Vegetarians and Vegans and others. What do you do with the animals?

originally posted by: LocalGenius

Oh right, well I must have been living in a cave because I've never met a vegan who will eat any living animal "free range" or not...

It isn't about them eating the meat, its about providing a humane existence and ending that they can accept as the rest of us eat meat.

a reply to: Xtrozero
Has nothing to do with what I think. Vegans are extreme vegetarians, so they don't eat meat either, no matter how it is treated.

originally posted by: LocalGenius
Nah lets not kid ourselves, it's all about the taste because at the end of the day we as humans can live a healthy life meat and dairy free, we CHOOSE not to.

I recently tasted a 'Beyond Meat' burger, made from pea protein.

It actually tasted really good, and very close to a decent real burger.

originally posted by: daskakik
Not for me, because I don't care.

Which is why you're not commenting/arguing about it.

Got it...

"It only makes sense superficially - like most other things to do with the radical agendas."

Like the meat producing industry doesn't have its own agenda.

I never said it didn't, but that is a different subject...

Cows also make those healthy saturated fats from a vegetarian source.

We are not cows - and for the record, we can not get healthy saturated fats from grass like cows.

So, since the amino acid thing, which was the reason usually used for meat in a diet, wasn't on the up and up.

It actually is still very relevant. It is very difficult to get a decent amount of protein from plant sources. It can be done, but it is very difficult. It is extremely easy to do so from animal sources. Period. End of story.

I'm going to take the healthy saturated fats thing with a grain of salt and some carne asada.

Sounds yummy... but you'll need more than a grain of salt to tenderize the meat to a melt-in-your-mouth state...

originally posted by: daskakik
and "free range" is used when they are not kept in cages.

Another myth. The legal term 'free range' has been watered down by the industry to the point it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. They can be legally called 'free range' even if they... aren't.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Which is why you're not commenting/arguing about it.

Got it...

I don't live in a city, so it makes no difference what co-ops there do.

I never said it didn't, but that is a different subject...

Oh, so you do understand when something in a post has no bearing on a topic.

We are not cows - and for the record, we can not get healthy saturated fats from grass like cows.

But you can from avocados and nuts and other plants.

It actually is still very relevant. It is very difficult to get a decent amount of protein from plant sources. It can be done, but it is very difficult. It is extremely easy to do so from animal sources. Period. End of story.

So, nobody said otherwise.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Who said legal term?

We were talking about vegetarian ideals, not law.

originally posted by: daskakik
"It actually is still very relevant. It is very difficult to get a decent amount of protein from plant sources. It can be done, but it is very difficult. It is extremely easy to do so from animal sources. Period. End of story."

So, nobody said otherwise.

'Nuff said...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: tanstaafl
Who said legal term?

You used one - 'free-range'.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: daskakik

I know what free range means but if you kill the animal to eat it then it still means it met a violent death. There is a reason why "they" say meat is murder.

The animal meets death period, would you consider painless death inhumane? Compare that to starving to death, or death by wolf pack...


Waiting for the animal to die from age may also be somewhat inhumane. Have you ever had a family pet put down? I just think you are stretching it some though I agree with a humane life and a humane death.

Painless death? Have you seen pigs being gassed? Lol mate they scream for their lifes whilsts breaking their bones trying to wriggle out of the small cages they're gassed in, the bolt doesn't work on alot of the cows they're still fully concious and aware of whats happening whilst they hang upside down bleeding dry from the throat. some chickens are still fully alive whilst being dunked in boiling hot water... the footage is all there on yt not painless at all

a reply to: tanstaafl

'Nuff was said when I told the other poster they could eat eggs and dairy and still be vegetarian.

Don't now why that got your panties in a bunch.

You used one - 'free-range'

Context. We were not talking legal matters. We were talking about vegan ideals.

Just because a law uses a term doesn't mean it can only be used in that context.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: tanstaafl
Just because a law uses a term doesn't mean it can only be used in that context.

It does if it is relevant to the context.

You cannot discuss 'free-range' chickens without understanding what that term actually means.

Unless of course, you don't care, and just want to blather on about nothing...

a reply to: tanstaafl
It wasn't relevant to the context. We were talking about what vegetarians/vegans think (ideals). Not what labels in a store require.

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: LocalGenius

you pretty much only have to understand the concept of supply and demand.

Demand for meat = 0

Supply of meat = 1000 animals.

What does the farmer do with his over supply problem.

Talk about educating kindergarten.

P

Do you mean if the demand for meat is a sudden 0 and the farmer is left with all his unsold animals? It's hardly a likely scenario. But should something so unlikely occur, I'm sure there are other carnivores around the world apart from humans that would appreciate a good feed. The farm animals wouldn't be just abandoned and left to starve to death.

Farm animals are not wild animals like the bison and other wild herd animals. It is humans that have bred them to look and behave like they do - some are bred and fed for the quality of their dairy produce, and some are bred and fed for the quality of their meat. They are fed specific and measured supplements and other fake crap to maximise the 'quality'. It's actually quite a controlled science that farmers have got going on. These animals don't migrate and feed and live life 'on-the-hoof' like wild herds do.

Farming is a business. A business that makes animals.

It's like a previous poster said, basic supply and demand. A farmer, like any other 'manufacturer', will only produce what he can sell and profit from. If no-one wants to buy what he makes/produces = 0 profit. He won't make any more.

If that were the case, why is Trump handing out all those subsidies? Why have farmers needed subsidies at all?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: tanstaafl
It wasn't relevant to the context.

Yes. It was. You used the term. Itr has a specific legal meaning that is different from what many believe.

Therefore, clarification was needed - unless your intent is to obfuscate and confuse... as it seems to be.

a reply to: tanstaafl

We were not using the specific legal meaning. We were discussing "what many believe", even if that is different.

The only confusion here is coming from you thinking that people can't have a conversation about ideas without resorting to an appeal to authority.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Well, that is more than just the soybean allergy you previously mentioned.
Eggs, dairy and yeast are still on the menu, unless the problem is lectin. In that case, eat meat.

I understand we are starting to vibrate at a higher resonance. I understand "star children' are frequency wise 'lighter' beings. I am not. I am cold war issue and must eat the red bloody stuff.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Vegetarians lived and died before you were even born, so I don't think it has anything to do with when you were issued.

It is just your physical make up. What is a person to do?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: tanstaafl
We were not using the specific legal meaning. We were discussing "what many believe", even if that is different.

The only confusion here is coming from you thinking that people can't have a conversation about ideas without resorting to an appeal to authority.

Or, it is coming from people who enjoy confusing people because they think they know what the words they are using mean when they don't.

But, by all means, continue yammering until you pass gas.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Meh, people can use terms in different contexts.

I acknowledge the legal use in labeling but it doesn't apply here.

If you don't like it then that is on you.