What's your excuse for eating meat?

[drummer4now]

Because you don't make friends with salad.

but heart disease is better?

[WilliesStache14]

but heart disease is better?

because vegetarians never get heart disease too?

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

What kind of budget did he need for a diet like that? I am guessing not sustainable for the average family.

You guessed right. Eating high protien organics costs an arm and a leg. The guy in the book lived in a tropical climate in the early 90's , had access to an endless array of fruits, nuts, veggies etc . You would have to have a pretty decent income to sustain that type of diet in any climate these days

Started juice extracting a few months ago. Not cheap.

[Chalky]

What kind of budget did he need for a diet like that? I am guessing not sustainable for the average family.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/bodybuilders

Because I know how much you love veggies. I'm not saying it's not more costly, but it's totally doable if you focus on in-season products and are willing to learn about the protein in Legumes.

I'm still going to attempt to stay out of this because I love raw veggies equal to (easily accessible) ethical meats, but this gif is all the "excuse" I need.

[riffraff]

I heart raw veggies.

[IamHomer]

but heart disease is better?

LOOL

[Miltt]

What's your excuse for eating meat? I'm saying it like that because it's 2015 and you MUST know how the meat industry works by now. You MUST know how animals are treated or mistreated. So surely you have given this some consideration and made some argument, or some excuse, for why you feel it is ethically, morally, or otherwise justifiably okay to eat meat?

And let's pretend you don't, or that you have your head willfully stuck in the sand.

A 2009 article (there is no reason to believe the stats have significantly changed for the better) from the New Yorker summed up American meat consumption as follows:

35,000,000 cows

150,000,000 pigs

9,000,000,000 birds

You should know that the vast, vast majority of these billions of animals are being killed in completely horrendous ways (the article calls it "barbaric"). The living conditions aren't much better: windowless rooms, excrement everywhere, breathing in straight ammonia, etc. (article goes into more description of the carcasses, sores, and violent scenes found in many, many, many/most farms in America today: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/09/flesh-of-your-flesh)

But none of this is new. You know it without having to read it. And that's America. The numbers are different here, and in some cases, so are the conditions (for example, do we not have laws against certain growth hormones?). Buuuut that's a weak thing to hold onto.

Of the hundreds of millions of animals slaughtered here each year, the conditions are still weak. According to The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Canada's "Farming, transport and slaughter practices in Canada have remained at the status quo for many years, falling further and further behind countries such as Australia, New Zealand and members of the European Union, where public demand has required progressive policies and legislation for farm animal welfare. For example, many countries and even some U.S. states have introduced legislation mandating the phase-out of battery cages, gestation stalls and veal crates." But again, you probably already know this. You have to be a serious moron to not know that animals are, by and large, mistreated.

If you've read any of Michael Pollan's works or seen his interviews, you will even probably be familiar with misguiding labels which act as nothing more than a tensor for consumer guilt (i.e. 'grass fed' doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that some grass was in its diet, although it would lead many consumers to think the animal has a 'normal' grazing life). So even when you think you are eating ethically, you may actually not be doing so at all. But do you sincerely even take that into consideration?

If you are okay with your dinner living a miserable life, suffering a painful death, and then being transported to your plate -- what about the environment consequences of eating meat?

Damian Carrington of The Guardian writes:

(the New Yorker article also goes into detail about the sea of 'crap' from some farms which fills up more space than that of Californians and Texans combined, each day, creating 'dead zones' and environmental disaster areas)

But again, even the Guardian acknowledges that this isn't necessarily anything new. Even though the data or specifics may be clearer than before, we have known for years that cattle are environmentally dangerous.

The New York Times had a contest recently (2012) for someone to write a short essay arguing for the ethical reason FOR eating meat. The selected winner option is linked here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/the-ethicist-contest-winner-give-thanks-for-meat.html?_r=0), but if you read it, also check out the comment section, which has many hilarious responses about how the essay is sort of a failure.

So, if the NYT couldn't really do it, how about us? How do you overlook the fact that your dinner is what it is? I know it sounds condescending, but I don't mean for it to. I think the simple facts of the matter simply MAKE it sound condescending. I'm only asking because I am seriously interested. I am not a vegan or something. This isn't a call to vegetarian arms, I am legitimately curious as to how we make our food choices.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a vegetarian, but I do not cook meat on my own. I never make meat-based dishes. But I still have meat on/in some meals when I go out or have dinner with family and stuff like that, maybe 15 times a year or so. I could go the rest of my life without eating meat and be totally happy. If you can't, how do you reconcile that with the fact that individual sentient beings and the environmental world at large may suffer because of your choice?

edit: link to Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

As a recovering vegetarian I will ask you the question that forced me to turn my back on vegetarianism and begin eating meat again: why are you putting so much effort into protecting the lives of animals while there is so much human suffering caused by imperialism, capitalism, war, poverty, racism, sexism, classicism, etc.?? Do you prioritize your fight against injustice with the lives of animals over humans? Tell me you don't think human suffering has ceased and we as a race must address the issue of animal cruelty?

[drummer4now]

LOOL

Yes Homer I am the real moron..

Please do some research before dropping the facepalm.

DOH!

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=heart+disease+and+meat&spell=1

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=heart+disease+and+vegetables

Obviously both diets are prone.. but there's a higher risk with meat consumption.

[NucksPatsFan]

Because the animal is already dead, so me passing up on a steak or a chicken isn't going to bring it back to life.

[GLASSJAW]

As a recovering vegetarian I will ask you the question that forced me to turn my back on vegetarianism and begin eating meat again: why are you putting so much effort into protecting the lives of animals while there is so much human suffering caused by imperialism, capitalism, war, poverty, racism, sexism, classicism, etc.?? Do you prioritize your fight against injustice with the lives of animals over humans? Tell me you don't think human suffering has ceased and we as a race must address the issue of animal cruelty?

putting effort? the post took no effort. most of the chimp replies in this thread took no effort, despite a few of them being exhausting. but more importantly, being 89.9999% vegetarian takes absolutely, positively zero effort on my part. none at all.

i see absolutely no connection between caring about inhumane treatment of animals and the environment and sexism or classicism. none at all. regardless of whether or not war is happening somewhere, i still have to eat

your post makes absolutely no sense

[The Arrogant Worms]

Forks Over Knives: The Latest Vegan Nonsense Dissected, Debunked and Destroyed

http://anthonycolpo.com/forks-over-knives-the-latest-vegan-nonsense-dissected-debunked-and-destroyed/

The War-Time Decrease in CVD + Shady Extrapolation = More BS Dogma

One of the favourite, and utterly retarded, attacks on animal foods is the “war-time rations” argument. During WWII, we are told, food rationing led to a decrease in animal protein and fat consumption, which in turn led to a substantial decline in heart disease. This argument is repeated in Forks Over Knives, using the specific example of Norway. The film even shows us a graph, complete with obligatory evil Nazi flag, plotting the trajectory of CVD that allegedly proves the animal food-CVD connection.

For crying out loud, just how dumb do these jokers think their viewers are? Wait, don’t answer that…

There was war-time rationing in Europe alright, and it involved a whole bunch of foodstuffs along with animal products. So we’re faced with the same shonky extrapolation issue I just discussed a few moments ago; namely, using a multifactorial intervention to disingenuously sing the praises of a single intervention.

In the case of Norway, here are some of the potentially confounding changes recorded in the literature:

• Cod liver oil became a standard addition to war-time diets…hmmm…more omega-3s, vitamin D and vitamin A! Gee, that wouldn’t have had any possible confounding effect on CVD would it, now? Naaah…
• Fish intake increased greatly (those omega-3’s again…)
• Intake of skim milk was higher throughout the war than before it.
• Added fats like margarine and butter declined.
• Intake of sugar declined markedly.
• Overall calorie intake went down. Anyone down for some weight loss-induced reductions in CVD?

And to top it all off, Denise reminds us that a rise in infectious disease mortality may in fact be the real reason behind the wartime drop in CVD deaths. It’s pretty safe to say you won’t die of CHD if tuberculosis kills you first…

[The Arrogant Worms]

The Red Meat Scapegoat: The New York Times, Carnitine, Heart Disease and Science

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-red-meat-scapegoat-the-new-york-times-carnitine-heart-disease-and-science/

[Junkyard Dog]

That steak I just cooked was yummy.

[Miltt]

putting effort? the post took no effort. most of the chimp replies in this thread took no effort, despite a few of them being exhausting. but more importantly, being 89.9999% vegetarian takes absolutely, positively zero effort on my part. none at all.

i see absolutely no connection between caring about inhumane treatment of animals and the environment and sexism or classicism. none at all. regardless of whether or not war is happening somewhere, i still have to eat

your post makes absolutely no sense

Fair enough. You're probably right.

Butttttttttt... If you stop eating meat my friend, has anything changed overall for the welfare of animals? You're not going to convince too many poor people who don't have a lot of food options that they should not be eating meat when there's no guarantee when the next meal is. Because I imagine you would like to promote vegetarianism and try and convince others of your ways, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ending of the for profit meat industry that your OP reflects, but on my priority list of injustices around the world, this one is near the bottom.

[drummer4now]

Forks Over Knives: The Latest Vegan Nonsense Dissected, Debunked and Destroyed

http://anthonycolpo.com/forks-over-knives-the-latest-vegan-nonsense-dissected-debunked-and-destroyed/

The War-Time Decrease in CVD + Shady Extrapolation = More BS Dogma

One of the favourite, and utterly retarded, attacks on animal foods is the “war-time rations” argument. During WWII, we are told, food rationing led to a decrease in animal protein and fat consumption, which in turn led to a substantial decline in heart disease. This argument is repeated in Forks Over Knives, using the specific example of Norway. The film even shows us a graph, complete with obligatory evil Nazi flag, plotting the trajectory of CVD that allegedly proves the animal food-CVD connection.

For crying out loud, just how dumb do these jokers think their viewers are? Wait, don’t answer that…

There was war-time rationing in Europe alright, and it involved a whole bunch of foodstuffs along with animal products. So we’re faced with the same shonky extrapolation issue I just discussed a few moments ago; namely, using a multifactorial intervention to disingenuously sing the praises of a single intervention.

In the case of Norway, here are some of the potentially confounding changes recorded in the literature:

• Cod liver oil became a standard addition to war-time diets…hmmm…more omega-3s, vitamin D and vitamin A! Gee, that wouldn’t have had any possible confounding effect on CVD would it, now? Naaah…
• Fish intake increased greatly (those omega-3’s again…)
• Intake of skim milk was higher throughout the war than before it.
• Added fats like margarine and butter declined.
• Intake of sugar declined markedly.
• Overall calorie intake went down. Anyone down for some weight loss-induced reductions in CVD?

And to top it all off, Denise reminds us that a rise in infectious disease mortality may in fact be the real reason behind the wartime drop in CVD deaths. It’s pretty safe to say you won’t die of CHD if tuberculosis kills you first…

The Red Meat Scapegoat: The New York Times, Carnitine, Heart Disease and Science

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-red-meat-scapegoat-the-new-york-times-carnitine-heart-disease-and-science/

What is this drivel..

[GLASSJAW]

Fair enough. You're probably right.

Butttttttttt... If you stop eating meat my friend, has anything changed overall for the welfare of animals? You're not going to convince too many poor people who don't have a lot of food options that they should not be eating meat when there's no guarantee when the next meal is. Because I imagine you would like to promote vegetarianism and try and convince others of your ways, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ending of the for profit meat industry that your OP reflects, but on my priority list of injustices around the world, this one is near the bottom.

the more people stop eating meat or the more people start buying from more 'positive' sources, then the industry will be forced to change. the meat industry is NOT systemic -- it is a corporate/consumer climate issue, period. it can and will change. it HAS to change because what is currently happening is not sustainable.

i'm glad that you care (or pretend to care) about suffering in whatever country is messed up this week, but most human suffering around the world IS because of systemic forces that you cannot and will not change at all. consumerism in North America is in our hands.

[Miltt]

the more people stop eating meat or the more people start buying from more 'positive' sources, then the industry will be forced to change. the meat industry is NOT systemic -- it is a corporate/consumer climate issue, period. it can and will change. it HAS to change because what is currently happening is not sustainable.

i'm glad that you care (or pretend to care) about suffering in whatever country is messed up this week, but most human suffering around the world IS because of systemic forces that you cannot and will not change at all. consumerism in North America is in our hands.

So you have given up on the idea of humans changing unfair systematic problems that cause widespread suffering but you believe that we humans can influence our eating habits enough to end the meat industry? Can't see it happening.

However all societies eventually do massively change their systems. The most brutish of empires eventually come to an end and I firmly believe we as humans can reduce the brutal pain and suffering caused by the current systems of power and domination. I'd like to see people in a better position where all of us can have the privilege to decide if we want to stop eating meat or not.

[drummer4now]

So you have given up on the idea of humans changing unfair systematic problems that cause widespread suffering but you believe that we humans can influence our eating habits enough to end the meat industry? Can't see it happening.

However all societies eventually do massively change their systems. The most brutish of empires eventually come to an end and I firmly believe we as humans can reduce the brutal pain and suffering caused by the current systems of power and domination. I'd like to see people in a better position where all of us can have the privilege to decide if we want to stop eating meat or not.

I don't understand your point lol.. this thread is about meat consumption and what not..

Human suffering is completely off-topic.. unless you wish to discuss some sort of human suffering from our food supply..

[Miltt]

I don't understand your point lol.. this thread is about meat consumption and what not..

Human suffering is completely off-topic.. unless you wish to discuss some sort of human suffering from our food supply..

LOL I suppose you're right as well. I will depart from this discussion as I emphasize in a stronger way the fight to end human suffering over the fight to end animal suffering. To each their own drummer. Ciao for now.

[Heretic]

I know this is a serious topic, and one of the advantages of a small town is that the local super market deals with local suppliers - I feel good that the meat I buy is ethically treated. Not everyone has that advantage though...as well as most of you know, my wife and I butcher our own free range chickens and turkeys - so I know 100% that they are treated very well.