Are vegan restaurants actually vegan?

[iago]

http://www.quarrygirl.com/2009/06/28/undercover-investigation-of-la-area-vegan-restaurants/

Turns out in LA, 7 / 17 aren't. Eww?

This kinda reminds me of when McDonalds revealed that their fries, despite being fried in vegetable oil, contain an unnamed animal product in their flavouring making them non-vegetarian.

Realistically, unless I can get a complete ingredient list (without the 'natural flavours' or 'colours' bullshit), I can't be sure of anything I eat. That includes products off the shelves, and even products in the produce section (which are frequently covered with non-vegan wax or infused with non-vegetarian colours).

While I'm on a soapbox, produce companies should be required to list which pesticides/fertilizers they use when you buy food. I read (sorry, don't have source handy) that there can be as many as 55 different pesticides on the food you buy, many of which are banned in some countries because they are associated with cancer/birth defects/etc. And we're eating them without even *knowing* the risk, which is the most important part to me. If I know the risk and do something, I'm willing to accept the consequences. If I don't know the risk and do something, I'm pretty upset.

So yeah, there you go.

[Armin]

Good find, interesting read. It certainly satisfied the conspiracy nut in me.

[while1]

lulz.  I'll be sure never to marry a vegan because I think I'd go insane having to accommodate her pickiness when we go out to eat, shopping, cooking meals, etc.  God.  She'd have to give really great head and a have a really great personality for me to put up with her failure to utilize the incisors evolution gave her. 


Shit I forgot.  She can't swallow either.

[Rule]

lulz.  I'll be sure never to marry a vegan because I think I'd go insane having to accommodate her pickiness when we go out to eat, shopping, cooking meals, etc.  God.  She'd have to give really great head and a have a really great personality for me to put up with her failure to utilize the incisors evolution gave her. 


Shit I forgot.  She can't swallow either.

You're assuming that she'd want to marry you. 

However, I do think veganism can easily become an obsessive disorder.  In some cases, you do have to ask yourself "how important is it?".  (Not the general idea, but some specific practices).

[iago]

Vegans generally aren't "picky" -- you really can't be. I'll eat anything, as long as there was no suffering or killing involved.

As for restaurants, I don't think that'll be an issue. Some people are boring and go to all the "mainstream" places, which I never liked to begin with. Other people are interesting and go to interesting places, like foreign foods and locally run instead of chains. Most places here that aren't chains are very accommodating. Generally, everybody is happy when we go to one of the local places.

In any case, I very much doubt a vegan would want to be with somebody with your attitude, so I doubt you'll have to worry [Rule covered that point while I was typing]

And incidentally, incisors are common in herbivores -- they aren't designed for cutting meat.

[iago]

However, I do think veganism can easily become an obsessive disorder.  In some cases, you do have to ask yourself "how important is it?".  (Not the general idea, but some specific practices).

I agree -- you have to draw the line at some point. The definitely of vegan isn't absolute, it's something like, "As much as is practical and possible, live a lifestyle that minimizes unnecessary suffering".

If you are always looking down when you're walking to make sure you aren't stepping on ants, you're going too far.

Also, if you worry about things like this:

"Bone char is not used at Taber’s sugar beet factory or at Montreal’s cane refinery. Bone char is only used at the Vancouver cane refinery. All products under the Lantic Trademark are free of bone char. For the products under the Rogers Trademark, all Taber sugar beet products are also free of bone char. In order to differentiate the Rogers Taber beet products from the Vancouver cane products, you can verify the inked-jet code printed on the product. Products with the code starting with the letter “A” are from Taber, Alberta, while products with the code starting with the letter “B” are from Vancouver, British Columbia."

I guess the whole question is: where do you draw the line?

[Rule]

Yeah, at some point the effort is not worth the return, or the return becomes highly negative, from an "opportunity cost" perspective.  You could easily waste your whole life investigating these things.

[iago]

I found the definition I was looking for. It's a quote from the guy who "invented" veganism (at least, the one who named it first):

[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

[disco]

Fun fact:  You know how for a while milkshakes at McDonalds were just called "shakes" ?  Well that's because they didn't contain enough dairy to really be considered "milk" shakes.

[iago]

Fun fact:  You know how for a while milkshakes at McDonalds were just called "shakes" ?  Well that's because they didn't contain enough dairy to really be considered "milk" shakes.

<Wiggum> Do they have Krusty-Partially-Gelatinated-Non-Dairy-Gum-Based-Beverages?
<Lou> Mm-hm. And they call 'em "Shakes"
<Eddie> Heh. "Shakes". You don't know what you're gettin'.
<Wiggum> Well I know what I'm gettin'. Some donuts.

Edit: More fun facts, while we're at it!
- Cool Whip used to contain no dairy (it now contains 'Whey', toward the end)
- Oreos and Fudgee-o's contain no dairy (they're vegan)

[Towelie]

"As much as is practical and possible, live a lifestyle that minimizes unnecessary suffering".

You can't drink milk right? How does a cow suffer from being milked?

[while1]

"As much as is practical and possible, live a lifestyle that minimizes unnecessary suffering".

You can't drink milk right? How does a cow suffer from being milked?

In fact, cows who aren't milked suffer pain and udders get very swollen.

[Rule]

"As much as is practical and possible, live a lifestyle that minimizes unnecessary suffering".

You can't drink milk right? How does a cow suffer from being milked?

I was going to make this point also.  I think it's debatable whether some of the vegan lifestyle "minimizes unnecessary suffering".

[iago]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

Chickens is the same thing -- at the Calgary zoo they have piles of dead baby chickens. After they're born, the male chicks are all killed and given to the zoo to feed the birds.

So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

[Rule]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

Chickens is the same thing -- at the Calgary zoo they have piles of dead baby chickens. After they're born, the male chicks are all killed and given to the zoo to feed the birds.

So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

You say "in most scenarios".  What about the other situations?  Also not all the babies can be taken away.  They still need cows.

Also, I don't think that is common practice with chickens on smaller farms.  In fact, many people will just have hen houses on their properties, strictly for egg laying.  Regardless of whether or not this is a natural environment for them, I don't think there is any evidence they are suffering.

[iago]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

Chickens is the same thing -- at the Calgary zoo they have piles of dead baby chickens. After they're born, the male chicks are all killed and given to the zoo to feed the birds.

So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

You say "in most scenarios".  What about the other situations?  Also not all the babies can be taken away.  They still need cows.

Also, I don't think that is common practice with chickens on smaller farms.  In fact, many people will just have hen houses on their properties, strictly for egg laying.  Regardless of whether or not this is a natural environment for them, I don't think there is any evidence they are suffering.

I saw "in most scenarios" because some farms are more respectful of animals -- but their meat tends to be far more expensive, and few people buy it. And I'm aware they don't take away all babies -- I even said so in the same sentence as the one you're referring to

I agree, smaller farms tend to be less cruel. But I looked up the statistics at one point, and more than 80% of our meat and dairy comes from factory farms, which treat animals poorly. Even at smaller farms, though, when an animal is too old to produce milk/eggs, they're rarely kept around -- financial, it makes no sense to keep feeding them.

Even beyond obvious suffering of animals in factory farms and the like, I don't agree with imprisoning them for their whole lives, treating them like objects that can be bought and sold, and taking/selling the products they produce without giving them a fair cut, as it were. I mean, with humans, it would be considered cruel treatment or even slavery, but with animals it's par for the course. That doesn't seem right to me.

[Rule]

Even beyond obvious suffering of animals in factory farms and the like, I don't agree with imprisoning them for their whole lives, treating them like objects that can be bought and sold, and taking/selling the products they produce without giving them a fair cut, as it were. I mean, with humans, it would be considered cruel treatment or even slavery, but with animals it's par for the course. That doesn't seem right to me.

If someone keeps hens in their yard, and these hens happen to lay infertile eggs that people can eat, what is wrong with eating them?  To do otherwise would be a waste.  And really, what's the alternative for the hen?  To go out into the wild? 

It really couldn't live a better life, practically speaking.  In this situation, would you still be opposed to using the eggs?

[d&q]

Actually a lot of the chicks still get killed because you really only need one or two cocks to fertilize a house.

That holds true for humans as well

[iago]

Even beyond obvious suffering of animals in factory farms and the like, I don't agree with imprisoning them for their whole lives, treating them like objects that can be bought and sold, and taking/selling the products they produce without giving them a fair cut, as it were. I mean, with humans, it would be considered cruel treatment or even slavery, but with animals it's par for the course. That doesn't seem right to me.

If someone keeps hens in their yard, and these hens happen to lay infertile eggs that people can eat, what is wrong with eating them?  To do otherwise would be a waste.  And really, what's the alternative for the hen?  To go out into the wild? 

It really couldn't live a better life, practically speaking.  In this situation, would you still be opposed to using the eggs?

There's a line somewhere between collecting infertile eggs in the wild (clearly hurting nothing) to imprisoning them and forcing them to produce eggs till they can't anymore and killing them (clearly cruel) -- it's all about where you draw the line.

If you had pet chickens that you treat well and you eat eggs that wouldn't hatch anyways, it's probably not that bad (still gross, in my mind, but at least not cruel). As long as you aren't treating them as slaves or as property.

[Rule]

If you had pet chickens that you treat well and you eat eggs that wouldn't hatch anyways, it's probably not that bad (still gross, in my mind, but at least not cruel).

Would you eat eggs, in this situation? .

I agree it's not cruel, the chickens couldn't practically hope for a better existence. 

The gross thing is probably an artefact of having been vegan for awhile.  I imagine you didn't find it gross beforehand, and either way, if you did, you didn't let it deter you. 

[iago]

Would you eat eggs, in this situation? .

I agree it's not cruel, the chickens couldn't practically hope for a better existence. 

The gross thing is probably an artefact of having been vegan for awhile.  I imagine you didn't find it gross beforehand, and either way, if you did, you didn't let it deter you. 

The gross thing is why I *became* vegan. I originally didn't find it gross, till I really thought about it. Once I sort of put things into perspective (and I did this myself, I didn't read any vegan blogs/literature/whatever till long after I made the change), the grossness was obvious.

Eggs are basically embryonic fluid of a bird. Milk is even worse -- I liken drinking cows milk to giving a blowjob to a bull, but people tend to frown on that comparison. (and I'll admit it's a pretty invalid comparison, too, but either way, I don't want to drink bodily fluids of animals)

[Armin]

The only "gross" factors that could turn me off to food, are health or moral. Not even fried squid eye (they pop in your mouth) bothers me. Anything else is in the head.

[Rule]

The 'grossness' here is illogical.  It is a mental artifact.  If we were to govern our decisions based on 'grossness', we could easily kill ourselves with antibiotics, etc.  What makes something gross?

[iago]

The 'grossness' here is illogical.  It is a mental artifact.  If we were to govern our decisions based on 'grossness', we could easily kill ourselves with antibiotics, etc.  What makes something gross?

I think something is gross when it comes from the inside of another animal, and is involved in their reproductive process. That seems logical enough to me. Milk and eggs both fit that criteria.

I don't consider germs and such gross, in general. They're pretty natural.

[Rule]

The 'grossness' here is illogical.  It is a mental artifact.  If we were to govern our decisions based on 'grossness', we could easily kill ourselves with antibiotics, etc.  What makes something gross?

I think something is gross when it comes from the inside of another animal, and is involved in their reproductive process. That seems logical enough to me. Milk and eggs both fit that criteria.

I don't consider germs and such gross, in general. They're pretty natural.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't understand how it is logical. 

[while1]

I eat in terms of efficiency.

It's much easier for me to get my daily protein and other essential nutrients from animal products than not.  Secondary to this comes taste.

I don't condone cruelty to animals, but there's a certain point where I believe our superiority over other species grants us the privilege to eat them.  Survival of the fittest.

[Rule]

I don't condone cruelty to animals, but there's a certain point where I believe our superiority over other species grants us the privilege to eat them.  Survival of the fittest.

What do you mean by superiority?  Choose any sensible metric, and I'll find a human who doesn't fit it.

[while1]

Intelligence.  And I'm speaking in terms of a species as a whole.  Go on and choose the outliers and sure, it's not 100%, some mentally handicap may be less intelligence than a bovine.

You don't see cows, chickens, etc. driving around, learning how to read, write, do math, etc.  Our capacity to learn and relate experiences with knowledge makes us superior.

Although I would object adamantly, I wouldn't blame aliens if they came and wanted to harvest our bodies or obliterate us and conquer our planet.  Survival of the fittest.  If they have the means of our destruction and we cannot defend ourselves, then so be it.

[Rule]

Intelligence.  And I'm speaking in terms of a species as a whole.  Go on and choose the outliers and sure, it's not 100%, some mentally handicap may be less intelligence than a bovine.

You don't see cows, chickens, etc. driving around, learning how to read, write, do math, etc.  Our capacity to learn and relate experiences with knowledge makes us superior.

Many animals -- wolves, dolphins, elephants, etc. -- are in some ways much smarter on the whole than humans. 

But that debate aside, would you eat mentally retarded humans?  Do you think you have the privilege to eat mentally retarded humans?  And should those humans who are significantly more intelligent than you, have the privilege to kill you?

Although I would object adamantly, I wouldn't blame aliens if they came and wanted to harvest our bodies or obliterate us and conquer our planet.  Survival of the fittest.  If they have the means of our destruction and we cannot defend ourselves, then so be it.

So you couldn't blame Hitler and the Nazis for killing Jews?  Survival of the fittest

[iago]

My friend always says he'll eat anything that can't take. That includes babies and retarded people. He's ok with that. *shrug*

[Rule]

My friend always says he'll eat anything that can't take. That includes babies and retarded people. He's ok with that. *shrug*

I don't believe him.

But that could be part of a consistent belief system.  Not one I endorse, but it may be consistent.

[Rule]

The 'grossness' here is illogical.  It is a mental artifact.  If we were to govern our decisions based on 'grossness', we could easily kill ourselves with antibiotics, etc.  What makes something gross?

I think something is gross when it comes from the inside of another animal, and is involved in their reproductive process. That seems logical enough to me. Milk and eggs both fit that criteria.

I don't consider germs and such gross, in general. They're pretty natural.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't understand how it is logical. 

I'd like to milk this.

I don't think this grossness is logical.  Milk isn't directly involved in a reproductive process: reproduction can take place without milk.  It has a correlation, but given that we evolved to reproduce, many things do.  Besides that, what's gross about something being involved in a reproductive process?  Or something coming from the inside of another animal?

[Armin]

Since when is emotion logical? Are you advocating no emotion?

[iago]

My friend always says he'll eat anything that can't take. That includes babies and retarded people. He's ok with that. *shrug*

I don't believe him.

But that could be part of a consistent belief system.  Not one I endorse, but it may be consistent.

It's more of a joke than anything. But at least he has well defined boundaries!

I'd like to milk this.

Pun intended?

I don't think this grossness is logical.  Milk isn't directly involved in a reproductive process: reproduction can take place without milk.  It has a correlation, but given that we evolved to reproduce, many things do.  Besides that, what's gross about something being involved in a reproductive process?  Or something coming from the inside of another animal?

Well, milk is generated as a step in the reproductive process. The fact that it's post-birth doesn't make it any different, in my mind.

In any case, it isn't just reproductive, that's really just an example of it. I also avoid, when possible, eating other kinds of things that animals produce, like honey.

Grossness is only part of the reason, and you're right that it's somewhat arbitrary. But it works!

I still think the better reason is that animals shouldn't be treated as property/slaves. Animals work to produce something, and we take it and consume/sell it without giving the animal a share of the profits, so to speak. Animals never get to retire, spend time with their families, take a day off, go on vacation, etc. I sort of brought that up earlier, I don't really remember how much I said so sorry if I'm repeating myself.

[while1]

Intelligence.  And I'm speaking in terms of a species as a whole.  Go on and choose the outliers and sure, it's not 100%, some mentally handicap may be less intelligence than a bovine.

You don't see cows, chickens, etc. driving around, learning how to read, write, do math, etc.  Our capacity to learn and relate experiences with knowledge makes us superior.

Many animals -- wolves, dolphins, elephants, etc. -- are in some ways much smarter on the whole than humans. 

But that debate aside, would you eat mentally retarded humans?  Do you think you have the privilege to eat mentally retarded humans?  And should those humans who are significantly more intelligent than you, have the privilege to kill you?

Although I would object adamantly, I wouldn't blame aliens if they came and wanted to harvest our bodies or obliterate us and conquer our planet.  Survival of the fittest.  If they have the means of our destruction and we cannot defend ourselves, then so be it.

So you couldn't blame Hitler and the Nazis for killing Jews?  Survival of the fittest

The mentally retarded, Jews,  etc. are all humans and the same species...  Back to my original post, I said I feel no problem eating other species of lesser intelligence.  I have a problem with eating others of my own species no matter whether they drew the short end of the stick at birth or not because they are still human.

[Rule]

I'd like to milk this.

Pun intended?

ya  

I don't think this grossness is logical.  Milk isn't directly involved in a reproductive process: reproduction can take place without milk.  It has a correlation, but given that we evolved to reproduce, many things do.  Besides that, what's gross about something being involved in a reproductive process?  Or something coming from the inside of another animal?

Well, milk is generated as a step in the reproductive process. The fact that it's post-birth doesn't make it any different, in my mind.

In any case, it isn't just reproductive, that's really just an example of it. I also avoid, when possible, eating other kinds of things that animals produce, like honey.

Grossness is only part of the reason, and you're right that it's somewhat arbitrary. But it works!

"Gross" in this context mostly means it makes us feel uncomfortable... but often for reasons like social stigma, or even personal eccentricity, which have no good basis.  I guess my point is that grossness can't be defended logically as a decision making factor, unless we do something like take "gross" to mean unhealthy.    

I still think the better reason is that animals shouldn't be treated as property/slaves. Animals work to produce something, and we take it and consume/sell it without giving the animal a share of the profits, so to speak. Animals never get to retire, spend time with their families, take a day off, go on vacation, etc. I sort of brought that up earlier, I don't really remember how much I said so sorry if I'm repeating myself.

That makes sense.  

[Rule]

The mentally retarded, Jews,  etc. are all humans and the same species.  Back to my original post, I said I feel no problem eating other species of lesser intelligence.  I have a problem with eating others of my own species no matter whether they drew the short end of the stick at birth or not because they are still human.  Now if they were a retarded monkey, I'd eat them.

You are setting a double standard.  You say humans are more intelligent, therefore they are superior.  But then you throw this out the window when we find a particular animal that is more intelligent than a particular human.  By your reasoning, that animal should be superior.

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

[Rule]

Since when is emotion logical? Are you advocating no emotion?

I think emotion can be logical. 

[deadly7]

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

I'd wager it's moreso because of the fact that it's socially acceptable to eat animals of any breed (if not in our culture than other world cultures for sure) than any sort of intelligence pattern. Eating humans reminds me of the great Charlie and the Chocolate Factory quote: Willy Wonka: Of course you can! Everything in this room is eatable, even *I'm* eatable! But that is called "cannibalism," my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies.

[while1]

The mentally retarded, Jews,  etc. are all humans and the same species.  Back to my original post, I said I feel no problem eating other species of lesser intelligence.  I have a problem with eating others of my own species no matter whether they drew the short end of the stick at birth or not because they are still human.  Now if they were a retarded monkey, I'd eat them.

You are setting a double standard.  You say humans are more intelligent, therefore they are superior.  But then you throw this out the window when we find a particular animal that is more intelligent than a particular human.  By your reasoning, that animal should be superior.

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

If another member of a species is more intelligent than a particular human, I have no problem with it killing and eating that human if it's more intelligent.  Survival of the fittest.  I personally won't kill another human because that human is less intelligent than myself, however I will not hesitate to use my intellectual advantage over the other human to my own benefit.  I'd rather not go to jail.  In a world without consequences and social restrictions, I'd probably think differently and consider eradicating humans that don't contribute to society.  i.e. homeless.  Unfortunately, unlike other species, humans have this thing called morals, laws, etc.

[Rule]

The mentally retarded, Jews,  etc. are all humans and the same species.  Back to my original post, I said I feel no problem eating other species of lesser intelligence.  I have a problem with eating others of my own species no matter whether they drew the short end of the stick at birth or not because they are still human.  Now if they were a retarded monkey, I'd eat them.

You are setting a double standard.  You say humans are more intelligent, therefore they are superior.  But then you throw this out the window when we find a particular animal that is more intelligent than a particular human.  By your reasoning, that animal should be superior.

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

If another member of a species is more intelligent than a particular human, I have no problem with it killing and eating that human if it's more intelligent.

Okay. Out of curiosity, what if it's just able to kill the human for whatever reason? For example, there is a fight between the two, and it wins.

I personally won't kill another human because that human is less intelligent than myself, however I will not hesitate to use my intellectual advantage over the other human to my own benefit.  I'd rather not go to jail.  In a world without consequences and social restrictions, I'd probably think differently and consider eradicating humans that don't contribute to society.  i.e. homeless.  Unfortunately, unlike other species, humans have this thing called morals, laws, etc.

I wouldn't say that other animals don't have morals.  It depends what you mean by that.  But for example, a wolf would not kill another member of its own pack, and not because it couldn't. 

You wouldn't kill a human less intelligent than you because of the social consequences --- but do you think it gives you the right to kill him?  In other words, would you be justified in doing so.  Or more generally, if someone decided to kill a retarded person on the street, and then eat it, would he be justified, because of his superior intelligence?

[Rule]

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

I'd wager it's moreso because of the fact that it's socially acceptable to eat animals of any breed (if not in our culture than other world cultures for sure) than any sort of intelligence pattern. Eating humans reminds me of the great Charlie and the Chocolate Factory quote: Willy Wonka: Of course you can! Everything in this room is eatable, even *I'm* eatable! But that is called "cannibalism," my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies.

Yes.  It would be very easy for us all to be conditioned to think that meat eating (at all) is horrible.  Who knows? In a hundred years that could be the case.

[while1]

The mentally retarded, Jews,  etc. are all humans and the same species.  Back to my original post, I said I feel no problem eating other species of lesser intelligence.  I have a problem with eating others of my own species no matter whether they drew the short end of the stick at birth or not because they are still human.  Now if they were a retarded monkey, I'd eat them.

You are setting a double standard.  You say humans are more intelligent, therefore they are superior.  But then you throw this out the window when we find a particular animal that is more intelligent than a particular human.  By your reasoning, that animal should be superior.

The "because they are still human" is key to your response.  This is not about intelligence.

If another member of a species is more intelligent than a particular human, I have no problem with it killing and eating that human if it's more intelligent.

Okay. Out of curiosity, what if it's just able to kill the human for whatever reason? For example, there is a fight between the two, and it wins.

I personally won't kill another human because that human is less intelligent than myself, however I will not hesitate to use my intellectual advantage over the other human to my own benefit.  I'd rather not go to jail.  In a world without consequences and social restrictions, I'd probably think differently and consider eradicating humans that don't contribute to society.  i.e. homeless.  Unfortunately, unlike other species, humans have this thing called morals, laws, etc.

I wouldn't say that other animals don't have morals.  It depends what you mean by that.  But for example, a wolf would not kill another member of its own pack, and not because it couldn't. 

You wouldn't kill a human less intelligent than you because of the social consequences --- but do you think it gives you the right to kill him?  In other words, would you be justified in doing so.  Or more generally, if someone decided to kill a retarded person on the street, and then eat it, would he be justified, because of his superior intelligence?

If he was hungry and was the most efficient source of food energy, yes he has the right.  Assuming no social consequences.  But really this most likely wouldn't be the most efficient source of food unless he was out in the wilderness or something.  i.e. he'd have to kill the retard and prepare the meat to eat/cook... could eat it raw but, ewwww.

Really, I act ethically and morally because it's what society expects of me.  Not because of some inherent instinctual programming I abide by, but under a code of conduct and set of rules I was raised to follow since birth.  If the existence of such environmental and parental guides did not exist for me, I most likely would not hesitate to kill for what I want.  Rape when I feel lust.  Steal to get what I need. Whatever.  I believe at the core of human nature, we are beasts.  It is our intellectual superiority that gives us the ability to suppress our instincts more than any other species.

[Hitmen]

This thread is awesome

[Armin]

Really, I act ethically and morally because it's what society expects of me.

Hi, Billy May's here! Have you ever pondered the taste of human flesh, yet never follow through because society expects you to follow their ethical and moral code? Well I have the perfect product for you! Hufu! Tofu, textured and flavored like human flesh, without the societal repercussions!

[while1]

Really, I act ethically and morally because it's what society expects of me.

Hi, Billy May's here!

TOO SOON.

/cries

[iago]

So the only reason you don't murder and consume humans, puppies, and babies is because of society?

Either you have some serious issues, or you haven't thought this through completely.

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

[deadly7]

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

Don't you have a pet dog?

[iago]

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

Don't you have a pet dog?

Nope.

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

[Blaze]

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

Don't you have a pet dog?

Nope.

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

I disagree.  The moment you don't let your pet go where ever it wants, it's no longer free.

[iago]

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

Don't you have a pet dog?

Nope.

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

I disagree.  The moment you don't let your pet go where ever it wants, it's no longer free.

What if the alternative is worse, though? Like, being put down for not having a home or having an abusive home?

I'm pretty sure pets are an area of debate among vegans, anyways. I personally don't want one, so it isn't really an issue for me. I definitely wouldn't get one I had to put in a cage/confined space, though (like a rabbit, bird, fish, whatever) -- that seems much too restrictive. Keeping a dog/cat in a decently sized house or yard? Not sure.

[Rule]

I do my best to discover (and, when appropriate, fight) the brainwashing received by society. One of those things is that it's ok to enslave animals -- I reject that notion, despite the fact that I've been conditioned to believe otherwise. It sounds like if you went through the same process, you'd become a sociopath.

Don't you have a pet dog?

Nope.

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

I disagree.  The moment you don't let your pet go where ever it wants, it's no longer free.

What if the alternative is worse, though? Like, being put down for not having a home or having an abusive home?

I'm pretty sure pets are an area of debate among vegans, anyways. I personally don't want one, so it isn't really an issue for me. I definitely wouldn't get one I had to put in a cage/confined space, though (like a rabbit, bird, fish, whatever) -- that seems much too restrictive. Keeping a dog/cat in a decently sized house or yard? Not sure.

I think you can develop a great relationship with certain pets, and make them very happy.  I think in most cases having pets (and treating them well) undoubtedly HELPS further animal causes.... the more people are aware of and exposed to other animals, the more they sympathize with them.

Also, no-one is free, not even us.  And especially not children.  Do they get to go wherever they want?  Note that animals are not free in the wild either.

[iago]

Sort of related.. this is a great document:
http://www.petaliterature.com/VEG297.pdf

Among other things, it talks about the lives that the different types of animals (grown for meat/dairy/eggs) live in captivity. This is one of my favourite parts:

Scientists in the United Kingdom discovered that cows enjoy solving problems and even experience “Eureka!” moments (in which their heart rate speeds up, their adrenaline flows, and they jump) when they are successful—just like human beings. Cows also interact in socially complex ways, so that a herd of cows is very much like a pack of wolves, with alpha animals and complex social dynamics, including friendships that develop over time.

Another interesting story I read today is how an "emergency" law prevents milk manufacturers from telling the truth:
http://truefoodnow.org/2009/07/13/groups-urge-ohio-governor-to-repeal-emergency-decision-on-milk-labeling/

[Camel]

In a world without consequences and social restrictions, I'd probably think differently and consider eradicating humans that don't contribute to society.  i.e. homeless.  Unfortunately, unlike other species, humans have this thing called morals, laws, etc.

I just watched this episode of TNG last night where Geordi saved an entire planet from destruction with the technology in his visor. The ironic part was that the inhabitants of the planet were genetically engineered humans; if he'd been conceived on that planet, he'd have been terminated as an embryo.

[Towelie]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

...
So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

Have you actually been to a dairy farm? I have. How do you know that most of the babies are killed/disposed of? Maybe the males are mostly killed, but the bull is only introduced when they want a baby cow. Its not like they roam around having tons of babies. Either way, I don't see how drinking milk has anything to do with this, just don't eat veal/beef. But now we are just getting into personal preferences/ideals, no need to argue over stuff like that

[iago]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

...
So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

Have you actually been to a dairy farm? I have. How do you know that most of the babies are killed/disposed of? Maybe the males are mostly killed, but the bull is only introduced when they want a baby cow. Its not like they roam around having tons of babies. Either way, I don't see how drinking milk has anything to do with this, just don't eat veal/beef. But now we are just getting into personal preferences/ideals, no need to argue over stuff like that

Do you listen? 80% of meat/milk in Canada (last time I checked) doesn't come from dairy farms, it comes from factory farms. Look up info (especially that pamphlet I posted) what a factory farm is.

[Towelie]

Cows' milk has to be used, or they're uncomfortable. And guess what? In nature, humans wouldn't milk them. Who else do cows produce milk for? Their babies!

That's right: cows' babies are supposed to drink their milk. In most scenarios, cows' babies are taken away and either killed and disposed of, turned into veal, or grown up without their parents to produce more milk. The males are always killed or turned into food.

...
So yes, if cows aren't milked it's uncomfortable, but the milk is supposed to go to their babies, not to humans.

Have you actually been to a dairy farm? I have. How do you know that most of the babies are killed/disposed of? Maybe the males are mostly killed, but the bull is only introduced when they want a baby cow. Its not like they roam around having tons of babies. Either way, I don't see how drinking milk has anything to do with this, just don't eat veal/beef. But now we are just getting into personal preferences/ideals, no need to argue over stuff like that

Do you listen? 80% of meat/milk in Canada (last time I checked) doesn't come from dairy farms, it comes from factory farms. Look up info (especially that pamphlet I posted) what a factory farm is.

This seems to support the fact that milk is alright to drink... dairy cows aren't good for meat.

[iago]

This seems to support the fact that milk is alright to drink... dairy cows aren't good for meat.

There are lots of reasons against that, many of which I already spelled out in this thread.

The one glaring issue with your statement is that the male babies of dairy cows are sold as veal. So drinking milk totally supports the meat industry.

[deadly7]

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

The crux of your argument to me seems like you object to using animals in "unnatural" situations where they are placed into environments in which they originally would not have existed. Hence, shouldn't you be morally opposed to animals being kept as pets, as that is not natural?

[Towelie]

This seems to support the fact that milk is alright to drink... dairy cows aren't good for meat.

There are lots of reasons against that, many of which I already spelled out in this thread.

The one glaring issue with your statement is that the male babies of dairy cows are sold as veal. So drinking milk totally supports the meat industry.

So why eat corn? The leftover stuff that isn't sold to stores is ground up and fed to the cows, which promotes the meat industry by your logic.

[Armin]

iago's logic seems pretty sound to me. I know eating meat and drinking milk is morally wrong, but I can't help it (or maybe just don't care enough at the moment). I at least make sure I don't use doublethink to justify eating meat.

[while1]

I fear of the consequences of my actions, sociopaths don't.  So I doubt I'm a sociopath.

[iago]

But you can have an animal companion without enslaving it -- it's all about treating them right.

The crux of your argument to me seems like you object to using animals in "unnatural" situations where they are placed into environments in which they originally would not have existed. Hence, shouldn't you be morally opposed to animals being kept as pets, as that is not natural?

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I said that it's wrong to treat animals as slaves, by taking their products without their permission and not giving them anything in return. I don't remember saying anything about "unnatural" situations.

So why eat corn? The leftover stuff that isn't sold to stores is ground up and fed to the cows, which promotes the meat industry by your logic.

Does that actually make *any* sense to you? Because it doesn't to me...

[Towelie]

So why eat corn? The leftover stuff that isn't sold to stores is ground up and fed to the cows, which promotes the meat industry by your logic.

Does that actually make *any* sense to you? Because it doesn't to me...

If you buy milk, you promote the meat industry by promoting the dairy industry right?
If you buy corn, you promote the corn industry, which means cheaper food for the dairy cows, which means they can afford to have more.... which promotes the dairy industry and therefore the meat industry.

[iago]

So why eat corn? The leftover stuff that isn't sold to stores is ground up and fed to the cows, which promotes the meat industry by your logic.

Does that actually make *any* sense to you? Because it doesn't to me...

If you buy milk, you promote the meat industry by promoting the dairy industry right?
If you buy corn, you promote the corn industry, which means cheaper food for the dairy cows, which means they can afford to have more.... which promotes the dairy industry and therefore the meat industry.

That's a *huge* stretch.

But from what you said, it seems that if you buy *more* corn, there is less food left over for dairy cows (since you say that they ground up the leftover stuff). Therefore, it's our duty to buy *more* corn.

I don't agree with that, either, but it makes more sense than what you said

[Towelie]

So why eat corn? The leftover stuff that isn't sold to stores is ground up and fed to the cows, which promotes the meat industry by your logic.

Does that actually make *any* sense to you? Because it doesn't to me...

If you buy milk, you promote the meat industry by promoting the dairy industry right?
If you buy corn, you promote the corn industry, which means cheaper food for the dairy cows, which means they can afford to have more.... which promotes the dairy industry and therefore the meat industry.

That's a *huge* stretch.

But from what you said, it seems that if you buy *more* corn, there is less food left over for dairy cows (since you say that they ground up the leftover stuff). Therefore, it's our duty to buy *more* corn.

I don't agree with that, either, but it makes more sense than what you said

Leftover =  everything on the plant that isn't corn
Both of them make the same amount of sense to me, glad to hear you can understand how ridiculous I think your statement is.

[Armin]

Is that what you're saying? That you're "glad to hear [iago] can understand how ridiculous [you] think [his] statement is"?

I wasn't aware your gladness was triggered by such odd things.

[iago]

Leftover =  everything on the plant that isn't corn
Both of them make the same amount of sense to me, glad to hear you can understand how ridiculous I think your statement is.

I would only agree if they murdered the cornstalks. Fortunately, they don't.

I really can't debate a point that makes no sense.. I mean, it's just not the same thing.

Good job on twisted what I said and using it to forward your agenda, though -- you're well on your way to being just like CrAz3d/Warrior.

In any case, that isn't even my primary reason for avoiding milk -- I mean, it's a bad thing about dairy, but it's not THE bad thing. Read the rest of the thread.

[Towelie]

Leftover =  everything on the plant that isn't corn
Both of them make the same amount of sense to me, glad to hear you can understand how ridiculous I think your statement is.

I would only agree if they murdered the cornstalks. Fortunately, they don't.

I really can't debate a point that makes no sense.. I mean, it's just not the same thing.

Good job on twisted what I said and using it to forward your agenda, though -- you're well on your way to being just like CrAz3d/Warrior.

In any case, that isn't even my primary reason for avoiding milk -- I mean, it's a bad thing about dairy, but it's not THE bad thing. Read the rest of the thread.

Which part? The part where you think its bad because its supposed to be for a baby cow? Or because they are "locked up and imprisoned and unhappy"

[iago]

Which part? The part where you think its bad because its supposed to be for a baby cow? Or because they are "locked up and imprisoned and unhappy"

"supposed to be for a baby cow" isn't a primary reason, it's a counter-argument to "cows need to be milked or they die".

The other one, despite your glib summary, is what I'm referring to.

[Towelie]

Which part? The part where you think its bad because its supposed to be for a baby cow? Or because they are "locked up and imprisoned and unhappy"

"supposed to be for a baby cow" isn't a primary reason, it's a counter-argument to "cows need to be milked or they die".

The other one, despite your glib summary, is what I'm referring to.

Yeah, I guess I trolled up the summary

How do you know that the cows aren't happy and content living the way they do on a dairy farm, opposed to living on their own? I know it seems a bit obvious, that they are pretty much imprisoned, but does it really matter to them?

[iago]

Yeah, I guess I trolled up the summary

How do you know that the cows aren't happy and content living the way they do on a dairy farm, opposed to living on their own? I know it seems a bit obvious, that they are pretty much imprisoned, but does it really matter to them?

In my opinion, it matters from a moral standpoint. It's no more right to keep a cow imprisoned her entire life than a human, in my mind.

[Camel]

How do you know that the cows aren't happy and content living the way they do on a dairy farm, opposed to living on their own? I know it seems a bit obvious, that they are pretty much imprisoned, but does it really matter to them?

That vector is pointless to argue. Some slaves were content because they were fed, clothed, and had a place to sleep. That doesn't justify slavery.

[iago]

So, an update (that I'm pretty late posting): the one restaurant that they were extra suspicious of, and the only one that they suspect was actively deceiving customers, went to a lawyer and demanded that they take down the negative review:
http://www.quarrygirl.com/2009/07/15/operation-pancake-green-leaves-vegan-update/

The actual letter from the "lawyer" is here:

    From: Jeff Mann (jeffmannlaw@att.net)
    Date: July 15, 2009 3:58:33 PM PDT
    Cc: marnow6@yahoo.com
    Subject: Green Leaves vegan

    This office represents Green Leaves Vegan In Los Angeles Ca.Your website quarrygirl.com indicates that my clients food registers “overload” for Casein in my clients cheese dishes.and registers high for egg content in both it’s chicken and fish dishes.Your site contines to allege that my client is misleading it’s customers. The facts are that Green Leaves Vegan is vegan and is verified by the Los Angeles Health Dept. Green Leaves has passed all city inspections regarding it’s vegan menu. The information yoou have provided is false, malicious and defamatory. My clients business has suffered as a direct result of you website.You have 10 days to retract your comments about my clients restaurant on your website in a clear and noticable way. My client is even willing to allow you to retest his food. Failure to perform the above will result in legal action against you.Please be guided accordingly. Jeff Mann Attorney at Law. 3660 Wilshire bl. #522 Los Angeles Ca 90010 213-930-1902.

I love the mess of spelling mistakes/grammar mistakes. If that really IS from a lawyer, then wow!

[Towelie]

I don't see how he would be able to pass the bar to become a lawyer

[Camel]

I don't see how he would be able to pass the bar to become a lawyer

Some of the PHDs in my office think "U" is the correct spelling of "you."

[Rule]

I don't see how he would be able to pass the bar to become a lawyer

Some of the PHDs in my office think "U" is the correct spelling of "you."

Basically impossible . 

On another note, I'm not sure what to think about that kind of 'slang'.  On maybe a less conscious level, it can make a person look stupid/illiterate/uneducated/lazy, especially if it is used in a formal setting (e.g. imagine a physician's report referring to you as 'u').  On the other hand, does it really matter as long as the meaning is clear?  'u' is more efficient than 'you', and the meaning is obvious.

So I guess I object to it on obsessive grounds (which is what I usually go with ), and I'm okay with it from a rational perspective.

[Hitmen]

imagine a physician's report referring to you as 'u'

we think u might has cancers, u only have a few months 2 live
gl hf dd

[Blaze]

Good luck on that last one. 

[Sidoh]

you'll get over it

[Armin]

...who will get over what?

[Joe]

Since when is emotion logical? Are you advocating no emotion?

I'm willing to bet Rule has pointy ears.

[rabbit]

...who will get over what?

you'll get over it

[Sidoh]

...who will get over what?

I'm responding to the OP. :p