How do you feel about veganism?
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Interesting perspective. In a parallel universe where the whole world becomes vegan, what happens to the animals? Having been domesticated for so long, would they survive in the wild? Would we blame ourselves for their near extinction? Would the omnivore minority be making sensationalized propaganda ridden documentaries depicting the now wild animals suffering with disease, starving and dying that start with a close-up shot of a waif young animal standing next to its dying mother?
Many of the animals commonly eaten would die without humans some would not. Pigs have been known to escape and live in the wild. But I doubt a chicken would make it through the night.0 -
tryin2die2self wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tryin2die2self wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »tryin2die2self wrote: »wstephens87 wrote: »I'm a pescetarian. Meaning I am a vegetarian only I eat seafood as my only meat source (if you want to call it meat, that's debatable).
I learned something new today. So basically anything from the ocean is fair game? What about freshwater fish, clams, etc? I am not writing this to be snarky... I really want to know
Yup.
So do they eat dauphins and whales?
I think it would depend on one's rationale for adopting pescetarianism.
If it is about thinking fish are somehow different from other animals (that they don't suffer as much as other animals do, for example), you would probably avoid dolphins and whales because they aren't exactly fish -- they're mammals who live in the water.
If it's about just wanting to eat things that live in the sea and not on land, sure.
That is why one of my questions was "anything in the ocean fair game". I would not think they would eat whales or dauphins (as they are mammals), but then they might. For instance I eat beef, but I don't eat veal. I don't truck with the whole idea behind caging a baby in a confined space, force feeding them milk and then slaughtering them for a certain price/taste of meat. I am an omnivore and an omnivore could technically eat anything. That said, I am a being with a moral compass and reason. So I pick and choose.
Again, I was looking to pescetarianism as a group of foods that are eaten, not the moral/ideological/cultural grounds behind it. Just want to become more informed. Not looking to judge.
One could eat sea mammals and still fit the definition of pescatarian.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »tryin2die2self wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »tryin2die2self wrote: »wstephens87 wrote: »I'm a pescetarian. Meaning I am a vegetarian only I eat seafood as my only meat source (if you want to call it meat, that's debatable).
I learned something new today. So basically anything from the ocean is fair game? What about freshwater fish, clams, etc? I am not writing this to be snarky... I really want to know
Yup.
So do they eat dauphins and whales?
That would be like saying "You eat meat, therefore you eat bear, cougar, beaver etc....". Some cultures eat whale---Japan. We eat ocean fish, fresh water fish, clams, mussels, shrimp, prawns, lobster, tuna, salmon, salt cod, the list goes on...... It's pretty much normal for us. I do alot of pasta with seafood.
I was not asking what "you" ate in particular (see my previous post). I did mean "they" as the group of pescetarian as a whole. Individuals pick and choose by their very nature. That said, I am a hunter. I have also been put in survival situations where one eats and can't be choosy about it. Also, my kin are from Arkansas. Growing up, who the heck knows what was in the stock pot
To be sure I have hunted and eaten a lot of things other would consider distasteful/abhorrent.
I am not looking to point fingers or poke holes in someone's diet. I was just interested. I currently live on the Gulf Coast and to be sure just about all the ocean fish you mention we eat. Raw oysters FTW.0 -
To each their own! My friend lost 50lbs switching to a vegan diet.0
-
Ooohhh...how did I know this thread would get all sanctimonious and preachy? Oh, I know...'cuz vegan.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Many of the animals commonly eaten would die without humans some would not. Pigs have been known to escape and live in the wild. But I doubt a chicken would make it through the night.
Pigs are not only known to survive in the wild... they thrive. Feral pigs are a plague upon the land.
They have no natural enemies (as we killed them all off / we released them in the US to begin with), they do untold damage to crops and water infrastructure (levies and damns). I try to bag as many as I can. As an ardent hunter, I only kill what I plan to feed my family. This animal is the exception. I will forgo a deer kill to put down a feral swine. A female pig can have three litters every two years. Each one usually has 8 to 12 shoats (piglets). Shoats can have their first litter before their first birthday. If a female only had 8 shoats and only half of them are female. Do the math on the the exponential growth of just one pair in a decade.
The answer is more wild ham and bacon!
Yard chickens would survive. I doubt many of the hen house chickens would... but some would survive.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
One could eat sea mammals and still fit the definition of pescatarian.
Only if you didn't understand the difference between a fish and a mammal.0 -
I'm tempted. But I like dairy a lot.0
-
I feel the same way about veganism as I do about any other way of eating - I don't care what other people choose to eat. I will continue to eat meat, but you feel free not to. But there does seem to be a large portion of vegans that feel it's their duty to tell others what they "should" be eating. I have a bit of a problem with those people, but not veganism itself.0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »I don't care how others eat I just don't like how a small minority of people (in every way of eating) feel they are morally superior to others and try to convince everyone to convert to their views
When one choice has such a drastic impact on the environment I hardly consider it a bad thing to try to convert people into a sustainable diet.
But if you want to think inside of a vacuum where choices only affect you that's fine :^)0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Interesting perspective. In a parallel universe where the whole world becomes vegan, what happens to the animals? Having been domesticated for so long, would they survive in the wild? Would we blame ourselves for their near extinction? Would the omnivore minority be making sensationalized propaganda ridden documentaries depicting the now wild animals suffering with disease, starving and dying that start with a close-up shot of a waif young animal standing next to its dying mother?
Yes to being a meat eater and I'm glad someone picked on my hypothetical slant. If we all become vegan and no longer consume meat or animal by products then what use are these animals to us? They would take up valuable farm land that can be used to grow grain. At best these animals become endangered, most likely extinct. The ONLY reason there are as much 'food chain' animals as there are is because of the food market.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ooohhh...how did I know this thread would get all sanctimonious and preachy? Oh, I know...'cuz vegan.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with anyone's dietary decisions (except that I feel paleo can be a little nonsensical, but I wouldn't really go out of my way to express that to a paleo eater... just casually on a forum like right now). It doesn't seem doable to me, but I'm not an eighteen-year-old girl, so maybe that's the reason. I don't see how any could get the protein I'm trying to eat in a day on rice, beans, quinoa, tofu, tempeh, etc. I do get pretty bothered when vegans start justifying it by making me feel like a jerk for my own decisions. Whatever happened to live and let die?0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I don't care how others eat I just don't like how a small minority of people (in every way of eating) feel they are morally superior to others and try to convince everyone to convert to their views
When one choice has such a drastic impact on the environment I hardly consider it a bad thing to try to convert people into a sustainable diet.
But if you want to think inside of a vacuum where choices only affect you that's fine :^)
Sort of like this. Thanks for the judgement, judgy mcjudgerson, best friend of judges judy and reinhold.0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I don't care how others eat I just don't like how a small minority of people (in every way of eating) feel they are morally superior to others and try to convince everyone to convert to their views
When one choice has such a drastic impact on the environment I hardly consider it a bad thing to try to convert people into a sustainable diet.
But if you want to think inside of a vacuum where choices only affect you that's fine :^)
A sustainable diet could include meat. There are many wild animals that would overpopulate their area and die of starvation if not hunted, and if you are going to hunt you might as well eat your kill. It's quite easy to raise some animals at home with little impact on environment.0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I don't care how others eat I just don't like how a small minority of people (in every way of eating) feel they are morally superior to others and try to convince everyone to convert to their views
When one choice has such a drastic impact on the environment I hardly consider it a bad thing to try to convert people into a sustainable diet.
But if you want to think inside of a vacuum where choices only affect you that's fine :^)
...have you ever examined what impact on the environment there would be if everyone were vegan/vegetarian? You should...very interesting actually. But hey, judgey gonna judge right?
/annoyingvegans0 -
BrianHageman wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
One could eat sea mammals and still fit the definition of pescatarian.
Only if you didn't understand the difference between a fish and a mammal.
Or don't understand the definition of the word pescatarian0 -
wstephens87 wrote: »It's healthier because they use non-milk cheese (made from almonds and such) meaning no milk. The FDA in the US needs much more strict regulations considering the amount of puss, antibiotics, and hormones they are legally allowed to leave in the milk when they release it to the masses for sales and consumption.
I hate it when my puss gets in my milk. I tell him it's not good for him and he should stick to water!
(I'm also happy with my dairy sourcing.)0 -
tryin2die2self wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Many of the animals commonly eaten would die without humans some would not. Pigs have been known to escape and live in the wild. But I doubt a chicken would make it through the night.
Pigs are not only known to survive in the wild... they thrive. Feral pigs are a plague upon the land.
They have no natural enemies (as we killed them all off / we released them in the US to begin with), they do untold damage to crops and water infrastructure (levies and damns). I try to bag as many as I can. As an ardent hunter, I only kill what I plan to feed my family. This animal is the exception. I will forgo a deer kill to put down a feral swine. A female pig can have three litters every two years. Each one usually has 8 to 12 shoats (piglets). Shoats can have their first litter before their first birthday. If a female only had 8 shoats and only half of them are female. Do the math on the the exponential growth of just one pair in a decade.
The answer is more wild ham and bacon!
Yard chickens would survive. I doubt many of the hen house chickens would... but some would survive.
Chickens would not survive without man for long. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, raccoons, opossums, birds of prey, wild cats are just a few predators that would happily kill them without the protection of man.0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I don't care how others eat I just don't like how a small minority of people (in every way of eating) feel they are morally superior to others and try to convince everyone to convert to their views
When one choice has such a drastic impact on the environment I hardly consider it a bad thing to try to convert people into a sustainable diet.
But if you want to think inside of a vacuum where choices only affect you that's fine :^)
While I don't get annoyed by it personally, I can understand why some would. I doubt people are oblivious to the cruelty. The more likely scenario is that some choose to fight this battle in a different way, and some choose to distance themselves from it and choose a different battle to fight.
What would you do if everyone with a cause, however legitimate, started preaching their cause at you from every direction. Would you stop using electricity, vow to never ride a car in your life, stop using furniture or anything made of wood, bicot anything made from plastic, throw away all aerosol cans, donate 90% of your money to the poor then quit your job to volunteer full time? Doubtful. You will likely continue doing what you are doing picking the battles that give YOU peace of mind, not someone else.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tryin2die2self wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Many of the animals commonly eaten would die without humans some would not. Pigs have been known to escape and live in the wild. But I doubt a chicken would make it through the night.
Pigs are not only known to survive in the wild... they thrive. Feral pigs are a plague upon the land.
They have no natural enemies (as we killed them all off / we released them in the US to begin with), they do untold damage to crops and water infrastructure (levies and damns). I try to bag as many as I can. As an ardent hunter, I only kill what I plan to feed my family. This animal is the exception. I will forgo a deer kill to put down a feral swine. A female pig can have three litters every two years. Each one usually has 8 to 12 shoats (piglets). Shoats can have their first litter before their first birthday. If a female only had 8 shoats and only half of them are female. Do the math on the the exponential growth of just one pair in a decade.
The answer is more wild ham and bacon!
Yard chickens would survive. I doubt many of the hen house chickens would... but some would survive.
Chickens would not survive without man for long. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, raccoons, opossums, birds of prey, wild cats are just a few predators that would happily kill them without the protection of man.
Would they exist in today's numbers, heck no. However, many an abandoned farm has chickens that peck and scratch out an existence long after Farmer Brown has kicked the bucket. Seen it to many time with my own eyes to think otherwise. As long as they have trees to roost in and some place secluded to hide their nests, they can make it. How that will play out 100, 500 or 1000 years after man has left? Dunno. You very well could be right. Animals have been living/dying long before we put our hand in the cookie jar. Nothing gonna change that once we leave. Unless we leave this a scorched/snowball Earth (sigh).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K 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
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions