Help! Decided to go vegetarian but my husband hates veggies!
Options
Replies
-
PikaKnight wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Okay, it's time for me to go do things with my day. I have paid writing to do and dogs who need feeding, bathing, and walking. However, before I go, I want to clarify a few things:
1) I am not talking about making a change from eating an omnivorous diet to a vegetarian diet for the heck of it or due to medical reasons. I am talking about someone who has made an "ethical" choice to become a vegetarian or a vegan. I only mentioned it because, way back in the thread, someone suggested that the OP was making the change for ethical reasons and I did not see the idea refuted. I may have missed it. I don't know. But no, I do not believe that people who enjoy living with animals and eating animals can live comfortably with "ethical" vegans and vegetarians. I have MANY personal reasons for that stance, most of which would not apply to everyone and the rest of them are NOYB.
2) The church is all about ethics and morals. Yeah. That's kind of why they exist. They want marriages to be "valid" and entered into for the right reasons. People who make ethical changes in their lives, especially those that conflict with their previous beliefs and those upon which the marriage was built will probably get a look from an ecclesiastical court. I'm not saying the look is going to be in favor of the person wanting an annulment, but it can happen. Both sides get scrutinized, painfully so, and the whole relationship is taken under consideration.
3) Don't tell me I don't know about marriage or its value or the values associated with it. You don't know me and should not judge me. I was married in a church in 1985--wrap your head around that date for a second. After 11 years of marriage, we moved to another state. After another two, he decided he was leaving me for another woman. Little problem: he was not going to pay for a divorce and I could not do so on my income. All these years later, we are still separated. He has been in two relationships since then, all of whom have moved into the home we shared. He has not offered me a bit of support or a divorce so that I can move on. I cannot take part in certain church rites and I do not feel I can enter into another relationship while I am still married on paper. I live below the poverty line and he has all the benefits of a two-income family. And, without putting two fine a point on it, he takes advantage of other "benefits" of marriage and I do not because I will not engage in adultery.
Go ahead. Tell me again how I don't value marriage or know what it's about.
Sheesh.
Just because you've gone through a marriage and through a divorce does not automatically mean your views on marriage are the best and not skewed as a result of your personal experiences.
There is no way in hell that since 1998 (i'm assuming) you couldn't have obtained a divorce, you just don't want to go through the process which admittedly would be made even harder by having to slowly save for it, but by now if you really wanted it you would have it. Meanwhile, Get the divorce and live your life to it's fullest or stop caring about that little piece of paper that's stopping you from having a meaningful relationship with someone, you are responsible for your own situation now, enough time has passed to where there is no excuse for not having moved forward. At this point now the blunt of the blame for not being divorced is on you. Or stay as your are you have a right to your own welfare.
Would still like a response on how animal rights and animal welfare have nothing to do with each other.
You're right. I am not paying for this divorce. If he wants the freedom to marry, then he needs to divorce me and he has no grounds. Dog in the manger? You betcha. You're wrong on the date, though, it wasn't 1996. As to having a meaningful relationship with someone? I have good friends. Marriage is unnecessary for me to be happy or have meaningful relationships at this point of my life.
Animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare. Animal rights, in fact, rejects animal welfare. The animal rights stance is that animals are not ours to own or to use; therefore, welfare is beside the point. If humans are not meant to own animals, then there is no need to worry about how they are kept (their welfare) in "captivity." Animal welfare, however, is exploited to support the animal rights agenda--the more "abuse" they prove, the more they can argue that animals and people should not live together. However, when you complain that the same buckle collar that you've been arguing for decades should be the only training collar you ever use on a dog is now a "cruel and aversive" piece of training equipment, you've pretty much lost all credibility on the abuse front.
Wait. You were saying you couldn't have a relationship because you couldn't get divorced. You made it seem you are bitter he's living with two incomes because you are supporting him, I guess? Also you are unhappy being unable to take part in certain church things, etc. And instead of taking charge and accountability for your happiness, you are just going to stay married because you don't want to pay for it?
You are unhappy about your situation (i.e. having your husband have two incomes, so to speak), but aren't going to change it and then you say you are happy even if you aren't married....but just before you seemed...not.
Ummmm....
This. Wow! So you are hanging on because you don't want to pay for the divorce.
In life, you either want the problem or you want the solution. If you opt for the former, than that's on you.0 -
I am now wondering what the OP's husband would do if he read through this thread????
0 -
Sorry I'm late to this thread. Got caught in traffic.
Could someone please give me a quick summary of the last six pages *and of the post immediately following*?0 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Okay, it's time for me to go do things with my day. I have paid writing to do and dogs who need feeding, bathing, and walking. However, before I go, I want to clarify a few things:
1) I am not talking about making a change from eating an omnivorous diet to a vegetarian diet for the heck of it or due to medical reasons. I am talking about someone who has made an "ethical" choice to become a vegetarian or a vegan. I only mentioned it because, way back in the thread, someone suggested that the OP was making the change for ethical reasons and I did not see the idea refuted. I may have missed it. I don't know. But no, I do not believe that people who enjoy living with animals and eating animals can live comfortably with "ethical" vegans and vegetarians. I have MANY personal reasons for that stance, most of which would not apply to everyone and the rest of them are NOYB.
2) The church is all about ethics and morals. Yeah. That's kind of why they exist. They want marriages to be "valid" and entered into for the right reasons. People who make ethical changes in their lives, especially those that conflict with their previous beliefs and those upon which the marriage was built will probably get a look from an ecclesiastical court. I'm not saying the look is going to be in favor of the person wanting an annulment, but it can happen. Both sides get scrutinized, painfully so, and the whole relationship is taken under consideration.
3) Don't tell me I don't know about marriage or its value or the values associated with it. You don't know me and should not judge me. I was married in a church in 1985--wrap your head around that date for a second. After 11 years of marriage, we moved to another state. After another two, he decided he was leaving me for another woman. Little problem: he was not going to pay for a divorce and I could not do so on my income. All these years later, we are still separated. He has been in two relationships since then, all of whom have moved into the home we shared. He has not offered me a bit of support or a divorce so that I can move on. I cannot take part in certain church rites and I do not feel I can enter into another relationship while I am still married on paper. I live below the poverty line and he has all the benefits of a two-income family. And, without putting two fine a point on it, he takes advantage of other "benefits" of marriage and I do not because I will not engage in adultery.
Go ahead. Tell me again how I don't value marriage or know what it's about.
Sheesh.
Just because you've gone through a marriage and through a divorce does not automatically mean your views on marriage are the best and not skewed as a result of your personal experiences.
There is no way in hell that since 1998 (i'm assuming) you couldn't have obtained a divorce, you just don't want to go through the process which admittedly would be made even harder by having to slowly save for it, but by now if you really wanted it you would have it. Meanwhile, Get the divorce and live your life to it's fullest or stop caring about that little piece of paper that's stopping you from having a meaningful relationship with someone, you are responsible for your own situation now, enough time has passed to where there is no excuse for not having moved forward. At this point now the blunt of the blame for not being divorced is on you. Or stay as your are you have a right to your own welfare.
Would still like a response on how animal rights and animal welfare have nothing to do with each other.
You're right. I am not paying for this divorce. If he wants the freedom to marry, then he needs to divorce me and he has no grounds. Dog in the manger? You betcha. You're wrong on the date, though, it wasn't 1996. As to having a meaningful relationship with someone? I have good friends. Marriage is unnecessary for me to be happy or have meaningful relationships at this point of my life.
Animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare. Animal rights, in fact, rejects animal welfare. The animal rights stance is that animals are not ours to own or to use; therefore, welfare is beside the point. If humans are not meant to own animals, then there is no need to worry about how they are kept (their welfare) in "captivity." Animal welfare, however, is exploited to support the animal rights agenda--the more "abuse" they prove, the more they can argue that animals and people should not live together. However, when you complain that the same buckle collar that you've been arguing for decades should be the only training collar you ever use on a dog is now a "cruel and aversive" piece of training equipment, you've pretty much lost all credibility on the abuse front.
I thought they had absolutely nothing to do with each other? If they don't then how can you use animal welfare to support the agenda of animal rights? Also it depends how you define animal rights and how you define animal welfare. Just like religion it can be interpreted and misinterpreted again and again to support ones own opinions.
Okay, you have to understand animal rights in order to understand how they can use animal welfare to support the agenda. The stance of animal rights, as I said, is that animals are not ours to own or to use. In the animal rights view ALL domesticated animals are "enslaved" and in a state of suffering. It does not matter how well-cared for they are. They are "exploited," because they are not living in a natural state. The co-founder of PeTA, Ingrid Newkirk, has stated how she killed hundreds, if not thousands of animals in her time as an animal control officer in Norfolk, VA, on her own time and without orders, because she could not envision a happy life for any of them once they left in human hands.
Animal welfare supporters have the stance that animals have the same "rights" as any other animal. The right to life, the right to a secure space in which to live, and, in some cases, the right to reproduce (a lot of people have bought into the stance that if it's domesticated and has four legs, it needs to be sterilized, welfare or not). For a long time, animal rights folks used the argument that "good" pet owners would spay and neuter their pets because of animal overpopulation (which did exist at one time) and that they would not allow their animals to roam. That was not a bad message. In the last 25 years, or so, we've gone from killing 20 million unwanted animals a year to between 2 and 3 million. Some of those animals were very sick or injured, very old, or were otherwise unable to live in close proximity to people--such as strays who could not be trusted around small children or were resource guarders, or whatever. You would think that animal rights people would be happy that so few animals, comparatively, are being killed. After all, the United States is a big country with a big population, and the 2-3 million are balanced by around 17 million homes that are looking to add an animal to their lives every year. Good job, well done, right?
No. The goal posts have been moved. Now that so (relatively) few animals are being killed every year, the animal rights folks have started demonstrating how people are STILL unfit to own animals. We may keep overpopulation from happening and pets no longer roam as freely, but we are guilty of constant abuse. At one time, "abuse" meant beating and other physical harm, depriving animals of food, water, and medical care, fighting them and willfully depriving them of life in a manner that caused suffering. The laws that are currently on the books define abuse in such a manner. However, as situations are resolved in a fundamental way, more and more accusations of abuse are being made to separate people from their animals. Dogs have been seized because they appeared "abused" with dirty teeth, long or matted coats, and long toenails, after which they have been cleaned up in a few hours and sold in shelters for hundreds of dollars with a minimum investment of time. Seizures are always trumpeted loudly when they occur, calling the owners evil and hoarders, and all kinds of horrible things. This kind of publicity puts dog owners and breeders into the public eye as being abusive, cementing in some people's minds the idea that people are fundamentally nasty and animals need to be protected from us. That is when restrictive animal laws come into play.
Restrictive animal laws put a limit on the number of animals a person is able to own or to breed, assuming that the individual will never have any help or resources to care for those animals. Mandatory spay/neuter law s are put into place, which actually force animals into shelters or force animal owners to have their animals go without vaccinations or regular veterinary care because they are afraid of having their animals seized. Animal "hobby" breeders are lumped in with commercial breeders and are forced to get expensive licenses, make home alterations, and allow "inspections" and warrantless searches and seizures, because people cannot be trusted with animals. ALL of these things have roots in animal rights.
Animal rights supporters do not want ANY animal ownership and use. No dogs, cats, rabbits, chinchillas, snakes, goats, parrots, or goldfish. They will use animal welfare--the public perception that all animals are in danger of abuse--to further their agenda until it is achieved. Think it's impossible? Not a bit. The dog fancy and animal ownership is pretty much doomed in the UK. It's happening now, in this country.
That, boys and girls, is why it is impossible for an ethical vegan and a meat eater to co-exist. The ethical vegan will not stop until the omnivore's food animals are no longer available. Vegetarianism on ethical grounds is just the gateway drug to serious use.0 -
-
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Animal welfare supporters have the stance that animals have the same "rights" as any other animal. The right to life, the right to a secure space in which to live...
Most animals, if humans are taken out of the picture, will end their lives between the jaws of another animal. Take humans out of the picture, and there isn't a single species of animal on this planet that has those "rights".
Even the more inhumane methods of animal slaughter are "nicer" to the animal than being eaten alive...
0 -
Steph38878 wrote: »jenniferhorn87 wrote: »Again, thanks to all of you that gave me helpful suggestions!
To the rest: Enjoy your debate!
And just to clear up a few things:
1. Why I'm doing this doesn't matter
2. My husband and I enjoy eating dinner together; so I have no problem making compromises. We're both very supportive of each other and I'm not forcing my life decisions on him. In no way am I telling him that he can't eat whatever he wants.
Then why are you complaining? If you don't mind cooking two meals, why not just cook two meals? Making a chunk of meat on the side of whatever you're having is easy. What you say in the "so I have no problem making compromises." of point 2 here directly contradicts your original post.
Sorry, this is just really confusing to me. You mind. But then you claim you don't mind. It makes no sense to me. You either care or you don't.
From what I read, she was never complaining. She asked for ideas. That's not complaining. She was hoping to find a middle ground to which it got turned around. There was too much read into this...
It sounded like it to me when she was saying "He doesn't like any vegetables" and "cooking two meals is going to get old fast".
I mostly just stated that I was confused at whether she wants to cook 2 meals or not. Completely changes the recipes she will use. If she makes her veg meal and throws meat on the side vs if she makes two completely different meals. And her best bet really is to get a family cookbook with a family friendly recipe section to make her life easier.
I still stand by that he can either cook his food with her (at the same time, no harm, still eat together) and she can take over 50% of on of his solo chores. Especially if she thinks this is going to get old fast.0 -
It's a really good thing that everything on this planet is 100% black and white and absolutely nothing exists on a spectrum.
Wait.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sorry I'm late to this thread. Got caught in traffic.
Could someone please give me a quick summary of the last six pages *and of the post immediately following*?
It seems that there is a conversation going on between several members and they are talking in code....LOL0 -
Stir frys! Add meat to his and not to yours0
-
Im the cook in the family. Its really not that difficult. I make their meal and have a salad or something for myself. Sometimes ill eat some of what i made for them, just in much smaller portions.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sorry I'm late to this thread. Got caught in traffic.
Could someone please give me a quick summary of the last six pages *and of the post immediately following*?
It seems that there is a conversation going on between several members and they are talking in code....LOL
I believe the consensus is that cooking is easy, but apostrophes are not.
Agreed.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Animal welfare supporters have the stance that animals have the same "rights" as any other animal. The right to life, the right to a secure space in which to live...
Most animals, if humans are taken out of the picture, will end their lives between the jaws of another animal. Take humans out of the picture, and there isn't a single species of animal on this planet that has those "rights".
Even the more inhumane methods of animal slaughter are "nicer" to the animal than being eaten alive...
No, and I agree. I'm talking about when they are in human care. By contrast, animal rights supporters feel that animals should be free to live natural lives, that breeds created by human beings should die out entirely, and that there is no way that humans can treat animals in any way in which animals do not feel stressed or abused.
In a very minor way, I agree. I am trying to teach Boo, the dog I just took for a walk, how to go for walks. When I first got him, he was essentially feral. He had been abandoned in my boss' barn. He was terrified of having interaction with people and with other animals, and was even terrified of being inside a building. He came home with me and lived outside in my fenced side yard. He had a large Vari Kennel covered by a tarp and stuffed with hay--but it took him almost a month before he'd enter it voluntarily. He ate the same food as my other dogs, but also got milk from when I milked my own goat twice a day and all the field mice he could catch.
Talk about stress! He was constantly stressed and cried whenever I touched him. It took two months before I could get a collar on him and three before I could get him to walk on a leash even a few feet. Now, four months later, he is going on 20 minute walks and is getting basic obedience training. He is still scared of cars, but he is no longer shutting down and dropping to the ground in terror of them. He does not like vehicles approaching him from behind him and is scared of large vehicles coming from either direction, but he will still keep walking--because he trusts me and because I praise him constantly when he does. He comes inside now and lets me pick him up without him crying. He went to his first obedience training lesson last Saturday and was not afraid of the other dogs.
Why?
Because I put him through the stress of learning and of getting over his fear. The only way this dog could have avoided any stress in his life was for him not to live. It is impossible for any organism to live without stress. But there you have it--animal rights supporters insist that animals have the right to live natural lives away from the stress that comes from human beings, without taking into account that "natural" lives are incredibly stressful themselves.0 -
xmusicloverr wrote: »Lol guess he's gonna have to learn how to cook.
I wonder how you would feel if you were in that situation, you come how from work and find your husband ready to eat dinner but he made himself dinner and nothing for you because you're now a vegetarian. Everyone gets to sit down and eat but you have to go make yourself dinner. Would you be okay with that?
Assuming that it was not something that I could eat without the meat (as in just eat the veggies and prepare my own meat substitute), then I would totally be ok. In fact, I cook my own meals (well, when I say cook, I take some stuff out the freezer and throw it in the oven/micro) - my ex either ate what I ate or he got his own. It worked out fine (well, that part did anyway lol) - could have had something to do with the fact that I am a crap cook and he did not want to eat my food.
0 -
ok - OP is probably not coming back but I did not see the basic question answered. Does she even mind cooking meat. A lot of the suggestions would be very different based on the response to this pretty fundamental question.
Also, if husband does not eat veggies, what does he eat, other than meat?0 -
ok - OP is probably not coming back but I did not see the basic question answered. Does she even mind cooking meat. A lot of the suggestions would be very different based on the response to this pretty fundamental question.
I think this is a big part of the question. I was vegetarian for 6 months and cooked meat for my husband and kids. It was a PITA but I typically cook in our home so it was life. If OP won't eat meat and hubby doesn't like veggies, they might have some problems.
If OP is the one in the relationship who cooks, I imagine the burden is on her to work it out though. There are lots of adaptable recipes that vegetarians and omnivores can eat.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Okay, it's time for me to go do things with my day. I have paid writing to do and dogs who need feeding, bathing, and walking. However, before I go, I want to clarify a few things:
1) I am not talking about making a change from eating an omnivorous diet to a vegetarian diet for the heck of it or due to medical reasons. I am talking about someone who has made an "ethical" choice to become a vegetarian or a vegan. I only mentioned it because, way back in the thread, someone suggested that the OP was making the change for ethical reasons and I did not see the idea refuted. I may have missed it. I don't know. But no, I do not believe that people who enjoy living with animals and eating animals can live comfortably with "ethical" vegans and vegetarians. I have MANY personal reasons for that stance, most of which would not apply to everyone and the rest of them are NOYB.
2) The church is all about ethics and morals. Yeah. That's kind of why they exist. They want marriages to be "valid" and entered into for the right reasons. People who make ethical changes in their lives, especially those that conflict with their previous beliefs and those upon which the marriage was built will probably get a look from an ecclesiastical court. I'm not saying the look is going to be in favor of the person wanting an annulment, but it can happen. Both sides get scrutinized, painfully so, and the whole relationship is taken under consideration.
3) Don't tell me I don't know about marriage or its value or the values associated with it. You don't know me and should not judge me. I was married in a church in 1985--wrap your head around that date for a second. After 11 years of marriage, we moved to another state. After another two, he decided he was leaving me for another woman. Little problem: he was not going to pay for a divorce and I could not do so on my income. All these years later, we are still separated. He has been in two relationships since then, all of whom have moved into the home we shared. He has not offered me a bit of support or a divorce so that I can move on. I cannot take part in certain church rites and I do not feel I can enter into another relationship while I am still married on paper. I live below the poverty line and he has all the benefits of a two-income family. And, without putting two fine a point on it, he takes advantage of other "benefits" of marriage and I do not because I will not engage in adultery.
Go ahead. Tell me again how I don't value marriage or know what it's about.
Sheesh.
Just because you've gone through a marriage and through a divorce does not automatically mean your views on marriage are the best and not skewed as a result of your personal experiences.
There is no way in hell that since 1998 (i'm assuming) you couldn't have obtained a divorce, you just don't want to go through the process which admittedly would be made even harder by having to slowly save for it, but by now if you really wanted it you would have it. Meanwhile, Get the divorce and live your life to it's fullest or stop caring about that little piece of paper that's stopping you from having a meaningful relationship with someone, you are responsible for your own situation now, enough time has passed to where there is no excuse for not having moved forward. At this point now the blunt of the blame for not being divorced is on you. Or stay as your are you have a right to your own welfare.
Would still like a response on how animal rights and animal welfare have nothing to do with each other.
You're right. I am not paying for this divorce. If he wants the freedom to marry, then he needs to divorce me and he has no grounds. Dog in the manger? You betcha. You're wrong on the date, though, it wasn't 1996. As to having a meaningful relationship with someone? I have good friends. Marriage is unnecessary for me to be happy or have meaningful relationships at this point of my life.
Animal rights has nothing to do with animal welfare. Animal rights, in fact, rejects animal welfare. The animal rights stance is that animals are not ours to own or to use; therefore, welfare is beside the point. If humans are not meant to own animals, then there is no need to worry about how they are kept (their welfare) in "captivity." Animal welfare, however, is exploited to support the animal rights agenda--the more "abuse" they prove, the more they can argue that animals and people should not live together. However, when you complain that the same buckle collar that you've been arguing for decades should be the only training collar you ever use on a dog is now a "cruel and aversive" piece of training equipment, you've pretty much lost all credibility on the abuse front.
I thought they had absolutely nothing to do with each other? If they don't then how can you use animal welfare to support the agenda of animal rights? Also it depends how you define animal rights and how you define animal welfare. Just like religion it can be interpreted and misinterpreted again and again to support ones own opinions.
Okay, you have to understand animal rights in order to understand how they can use animal welfare to support the agenda. The stance of animal rights, as I said, is that animals are not ours to own or to use. In the animal rights view ALL domesticated animals are "enslaved" and in a state of suffering. It does not matter how well-cared for they are. They are "exploited," because they are not living in a natural state. The co-founder of PeTA, Ingrid Newkirk, has stated how she killed hundreds, if not thousands of animals in her time as an animal control officer in Norfolk, VA, on her own time and without orders, because she could not envision a happy life for any of them once they left in human hands.
Animal welfare supporters have the stance that animals have the same "rights" as any other animal. The right to life, the right to a secure space in which to live, and, in some cases, the right to reproduce (a lot of people have bought into the stance that if it's domesticated and has four legs, it needs to be sterilized, welfare or not). For a long time, animal rights folks used the argument that "good" pet owners would spay and neuter their pets because of animal overpopulation (which did exist at one time) and that they would not allow their animals to roam. That was not a bad message. In the last 25 years, or so, we've gone from killing 20 million unwanted animals a year to between 2 and 3 million. Some of those animals were very sick or injured, very old, or were otherwise unable to live in close proximity to people--such as strays who could not be trusted around small children or were resource guarders, or whatever. You would think that animal rights people would be happy that so few animals, comparatively, are being killed. After all, the United States is a big country with a big population, and the 2-3 million are balanced by around 17 million homes that are looking to add an animal to their lives every year. Good job, well done, right?
No. The goal posts have been moved. Now that so (relatively) few animals are being killed every year, the animal rights folks have started demonstrating how people are STILL unfit to own animals. We may keep overpopulation from happening and pets no longer roam as freely, but we are guilty of constant abuse. At one time, "abuse" meant beating and other physical harm, depriving animals of food, water, and medical care, fighting them and willfully depriving them of life in a manner that caused suffering. The laws that are currently on the books define abuse in such a manner. However, as situations are resolved in a fundamental way, more and more accusations of abuse are being made to separate people from their animals. Dogs have been seized because they appeared "abused" with dirty teeth, long or matted coats, and long toenails, after which they have been cleaned up in a few hours and sold in shelters for hundreds of dollars with a minimum investment of time. Seizures are always trumpeted loudly when they occur, calling the owners evil and hoarders, and all kinds of horrible things. This kind of publicity puts dog owners and breeders into the public eye as being abusive, cementing in some people's minds the idea that people are fundamentally nasty and animals need to be protected from us. That is when restrictive animal laws come into play.
Restrictive animal laws put a limit on the number of animals a person is able to own or to breed, assuming that the individual will never have any help or resources to care for those animals. Mandatory spay/neuter law s are put into place, which actually force animals into shelters or force animal owners to have their animals go without vaccinations or regular veterinary care because they are afraid of having their animals seized. Animal "hobby" breeders are lumped in with commercial breeders and are forced to get expensive licenses, make home alterations, and allow "inspections" and warrantless searches and seizures, because people cannot be trusted with animals. ALL of these things have roots in animal rights.
Animal rights supporters do not want ANY animal ownership and use. No dogs, cats, rabbits, chinchillas, snakes, goats, parrots, or goldfish. They will use animal welfare--the public perception that all animals are in danger of abuse--to further their agenda until it is achieved. Think it's impossible? Not a bit. The dog fancy and animal ownership is pretty much doomed in the UK. It's happening now, in this country.
That, boys and girls, is why it is impossible for an ethical vegan and a meat eater to co-exist. The ethical vegan will not stop until the omnivore's food animals are no longer available. Vegetarianism on ethical grounds is just the gateway drug to serious use.
Did it ever occur to you that like most other things, Animal Rights might be a broad term with many definitions and interpretations? Not limited to the rather fanciful definition you've presented here, which is apparently what ALL people who identify themselves as supporting animal rights believe.
Although somehow, that novel is the least bizarre thing you've said in this thread.
I do apologize to everyone else for quoting said novel.
I am trying to work out how you get to the conclusion she made at the end from the rest of the post. I have lived with meat eaters and the veggie v meat eating was not the reason we are no longer together...in any of my relationships (it was always a non issue tbh). Also, lolwut at the last sentence.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Animal welfare supporters have the stance that animals have the same "rights" as any other animal. The right to life, the right to a secure space in which to live...
Most animals, if humans are taken out of the picture, will end their lives between the jaws of another animal. Take humans out of the picture, and there isn't a single species of animal on this planet that has those "rights".
Even the more inhumane methods of animal slaughter are "nicer" to the animal than being eaten alive...
I'm with this. Also, a lot of human animals have a hard time, too.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions