivore dishes? Why look for vegetarian gravy at all?

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just wondering, if veganasm is so satisfying, why all the effort to make ersatz copies of carnivore dishes? Why look for vegetarian gravy at all?

Rolfe.

I don't think being vegan means promoting the dining experience as flavorless. People like things that taste yummy, and on many dishes, gravy makes it yummy, as does many a sauce beyond gravy. Substitute the word "sauce" for "gravy" and I'd think it makes sense.

From my own experience in the kitchen, sauces based in butter and animal fat are easier to make than those based in corn oil, but thanks to the internet, my wife and I have found many recipes that start with a vegetable oil base for sauces. (No, we are not vegans, but we like to try out different ways to prepare food.)

DR

 

[LawnOven]

Just wondering, if veganasm is so satisfying, why all the effort to make ersatz copies of carnivore dishes? Why look for vegetarian gravy at all?

Rolfe.

Probably because it makes the transition from meat eater to vegan easier. You may not be a carnivore any longer, but you may still have a taste for carnivore dishes.

 

[BPSCG]

But if you live in a city and buy your food form a supermarket where the soy milk is right there next to the cow's milk on the shelf, why buy the cow's milk?

Because I prefer the cow's milk?

Why do I eat steak? Because I like steak.

Life is too short to avoid eating things I like.

And it's too long to spend it eating things I don't like.

Ultimately, the argument for veganism is that it's healthier. Fine, so you may outlive me by ten years or so, and if you think that being a vegan is an acceptable price for that, who am I to say thee nay? But we'll both end up dead eventually, and I can guarantee that on my deathbed, I won't be saying, "I wish I'd been a vegan so I wouldn't be dying now."

(I'll probably be saying, "More morphine...")

Chacun a son gout, as the French (who know a little bit about food) like to say.

 

[Lonewulf]

(Sigh . . .) She

I can't be expected to keep track of every gender on this blasted forum!

<Bones> Damnit, Acuity, I'm a bum, not a psychic! </Bones>

Ultimately, the argument for veganism is that it's healthier.

Not really...

I'm surprised. What lead you to this conclusion?

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Just wondering, if veganasm is so satisfying, why all the effort to make ersatz copies of carnivore dishes? Why look for vegetarian gravy at all?

Many vegans were raised as omnivores, and have grown accustomed to certain shapes, textures, and appearances of foods. A vegan who loved spaghetti and meatballs as a child might consider it a treat to have spaghetti and meatless objects resembling meatballs, for example.

I think it has to do with the emotional comfort we get from eating certain foods.

 

[volatile]

I don't think that it is quite as settled as you put it regarding the health evaluation of veganism. I do believe that the healthiest diet includes at least some fish, due to certain omega-3 fatty acids.

The [SIZE=-1]American Dietetic Association disagree - "[/SIZE]"well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."

I also dispute your claim that it is just as easy to be a vegan as an omnivore. Not so. It is much easier to have a balanced diet that includes some meat and dairy. It is also easier if you don't have to worry about any animal products in foods that are mostly vegetarian - or at least don't have meat.

You need to put a little thought into what you eat, certainly, but it isn't difficult. The vegan products are right there on the shelf next to the non-vegan ones (in supermarkets in developed countries).

Further, the way you phrase your question assumes that one should not eat meat or dairy. It starts from a position that to do so is somehow wrong, and therefore demands a good enough reason to do it. I disagree with that stance.

Fair enough. It doesn't assume that one should not eat meat or dairy, though. It takes "diet" as a blank canvas and asks for coherent and convincing reasons to pick one over another. I ate meat because I always had done. I had never thought critically about what I ate. When I did, and I learnt that veganism is at least as healthy, that there exist vegan substitutes for many, many things that are pretty much indistinguishable from their animal based counterparts, that veganism is less destructive to the environment, that veganism doesn't involve the suffering of sentient beings for no good reason (if I can survive as well without eating meat, why is the suffering justified?).

I didn't start from the position that eating meat was wrong, at all. If it's right, I'd like to hear a reason. Rolfe's discussion of land use is an interesting one, but I don't think it's watertight. Everyone else suggests laziness and "taste" as reasons enough to justify the benefits of veganism outlined above. As a critical thinker, that's not enough for me.

You may see certain advantages to a vegan lifestyle that outweigh the disadvantages - which certainly exist, no matter what you may claim - and that is fine. I respect that choice. But your persistent stance on this thread has been to imply that eating meat or dairy is for "woos". Omnivores just apply a different cost/benefit analysis than you do.

As I said, I'm not evangelical and there is no reason to be dogmatic about veganism. No doubt locally produced meat and dairy are "better" than industrialised veganism. But that's not the world I live in - I live in an urban environment, and shop at supermarkets for the most part. For me, it doesn't make rational sense to eat meat.

I don't judge people who have decided otherwise, as long as they've thought about it and actually done the "cost/benefit analysis" you talk about. I simply don't think most omnivores have ever done this. Omnivorism is just a habit, an indoctrination if you will, for most people - it certainly was for me.

All I'm asking for is that people critically think about their diets in the way they critically think about other areas of their lives. If they come to the conclusion that's different to mine, then so be it.

 

[volatile]

Many vegans were raised as omnivores, and have grown accustomed to certain shapes, textures, and appearances of foods. A vegan who loved spaghetti and meatballs as a child might consider it a treat to have spaghetti and meatless objects resembling meatballs, for example.

I think it has to do with the emotional comfort we get from eating certain foods.

Because I like the taste of meat.

I actually also think that if you can produce ersatz "meat" and "dairy" products, that's yet another reason to go vegan. Egg-free mayonnaise tastes pretty much identical to the alternative. Seitan tastes the same as chicken in stirfries, curries and the like. TVP tastes the same as beef mince in chillies and pies.

If I can even get the same taste and texture, that's yet another reason why eating the "real thing" becomes more problematic.