quote:

---

I recently started dating someone new. I'm a vegan, and he's a meat eater. This isn't the first time I've dated an omnivore; I've always considered myself tolerant of the choices other people make.
For some reason though, I've suddenly become really turned off when it comes to him eating meat. I feel like he smells like it and the sight of him eating it turns me off. What to do? I feel like I can't tell him to stop, but I can't go on like this either. Is this relationship doomed?

Views Eating Greens As Nice

---

When I was vegan, I had no problem being friends with or having relationships with meat eaters, as long as they were respectful of my choices. But then, I had no problem with people joking around with me, and I think I had a higher tolerance for that sort of thing than other vegans I've read about who get really sick, really quickly, of people making jokes or asking questions they consider offensive. It just never bothered me. Maybe because I hadn't been vegan long enough for it to wear thin.

I'd like to go back to being vegan, but it's hard to go back once you've fallen off the wagon. It was a conscious choice for me to start and to stop, but maybe someday I'll do it again. But I consider it a personal decision and while I'm happy to see others reduce their animal consumption, I don't have visceral reactions to those who don't.

I am in a relationship with a meat eater. While I don't get particularly bothered by the meat eating, I do not like the smell of cooked flesh (although I would never say anything to my boyfriend).

It has always been, for me, that people are constantly putting me down for my choice of being a vegetarian and I've even have a meat eater friend who wanted to date me say we would not be compatible because my vegetarianism is too much of an issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Michelle, you are no longer vegan??

---

Hee. I've mentioned it on babble before, but I guess you missed it. I should start a thread!

Anyhow, yeah. I was finding it too difficult to navigate the omnivore-son-vegan-mom thing, and I wanted to be able to eat meals with him and have the same stuff he was having, etc. It wasn't just the extra work of cooking separate stuff, but also kind of the...I don't know. It didn't feel like we were "eating together" if you know what I mean.

I wouldn't care if he was an adult, but as his mom, I want him to feel like he and I are sharing the same meal, etc. Emotional thing, I guess.

quote:

---

Chalk it up to a character flaw on my part, but it'd drive me batty to have to worry about cutting boards and knives, or two different meals at a time.

---

quote:

---

though I do let him keep some chicken in the freezer at my place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:

We usually just have different variations of the same meal. We'll make a stirfry and I'll have mine vegetarian and he'll throw in some beef or chicken after I get my share. Or we'll BBQ ... him having a burger and me having a nature burger or grilled portabello mushrooms to save us from having to make two entirely different meals. Most of the time he's just happy to eat like a vegetarian until we go out for dinner and he'll order the steak.

---

We eat vegetarian meals two or three times a week. But we don't eat out much, there being four of us, and most of the times it's hard enough to squeeze making a real meal in at all, never mind futzing with variations. The line I use when my kids start wanting something different than the choice du jour is: This is not a restaurant and I am not a short order cook!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I could date a vegan. But would a vegan date me?

Michelle, does this mean there's hope for my hopeless crush? If only I'd known you were so, ahem, flexible... ;]

---

I use and love them all (and I'm not vegetarian -- we eat everything also). We use a lot of herbs and spices, vinegars -- including flavoured vinegars which I make myself and which add a lot to the somewhat bland taste of the legumes and grains.

I also have an ethical thing about making choices that aren't necessarily healthy (again, room for much debate here, but we are, as an organism, designed as an omnivore) for ethical reasons. It's good to be true to yourself, but I take that to the physiological level and seek balance. Again, I could have a friendly debate with someone about it, but couldn't live it.

[ 17 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

If the set of moral rules you adhere to includes an axiom about animals having a level of rights that is violated by eating them, then you should be a vegetarian.

If your moral rules don't include such an axiom, then enjoy your steak.

Bioethicist Peter Singer, using a standard utilitarian framework, argues that while "rights" are impossible to determine, "interests" are self-evident. Anything that feels pleasure and pain has interests: while "rights" may or may not exist, it's undeniably in the interests of a sentient being to avoid pain and experience pleasure.

As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another.

In saying this, Singer distinguishes between minor interests and major ones: minor interests are those that are essentially conveniences, while major interests are questions of life-and-death. With animals, we routinely sacrifice their major interests to serve our minor interests. From a utilitarian perspective, that's deeply immoral.

In other words, the moral issues around animal exploitation aren't terribly axiomatic, except in as much as ethics themselves are axiomatic.

[ 17 May 2008: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:

As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another.

---

(Yes, unionist, he thinks sexual acts between humans and animals are fine, as long as the animal does not suffer, although ideally these acts should be mutually pleasurable.)

The problem with using Singer to back up your argument that vegetarianism is more virtuous than omnivorism (I use this term because it is rare to find a truly carnivorous human) is that Singer doesn't actually say you shouldn't eat meat. What he actually says is that animals should not suffer, and if you can be assured that the animals you eat have not been subjected to horrible conditions, it is quite all right to eat them. Then we spiral into that sticky area about how much suffering is involved in butchering a humanely-raised cow (I have half of one in my freezer right now, actually).

I'm also always curious as to what really is in the best interest of the animals raised for food. If we were all vegetarian, they wouldn't be around to have interests at all. I'm not sure this impacts on Singer's reasoning, but it's something that always pops into my head anyway.

Singer is a strict utilitarian. Personally, I find much of his work borderline repugnant and somewhat disconnected from how humans actually tick. Using his work as an appeal to authority doesn't leave much of an impression on me.

We've evolved as opportunistic omnivores. We do best, healthwise, on a varied diet, including some meat, but not in excess. Balance, in other words. I refuse to feel guilty for being the creature I am. Certainly, if you run into a grizzly bear in the woods, he's not going to quibble about the ethics of whether or not you'd make a "moral" lunch.

I also, when faced with arguments a la animal activist Singer groupies (not Singer himself, as I pointed out above), am put in mind of my morally teetotal MIL, who is fine with me enjoying a healthful glass of red wine with my dinner, as long as she can take pot shots in the nicest possible way about "joy juice" and it's evils. I think moralizing at the table, like trans fats and preservatives, should be kept to a minimum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
...he thinks sexual acts between humans and animals are fine, as long as the animal does not suffer...

---

quote:

---

Peter Singer, by the way is a devout atheist.

---

quote:

---

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

---

quote:

---

It is sad that just as Dr. Kevorkian has finally been recognized in a court of law as being a criminal for acting on the basis of similar beliefs in the case of physician assisted suicide, Princeton sees fit to hire a proponent of infanticide to teach ethics to undergraduates.

---

This is vile and no progressive person should have anything to do with someone who would force me (or anyone else) to live against our will in the face of horrible suffering. Fuck pro-lifers!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
The 'disinterested standpoint' from which the interests of all sentient creatures are equal is arbitrary on its own. There are other internally consistent ethical frameworks that don't start there.

---

Actually, I'm not sure of that. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I've read quite a bit about ethics, and, when it comes to the subject of animals, I haven't yet found an ethical framework as consistent and comprehensive as Singer's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Could be, but the person denouncing him has said something just as heinous:

This is vile and no progressive person should have anything to do with someone who would force me (or anyone else) to live against our will in the face of horrible suffering. Fuck pro-lifers!

She sounds like one of those shitheads who would keep people "alive" attached to a machine for 50 years. Just as repugnant, that, as deliberately killing a less-than-perfect child.

---

Yes, there was a companion comment that was equally vile -- I totally agree with you there -- but that does not absolve Singer of his opinion, either. It often seems to me that people cherry-pick Singer's quotes in terms of support for animal rights while ignoring the totality of what he's saying.

I also want to make clear that I support animal rights to the extent that they should not suffer unduly. My life is partly ruled by the menagerie in my household -- 3 cats and two dogs, and I have a lifelong love of animals. I do my level best to source locally and humanely raised animals when I buy meat. The extremes seem to me to go past the point I think is reasonable. I sometimes find myself at odds with other pet owners who will take extreme measures to keep a pet going, for example. I've often thought that the steer in my freezer had a better life being raised on grass on the prairie than the arthritic one-eyed sheltie a friend pumped meds into to stave off the ever-present pain for years longer than she should have.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.

As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.

quote:

---

Down syndrome, once again a genetically based condition, gets the most attention in Singer's recent work. His 1994 book Rethinking Life & Death, whose aim is to articulate "a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not" (p. 112), recapitulates the arguments in favor of selective infanticide outlined above. There he endorses the view that "it is ethical that a child suffering from Down's syndrome...should not survive" (p. 123) because "the quality of life of someone with Down syndrome [is] below the standard at which medical treatment to sustain the life of an infant becomes obligatory" (p. 111; in Singer's terms "treatment to sustain life" doesn't refer merely to surgical intervention but to simple feeding as well). This "quality of life" reasoning is sometimes cast in more colorful terms; in Should the Baby Live? Singer quotes, entirely approvingly, the grandmother of a Down syndrome child: "Had the poor little mongol been allowed to die, as he so easily could, my daughter might have had one or two healthy children in his place" (p. 66). Singer goes on to suggest lethal injection "in the case of a Down syndrome baby with no other defect" (p. 73).

---

The reviewer concludes:

quote:

---

Those of us who believe that people can't be divided into "fit" and "unfit" categories reject Singer's pernicious logic. We resist the re-emergence of eugenicist thinking in a "progressive" guise. We insist that any ethical system which condones such invidious distinctions among people is morally bankrupt and has no place on the left. In the era of The Bell Curve, resurgent sociobiology, and modernized Social Darwinism, we cannot afford to be complacent on this question.

---

Not the case for people with Downs, unless it is only one of many factors.

I'm not actually opposed to all eugenics - prenatal and even pre-conception testing for genetic diseases can be a great boon. And no, I would not condemn a mother for aborting a foetus carrying Downs, Spina Bifida etc.

I wouldn't discriminate against a vegan or vegetarian. Mind you, I also wouldn't be shy about explaining why I'm an omnivor.

Also, I should add that mt belief system certainly does see morality in nature.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Timebandit: I'm not drawing from Singer's sound bites, which are typically conclusions bereft of the arguments supporting them. Singer's Animal Liberation provides those arguments, and they're rather sound.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.

---

What you've written above is an exhibit of cherry-picking. And again, if you've read Animal Liberation, you should also understand that Singer didn't actually say "don't eat meat". So you are, in fact, cherry-picking what suits your own viewpoint and ignoring the rest as "trivial".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.

---

Farmpunk has already mentioned that there is a flaw in the "meat is bad for the environment argument". It's definitely flawed. Feed lots and large industrial meat production is not environmentally sound, however you don't leave room for other sustainable options. You've framed it as an either/or, binary, black vs white sort of thing and it isn't. For example, I buy meat from local producers (less fuel in shipping) who run smaller operations and raise their meat naturally and in humane conditions.

And for all those vegetarians who like their organic produce, what do you suppose organic growers use to fertilize their fields? Cowshit, last I heard, does not grow on trees. Mixed farming is the most sustainable, not strict vegetable or grain farming. If we want to talk about ecological damage, farming the prairies has been far more destructive than letting it go back to grassland and raising cattle on it would be.

Now, as to health, yes, we can survive on limited diets, but optimal health is achieved by a varied diet. All traditional diets, whether they include meat or not, include some form of animal product. I will agree that the standard North American diet is too meat-heavy, but leaving out some meat can cause some people to have health problems. I do know from personal experience that my endurance and general energy levels are much better when I include meat in my diet. And there is a reason that vegan diets are not generally recommended for children. Most meat-related diseases are related to surfeit rather than moderate consumption, not that meat is consumed AT ALL. Just because fruitarians tend to have wretched states of health is no reason to give up fruit altogether -- if we are to apply your reasoning in another direction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.

---

Sure, the logic stands up if you accept the premise. However, I don't think you can equate the financial well-being of a tyrant with the function of the human body. Very different basis. And in choosing your analogies, you're painting with some pretty broad strokes, here, not all of which I think would stand up to closer scrutiny. I disagree with the fact that meat-eating and ethics are somehow mutually exclusive -- as I've written above, we can make choices that minimize cruelty and suffering, choices that most certainly involve ethical reasoning.

But that's just the point of view of a tyrant and sociopath...

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Why?

---

People have been discussing animal rights. This is a pretty basic kind of question in that context. A person with an opinion in this area should be able to provide some kind of coherent answer.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument.

---

Singer would say it is, in fact, as morally justifiable.

Yes, your statement is deliberately provocative -- practically trolling. I suppose your point is that pigs have thoughts and feelings, too. Be that as it may, we're ahead of them on the food chain. Sucks if you're the pig, but there it is. Now if you'll kindly keep your moralizing off my plate...

ETA:

quote:

---

People have been discussing animal rights. This is a pretty basic kind of question in that context. A person with an opinion in this area should be able to provide some kind of coherent answer.

---

I try not to "should" all over myself, and would appreciate it if you'd refrain from "shoulding" all over me, too.

I think my posts above have been pretty coherent. Was there something specific that is beyond your ken?

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
There was the famous story of the food co-op in Toronto (this is a true story, but it might be 30 years ago) that had a cat to kill vermin that ate its organic grains. A hardcore vegetarian faction voted to move out the cat, and of course the organic grains became infested. What to do? Spray them? Set down poison? Bring back the cat?

---

I think I told the story here about how I drowned gophers who were eating my garden. I suppose killing animals to save my vegetables is somewhat ironic, but heck, I didn't eat the gophers.

Mme. Bong and I were married 18 years ago, and about a week or so later we decided to stop eating meat. How's that for compatibility?

We are on the top of the food chain...except, of course, for bacteria...but that's hardly a natural given. We are on top of the food chain these days because our technology and social organization makes us very powerful. In contrast, at one time we weren't powerful, and so therefore we were prey, way down on the food chain.

So what? You can't get an "ought" from an "is". After all, for quite some time the West has been on top of the world's political and economic hierarchy. Does this mean that, ethically, we should be, and that we can console our conscience by saying that while this arrangement "sucks" for Africans, Asians, etc, that's just the way it is? Remember that for many people, this is exactly the logic they use to justify unjust social arrangements.

In other words, we need to ask whether our current power structure in any way justifies itself.

As for my tyranny comment: people who are able to hoard the resources of others' labour are certainly healthier than those who can't. Tyranny and sociopathy--such as the tyranny and sociopathy that has produced the global distribution of wealth--have very direct consequences for the health of those affected by these evils, both as benefactors and victims.

Health is, for this reason, largely socially constructed, and therefore questions of optimal health for a given population (classes, nations, ethnicities, species) are themselves subject to ethical criticism. For the benefactors of the global economic hierarchy, this arrangement certainly produces "optimal" health--but does this mean it's just?

This is directly relevant for meat-eating. We are able to consume so much meat because we have the power to super-exploit other species, without having to worry about being prey ourselves (well, except when it comes to bacteria). Our factory farms are expressions of this super-exploitation, just as sweatshops in the global south are expressions of economic super-exploitation. The fact that we could have a more "just" system of meat-eating...one that gave animals a fighting chance, for instance...is, given the way our society is currently structured, irrelevant: we could also have a more "just" global economic system in which products were produced in non-sweatshop conditions, but as long as we have this particular global economic system we have to seriously consider the ethical ramifications of, for example, our purchases from stores that depend on sweatshop labour.

Of course, animals are incapable of either considering the ethical dimensions of our meat industry or treating us ethically. Humans, however, have the capacity for ethical deliberation, and we typically see that capacity as being the highest expression of our humanity. To exclude animals from our sphere of ethical consideration, and to subject them to super-exploitation simply because of their membership in species incapable of what we consider rational thought, betrays this capacity and thereby debases us.

It also raises a host of ethical problems. If animals are fair game for super-exploitation because they aren't rational, then what of human beings who are incapable of rational thought (like people with profound developmental disorders or senility)? If we decide that rationality isn't the criteria that we use to separate those who are fair game from those who aren't, then what criteria should we use? Membership in a species? This strikes me as being arbitrary, and a slippery slope, because this is an arbitrary contraction of our ethical universe. If membership in a species justifies super-exploitation for tautological reasons ("all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation because all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation"), then why not use the same logic to distinguish among various human communities?

There is also a psychological cost here. The moment we declare that sentience is irrelevant when deciding whether or not a given entity is fair game for super-exploitation, we decide to numb our capacity for empathy. While this numbing is initially directed towards certain groups, it's all too easy for it to spread to other groups. Consider troubled children who torture animals, and the way this affects their later relationships with human beings. Through the super-exploitation of animals our global community is engaged in a massive project of empathic anaesthetization (anesthetization? sp.). This can't have good consequences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:

If we decide that rationality isn't the criteria that we use to separate those who are fair game from those who aren't, then what criteria should we use? Membership in a species? This strikes me as being arbitrary, and a slippery slope, because this is an arbitrary contraction of our ethical universe. If membership in a species justifies super-exploitation for tautological reasons ("all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation because all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation"), then why not use the same logic to distinguish among various human communities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I could date a vegan. But would a vegan date me?

Michelle, does this mean there's hope for my hopeless crush? If only I'd known you were so, ahem, flexible... ;]

---

Golly! (blush!) When are you moving to Toronto!?

(What? You're not moving to Toronto?? It's over!)

Seriously though...I know lots of vegans have a really hard time with other people eating meat and dairy. I guess I never had the real visceral reaction to meat and dairy that others have. I could never train myself to be grossed out at the thought of those things, so it didn't freak me out watching people eat it. I wasn't all, "Oh my god, it's a corpse!" at holiday dinners. I guess maybe if I had been like that, I wouldn't have been able to switch back so easily. It was simply an "ethical consumer" decision on my part.

I say they can, provided a minimal level of maturity and mutual tolerance. I am a meat eater and my spouse was a vegan (when we met, but no longer now). I eat cow and sheep brains, I eat rabbits, I eat beef testicles, I eat fish heads (including brain and eyes). I am not joking. Sorry, it is still morning.. I stop here so I won't further gross people out.

Just wondering how people feel about actual extinction of types of these animals that humans have had a relationship with for eons.
I don't mean it to be an uber provocative question that's suggesting anything one way or another about people's different food choices. I myself was veggie at one time and aimed to be vegan. Changed though for a number of reasons.
I'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons. Or is it okay to simply let them die out of existence because they are no longer necessary. If say we moved to a point where we simply conserved for the sake of their own life itself, like say pets is that viable in a ecological sense?
I'm not saying I have the answers either, ethically speaking. Some of these questions I've been pondering myself.

For instance Micheal brought up this point in reference to Farmpunks comments about organic farming.

quote:

---

Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?

---

I actually seriously considered the possibility of having a chicken flock that could provide the waste for the overall system as well other things like weeding and pest control and not introduce killing into the cycle. I also wanted to be a part of trying to conserve some of the breeds that are facing extinction. That was before I understood the life cycle and nature of the animals themselves in terms of their own birth and death cycles as well as health and welfare. Genetics, in terms of breeding and inbreeding is also important..that plays into the overall health of the animals as well as the potential to keep having babies and existing perpetually. Short term no killing would work, but long term, the sustainability of the animals themselves is another question entirely.

I'm not that knowledgeable about other domesticatic animals but I expect the patterns are similar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

I agree with much of what you're saying and i don't eat meat myself. But this is where you lose people. I think there is a natural inclination to view eating other humans as different than eating other animals. I can understand what you're saying, that humans are conditioned to "other" non-human animals. But this becomes a comparison, eating meat vs cannibalism. Would you say that they are morally equivalent?

---

You know, given the role I try to give to sentience and empathy in my ethical economy, I have a hard time finding a morally relevant difference. This is difficult to say, because of course I've eaten meat and, to my shame, I continue to consume non-meat animal products.

There are, of course, some pragmatic differences between cannibalism and meat-eating that can have serious ethical consequences: the moment we allow human cannibalism (with the caveat that we're NOT talking about survival-based, non-murderous, emergency cannibalism), we ruthlessly reinforce our own social hierarchies, because (if history is any guide) inevitably the people cannibalized would be the powerless, and the people cannibalizing would be the powerful. This would make things worse for us, but also for animals.

quote:

---

'm just interested in pondering the ethics and some of the questions behind the mere existence of these animals in the first place. There's talk about sentience and responsibility. Do we have a responsibility to ensure them living in the first place? Especially considered that there mere existence is because of the relationship that humans have with them for eons.

---

What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahmud:
But, Michelle, you talked about your reaction to yourself eating meat, which is fine. You did not give your view as whether it is possible for a vegan and a meat-eater to sustain a healthy relationship.

---

Sure I did. Right from the first post:

quote:

---

When I was vegan, I had no problem being friends with or having relationships with meat eaters, as long as they were respectful of my choices. But then, I had no problem with people joking around with me, and I think I had a higher tolerance for that sort of thing than other vegans I've read about who get really sick, really quickly, of people making jokes or asking questions they consider offensive. It just never bothered me.

---

I mean, I can't speak for ALL vegans (especially not now!) and ALL meat-eaters, clearly, as we've got a meat-eater in this thread who says she couldn't live with a vegan, and there are vegetarians/vegans who say they couldn't have relationships with meat-eaters. I can only speak for myself. When I was vegan, I didn't have any problem with dating meat-eaters. Now that I'm not, I would have no problem with dating a vegan.

[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
oh Boom Boom, I feel a schism coming on. I love red roast beef and am more of a carnivore than omnivore. And to think, it's theology that separates most Anglicans....

---

A non-meat eater can have all ethics nailed down but where will their food come from? Gathering nuts? I can imagine a non-meat, non-exploitative food system, but that's about as far as I get - imagining.

If we're going to create sustainable food systems that aren't reliant on fossil fuels (or at least less reliant), they must include animals.

Now, that's where I usually start to have trouble with vegans-vegetarians of the opposite sex. For one, not too many of them have ever been on a farm, much less attempted to grow food for themselves or other people. So I get a little pissy and defensive after being told I'm a freakish redneck conservative killer a couple times, even if in jest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

What? Humans are responsible for destroying our animal population, not helping it. As an FN person, we have a responsibility to treat our equals with respect, and animals are our equals. The way you are talking is foreign to me as a human and as a caretaker of the land.

They are in a "mere existence" because of our relationship with them? Seriously, read the list of endangered species, read what pollution, urban sprawl etc is doing to our animal friends, then get back to me on this totally man vs nature theory it seems you have. No offense against you but to me, this line of thinking is repulsive.

---

I think you're misunderstanding what animals I'm speaking about here. I actually agree entirely with what you're saying. I'm talking specifically about domesticated breeds and not the wider animal population of which I totally one hundred percent agree that humans are responsible for destroying and not helping.
Over time in various regions there has been the development of a diverse amount of types of domesticated animals, like chickens that are suited to the various climates and other environmental factors. They all came from the wild at one time, but over time have developed into specific breeds unto themselves because of the relationships between humans and them. That's what I'm speaking about. For instance right now there are numerous types of chickens, all with different attributes, here in Canada there are specific ones that do well in cold climates, or ones that are better foragers. They all at one point came from wild. The same way that pets such as dogs and cats all came from the wilds at one point.
Because of the homogenization and industrialization of the food systems many of these are now threatened. The chickens that you find in a chicken factory have actually been breed on purpose to produce more eggs or more meat and thats it. In many cases they have been breed to the point where the mothers won't even go broody and raise their own young. That instinct isn't necessary in this type of system so it's thrown out. I find this incredibly repulsive because it goes against the very nature of the chicken and would never happen without human manipulation. That is an example of man vs. nature and something I find utterly abhorrent.

Other non-industrial chickens, who actually can and do raise their young and function closer to what a wild chicken does, are actually severely threatened with extinction. This situation is connected with humans and I do actually feel responsibility for this situation because of all the reasons you state.

The same goes for sheeps, cattle, goats, swine and pretty much any other animal that has been a part of subsistence farming all over the globe.
As specific types they do exist because of the relationship between humans and animals that has been occuring since the dawn of agriculture.

I'm actually looking at this question from the perspective of caretaking and looking at it from a position of responsibility because it's a relationship that does exist now and not something that would likely have occured without human contact. This isn't man vs. nature, it's man with, alongside, a part of and trying to figure out how to live with, integrate with etc etc.

I don't consider the animals that live with me as things, but as part of the whole. I'm not above them, nor is it a competition. The same goes with wild animals. My own food system actually takes wild animals into account and they are part of it and not something that I have to fight against.
For instance we have a lot of deer around. In the terms of a garden deer can be problem from my perspective because they eat the food I'm trying to grow. From the deers perspective they are just being deer and there's no way I can get angry at that. We also live on a deer path that goes from one lake to another so they come through all the time.
From a man vs nature mentality an option would be to set up a fence and just block them out of the property. Nope ain't going to do that. So I spent the time to observe the paths that they've chosen and am building around that. A cardinal rule in our household is no blocking animal paths. Along the paths I've planted or just left the plants they already eat. Instead of a fence I've planted a barrier of shrubs and other plants that they like and behind those and between the actual veggie garden, plants that they don't like. So they have their space and I have mine and so far it seems to be working out just fine. Some of the other people around here think I'm friggin nuts because yes I'll admit it publicly I actually talk to them and make the request.
I did the same with rabbits at another place I lived. I purposely left a patch of lawn with all of the plants they like between where they lived and the garden and made a request. No problems for the two years I was there. So what happened when my mom moved in the next year? She mowed it all down and boom, rabbits all over her garden. She was all prepared to start fencing and blocking until I told her and the next year she did what I did previously and there hasn't been a problem since. No fighting is needed.
Again a public admission that for many will cast us as nuts but I don't really care. My husband is actually FN's and he speaks and works with the animals around us all of the time. We had an issue with coyotes coming and bugging our dogs, so he went for a walk, had a conversation and we haven't had a problem since. We see them all of the time on the edges of the marsh but they stay there now. We don't bug them and they don't bug us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.

BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".

---

Oh good. I'm glad that cleared up what I was trying to say when you first posted your comments I was like crap crap, that's not what I mean't it to sound like. That's so not where I'm coming from.

quote:

---

Originally posted my Michelle:

Sure I did. Right from the first post...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Eliza Q, what an amazing post! You are 100 percent correct of course, in your analysis IMO. The steroids we inject into animals, the way our food is genetically modified. All nasty and apparently now we will be eating Genetically modified meat with no warning.

BTW, I talk to my animals all the time, including my turtle Pepper. I know they understand. I guess we are both the "crazy cat ladies".

---

That was an interesting post, I didn't know turtles could be pets, So a couple questions,

1) You have a turtle? cool. What can they do?

2) What song or band was called pepper? .Right now the only pepper I can think of are the bad doctor and the female assistant to Tony Starks in Ironman (played by Gwyneth Paltrow in the new movie).

3) You come off as a "sane turtle woman" to me You should get that as a tshirt.

An estimated summary of stargazer's current life:

Note: The flowers above are "stargazer lillies".

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

I know, I usually name my animals after a song but Pepper is short for Peppermint and this time, no song. Turtles don't actually do a lot but Pepper is allowed out of her home to wander around the couch, at which point she turns into Evil Knievel and starts trying to run toward the edge of the couch. I haven't quite figured out if she is really smart or really silly.

My new kitty's name is Hannah - again no song but a gorgeous name I always associate with strength and kindness.

especially Evil Knievel turtles...

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

What song or band was called pepper?

---

quote:

---

If we're going to create sustainable food systems that aren't reliant on fossil fuels (or at least less reliant), they must include animals.

---

You've got us there. Just the other day I saw cowboys herding their cattle down 11th Street towards the slaughterhouse.

Mind you, coming out the other end of the slaughterhouse is blood and bone - ie, blood and bonemeal fertilizers.

I'm not sure that agriculture can get by without using fossil fuels at this time, and I've said this in other threads. The idea is to only use them when necessary until a legitmate sustitute can be found. Not in fertilizers, in other words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Snapping turtles taste good. Not the most ideal pets, however.

---

They are fun to handle! When you get them upside down and they're going nutty trying to get at your fingers it is a little worrying, but they're such cool animals!

quote:

---

I've never driven my haybine, I usually attempt to drive the tractor instead.

---

Yeah, yeah; if I'd have written "tractor" my point would have been lost.

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I think everyone should listen to the Bookish Agrarian. He's a much more knowlegable and calmer farmer than I.

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

That's half a joke, Bong. I think animals must be part of food production. As for the transportation and processing of food... fuck... I have enough trouble convincing people that what comes out of the ground must be returned, as per the ages old wisdom of BA's statements. Figuring out how to get food from field to plate seems to me more of an urban planning\transportation issue. Maybe a green thumbed Jane Jacobs will come along someday and enlighten us all. I'm hopeful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Yeah, yeah; if I'd have written "tractor" my point would have been lost.

I suppose I could have written "bale wagon," but nobody around here uses them any more, although these guys have made a whole business out of selling them.

---

Just teasing.
We are even more old fashioned here, and a lot hillier for such a high tech devise. We still use thrower racks for a lot of our hay. High snow area, so sometimes getting a round bale to cattle is a lost cause so we still have to have small squares. Besides I have a collection of round bales I thought I let out on a level spot that gravity slowly took over on and dumped in the bush, the creek, that wet hole, and my pride and joy over the side of a steep bank and into the waiting arms of a big, huge maple and resting about 25 feet off the ground.

quote:

---

But to give one last kick at the Qa'Bong - I suppose veggies walk themselves to market? It's quite a hike from Mexico, ain't it?

---

What's your point? You can't seriously claim that livestock production somehow is easier on fossil fuel consumption than grain or other plant production.

One third of the land on the planet is used to feed livestock. Does that make sense to you?"

I won't bother to ask for a link to that 1\3 comment.

In fact, what I attempted to illustrate in this thread - poorly, perhaps - is that in term of plants and animals and agriculture, the two cannot and should not be separated. The intelligent use of domesticated "meat" animals in a sustainable system will certainly reduce fossil fuel useage in ag.

What's your point, by the way? Grain and plants aren't fossil fuel intensive?

quote:

---

We've all been there. It's a cozy dinner party, the wine is flowing, the guests are happy, when suddenly someone lets it drop. "I love meat." Everyone looks nervously to the vegan, who is already arming a retort. It's as if someone has just said, "I condone unilateral war." The typical argument ensues. Needless to say, the party is over.

But if the new school of vegans and carnivores is any indication, these differences may only be skin-deep. While the ancient debate rages on in dining rooms everywhere, four authors -- two vegan, two carnivore -- are calling on consumers to consider what they eat, and why.

Their central message: whether vegan, vegetarian or carnivore, eat thoughtfully. The once-clear battle lines are beginning to blur.

---

quote:

---

The once-clear battle lines are beginning to blur.

---

This writer assumes that there are battle lines.

quote:

---

I don't think there is a "meat-eating community. I wouldn't equate how I eat as having much in common with the average, meat-heavy, prepared food diet of most North Americans even though both are omnivorous. In fact, I find the idea kind of insulting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

So I guess you know how I feel, then.

---

I do. Though my experience has been both as a meat-eater and a veggie. When I was veggie I got annoyed with having to explain and defend it when all I wanted to do was eat my eggs benny sans ham and replaced with a tomato and when I went back to eating some meat ditto with getting flack from veggie people when I ate it with ham. Maybe it's just the company I keep but I didn't find one way particularly more annoying then the other. The disdain from both, on an individual level was pretty much equal in that regard.

I really don't care what or why people eat the way they do when we are all actually eating. Whether a meatie or a veggie it's annoying as heck to sit through a lecture on how horrible and immoral I/we are or be peppered with question after question when sharing a meal. I really think in that case people, all people just need to respect the others choices. If at a restaurant just save the comments when people order, 'zmgod you're eating that? Ick, eww *insert some devaluing comment about particular way of eating here and maybe a moral judgment for good measure*. It's just rude.
If hosting a dinner party just ask about food preferences and go with it because imo that's what's being hospitable is all about...taking care of your guests.

Even without dietary restrictions, when a couple moves in together, there usually is a general set of recipes that tends to take over. This is usually up to the primary cook, but their need to be agreement. At home, Mom always said Dad was really easy in this regard for day-to-day meals (although our holiday meals the foods tend to be taken from my Dad’s mom’s playbook). Women at work talk a great deal about the foods that there family won’t eat and one always assumes it’s the children who won’t eat the greens but mostly it’s the husbands!