Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Healthy Food Defines You
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:48 pm 
Offline
Gorilla

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 577
Location: Santa Cruz, CA USA
Time for a group hug. :oops:

_________________
Matt Norwood
I'm was there, now I'm here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:55 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
blue

Shelby wrote:
.... then I feel like I have accomplished a goal.

And what goal is that? It could be that you planted a seed that will hopefully one day result in a complete rejection of all animal products (and hopefully that will be the case), but equally possible (indeed, even more probable) is that you have fostered in this person moral complacency - no need to go vegan if you are morally satisfied with so called (but often a "joke") "free range." Welfare approaches may appear to take us farther than an animal rights approach in the short run because welfare is always an easier sell, but it is a dead end street that will only take us so far. And indeed, it hasnt taken us very far at all to date. No real victory has come for animals by the welfarist approach of the last few decades. And that is why Lee Hall argues that the animals will be better served if we put our energy where our vision is. I am not sure i completely agree with Hall, but I certainly see the strength and merit of that position.

Also, are you still denying the notion that when you encourage people to go free range, you may be fostering complacency, which can be counterproductive to the ultimate vegan goal? Or is it that you acknowledge this possibility, but argue that this is a chance/risk that we unfortunately need to take. The latter is a much more reasonable and "realistic" (since you like that word) position because at least you understand the drawbacks of your approach. For the record, I am not entirely opposed to welfare campaigns. I have been involved in many a welfare campaigns against KFC and the like. Even Sea Shepherd's seal hunt campaign - which I am very actively involved in - has a "boycott Red Lobster until they stop buying Canadian fish" angle to it, which is welfarist. However, I am not naive enough to fail to realize and appreciate that welfarist approaches to animal rights have significant drawbacks, and that 50 years of welfarist animal rights approaches have yielded no real victories (unless you call the one square inch more cage space "won" for McDonald's egg laying hens a "victory").


With small changes come bigger changes. Sure, it takes more time, but the end result is usually long-lasting. I'd rather have the person make the conscious effort to change on their OWN behalf, instead of because of me nearly forcing the idea into their head. Oftentimes, the results don't last is that method is used. However, it's all individual.

:? :? AGAIN, why you keep saying "forcing the idea" is beyond me. nobody said anything about forcing. One can advocate for veganism just as gently, compassionately and effectively as one can advocate free range. :?


As for the CF/FR/organic farms, sure.... some aren't what they preach.... but a lot of them are. And I would rather have someone support those than support factory farms.

Misses the point. Of course animals suffer less on REAL free range farms than on factory farms (putting aside the minor detail that male chickens still endure suffering by either being sold to mink farmers to be eaten by minks, or other horribly cruel treatment - which is not removed from the equation just because it is free range). The question though is how are your efforts and energies better spent, how can we work most efficiently and effectively towards the ultimate goal of veganism. So there is no point in repeatedly telling me that you would rather see people support FREE free range than factory farms. If those were the only two choices, then so would I. But it is NOT the only two choices - there is a third, and the question is how can we most efficiently and effectively get there. And to that question, contrary to what you seem to have implied throughout this thread, there is no easy and obvious answer my dear. But there are some facts to consider, and one important one is that the empirical record on welfarist approaches to animal rights is far from impressive. In fact, not only is it unimpressive, it is embarassing.


Now we are just starting to go in circles and I have exams to study for so I am tabling this discussion (or rather my part in it) for now.

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:06 am 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
SAW wrote:
[ I believe you need at least six hens per rooster to keep them happy.


:shock: I never knew Roosters were such players. Men!!!

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Shelby is right
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:00 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:23 pm
Posts: 1484
Location: Illinois
cjelement wrote:
I am biased since they are the best protein source I can find other than soy and that gets boring. Find a farm that has free rangers that run around happy all day. It's not that bad.
[/img]


Try hemp, which may even be superior to eggs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:42 am 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:25 pm
Posts: 190
I am done with this... this is going nowhere! I've stated my opinion. No sense in going around and around about all this. Sometimes, a vegan has to be flexible, not only in their approach, but also in their acceptance of how other people choose to live. Sure, it's not how we would like everyone to live, but we ultimately cannot change other people's views and values. All we can do is educate and show by positive/compassionate example. THAT is the most effective method.

Happy Easter! And if you decide to dye eggs, I hope you chose CF/FR/organic eggs! ;)

_________________
"May I always be the type of person my dog thinks I am"

"Don't Hassel the Hoff!"

"Don't Mess with the 'S'!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:05 pm
Posts: 21019
Location: Austin, TX
Happy Holidays Shelby :P

I missed most of this entire thread. I try to stay away from the "hot" topics. It is just my personality and the way I do things, so I haven't followed all of it.

It's ok to disagree with others, whatever the topic is, so nobody should feel bad about that. That is what discussions are for. We state our opinions, read other opinions, and then chat about why we feel that way and maybe it influences someone, maybe not.

Anyway, I haven't kept up enough to see if it is "going nowhere". I'm sure there is great info in there, but I know some threads can lead to a standstill.

No worries at all. I think honey is the next topic after eggs and before eggs it was religion, and before that I'm sure it was something else. I think "hot" topics can be really good because they are usually about pretty important issues. I just tend to be shy around those times.

I guess I'm just kinda rambling now, but it's my last day at work so I guess I'm allowed to be a little loopy as I type :)

Have a great day everyone and thank you all for your opinions and information. It's all great stuff and I'm sure all of it is helpful to some people.

_________________

Check out my Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness Book on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Vegan-Bodybuildin ... 497&sr=1-1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:21 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
see blue

Shelby wrote:
I am done with this... this is going nowhere! I've stated my opinion. No sense in going around and around about all this. Sometimes, a vegan has to be flexible, not only in their approach, but also in their acceptance of how other people choose to live.


how people "choose" to live? Again, this an an omni argument, so why regurgitate it and dignify it? And since you are giving me on omni argument, I will give you a response that we would give omnis. Freedom of choice has its limits. IN Canada, as in most other countries, you dont have the freedom of choice to kill your children or to set your puppy on fire. The law limits your freedom of choice in these cases, because the law says that these actions are reprehensible. Back in the day, the law sanctioned slavery. Your freedom of choice included your right to have slaves, but later that changed, thanks to opinionated people that "imposed" their views that slavery was immoral on others. Just like it is morally unacceptable to drown your puppy in scalding water, it is equally unacceptable to drown your free range hen in scalding water when she is shipped off to slaughter because she cant lay enough free range eggs anymore. The difference is that the law sanctions the latter, but the law is hardly THE source of moral truths. So my point is that while people should have freedom of choice, they dont have the moral choice or right to torture and kill other beings for the mere sake of gustatory pleasure.

Sure, it's not how we would like everyone to live, but we ultimately cannot change other people's views and values.

Yes, we can, and vegan activists and vegan outreach have been doing it for years. PETA's "meet your meat" has changed countless people's hearts and minds, and "Meet your meat" is a rights campaign/approach, not a welfare approach. The message of that video, even though it focuses on factory farming, is "go veg" not "go free range". I would venture to guess that not as many people have gone vegan as a result of PETA's welfarist "boycott KFC" campaign than they have as a result of viewing Meet your meat.

All we can do is educate and show by positive/compassionate example. THAT is the most effective method.

Again, this statement hardly proves that we should encourage free range. You are right, we need to educate people by positive example, but that doesnt equal free range. And I would be a little more careful with that tunnel vision.
Happy Easter! And if you decide to dye eggs, I hope you chose CF/FR/organic eggs! ;)
'

None of the above makes the case for free range. Educate by compassionate example, as you put it, on why free range isnt enough and why they should go vegan.

No offence Shelbs, you know I'm a fan of yours (and Simon's), and this is going to sound harsh but you also know that I am not one to mince words. That you even claim to know what "the most effective method is" is arrogant and mind-bogglingly naive, and it really shows how inexperienced you are in activism. Even the most seasoned activists of 20 years would be reluctant to claim to have figured out what THE most effective approach is, or that there is only ONE correct approach that is universally applicable.

Happy Easter! And to those that decide to buy organic eggs and think that by dooing so they have withdrawn their support for cruelty, keep in mind that the "free range" hen who laid them will probably be drowned in scalding water (or worse if she ends up in a Tyson plant) once her productivity/profitability declines - nice RETIREMENT PACKAGE, aint it? :!: :!: :!: So much for compassionate eggs. :roll: :roll: :roll: Go vegan.

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Last edited by compassionategirl on Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:25 pm 
Offline
Rabbit

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:33 pm
Posts: 39
I can see the points of both sides and approaches. On one hand promoting free range and family farms is kind of giving up. Like I will participate in an effort with others to pressure Trader Joes to stop carrying factory farmed eggs and only carry "free range" eggs, because I don't think it would be possible at current mindsets to convince them to carry no eggs. However I will never be happy with it until they and everyone else carry no animal products.

Some people just have the belief that the world will never go all vegan, so by not supporting the small organic farmers, is to support the factory farmers. Since without support they would go out of business or be so small in numbers that the factory farmers take over everything. If it is a losing battle then I would rather have small farms over factory farms. However I don't even think that it would be possible to meet the demand with small farm methods. It would be like stopping the import of goods and cheap labor from China and elsewhere, but still being able to stock the shelves at Walmart to meet the demand for cheap affordable products. It wouldn't be economically possible. It's the demand that has to cease. The Out-of-sight out-of-mind thinking has to stop.

I do feel that with big markets and promotions of "organic" meat like at WholeFoods that often it just makes it an excuse for people not to give up animal foods, because they can instead justify that it must be "humane".
I would rather people buy that instead, but it does make them complacent and gives them an excuse and justification not the stop all together. I don't support animal farming at all for that reason. I read about this woman who spent all her riches on starting this big natural organic farm with rare endangered species of animals etc. and how she was doing such a great and humane thing by breeding these animals and taking such great care of them. And really they seemed to be well taken care of and were pampered and all.. But I still didn't get it. I was still disgusted that she could take that great care of them and supposedly think so highly of them, and then just kill them and eat them. It's like killing your own pets. Yes you treated them nice, gave them toys and they bonded with you, then you kill and eat them? I can understand in situations of survival and that's it. But all it is is pure gluttony in our society. No need, not even for organic or pampered until slaughtered meat. It's just unnecessary. Unfortunately in our consumer and desire driven society it is not registered with people as any different then any other consumer indulgence or product, like new shoes, ice cream, wine, a new car, a good steak, fresh strawberries, a flatscreen tv, etc. It's all one and the same to everyone, just one big supermarket of available products with the only thought being what benefits and pleasures can it bring them and for what price for them personally to get it. Emu oil for $4, 90 cent burger, such a deal! How do we even change the mindset to even consider these things and have more consciousness as a whole of what the true cost of all these consumer products are and what people are supporting and where they came from? How do we get people to start thinking holistically and at the big picture beyond the current mindless, self-centered consumer thought pattern that's nurtured by all the manufactures and ad agencies?

It totally reminds me of this article on recycling. Same points.

"This relationship proclaims that "it's fine to consume because you are recycling, and while you are here why not buy some more?"

What the revival of recycling has really done, like the myth of "ethical consumerism", is to give the impression that the environmental crisis presented by global capitalism can be indefinitely delayed if only we all do our bit.

It places the blame for environmental problems not on those who make the profits, but on a faceless mass of "consumers".

It prevents us asking the important question of capitalism: how much longer can this go on, and if it is to end then how?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4877504.stm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:30 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
nik wrote:
I can see the points of both sides and approaches.

Exactly. Both sides have merit, but both sides also have significant pitfalls. It is a shame that some vegans refuse to see the intricacy of the rights/welfare debate, and actually believe that there is an easy, obvious and correct answer one way or the other.

And Nik, you mention another noteworthy point I neglected to address: free range is NOT environmentally sustainable as Lee Hall explains in her "Free range" article. I strongly suggest that animal advocates reluctantly in favour of free range read it. I posted the link above. But here is a summary of what Hall and others have argued on the topic of "free range". These arguments are too compelling to be ignored or dismissed by free range advocates, and here they are:
________________________________________________________

The philosophy of the organic movement is considerably more enlightened than the ‘more of the status quo’ mentality. This philosophy has two main tenets: conquer our dependence upon non-renewable resources and chemicals which harm eco-systems, and minimize waste and inefficiency and return all organic waste to the soil to enhance fertility. Accordingly, organic agriculture has advantages over its commercial counterparts, including reduced soil erosion, greatly ameliorated soil health, far less contribution to global warming, and dramatically reduced water pollution. There are, as Robbins highlights, nutritional advantages too, for the amount of nutrients in organic foods compared to their comnmercial/industrial counterparts are much higher. Moreover, organic agriculture generally attaches much more significance to animal welfare than does its commercial, industrial counterpart, albeit it still views livestock as essential to the organic cycle. The primary strength of the organic movement, in my view, is its recognition that the status quo is ecologically unsound and ethically unacceptable. Flawed, however, are its implications that our food production must continue to depend on the slaughter of animals and that this is in some way natural and necessary.

Moreover, so-called ‘free range’ animal produce assumes at least two things: first, that animal produce is healthy, and second, that ‘free range’ really means free-range. Even if animal produce could make us healthy (and in view of the mounting evidence to the contrary, this is not a particularly convincing proposition), animals fed an all-organic diet would make for an end product that is too expensive for most people.

Furthermore, if corporations were to take free-range seriously by not just removing cages but purchasing access to pasture, then it is a matter of locating those communities “able to pay for the bodies of animals who, when living, took up the most space. That flunks the straight – face test. From both an animal rights and an environmental perspective, space for animal agribusiness doesn’t need to be expanded; it needs to be phased out…There is nothing sustainable, let alone kind, about animal agribusiness.”

Michael W. Fox agrees, noting that free-range animal agriculture is incompatible with anything like today’s level of meat gluttony on the part of the affluent. The grasslands and marginal lands of the world are insufficient to maintain the many millions of sheep, cattle and other ruminants needed to supply animal produce to everyone who has a penchant for it.

Even if free-range meat was within the financial means of most of those who insist on eating animals, a move from factory farms to pastures will require the annexation of land presently occupied by free-living animals. In other words, the purchasing of such pasture would shove free living animals of the world – those living on nature’s terms, those who might have a chance to keep their territory and thus their freedom as Lee Hall describes - to the margins of the land. According to Dennis Avery, if the United States raised its chickens today on free range, it would mean taking from wildlife a land area the size of the state of New Jersey. If hundreds of millions of pigs were raised on free range, it would mean not only millions of square miles of wildlands converted to pasture, but also massive soil erosion as the pigs rooted and wallowed. There seems to be little point, then, in ending factory farming if there is no more habitat for free-living animals. In short, free-range is sophistry: Domestic animals are bred to be slaves, so they are never really free, and animals with the capacity to live life on their own terms would increasingly be pushed to the brink of extinction and beyond. It is also likely that we would see an increase in predator ‘control’ programs for managing free-living animals whose very presence is considered an ‘overabundance.”

In short, while it is correct to phase out factory farming as rapidly as possible, replacing the factory farming model with free range is environmentally and ethically problematic. As Hall forcefully argues,

"[W]e just cannot afford to waste any more time attempting to reform animal farms…Designing campaigns around more space for animals destined to wind up on plates at trendy restaurants and pricey grocers is environmental malpractice. Joining their energies and educating relentlessly, the environmentalist and the animal advocate could effectively shield what little pristine environment is left in the world, and what freedom is still possible for animals who call it home. Thinking and working together, they could replace the fantasy of sustainable and humane animal farming with a plain-speaking movement that gets to the point: We just don’t need to buy what animal agribusiness is selling."

This undeniably requires a paradigm shift, one that dislodges the notion that meat is an ethically and environmentally acceptable and necessary diet staple. However, as Albert Einstein once perceptively surmised, the significant problems of the world cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness at which they were created.
________________________________________________________

This is starting to slightly off topic now so i am starting a new thread called "On the matter of "free range" in the same category. The above is copied and pasted into that thread.

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:16 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

Furthermore, by encouraging/condoning (whatever you want to call it) somebody who is already highly unreceptive to veganism to "at least eat free range then", you are NOT "weaning them off" animal produce, so dont kid yourself. What you probably are doing though is cementing their "unveganness" even further by lulling their consciences into a false sense of "this is ethical, benign, etc".



If someone I know decides to give up just red meat, or to start eating organic eggs instead of regular eggs, then I'm going to encourage them. It doesn't matter to me if that cements unveganess or not, because I don't really care about living up to vegan ethics. I just do what I think is right



Huh? Will, I didnt expect you of all people to misunderstand me. Do you think that I am concerned with "living up to vegan ethics," or do you think that my position stems more from my desire to end animal commodification. telling people to eat free range can be counterproductive to the latter goal.


I understand where you're coming from. You're basically expressing the viewpoint of Gary Francione and Lee Hall. I just think they spend more time criticizing animal welfarists than factory farmers. And I think the world has changed a lot in the past 10 to 20 years in terms of vegetarian food products going much more mainstream, and I think encouraging people to eat free range, organic, etc over factory farmed is a good thing.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:04 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

Furthermore, by encouraging/condoning (whatever you want to call it) somebody who is already highly unreceptive to veganism to "at least eat free range then", you are NOT "weaning them off" animal produce, so dont kid yourself. What you probably are doing though is cementing their "unveganness" even further by lulling their consciences into a false sense of "this is ethical, benign, etc".



If someone I know decides to give up just red meat, or to start eating organic eggs instead of regular eggs, then I'm going to encourage them. It doesn't matter to me if that cements unveganess or not, because I don't really care about living up to vegan ethics. I just do what I think is right



Huh? Will, I didnt expect you of all people to misunderstand me. Do you think that I am concerned with "living up to vegan ethics," or do you think that my position stems more from my desire to end animal commodification. telling people to eat free range can be counterproductive to the latter goal.


I understand where you're coming from. You're basically expressing the viewpoint of Gary Francione and Lee Hall. I just think they spend more time criticizing animal welfarists than factory farmers. And I think the world has changed a lot in the past 10 to 20 years in terms of vegetarian food products going much more mainstream,

Agreed Will. And that is why I stated that I was expressing Hall's and Francione's views, but I didnt entirely agree with those views - but did see some merit in them. :D

and I think encouraging people to eat free range, organic, etc over factory farmed is a good thing.

I am not sure it is a good thing, or that it is a bad thing. I think it is hard to say, and I think that the environmental repercussions of free range, and especially for wild animals as described above, at the very least warrant concern and caution. I think the argument that "There seems to be little point in ending factory farming if..." in the article by Hall is one that should be seriously considered :D

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS } Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group