*

Recent

1 Guest, 0 Users

Author Topic: flexitarians  (Read 8604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nane

  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
flexitarians
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:50:21 AM »
I‘d like to know what’s your take on flexitarians –supposed vegetarian who “merely occasionally” eat animals? I’ve came across the term for the first time a few days ago but apparently it was the 2003’s most useful word chosen by the American Dialect Society. It appears that besides flexitarians there are also some who call themselves pollotarians and thus allow themselves eating poultry flash. There are also that sorry type formerly known as vegetarians that eat fish, now refer to themselves as pescetarians. The title may’ve been switched, though the base is all the same- they justify their consumption of fish and "seafood" by claiming that opposed to birds and mammals fish are not intelligent and lack the ability to feel pain-thus it’s o.k to eat them. Trying to line the three categories in my head in order of stupidity and idiocy - they all reach 1st place… 
I’ve spoke with a few friends and they all basically responded in the spirit of "two flexitarians are better than one vegetarian", totally miscomprehending what seems as serious drift towards the self-contradicted tag - meateaters with a conscience.
I thought if there’s any place to unload it’s this radical refuge. At least here I won’t receive these middling and depressingly short-sighted messages that can only weaken the movement, and if anything serves as an indication of how weak it actually is.

Offline takin

  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2011, 11:12:07 AM »
Here you won’t hear weakening of the movement? Are you kidding? This is where the movement is bashed from top to bottom, left to right. I don’t know of any place that considers less of the movement. Slideshow after slideshow, paragraph after paragraph they come down on the movement for being, anthropocentrist and speciesist, incapable of making any influence (and if you read Trends even strengthening some industries), they highly criticize legislation, veganism and even the use of the term rights itself.
And I am not sure they see themselves as part of the liberation movement to any degree at all.

Re: flexitarians
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2011, 03:16:13 AM »
Here you won’t hear weakening of the movement? Are you kidding? This is where the movement is bashed from top to bottom, left to right. I don’t know of any place that considers less of the movement. Slideshow after slideshow, paragraph after paragraph they come down on the movement for being, anthropocentrist and speciesist, incapable of making any influence (and if you read Trends even strengthening some industries), they highly criticize legislation, veganism and even the use of the term rights itself.
And I am not sure they see themselves as part of the liberation movement to any degree at all.


I disagree. Obviously they are highly critic of the movement but all is an inside criticism. This is not media or street criticism superficially claiming that the movement is too extreme, or people saying that humans’ problems come first. These are activists who came from the movement and see other activists as potential ideological colleagues. Animal rights activists are their declared target audience as written on the cd. They know animal rights activists and criticize their world view based on knowledge and experience not myths and stigmas. They speak their language, know the guidelines and dilemmas, and generally share much more in common than in difference. Most importantly I believe there is no shadow of doubt that animals’ suffering is what motivated them while being in what they call the conventional movement which they were disappointed of, and that it is still their motive now, so I think that they are part of the movement even if they don’t see themselves as such. The moral principles are similar it is the pathway that is different. I know it sounds strange as the differences seem immeasurable but for me the O.O.S is still a liberation group.

Re: flexitarians
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2011, 07:15:13 AM »
Though I agree and tend to categorize them well within the movement, I also think it hardly matters. All these fixated definitions of apart of the movement or not, take a step backwards. What difference does it make? What’s important is whether the idea, the raised solution is the right one or not. In case you find it flawed it doesn’t concern you, feel free to get back to the conventional movement convincing passers-by to give soy cheese a go. Good luck with that. However if you agree, come on get to work! It’s quite a challenge we’re facing ahead (guess I just revealed my stand…)

Re: flexitarians
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2011, 10:10:12 AM »
And I am not sure they see themselves as part of the liberation movement to any degree at all.

Of course they see themselves as a liberation group as well, Liberation for all creatures, from all suffering, for all times. But Lfacfasfat is not as catchy as O.O.S is it … :)

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2011, 11:32:41 AM »
It is truly very sad that animal rights activists fail to see the direction and buy all these absurd magical definitions enabling people to eat meat without guilt. As we showed in vegan suffering even organic cabbage is not moral so it takes some magical definition to purify meat.
We all know these people who do one good thing and it blocks everything else. Vegetarians are one of the worst examples that we all know so well and hate so bad. Who didn’t bang his head hearing their excuses why they are not vegans? Who haven’t thought to himself that sometimes vegetarians are much worse than meat eaters?
Same goes for other people. In the article "trends" we wrote that since Al Gore knows "that consumers will always choose the more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change. Chasing after popularity and not after a solution for climate change, he mentions the ideas that are more likely to be adopted because they don’t require the consumers to alter their routines very much, and that is regardless of the environmental footprint of these actions compared to other ideas that are much more environmentally significant but will require much more than changing the light bulb type."
Same with meat, eggs and milk and you know who plays al gore in this analogy…

When there is a guilty free option it doesn’t matter that it is not suffering free and that the free guilt is lacking a solid moral basis or even rational thinking. It settles with what they want to do and it’s supported by many, so it easily becomes o.k.
Are two flexitarians better than one vegetarian when they enable people with potential to go vegetarian or vegan to eat meat when they feel like it? Are they better than a vegetarian who might serve as a good example while they can only be negative peer pressure on a morally weak vegetarian? A harm shared is a torturer’s comfort.

Flexitarians legitimate animal exploitation and the ones who are against it are supposed to be against them. Humans’ flexible morality is not an excuse for activists to forget there is no meat eating with a conscience, no cruelty free egg consumption and no milk drinking without hurting, every vegan activist knows that and the only reason activists support this flexible morality is that they know there is no point in asking people not to hurt.

Re: flexitarians
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2011, 05:53:43 AM »
I wonder if a chicken feels better when he knows it is a flexitarian who eats and not someone who already ate meat every day in the past week… 

Offline KiSsMyKaNgArOo

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2011, 08:40:05 AM »
I was rather taken by LaVeck's work over at HumaneMyth.

LaVeck's intention I believe is not to "tell people what to do" with regards to "their" diet, but rather to provide the information that demonstrates how the ignorant masses are being duped and exploited by a psychotic "industry" who wish to convert suffer into a profitable and commercial commodity.

It's an interesting "tack" to acknowledge that the greater majority of humans possess no intrinsic morality, and therefore they focus instead upon making people feel intellectually bereft for being so naive, gullible and blind as to be manipulated so easily by exploiters.

The latest production from LaVeck emphasises the English slave trade and how the means by which slavery was abolished back then equates with the contemporary condition of slavery as it stands now for other species. Discussed is not only the methods employed by abolitionists, but the slave-holder counter-attacks.

For instance. During a period of anti-slavery activism, the slave-holders produced a theatre piece entitled "The Benevolent Planters", and I'll caption : "...in which two black lovers, separated in Africa, end up living on adjoining plantations in the West Indies and are reunited by their kindly owners"

"Flexitarians" are somewhat like the people who are charmed - or who allow themselves to be charmed - by such despicably callous, sickening and transparent drivel.

Quote
"I'm a good flexitarian person because I actually engaged my empathy for a couple of minutes worth of my life and thought I wouldn't support slavery...SQEE! but when someone tells me what I really want to hear and makes me feel special I'll just forget about empathy and jam my greedy fat hands up a corpse's arse and thrust it down my wretched fucking corpse-hole!. A bit of slavery here...A bit of suffer there...who cares? TEE-HEE"
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 08:42:21 AM by KiSsMyKaNgArOo »
We do not see things as they are; We see things as we are.

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2011, 11:29:00 AM »
How can flexitarianism be a step foreword when it barely affects the number of exploited animals or the exploitation conditions? Flexitarian was the most widely spread word in 2003 but there wasn’t a decrease in tortured animals at the time, or in any of the following  years since. On the contrary, the numbers are on the rise, it’s likely that more vegetarians became flexitarians, and lets call them by their name and cast away the washed term, they are former vegetarians who have returned to their cruel old habits. In short: meat eaters.
If we both read the same article about the flexitarian trend then you saw a clear undisputed  mention that there is a reduction in the number of vegetarians- did your friends seriously fail to see the connection?

"Flexitarians" are somewhat like the people who are charmed - or who allow themselves to be charmed - by such despicably callous, sickening and transparent drivel.
Humans deceive themselves easily and would unhesitatingly grab hold to any available getaway in order to carry on with their unjustified deeds. In some cases it comes down to nothing more than a switch of titles. The effortlessness of it all is part of a wider issue, at the heart of which is the basic will to consume animals in ease. For a long time the organic meat industry (mostly chickens) was on a rise, and so were the grass fed animals (mostly cows and pigs) farms, ancient diets and slow food receive growing attention. All contain and legitimate meat, milk and eggs. 

I am not familiar with the works of LaVeck but I am with the works of Michael Pollan such as the book "the omnivore’s dilemma" which is one of the major contributors to the flexitarian trend and it might cause some people to reduce their meat consumption but if they don’t have a practical way to buy organic, grass fed cow’s meat from local ranch they would simply turn to consume chickens and I really couldn’t think of a worse outcome. Another supposed "contribution" of the book is convincing what I call the factory farms vegetarians or condition opposers vegetarians who don’t agree with the philosophical concepts but oppose the way animals are treated, not with the killing but with the way they are killed and etc. This group of people is getting meat consumption justification with the recent food labelling stating that the animals have been reared under strict organic guidelines and with a great emphasis on their welfare. This option opens the door back to meat eating. It’s human nature to cut coroners when there is no strict boundary, obviously it would eventually fade.  put it simply- a vegetarian will refuse meat in a restaurant, in a hotel, being someone’s dinner guest and etc. however, for someone who believes that animals should be reared in their natural conditions, fed with their natural food and not being loaded with growth hormones and antibiotics and etc, cutting some slacks every once in while is easier. Everything is so indistinct. Basically they can do what ever they feel like. Not much different than flexitarians.

And probably the worst bit of the book is its headline. Still today one of the most popular excuses pulled out is the natural order. Pseudo biological determination about how “humans are omnivores and therefore by definition are supposed to eat meat” is followed by moral statement such as  "there is nothing wrong with eating meat!", and some might go on further paying moral lip service as… "if some workers abuse animals they should be arrested but it doesn’t mean we mustn’t eat meat". By defining humans as omnivores even though it makes little difference to humans whether it is natural or not to eat meat (there is a highly recommended part about it in the article reviewing wool), the author hands them what they longed to hear. For many who swing between vegetarianism and meat eating it’s literally a death blow.

Re: flexitarians
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2011, 04:01:52 AM »
You must not be flexile with flexitarians. Very soon the factory farms vegetarians become vegetariansists people who think vegetarianism is good but are not ones themselves. They are also called hypocritarians.
Next there will be Moderatarians (people who eat meat on small portions only) and afterwards oldatarians (eating old animals only) roadkillarians, huntingtarians and of course death from natural causesatarians.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2011, 11:14:59 AM »
It’s human nature to cut coroners when there is no strict boundary, obviously it would eventually fade.  put it simply- a vegetarian will refuse meat in a restaurant, in a hotel, being someone’s dinner guest and etc. however, for someone who believes that animals should be reared in their natural conditions, fed with their natural food and not being loaded with growth hormones and antibiotics and etc, cutting some slacks every once in while is easier. Everything is so indistinct. Basically they can do what ever they feel like. Not much different than flexitarians.
I unfortunately agree and want to add that for many even the theoretical option is sufficient to legitimatize the consumption of animal based products, people don’t have to actually consume products made of grass-fed, organic, free range, daily petted animals. A single farm is enough for all the excuses seekers. They just have to exist, not even physically, they only need it to say that that’s how things should be and if all the farms where like that there would be no problems.

However I disagree on the flexitarians general significance.
I am not sure that there are so many vegetarians who returned to meat eating that they can actually affect the consumption figures. I think this assumption is built on the logic of many activists convincing others to become vegetarians and vegans including themselves, that everyone has an effect. But unfortunately it is not true. A decrease in the demand is not an immediate decrease in the supply. It is much more complicated to make a farm unprofitable. In many countries animal products are subsidized meaning the farmers will probably not lose money but at most earn less. Second, before farms will get closed, in each one that currently doesn’t squeeze maximum animals to maximum yield would start cutting down expanses and try to increase profits with more density, more prodding, more animals on each truck when transported to the slaughterhouse, more slaughters per minute meaning more aggressiveness and less attention to stunning and etc. Many still unprofitable farms would likely be sold to big corporations, which will probably take a little further all of the above. Big corporations can take some level of loss and they have much more options to stay profitable even if there is a serious reduction in meat demand since a real less demand for meat is fictional, a serious reduction will lower the price causing the demand among poorer people to soar high instantly. Poor people who recently couldn’t afford meat will buy much more of it and it will also reach poor countries, opening new markets. And that is why even a decrease of the number of animals in each cycle in each farm won’t happen. If a dramatic reduction of meat consumption occurs in western countries a dramatic expansion of meat consumption will occur in poorer parts of the world and eventually more or less the same rate of enlargement in the number of exploited animals will occur. It is already happening on global scale with certain animals’ parts. I recently read an article about frozen chicken meat consumption in Ghana, which as part of the general growth of meat consumption in Africa, has grown 70 times in the last 8 years, that proves some of the points I made here. Here are a few of the more relevant parts:
"Globalization and the rising demand for animal protein have turned the chicken into the world’s most mobile and abundant migratory bird. This modern migration isn’t one of whole birds, but rather of dismembered parts - wings in one direction, breasts in another."

"In the global poultry market, a nation is a dark meat country or a light meat country, a leg quarter country or a whole chicken country. A country’s place on the meat color spectrum is determined in large part by economic preferences, but taste matters, too."

"Americans and western Europeans, on the whole, tend to favor white meat. So what happens to all those leftover chicken legs, wings, hearts, livers, feet, and gizzards?
They go to places like Cuba, Iraq, Maldova, and Ghana. In 2007, the United States exported $2.7 billion in mostly dark meat poultry to countries across the globe. Huge international corporations like Tyson Foods have created a global food chain wherein nearly every part of a slaughtered chicken finds a market, often many thousands of miles from where it originally hatched from its egg. In 2007, for example, the majority of chicken feet were shipped to China, while offal — known in layperson’s parlance as guts — went to Mexico, Jamaica and China. Russia got the lion’s share of leg quarters, followed by Lithuania, Ukraine, and Angola. In this globalized market, a woman eating a salad at a Wendy’s in Maine could be ingesting the breast of the same chicken whose gizzard flavors a chicken stew in Togo and whose thigh is served with borscht in Moscow and whose excess fat will soon go to a ConocoPhillips refinery in Texas to make synthetic diesel fuel.
"

This crazy meat color spectrum is fortified by the intensive conditions in factory farms and it fortifies them as well, as they madly create a chicken with more marketable parts. 

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2011, 01:09:17 PM »
By the way, we didn’t start this project because we were disappointed from the AR movement as written earlier in this discussion, especially not on the personal level (the best people we have ever met) but if to sum the whole manifest and the whole website into a few sentences (from the manifest):
We had focused our efforts on the irrelevant attempt to change all the humans in the world as if it is possible and as if that is what will stop all the suffering in the world.
We understood that we shouldn’t have relied on human compassion and morality in the first place. Humans won't voluntarily give up on their control over the non-human animals and over the weaker layers of the human society. History and every day reality prove it again and again (many examples are presented in this manifest and many more all over the website). Humans will never voluntarily give up their predominance.
Power is too addictive. The domination is too comfortable.
And even if, in spite of what happened in the world in every single day so far, you still believe it is possible, as we will further explain it is not supposed to be humans' decision in the first place. We shouldn’t ask humans whether or not they are willing to stop torturing others, we should stop them.

Our main argument is a positive one. Not despair but an inspiration is what we hope you would feel when you think about the idea. Not hate or crave for revenge but moral afflatus. We want the image of a world with no battery cages, no slaughterhouses, no laboratories, no rape and no hunger to be your motivation.
The world suffering is our main reason, our main motivation and our main argument.


Re: flexitarians
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2011, 01:36:11 PM »
Wow that is really depressing what you wrote about Africa. Based on the manifest and some common knowledge I thought it was only in Asia. Shit. That’s really horrible.
People go out of their way to cling onto the existence of god regardless of any reason because they need it. They do everything they can to justify procreation as opposed to any reason and morality because they are designed to procreate. And people do everything they can to justify meat eating as opposed to any reason and morality because they want to.
They need god, they are designed to procreate and they want to eat meat. There is nothing to do with this race but to kill it. I see no other option.

Offline Nvhemt

  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2011, 04:54:42 AM »
I unfortunately agree and want to add that for many even the theoretical option is sufficient to legitimatize the consumption of animal based products, people don’t have to actually consume products made of grass-fed, organic, free range, daily petted animals.
Although I agree with your point, I want to take a second and address an obvious issue that was somehow left out; regarding the true reality within the laureate Polyface. (for those of you who don’t know, Polyface is a private farm which was brought to the readers’ minds in the Omnivore’s Dilemma as a piece of heaven on earth). Let’s say Michael Pollan (the author of the book) described the place thoroughly but far from accurately, and was very selective about facts and figures.
It doesn’t take MD in psychology to realize Michael Pollan’s judgment is completely clouded by his, desperate seeking for excuses to eat meat, but the length he went to picture polyface as opposite to what it really is, is just astonishing.
Too bad that on his personal quest for conscience sedation he misled hundreds of thousand of readers- perhaps even some of the writers here.
I’m sure there are no Polyface farm or Pollan admirers in this forum but before this discussion becomes too theoretical, I want to prove that presenting this farm as an ideal symbiosis between humans and nonhumans is an outrage.
To avoid version dispute I supported my description with videos from youtube that you can all see or more accurately for you to show since I figure you don’t need the proof personally.

In the following videos you can see how the chicks live their first days in polyface:
"Polyface Farms-Swoope, VA (Baby chicks)"
"Newmans at Polyface Farm"
And the worst one is "Polyface_ Baby Chicks"

Joel Salatin, Polyface’s owner, said in the video “JoelSalatinUrbanFarmStore1” that he buys his chicks from a hatchery. His explanation why is…"We get them in batches of 3,000 to 4,000. I am not a believer of independence to the point of being so independent that you become inefficient."
Entirely self assured, without giving the slightest thought about the implication for the animals, Salatin reveals they’re all genetically distorted- condemned to pain and suffering from birth.
How can Salatin claims that he enables the real character of the animals to be expressed, when he raises ailing industrial breeds and not natural ones. Him and pollan are engaged in playing ethologists while completely disregarding that these are not natural breeds living natural lives.
The chickens in polyface live for 8 weeks. that’s 2 more than in the average industrial broiler farm. Not much time for letting the chickens express their "chickenes".

The video "keeping food local at polyface farm" shows how the chickens are handled, grabbed upside down from the legs and thrown into the plastic crates onto the truck to be slaughtered.

In the video "chicken processing tutorial" chicken slaughter is shown at about minute two.

Another chicken slaughter video is called "polyface poultry kill cones w_ grady".

In "Featherman tutorial – bleeding out a chicken" no matter what the narrator of the video says, the slaughter looks awful and violent as ever. Obviously.

The video "Polyface Processing Overview" demonstrates chickens taken from the crates and aggressively shoved into slaughter cones and then slaughtered. Just as in the conventional industrial production lines, the chickens still flipper after their throat is sliced until they are thrown into the boiled water tank to loosen their feathers before their removal. It’s proudly announced in this video that they are "processing” 470 chickens per 2 hours. That’s 4 a minute or 25 seconds per chicken. Time is money in Polyface just as much.

A repeated saying in the videos states that "this is the most humane killing there is…".
The question why settle for the most human killing while it can so easily be avoided never crosses their minds. Absorbed so well within their own persuasion role, they’re even able to praise a slaughter as it occurs right in front of them.

The cows in pollyface are ear tagged as can be seen in the unintentionally ironically titled "what happens when you are surrounded by over 400 happy polyface".

Obligated by restrictions of US law, Salatin sends the cows to slaughter as they reach 30 months old. From then on it’s the same nightmarish conveyor belt mass production; the Poliface cows are loaded onto trucks and transported to an industrial slaughterhouse. By allowing this, Salatin also breaks his own principle of locality, the one he so often boasts about.

"polyface_piggies" shows pigs held in a pen. It’s noticeably better than any industrial pen I’ve encountered- but is still a pen. The book, as far as I recall gives off an impression of pen free raising.

Another video presenting pigs in pens is "Polyface Farms-Swoope, VA (Cute pig)"

In one of Joel Salatin’s lectures, he explained the pigs live for about 8 months after grown for 2 months at another farm. Conditions in the farm they were born were left unmentioned by him or by Pollan in the book.

In the video "class tour of polyface farm – apart 1 – chicken coop" pigs are seen enclosed in a small fenced area, expressing their "pigness".
4 minutes afterwards views rabbits breeding in Polyface. Never a picture more far away from the pastured ideal Salatin has drawn. They are all held locked, many isolated in a small cage. They live above ground and chickens are on the ground below making plenty of noise which I‘m sure is very stressful for the rabbits. I read the book a few years ago and I don’t recall Pollan mentioning caged rabbits who live much like in the industrial rabbit meat.

The video "polyface farm part 2" shows rabbits who live in a different cage, a wooden frame with metal filament fence that enables them a view of the outside, some sun, fresh air and to eat grass. Still a cage though. Also, they seem to be distressed by the movement of their mobile cage (like the chickens they are moved to a new piece of grass every day).

In the video “Polyface_ Rabbits” there are rabbits in battery cages. They’re bigger than industrial battery cages but still tiny and made of wire mesh. Again, many are isolated and all are suffering from a lot of noise from the farm and the chickens as this video conveys.

"Everything Moves at Polyface Farms" is another video that exhibits rabbits not in battery cages but in similar cages of the ones that the chickens are imprisoned in.

"polyface farm – pastured poultry – part 3" shows Salatin demonstrates how to move the chickens from one pasture place to another (shoving a dolly under their cage and carry it entirely from place to place), it’s impossible to miss the fear the chickens experience each time a human comes near their cage (unless the one who’s looking prefers not to notice, and has also convinced himself he observes natural chicken surrounding).

Joel also explains in this video that in Polyface they also grow chickens for people who order a few dozens to grow in their small farm. They sell more than a thousand chickens a year for those small farms that don’t necessarily raise them on an eggmobile (put eggmobile in youtube to see what it means). Joel doesn’t check how the chickens he grow and sell to others live. It is a nice profit so he doesn’t’ ask questions or bind his customers to a certain growing rules.

But the most important thing to learn from this video is that again, as opposed to the picture the typical reader might get while reading the omnivore’s dilemma, the chickens in polyface are caged chickens.
Someone who never visited the farm or watched the videos and relays solely on the book is likely to be convinced that Polyface in fact provides a good life for animals. Even cynical and skeptical as I am- I was sure they are free to roam the field. Polyface was regarded in the book as animals’ heaven, with much emphasis on providing the animals with respectful lives.
  
I personally believe Joel that he cares about the environment, but he does so from his own very egocentric angle; as he describes himself, a christian, libertarian, capitalist, environmentalist farmer. He declares in that video that he is not ashamed of being capitalist, stating that the farm should be first of all profitable. He also states that he has no problem killing animals as he believes they don’t have a soul (maybe this statement was made in a different video). I think these two features give away the true nature of his farm which is eventually all about producing a good product, that is, quality corpses.

Just think considering that’s how he twisted the reality that was revealed right before his own eyes how loudly it speaks about the rest of his writings.    
People must be sobered from the illusion of cruelty free animal based diet.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 05:09:45 AM by Nvhemt »

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: flexitarians
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2011, 11:29:21 AM »
Wow, great job!
I think you should post this message in a conventional forum as it is very important for people who believe and look for alternative farming to realize that there is none. Especially not if you keep rabbits in battery like cages, and raise genetically deformed breeds, ear tag, cage the animals in the winter, crate the chickens and drive them to slaughter and etc. All these and many more of what is shown in the videos are obvious tortures which make polyface and similar farms (I’ve looked for a few more pastured farms and they are more or less the same) very far from animals’ heaven and more of a cooler hell.

Obviously I agree that people must be sobered from the illusion of cruelty free animal based diet, but it is much more important that activists would be sobered from two significant notions: The first one is from the illusion of cruelty free plant based diet.
And the second one is that people would ever sober from the illusion of cruelty free animal based diet and actually implement their new revelation. Both are illusions and we dealt with the first one here in the forum in two different discussions culinary investigation and veggie hotdog eating contest , in the answer to the question Why not work hard to make a vegan world? and of course in the article vegan suffering, and with the second one all over the website and mostly in the manifest.

None of us have read the omnivore’s dilemma yet but I did read a few articles which along with this discussion gave me a good idea of what he is all about. I am planning on reading the book soon so maybe I’ll add or rewrite this post in the future. Currently we have decided to write an open reply article to Pollan’s most relevant article - An Animal’s Place, that would probably be called "A Sentient’s Place". We will link it in this discussion and in the what’s new section of the website when it is ready.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015