Vegetarian oyster sauce prepared from mushrooms, often oyster mushrooms, is also popular and generally lower in price. It may contain more taste enhancers if less mushroom extract is used to reduce costs.
You could just use that.
Indeed so. They also make Caesar dressings and Worcestershire sauces without anchovies in them. But when omnis make food for veg*ns, it's not uncommon for them to have no idea that these things generally contain animal ingredients in them.
It gladdens my heart that you still consider "meat of some sort" as basic ingredients.
...
I even substituted tofu for the vegetarians. To add to an old heated debate we had a bit ago....Tofu is awesome alone or added to something, ya'll just weird :sweat:... Not sure Its edible for vegan though. I suspect there's egg somewhere in the eggroll. Plus I know Blod doesn't eat anything with animal in the name, like Eggplant or Salmon berries (like raspberry only salmon colored).
I only consider it a basic ingredient for those whose cooking style is such that it needs to be a basic ingredient. in the same way that wasabi would be a basic condiment for an asian, but mustard would be a basic condiment for an American.
As for the veg*nness of egg rolls, I'd be less concerned with the possible egg in the wrappings (you can get them without) as I would be about the oyster sauce (why do you think it's called that?).
That's a fantastic story Chris. Though I find it disconcerting that you don't have basic ingredients like meat of some sort or oil on hand already. But I suppose that's to be expected in the house of a stoner and a guy who thinks that ramen with grated carrot in it is fancy cuisine.
That flu is so funny. I mean, the deaths aren't, but it's called SWINE flu. Hilarious. And if you replace the "1"s in "H1N1" with the similarly shaped "I", then it spells hinny. Double hilarious!
Thinking back, I'm hard pressed to remember when I used my microwave last for something other than reheating some rice.
Nick, you might want to think about getting a rice cooker. $20 (a mere 1/3 of your winnings this week) will get you something that will not only cook yummy rice, but will also steam veggies. How's that for awesome?
Afterall, You can't get a baby in one month by making nine women pregnant.
The experimentalist in me wants to test this theory of yours.
As for cooking asparagus, boiling or putting in the microwave makes me cry. The only vegetables that should ever be boiled are potatoes and artichokes. Asparagus is best lightly steamed until tender. Though I'm sure grilling or butter, or I would think olive oil would be even better, would be good.
I don't want to get into this again. Just know that this meaningless term has driven policy on the local, state wide, and national scale. And is probably why the three main philosophies dedicated to the environment, environmentalists, conservationists, and preservationists, disagree with each other so much despite a common goal. People define it, the definition varies between organizations, but it still drives policy.
It seems like you agree that the fact that there isn't a single, agreed upon definition is a bad thing. If so, should we not attempt to prevent the same thing from happening to other terms?
Kpaca, you misunderstood. I didn't say you were ignorant or unwilling to improve yourself. I said that those where the only reasons why I would look down on someone. The implication being that because no one in this thread is like that, that I thus don't look down on anyone in this thread, so you should all stop acting like I do.
Seriously, you all are making way too big a deal out of this. Again, I'm pretty sure you don't think you guys are "equally good" with the guy who rapes the three year old, murders her, and then feels no remorse. If it's not wrong for you to think you are better than that guy because you made the choice not to do those morally reprehensible things, why is it so wrong for me to think I am better than omnis who I view as choosing to do an equally reprehensible thing?
Chris, yes, sometimes words can shift meaning, and sometimes this isn't a bad thing. But this is one case in which it is. Or do you think that I'd be justified in opening a Kosher restaurant, where I advertised all the food as Kosher, but I made sure that all the utensils came into contact with both meat and dairy on a regular basis? Would Jews have no right to complain when they found out, because my definition of Kosher is a little different from theirs? Or would I be wrong in my definition?
As far as natural goes, my main argument about it isn't that it has taken on a meaning that is different from a strict etymological interpretation of the word. My complaint is that it has taken on a meaning that in indefinable, with each person having a different idea of what it means for something to be "natural" and thus making the term meaningless.
It's actually easy to be stuck up on anything and everything. You don't have to be an environmentalist or vegan and be stuck up. Helps if you actively change your lifestyle though, then you have action and words backing a perceived superiority. Ever see that south park episode with the hybrids and the killer smug?
Actual health is debatable, since a normal diet of a vegan and omnivore isn't much different. Assuming the omnivore intakes a proper amount of veggies. The unhealthiness of the respective diets revolve around the type of food, concentrations of that type, and location of where they are processed. An omni eating pure organic food and suplimenting his/her diet with free range animals and even wild game will be healthy. vegan wouldn't be healthier. Blod might disagree with me here, but then I'll just adjust the amount of meat allowable in that scenario so nyeh. It's all about how careful you are about selecting your diet and how much you are willing to spend. Industrialized food, both animal and plant, are chock full of chemicals, hormones, and other unhealthy aspects. Unhealthy for people and unhealthy for the environment. We've even genetically altered plants in a way to be their own pesticide and to keep longer shelf lives. Tomatoes are genetically altered to have a long shelf life by turning red early. That is to say a natural tomato would be green on the vine accumulating nutrients as it matures, then be ripe, red, and delicious for it's short existence. Green tomatoes are lacking, but since they are red early they can sit on the shelf for weeks. That's the reason why higher end restaurants will advertise vine ripened tomatoes. That's the health of our food...both vegetarian and meat have had the quality sucked out of them in the industrialized process. Our society is too hung up on quantity to care any more than that.
Oh this last point could be debatable. But at this point we are at a moral impasse. From what I understand, you define morality as individualistic. That is the individual species has value. I hold true that the individual does not matter, but the species as a whole has value, and that to maintain the species survival the ecosystem needs to be preserved. You also maintain that all individuals have an inherent equal value...which I would disagree with merely because I already disagree with the value of the individual.
It does astonish me that your moral code seems to abhor the mistreatment of a gnat, but could care less at the complete extinction of...say...tigers. It is really hard for me to wrap my head around that.
I also have a hard time seeing how applicable your moral code is. It would seem that the guilt from indirect killing of individuals would be overwhelming. I know if I indirectly killed something I viewed as an equal, like another human, I would be incredibly guilt-torn. Beyond that, every conservation, restoration, and preservation project would pose ethical dilemmas. Re-introduction of wolves would cause the death of numerous individual herbivores, but no reintroduction causes excess loss of vegetation and deaths of several other individuals of other species. Allowing herbivores to overpopulate without control will indirectly cause the deaths of thousands of individuals when the population crashes. Doing nothing causes individualistic deaths, doing something causes deaths....what can you do? How can you function?
Oh come now. Nick obviously doesn't hold that non-human life has human like value and if he doesn't view a technologically superior race as innately superior then at the very least he's acknowledging that there's little we could do to stop them. Cognitive dissonance would only ring if he viewed it as a moral issue...which apparently he does not.
Bah! Semantics. Probably something "hard core" vegetarians and vegans made up to differentiate from those beneath them. I'd bet those who ate fish or chicken by and large would say they were vegetarians. Just like Mormons would argue till they were blue in the face that they are Christians while Christains would deny Mormons a place within their ranks.
Let's go backwards, for fun. I'd say the definition of a Christian, as apparent in the name, is anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ. So ya, Mormons are Christians, but not all rectangles are squares.
The distinction is important. Words have meaning for a reason; to facilitate communication. If a restaurant advertises a dish as vegetarian, and it has fish in it, then clearly the language has failed in its purpose. Can you really say that this is a fine outcome? To go to an admitted extreme, would you be ok if a doctor told you he'd be removing your appendix but instead took out a kidney or liver? Would that just be "semantics?"
As for the guilt, it is there, but it's not a problem. If you spend enough time philosophizing, you come to realize that there is a certain ebb and tow of nature; and that sometimes it's ok for sad things to happen. Death is a part of life, and while it is rarely desirable, one should not feel guilty about it if it was not caused due to willful disregard for the life.
As for the individual versus the species, I think that might be best to have at another time. I think it's a fantastic topic to discuss, but I worry that the thread is already overloaded tenfold with good topics, and I'd hate to have it not get the time or attention it deserves because we are getting distracted with other topics.
In a way I can kind of understand this mindset. Oh I can disagree with it, but I can understand. When someone's definition of morality is set to a perceived higher standard then its only natural to perceive those who don't meet that standards as...well less standardful. Growing up in Utah I saw a lot of this. First of all they perceived themselves superior just cause I wasn't Mormon and condemned to hell by default. Then it was cause I had no problem drinking alcoholic beverages. They'd try to convert me and move me away from my wicked ways...but you could tell they had a bit of snobby "I'm better than you" about them.
I can see how some people, who take these standards of veganisms and environmentalism as an ethical and moral priority, can perceive others as inferior. They take what they perceive as an intellectual and sophisticated approach. Higher class, filled with high valued refined socialites who believe they are making a difference. We all perceive ourselves in one way or another compared to others...thats natural, if not a bit frustrating.
I like to perceive myself as more feral. In a pinch I'll eat anything that moves, I sleep on the ground, ten second rule is a way of life, and my ecological responsibility is to burn it. More complex, but that's it in a nutshell.
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
And I should also point out, even though it shouldn't need to be said, that this does not mean I think I am better than everyone. There are many, many people in the world who are better than me. Some are better with their ethical code than I am. There are those who don't have my moral code, but who are better than me in so many other ways they they are better people on the whole. Making a logical observation that there are people who aren't as good as you in some manner in no way requires one to have a "holier than thou" attitude or be arrogant. Sure, a lot of people are like that, but I assure you I am not one. I've never thought badly about someone because they eat meat, or whatever else they may have done. If I look down on someone, it will only be because they partake in willful ignorance and/or they have no desire to better themselves (those in this state due to medical conditions are of course exempt from this).
Hopefully they'll be enlightened/passive, and won't eat us/turn is into slave labor.
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. One who eats only birds is a pollotarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
Well you weren't suppose to mention that. However that is simply the product of our industrialized meat process. There are ways to raise beef without those hyped up food pens and without harming the environment. In fact much of the landscape of the US had heavy grazing for 10,000 years and much much heavier grazing with the mega fauna for millions of years before. Many of these areas are semi-arid and don't produce a strong stand of crops without irrigation, thus running a few heads of cattle across the landscape in some places may not only be environmentally sustainable, but necessary to maintain the historical ecological status of the area.
You're right about this. However, if you stopped feeding most of the nearly unending supply of corn we grow in the US to factory farm animals, you'd quickly realize that the number of animals that could be raised in a manner such that the animals live in a way not unlike how they might in the wild would yield about 50 gallons of milk per person in the US per year. That sounds like a lot until you realize that that milk would need to supply all the liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc. And you wouldn't have much room to raise other animals or to raise cows for beef.
Long story short, there are bits of land where it is ecologically sound to raise some animals. But those animals wouldn't be able to provide anywhere near the amount of meat or dairy that the average American wants to consume.
But I'd advise you stop trying to argue with Nick. I think it's clear at this point that he isn't open to new ideas anymore than a teabagger is.
No, It's actually a common fact. Incisors are designed to tear meat. As the child of a dental hygenist, I am somewhat learned on such things.
I don't want to spend forever hunting down actual things to cite (though I will if you really want me to and I won't feel my efforts will just be in vain), but I'll direct you to look at any of a large number of herbivorous animals that have very similar teeth to humans, incisors, canines, and all, and hopefully you can realize that even though our teeth can chew a steak, that it doesn't mean they were designed for us to do so.
It's all fairly moot anyway, as even if there were to come out some indisputable proof that that humans evolved to eat a meat based diet, it wouldn't change the moral implications of doing so. Which brings us to the next point.
I personally think the idea that there is something morally wrong with consuming animals is preposterous, but feel free to explain to me why this is true.
This is tricky. In the interest of not typing for the next hour on this post, I'll briefly outline some of the basic axioms of my moral theory, from which the conclusion that we should not eat meat will clearly follow. You, of course, are welcome to disagree with any of the axioms, in which case we have a situation in which we have two incompatible moral theories. Note, this list of axioms is not complete, only the relevant ones are included.
Axiom: All sapient lifeforms have moral responsibility (ie, this theory applies only to their actions).
Definition: A sapient life form is one who has the capability of making informed judgments. So far as we know, only non-(insert scientifically defined, technical term for mentally-challenged but is stupidly censored because some 13 year olds can't be civil to one another term here), non-infant humans are sapient.
Axiom: All sentient lifeforms are to be given moral consideration.
Definition: A sentient life form is one that is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
Axiom: An action is immoral if it causes pain or reduces pleasure of another sentient life form (this is a simplified form of the axiom, which, due to existence of conflicting interests whenever two or more sentient lifeforms are present, it gets a little more complicated, but this is good enough of a gist).
By accepting those axioms, logic forces one to accept that killing an animal (or paying for it to be killed for you) is an immoral act.
If you are interested, philosopher Peter Singer has written about this FAR better than I ever could. In particular is this essay.
This is my problem with some vegetarians. Some choose this lifestyle because, as JJ described, they feel it is more healthy, and are willing to take the necessary dietary supplements(and you are kidding yourself if you say that they're not necessary). That is fine. Honestly, they're probably right. I just don't care enough to bother with it, and like I said, I like the taste of meat.
Then there are others. People that feel that society has stepped on them, and do whatever they can to rebel. Eventually they often end up at this point, where they give up eating meat, and feel empowered by it. Rather than simply face their own shortcomings and insecurities, they take comfort in suddenly being 'better' than their fellow man, because they've made a lifestyle choice that means some animals don't die. But seriously, only you care. The idea that you are morally superior here is just nonsense pandering, that people in this category feel necessary to put forth because it helps them mask their own personal shortcomings and insecurities. Animals eat other animals; people eat animals. There is nothing morally wrong with it, only the delusion of such.
And with this post I declare you off the deep end, and admit that trying to hold a conversation with you based on logic and reason would be as fruitless as the only one of a species of an allogamous plant in the region. If you feel like being reasonable, please let me know and we can pick back up from a few posts ago.
Because the quote tags are long and tedious, I'm going to use the non-bold to indicate the quoted text, and we'll take this bit by bit.
Lastly, maybe the libraries in Australia are just VASTLY different than in the US, but, a library here is NOT a business. The libraries here(the 6 different ones I've been to in AZ, plus the few I visited in IN when I lived there) don't sell things. Some of them have gift shops in the same building, but it's not part of the actual library.
Brian never said that they were a business. They said they were effectively a business, thus why he included a qualifier to his statement ("the fact that libraries are basically businesses"). No, they aren't businesses, but they share a GREAT many things in common with them. Inventory and stock, responding to shifting market demands, advertising, staffing, customer retention, etc., etc., etc.
@BD: If you look at the list(s) of participants for Clan mafia for the last couple of years, I don't think any clan had any repeating members. I replaced in for HKKID for our Clan at the very end 2 years ago, but that's pretty much it.
This doesn't invalidate my point that there is precious little intraclan participation in the contest. The contest hasn't even been officially announced yet and we're basically just two or three posts away from needing to talk about it on this thread until it's over.
Mostly, I enjoy eating meat and dairy products.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with this. Please take nothing I say and misconstrue it to imply that I do.
I disagree with the notion that I wouldn't miss eating meat.
You probably would. But if you read what I wrote carefully, I said that the state where you don't miss eating meat comes with the mindset that would make someone become a vegetarian, not before. Clearly, you don't have said mindset, so it's unlikely that you wouldn't miss meat. Again, to beat the point even further to make sure you get it, I made an "if-then" statement. You clearly don't satisfy the if, so of course the then won't apply to you.
If I don't eat meat for a couple of days(sometimes it happens on accident), I find myself craving a cheeseburger or chicken.
That's likely because you weren't replacing the protein you normally get from meat with other sources. I know that if I've been light on protein for a while, I also crave it, only I tend to do so in the form of a nutty granola with soy milk or maybe some quinoa.
Good job reinforcing the social notion that vegetarians are snobby douchebags. I mean honestly. People are weak-willed because they like meat?
I never said that. To be pedantic, I never said that I thought anything about omnis at all; I made statements about how a typical veg*n might view an omni. That distinction aside, the statement wasn't that someone is weak-willed because they like meat. The statement was that someone is weak-willed if their enjoyment of eating meat is the sole, or primary, reason for them not becoming a vegetarian. This is no different than saying that an obese person is weak willed if they say that they only reason they haven't lost weight is because they like eating. See, the statement of "the (only) reason that I'm not X is because of Y" already presupposes that all other obstacles to X have been eliminated save for Y, and that X is either a desirable or default position. In that situation, if Y is a mere statement about liking to do something that precludes X, then one is weak-willed for not overcoming Y to attain X.
I like that you're attacking Kpaca here for what you view as having a ******** justification,
I wasn't attacking Kpaca. I was pointing out, from his list of reasons given, the one that I'm fairly sure is the real one for why he's not a vegetarian, saying that the others aren't really good reasons, and are in all likelihood (whether he realizes or not) are just manifestations of a reaction of rationalization. I then went on to give him advice on how best to explain his meat eating habits around other veg*ns. I'm intellectual enough that I don't really put much emotion into these things, so I don't really care about what his claimed reasons are or aren't, but not everyone else is, and my advice is valuable in dealing with others. But most importantly, I never attacked Kpaca. I never said he was a bad person, or was stupid, or whatever it is apparent you thought I said.
Not liking meat doesn't make you better than everyone else, no matter how much you want it to. It just makes you different.
Again, I never said this. At this point I have to question if the post you read and the post I typed were indeed one and the same. First, there is a difference between not liking meat (and I do like meat, indeed I've always loved the taste) and choosing never to eat it (a decision which can, and does, exist independently of one's opinion of it. So please, please don't misrepresent my position by stating that it's something it's not.
But while we're on the topic, I think that my decision not to eat meat (remember, this is different than not liking it) does make me better. Just as my decision not to lie, or shoot people in the street, or rape pretty girls I see in the park makes me better than people who do these things. I bet you think not not raping girls in the park makes you better than people who do too. I'd go as far as to suppose that most everyone thinks, for every positive moral choice they make, that they are better than the people who made the opposite choice. This is even evident in prisons, where child molesters are especially hated by the population, even though the members or that population might be otherwise reprehensible people. The key isn't to not think you are better than others for your ethical choices, because you should. The key is to realize that everyone's on the same path as you, and you'd do well to help them get as far as you have, and that you strive to continue onward.
Everyone posted a bunch of stuff while I was typing that last post. Now to reply to those.
I'm curious Blod, You're largely ethically oriented. Why then is it acceptable for the destruction of habitat for farming? I'm thinking about habitats like the Palouse prairie, which has had about a 95% conversion to wheat and may be considered as one of the first extinct habitats; and the tall grass prairie of the great plains which has had about 80% or so converted to agriculture? Vegetarianism doesn't eat those animals that lived in those habitats, but they'll go extinct nonetheless...
I can only speak for myself here, but I personally subscribe to a moral theory in which only current and future (but not potential future)* sentient lifeforms have ethical weight. Ecosystems etc. do not fall in this category, and thus under my moral theory, there is no "bad" from their destruction/lack of continuation. In the same way, I don't have consideration for a species, merely for the individuals of a species.
*Future life would be life that doesn't exist, but is likely to. In this way, we are morally responsible to our next generation, and the one after that, etc. Potential future life is life that could exist, but won't given some action. So no moral accountability towards the baby that might have been formed if I didn't use a condom, or they potential offspring of a forced breeding program, etc.
Well, some of our teeth actually are designed for meat consumption.
That's a common misconception. Our teeth did not evolve to be able to eat large amounts of meat. Indeed, if you want a good understanding of the diet we evolved to eat, take a look at the diet of chimps or such. You'll notice the common theme of either being herbivorous, or herbivorous with small amounts of animal food an addition in the primates.
That said, I don't understand why if I enjoy meat, I shouldn't eat meat. Don't try to tell me I just "think I enjoy meat because I'm weak minded". I actually enjoy meat, it tastes different than some broccoli or a summer salad, and I defy you to find me a soy bean product which tastes as good as a filet mignon. Just like I may eat a slice of chocolate cake because I enjoy it, I eat meat because I enjoy it, and I don't see what's wrong with that.
In general, doing something because you like it, within reason of course, is perfectly fine. Where this is different is that there are ethical considerations as to why eating meat is wrong. If I were to say that I don't see what's wrong with raping a three year old girl, because I enjoy doing it, you'd look at me like I was a monster. Vegans and most vegetarians think very similarly when they hear that someone doesn't see anything wrong with killing an animal and then consuming it.
Honestly, I don't have anywhere near the discipline necessary to be a Vegetarian. I don't want to have to take a bunch of vitamins just to make up for necessary elements(Vitamin B, Calcium, Omega-3, etc) that I can get just from eating the things that I like.
Good news. You don't have to take a bunch of vitamins if you don't eat animals. Aside from being overweight, I'm quite healthy, with all my vitamin, iron, etc levels at proper levels. Hell, even my blood pressure is a very healthy level, despite my obesity which generally always causes hypertension. I've never taken a vitamin, nor do I need to. It's quite easy for me to get enough in the foods I eat.
And also, I agree with Chris. Man has been eating meat for millions of years, and some of our teeth are obviously intended for this, or at least have evolved to accomodate it.
As for the moral/ethical imperative of being a vegetarian vs. eating meat, please just give it up. For one thing, all of the examples that you provided are terrible. Shooting people/raping people/molesting children are so outrageously different than eating meat(even if you have to make the pretentious 'eating meat is murder' leap). They are animals, and that's it. Human life has significantly more value than animal life. There is not even a comparison.
The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed completely, is that veg*ns don't think that there is a difference, or that if there is one, that the difference is inconsequential. Of course you don't think that animals deserve the same moral consideration that humans do. That's apparent a priori because if you did think it, you would find yourself completely unable to eat meat no matter how good it tasted. But I wasn't making a statement about what you think, or should think. I was explaining how veg*ns think. We see the decision not to eat meat as a very important moral decision on par with any of the other moral decisions I mentioned.
I like my life, and my lifestyle choices. I don't feel compelled to peddle them to anyone else. Maybe you should stop and wonder why you feel the need to do this? Who are you really trying to convince?
Are you trying to imply that I am trying to rationalize my veganism to myself? If that is indeed the case, then I lol at it. A great hearty lol. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, nor has anything I have typed implied that I am, trying to force my choices on others. I've not said that you should become a veg*n, so why does it seem like you think I did?
That's the real reason you're not a vegetarian. As much as omnis like to think it, it's not too hard, you don't feel like you're missing out on something, and you don't miss eating meat (at best you miss the availability of ubiquitous food, but that's more a matter of market pressures than anything). I should know, I used to be someone with an identical mindset as you. Thought I could never go without meat because I "liked it too much." Turns out that once you enter the state of mind that makes you want to become a vegetarian, you'll also be in the state of mind where eating meat is no longer something you want to do, no matter how much you liked it in the past.
I guess this is all a long winded way of saying that if you ever find yourself explaining why you're an omni, you're much much better off using the reasons of "it's what I've always done, so it's easy" and "I don't see a reason not to be an omni" than trying to say that you like meat too much. Non-omnis see that as an attempt to boast how much meat you eat, as admittance to being exceptionally weak willed, and as they know it's not a valid reason as per my above explanation, they'll either assume you haven't thought out the at all, or that you are lying to yourself about it, either of which will make them think less highly of you.
Moving on to other topics, I HATE clan mafia. Seriously, I think it's the worst possible contest that could be conceived. When the extent of intraclan participation is picking the same guy that they used the last three years, I can't help but find myself nonplussed by the whole thing.
Indeed so. They also make Caesar dressings and Worcestershire sauces without anchovies in them. But when omnis make food for veg*ns, it's not uncommon for them to have no idea that these things generally contain animal ingredients in them.
I only consider it a basic ingredient for those whose cooking style is such that it needs to be a basic ingredient. in the same way that wasabi would be a basic condiment for an asian, but mustard would be a basic condiment for an American.
As for the veg*nness of egg rolls, I'd be less concerned with the possible egg in the wrappings (you can get them without) as I would be about the oyster sauce (why do you think it's called that?).
Sorry you have it though.
Nick, you might want to think about getting a rice cooker. $20 (a mere 1/3 of your winnings this week) will get you something that will not only cook yummy rice, but will also steam veggies. How's that for awesome?
The experimentalist in me wants to test this theory of yours.
As for cooking asparagus, boiling or putting in the microwave makes me cry. The only vegetables that should ever be boiled are potatoes and artichokes. Asparagus is best lightly steamed until tender. Though I'm sure grilling or butter, or I would think olive oil would be even better, would be good.
It seems like you agree that the fact that there isn't a single, agreed upon definition is a bad thing. If so, should we not attempt to prevent the same thing from happening to other terms?
Seriously, you all are making way too big a deal out of this. Again, I'm pretty sure you don't think you guys are "equally good" with the guy who rapes the three year old, murders her, and then feels no remorse. If it's not wrong for you to think you are better than that guy because you made the choice not to do those morally reprehensible things, why is it so wrong for me to think I am better than omnis who I view as choosing to do an equally reprehensible thing?
Chris, yes, sometimes words can shift meaning, and sometimes this isn't a bad thing. But this is one case in which it is. Or do you think that I'd be justified in opening a Kosher restaurant, where I advertised all the food as Kosher, but I made sure that all the utensils came into contact with both meat and dairy on a regular basis? Would Jews have no right to complain when they found out, because my definition of Kosher is a little different from theirs? Or would I be wrong in my definition?
As far as natural goes, my main argument about it isn't that it has taken on a meaning that is different from a strict etymological interpretation of the word. My complaint is that it has taken on a meaning that in indefinable, with each person having a different idea of what it means for something to be "natural" and thus making the term meaningless.
Let's go backwards, for fun. I'd say the definition of a Christian, as apparent in the name, is anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ. So ya, Mormons are Christians, but not all rectangles are squares.
The distinction is important. Words have meaning for a reason; to facilitate communication. If a restaurant advertises a dish as vegetarian, and it has fish in it, then clearly the language has failed in its purpose. Can you really say that this is a fine outcome? To go to an admitted extreme, would you be ok if a doctor told you he'd be removing your appendix but instead took out a kidney or liver? Would that just be "semantics?"
As for the guilt, it is there, but it's not a problem. If you spend enough time philosophizing, you come to realize that there is a certain ebb and tow of nature; and that sometimes it's ok for sad things to happen. Death is a part of life, and while it is rarely desirable, one should not feel guilty about it if it was not caused due to willful disregard for the life.
As for the individual versus the species, I think that might be best to have at another time. I think it's a fantastic topic to discuss, but I worry that the thread is already overloaded tenfold with good topics, and I'd hate to have it not get the time or attention it deserves because we are getting distracted with other topics.
At least someone gets it. The fact is, each of us can be rated in any number of categories; athleticism, ethics, trustworthiness, motivation, leadership abilities, etc. And we can use those ratings to compare two or more people. This is undebatable. The consequence of these comparisons is that in whatever aspect we are measuring, someone will be better than you, and someone will be worse than you. You guys don't seem to like it, but it's true. If Chris thought that he was better than me in survival, I would agree with him, just as I'm better than him in ethical considerations. Now, we can debate whether or not my moral code is justified, or needed, or rational, or even sane. But you can't tell me that you do a better job about caring for life with your moral code than I do. Thus I am better in that aspect.
And I should also point out, even though it shouldn't need to be said, that this does not mean I think I am better than everyone. There are many, many people in the world who are better than me. Some are better with their ethical code than I am. There are those who don't have my moral code, but who are better than me in so many other ways they they are better people on the whole. Making a logical observation that there are people who aren't as good as you in some manner in no way requires one to have a "holier than thou" attitude or be arrogant. Sure, a lot of people are like that, but I assure you I am not one. I've never thought badly about someone because they eat meat, or whatever else they may have done. If I look down on someone, it will only be because they partake in willful ignorance and/or they have no desire to better themselves (those in this state due to medical conditions are of course exempt from this).
I'm truly impressed that you haven't yet gone deaf, what with the unbearably loud ringing of cognitive dissonance in that statement. You hope that more a advanced race would not treat you as a mere thing, yet you are not only unwilling to extend the same courtesy to animals that you hope would be granted to you, you are unwilling to even consider it as an option. I am honestly floored by your ability to have internalized both ideas simultaneously.
On a more pedantic note, in reply to Chris's latest post, there is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats fish. They have their own name, pescetarian. One who eats only birds is a pollotarian. Neither are vegetarian. The more you know.
You're right about this. However, if you stopped feeding most of the nearly unending supply of corn we grow in the US to factory farm animals, you'd quickly realize that the number of animals that could be raised in a manner such that the animals live in a way not unlike how they might in the wild would yield about 50 gallons of milk per person in the US per year. That sounds like a lot until you realize that that milk would need to supply all the liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc. And you wouldn't have much room to raise other animals or to raise cows for beef.
Long story short, there are bits of land where it is ecologically sound to raise some animals. But those animals wouldn't be able to provide anywhere near the amount of meat or dairy that the average American wants to consume.
But I'd advise you stop trying to argue with Nick. I think it's clear at this point that he isn't open to new ideas anymore than a teabagger is.
I don't want to spend forever hunting down actual things to cite (though I will if you really want me to and I won't feel my efforts will just be in vain), but I'll direct you to look at any of a large number of herbivorous animals that have very similar teeth to humans, incisors, canines, and all, and hopefully you can realize that even though our teeth can chew a steak, that it doesn't mean they were designed for us to do so.
It's all fairly moot anyway, as even if there were to come out some indisputable proof that that humans evolved to eat a meat based diet, it wouldn't change the moral implications of doing so. Which brings us to the next point.
This is tricky. In the interest of not typing for the next hour on this post, I'll briefly outline some of the basic axioms of my moral theory, from which the conclusion that we should not eat meat will clearly follow. You, of course, are welcome to disagree with any of the axioms, in which case we have a situation in which we have two incompatible moral theories. Note, this list of axioms is not complete, only the relevant ones are included.
Axiom: All sapient lifeforms have moral responsibility (ie, this theory applies only to their actions).
Definition: A sapient life form is one who has the capability of making informed judgments. So far as we know, only non-(insert scientifically defined, technical term for mentally-challenged but is stupidly censored because some 13 year olds can't be civil to one another term here), non-infant humans are sapient.
Axiom: All sentient lifeforms are to be given moral consideration.
Definition: A sentient life form is one that is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
Axiom: An action is immoral if it causes pain or reduces pleasure of another sentient life form (this is a simplified form of the axiom, which, due to existence of conflicting interests whenever two or more sentient lifeforms are present, it gets a little more complicated, but this is good enough of a gist).
By accepting those axioms, logic forces one to accept that killing an animal (or paying for it to be killed for you) is an immoral act.
If you are interested, philosopher Peter Singer has written about this FAR better than I ever could. In particular is this essay.
And with this post I declare you off the deep end, and admit that trying to hold a conversation with you based on logic and reason would be as fruitless as the only one of a species of an allogamous plant in the region. If you feel like being reasonable, please let me know and we can pick back up from a few posts ago.
Lastly, maybe the libraries in Australia are just VASTLY different than in the US, but, a library here is NOT a business. The libraries here(the 6 different ones I've been to in AZ, plus the few I visited in IN when I lived there) don't sell things. Some of them have gift shops in the same building, but it's not part of the actual library.
Brian never said that they were a business. They said they were effectively a business, thus why he included a qualifier to his statement ("the fact that libraries are basically businesses"). No, they aren't businesses, but they share a GREAT many things in common with them. Inventory and stock, responding to shifting market demands, advertising, staffing, customer retention, etc., etc., etc.
@BD: If you look at the list(s) of participants for Clan mafia for the last couple of years, I don't think any clan had any repeating members. I replaced in for HKKID for our Clan at the very end 2 years ago, but that's pretty much it.
This doesn't invalidate my point that there is precious little intraclan participation in the contest. The contest hasn't even been officially announced yet and we're basically just two or three posts away from needing to talk about it on this thread until it's over.
Mostly, I enjoy eating meat and dairy products.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with this. Please take nothing I say and misconstrue it to imply that I do.
I disagree with the notion that I wouldn't miss eating meat.
You probably would. But if you read what I wrote carefully, I said that the state where you don't miss eating meat comes with the mindset that would make someone become a vegetarian, not before. Clearly, you don't have said mindset, so it's unlikely that you wouldn't miss meat. Again, to beat the point even further to make sure you get it, I made an "if-then" statement. You clearly don't satisfy the if, so of course the then won't apply to you.
If I don't eat meat for a couple of days(sometimes it happens on accident), I find myself craving a cheeseburger or chicken.
That's likely because you weren't replacing the protein you normally get from meat with other sources. I know that if I've been light on protein for a while, I also crave it, only I tend to do so in the form of a nutty granola with soy milk or maybe some quinoa.
Good job reinforcing the social notion that vegetarians are snobby douchebags. I mean honestly. People are weak-willed because they like meat?
I never said that. To be pedantic, I never said that I thought anything about omnis at all; I made statements about how a typical veg*n might view an omni. That distinction aside, the statement wasn't that someone is weak-willed because they like meat. The statement was that someone is weak-willed if their enjoyment of eating meat is the sole, or primary, reason for them not becoming a vegetarian. This is no different than saying that an obese person is weak willed if they say that they only reason they haven't lost weight is because they like eating. See, the statement of "the (only) reason that I'm not X is because of Y" already presupposes that all other obstacles to X have been eliminated save for Y, and that X is either a desirable or default position. In that situation, if Y is a mere statement about liking to do something that precludes X, then one is weak-willed for not overcoming Y to attain X.
I like that you're attacking Kpaca here for what you view as having a ******** justification,
I wasn't attacking Kpaca. I was pointing out, from his list of reasons given, the one that I'm fairly sure is the real one for why he's not a vegetarian, saying that the others aren't really good reasons, and are in all likelihood (whether he realizes or not) are just manifestations of a reaction of rationalization. I then went on to give him advice on how best to explain his meat eating habits around other veg*ns. I'm intellectual enough that I don't really put much emotion into these things, so I don't really care about what his claimed reasons are or aren't, but not everyone else is, and my advice is valuable in dealing with others. But most importantly, I never attacked Kpaca. I never said he was a bad person, or was stupid, or whatever it is apparent you thought I said.
Not liking meat doesn't make you better than everyone else, no matter how much you want it to. It just makes you different.
Again, I never said this. At this point I have to question if the post you read and the post I typed were indeed one and the same. First, there is a difference between not liking meat (and I do like meat, indeed I've always loved the taste) and choosing never to eat it (a decision which can, and does, exist independently of one's opinion of it. So please, please don't misrepresent my position by stating that it's something it's not.
But while we're on the topic, I think that my decision not to eat meat (remember, this is different than not liking it) does make me better. Just as my decision not to lie, or shoot people in the street, or rape pretty girls I see in the park makes me better than people who do these things. I bet you think not not raping girls in the park makes you better than people who do too. I'd go as far as to suppose that most everyone thinks, for every positive moral choice they make, that they are better than the people who made the opposite choice. This is even evident in prisons, where child molesters are especially hated by the population, even though the members or that population might be otherwise reprehensible people. The key isn't to not think you are better than others for your ethical choices, because you should. The key is to realize that everyone's on the same path as you, and you'd do well to help them get as far as you have, and that you strive to continue onward.
Everyone posted a bunch of stuff while I was typing that last post. Now to reply to those.
I can only speak for myself here, but I personally subscribe to a moral theory in which only current and future (but not potential future)* sentient lifeforms have ethical weight. Ecosystems etc. do not fall in this category, and thus under my moral theory, there is no "bad" from their destruction/lack of continuation. In the same way, I don't have consideration for a species, merely for the individuals of a species.
*Future life would be life that doesn't exist, but is likely to. In this way, we are morally responsible to our next generation, and the one after that, etc. Potential future life is life that could exist, but won't given some action. So no moral accountability towards the baby that might have been formed if I didn't use a condom, or they potential offspring of a forced breeding program, etc.
That's a common misconception. Our teeth did not evolve to be able to eat large amounts of meat. Indeed, if you want a good understanding of the diet we evolved to eat, take a look at the diet of chimps or such. You'll notice the common theme of either being herbivorous, or herbivorous with small amounts of animal food an addition in the primates.
In general, doing something because you like it, within reason of course, is perfectly fine. Where this is different is that there are ethical considerations as to why eating meat is wrong. If I were to say that I don't see what's wrong with raping a three year old girl, because I enjoy doing it, you'd look at me like I was a monster. Vegans and most vegetarians think very similarly when they hear that someone doesn't see anything wrong with killing an animal and then consuming it.
Good news. You don't have to take a bunch of vitamins if you don't eat animals. Aside from being overweight, I'm quite healthy, with all my vitamin, iron, etc levels at proper levels. Hell, even my blood pressure is a very healthy level, despite my obesity which generally always causes hypertension. I've never taken a vitamin, nor do I need to. It's quite easy for me to get enough in the foods I eat.
See my above response to Kpaca.
The point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed completely, is that veg*ns don't think that there is a difference, or that if there is one, that the difference is inconsequential. Of course you don't think that animals deserve the same moral consideration that humans do. That's apparent a priori because if you did think it, you would find yourself completely unable to eat meat no matter how good it tasted. But I wasn't making a statement about what you think, or should think. I was explaining how veg*ns think. We see the decision not to eat meat as a very important moral decision on par with any of the other moral decisions I mentioned.
Are you trying to imply that I am trying to rationalize my veganism to myself? If that is indeed the case, then I lol at it. A great hearty lol. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, nor has anything I have typed implied that I am, trying to force my choices on others. I've not said that you should become a veg*n, so why does it seem like you think I did?
I guess this is all a long winded way of saying that if you ever find yourself explaining why you're an omni, you're much much better off using the reasons of "it's what I've always done, so it's easy" and "I don't see a reason not to be an omni" than trying to say that you like meat too much. Non-omnis see that as an attempt to boast how much meat you eat, as admittance to being exceptionally weak willed, and as they know it's not a valid reason as per my above explanation, they'll either assume you haven't thought out the at all, or that you are lying to yourself about it, either of which will make them think less highly of you.
Moving on to other topics, I HATE clan mafia. Seriously, I think it's the worst possible contest that could be conceived. When the extent of intraclan participation is picking the same guy that they used the last three years, I can't help but find myself nonplussed by the whole thing.