Why are those here who eat meat so defensive?

[MoonRiver]

There really isn't a logical reason on a DEMOCRATIC board.

[loli phabay]

1. no idea but why do non meat eaters feel the need to lecture or moralise. i think its a two way stre

[MoonRiver]

4. Defensive for just asking a question?

I don't get the intolerance.

[loli phabay]

7. personally i dont care if someone dosent eat meat same as its none of their business if i cut the

Backstraps of roadkill deer or trap rabbits or catch fish to eat.

[RebelOne]

13. I am a vegetarian and I do not lecture to anyone

who eats meat. My philosophy is to each his/her own.

[loli phabay]

15. yup thats the best attitude

[MichaelHarris]

2. why are

vegans so judgmental and preachy? BRB, I have a roast on.

[MoonRiver]

6. I just asked if a picture could change somebody's opinion.

Seems to have become viral here...hmmm.

[MichaelHarris]

18. no, you asked

I quote, "Why are those here who eat meat so defensive?"

[sylvi]

35. So you just wanted numbers?

You didn't want anyone to expand on their answer or give their rationale or anything? That would be kind of dry and meaningless, wouldn't it?

I think your poll was posted exactly to elicit the kinds of responses you got.

[liberal_at_heart]

62. I would say don't worry about whether a picture would change somebody's opinion

Just eat what you want to eat and leave other people in peace.

[LanternWaste]

132. oking your finger in someone's eye isn't a sign of being defensive at all.

"BRB, I have a roast on."

Nope... poking your finger in someone's eye isn't a sign of being defensive at all.

[jmowreader]

187. That seems to be one of the rules of veganism

People who use no animal products but don't try to sell their lifestyle to everyone else call themselves Vegetarians.

[BlueJazz]

3. ...because we're animals and need lots of protein for various DU wars.

I lost part of a finger during the last skirmish.

[donco]

14. And i must say

It was delicious with the KC bar b q sauce.

[Eleanors38]

148. LOL!

[NoOneMan]

5. Why are those who don't so ambivalent about agricultural deforestation?

Bambi used to live where we grow your soy beans

[yewberry]

20. Just food for thought

...but the acreage required to produce a pound of meat far outweighs the acreage required to produce a pound of soybeans. Ten bambis used to live where we grow the feed for your meat.

[NoOneMan]

26. You don't grow food to feed my meat

My meat comes from the ocean. If I ever had to eat on land, I'd eat wild game only.

The problem is that if we say it is permissible to deforest and grow surplus (which people have babies in response to), in the next age it becomes permissible to kill even more to feed the children and their future children. Then all wild animals are dead and all we have is acreage to feed your children morally permissible grains (until the carbon we kick up doing it kills us). Doesn't sound like a winning strategy.

[TheMadMonk]

89. But the acreage used to produce that meat...

...generally won't grow beans or much of anything else but low grade grasses.

Of course we could solve multiple problems simply by growing weed on land thats too marginal even for grazing. Feed, fibre for cloth and paper, biodiesel, soil improvement, and a good time for all.

[DeschutesRiver]

173. I support thousands of bambis, plus antelope, elk, coyote, bear, wild turkey, feral pigs, quail,

hawks, turkey vultures, bobcats, badgers, weasels, packrats, chipmunks, and much, much more wildlife that lives on this land along with my cattle and horses. There have always been far more of the wild things here on my land than there are cows or horses - it is not an exclusive thing, ie doesn't mean that to raise cattle that graze you cannot have bambis or the other critters. As for the feed, my cattle aren't fed grain, so no loss of land to bambi for that. They are fed alfalfa hay for a few winter months, but bambis eat it while it is still growing in the fields (part of the expected loss per acre), and they still graze the cut fields afterwards. They also spend more time than I wish eating from my hay stack that I keep for my cattle. So no loss of bambis for the hay that is grown for my beef.

So at my place I can say that no bambis were hurt (or displaced) in the production of this home raised beef. This kind of beef is available for anyone to eat, but I think most people still prefer fat encrusted grain fed beef because it is what they've been taught to prefer. When I was growing up, our meat still smelled and tasted like meat, not like the stuff I used to buy at the store before I started raising my own.

I think you may be talking about feedlot beef that is finished on grain? Feedlot beef are only on grain briefly. And grain isn't the main part of their diet there anyway despite the myth sold to the public (there are more odd things that compose their feed than you'd ever imagine); they are born elsewhere and raised grazing on public lands and rangeland with grasses/legumes-grasses in the winter if necessary until they are ready to be "fattened on grains and other things" at a feedlot. They are not fed grains their entire lives, so there is no grain growing that would displace a bambi for those years at all.

Soybeans won't grow on my land, so that nothing is being taken out of soybean production in order for me to raise my beef. So this acreage supports the wild ones and my few cattle. I eat those cattle, as do a few other people who buy quarters locally when I have extras to offer for sale. These cows never leave this land to enter a feedlot, so they don't take up space on feedlot lan d that could be used by bambis to graze before the feedlot was built.

There is a way to have your meat and wildlife too, but I don't see many people jumping on board. It is harder to do and costs more than just showing up at the local grocery store to pick up some styro packs of "product" cheap for dinner. Anyway, there is some thoughts for food, as Colbert would say.

[Luminous Animal]

24. 80% or more of soy production is used for animal feed.

http://www.forestdisclosure.com/footprint/soy

http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm

[NoOneMan]

28. Yeah, thats stupid. I think 40% of corn....another 40% goes to fuel

I don't advocate eating "farmed" animals any more so than I advocate farming.

If you want meat, get out and hunt it. If there is no game, move

[Luminous Animal]

36. 2% of corn goes to direct human consumption and 8% towards additives

http://www.fuelfreedom.org/myth-corn-ethanol-reduces-the-human-food-supply-of-corn/

So where bambi used to play is split about evenly between livestock and fuel. Eating more vegetables isn't a problem, it is a solution.

[NoOneMan]

41. Ultimately it isn't a solution

If changing our habits cause surplus, that surplus will cause growth, requiring more surplus, and on and on and on.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Yeah, yeah. I know. Everyone on DU either eats humanely raised meat or hunts their own.

It is remarkable.

[NoOneMan]

44. No, they don't

So let's bury the absolutism and try and make some progress in this area (instead of the "all eating of animals is bad nonsense&quot

[stuntcat]

162. that is how it seems

It kills me that pointing out the violent earth-rape that comes from modern farming, telling how supporting the meat industry screws our future, is brushed off as "moralizing"

It is within all our capacity to Evolve to eating less meat. Some can cut it out altogether and then be healthier for it. It's a shame on our species how we'll trash our future for our appetites.
People who say they don't mind change, so progressive!, will not change. It's why I'm glad my life's half over.

[peacebird]

47. My meat is purely free range grassfed grown a mile from my home...

My farmer is a science middle school teacher in the valley, who raises cattle and pigs on the side.

[MoonRiver]

8. Ok, I give up on you dedicated meat eaters.

Happy?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Give up trying to do what, exactly?

[quinnox]

42. if you thought you were going to convert duers, it probably was going to be a long shot

anyhow. I doubt most people would be so easily swayed that message board sermons and preaching about the evils of meat-eating would convert them to become vegetarians.

[nobodyspecial]

43. Are you trying to change minds here?

If meat eaters constantly posted threads about meat, would it change *your* mind?

BTW, I don't eat meat but I don't make it my business to try to change the way other people eat meat.

[The Straight Story]

46. That's ok, I gave up on Mormons myself (nt)

[backwoodsbob]

110. I know that feeling

I gave up on Shau Lin Priests myself

[jeff47]

59. If I graphically described and showed you pictures of what plants actually go through

would you stop eating altogether?

We're not autotrophs. Something has to suffer horrifically for us to survive.

The fact that you only understand pain in animals doesn't mean plants are immune to pain.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

133. Or, would you stop drinking?

[MiniMe]

67. Just like I wouldn't judge you if you had an abortion, it is your choice

Don't judge me because I eat meat, that is MY choice. It is your choice not to eat meat, and I respect that.

[WilliamPitt]

160. Thrilled.

Maybe the fastest flameout in GD history.

[stuntcat]

167. .

after seeing Earthlings and the news every day of what's happening to animals and the oceans, and all these things that will only get worse, I've given up on humanity. This sounds overdramatic but I am glad my life is half over. It's horrifying knowing what people do.
That so many people who'd consider themselves peaceful would never consider stopping the horror hurts me every day.
People ask my WHY I look at the pictures. It's because some members of our species need to feel the pain we're bringing on all the rest.

[HappyMe]

168. Thank you.

Of course, I'm Happy!

[panader0]

9. Everything that anybody eats was once alive

Some things, even in their natural state, are healthier than others. The addition of fertilizers, hormones etc. can make them less healthy. The Plains Indians lived on buffalo and they seemed like pretty robust people (I am part Crow). The Chinese do not eat cheese and their population is large. All things in moderation.
Beer is the forgotten food group. burp.

[ancianita]

10. Knock off the dualism, either/or skirmishing. We be omnivores. Teeth and digestive tract prove it.

The only politics about food is manufactured, synthetic food and seed ownership. Let's get the corporate enemy straight and stop this bullshit.

[laundry_queen]

21. THANK YOU!

THAT is the issue. Not vegan vs meat eaters. I can be a meat eater and still abhor factory farming and look for alternatives. I respect veganism and vegetarianism and have tried both. I just happen to have a body that does better on meat. And I hate that meat is horrid for the environment, and I hate the way animals are treated and I DO try to do different (I've bought cows from the local 4-h auction, where the cows are raised humanely and mostly on grass, I buy local, organic free range/run whatever eggs, free range chickens from local mennonites and so on). I strongly dislike (understatement) corporate farming that is reducing the diversity of our seeds and food supply. I try to buy organic or local and stay away from GMO ingredients whenever possible. I've caught my own fish...harvested apples from my mom's tree, gone out and picked berries and dandelion leaves, and have grown multiple container gardens (this year I will FINALLY be able to have a REAL garden!)

It's sooooo much more than just quitting meat. so much more.

[Doremus]

38. Don't want to argue, only wish to correct a factual error in your post.

Human bodies don't "do better on meat."

Meat is harmful to us in many ways. It has very little of benefit that plants can't provide, and lots of detrimental things they don't, including cancer-causing inflammation, cholesterol, saturated fats, chemicals, hormones, etc., etc.

I recommend Forks Over Knives, available for free at Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/279734

Also, an excellent book is the China Study.

Again, I don't wish to argue but feel I must correct this common misconception. Thanks.

[laundry_queen]

51. You are wrong. It's not a fact.

If you are talking about people stuffing their face with fatty, factory-farmed, antibiotic ridden and hormone injected red meat several times a day - that is not good, no. And if you buy grass-fed organic and use portion control you mitigate many of the problems. Until I see a study that shows a strict vegan doing better than a strict-paleo, I'm going to say that this 'meat harms humans' is simply not studied properly. You cannot take a large sample of 'meat eaters' and compare them to vegans. Most 'meat eaters' are generally less nutritionally aware than most vegans and also eat a lot of other harmful foods that a vegan may not simply due to lack of access of vegan alternatives. If you took very health conscious people that ate meat (not talking about the SAD here) and compared them to health conscious vegans, then you would have a study.

I have PCOS. I am insulin resistant. I also have an intolerance to grains. Meat makes up part of my diet, as does lots of vegetables. In fact, I eat far more vegetables than do the vegans and vegetarians I know. In my case, my body does, indeed, do better on meat. I need the added protein and fewer carbs to not only feel satiated, but to avoid blood sugar ups and downs. Yes, I've heard all the stories about people curing their diabetes with the McDougall program. Tried it - it left me weak and famished on more calories than I normally consume with my blood sugars all over the place. It didn't work for me. A combined paleo/low-carb/low-carb vegetarian diet works best for me.

It's YOUR opinion that people do better on a vegan diet. Not a fact, by any means.

[Doremus]

70. You'll excuse me if I take the word of credentialed authorities

I'm sure you have all manner of rationalizations for the choices you make, as we all do. However, by stating that "you can mitigate many of the problems" through portion control you've already admitted that meat is detrimental to human health.

I don't wish to argue with you and, indeed, am planning to log off after I post this message so you may have the last word and I'm sure you will.

However, the body of research is irrefutable that a plant-based whole foods diet is infinitely more healthy than the saturated fat/cholesterol-laden traditional Western diet. Your continued insistence to the contrary may make you feel better, but it doesn't do a thing for your health.

[laundry_queen]

82. Not irrefutable. You didn't even read my post did you?

Portion control of ANY food is desirable - it does not mean the food, in itself, is harmful. It CAN be if over used. So can meat. So can beans and legumes. So can plain water. So your argument is bunk.

Your body of research, as I said (and you clearly did not read my post because I specifically have already pointed this out) has a serious problem in that it only measures a plant based diet against the Standard American Diet. It's not measuring it against a Paleo diet - which makes the most sense from an evolutionary standpoint, or a vegetable-rich, grain-free, moderate meat (organic/grass fed, not-just-red)-intake diet. There is a distinct lack of research in this area, and therefore in no way can you say any of the research that has happened is irrefutable.

And, oddly enough, my health improved the minute I went off grains. Funny, that. Your insistence that your way is the only way is what alienates vegans from the very people who would otherwise support them.

[tama]

159. Lot's of opinions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

[Viva_La_Revolution]

97. Your brain is made of fat, the fats from meat and seafood

you're starving your brain, but go ahead...

http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

[Luminous Animal]

29. There are plenty of environmental and health issues about the production of meat and

are ingestion of mass quantities of it.

[NoOneMan]

39. The environmental arguments of eating farmed meat beat any others IMO

But those same arguments apply to cellphones, and we aren't giving those up

[Luminous Animal]

50. Don't own a cell phone. There are lots of things that I don't own

or participate in for environmental reasons and the things that I do own (like my laptop that I am typing on) are bought used. And when this poor old laptop dies, I'll sell it to someone who will suck all the useful things out of it. Repair, repurpose, recycle or resell.

[NoOneMan]

53. Thats great for you

But we need a society devoted to those principles ("Repair, repurpose, recycle or resell&quot . Otherwise, you free up resources to fuel growth, and growing we are towards devastating climate change.

Barring collective, global action of extreme dedication, any personal actions can do nothing more than build resilience and ease one's conscious. Sure, that's "enough" for most of us if we are ok with that!

[ronnie624]

118. Our teeth and jaws are puny, compared to real predators.

They're much better suited to crushing berries, nuts, roots and grub worms, not tearing at raw meat. Our digestive systems readily succumb to pathogens and parasites, also, unlike real predators, many of which can consume rotting flesh. Even if you could get past the stench, you would become gravely ill, after just one bite. There isn't much we can kill, either, without tools, because we're so slow and weak.

[liberal_at_heart]

120. that's because we have an opposable thumb

We can use our hands and tools to manipulate our food. And digestive tracts are conditioned. My father can eat rotten food and never gets sick. He grew up dirt poor and with an aunt and uncle who didn't really care about him so they fed him terribly.

[ancianita]

122. Totally with you on that. But we do still have four canines for tearing meat. Just sayin.'

I'm totally for the hunter-gatherer diet. I'm assuming people have seen this...

[FBaggins]

128. Did you miss "omnivores" in the post you replied to?

Why are you posting evidence that we aren't carnivores when that isn't what was claimed?

[ronnie624]

140. Nope, saw it.

I didn't actually disagree with the poster. My post was more of a response to the order to stop discussing.

[trotsky]

153. There's substantial evidence that as we learned to cook our food - including meat...

it enabled our jaws and muscles controlling them to shrink (since we didn't to gnaw and chew so much anymore), which in turn allowed our cranium to expand and accommodate a larger, more complex brain.

We are here and typing on computers today because our ancestors cooked and ate meat.

[liberal_at_heart]

154. +1

[ronnie624]

156. That doesn't seem consistent with the process of natural selection.

How would cooking meat enable a jaw to shrink? There would have to be some sort of survival advantage to having a smaller jaw, over having a larger one, thereby increasing the numbers of those with smaller jaws.

It's likely our ancestors were driven to hunt by shortages of the things they normally ate, and hunting and consuming meat became a permanent part of human culture. I can understand why, as it is delicious when prepared properly.

[trotsky]

157. It meant that those individuals who possessed a gene mutation...

giving them a smaller jaw and larger brain, were much more likely to survive than they would have before. That's all a gene needs to become more common in a population. And with the added benefit of the gene (increased brainpower), you can readily imagine how much of an advantage it conferred upon the individuals who possessed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_Fire:_How_Cooking_Made_Us_Human

I should note that cooking food (all kinds of food, not just meat) spared us from using as many calories to consume it, and raised the caloric value we get from it - meaning we didn't have to gather or hunt as much food, giving us more time to think, develop tools, create languages, etc.

Cooking made us human, indeed.

[tama]

165. +1

[FBaggins]

158. Perhaps the female neanderthals found males with narrow jaws and larger skulls to be more attractive

A smaller jaw doesn't have to be a survival advantage... it could be as simple as the survival advantage of the larger jaw going away. Or perhaps the larger brain became an advantage larger than that of the larger jaw.

It's likely our ancestors were driven to hunt by shortages of the things they normally ate, and hunting and consuming meat became a permanent part of human culture

It's more likely that meat was on the diet to begin with as forraging was insufficient year-round... and then added more vegetables as the luxury of staying in one place long enough to grow a crop became a possibility.

[ronnie624]

161. I did think of sexual selection.

I didn't mean to imply that our ancestors never consumed meat or animal protein, but they had to have already been human when they began organized hunting of large herbivores with tools, like spears and traps. Our dietary requirements evolved before that. Mountain gorillas and bonobos eat what would be healthiest for us.

[tama]

169. Chimpanzees eat meat

and hunt as a pack. There may have been period when we were semi-aquatic gatherers, which might explain how we became bipedal furrless sweaters, that's speculation, but from we what we know, there are three main differences between us and chimps:

1) We are bipedal and furrless and can sweat extra heat, so we can run longer than any game.
2) We use fire and eat cooked food.
3) Our brain chemistry is adjusted to using and gaining meaningful experiences from various psychoactive substances that chimps have no receptors for and show no interest towards.

Naked monkeys with brains on dope that can run without stopping and bbq what we catch.

[tama]

164. We eat cooked food

Our ecological niche is fire using species. Eating cooked food we can gobble down in few minutes what other species chew for hours, using lot of energy to that.

Also, we can outran pretty much any animal that moves on land. Not in 100 yards or 500 hundred, but we can keep running until the game drops down in thermal exhaustion and does not have strength to resist being killed by any means. We are long distance runners who can sweat the extra heat away, can't be beaten in marathon by other species wearing fur.

[quinnox]

11. so one person started spamming dumb threads

based on your original thread, and that makes all of us meat eaters defensive? I'm not, I have nothing to be defensive about in regard to the subject, I like meat and eat it. Nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned.

[bluestate10]

12. I think most people get defensive when they get a sense that they are singled out.

Animal rights people and people who don't eat meat have justifications for their decisions.

I don't hunt after shooting a squirrel as a pre-teen then watching it struggle to stay on the limb for what seemed like for ever before it fell to the ground and died at my feet, I haven't shot a gun since.

But I eat meat. I look to buy meat from sources that treat animals humanely.

[tkmorris]

16. I eat meat and I'm not defensive about it at all

Is there something I can help you with?

[Jeevus]

17. I don't like to eat mammals because humans are mammals,

and it's kind of like eating your own cousin, but I'll do it if that's what's served at a dinner party - rather than being a buzzkill about it.

[sigmasix]

103. i share this view

but i enjoy a rare steak an awful lot...plusI Apposable thumbs!


My oncologist highly recomends lean red meat for me as well.

[FBaggins]

19. Can't imagine why you would think anyone is "defensive"

Seems more likely that you would like people to feel conflicted or guilty... or perhaps can't understand why they don't. But that isn't the same thing as them being defensive.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Because anytime anyone posts anything in defense of animals OR the benefits of a vegetable

based diet, that person and those who agree are inundated with pictures of cooked meat and comments such as, "Meat! Yum! Your post makes me want to put a steak on the grill right now! Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!"

[FBaggins]

45. And why is that defensive?

How often do they start new threads trying to convince others that their personal decisions should be adopted by everyone else?

I think some have confused which behavior more closely matches a "defensive" label.

[Luminous Animal]

78. Shoving a photo of a bloody piece of meat into the face of someone who

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

advocates for the scientifically based fact that a vegetable based diet is better for human and environmental health is indeed defensive. If the internet was around during the lead paint activism, I could totally imagine people posting photos of children chewing on lead paint furniture to support the industries propaganda that it was safe. I could imagine people saying, "I'm going to run out right now and buy lead paint and paint my child's room!"

The average meat eaters CAN'T start threads and make a reasonable argument that their choice is both healthful and environmentally sound because there is no science to back it up.

The FDA recommends 5 1/2 ounces of meat AND other protein sources per day an equivalent to, combined, 1 oz of meat, fish, or poultry, 1 TABLESPOON OF PEANUT BUTTER, 1/2 nuts, and a quarter cup of beans or peas.

Most U.S. Americans, even of they eschew nuts and legumes, will eat far more that 5 1/2 oz of meat per day.

[FBaggins]

87. it isn't defensive at all. It's going on the offense

In precisely the same way that an atheist might get in the face of a street evangelist.or a pro choice advocate might get in the face of someone claiming that abortion causes health issues.

Telling others how to live their lives is offensive and you should expect a response in kind.

Of course an omnivorous diet can be defended as healthy (because it is and had been for millennia). But there isn't any need to because people can choose how to live their own lives.

The average person will live longer if she avoid skydiving and hang gliding. But it's her business. Not yours.

[Luminous Animal]

93. Ah no. An OP advancing a vegetable based diet is the offense. Bloody meat is the defense.

The notion that "telling people how to live their lives" is the libertarian argument that would still have us breathing in asbestos and using lead based paint and gasoline.

I smoke cigarettes. Even so, I appreciate the public health initiatives, the banning in bars, restaurants, airplanes, and other public places that encourage people to reduce their use. I appreciate all the activists who battled the tobacco industry propaganda to reduce the use of tobacco.

[Llewlladdwr]

104. It's good to see that you recognize vegans are offensive!

[Luminous Animal]

108. Ha!

[liberal_at_heart]

112. that does not make you superior to others.

You are free to eat whatever you want. I would never tell you otherwise. I will eat whatever I want. I don't care what the FDA recommends. I don't care what you recommend. What I eat is none of your business.

[Luminous Animal]

115. What you eat, if what you eat is controlled by the corporate food industry, does indeed

become a concern for me as a participant in a democratic society. That is, presumably, I would have a say in the ever increasing control of the food supply in the handful of a few. I would have a say in limiting toxic run-off. I would have a say in depleting forests and water supplies. If, in this democratic society, these environmental concerns reach a critical mass and corporate meat production were to be (democratically) curtailed, then, unless you were wealthy, you would not be able to eat whatever you wanted because the cost would be prohibitive.

There are plenty of food production regulations (though barely and sporadically in the US) that are everyone's business. And those regulations control both production and your consumption.

[liberal_at_heart]

116. You can fight for humane treatment of livestock without

telling people they shouldn't eat meat. Eating meat or not eating meat is a personal decision and you cannot make that decision for someone.

[Luminous Animal]

121. Certainly. And telling people they shouldn't use lead paint was largely ineffectual for decades

until protests against it use reached an critical mass with the populace who demanded its removal. The best an activist can do at any moment in time is consistently and steadfastly present the facts and know that at some point the rest of society will catch up.

At some point someone said, "Hey! Tobacco is harmful." And the industry fought back with propaganda... 1st with health benefits (slimming, relaxing, etc.) and then with lifestyle propaganda and then when dragged to testify in Congress with outright lies.

But ultimately, in many states, cigarettes have been taxed to offset the cost their use has burdened the state. Taxes have also been used to present factual evidence of the damage that cigarettes do to an individual and those around them.

I smoke and nobody can tell me not to. It is a personal decision. But I appreciate all the restrictions on my lifestyle and the increasing costs associated with it. It's made me smoke considerably less over the years. The cost of cigarette smoking has been transferred to the user. I look forward to the day eating meat is treated similarly.

[liberal_at_heart]

123. well I'm glad your self rightousness keeps you warm at night

You obviously are not going to give up so I think I will just put you on ignore. Have a good evening.

[FBaggins]

141. Yes... you "have a say"...

... but in a democratic society, the >90% who disagree with you can't be dictated to by the <3% who agree with you.

Whining about that simple fact is the "defensive" response... even if you initiate the conversation.

[Luminous Animal]

145. Food activists, like the most activist movement, start out with the vast majority on the other side.

The amount of meat we eat and the acres of forests being stripped and the acres of land and water being poisoned to feed livestock is unsustainable.

[FBaggins]

150. You keep using that false example.

We never, for instance, stopped using gasoline or paint. We just changed the way we produced them so that the valid concerns were answered.

We may some day get to the point where the majority insists on more sustainable farming processes and better living conditions for livestock - great! - but that isn't what these threads have been about (as much as you might like to spin them). They've been about convincing people to stop eating meat entirely (in some cases to end the use of all animal products).

And that simply isn't going to happen (nor would it be even as sustainable as the current mess). We have a tough enough time convincing people to modify their consumption when the global climate is at risk. We might have limited success with "less red meat and more poultry", but cut out meat entirely?

That's not activism/advocacy... that's a tiny minority so insecure in their own decisions that they have to convince others to do the same thing just so they feel like they belong. Like the Atkins dieter trying to convince others to stop eating bread around her because it's bad for them and we really evolved eating mostly meat.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Since I've been a child, I was mocked for preferring vegetables...

I'm 55 years old now and I probably first heard "Hitler was a vegetarian!", when I was 10. (He wasn't by the way... he practiced vegetarianism now and again as a curative and publicly propagandized vegetarianism - as well as no smoking and no sex, both "vices" that he actively engaged in - in order to up his purity cred.)

It seems most humans are fools for propaganda and fearful of change. Like lead, meat is a health hazard and like lead, meat is an environmental hazard. The sort of folks who defend corporate meat production and the regular consumption of meat would be the same sort of people who believed the lead councils and believed it got "the knock out" of their engines, and made a perfect surface for their baby's furniture. Most the rest of the world banned lead a half decade before the U.S. did and that fact is due to bought off politicians and regulatory agencies, a industry complicit media, and industry propaganda that clouded independently produced accurate science with industry produced lies.

[jeff47]

73. Sigh.

If you actually want to convince people to change, demonstrably false lies is not a good way to go.

First, leaded gasoline did "get the knock out". "Knocking" is pre-ignition, where the gasoline explodes before the piston is in the proper position. It happens because gasoline is a mixture of mostly heptane and octane and heptane explodes when compressed in an internal combustion engine, causing "knocking". Lead stabilized the heptane so that it did not explode until triggered by the spark plug.

We used lead because it made the gas MUCH cheaper. Unleaded gasoline requires much more refining in order to get the heptane down, and to shape the molecules for more stability. That makes the gas much more expensive, but it's also why "leaded" gas cars could burn unleaded. If the driver wanted to pay more for gas. It's not propaganda or marketing. It's chemistry.

Second, lead is extremely toxic. Meat isn't toxic at all. Too much meat can cause problems. Just like too much of virtually any food can cause problems - you can die from drinking too much water.

Third, our bodies demonstrate that we did not evolve as vegetarians. We don't have a digestive tract designed for only plant eating. Compare ours to cows or horses - herbivores have much more complex digestive tracts than we do. And we've got teeth for ripping meat - there's no reason for us to have canines if we only ate plants.

Plus we've found prehistoric tool markings on bones - why would they have gone after meat if meat eating is caused by industry and government when we hadn't yet invented industry or government?

It appears we evolved with a diet that contained a mix of plants and meat. Far less meat than the typical American diet, but meat nonetheless. And studies are showing such a diet appears to be among the "healthiest" diet as measured by longevity. Whether or not it actually is the healthiest is unclear - mild starvation (~90% of required daily calories) seems to actually result in the longest life, but not terribly healthy while living it.

[laundry_queen]

83. Good post. nt

[Luminous Animal]

90. *Sigh* lead was an additive and not necessary. Most of the western world abandoned lead

a half decade before the U.S. and CHOSE to not poison their citizenry. And yes, I remember TV commercials that touted, "lead, it gets the knock out" and all advertising is propaganda.

http://www.medicine.uottawa.ca/SIM/Data/Lead_in_Gasoline.htm

Meat itself is not toxic. Meat production is. The daily consumption of most U.S. citizens is.

It is immaterial where we evolved and where we are now. Globally, people eat too much meat resulting in poisoned lakes, rivers, oceans, streams, and ponds. It results in deforestation - our global lungs - it results in the over production of methane.

I've never advocated for anyone to totally abandon meat but rather to greatly reduce their daily meat intake.

[jeff47]

94. So, your memory of commercials is supposed to replace basic chemistry then?

Good to know.

But back in reality, lead was added to gasoline so that 34 octane gas worked. And to help you with a sense of scale, unleaded gasoline is a minimum of 87 octane today. Lead was absolutely necessary as long as the car was burning 34 octane gas. Without it, the engine would be destroyed by the cheap gasoline. Not propaganda. Chemistry and physics.

Globally, people eat too much meat resulting in poisoned lakes, rivers, oceans, streams, and ponds.

The vast majority of that poisoning is from run-off from farms growing plants. Sure, a large portion of those plants are going to be fed to farm animals used to make meat, but the pollution is from the farming, not the meat.

It is immaterial where we evolved and where we are now.

Actually, it's quite important. Our systems evolved to operate most efficiently on some particular diet. Thus they will work best with that diet.

I also noticed you left out the part regarding tool markings on bones showing we ate meat long before we invented propaganda, industry and government. That's rather interesting.

It results in deforestation - our global lungs

Actually, phytoplanton in the oceans produce most of the oxygen in out atmosphere. Trees actually aren't good net oxygen producers - lots of CO2 is produced during the decay of dropped leaves and rotting timbers.

I've never advocated for anyone to totally abandon meat but rather to greatly reduce their daily meat intake.

Are you operating under the illusion that your post isn't still up there? Here, lemme quote it for you:

Like lead, meat is a health hazard and like lead, meat is an environmental hazard. The sort of folks who defend corporate meat production and the regular consumption of meat would be the same sort of people who believed the lead councils and believed it got "the knock out" of their engines, and made a perfect surface for their baby's furniture. Most the rest of the world banned lead a half decade before the U.S. did and that fact is due to bought off politicians and regulatory agencies, a industry complicit media, and industry propaganda that clouded independently produced accurate science with industry produced lies.

Now, your main thrust is that meat is somewhere around as toxic as lead. Yet now you're claiming you advocate for reduced "meat intake".

So how much lead should we be ingesting? You're now saying we should eat some meat, so clearly that means we should eat some lead.

Or perhaps the two aren't similar at all.

[Luminous Animal]

101. I grasp the chemistry. I also grasp why the rest of the western world abandoned lead

while the U.S. citizenry resisted grass-roots efforts to abandon it due to massive industry and commercial propaganda.

And never once have I claimed that meat and lead are equally toxic. That is why I used the word "like" instead of a phrase "as toxic".

Both meat production and lead use have human health and environmental impacts. The governmental and social response should be equal to their impacts. In the case of lead, a total banning. In the case of meat, the responsibility to educate the public and ban practices that are toxic to communities (huge sewage pools and run off into rivers and streams.)

[jeff47]

174. Actually, the US effectively banned leaded gas in 1975

In that new cars were required to have catalytic converters, which means they can't burn leaded gasoline. What that allowed is a phase-out of leaded gas that did not fuck over the poor - they were not suddenly required to pay much more for gas.

This wasn't a problem for Europe, because their poor were much more likely to be using mass transit. Thus a sudden cut-off was less economically damaging.

while the U.S. citizenry resisted grass-roots efforts to abandon it due to massive industry and commercial propaganda.

Yes, it had nothing to do with unleaded costing several times the price of leaded gas. Truly. The prices on every single gas pump were utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

And never once have I claimed that meat and lead are equally toxic. That is why I used the word "like" instead of a phrase "as toxic".

So I need to link the definition of "like" for you?

You are now saying meat and lead have similar levels of toxicity. That's what "like" means.

In reality, lead is toxic, meat isn't. They are not at all "like" each other.

Both meat production and lead use have human health and environmental impacts.

No, lead has devastating and long-lasting environmental impacts that can not be avoided.

Meat production can be done in a 'clean' manner - in fact many other countries require it. Factory farms in the US are already required to maintain certain levels of "cleanliness". That could be increased by legislation while still producing meat.

There is no way to use leaded gasoline in a clean manner.

And as I said above, your primary environmental complaints are in plant production, not meat production. Yes, the plants are used as feed, but it's the production of the plants that causes fertilizer runoff and the rest of your eariler complaints.

huge sewage pools

What do you think happens after you flush the toilet? Your crap flows into huge sewage pools for treatment.

[Luminous Animal]

179. It should have been banned long before then. It's toxicity from the getgo

Alcohol was as cheap an alternative but...

Lead was added to gasoline in the 1920s to reduce engine knock and enable engineers to design cars with higher compression in the cylinders, permitting greater power and efficiency. Other octane boosters that early car designers experimented with included ethyl alcohol, also known as ethanol or grain alcohol. Because ethanol is plentiful and easy to make, however, it was rejected by corporate titans at General Motors and duPont, who needed an additive they could control and profit from -like tetraethyl lead (TEL), which could be patented. (In 1920 duPont controlled 35.8% of GM stock.) And so, despite its manifest dangers and unsuitability for internal combustion engines, TEL became the standard octane booster in gasoline. Among its foremost promoters were Alfred P. Sloan and Charles Kettering of General Motors, remembered today for having founded the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv8n1/l8v1-3.html

The above excerpt is from an article that references this longer and very thorough report from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead?page=full

So, even though there was a plentiful, economical and significantly less toxic alternative, it was rejected in favor of profits.

As for cost, the increase, the World Bank estimated $.07 on every gallon certainly not the "several times the price".

Phasing out leaded gasoline is economical for both vehicle owners and refineries.

Converting to unleaded gasoline does, in fact, entail some cost. (The World Bank estimates an average of $0.07 (U.S.) per gallon or $0.02 per liter.) But considering only the short-term costs of conversion is what economists call a “partial analysis.” It addresses one aspect of costs and ignores others.

Vehicle drivers can actually realize net savings from phasing out leaded gasoline. For example, an U.S. EPA study found that the savings to drivers from reduced maintenance costs alone more than offset the increased cost of unleaded gasoline. When vehicle maintenance costs are calculated with reduced health care costs and improved energy efficiency, it is estimated that the U.S. saved $10 for every $1 invested in conversion.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MdQFL-DkuZQJ:www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/pdf/pub-aeclp-myths.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShQDtATrZ-PsL6SEJyAjmKaKM3NdXTLOrKRkHsbyRdwlWJK5G0fMftos3-F4nQM7WJ2NlmYF1jFQze34lmAJYP5z4YCqgjDrGXrAaqKPj2ij-kKfwlOqwwotJBlltgzigOk34QS&sig=AHIEtbRNfF4_zQUJNXS32RKN0sZf5rpbNg

Gotta go. Maybe I'll have time later to address the rest.

[Eleanors38]

155. IMO, the best way to advance vegetarianism: Open a good veget. Restaurant...

I talk to vegetarians, and they agree the way to convert folks to a more vegetarian diet is with good, solid vegetarian restaurants. NO ONE turns down good food, and once they are in the door, the sky's the limit. Beats ideology (no matter how reasonable) any day.

I hunt, and have replaced beef purchases at the super. But I eat regularly at Bouldin Creek Cafe in Austin, TX. It's damn good, plentiful and affordable. On wk ends it is almost inaccessible, due to the crowds.

That's the way to convert folks!

[Luminous Animal]

163. There are quite a few great vegetarian restaurants in San Francisco and most others

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

will serve some damn tasty meat alternatives.

My focus really hasn't been on no meat but less meat and another way to promote eating more vegetables is to create some fantastic dishes and serve it to friends, family, and guests. Just this past weekend, I converted some brussel sprout haters into brussel sprout lovers.

[FBaggins]

172. Now you have gone TOO FAR!

"Less meat"... I'm with you. And there are LOADS of vegetables that I love to grow/eat... but you try to convince me to eat brussel sprouts and we are DONE!

But then again... my TAS2R38 gene is defective.

some damn tasty meat alternatives.

And I've used some of them when entertaining our vegan friends... but how many of them pass the "sustainable" test? The ones I've seen almost all rely on a wealthy high-tech economy and distribution network (along with large agro companies). They're rarely something that you're going to find produced locally.

[Eleanors38]

182. Sounds good. Hope to get a feral pig soon.

[Luminous Animal]

184. Are you hunting pig or is it a gift?

[Eleanors38]

185. Hunting, when the opportunity arises.

[kentauros]

170. Good observation :)

The one thing I'd do if I could have just two minutes with any of the CEOs of the various chain restaurants (Schlotzsky's is still a favorite) is to expand their vegetarian offerings beyond the one veggie meal/sandwich available on their menu. Most also seem to think that we all like salads or "salads on a bun". Imagination always seems to go out the window when confronted with making more than one veggie meal concept.

At the same time, their imagination is in constant overdrive for coming up with new (or improved) meat entrées...

[Eleanors38]

183. The place I go to doesn't have an extensive menu, but

it has several husky, tasty sandwiches, with a side, dressed with a mildly picante pecan pesto (no cheese). The go for <$8.

[Lex]

23. I am here and I eat meat and I'm not defensive.

Chill.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. "Democratic" specifically refers to the political party

as far as I know? Promoting a vegan/vegetarian diet isn't part of the Democratic Party platform. And I would expect that an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters also eat meat.

A better question: why are some evangelical vegans such preachy assholes?

[Curmudgeoness]

60. +1000

[Sheldon Cooper]

30. Heh.

You should probably revisit your definitions of 'defensive' and 'logical'. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

[Iggo]

31. Defensive?

What do you mean defensive?

Oh wait. I see what you did there...lol.

[Xipe Totec]

33. Me? Defensive?! Nuh-uh! nt

[still_one]

34. I am a vegetarian, and I see more vegetarians in the face of non-vegetarians then the reverse

[sir pball]

144. Exactly. "Miltiant Veganism" is a proudly self-identified movement

That I had a lot of cheerful confrontations with when I ran in the hardcore scene in the 90s - most of them had no idea of how to obtain proper strict vegan nutrition and were the stereotypically pale, scrawny, sickly teens, no real threat to me when I was sitting outside CT's or the Ell-n-Gee munching a Whopper...hard to be physically intimidating when I outweigh three of ya put together

I've never heard of "Militant Meat-Eaters" though.

[Warpy]

37. You "should" on people, they tend to get defensive

Funny how that works.

I didn't eat meat for years, beans were cheaper. I felt better without red meat when I started again.

I don't give a shit what anybody else eats. Your body, your life.

Bon appetit.

[Bonobo]

48. Sounds like "Why did you stop beating your wife?" NT

[kwassa]

49. Defensive? That's what my gun is for! How else will I kill my meat?

[Matariki]

52. Bwahahaha

poking badgers with a spoon because FLAME threads are SO much fun.

[DainBramaged]

54. Because Vegans can be JUST as defensive and unreasonable.

Why does it matter?

[longship]

55. Well, there's always the fact that humans are omnivores.

And pretty much always have been.

When human ancestors were last vegetarians, if they ever were, they lived in trees.

I do not criticize anybody who adopts a non-meat diet. But puleeze do not portray it as a moral argument when your very existence is because your ancestors ate meat.

Society has changed because culture has changed. Do not lecture people because they eat meat when humans probably owe their development to eating meat.

I eat meat. So did all of everybody's ancestors. Get over it.

I love the breathaireans. They just die.

[doccraig67]

56. BRB

Have to go flip my juicy rib eye steak on the grill!!!!

[sadbear]

100. You should really consider pan frying that ribeye.

It's been my experience that either the method Alton Brown used on Good Eats (pan frying on cast iron and then finishing off in 500 degree stove) or even the America's Test Kitchen method which cooks it in the oven first and then finishes it off on the stovetop.

Heck, I prefer any ribeye that I cook myself over anything I can get in a restaurant.

[pscot]

57. we're not defensive

it's just that we're haunted by the ghosts of all those dead cows

[me b zola]

58. As an omnivore, I don't get the argument

As I get older I am eating less and less meat. I believe that non-meat eaters have very valid points and we are all better for listening to you all.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. because we don't like to be proselytized to

I'm not interested in other people's religions and I'm not interested in their eating habits either. You eat what you want to eat and I will eat what I want to eat. How about that?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

63. Vegetarians also don't like being proselytized to.

Hint: When a vegetarian/vegan states that they don't eat meat, they're not asking meat eaters what they had for dinner.

[Llewlladdwr]

64. Then don't mention it.

Honestly, why vegans need to let everyone know about their "lifestyle" I'll never understand.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

68. Then don't mention it.

Honestly, why gays need to let everyone know about their "lifestyle" I'll never understand".

[Llewlladdwr]

76. WTF?

Gays are proselytizing now?

Vegans are as discriminated against as gays?

See, this is why people don't like vegans....

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

77. Your post #64 sounds like the rationalization many anti-gay bigots express

when they speak out against equal rights.

They often complain that gay people who lobby for their rights are "shoving their lifestyles down our throats".

[Llewlladdwr]

81. And atheists get this also, right?

So despite your attempt to paint me as a homophobic bigot you conceed that this line of argument can be used in non-gay bashing ways?

Again, this could be why people don't like vegans....

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

84. Where did I imply that you were homophobic?

I said you were using a similar argument.

I honestly don't know why people like you get so defensive on this subject. Rest assured, as an American, nobody will ever try to take away your right to be as fat and stupid as humanly possible.

[Llewlladdwr]

85. Ah, I see what you did there.

You imply that I'm homophobic by accusing me of using the same argument that homophobes do, then ask why I'm so defensive when I call you on it.

Pretty smart that. Probably ends a lot of arguments for you.

If I could though, I'd like to point out that refering to omnivores as "as fat and stupid as humanly possible" is not going to endear either yourself or your position to them.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

88. I made no such implication.

Pro tip: If being labeled "stupid" is something you wish to avoid in the future, I suggest you learn how to comprehend the words and sentences that appear on your monitor.

[name not needed]

113. Don't you dare compare the two.

I don't ever recall anyone being tied to a fence and beaten to death for eating a salad.

[liberal_at_heart]

114. sounds just like the argument that evangelical Christians make

"You're denying my freedom to deny others their freedom"

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

126. I'm not comparing being gay to eating meat!

I'm comparing the ARGUMENTS meat eaters and bigots use to justify their behavior.

Can't you fucking people read?

[Tree-Hugger]

166. +1 nt

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

69. Then don't mention it.

Honestly, why atheists need to let everyone know about their "lifestyle" I'll never understand.

[liberal_at_heart]

65. never tell anybody what I had for dinner unless they ask

I don't care what anybody eats.

[FBaggins]

66. and how often does that happen?

Can't remember threads trying to convince DUers to start esting meat... but scores of threads telling them that they need to stop.

Which sounds more like proselytizing?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

74. Happens plenty,

both here and in real life. Guess people don't like to be reminded of the poor health choices they make in their lives.

[FBaggins]

79. not really

Responding to offensive behavior with comments designed to highlight how rude the proselytizer is being... is not at all the same thing as proselytizing itself.

[davidpdx]

72. +10,000

I agree with you on both counts. There is a big difference between talking to someone about it and forcing your views down other people's throats. It goes both way, vegetarians to meat eaters and meat eaters to vegetarians. I don't lecture or make fun of those who are vegetarians, though I may ask them what they can or can't eat out of curiosity. The same is true of religion, I don't want someone breathing down my throat forcing their religion on me.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, ""People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"

[guardian]

71. Time to fortify the defenses

yum yum

[kudzu22]

96. Thanks, now I'm hungry.....n/t

[kestrel91316]

75. Maybe because we don't like being told we are basically evil.

[Marrah_G]

80. What people eat is their own business

[FBaggins]

91. Isn't it amazing how hard that seems to be for some people to understand ?

Some people simply aren't confident enough with their own life choices and just have to insist that everyone else make the same ones.

[sadbear]

86. I don't know about other Democrats, but this one is not ashamed of eating meat.

And I refused to be shamed into vegetarianism. All of my ancestors were meat eaters. I'm not ashamed of them either.

[ZombieHorde]

92. I don't know, but I have noticed that most meat eaters are really defensive about it.

I'm a meat eater, and I don't mean organic, humanely raised meat. I eat pretty much whatever, so I am not attacking meat eaters as an "outsider."

[customerserviceguy]

95. We know that given your druthers

You'd outlaw it just as fast as you'd outlaw guns. People who don't actively defend their rights often find them slipping away.

[Throd]

98. I don't give a shit what you think about meat. Just stay away from mine.

[aquart]

99. Rib steak!

[Deep13]

102. Defensiveness is a response to offensiveness. nt

[Nye Bevan]

105. I'm not. I am, however, in awe of the stupidness of PETA (nt)

[libodem]

106. It makes us mean

Seriously, I've heard that.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

107. because of we weren't so vigilantly defensive, we'd be overrun by the meat.

[ancianita]

109. Whatever you're defending or offending, I highly recommend this great book.

Much, much easier to 'digest' than his first and way more informative about two things -- micronutrients and nutrition industry history.

[The Second Stone]

111. Why are some vegetarians so offensive?

Someday I'm going to be feasted on by worms and bacteria. Well, much like how I appreciate a nice Wagyu beef that has been pampered with massages and beers, I feel that my worms and bacteria should get nothing but the best.

And plants have a right to live too. They are just as alive as any other living thing. It isn't even sporting to eat a plant; they can't get away.

[JDPriestly]

117. Maybe we aren't. Maybe those who don't eat meat are just a wee bit overly

aggressive.

Some of my best friends are vegetarians. LOL

Members of my family are vegetarians. I love vegetables. When vegetarians come to my house they are surprised that they can eat plenty of my food. One friend who is not only a vegetarian but eats only raw vegetables joked with me one Thanksgiving that I was the only person he had ever met who ate more raw vegetables than he did.

But I don't like being told that vegetarians are superior to me because in addition to oodles of my beloved vegetables I eat some meat.

You go your way. I go mine. There is not reason for either of us to be aggressive. No one will be defensive if you are not aggressive. Let meat-eaters do their thing. And you will can do yours.

Always good to encourage people to eat their veggies. But why bother them for eating meat? That's their decision just as much as it's your decision not to eat meat.

Peace.

[Raine]

119. I don't know. I've been a vegetarian since I was a kid and never hassled a meat eater. I wish I

had been given that kind of tolerance in return. It was very difficult being a vegetarian as a kid in the late 50s-60s and being treated like an outcast. I always hid the fact that I didn't eat meat whenever I could. One reason I would never put others down for what they eat or don't eat.

[liberal_at_heart]

124. thank you for your consideration

I'm sorry you were ridiculed as a child. No one should be ridiculed for what they eat. No one should be ridiculed at all for any reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. YES! FINALLY!

Now all we need is smoking, circumcision, and the Olive Garden, and DU is Back to the good old days!!!

[HappyMe]

130. Good grief!

Why the hell does PETA get 3 months?

There should be a meeting to dump at least one of the PETA months. I think November should go, because having it again in January is PETA overdose.

[Warren DeMontague]

180. That was the old days.

Meat and animals seemed to take up a lot of the emotional energy that goes to gender issues now.

[cemaphonic]

175. No, August is Hiroshima month

Though, last year, it was pretty tame.

[Jersey Devil]

127. I'm having my pet bunny "Fred" for dinner

Other animals that are also omnivores, like humans, don't seem to have guilt because they don't have brains large enough to have anthropomorphic fantasies about bunnies, dancing and singing fish, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and other cartoon characters.

[hobbit709]

129. I don't care what anyone eats as long as they're not trying to cook me as long pig.

[HappyMe]

131. "DEMOCRATIC" is a political party.

It really has nothing to do with what people eat. What you eat isn't a lockstep issue.

What other people eat really isn't any of my business.

[MoonRiver]

135. Democratic is also an adjective.

I don't care what you eat if it doesn't pollute my environment. On my previous post I did not criticize people's eating choices. I simply asked if a cute picture might change your choices. The discussion then got heated, IMHO, because the meat eaters became so defensive.

[HappyMe]

136. Cute picture wouldn't change my mind.

I don't feel the need to defend what I eat.

[FBaggins]

139. It's an adjective with a reality behind it.

It describes a situation where if 90% of a population agree with something and 3% disagree (with an additional 7% on the fence)... the 3% don't get to set policy.

And that's true whether or not you try to spin their choices as "polluting your (sic) environment"

On my previous post I did not criticize people's eating choices.

Oh baloney. Of course you did.

[LWolf]

134. I'm not.

[ananda]

137. That's strange.

I mean, I could defend my eating of meat, but why bother?

I respect people's food choices to a degree... but I do worry
about the proliferation of junk and processed food and its
concomitant obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

[el_bryanto]

138. I love meat. Chicken mostly, but I'm also fond of Pork, Beef, and Artichokes. nt

[cali]

142. Why do so many people make moronic generalizations? Just asking, honey.

[KamaAina]

143. What does diet have to do with politics?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-karlgaard/rise-up-vegan-republicans_b_485906.html

Confession: I'm a Republican flip flop wearer (Hawaiian Pros) who has morphed into an (almost) vegan. I'll tell you why I'm doing it and what I have learned. If you don't mind a Republican bloviating in your polite company, I'll also make a few speculations on how the tribalism cited above is actually destroying America. The opposite impulse, fusion thinking, will be our salvation.

[11 Bravo]

146. I only eat Republican beef, pork, or poultry. And yours may just be the ...

silliest fucking post I've ever read on DU. It's un-Democratic to not be a vegetarian? Really? (If you were trying to be sarcastic, well done! If not, seek help.)

[Bettie]

147. Wait....all Democrats are supposed to be vegan?

I missed a memo somewhere.

I eat meat. I like meat.

I dislike being preached to.

Not defensive, just sick of being preached at.

[LuckyTheDog]

149. I am not

But then, that's probably because, deep down, I know that being a vegetarian would be better for me.

[99Forever]

151. I'm here. I eat meat. I am Democratic.

And I'm not in the least "defensive" about it.

Broadbrush much?

[abelenkpe]

152. Why are vegetarians such sactimonious jerks?

I ask as a vegetarian. REally, you just looking to piss people off? Declare how superior you are because you don't eat meat? What?

[Blue_In_AK]

171. What are you talking about?

I eat meat and I'm not defensive at all. People can eat whatever they want to.

[Rider3]

176. Don't act so innocent...

You are clearly baiting people, and you know it. If you don't want to eat meat - great! Then don't! But don't bait people and then claim to not "understand" why they get so upset. You are behaving like a troll.

[Silentnomore]

177. I'm an omnivore ,

why should I feel defensive?

[Recursion]

178. Half of the time

Welcome to DU!

[sakabatou]

181. It's the way humans are. We're built to eat both.

[whatchamacallit]

186. I've never been healthier since becoming a vegan

I'd be a dumbass to go back.