Current Events > No vegans, I'm not going to eat dogs

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gladius_ posted...

Err.. It's a strawman not because he's wrong but because he assumes I don't acknowledge it as a problem which I noted it is but it isn't the only problem. He misrepresented my point and argument.

No one wants to destroy the environment. Okay no sane person does.

sure but lots of sane people tolerate destroying the environment because their lifestyle is dependent on a system that does so

that was his point as I understood it, he was just being glib

---

People have excused doing utterly reprehensible things to other humans under the excuse of "that's how we've always done it". It isn't a good one to use for anything, human, animal or otherwise.
---

Gladius_ posted...

Again, I don't care about the morality either.

A lot of vegans are vegan for moral reasons. By ignoring the point, you are arguing completely different things.

Gladius_ posted...

Dogs still provide significant companion based roles beyond "feeding." that are useful in day to day life.

Pigs have many uses outside of being a food source.

Gladius_ posted...

It's not so much that the studies are up in the air it's also dependent on individuals. Some people can't take vitamins or the same amount of vitamins as someone else. Some people's stomach or body, for whatever reason, rejects vitamin supplements. So not everyone can 100% remove meat from their diet while getting the right amount of vitamins or nutrients. This is why every article that talks about removing meat from your diet, in their vitamin/nutrient supplement section, tell you to speak with your doctor.

This is a moot point. No one claimed everyone should completely remove meat from their diet. There are dietary restrictions of every kind for medical purposes. Some people can't eat meat for health reasons. Every article suggesting significant changes to your diet always put in the disclaimer you need to consult a health official.

---

Sackgurl posted...

morally, there is: when you eat dog meat, there's a much higher chance that it was a stolen pet than when you eat pig meat. the industrial meat farming process is cruel, but we largely tolerate it. i think most folks understand that stealing someone's pet and eating it is fucking wrong, though.

*eyeroll*

Sorry I forgot to put the disclaimer "all things being equal". There are plenty of places worldwide in which dog meat is raised just as ethically as pig meat in the US. Pretty sure people knew what I was talking about and I'm not advocating for stealing pets.

---

The_Yahtz09 posted...

*eyeroll*

Sorry I forgot to put the disclaimer "all things being equal". There are plenty of places worldwide in which dog meat is raised just as ethically as pig meat in the US. Pretty sure people knew what I was talking about and I'm not advocating for stealing pets.

and i was saying that the fraction of dogs raised for consumption in those places, divided by total dogs consumed, is quite a bit less than the fraction of pigs raised for consumption divided by total pigs consumed

all things aren't equal and moral speculation is worthless pontification if you apply it in a vacuum

---

Gladius_ posted...

The argument isn't just "That's how we've always done it" but I'm not repeating the answer when it's been typed out over and over again.

That is what it is though in the end. Fluffing it up and pretending otherwise doesn't change the argument you are actually ultimately making.

Many places eat dogs and cats, that are capable and do eat other farm animals. They are all equally capable of affection and intelligence, so placing one on some arbitrary pedestal, when many societies have used dogs in your "historical context" and also eaten them doesn't really make sense ultimately.
---

Funkydog posted...

Many places eat dogs and cats, that are capable and do eat other farm animals. They are all equally capable of affection and intelligence, so placing one on some arbitrary pedestal, when many societies have used dogs in your "historical context" and also eaten them doesn't really make sense ultimately.

i get the message you have here: the arguments against eating the animals we hold sacred can be applied to those we don't

my response is quite simply: not as effectively.

---

Vegan stuff is too expensive. Youre never gonna convince people to trim their diet and pay more for it. If Im losing something out of my diet then I expect to pay less not more.

I also think theres a psychological factor. All these fake meat products try their hardest to look like meat. At that point its like I might as well just get meat.

So the price is high, it looks the same and were surprised people arent flocking to it? Theres no immediate upside which is what people need to make a change.

---

MrDrMan posted...

Vegan stuff is too expensive. Youre never gonna convince people to trim their diet and pay more for it. If Im losing something out of my diet then I expect to pay less not more.

I also think theres a psychological factor. All these fake meat products try their hardest to look like meat. At that point its like I might as well just get meat.

So the price is high, it looks the same and were surprised people arent flocking to it? Theres no immediate upside which is what people need to make a change.

none of this is particularly accurate

morningstar and quorn produce textured vegetable protein products that cost about $5/lb, and ranges from "looks a lot like meat" to "looks nothing like meat"

the median price for ground beef, pork shoulder, and chicken breast tenderloin is about $4/lb right now, but the median price for fish and most beef steaks is around $10

everyone is hyper-focused on impossible brand products because they're new and explicitly designed to look and taste as much like actual ground beef as possible. yes, it costs twice as much as actual ground beef. it's the highest end product on the market. comparing the most expensive non-meat option to the least expensive meat option is not reasonable.

---

Sackgurl posted...

i get the message you have here: the arguments against eating the animals we hold sacred can be applied to those we don't

my response is quite simply: not as effectively.

My point was what we hold sacred or not is effectively arbitrary. Yes, we have reasons in the past for holding cats and dogs sacred/useful beyond eating, but in the modern day they are all effectively irrelevant.

Gladius_ posted...

I'm stating why it is so in most places. That's all. Given how I've repeatedly stated that I don't really care about the moral principles behind it would suggest I don't care if the world suddenly began eating dog. I'm simply stating why most of the world "Doesn't." note I have never called other cultures who don't have that attachment evil or other such nonsense.

Essentially, I am debating outside my feelings.

Sure, but that reasoning (in the modern day) doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny. I think pretty much everyone would find the sight of a cow, horse, pig or sheep playing adorable and want nothing bad to every happen to it just as we would a dog or cat. The vast majority of people will apply that same part of their brain that thinks "adorable, must protect" to them as well when they are shown to be like the pets they love.
---

Sackgurl posted...

none of this is particularly accurate

morningstar and quorn produce textured vegetable protein products that cost about $5/lb, and ranges from "looks a lot like meat" to "looks nothing like meat"

the median price for ground beef, pork shoulder, and chicken breast tenderloin is about $4/lb right now, but the median price for fish and most beef steaks is around $10

How can you say its not accurate then turn around and post how ground meat is cheaper?

Thats exactly what Im talking about. The first thing that comes to mind when I think vegetarian meat is the Impossible burger. My point is why would I pay more for that? Vegetarian food is never going to take off until I can make all of my basic meals for a cheaper price. Burgers, spaghetti, tacos, meatloaf anything you would put ground meat in. Very hard sell to get people to pay 25% more for their protein source.

Thats where the opportunity is. Im not comparing it to a steak because I dont see vegan meals ever truly replacing a nice steak.

Its like if I said Tesla cost more than a Nissan and somebody was like not more than a GTR well obviously. Im talking about the stuff most people are using on a daily basis.

---

Sackgurl posted...

i get the message you have here: the arguments against eating the animals we hold sacred can be applied to those we don't

my response is quite simply: not as effectively.

It is just as effective. You said its wrong to steal pets to eat meat, which was a point literally no one made. This isn't even exclusive to dogs. You invented a position to support your claim.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

We agree on most points. The only point I am pushing back on is the "we have always done it this way" regarding pigs specifically. The argument itself could be applied in a myriad of ways though, and I agree there are bigger problems that need more nuanced answers than how we treat pigs specifically.

---

Funkydog posted...

My point was what we hold sacred or not is effectively arbitrary. Yes, we have reasons in the past for holding cats and dogs sacred/useful beyond eating, but in the modern day they are all effectively irrelevant.

if anything in the modern day they're more relevant

from a climate argument because they're omnivores and raising them generates far more CO2

from a logistic argument because the supply chain can confirm that other types of meat weren't stolen pets

from a social functioning argument because we have bred and trained dogs to do more for us today than ever before

from a responsibility/creator argument because studies have shown over and over that the generations of breeding dogs to live alongside us has resulted in their ability to understand both our body and spoken language (not to say that pigs can't, but studies haven't been done to prove it)

The_Yahtz09 posted...

It is just as effective. You said its wrong to steal pets to eat meat, which was a point literally no one made. This isn't even exclusive to dogs. You invented a position to support your claim.

no, i described the logistic argument for relative morality of meat consumption. you know where your chicken comes from. if you get dog meat, you almost certainly don't, even in countries where there is a non-zero chance it was produced in a manner ethically equivalently to meat production here.

don't confuse my posts with an arbitrary defense of the meat industry, i'm alternatively shitting on it and on arguments against it that I think are too hyperbolic.

---

MrDrMan posted...

How can you say its not accurate then turn around and post how ground meat is cheaper?

Thats exactly what Im talking about. The first thing that comes to mind when I think vegetarian meat is the Impossible burger. My point is why would I pay more for that? Vegetarian food is never going to take off until I can make all of my basic meals for a cheaper price. Burgers, spaghetti, tacos, meatloaf anything you would put ground meat in. Very hard sell to get people to pay 25% more for their protein source.

Thats where the opportunity is. Im not comparing it to a steak because I dont see vegan meals ever truly replacing a nice steak.

Its like if I said Tesla cost more than a Nissan and somebody was like not more than a GTR well obviously. Im talking about the stuff most people are using on a daily basis.

i think you started responding before i finished adding some stuff to my post

but i want to touch on this: the reason the first thing that comes to your mind when you think 'vegetarian meat' is the impossible burger is you've never actually examined the options that are available. impossible had a huge marketing budget. quorn, morningstar, etc are run on smaller budgets.

and remember, i priced ground beef from the lowest common denominator. if you're buying better than 80/20, you're absolutely paying more than you would for morningstar crumbles.

and yes, you're correct that the highest of the high end meat foods are pretty clearly better tasting than the vegetarian marketplace. the veg marketplace was aimed at offering mid-range replacements at prices comparable to mid-range meats.

---

MrDrMan posted...

I dont see vegan meals ever truly replacing a nice steak.

You'd be surprised. There is one restaurant I go to that gets about as close as an impossible burger does to a regular burger. I have no idea how they do it.

---

The_Yahtz09 posted...

You'd be surprised. There is one restaurant I go to that gets about as close as an impossible burger does to a regular burger. I have no idea how they do it.

for steak? i'd be curious what they're doing, i'm unaware of anything on the market that actually attempts to imitate steak. the protein fiber aligning for steak texture is much much harder than ground beef.

---

feel like i would have to try any meat once as a meat eater, I'm not going to work to hard to defend being a meat eater

Sackgurl posted...

i think you started responding before i finished adding some stuff to my post

but i want to touch on this: the reason the first thing that comes to your mind when you think 'vegetarian meat' is the impossible burger is you've never actually examined the options that are available

and remember, i priced ground beef from the lowest common denominator. if you're buying better than 80/20, you're absolutely paying more than you would for morningstar crumbles.

Ive examined them the same way I would any other product. I see them at the store, check it out and usually within 10 seconds make a decision.

Thats my point is there is no immediate appeal. You have to understand the market. Consumers dont want to educate themselves and the vegetarian community does a bad job of educating people.

Most of the education is vegetarians simply trying to shame people for eating meat which is an awful strategy. People are more likely to buy when its based off positive emotion rather than negative. Otherwise when nobody is there to shame them theyre going right back to regular meat.

---

Sackgurl posted...

no, i described the logistic argument for relative morality of meat consumption. you know where your chicken comes from. if you get dog meat, you almost certainly don't, even in countries where there is a non-zero chance it was produced in a manner ethically equivalently to meat production here.

My meat comes from the freezer or butcher. I have no idea where it comes from. Unless you work in the industry, I doubt you do either. If I see dog on a menu, I am going to assume it wasn't someone's stolen pet just like I do every other kind of meat on the menu. Dogs could be raised for meat just as easily as other animals. Not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.

Sackgurl posted...

for steak? i'd be curious what they're doing, i'm unaware of anything on the market that actually attempts to imitate steak. the protein fiber aligning for steak texture is much much harder than ground beef.

Yup. I have no idea what black magic they do or who they sold their soul to, but it is delicious.

---

a little data to back up the message:

morningstar crumbles priced on target's website is currently $4.30 for a 12oz bag ($5.70/lb). it's quite low fat, so the most fair comparison is extra lean ground beef.

https://www.target.com/p/morningstar-farms-veggie-meal-starters-grillers-frozen-crumbles-12oz/-/A-14624394

https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/averageretailfoodandenergyprices_usandmidwest_table.htm

extra lean ground beef is $6.30/lb.

so the pricing model is there.

MrDrMan posted...

Consumers dont want to educate themselves and the vegetarian community does a bad job of educating people.

i'm trying to do that right now but you seem not very interested

---

MrDrMan posted...

Ive examined them the same way I would any other product. I see them at the store, check it out and usually within 10 seconds make a decision.

Thats my point is there is no immediate appeal. You have to understand the market. Consumers dont want to educate themselves and the vegetarian community does a bad job of educating people.

Most of the education is vegetarians simply trying to shame people for eating meat which is an awful strategy.

And before anyone say this part isn't true, i would refer back to Omnislasher posts.

Sackgurl posted...

a little data to back up the message:

morningstar crumbles priced on target's website is currently $4.30 for a 12oz bag ($5.70/lb). it's quite low fat, so the most fair comparison is extra lean ground beef.

https://www.target.com/p/morningstar-farms-veggie-meal-starters-grillers-frozen-crumbles-12oz/-/A-14624394

https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/averageretailfoodandenergyprices_usandmidwest_table.htm

extra lean ground beef is $6.30/lb.

so the pricing model is there.

80/20 beef is $6 a pound. When you adjust for the fact its 12 oz then its $4.50 which is right in line.

Youre never gonna make that sale at the same price when people have questions about taste, will they be getting enough protein and the fact that its a smaller amount.

As far as how lean it is people have a preference but I think most really dont care. You have to simplify the buying process for the consumer.

---

The_Yahtz09 posted...

My meat comes from the freezer or butcher. I have no idea where it comes from. Unless you work in the industry, I doubt you do either. If I see dog on a menu, I am going to assume it wasn't someone's stolen pet just like I do every other kind of meat on the menu. Dogs could be raised for meat just as easily as other animals. Not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.

if you buy it at a grocery store there's typically brand information, and with it, data (as in serial numbers) that can be used to trace its point of origin

if you buy it at a private butcher or farmer's market they can generally tell you if you ask

i'm not saying dogs can't be raised as meat

i'm saying that there is not a reliable supply chain mechanism for tracing the origin of dog meat, even in places where it is served, and as a result it contributes to crimes that cause harm

china's crackdown on their dog meat festivals had much less to do with western anguish over the idea of eating dog and much more to do with the associated annual spikes of reported pet kidnappings preceding those events, which they've tried to suppress. but it's hard to suppress.

---

MrDrMan posted...

80/20 beef is $6 a pound. When you adjust for the fact its 12 oz then its $4.50 which is right in line.

it's less on avg (as in, 80/20 beef is less), target is a bit of a ripoff when it comes to butcher products, but i was saying that 80/20 is not the correct comparison point because it's much higher fat content and cooks down to less protein

---

Sackgurl posted...

it's less on avg, target is a bit of a ripoff when it comes to butcher products, but i was saying that 80/20 is not the correct comparison point because it's much higher fat content and cooks down to less protein

You are right but people arent thinking that deep. People buy on impulse.

---

i mean yeah but if their impulse is "vegetarian bad, meat good" what can you do

your original post was that vegetarian products were not competitively priced at all, are you saying now you agree with me that wasn't accurate?

---

"I don't care if this animal can seek happiness, flee pain, feel sorrow or loneliness, forge complex bonds with other sentient creatures: they're not the ones I deem special so I can treat them like shit."

This is called speciesism. You do not value an animal for the qualities they possess, only what you can extract from them for your own personal needs. Humans dictate an animal's worth and purpose, and in turn treat them based on that; you can never mistreat a non-dog animal with that logic. From a survival/utilitarian perspective it has made sense for our species but from an ethical point under modern circumstances, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sackgurl posted...

i mean yeah but if their impulse is "vegetarian bad, meat good" what can you do

your original post was that vegetarian products were not competitively priced at all, are you saying now you agree with me that wasn't accurate?

Educate them? Thats how any good business succeeds.

No. I also said in my original post to get people to switch it has to be noticeably cheaper which it isnt. Even the same price is too much.


---

It's kinda weird. I'm sure many are vegetarian for moral reasons(animal rights and environmental), but if they speak to those moral reasons, people see it as preachy and unconvincing. And, I get why people get defensive like that, but like.. I don't know man, it'd kinda weird. You want them to convince you to eat less meat with the reasons that didn't fully convince them. And to be quiet about the reasons that did convince them.

But yeah, some vegetarians can try harder to speak in more inclusive ways, but it's shitty they have to go to those lengths.
Gotta do what you gotta do though I guess.
---

emblem boy posted...

It's kinda weird. I'm sure many are vegetarian for moral reasons(animal rights and environmental), but if they speak to those moral reasons, people see it as preachy and unconvincing. And, I get why people get defensive like that, but like.. I don't know man, it'd kinda weird. You want them to convince you to eat less meat with the reasons that didn't fully convince them. And to be quiet about the reasons that did convince them.

But yeah, some vegetarians can try harder to speak in more inclusive ways, but it's shitty they have to go to those lengths.
Gotta do what you gotta do though I guess.

People care about animals and the environment but those things come second to their own personal needs and always will.

Before people will listen to how its good for xyz they want to hear how its good for me.


---

maybe as a citizen of an alleged democracy you have a responsibility to pressure your government to end meat and dairy subsidies that are making your people ridiculously unhealthy?

anyone ever try green lentils? can be used as a substitute for ground beef and pack even more protein

MrDrMan posted...

Educate them? Thats how any good business succeeds.

No. I also said in my original post to get people to switch it has to be noticeably cheaper which it isnt. Even the same price is too much.

economies of scale make that pretty hard. tofu tries, but then the bar becomes 'noticeably cheaper and also not less tasty or hard to cook with'

really the fundamental issue is that the tradeoffs are ecological impact, animal suffering, price, and comfort (taste/effort). meat's advantage stems from taking big but invisible hits in the former two categories, and having a large enough scale to stay competitive on price.

what's significantly for the collective tends not to be what's slightly better for the individual.

---

PlantBased posted...

"I don't care if this animal can seek happiness, flee pain, feel sorrow or loneliness, forge complex bonds with other sentient creatures: they're not the ones I deem special so I can treat them like shit."

This is called speciesism. You do not value an animal for the qualities they possess, only what you can extract from them for your own personal needs. Humans dictate an animal's worth and purpose, and in turn treat them based on that; you can never mistreat a non-dog animal with that logic. From a survival/utilitarian perspective it has made sense for our species but from an ethical point under modern circumstances, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Did anyone here say anything like what this guy said? Cause i didn't see it, i saw people comparing dogs and pigs but not in the way presented here.

This is the type of vegetarian and vegan person that i don't like: The preachy one, if you don't want to eat meat that's fine but don't go trying to force your views on people that eat meat and don't do it in a manner like this, i have nothing against people that don't want to eat meat or eggs and milk, if you think that's better for you, more power to you but don't go spewing this type of bullshit that i don't care how the animal that i'm eating lived, if i knew the animal suffered before becoming my food, i'm not going to eat it and i know you don't care but the lettuce that your eating was also alive.

MrDrMan posted...

emblem boy posted...

It's kinda weird. I'm sure many are vegetarian for moral reasons(animal rights and environmental), but if they speak to those moral reasons, people see it as preachy and unconvincing. And, I get why people get defensive like that, but like.. I don't know man, it'd kinda weird. You want them to convince you to eat less meat with the reasons that didn't fully convince them. And to be quiet about the reasons that did convince them.

But yeah, some vegetarians can try harder to speak in more inclusive ways, but it's shitty they have to go to those lengths.
Gotta do what you gotta do though I guess.

People care about animals and the environment but those things come second to their own personal needs and always will.

Before people will listen to how its good for xyz they want to hear how its good for me.

Not really going against what I said. Like, people say the moral reasons make them feel guilty and vegetarians shouldn't speak to it too much. But if they won't switch until they can buy near perfect substitutes for everything they currently eat, at the same low prices, then what convincing is there to do? For the non-meat options to become more popular, there has to be increased demand and technological advancements in the lab grown meat area.

So Vegetarians might as well just forget about talking to people and just work on raising money for these companies or something?
---

lorddrakath1522 posted...

Did anyone here say anything like what this guy said?

What do you think it means when someone says dogs were bred for this purpose and pigs were bred for that purpose? The only thing I did is cut out the euphemistic soft talk that makes the reality of what is done to animals more palatable.

This is the type of vegetarian and vegan person that i don't like: The preachy one, if you don't want to eat meat that's fine but don't go trying to force your views on people that eat meat and don't do it in a manner like this, i have nothing against people that don't want to eat meat or eggs and milk, if you think that's better for you, more power to you but don't go spewing this type of bullshit that i don't care how the animal that i'm eating lived, if i knew the animal suffered before becoming my food, i'm not going to eat it and i know you don't care but the lettuce that your eating was also alive.

Bingo.

Gladius_ posted...

We ignored him/her/they because the argument he/she/they made isn't true to the thread. It was a strawman that no one was arguing.

Had to comment on that cause i hate people that can't understand and respect other's decisions and demean them, carry on.

lorddrakath1522 posted...

bullshit that i don't care how the animal that i'm eating lived, if i knew the animal suffered before becoming my food, i'm not going to eat it and i know you don't care but the lettuce that your eating was also alive.

this is just sad.

but i want you all to eat as much meat as you can. stuff it all in there, hurry this up. this bullshit needs to end.

Gladius_ posted...

We ignored him/her/they because the argument he/she/they made isn't true to the thread. It was a strawman that no one was arguing.

lol

Pigs and cows are free to go ahead and try to breed humans for food if they want.

Not humanity's fault we were born smart enough to raise livestock. We're simply higher on the food chain.

---

Sackgurl posted...

your second statement is true, but the extent to which other animals can communicate/bond with us is not nearly as substantial as dogs

Found the person who's clearly never had any pet that isn't a dog (or, at a stretch, a cat).

---

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Not humanity's fault we were born smart enough to raise livestock. We're simply higher on the food chain.

Yes. This is at least honest. Remorseless anthropocentrism. I say keep it up, keep it up.

Most of you I'm sure are familiar with the influential people that formed the basis for modern western culture, but maybe some aren't.

Descartes denied that animals had reason or intelligence.[110] He argued that animals did not lack sensations or perceptions, but these could be explained mechanistically.[111] Whereas humans had a soul, or mind, and were able to feel pain and anxiety, animals by virtue of not having a soul could not feel pain or anxiety. If animals showed signs of distress then this was to protect the body from damage, but the innate state needed for them to suffer was absent.[112] Although Descartes' views were not universally accepted, they became prominent in Europe and North America, allowing humans to treat animals with impunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals

As for other contemporary philosophers, Baruch Spinoza (16321677) did not deny animals ability to feel, but considered we should nevertheless use them as we please, treating them in a way which best suits us; for their nature is not like ours
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4495509/

Wait, here's some more light reading. Maybe make sure any children are out of the room.

In 1647, Rene Descartes exploded biology wide open by theorizing that the body was merely a mechanical instrument. The soul was what gave consciousness, and it resided somewhere in the pineal gland. Unfortunately for the neighborhood dogs, Descartes also theorized that only humans had souls.
If animals were soulless, they were just machines. Therefore they didnt feel painthey only acted as if they did. So therefore, it was okay to cut them open and experiment on them. And Descartes sure loved a good experiment.
By his own account, Descartes happily sliced open dogs and stuck his finger into their still-beating hearts, marveling at how the valves opened and closed around his knuckle. But the madness doesnt stop there. According to some biographers, his first vivisection was an attempt to discover once and for all if animals had souls. And the animal he chose to practice on was his wifes dog.
Taking a hammer, Descartes nailed the creatures paws spread-eagled to a board and proceeded to chop it to pieces, utterly unfazed by the appearance of pain. Whether he really was looking for the soul or not is a fact thats been lost to history. All we know is that the dog died shortly afterward in unimaginable agony. How Descartes wife reacted to finding out her husband mutilated and murdered her pet to prove an obscure point has sadly not been recorded.
https://knowledgenuts.com/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/

lorddrakath1522 posted...

if i knew the animal suffered before becoming my food, i'm not going to eat it

How do you define suffering?
---