|
posted by dennisn on June 25th, 2008 at 5:38PM
You're not part of the norm if you don't consciously support those things. (Assuming the norm accepts inhumane slaughterhouses and oppressive states.)
|
Noposted by Vina on June 25th, 2008 at 5:50PM
We, the norm, consume meat because it is a dietary requirement to keep us balanced. We need protein and VitB12. Though, "most" people don't care about what nutrients meat provides, but they can feel the lack of energy w/out it. Some alternatives are just not enough to compensate. No one talks about slaughterhouses when they eat meat. It's about dietary intake.
|
posted by dennisn on June 30th, 2008 at 10:44AM
|
|
posted by Nylorac on June 25th, 2008 at 11:26PM
>>No one talks about slaughterhouses when they eat meat. It's about dietary intake.
Christian church-goers don't speak of the brutality within its history, but they still like to enjoy the mass and only speak of the times referred to in the Bible.
Little children go to and enjoy attending public school and make friends, but are unaware of how Jean-Jacques Rousseau's /Emile/ both influenced (1) today's educational system's model, and (2) how the same piece of work was misogynistic and can be argued to have found no fault with murder (in special cases, but still, his Social Contract almost explicitly encouraged mob mentality, if not explicitly... but that's for another day).
The outcome (i.e. good dietary intake, or happy church-goer life, or educated child) doesn't excuse the ignorance (i.e. the slaughterhouses, or stupid fuckers). Should the outcome be positive in spite of ignorance, this is only happenstance. It is unfortunate. "Happenstance" is "following the crowd", "going with the grain"... basically doing whatever everyone else is doing simply because everyone else is doing it. It's zombie-ish.
|
posted by Driusan on June 26th, 2008 at 8:58AM
Way to define a word in a word that's completely orthogonal to all other usages of said word http://www.google.com/search?q=meatist currently in existence , Carolyn. Can always count on your attempts to define things to prove that definitions are meaningless. | | |
you by pasofol on June 26th, 2008 at 11:16AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
posted by Driusan on June 25th, 2008 at 10:45PM
I have never once seen a militant meatist who thinks about their dietary content or requirements for any reason other than an excuse for why they "need" to have meat, or because they want to make fun of vegetarians, or because a doctor warned them about health problems caused by too much cholesterol/salt/saturated fat/whatever.
Green leaves coupled with nuts/legumes have roughly the same protein as meat. If you find your diet is exhausting you, you should probably check your vitamin intake before your protein.
|
|
posted by dennisn on June 25th, 2008 at 6:13PM
"Some alternatives" indeed may not be enough to compensate. *Many others* do compensate just fine :). Obviously I do not suggest anyone use those defficient alternatives -- but rather the sufficient ones. Vegans are no different than anyone else in their need and consumption of protein and B12 -- they just do it more ethically.
But, the fact that "no one talks about [the] slaughterhouses when they eat meat" completely ignores the facts of their unethicalnesses -- ranging from devastating environmental damage (massive fecal waste ponds, methane emissions, water consumption) to animal cruelty (a pig chained to a cage, unable to walk during it's entire life, malnurished, with atrophied legs). Meat does not scale well with growing global population. (Not to mention the cruelty of it.) Who, if not you the consumer, is responsible for these problems?
|
posted by Nylorac on June 25th, 2008 at 11:02PM
|
|
|
|
