portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

animal rights | sustainability

Meat eaters: consider "Meatless Mondays!"

The benefits are many.
A great way to find out just how good vegetarian food can be. Just by forsaking meat one day a week, you can expect 19% reduced risk of heart disease; a 21% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes; and an average family savings of $600 a year. Check it out!  http://www.meatlessmonday.com/

How about Meat Mondays? 28.Oct.2013 17:52

anon

I eat meat once or twice a week - unless you have special dietary needs, there's no compelling reason to eat meat every day.

However, since we're not under some peculiar religious or secular controlled government (yet) - eat what what you want, when you want and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Unhelpful 29.Oct.2013 06:29

Mike Novack

Please stick to ethical arguments. Making (supposedly) factual statements that are clear and utter nonsense does not help your cause.

"A great way to find out just how good vegetarian food can be."
The omnivores already know that vegetarian food can be good. Anybody who has ever prepared food for a gathering where there are both omnivores and vegetarians knows you have to lay out the buffet table so that people pass by the meat offerings first (or the omnivores will put too much of the veggie food on their plates leaving little for the vegetarians to eat).

"Just by forsaking meat one day a week, you can expect 19% reduced risk of heart disease; a 21% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes"
OBVIOUS nonsense. Even YOU should be able to see that if for no other reason than not eating meat on one day of a week doesn't necessarily mean eating any less total meat in the week.

"and an average family savings of $600 a year."
My oh my. You want us to believe that the average family can spend more than $4000/year on meat alone. Or are you including average amount spent (as opposed to average family) that when a wealthy person spends $100 per person on a fancy meal out and there was a meat entree that you can count that entire $100 as spent ON MEAT (in other words, because meat IN the meal the wine drunk, etc counts as meat)

But more to the point, those of us who DO eat little meat know how much the typical meat substitutes cost and so the "saving" zero or even negative. I, for example, eat mammal or bird meat perhaps once or twice a month. Things like "seitan" or "Quorn" or "Gimmie Lean" (I happen to live close to where "Lite Life" products are made) cost much more than the sorts of meat they are meant to replace.

Like I said, stick to the ethical arguments. People might still not accept them but they can't reject them out of hand the way they can with "facts" that aren't.

PS: I may, perhaps be doing you an injustice. The term "vegetarian" covers a wide range depending on who is using the term. On the other hand, I have encountered very few MILITANT vegetarians who weren't using the "vegan" definition. The other sorts seem to care mainly about what they do personally and rarely bother to try to convert others.

So back to your "Meatless Monday" where this all started. Tell us what you mean. Just MEATless? (the meal could contain eggs, cheese, etc. --- nothing wrong with a nice veggie quiche or manicotti, etc. for the entree?).

ROFLOL this wide range of usage can cause great confusion. Earlier this month at an event where the cook had been given a head count "vegetarians" vs "omnivore". Horrified the first morning when the eggs ran out -- "They aren't vegetarians; they are eating the eggs!" (in fact, there was only ONE "vegan" among all those "vegetarians").

ethical arguments? 29.Oct.2013 06:47

hb

ethical arguments?

I am an animal born of this earth. (unless you believe a divine sprit created me in his own image?)

I am an Omnivore.

Does the lion ponder an ethical dilemma when chasing down a antelope?

Humans evolved with a diet consisting mostly of meat (a fact, look up the paleolithic diet/caveman diet).

The only ethical problem are synthetic ones you have dreamed up.

If you are opposed to eating meat, I'm fine with that. Just don't force your religion on me, and I won't force mine on you.

2 diabetes??? 29.Oct.2013 06:53

hb

you know nothing of about 2 diabetes.

Look up a diet for 2 diabetes, its is basically an Atikins diet. High protein, very low carbs. (ie, MEAT).

In fact the reason most people get 2 diabetes is by eating too many carbohydrates over their life time.

That idiot actor Ashton Kutcher sent himself to the hospital and almost permanently damaged his pancreas trying eat an all fruit diet like he thought Steve Jobs did.

i <3 vegans 29.Oct.2013 12:33

--

i'm so glad you posted this suggestion. I've been vegan for 10 years now, and I love it. I've never felt better, both physically and emotionally, knowing that i'm not gnawing on a carcass or otherwise encouraging abuse of animals.

I had a friend who became vegan when I pointed out to her that she gets to make the rules--she doesn't have to adhere to anyone else's definition. whatever change she makes is good.

she soon found vegan food that she liked, and is how happily vegan. she said that when she became vegan it was like a weight dropped from her shoulders. she didn't realize--as an animal lover--how much guilt she had carried from continuing to engage in abuse of animals.

a lot of people experience the same thing. being vegan is healthy--but best of all you start to see the world differently--as a place where we don't have to harm animals to have a good life.

No "hb" 29.Oct.2013 12:46

Mike Novack

And I was by no means implying that I would agree with those ethical/religious arguments. I meant only that they were respectable to make.

I might agree with you about the ethical status of the natural world and animals in particular. But it is impossible for somebody to argue that humans are different from other animals in kind, not just degree, that the natural world is cruel and evil, that we humans should aspire to some higher state, to rise above our animal nature (and the fact that we perhaps COULD do that a reason why we SHOULD do that).

Yes of course, it's "religion". (as I classify things) But people are allowed to have their religions. They are even allowed to argue that things would be all so much better if everybody was willing to follow THEIR religion. Of course they should recognize they are likely to receive the same sort of response as other missionaries get when they knock on the door.

you start to see the world differently 29.Oct.2013 15:07

hb

of course you do.

1970s cults use to feed their newly found victims the same gruel. After a few weeks of little or no protein, your brain snaps.

Most Vegans I know who are from India are fine because they were raised from a young age to know they have to include a shitload of beans and other proteins. American Vegans I've met are for the most part imbeciles about nutrition and spend most of their time telling everyone how holier than thou they are rather than worrying about if the advice they are giving about diet is safe.

the natural world is cruel and evil 29.Oct.2013 15:19

hb

perhaps I misunderstood the point. There is no discord in nature. Lions eat Antelope because they are hungry and they are lions. there is nothing evil about it. If a lion could whack and antelope quickly and humanely I'm sure it would because fighting it risks injuring the lion, and on the Africa plains, there is no Social Security Disability program.

Humans eat meat, because we are hungry and we are Humans.

Do Zookeepers feed lions, bears, wolves, etc. an all veggie meal? No, that would be cruel and very unusual.

If you were captured by Aliens for an intergalactic zoo, you would be feed a wide variety of food, including meat because as a Human animal, that is what you evolved eating.

You should consider yourself fortuneate that you have a choice. Many people on planet earth don't have a choice. Poverty makes the decision for them.

Wait!! 29.Oct.2013 15:55

bobo

"the natural world is cruel and evil", what?!??

You see the rest of the natural world as cruel and evil and humans are better? Really? I mean, really? Animals only kill to survive.

You don't see porcupines destroying the world to make a profit?

You don't see ponderosa pines waterboarding junipers for encroaching on their habitat.

You don't see rainbow trout committing genocide so they can take over the land of the tarantula.

I think you might want to rethink that statement.

Who are the cruel and evil?

the natural world is cruel and evil??? 29.Oct.2013 16:48

hb

should have had a question mark. It was from the quote above, thats why I was questioning it.

However since you brought it up, yes humans aren't the only ones.

Lions kill for fun.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XPCPyair8Y

Killer whales play "handball" with a sea lion.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qMT2YBIcg


Wolves killing a coyote for fun.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCvLzDNWz0

Yep, Humans are the only cruel and evil animals on the planet.

After this brutality, makes eating a hamburger look rather tame doesn't it.

just because nature does it . . . 30.Oct.2013 16:33

--

just because nature does it doesn't mean we have to imitate it. That was tried and it was called social Darwinism. Logically, it had no real relation to Darwin. It's what happens when a bunch of humans take a descriptive science as a prescriptive science.

Animals don't have much choice. They also don't have our level of consciousness.

I know it's fashionable to think that our problems come from separating ourselves too much from nature.

This is an interesting point in some regards--yet to accept that we should do everything that occurs in nature is absolutist thinking--very dangerous. Perhaps in some ways we need to be more in touch with nature. In other ways we need to work to have a kinder world.

I think hb knows the wrong vegans. First, every vegan I know is conscientiously healthy. Plus, the question of what nutrition makes us healthy is apparently up for debate. Science now suggests that if you are getting sufficient calories from a plant based diet, you can't be malnourished as all plants supply protein and all essential amino acids.

I'm going to critique seriously 30.Oct.2013 19:04

Mike Novack

"just because nature does it doesn't mean we have to imitate it."
Possibly correct. But please note that this (by itself) is simply a factual statement. Can't get to an "ought" from JUST an "is".


"That was tried and it was called social Darwinism. Logically, it had no real relation to Darwin. It's what happens when a bunch of humans take a descriptive science as a prescriptive science."
a) oops -- wasn't an imitation of Nature
b) Correct that is was prescriptive and BECAUSE OF THAT unrelated to science. There is no such thing as a "prescriptive science" (if it's prescriptive, it ain't science). ETHICS (making value judgements) is part of philosophy, not part of science. But do take note, they (the Social Darwinists) were not doing something so very different than what started this off.

"Animals don't have much choice. They also don't have our level of consciousness."
You DO (I hope) understand that you are expressing a quasi-religious position? The consciousness of an animal is entirely suited to what that animal needs JUST LIKE OURS IS. My cat does not have human consciousness but neither do I have cat consciousness. Please examine your use of LEVEL (a term with implications of elevation, superiority, etc. Judgements that I am superior to my cat depend entirely on who sets the criteria.

"I know it's fashionable to think that our problems come from separating ourselves too much from nature."
Somebody MIGHT be making that claim somewhere but it wasn't part of THIS discussion. Yes of course, to oppose an argument "we SHOULD separate ourselves from our animal natures" a person MIGHT give a reason for why we should not. BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO. It is those arguing for departing from our animal nature who have to give a reason (and "because we CAN is not a reason for why we SHOULD). Please understand:
1) That YOU wish to depart from your animal nature doesn't require a proper argument. It's your business what you choose to do.
2) That you want to insist others do that does require a proper argument. You can't leave unstated the ethical assumptions that together with the factual "we can" make up your argument. They have to be out on the table.

"This is an interesting point in some regards--yet to accept that we should do everything that occurs in nature is absolutist thinking--very dangerous. Perhaps in some ways we need to be more in touch with nature. In other ways we need to work to have a kinder world."
That "should" coming from nowhere again (remember, THEY don't need to make a case why they are doing what they feel is natural. They aren't trying to convince YOU of anything). And please note that you here HAVE exposed an attitude "Nature is unkind". You are entitled to that personal belief. But if you are trying to convince others you might in the first place need to start with arguments defending being able to apply terms like "kind" or "unkind" to Nature. << what do I mean by that? you wouldn't say "Nature is blue" because OBVIOUS that color isn't the sort of attribute to be applied to Nature. Well with "kind" it isn't obvious that you can't but also not that you can. So convincing the other person that you CAN properly consider whether "kindness" is an attribute which Nature could or could not have is the first step. For example, you couldn't say of the number three that it is either kind nor unkind. What is there about Nature that makes you comfortable considering its kindness or lack thereof.

"First, every vegan I know is conscientiously healthy. Plus, the question of what nutrition makes us healthy is apparently up for debate. Science now suggests that if you are getting sufficient calories from a plant based diet, you can't be malnourished as all plants supply protein and all essential amino acids."
And what is the relevance of those facts? (if they were granted). Maybe you need some examples to see the lack of relevance of statements in the original posting to the ETHICAL argument "eat no meat".

"you can save money" (by not eating meat)
"you can save money" (by not skiing)

"you can avoid certain health risks" (by not eating meat)
"you can avoid certain health risks" (by not skiing)

Do you get the point I am making. OF COURSE you think of these as entirely different because FOR OTHER (unstated) reasons you consider eating meat bad (ethical use of the term) and skiing neutral. So if other people want risk injury for the pleasure of skiing or spend their money on skiing you don't see that as any of your business. So it WASN'T the saving of money or avoiding health risks that had anything to do with the meat question either. If a person likes eating meat, if it gives that person pleasure, is it your business if they risk their health doing so and what's money for except to be spent on things we want.

get a clue 06.Nov.2013 12:41

--

You seem to be missing the most important point. Eating animals is not good for the animal. That's all "ethical vegans" really care about.