I'm thinking about going vegetarian or vegan
Replies
-
Heh, he is from Essen.0
-
I am thinking about going vegetarian or vegan. I remember a post on here by someone saying can you be a semi-vegetarian but I totally understood what they meant. I am not against eating meat at all. I understand and agree with the food chain, but I just don't agree with modern farming methods. I don't know if there is an alternative. I have thought this for a while and I eat far less meat than I used to, but I drink a lot of milk.
I watched an episode of Countryfile where a cow was artificially inseminated and as soon as she was pregnant, the embryo was removed and the best ones were frozen. That is totally wrong and completely against nature. I read an article earlier about how male calves are taken to slaughter sometimes only days old and they don't get their mother's milk. I think because my friend is currently pregnant I just thought of how horrible it would be if it happened to human's but we don't care about animals (majority).
So I am thinking of going vegan or vegetarian. I would like at the least to cut down my meat and dairy consumption. That is what I mean by semi-vegetarian for ethical reasons, cutting down reduces the need and hopefully in turn promotes better welfare. BUT I don't know where I stand with cutting down meat or cutting dairy altogether. Is there any ethical milk? Are ALL male animals slaughtered shortly after birth? There is a farm near me that sells eggs that are free range (you can see them running round). Will eating these eggs be hypocritical because the males are still slaughtered?
There is a lot to think about, but if anyone has any tips about cutting down or giving up completely or eating more ethically it would be much appreciated.
I personally think animal products are unethical however we can all argue about this till the end of time.
But from a heath point of view. Since turning vegan. I have never felt better than I do now. I have knee cap problems since childhood.
When I first visit a private doctor as a child. He advised my dad to have my diet rich in cheese milk and butter. I actually remember him saying lots of butter. Lol. Of course my parents are follow what the dr says and fed me lots of protein rich foods. As i got older i got heavier and heavier. And suffered several knee cap dislocations. Even a few operations. My knees started to feel pain constantly.
On January 1st 2014 I turned vegan. And the pain and inflammation in knees stopped. I feel fantastic and my weight is slowly dropping at a decent pace now.
I would not never go back to dairy products now.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Animals die just the same is a confusing argument for slaughter. People die just the same, but we don't argue we can use their bodies for profit and pleasure - - or do you?
Define bodies used for research.
What are you asking me to define? Using the bodies of already deceased persons for research? That doesn't have much to do with slaughtering animals.
0 -
0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Animals die just the same is a confusing argument for slaughter. People die just the same, but we don't argue we can use their bodies for profit and pleasure - - or do you?
Define bodies used for research.
What are you asking me to define? Using the bodies of already deceased persons for research? That doesn't have much to do with slaughtering animals.
lulz, that went over your head.
BTW, what is the number limit on "slaughter" as opposed to kill? If I limit my bag on duck, which is that?
Spurious diction is spurious.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Animals die just the same is a confusing argument for slaughter. People die just the same, but we don't argue we can use their bodies for profit and pleasure - - or do you?
Define bodies used for research.
What are you asking me to define? Using the bodies of already deceased persons for research? That doesn't have much to do with slaughtering animals.
lulz, that went over your head.
BTW, what is the number limit on "slaughter" as opposed to kill? If I limit my bag on duck, which is that?
Spurious diction is spurious.
If it went over my head (I truly don't see the connection), then help me understand it. Do you see a connection between using the body of an already deceased person for research and ending someone's life intentionally in order to use the body?
I'm using "slaughter" because it was used by a previous poster advocating animal exploitation (she mentioned that "slaughter day" was difficult, I think she meant emotionally). If you don't like the word used in that way, perhaps you should take it up with her.0 -
Naw, you'll figure it out, or you won't. You aren't my kin.janejellyroll wrote: »If it went over my head (I truly don't see the connection), then help me understand it.I'm using "slaughter" because it was used by a previous poster advocating animal exploitation (she mentioned that "slaughter day" was difficult, I think she meant emotionally). If you don't like the word used in that way, perhaps you should take it up with her.
Ah, the "I was just following orders" defense. Nice. I still believe my question was directly addressed to you.
It also looks like you missed the differences in context. 0 -
Naw, you'll figure it out, or you won't. You aren't my kin.janejellyroll wrote: »If it went over my head (I truly don't see the connection), then help me understand it.I'm using "slaughter" because it was used by a previous poster advocating animal exploitation (she mentioned that "slaughter day" was difficult, I think she meant emotionally). If you don't like the word used in that way, perhaps you should take it up with her.
Ah, the "I was just following orders" defense. Nice. I still believe my question was directly addressed to you. It also looks like you missed the differences in context.
Isn't part of communication clarifying when things aren't understood? Are you just trying to talk to yourself here? Wouldn't it be better to truly connect with me and explain what you mean so we can continue to conversation instead of trying to score easy points by typing "lolz" and acting as if your points are too complex for me to understand? I've found, in multiple internet conversations about veganism, that two people can almost always understand each other (not necessarily agree) as long as people are willing to try.
I still don't understand what you don't like about that word, but if you want me to stop using it, I will be happy to oblige. Are you saying that it's okay for those who (insert acceptable synonym for the s-word here) animals to use the word, but when vegans use it (for the same act), it's inappropriate? That seems bizarre to me, but if use of that word is truly significant to you, I'll be happy to adjust my behavior.
0 -
It may, or it may not be. It depends on what the definition of is, is.janejellyroll wrote: »Isn't part of communication clarifying when things aren't understood?
Why? You willfully ignored, or missed a fairly simple point I clearly and concisely explained. What benefit will I receive through a connection of any sort at this point? If I can see a profit point, I'll consider it.Wouldn't it be better to truly connect with me and explain what you mean so we can continue to conversation instead of trying to score easy points by typing "lolz" and acting as if your points are too complex for me to understand?
I know. Like I said, context. Explore the context.I still don't understand...
0 -
It may, or it may not be. It depends on what the definition of is, is.janejellyroll wrote: »Isn't part of communication clarifying when things aren't understood?
Why? You willfully ignored, or missed a fairly simple point I clearly and concisely explained. What benefit will I receive through a connection of any sort at this point? If I can see a profit point, I'll consider it.Wouldn't it be better to truly connect with me and explain what you mean so we can continue to conversation instead of trying to score easy points by typing "lolz" and acting as if your points are too complex for me to understand?
I know. Like I said, context. Explore the context.I still don't understand...
Do your posts usually have a profit point? How do you usually benefit from posts? How did you benefit from your initial communication with me on this thread?
I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
But if you don't see the profit in attempting the argument, I understand.0 -
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
0 -
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.0 -
I am thinking about going vegetarian or vegan. I remember a post on here by someone saying can you be a semi-vegetarian but I totally understood what they meant. I am not against eating meat at all. I understand and agree with the food chain, but I just don't agree with modern farming methods. I don't know if there is an alternative. I have thought this for a while and I eat far less meat than I used to, but I drink a lot of milk.
I watched an episode of Countryfile where a cow was artificially inseminated and as soon as she was pregnant, the embryo was removed and the best ones were frozen. That is totally wrong and completely against nature. I read an article earlier about how male calves are taken to slaughter sometimes only days old and they don't get their mother's milk. I think because my friend is currently pregnant I just thought of how horrible it would be if it happened to human's but we don't care about animals (majority).
So I am thinking of going vegan or vegetarian. I would like at the least to cut down my meat and dairy consumption. That is what I mean by semi-vegetarian for ethical reasons, cutting down reduces the need and hopefully in turn promotes better welfare. BUT I don't know where I stand with cutting down meat or cutting dairy altogether. Is there any ethical milk? Are ALL male animals slaughtered shortly after birth? There is a farm near me that sells eggs that are free range (you can see them running round). Will eating these eggs be hypocritical because the males are still slaughtered?
There is a lot to think about, but if anyone has any tips about cutting down or giving up completely or eating more ethically it would be much appreciated.
0 -
I switched to almond milk. It has more calcium than cows milk and way less calories and no fat. I raise my own chickens and have them butchered at a local farm and I skip the red meat.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »
Is this behavior omnivores approve of? The people I associate with don't.
I mean, you are what you eat, am I right?!0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »
Is this behavior omnivores approve of? The people I associate with don't.
I mean, you are what you eat, am I right?!
Then I guess people who eat people are more human than the rest of us.0 -
Very much so. lulz.janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I just had a big cup of small estate coffee from honduras. Made by a friend's family. The world seems just a little brighter. Maybe that's because the sun is up too.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.
I'm a she, totally. I got parts that just don't work. lulz.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »
Is this behavior omnivores approve of? The people I associate with don't.
I mean, you are what you eat, am I right?!
Then I guess people who eat people are more human than the rest of us.
In all seriousness, I'm not bashing vegans, like I said I was vegan for 5 years and it wasn't a sustainable life style for me. I think veganism is very respectable and I commend anyone that does it.
I think there is a bigger issue however, for which animal abuse is the symptom. That is overpopulation. Humans are an invasive species and there are too many people on the planet. With so many people, it's easy to see why industries are cutting corners and resorting to cruel behavior in order to supply the large demand for meat and dairy. It is not possible to get 100% of people to eat vegan, but I think it is possible for the population to be reduced and better practices to be used.
So for me, I like to support the companies trying to make a difference by using sustainable and more humane farming methods. I think having sustainable and more human practices in the industry is a more realistic goal in the short term. Once we get there, perhaps we can push again for an even more humane industry. But who knows, they've already grown a full beef steak in a lab that supposidly emulated the real thing, perhaps that approach will go into the mainstream market once it's less expensive.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.
I don't see anything in those posts that require reporting- but if I had to say something like that I'd say
"Damyun son- good luck not getting reported for that ish."
except- usually I only say that for when people go off on mods- and other people.
disagree=/= fighting/re-portable offenses.
so really what I'm trying to say- the comment just felt unnecessary and completely passive aggressive.0 -
Hey, I get reported for everything these days, it's the in thing. lol.0
-
Why did I read this thread? I'll just say this. Please, omnivores, don't think all vegetarians feel the same. Some of us just like to eat that way because we don't like meat.0
-
Go with an ethical farm or even try kosher. In order to be deemed kosher the animals have to be raised and killed humanely. They have very strict guidelines. Might be something to check into. 0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.
I'm a she, totally. I got parts that just don't work. lulz.
Thanks for letting me know -- I try to avoid assumptions about that online.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.
I'm a she, totally. I got parts that just don't work. lulz.
Thanks for letting me know -- I try to avoid assumptions about that online.
Well, the pictures of my goatee are kind of a give away. lol.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Again, you're willfully ignoring or missing context. I'll give this advice for free: "You might want to think about that."janejellyroll wrote: »I think if you had a good point, you'd be happy to explain it. You might clarify the issue for me or you might reach someone who is passively reading this conversation. If the use of the donated bodies for research really did present an argument for the acceptability of killing animals for their flesh, I would think it would be a valuable addition to the conversation.
The point again has been missed. Not only that, but now you're digging in your heels and refusing to think about it. *shrug* Again, there's no profitable outcome for me here, because the easy points have already been missed. (lol, my money is now on being reported for attacking, or whatevs.)
I'd like to think about it -- I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say. I certainly hope nobody reports you for the posts you've made here.
Oh hello passive aggressiveness. thanks for coming to the party.
I'm sorry this struck you as passive aggressive, that wasn't my intention. How would you have suggested phrasing it so it doesn't come across that way?
I would like to hear what s/he thinks the connection between the two is. And I hope nobody reports those posts -- there isn't anything inappropriate in them.
I don't see anything in those posts that require reporting- but if I had to say something like that I'd say
"Damyun son- good luck not getting reported for that ish."
except- usually I only say that for when people go off on mods- and other people.
disagree=/= fighting/re-portable offenses.
so really what I'm trying to say- the comment just felt unnecessary and completely passive aggressive.
That comment was in response to her prediction that she was about to be reported. If my comment was out of the blue, I would agree with you. But she had said she thought she was about to be reported and I think any such report would be totally inappropriate. That is what I meant there.
Disagreement, even spirited disagreement (which I don't even think we had here), shouldn't be a reportable offense. We're in total agreement.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions