EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 577
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On January 25 2017 19:27 opisska wrote: For me, this idea of manufacturing meat artificially is utterly absurd and possibly detrimental. I don't get the obsession with meat at all and I don't like it in particular (with the exception of fish, to be fair). The main reason I eat (non-fish) meat is laziness - the offer of food with meat is just so much bigger around me than the offer of non-meat products. I would be much happier if instead of investing resources into making fake meat, we would rather invest into making good non-meat food more widely available - or at least focus into making artificial fish meat. But no, I am pretty sure that the first thing people grow like this is some disgusting steaks, right? Meat eaters think meat tastes great. That's all the reason anyone should need. If you fall into these buckets for not eating meat 1. You don't actually like the taste of meat 2. You want to reduce / dislike the environmental impact of meat production 3. You think the mainstream handling of animals for foods is unethical 4. You don't believe animals should be used for foods Then you can still like meats in 2 and 3, but disagree with the ethics and thus still want to eat artificial meats which have the taste and flavour but less impact. If you frame those non-meat eaters as belonging to 1 to 4 of those buckets you can understand their motivations a lot better. For example vegans usually at least believe in 4. The whole vegan movement has been nice for getting more vegetarian menu options in stores, as well as making vegetarian / vegan stores more available. But generally the mainstream processes for harvesting meats has become so efficient that it's cheaper to serve meats, if you're a restaurant more worried about your bottom line and profits, instead of say, restaurant quality or environmental impact. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 26 2017 01:42 Acrofales wrote: Well, it's clearly not that. Most vegans I know are okay with: 1. Riding horses 2. Exterminating rats (and other pests) 3. Driving cars (murdering hundreds of innocent insects on the windshield) So clearly animals don't have the same rights as humans, because they would not be okay with replacing "human" in any of the situations above. I've known vegans who got angry at vegetarians for not being committed enough to the plights of animals. But I also know people who don't realize pescaterian is not the same or even similar to vegetarian. But I also know strict omnivores who are essentially 90% vegetarian just because they never buy meat. I understand that the breadth of what we call one thing or another is wide. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 26 2017 02:02 Yoav wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty much vegan not because I'm a good person, but because I'm poor and trying to be healthy and it's kinda the best way to do both. Like, I'll have meat if there's meat to be had, but I'm in a field where being poor is the expectation, so it's only on occasions where meat is provided. Vegan as in no animal products? (No dairy, no Guinness, no Honey, no red food coloring, no Refried Beans, no jello, etc...) Or Vegan as in no meat? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
I still eat way more meat than i should, but well, its just the tastiest stuff there is. I'm not that big of a fish/fruit de mer guy tho, but thats probably because switzerland has no sea/ocean and therefore i'm not used to it. But i'm a total omnivore... southkorea, china, vietnam... just point at a picture, order and eat, i couldn't care less as long as it is tasty. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 26 2017 02:22 Velr wrote: I love meat, i totally do. I eat it daily... But, if i'm shopping to cook for myself? I buy barely any, shit in good quality is just expensive. I could totally afford it but... ... the price signs just scream "seriously!" at me. I still eat way more meat than i should, but well, its just the tastiest stuff there is. I'm not that big of a fish/fruit de mer guy tho, but thats probably because switzerland has no sea/ocean and therefore i'm not used to it. But i'm a total omnivore... southkorea, china, vietnam... just point at a picture, order and eat, i couldn't care less as long as it is tasty. I've killed the animals that I've eaten before--definitely something I believe all meat eaters should do at least once in their lives. I think the 1st world would get a lot more resource conscience if they required their citizens to kill and eat an animal at a young age. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On January 26 2017 02:18 Thieving Magpie wrote: Vegan as in no animal products? (No dairy, no Guinness, no Honey, no red food coloring, no Refried Beans, no jello, etc...) Or Vegan as in no meat? Vegan means no animal products. Vegetarian means no animal parts in food. At least that is how those are usually defined afaik. That means that most vegetarians are stricter than "no meat", but they still consume dairy and honey and stuff like that. Of course, there are a lot of people that eat a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that is how i see these words being used. I also think it's a personal thing, so i am both really annoyed by the people who try to convert others to vegetarianism, and those who constantly seem utterly befuddled by this idea and ask me "So you don't eat ANY meat? Why???". I have absolutely no interest in explaining my decision to them, and in the same way that i don't want Yehovas witnesses at my door, i also don't want militant vegans telling me what i should eat. I don't tell people what to eat, so they should just shut up and not try to tell me what to eat. I also don't think that "being a vegetarian" is my defining or most important characteristic. Talk to me about interesting stuff. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 26 2017 03:47 Simberto wrote: Vegan means no animal products. Vegetarian means no animal parts in food. At least that is how those are usually defined afaik. That means that most vegetarians are stricter than "no meat", but they still consume dairy and honey and stuff like that. Of course, there are a lot of people that eat a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that is how i see these words being used. I also think it's a personal thing, so i am both really annoyed by the people who try to convert others to vegetarianism, and those who constantly seem utterly befuddled by this idea and ask me "So you don't eat ANY meat? Why???". I have absolutely no interest in explaining my decision to them, and in the same way that i don't want Yehovas witnesses at my door, i also don't want militant vegans telling me what i should eat. I don't tell people what to eat, so they should just shut up and not try to tell me what to eat. I also don't think that "being a vegetarian" is my defining or most important characteristic. Talk to me about interesting stuff. The reason to my question is because he states that its cheaper for him to be vegan than not--and I usually find its the opposite. Animal products get into everything and lots of sauces, colorings, etc... actually have animal products in them. Usually its being vegetarian that is the cheaper road--but I wanted to clarify. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On January 26 2017 04:09 Fecalfeast wrote: If someone who is a close friend told you they enjoy looking at drawn/anime pictures of young girls in sexual situations (I know there is a word for it but it eludes me) would you be comfortable having that person watch your young child for an evening? Probably. But presumably you know more about that person and his/her like of hentai? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On January 26 2017 04:09 Fecalfeast wrote: If someone who is a close friend told you they enjoy looking at drawn/anime pictures of young girls in sexual situations (I know there is a word for it but it eludes me) would you be comfortable having that person watch your young child for an evening? Yes, because I trust my friends to have the tiniest bit of restraint and to know the difference between jacking off at the drawing of a 1000 year old fairy who looks like a minor and molesting my child. If you don't trust your close friends you should stop considering them your close friends. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 26 2017 04:09 Fecalfeast wrote: If someone who is a close friend told you they enjoy looking at drawn/anime pictures of young girls in sexual situations (I know there is a word for it but it eludes me) would you be comfortable having that person watch your young child for an evening? I would not be. That is a major red flag for me, even though clearly there's a lot of people who do that who are not pedophiles. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On January 26 2017 04:09 Fecalfeast wrote: If someone who is a close friend told you they enjoy looking at drawn/anime pictures of young girls in sexual situations (I know there is a word for it but it eludes me) would you be comfortable having that person watch your young child for an evening? If I had to ask that question on a forum I think I would have to accept that I passed some point of comfort about the situation. In general though, I would think your friend's other qualities would be just as important. | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
On January 26 2017 07:19 JimmiC wrote: 100% no if you had any hint of anything why would you have them watch your kids. If anything did happen you would feel like the worst person in the world. It's like how I think the parents of the kids that they took to MJ ranch should be arrested. Even if he didn't do it why risk your kids mental health to brush shoulders with a famous person. Because you need a babysitter? Do you never do things outside of your house that's interesting to you, but you kinda need someone to look after your kids because they can't look after themselves? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
On January 26 2017 09:15 JimmiC wrote: Yes I do, people where I know the family and have hint they might be into kids, if I had the hint. Like they beat off to child cartoons, I wouldn't leave my child with them no matter how nice they were. Sure, I can understand that, but you don't know what familiar people are hiding from you. The most normal seeming people can be the most deranged ones.. I'm not saying not to trust anyone, but there's a world of difference between child cartoon porn (it's porn) and actually being a pedophile. Is there a cross-section of people between these two sets? Very probably, but does that make someone's porn preferences therefor automatically make them dangerous or shieldworthy of children? I don't think so. Why wouldn't it matter how nice they were? Seriously? Would you leave your child with the best caretaker in the world, someone that teaches your child and does all the good things for his development (in the short timespan he gets to spend time with him) even though he murders the most deranged psychopaths in his spare time? Edit; maybe I do need to become a parent myself, though, before I can accurately answer this question haha. | ||
| ||
