Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[andysays]

and we're on to hypocrisy hunting!
almost full house!

Would you care to expand on that. Who are you accusing of "hypocrisy hunting" and what have they said to justify your accusation?

 

[spanglechick]

You don't get excited about a nice meal?

Plenty of people do look forward to what they eat. Simple pleasures in life.

I get very excited about food. Warm chocolate cake with good vanilla ice cream would excite me. The amazing tomato gnocchi I has in Rome was definitely exciting (just gnocchi and tomato sauce, but amazing depth of flavour). And also, something like the pork belly with spiced fig chutney I had at a tapas place in herne hill. That was exciting too. Sensory pleasures can be exciting. Like music or art.

 

[pinkmonkey]

this thread just made me think of this tune

 

[spanglechick]

Would you care to expand on that. Who are you accusing of "hypocrisy hunting" and what have they said to justify your accusation?

Me, I think. Because I said that eating dairy but not meat was ethically inconsistent. Which it is. But I also said that I understood that ethics aren't the only thing that drives vegetarianism, so it seems a bit quick to leap to defensive.

 

[ddraig]

What's childish? Editor was saying he couldn't see what was exciting about eating meat, and people were describing foods that give them that feeling.

all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.

sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
or something less dramatic

 

[ddraig]

Me, I think. Because I said that eating dairy but not meat was ethically inconsistent. Which it is. But I also said that I understood that ethics aren't the only thing that drives vegetarianism, so it seems a bit quick to leap to defensive.

no, not just you, noticed it with others and your posts are reasonably put

 

[spanglechick]

all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.

sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
or something less dramatic

But cutting something pleasurable out of life is dull, isn't it?

And having a laugh about a news report like this which seems not only to contradict some other recent findings, (as food scares often do), but also to misrepresent the findings of the scientists involved, is surely fair game.

 

[ddraig]

But cutting something pleasurable out of life is dull, isn't it?

And having a laugh about a news report like this which seems not only to contradict some other recent findings, (as food scares often do), but also to misrepresent the findings of the scientists involved, is surely fair game.

yeah of course it is but we don't all hoof lines of coke all day just because it's pleasurable do we!
everyone has their limits and ethical considerations it is just sad that those who make different choices or could have been brought up that way constantly get ridiculed and attacked and made out like they have the problem as they are not following the 'normal' way or the way of the majority

 

[andysays]

all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.

sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
or something less dramatic

Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, though that may be because you've chosen not to answer my question directly.

To me it looks like you (and others) have taken the opportunity of a thread which is about the idea that too much meat is bad for you to chirp up with facile "meat is murder" comments, as distinct from actual reasoned argument.

And as such it looks like you're the one who's trying (thankfully unsuccessfully) to shut the thread and ruin it.

Singling out veal (and, horror of horrors, veal bought in Waitrose) is utterly irrelevent to the original issue, which you seem not to have anything coherent or constructive to contribute to...

 

[ddraig]

really! maybe you want to read the thread again
i've not mentioned anything about veal and in what way am i trying to shut the thread and ruin it??? by dissenting from the normal defensive/aggressive attacks of many?

 

[ddraig]

plus (awaits ridicule and being called morrisey!)
if an animal is alive and it gets killed/murdered/ceases to live for you to eat it as meat then ergo meat is why that animal has been killed/murdered/cease to live

is "meat is an animal killed for someone who considers flesh tasty to eat" any better for your palate? or a bit like dancing around the reality maybe

 

[littlebabyjesus]

plus (awaits ridicule and being called morrisey!)
if an animal is alive and it gets killed/murdered/ceases to live for you to eat it as meat then ergo meat is why that animal has been killed/murdered/cease to live

is "meat is an animal killed for someone who considers flesh tasty to eat" any better for your palate? or a bit like dancing around the reality maybe

You're assuming here that the people you are talking to are uneasy about this. I'm sure some meat-eaters are uneasy about the killing of animals, but plenty are not. I'm not.

Also, the animal's being alive in the first place is conditional on the expectation of killing it.

 

[andysays]

really! maybe you want to read the thread again
i've not mentioned anything about veal and in what way am i trying to shut the thread and ruin it??? by dissenting from the normal defensive/aggressive attacks of many?

Apologies, I thought it was you who'd been telling us meat was murder. It now appears I confused you with someone else*.

However, you do seem to have been beating this "all meat eaters are nasty bullies who just want to mock us poor vegetarians" drum right from post #4 onwards (getting your retaliation in first...), so excuse me if I don't regard you as having contributed much to the thread

*gets comfy

and here they come!

no no NO! you have to have as much MEAT as possible to make you NORMAL!!
anyone who says different is different and has to be mocked, put down and ridiculed as much as possible to shut them up, even if they haven't said anything!

meat is not needed

and we're on to hypocrisy hunting!
almost full house!

titter
disappointed to see you jumping on that childish bandwagon

awwww, is it a bit too real for you?

So do you actually have anything to say about the health issues of eating too much animal protein, or do you just want to continue telling us how much you're being bullied and persecuted?

*ETA I see now you were simply responding dismissively to the person who corrected someone else's "MisM!!!" comment

 

[ddraig]

i don't want to pull the "noob" card
but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not need to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)

 

[Greebo]

<snip>fwiw my extreme view is that you do not need to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)

And you don't need the internet - it's a frivolous use of finite resources and energy. Even so, technopagans still square internet use with their consciences.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i don't want to pull the "noob" card
but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not need to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)

Few people would claim a need to eat meat. But others have a desire to eat meat and have no problem with the idea of killing animals in order to do so.

 

[NoXion]

Well strictly speaking you don't need to drink anything but tap water.

 

[ddraig]

And you don't need the internet - it's a frivolous use of finite resources and energy.

pass me my sack cloth!!!

does a living thing have to die for you to get internet??
No?
shit non argument then, sorry greebs

 

[ddraig]

Few people would claim a need to eat meat. But others have a desire to eat meat and have no problem with the idea of killing animals in order to do so.

i know a lot of people don't have a problem with it.
a lot of people do tho.

why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?
same with pig etc etc
why are people called hippies and weirdos and ridiculed just for not eating something the majority of people do?
what is there to gain for the meat eating majority? why don't they just get on with it seeing as they are in the majority and obviously right?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You're assuming here that the people you are talking to are uneasy about this. I'm sure some meat-eaters are uneasy about the killing of animals, but plenty are not. I'm not.

Also, the animal's being alive in the first place is conditional on the expectation of killing it.

In the case of other humans its generally thought that bringing a life into the world imposes extra duties on those who do to ensure for the protection and wellbeing of that life. What is it about bringing animal life into the world that confers upon humans the right to treat them instrumentally for their own means?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the case of other humans its generally thought that bringing a life into the world imposes extra duties on those who do to ensure for the protection and wellbeing of that life. What is it about bringing animal life into the world that confers the right upon humans to treat them instrumentally for their own means?

We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.

I do think we ought to treat the animals we bring into the world in order to eat far better. But it is odd to talk of rights here. What right does a cat have to kill a mouse?

 

[andysays]

i don't want to pull the "noob" card
but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not need to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)

Well, far be for me to challenge decades old Urban tradition with my "demanding tone"

I agree that we don't "need" to eat meat, but most people chose to do so, and the question of whether and how they might be affected by that seems more relevant here than "won't someone please think of the calves (or the vegetarians)"

 

[Jeff Robinson]

We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.

No shit sherlock, I was asking you to justify it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No shit sherlock, I was asking you to justify it.

No, you're asking for some absolute where there is none.

I'll turn it round on you - why not bring animals into the world then kill and eat them?

 

[Greebo]

<snip>does a living thing have to die for you to get internet??
No?
shit non argument then, sorry greebs

You're not sorry, you're a troll.

Um, in all probablity, yes. Are you aware of how much your internet use (no matter how you access it) adds to landfill, the damage caused by mining the raw materials (including pollution of groundwater), not to mention processing them, the exploitation of your fellow human beings all the way along the production and distribution chain, the toxins leaching out again when old computers are "recycled"? Where did the coltan for your mobile phone come from?

Get that splintered joist out of your eye.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No, you're asking for some absolute where there is none.

No I wasn't. You said the objection to killing animals didn't work because we brought some of those animal lives into existence in the first place. I want to know how you got from the 'is' to the 'ought'.

 

[ddraig]

You're not sorry, you're a troll.

Um, in all probablity, yes. Are you aware of how much your internet use (no matter how you access it) adds to landfill, the damage caused by mining the raw materials (including pollution of groundwater), not to mention processing them, the exploitation of your fellow human beings all the way along the production and distribution chain, the toxins leaching out again when old computers are "recycled"? Where did the coltan for your mobile phone come from? Get that splintered joist out of your eye.

really?! wow! you think i am a troll because i disagreed with you?
again, hypocrisy hunting
however bad those things are and the mobile phone industry etc ad nauseum
i'll ask you again - does a living animal need to die for you to get the pleasure you derive from eating decomposing flesh?

 

[ddraig]

We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.

I do think we ought to treat the animals we bring into the world in order to eat far better. But it is odd to talk of rights here. What right does a cat have to kill a mouse?

why is it odd to talk of rights?
a cat killing a mouse is nature, cats are hunters. another non argument
you could say human is/was hunter gatherer but it is 2014 and the majority of us in this country (with the previous 1000 caveats) do not need to do this or consume the product of slaughter by others to survive, they choose to do so.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No I wasn't. You said the objection to killing animals didn't work because we brought some of those animal lives into existence in the first place.

I didn't. I merely pointed out that with modern farming, the animal is alive in the first place only because it is going to be killed. I don't move from 'is' to 'ought'. I don't say that we ought to eat meat. There is no moral imperative to eat meat. How do you move from 'is' to 'ought not'?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

why is it odd to talk of rights?
a cat killing a mouse is nature, cats are hunters. another non argument
you could say human is/was hunter gatherer but it is 2014 and the majority of us in this country (with the previous 1000 caveats) do not need to do this or consume the product of slaughter by others to survive, they choose to do so.

Humans are 'nature', too?

And yes, it is odd to talk of rights. It's not necessary for humans to kill animals to eat, but it is necessary for humans to kill animals. Many other animals either take space we need, or eat the same things we want to eat.