Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Ain't nobody here but us chickens

All photos from my Flickr page.









Will somebody please explain to me how a bunch of meat-eaters can judge Michael Vick? As "key figure" of an extensive dogfighting ring, he was convicted and properly served his time. And now, various self-righteous asses want to continue to punish him, as somehow WORSE than other NFL players... and if you follow the exploits of various sports figures, as I do, you know how hilarious that is.

If I see one more condemnatory TV announcer blathering on, then --cut to a KFC commercial-- (!!!) I'm gonna hurl. Yes, eat eat eat that meat, endless profit-driven commercials for Hardees, Burger King and McDonalds, all while calling Michael Vick a BAD MAN. It's some of the most illogical mass-insanity I have ever witnessed.

All I can manage to say is: how dare you.

And before you say anything: YES, IT IS THE SAME.

EXACTLY THE SAME.

Ohhhh nooooo, the carnivores say, we LIKE TO EAT BIRDS. So, it isn't the same thing as dogfighting. We have said so!

Actually, it might be worse. At least the dogs get a fighting chance. The birds are raised to die.

Ohhhhhh nooooo, the carnivores say, WE MUST EAT.

Yes, I am fully aware that we must eat, but I haven't eaten meat in well over a decade now. I am alive and well and typing. YOU DO NOT NEED TO EAT MEAT TO LIVE AND BE HEALTHY.

Ohhhhh noooo, the carnivores say, there is sadism and unsavory pleasure taken in dogfighting.

Really?

There is also unacknowledged SADISM in putting an animal in your mouth and ripping it to pieces, chewing it up (GROSS!) and going MMMMMMM (instead of retching) when this is not necessary to live and is only for the pleasure of your palate. How is your deliberate ripping, slicing and cooking of birds, God's creatures (not yours!), any different from sport? It's all about entertainment of one kind or another. How is the entertainment of your palate supposedly superior to the entertainment provided to Michael Vick and his friends? The only difference is that one form of sadism is culturally acceptable and one is not.

In some countries, eating dogs is acceptable, too. Is that objectionable to you? Why? (Because as Samuel L Jackson instructed us, a dog has a personality, and a personality will take you a long way.)

I wrote this at the outset of the Michael Vick extravaganza, and my opinion has not changed one iota. In fact, I am more pissed than ever as I watch a parade of carnivorous cluelessness on TV and in Blogdonia.

ESPN comments on Vick's current situation:

Michael Vick, who has been conditionally reinstated by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, is free to sign with a team but which situation is the best fit for the league's former highest paid player?

Coming off a two-year prison sentence, many teams aren't sure about what Vick has to offer. There are questions about his fitness and skill level and the public relations hit a team could take is certainly in every owner's thoughts. Will he be the type of quarterback to stay in the pocket and throw the ball down field? Is he still the run first, pass second guy? Is quarterback even the right position for him?

Take all these questions into account as you decide which teams are most likely to step up to the plate and give Vick the second chance he so desperately wants.

It's right that teams should worry about his fitness level, but when they start the moralistic horseshit, I reach for my gun.

Meanwhile, PETA is up to their usual assholery. When they aren't doing "cutting edge" stuff like parading naked gals in front of every available camera, they are engaging in constant media whoredom, barging into every network news-show that will put up with them. They are now calling Michael Vick a "psychopath"--if you can believe it. Let's see if they have the guts to call every CEO of a factory farm a "psychopath" also. Ha! I smell hypocritical NEWS WHORES at work, once again.

From HuffPo:
To clarify misleading stories regarding PETA and Michael Vick, PETA withdrew its offer to do a TV spot with Michael Vick last winter when a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on Vick's dogfighting activities revealed that he enjoyed placing family pets in the ring with fighting pit bulls and that he laughed as dogs ripped each other apart. PETA believes that this revelation, along with other factors in the report, fit the established profile for anti-social personality disorder (APD), and we called on Vick to have a brain scan to help confirm this. People diagnosed with APD are commonly referred to as "psychopaths." They are usually male, prone to lying and manipulation, often take pleasure in cruelty, and cannot feel genuine remorse, which frequently leads to recidivism. PETA had previously been in talks with Vick's management, public relations, and legal teams about shooting a public service announcement to help combat dogfighting, upon Vick's release from prison. In December, after consulting with psychiatrists, PETA withdrew the offer for the TV spot, and in January, we called on NFL Commissioner Goodell to require that Vick undergo a brain scan and full psychological evaluation before any decisions were made about the future of his football career.

I've seen people laughing their asses off and shoving baked cows, pigs and birds into their mouths at the same time. Unbelievable, but true. Let's see PETA call the majority of Americans "psychopaths" and start the bullshit-pop psychology on THEM! Oh, wait... if they did that, they might not get asked back on Fox News for comedy relief!

Assholes. PETA and Michael Vick's dogfighting droogs all deserve each other. Lock em all up in a dogfighting pen and see who comes out first... as the infamous tagline for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" asked: Who will survive, and what will be left of them?

PETA does more damage to vegetarianism and animal rights than any one organization in the world.

And BTW, if you like your meat? You refuse to give it up because the pleasure of your palate is more important than animals? THEN LEAVE MICHAEL VICK ALONE. The meat-eating culture that devalues animals CREATED HIM. If you want respect for animals, you must have respect for them all, not just the cute ones that obey you.

~*~

Okay, rant over. Now for some lightheartedness...

Ain't nobody here but us chickens - Louis Jordan and the Tympany 5 (1946)

21 comments:

Mista Jaycee said...

Well alright! This is a great rant! Thanks!
Jaycee

timberwraith said...

Well, that was a large serving of irony. I love it.

Daisy, you are a far braver vegetarian than I. Hats off to you! :)

Anonymous said...

To be fair, I don't consider eating dog objectionable. Personality (and for that matter, familiarity) don't factor into my eating habits. If they sold it at the store for a decent price I'd buy it. And yes, we used to have dogs. Don't anymore though, we're stuck in an apartment. How is the process of another omnivore who eats meat less sadistic for eating another animal than a human? Not the raising of animals for food, I've seen the conditions, they're hellish. But the actual death, I'm a little at a loss there in your reasoning. I generally listen to my body - it informs me when I'm not getting enough fruits and greens. It has the same 'feed me!' response when I go without meat for many days at a time, and nuts don't cut it. Oddly enough, I don't have that response with cheese or milk.

-it's A.W., can't remember my password at the moment

lilacsigil said...

I agree that there's a correlation between mistreating animals, industrial farming and fighting dogs. I disagree that eating meat is necessarily the same as torturing live animals. Where I live, I can eat only organic meat, farmed by people I know, and I can see that the animals are happy and well-treated throughout their lives. I know most people don't have access to what I do, though many people may have more money that I do and can buy organic, free-range meat that way. I don't consider eating dog offensive, and my cats are perfectly welcome to eat me when I die! (Also, I find it very difficult to get enough protein as a vegetarian!)

Dina said...

Wow. I think we are on the same page here. I wrote a post the other day about stuff like this. I think I'm posting it tomorrow or the next day (I usually write ahead).

I'm not a big fan of PETA either. And I agree that it's hypocritical to complain about animal abuse and then eat meat.

Although (and I talk about this in my post too) I also feel hypocritical for not being vegan. I think all my cheese and ice-cream eating leads to abuse as well.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Dina, I try to eat ice cream and cheese from well-treated animals, but sometimes fail. :( Optimally, there can be symbiosis between humans and animals... Buddhist and Benedictine monks actually lived with goats, chickens and other animals that provided them with milk, eggs and cheese during cold winters... the animals got first-class treatment, even living inside monasteries during the very coldest periods. The animals were fed the very best grain that the monks used for their own breads and pastas.

Granted, this is an "ideal" model, but one I think is useful for us to remember... the way it COULD be, if we did not wantonly exploit animals.

AW: How is the process of another omnivore who eats meat less sadistic for eating another animal than a human?

Dogfighting and slaughterhouses are run by humans for profit, not for necessity. I have no objection to humans or any other mammal eating meat if there is nothing else to eat (shortages, or living in the wild). But that isn't the American lifestyle, by a long shot. (Suburban American carnivores who use a "Survivor" scenario to justify their meat-eating? Gets very old and predictable. We have Taco Bell on every corner.)

As for being willing to eat dogs, very few Americans would... and in fact, if some enterprising capitalist attempted to sell dog or cat-meat in grocery stores? I can well imagine a very LOUD hue and cry throughout the land to equal the Vick Inquisition. So, that makes you a bit different, AW! ;)

Renee said...

I think that VIck did was terrible but he paid for his crime and now it is time to let him go on with his life. PETA has been relentless about this situation, even demanding that he undergo counselling. My question is where was their outcry when Lyndie England was busy torturing human beings?....Ooop silly me, humans don't count for them.

I see what you are saying about the correlation between the way animals are killed in a factory and what Vick did and the continued persecution by fellow meat eaters does hold a high note of hypocrisy. That said I firmly believe that dog fighting is wrong however once someone has paid for offending social mores i.e committing a crime they need to be allowed to continue with their life in peace.

RMJ said...

Daisy, this hit me where I live. I responded here:

http://deeplyproblematic.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-being-unethically-meat-eating.html

dieselsandwich said...

I'm trying to figure out whether you're just hitting the hypocrisy of not applying ethics to meat eating or literally claiming that eating any kind of meat at all is cruel in and of itself. Like A.W. said, I can't quite grasp how simple death is cruel. It would seem that a fast and painless death is the opposite of cruel. And certainly chewing the dead flesh of something isn't cruel. Dead things can't feel. I wouldn't object to eating dog or cat, provided it didn't set off my Irritable Bowel Syndrome (red meat certainly does). And I eat meat because I actually have protein cravings at times that aren't handled by tofu, soy, beans and nuts or other vegetarian options (which actually sucks because there's very few meats I can eat that don't make me violently ill from my IBS).

And I can't really see the fact that you do just fine with no meat as justification that others can too. Because humans don't all function exactly the same. Some of us can't digest lactose. Some of us can. Some of us are allergic to wheat. Some of us aren't. Some of us get sick from certain foods or digest them less effectively and others do it better. Using yourself as an example doesn't really work when our biology has enough variation to justify the idea that not everyone can be healthy in a single kind of lifestyle (Knowing from experience that a vegetarian diet drops my partner's health pretty quickly due to protein retainment issues, I can attest to this).

That being said, the mass majority of meat providers intersperse cruelty, torture and distress into their harvest of meat. Anyone that isn't going for free range, torture free meat sources (where the only thing done is the death of the animal in question) is a hypocrite for criticizing Vick's actions. The rest though, I feel skeptical of.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Diesel: I'm trying to figure out whether you're just hitting the hypocrisy of not applying ethics to meat eating or literally claiming that eating any kind of meat at all is cruel in and of itself. Like A.W. said, I can't quite grasp how simple death is cruel.

Would you say "I can't quite grasp how simple death is cruel" about humans?

"I can't quite grasp how simple death is cruel"--well, why not go out and poison a bunch of people in their sleep then? Why don't you? (asking seriously) If it isn't a cruel act to deprive someone of life, no big deal then, right?

What is the reason you don't do this?

Why is it up to you to decide if animals should live or die? Why have you decided this is your call? You apparently take this idea for granted. Do you believe it is your decision which humans live or die? Why are animals different?

Are you a Christian who believes humans were given "custodianship" of the animals by God? (The Seventh Day Adventists have addressed this at length.)

If not, is it because you believe your genetic "superiority" to the animals, gives you this inherent right? I would have to argue that I do not believe we are superior to the animals.

Diesel: It would seem that a fast and painless death is the opposite of cruel.

Would you say this of humans?

Again, the difference is--?

And certainly chewing the dead flesh of something isn't cruel.

Would you say this of humans?

Again, the difference is--?

Perhaps I was pulling my punches. What would we say of humans chewing other humans? Abomination?

It's all meat, so why is one form privileged over another?

DEPRIVING LIFE is a cruel act, the most cruel act of all.

All major religions have listed deprivation of life as the first major sin, the worst of all. There is no statute of limitations in virtually all legal systems of the world.

And I can't really see the fact that you do just fine with no meat as justification that others can too. Because humans don't all function exactly the same.

What do you think of the cultures/religions of the world that have been predominantly vegetarian? Have they been healthier than westerners and more able to withstand the diet?

What reasons might there be for that?

Are Westerners delicate hothouse flowers that simply can't tolerate, say, a Tibetan or Sri Lankan diet? (Or do you believe these dietary-habits are genetically inherited and westerners can't adopt these diets?)

Some of us can't digest lactose. Some of us can. Some of us are allergic to wheat. Some of us aren't.

Alternative medicine is my business, so I know quite a lot about these issues and dietary concerns.

And if you want all my theories about why I think western children were damaged by Captain Crunch and Coca-cola, I'll be glad to expound on that... but I'll probably bore you. I'll just say, it's interesting the gluten-intolerance usually manifests in adulthood after a lifetime of refined flours and sugars has done its damage....speaking of IBS.

But anyone who wants to be a vegetarian, can be. It takes more dedication and commitment for someone like yourself than it does for me or some other people... but I have seen people with all of your issues, and then some, make the decision and stick with it.

To be continued... I have reached my word limit, she announced most verbosely...

DaisyDeadhead said...

Diesel: Some of us get sick from certain foods or digest them less effectively and others do it better.

Again, this is my job, counseling people about digestive enzymes and whatnot. (I suggest Enzymedica, best on the market, IMHO.)

Using yourself as an example doesn't really work

I have written a lot about vegetarianism and I am tired, tired, tired of people replying BUT WE HAVE TO EAT, as if to imply I never eat, when you know, I eat ALL THE TIME.

That was a rhetorical effort to head them off at the pass, if you will.

when our biology has enough variation to justify the idea that not everyone can be healthy in a single kind of lifestyle

As stated above, it takes dedication and effort. If you care about animals enough, you will make that effort. If you don't, you won't.

(Knowing from experience that a vegetarian diet drops my partner's health pretty quickly due to protein retainment issues, I can attest to this).

I would suggest your partner go to someone like my co-worker or ME (she preened), who can deevelop a dietary plan with them; hemp and rice protein are well-tolerated in most everyone.

In fact, I have never met a single person who cannot tolerate hemp protein, probably the best form of plant protein in the world and unquestionably the best-retained, due to its abnormally-high Omega-3 content. However, it IS expensive, because of the fucked-up drug war, the US health food industry has to import all hemp from Canada. (That is politics and specifically Republicans, not the fault of vegetarians or hippie-alternative medicine practitioners!)

Thanks for commenting.

dieselsandwich said...

Daisy: Would you say "I can't quite grasp how simple death is cruel" about humans?

Yes. I would. It's unfortunate for the human but it isn't cruel. It's just death. It's certainly not positive, but there's a difference between cruelty and unhealthiness.

well, why not go out and poison a bunch of people in their sleep then? Why don't you? (asking seriously) If it isn't a cruel act to deprive someone of life, no big deal then, right?

Because society can't function if we can run around killing people. Also, why would I poison a random bunch of people? I have no reason to poison a random bunch of animals either. The only time I would kill or have an animal killed is to protect myself or eat it. Same with humans, beyond the eating, as cannibalism and society don't mix very nicely.

Why is it up to you to decide if animals should live or die? Why have you decided this is your call? You apparently take this idea for granted. Do you believe it is your decision which humans live or die? Why are animals different?

Why do you build a strawman argument out of me supposedly claiming authority over the universe? I base my viewpoint on a set of ethical and logical principles. I consider those conclusions correct. This doesn't make me the grand queen of the universe.

Are you a Christian who believes humans were given "custodianship" of the animals by God? (The Seventh Day Adventists have addressed this at length.)

If not, is it because you believe your genetic "superiority" to the animals, gives you this inherent right? I would have to argue that I do not believe we are superior to the animals.


None of my views are based on religion nor genetic superiority. Killing humans for food makes all the current (and many of the past) paradigms of society nonfunctional. However there are plenty of situations in which killing a human is justified. Life isn't sacred. It's just in our best interests as a species not to eat each other.

All your questions of whether I would say this of humans are answered with: yes. A fast death is not cruel to a human. Chewing a human's dead flesh is not cruel to that very dead and very not feeling human. Do you really think that I'd lose sight of what the concept of cruelty means when you bring up humans? Really, give me some credit.

Humans chewing humans isn't really viable to a social system paradigm like the ones we currently have available. I'm sure if you can find a cannabalistic system that works, we can try it out. Of course, I've got no problem with the idea of eating human meat if the people are already dead, provided its handled hygenically and processed properly, but that's a whole other story right there.

DEPRIVING LIFE is a cruel act, the most cruel act of all.

All major religions have listed deprivation of life as the first major sin, the worst of all. There is no statute of limitations in virtually all legal systems of the world.


No. It isn't. The very concept of cruelty speaks of specific actions devised to cause pain of varying types. A painless death is by definition not cruel. I'm not interested in what major religions have to say any more than you're interested in what Seventh Day Adventists have to say.

Will continue in another comment.

dieselsandwich said...

What do you think of the cultures/religions of the world that have been predominantly vegetarian? Have they been healthier than westerners and more able to withstand the diet?

Considering the fact that a lot of dietary and health needs are genetically linked, yes I would say that there are some instances of genetic differences in diet requirement.

But really, if you're going to make widespread claims about health comparisons between cultures, you're going to have to pull up some numbers. Are those cultures/religions healthier due to their lack of meat? Are they healthier at all? Can you account for confounding variables like American sedentary lifestyles when you look up these statistics? How many people in these cultures maintain these diets?

I'd be perfectly willing to say that those who specifically need meat in a diet would be a minority, but I won't say so unless I actually see some evidence.


And if you want all my theories about why I think western children were damaged by Captain Crunch and Coca-cola, I'll be glad to expound on that... but I'll probably bore you.


Actually I would love to discuss those theories and would probably agree with a large number of them. Probably not here, I'm already selfishly eating up a lot of your comment space.

But anyone who wants to be a vegetarian, can be. It takes more dedication and commitment for someone like yourself than it does for me or some other people... but I have seen people with all of your issues, and then some, make the decision and stick with it.

Has their health been better off after they did so? I'm completely capable of sticking to a moral or ethical position, even if it shaves years off my life. But you know, why should I shave years off my life?

Who are you to tell me to crush my health for your morals? Of course, if this assessment is based on simple logical reasoning and not you claiming authority over how humans should live their lives, well then, I'd like to hear the reasoning.

Can you offer me up evidence that any human being, despite health issues, despite getting migraines from too much soy, can be a healthy vegetarian? It's all great to take a moral stance and all, but I won't self destruct just to make other people feel more comfortable with my lifestyle. So how will this impact my health?

Thank you for the Enzymedica link, I'll check it out.

Continued in a third comment. Wow, I'm a bit too verbose myself.

dieselsandwich said...

Whew, last comment in this long line. Sorry for dominating your comment space like that, it was just a topic I felt I needed to speak on.

I have written a lot about vegetarianism and I am tired, tired, tired of people replying BUT WE HAVE TO EAT, as if to imply I never eat, when you know, I eat ALL THE TIME.

That was a rhetorical effort to head them off at the pass, if you will.


Okay, this is fair. You had a good reason to head off the unreasonable folk that think vegetarianism means starving to death. But your responses to me still show me someone who overcompensates by claiming that vegetarianism is inherently healthier for everyone. Where's the data that backs this claim? What basis do you have to tell me that a diet I have tried and my partner has tried (and that badly impacted our health already) is inherently healthy without at least some kind of scientific facts to counter our personal experience? After all, it just takes one counterexample to kill a blanket statement like "vegetarianism is healthier for EVERYONE"

So the only way I can think of that your blanket statement could remain correct is if we did it wrong. If there were better ways to veg it up, so to speak. So give me suggestions. Tell me some of best ways to do this. I'm not unreasonable. But I'm not just going to cave to rhetoric and rage either.

As stated above, it takes dedication and effort. If you care about animals enough, you will make that effort. If you don't, you won't.

You're right, I clearly don't care enough about animals to hurt myself and my health. I guess the fact that I'm not willing to chop my own kidney out of my body and give it to a hospital means I absolutely don't give a shit about people who need organ transplants. Clearly.

I would suggest your partner go to someone like my co-worker or ME (she preened), who can deevelop a dietary plan with them; hemp and rice protein are well-tolerated in most everyone.

In fact, I have never met a single person who cannot tolerate hemp protein, probably the best form of plant protein in the world and unquestionably the best-retained, due to its abnormally-high Omega-3 content. However, it IS expensive, because of the fucked-up drug war, the US health food industry has to import all hemp from Canada. (That is politics and specifically Republicans, not the fault of vegetarians or hippie-alternative medicine practitioners!)


Ah, now this is a lot better. Real suggestions for things that could in fact solve the problem. Unfortunately, my partner and I live on the poverty line. So, now are you going to expect us to make ourselves homeless and financially screwed for the animals? After all, dedication can make anything work. Little bit idealistic, little bit naive.

Thanks for commenting.

You're welcome. Thank you for the diet restructuring offer. I actually intend to take you up on that and would appreciate suggestions regarding obtaining hemp protein or other similar not well know options to boost a vegetarian's protein intake to carnivore levels. At the very least, this would be helpful for when we pull ourselves out of poverty or the Republicans get their heads out of their asses.

Should I give you my email?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Diesel: Why do you build a strawman argument out of me supposedly claiming authority over the universe? I base my viewpoint on a set of ethical and logical principles. I consider those conclusions correct. This doesn't make me the grand queen of the universe.

It isn't a strawman argument, it is what you have said here--you use the disturbing phrase "have an animal killed"--in passing. I am asking, what gives you this authority, to think you should be able to do that?: "Have an animal killed"? Your belief-system or ethics-system gave you this concept of human entitlement and you simply take it for granted--and I am simply trying to point this out to you. It is hard to do, since it's the air we breathe here in the west, it's part of The Matrix and consumerist brainwashing. But consider:

You make a judgment to deprive an animal of life every time you eat meat. You have judged that it was okay to kill the animal so that you could eat it. Not because you are starving, but as RMJ honestly said, because you LIKE IT, the reason the vast majority of Westerners eat meat.

You are deciding which creatures should live and which should die, and I am asking, in effect, (without trying to be an ass): Who do you think you are? Where do you get off?

This is the crux of the matter.

One either thinks you have THE RIGHT to decide animals are meat, or you don't.

And here, I am indebted to Seventh Day Adventists, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains... they are the people who taught me: you do not have this right, even if you have been taught to believe you do.

All other concerns are secondary (to me)...So, sorry, not buying it. You are abdicating moral responsibility when you say you wouldn't eat people just because it might create social chaos. Who are you to tell me to crush my health for your morals?

Nobody at all; yall are running the joint. Vegetarians have no authority AT ALL. Zip. Zero.
Nada. None. I can't tell you to do anything, I can only appeal to your conscience. (The fact that when I do, people act as if I am the fascist one, is telling.)

The law, the culture, everything, is ON YOUR SIDE. (And considering some of the other issues you have with that same culture, doesn't that concern you, even a wee bit?)

Can you offer me up evidence that any human being, despite health issues, despite getting migraines from too much soy, can be a healthy vegetarian?

Are you saying there are NO healthy vegetarians? Anywhere? In the whole world? Nobody?

I don't get migraines from soy. (?)

Do you ask BigPharm about your health? Your boss? TV? Advertising? I think you are holding vegetarianism to a very high standard that it can't possibly attain, all so it must fail and you can therefore have the comfort of your meat.

Fine, go ahead, but please be aware of what you are doing, as RMJ is.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Diesel: But your responses to me still show me someone who overcompensates by claiming that vegetarianism is inherently healthier for everyone.

I think it can be AS healthy for you, it IS healthier for most people.

No, I didn't say "healthier".... Read back. I said if you were committed, it could be done, and it can.

For me personally, ethics precede (and take priority over) health. Yeah, I'm like some old Jesuit!! :P

I say and do whatever I need to do, to convert people to the cause. (Speaking of Jesuits!) You want ethics, I gottem, you talk protein, I gottem, you talk health, I know about that too. In fact, it's one of the main reason I got into the alt-med business.

If you want diet restructuring, I can do it. How hard-core do you want it? If you are poor, I suggest CHEESE, cheap and plentiful... If you don't care about the coolness or health- factor, I would even suggest nasty, orange-dyed cheese like Velveeta. All cheese has a huge protein content, as do egg yolks. Start with animal-derived protein, then transition out of that, if you choose. As I stated in an earlier comment, I am not opposed to cheese, eggs and milk--in an ideal world, they could be obtained from animals without pain and in a symbiotic manner. As things stand, though, I draw a line with killing animals. I try to buy the moral cheese (not a fan of eggs, except Stax Omega omelettes when I eat out with Mr Daisy!) but admittedly, sometimes I don't succeed so well at that.

I would also recommend: Chia and sunflower seeds, pepitas, Almond and Hemp milk (Blue Diamond brand is great), flax seed (raw, ground, Spectrum is a good brand that won't break the bank) and again, Hemp protein powder, which admittedly tastes like bongwater, but you can add stuff to it and it isn't half bad. I like SAMBAZON and Manitoba Harvest brands. Living Harvest is also good, they make a vanilla brand that ALMOST tastes good! :P

In case you think I am intractable, note: the hard-core vegans hate me (you probably even know who I mean) and I will NOT countenance vegetarianism for CATS!!!!!

Believe it or not, there are people who want to make vegetarians out of cats, and that is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

dieselsandwich said...

Daisy: You make a judgment to deprive an animal of life every time you eat meat. You have judged that it was okay to kill the animal so that you could eat it. Not because you are starving, but as RMJ honestly said, because you LIKE IT, the reason the vast majority of Westerners eat meat.

This is based entirely on your unproven claim that I can be as healthy as any other vegetarian on that diet.

When I say, "have killed" it simply means I am not doing the killing myself. The only thing I am entitled to is protecting my own health. If protecting my own health involves killing then I will gladly kill or have another aid me in such killing. Human or animal.

Who do you think you are? Where do you get off?

I am a sentient being who puts my health and well being over the health and well being of others where they may conflict. Until you show me that I can achieve a vegetarian diet that not only preserves my and my partner's health but doesn't make us financially destitute (being that we both live in on very small incomes, including food stamps) you have absolutely no call to claim that I'm just doing this "for the shits and giggles of it". My health comes into conflict with the health of an animal.

All other concerns are secondary (to me)...So, sorry, not buying it. You are abdicating moral responsibility when you say you wouldn't eat people just because it might create social chaos. Who are you to tell me to crush my health for your morals?

Quite simply, it would be worse for all of our health to create social chaos. A lose/lose situation if you will. So the analogy is a poor one. Being suicidal for our morals? Yeah, that's just silly.

Btw, I don't consider you a facist. I consider you to be idealistic and unrealistic. Maybe even a bit classist and ableist. That's it. And society isn't on my side. I'd love to stay vegetarian if I could. Meat is not sound in the long term because of the sheer amount of water it takes to maintain meat supplies, water which will be unavailable for humans that are quickly running out of potable water. It isn't sustainable, so I would love to be a part of the solution. I just don't see how I can without self destructing.

Are you saying there are NO healthy vegetarians? Anywhere? In the whole world? Nobody?

I don't get migraines from soy. (?)


Of course not. I'm saying that some can be healthy vegetarians and some can't. Not once have I said that everyone needs to eat meat. I'm well aware that me and my partner are atypical. Our health issues are not common.

Btw, I'm the one that gets migraines from soy, not you. Crippling migraines that last for a day or two. There's a threshold of soy I can eat before they start. Once I go past that, I'm out of commission for a while.

Do you ask BigPharm about your health? Your boss? TV? Advertising? I think you are holding vegetarianism to a very high standard that it can't possibly attain, all so it must fail and you can therefore have the comfort of your meat.

Actually I criticize and attack Big Pharma for the damage they've done too. I fight primary culture as well. All of them screw people like me over just as much as vegetarianism does. Because well, people with less common medical issues and who are poor, we don't matter. Not to you. Not to society at large. You can spout moralistic rhetoric all you want, but in the end I can't afford the foods you tell me to buy and I can't maintain my health with the ones I can afford. I can barely maintain it with meat.

Fine, go ahead, but please be aware of what you are doing, as RMJ is.

I'm well aware of what I'm doing. I just disagree with you on what that is.

dieselsandwich said...

Daisy: I think it can be AS healthy for you, it IS healthier for most people.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I also disagree with this. The whole time I've been pointing out that I can't achieve the same health level using the vegetarian options I'm currently aware of (without becoming homeless or going further into debt with loans)

For me personally, ethics precede (and take priority over) health.

I think this is where we irreconcilably differ. I can't accept an ethical system that does not preserve the self.

If you want diet restructuring, I can do it. How hard-core do you want it?

I'm all for it.

If you are poor, I suggest CHEESE, cheap and plentiful...

...All cheese has a huge protein content, as do egg yolks.


We've already gone heavy on eggs. And we'd love to do the cheese thing (both of us love cheese) but my partner is lactose intolerant and cheese is an IBS trigger for me. So until we can afford better medical treatment for those issues, cheese isn't a good option.

As I stated in an earlier comment, I am not opposed to cheese, eggs and milk--in an ideal world, they could be obtained from animals without pain and in a symbiotic manner.

Definitely. I've been one of the people to advocate using genetics and cell lines to actually generate high protein "plant meat" and "plant milk". Essentially growing cell lines and novel organisms that don't have the sentience of animals but have the equivalent high protein amounts (or even the same cell structure), allowing us to eliminate animal killing entirely.

So it isn't like I'm one of those people who is dedicated to carnivorous life.

I would also recommend: Chia and sunflower seeds, pepitas, Almond and Hemp milk (Blue Diamond brand is great), flax seed (raw, ground, Spectrum is a good brand that won't break the bank) and again, Hemp protein powder, which admittedly tastes like bongwater, but you can add stuff to it and it isn't half bad.

We use a lot of flax seed and I've been looking into affordable Almond milk to replace the soy I can't eat. I can check out the other stuff and see if there's some kind of affordable hemp options.

It just enrages me that poor vegetarians get screwed. It nearly broke our bank to switch to organic (only countered by switching to local)

In case you think I am intractable...

I don't. I think the issue between us is how we view the importance of health. And possibly some latent classism you might have. Other than that I think you're perfectly reasonable (if a little zealous)

The fact that you're actually willing to extend your hand and help me find options I can actually use is what elevates you far above many of the people I've discussed this with before.

Believe it or not, there are people who want to make vegetarians out of cats, and that is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

That's a bit crazy.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Diesel, I will not be responding further at length, not out of any disrespect but because I think we are at an ideological impasse. (Also, just no time today.)

I will say one thing, re your comment:

And society isn't on my side.

Society/culture is most assuredly, totally, completely, absolutely, 100% on your side, in big-assed capital letters and underscored:

Society is on your side and taught you to think this way.

Repent.

:D

Dietary PS(s): Textured vegetable protein (TVP) is fairly cheap, as Tempeh is. The fermentation in tempeh usually means people do not get the soy headaches, for reasons we don't understand fully. (In a world that made protection of animals a priority, we'd know TONS more about vegetarian diets.)

BTW, I live in an apartment, work in retail and drive a 2000 Saturn. I come from a poor Appalachian mama and I am working class; although I am not on food stamps right now, I have been as both a child and adult. And I think anyone of ANY class, can be vegetarian.

Believe it or not, whenever I successfully transition to 50% raw foods, my grocery bill drops about that much, too.

dieselsandwich said...

I don't know about society being my friend here. Everyone I have talked to about generating "plant meat" gave me a pretty disgusted look. XD

But thank you for the suggestions. I will look into them and hopefully they can yield results. I should say that even poor people can be classist, but I think it's really not necessary to debate on that. The fact that you're putting the effort into finding me cheap options is enough to convince me that you aren't classist.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

D, this thread is a lot like THIS POST.

Enjoy! ;)