I always thought the Charlton Life vegan/vegetarian threads popped up three or four times a year, with all the usual stuff. But when they popped up they were fresh food. Now we seem to have an ongoing thread, does it have a best before date?
Frankly it’s exactly that kind of nonsense that sets me against vegan activism. Rather than make me think as you suggest it just shuts down the argument for me.
It seems that non meat eaters that have come out and open are more manly. Ooh does that mean that I'm butch?
"Dr Emma Roe is a social and cultural geographer often found working in the spaces of transdisciplinary research." i.e research in stuff she is not qualified to research.
Lists interests as: Bodily cultural geographies of human-nonhuman relations Commercialisation of the nonhuman: retailing and supply-chain cultures Embodied consumption practices /Embodied stockperson practices Farm animal welfare Cross-species comparison of ethical practices of consent and welfare in clinical drug trials.
So pretentious vegan geography graduate who hasn't made professor yet, does subjective research without any academic peer review to prove a fatuous hypothesis to further vegan propaganda pushed out as an authoritative piece of academic research - as authoritative as a Sun reader survey.
Useful only to maintain the noise in the vegan echo chamber.
Countryfile yesterday had a feature on an Isle of Sheppy farmer who converted thousands of acres of disused land formerly growing wheat, into a saltmarsh creating a unique habitat for wading birds and other wildlife. Cattle are reared to maintain the salt marsh grass to the natural level required for the wildlife and the cattle are sold on for turning into beef.
If vegan pseudo academics, who know the outcome of their research before they start, could bring themselves to acknowledge that there are good and bad points about farming animals and eating meat, research might at least be taken seriously.
On the other hand it might get exposed as a lifestyle cult based on a disconnect with nature which carefully avoids recognition that the problems they identify are caused through too many humans, not too many humans eating meat.
It seems that non meat eaters that have come out and open are more manly. Ooh does that mean that I'm butch?
"Dr Emma Roe is a social and cultural geographer often found working in the spaces of transdisciplinary research." i.e research in stuff she is not qualified to research.
Lists interests as: Bodily cultural geographies of human-nonhuman relations Commercialisation of the nonhuman: retailing and supply-chain cultures Embodied consumption practices /Embodied stockperson practices Farm animal welfare Cross-species comparison of ethical practices of consent and welfare in clinical drug trials.
So pretentious vegan geography graduate who hasn't made professor yet, does subjective research without any academic peer review to prove a fatuous hypothesis to further vegan propaganda pushed out as an authoritative piece of academic research - as authoritative as a Sun reader survey.
Useful only to maintain the noise in the vegan echo chamber.
Countryfile yesterday had a feature on an Isle of Sheppy farmer who converted thousands of acres of disused land formerly growing wheat, into a saltmarsh creating a unique habitat for wading birds and other wildlife. Cattle are reared to maintain the salt marsh grass to the natural level required for the wildlife and the cattle are sold on for turning into beef.
If vegan pseudo academics, who know the outcome of their research before they start, could bring themselves to acknowledge that there are good and bad points about farming animals and eating meat, research might at least be taken seriously.
On the other hand it might get exposed as a lifestyle cult based on a disconnect with nature which carefully avoids recognition that the problems they identify are caused through too many humans, not too many humans eating meat.
It's interesting how many wildlife reserves use livestock to graze the land which helps maintain the right soil balance and keeps scrub down, for the benefit of wild flowers and insects
How can there be propaganda? Propaganda is a fact-lite, or fact-distorted, or even fact-free attempt to influence thinking isn't it, or thinking then behaviour? Now if there was no debate to be had, as in it will get dark tonight, then any propaganda supporting the notion that the sun doesn't set is meaningless. If eating meat and fish was as obvious as the sun won't set, then any propaganda regarding veganism or vegetarianism would be meaningless. However some carnivores describe the promotion of veganism and/or vegetarianism as propaganda, why? Unless of course there is a debate to be had (which can't be had regarding sunrise and sunset). If there are points to debate, with propaganda supporting positions, then that suggests that being a carnivore is not such a settled position, or that arguments supporting meat eating are vulnerable. Why don't carnivores dismiss arguments out of hand? Could it be that there are genuine points to be made regarding diet and morality? In the extremis it seems that currently vegans and vegetarians are certain that it is wrong to eat meat and fish and animal products generally, but that carnivores are less certain about all that.
That's not changing societal norms - that's learning as described in the NLP world.
It also assumes that carnivores are incompetent - I eat meat because I always have, I then learn that there are alternatives, I evaluate those alternatives and then conclude that I was right all along. No change in behaviour there.
Errrrrrm..... This is probably a whoosh but NO He's 89 years old and buys products without even checking for animal based products within them, he doesn't choose Meat purposefully but doesn't choose not to eat it and if it is in his food, for convenience he will eat it:
Returning to the question of natural law, I would like to ask whether you think natural right applies to non-human animals? In an interview from 2010, you acknowledged that there exists a “moral case” for vegetarianism, but at a recent talk at University College London, you claimed that animals cannot have the same rights as humans because, lacking reason, they cannot be considered to have responsibilities. Can you clarify what you mean by this? As you likely know, many anarchists and anti-authoritarians today consider vegetarianism and veganism essential to the project of reducing humanity’s domination over nature.
That makes sense, but that’s separate from the question of whether animals have the same rights as humans. It’s a fact that animals don’t have responsibilities; we can’t overlook that. If I have a dog, the dog has no responsibilities. Maybe I’d like it to bark when a criminal comes, but I can’t say the dog’s guilty if it didn’t do it. So it’s a fact that animals don’t have responsibilities. Responsibilities are related to rights. This does not say you should murder animals, but it is a recognition of reality. In fact, vegetarianism or veganism, I think, have a moral basis. But so do lots of other things. Like when you got here, you drove or took public transportation, meaning you used energy — that harms the environment. You made a choice: your choice was to harm the environment in order to come here so we could have this discussion. We’re making choices like that every moment of the day. Well, one of the choices has to do with people in countries where there is meat, but not much else: should they eat it? That’s another choice. We have our own choices. We are always — we can’t overlook the fact that we are constantly making choices which have negative effects, and this is one of them. There is an opportunity cost to vegetarianism.
Personally, I’m not a vegetarian — I almost never eat meat. The reason is I just don’t have time for it; I don’t have the time to think about it; I don’t want to think about it. I just pick up whatever saves me time, which usually is not meat, but I don’t purposely check to see if there’s a piece of chicken in the salad. Okay, that’s a choice. I don’t like — I don’t think we should have factory farming; the free-range business is mostly a joke — I understand that very well.
With regard to rights and responsibilities, they do relate, and I don’t think we can overlook that. You can say the same about an infant: an infant doesn’t have responsibilities. But the reason we grant the infant rights is because of speciesism, and you can’t overlook that, either.
Seriously WTF? Someone shut this guy up.
He's the biggest hypocrite against both camps that you'll never meet.
Very easy to be a vegan in your own home these days, with so many ready made products like vegan Quorn fillets (which I don't like). When my wife cooks she always does the same thing for Tuesday, Weds & Friday: pasta with vegan quorn; stir fry with tofu pieces and a Friday fry up with vegan sausages & chips! I tend to make curries and stews and use up what needs to be used from the fridge/veg rack. I had a big marrow and took off the skin & cut out the seeds, then chopped it up into small pieces and used it as a courgette with broad beans & chopped tomatoes (plus spices of course). I mention this because it really is quite easy to go Vegan. Protein is important. I use chick peas or broad beans quite a lot. I buy a Korean can of fried gluten (none of us are allergic). Back in the day we had to make our own veggie sausages, or burgers, or stews which we would make for two or three days.
Very easy to be a vegan in your own home these days, with so many ready made products like vegan Quorn fillets (which I don't like). When my wife cooks she always does the same thing for Tuesday, Weds & Friday: pasta with vegan quorn; stir fry with tofu pieces and a Friday fry up with vegan sausages & chips! I tend to make curries and stews and use up what needs to be used from the fridge/veg rack. I had a big marrow and took off the skin & cut out the seeds, then chopped it up into small pieces and used it as a courgette with broad beans & chopped tomatoes (plus spices of course). I mention this because it really is quite easy to go Vegan. Protein is important. I use chick peas or broad beans quite a lot. I buy a Korean can of fried gluten (none of us are allergic). Back in the day we had to make our own veggie sausages, or burgers, or stews which we would make for two or three days.
This is not meant to come across as being a pop but it strikes me that most vegan “alternatives” are bland and tasteless and require a good deal of spicing up in order to make it taste worth eating. For me, and I realise this is just my perception but having to add flavourings to every meal is a little monotonous. When I eat meat I of course sometimes add a sauce but I can easily eat any meat that is just plain grilled. The flavours that I enjoy come from the product not what I need to put on it. A steak or rasher of bacon simply cooked is full of flavour. I don’t want to have to add herbs or spices to everything I eat just to make it palatable.
Comments
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Now we seem to have an ongoing thread, does it have a best before date?
Rather than make me think as you suggest it just shuts down the argument for me.
;-)
Lists interests as:
Bodily cultural geographies of human-nonhuman relations
Commercialisation of the nonhuman: retailing and supply-chain cultures
Embodied consumption practices /Embodied stockperson practices
Farm animal welfare
Cross-species comparison of ethical practices of consent and welfare in clinical drug trials.
So pretentious vegan geography graduate who hasn't made professor yet, does subjective research without any academic peer review to prove a fatuous hypothesis to further vegan propaganda pushed out as an authoritative piece of academic research - as authoritative as a Sun reader survey.
Useful only to maintain the noise in the vegan echo chamber.
Countryfile yesterday had a feature on an Isle of Sheppy farmer who converted thousands of acres of disused land formerly growing wheat, into a saltmarsh creating a unique habitat for wading birds and other wildlife. Cattle are reared to maintain the salt marsh grass to the natural level required for the wildlife and the cattle are sold on for turning into beef.
If vegan pseudo academics, who know the outcome of their research before they start, could bring themselves to acknowledge that there are good and bad points about farming animals and eating meat, research might at least be taken seriously.
On the other hand it might get exposed as a lifestyle cult based on a disconnect with nature which carefully avoids recognition that the problems they identify are caused through too many humans, not too many humans eating meat.
Propaganda is a fact-lite, or fact-distorted, or even fact-free attempt to influence thinking isn't it, or thinking then behaviour?
Now if there was no debate to be had, as in it will get dark tonight, then any propaganda supporting the notion that the sun doesn't set is meaningless.
If eating meat and fish was as obvious as the sun won't set, then any propaganda regarding veganism or vegetarianism would be meaningless.
However some carnivores describe the promotion of veganism and/or vegetarianism as propaganda, why?
Unless of course there is a debate to be had (which can't be had regarding sunrise and sunset). If there are points to debate, with propaganda supporting positions, then that suggests that being a carnivore is not such a settled position, or that arguments supporting meat eating are vulnerable.
Why don't carnivores dismiss arguments out of hand? Could it be that there are genuine points to be made regarding diet and morality?
In the extremis it seems that currently vegans and vegetarians are certain that it is wrong to eat meat and fish and animal products generally, but that carnivores are less certain about all that.
Demand For Vegan Food Is Leading A Retail Revolution
https://plantbasednews.org/post/icelands-vegan-range-launches-dedicated-plant-based-section
Present norm = Unconscious incompetence,
then comes Conscious incompetence,
then comes Conscious competence,
and finally Unconscious competence.
It also assumes that carnivores are incompetent - I eat meat because I always have, I then learn that there are alternatives, I evaluate those alternatives and then conclude that I was right all along. No change in behaviour there.
This is from 2016: He was also an absolute Moron: Seriously WTF? Someone shut this guy up.
He's the biggest hypocrite against both camps that you'll never meet.
Protein is important. I use chick peas or broad beans quite a lot. I buy a Korean can of fried gluten (none of us are allergic).
Back in the day we had to make our own veggie sausages, or burgers, or stews which we would make for two or three days.
Like the Japanese.