The rise of the Militant Vegan

[vtsnowedin]

....The teacher later complained that nothing had been done! Not certain what she expected to be done about lawfully held and correctly used shotguns on a farm? ...

The police should have prosecuted her for wasting police time or at least given her a formal warning.

And yes, VT, why was she still teaching kids at all let alone in a rural area. The governers should have sent her off for retraining.

I would "Retrain" her to another career having nothing to do with raising or training children. Perhaps newest member of the poison ivy removal task force.

[Mr. Fox]

... from reading the linked articles I must get Simon Fairlie’s book and read that.

You won't be disappointed.

I'd imagine that even Jeremy Vine's 'Militant Vegan' would agree with much of it - Fairlie is certainly no fan of modern industrial meat production.

I once (briefly) worked in that industry... it took me about 15 years before I could eat meat again - and only then because I'd actually met the pig several times while it was still alive (his name was 'Sausages', BTW).

As an aside, Fairlie also co-edits and writes the odd article for 'The Land' magazine... A rare individual these days in that he actually knows what he's talking about, hence is highly unlikely to ever get invited onto the Jeremy Vine show.

[Automaton]

Lierre's 'Myth' book is awful; not simply because of how incorrect it is (check the facts!), but also because it's very badly written.
And George Monbiot IS pretty much vegan ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... meat-dairy ) by the way. For good reasons. (If you're interested in truth, you need to look away from material that supports your biases, and ... check the facts!).

As I said before on this forum (on a thread conveniently hidden away thereafter in the 'members only' section), veganism is a choice: a sensible, responsible choice. We don't have to choose to support an industry that enslaves, tortures, rapes and murders other intelligent creatures, we can easily live without it. And so what if you need to take a B12 supplement to do so? Big deal. (Many meat eaters should be taking it too by the way - check the facts!).

Imagine for a moment putting humans in the place of the animals you are so happy to see 'farmed'. Women in stalls, forceably impregnated, milk sucked from their breasts, their children taken away from them soon after birth just before they are raped yet again to make sure they keep 'producing'. You'd be ok with that, I guess?
The there's the slaughterhouse of course, where she is lined up along with her friends from neighbouring stalls, and hears the screams as those further along the line are killed (increasingly without being stunned first), and smells the blood, and knows that she'll be going in soon. Nothing unreasonable about that, is there?

And we could go on and on.
Ask yourselves: when there is a choice, what kind of person chooses abuse? Answer: you do.

[adam2]

Are cows really "raped" when I have observed a bull mating a cow it looked to me as if the cow consented.
She could have got away but made no effort to do so.

[vtsnowedin]

Are cows really "raped" when I have observed a bull mating a cow it looked to me as if the cow consented.
She could have got away but made no effort to do so.

I think he is referring to artificial insemination which involves a glass pipette and a gloved human forearm.
Cows not being deep thinkers don't seem to mind and there is less chance of them being injured by being mounted by a full grown bull. Not having a bull in residence is a lot safer for the human staff as well.

[kenneal - lagger]

Automation, first of all, we don't "hide things away" conveniently or otherwise. Secondly, your humanisation of animals is, as I have said before, a result of the easy access we have to food from all over the world nowadays. In the pared down future which most of us on this forum are agreed is coming and are preparing for we won't have that luxury.

I am therefore going to continue to keep cattle and other animals to the highest welfare standards that I can and will also kill and eat them and thank them for their sacrifice.

[woodburner]

Lierre's 'Myth' book is awful; not simply because of how incorrect it is (check the facts!), but also because it's very badly written.
And George Monbiot IS pretty much vegan ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... meat-dairy ) by the way. For good reasons. (If you're interested in truth, you need to look away from material that supports your biases, and ... check the facts!).

As I said before on this forum (on a thread conveniently hidden away thereafter in the 'members only' section), veganism is a choice: a sensible, responsible choice. We don't have to choose to support an industry that enslaves, tortures, rapes and murders other intelligent creatures, we can easily live without it. And so what if you need to take a B12 supplement to do so? Big deal. (Many meat eaters should be taking it too by the way - check the facts!).

Imagine for a moment putting humans in the place of the animals you are so happy to see 'farmed'. Women in stalls, forceably impregnated, milk sucked from their breasts, their children taken away from them soon after birth just before they are raped yet again to make sure they keep 'producing'. You'd be ok with that, I guess?
The there's the slaughterhouse of course, where she is lined up along with her friends from neighbouring stalls, and hears the screams as those further along the line are killed (increasingly without being stunned first), and smells the blood, and knows that she'll be going in soon. Nothing unreasonable about that, is there?

And we could go on and on.
Ask yourselves: when there is a choice, what kind of person chooses abuse? Answer: you do.

This illustrates a point I wrote in my last post but I deleted it before posting. There seem to be many vegan followers who are religious zealots and expect everyone else to conform to their truth, as if it is the only truth. In other circles it would be described as tyranny. Automaton can argue humans are bad, perhaps he/she should look at lions. When a take-over of a pride is made, the lion kills all the available cubs so he can get on with shafting all available females. Then they go hunting to catch lunch, which is rarely a plate of veggies, and killing the lunch may take hours.

A rational case rather than barristers emotional invective would be more persuasive , and reading things other than those that support your biases. Also supplementing with niacin helps.

[kenneal - lagger]

Lierre's 'Myth' book is awful; not simply because of how incorrect it is (check the facts!), but also because it's very badly written

I've just read that extract from Lierre's book and found it concise, to the point and true. Yes, it is written by an American and so does have a few "Americanisms" in it but to say that it is badly written is a gross exaggeration to say the least.

I read the extract having read Automation's post so I was looking for any untruths but could find none there. Yes, there might be some incorrect facts elsewhere in the book but what book doesn't have anything incorrect in it. If you can point out anything that is incorrect in the extract Automation I would be grateful.

I think that the quote "for someone to live, someone else has to die" is the most concise way of explaining how life works that I have heard. It completely negates the vegan assertion that they don't kill anything to eat as, in saying that, they are devaluing all the plant life on the earth.

Surely plants have as much right to live as any animal, after all plant life is the basis of all life on earth. It is plants that provide us with the oxygen that we animals breath so we wouldn't be here if they weren't here, or at least not in our current form. Surely if a vegan doesn't want to kill anything they should all just stop eating instead of trying to impose their oddly thought out religion on the rest of us.

[woodburner]

I found the first chapters of Keith’s book to be plausable, readable, and reasonable. The later chapters were a bit “religious� for my taste, but people are entitled to a view, except when forced in an agressive manner.

[fuzzy]

I am a carnivore, but to say that animal husbandry should be compared to being eaten alive in nature is to miss the point deliberately. I support anyone who can grow/hunt their own animals and eat them. That seems the best option in a mixed diet, but totally impractical for most people in the UK. Militant veganism may be a blunt instrument, but I see no harm in highlighting animal welfare problems. Lets not forget that most pressure groups in the UK are infiltrated by spooks, whose jobs is to destabilise and sabotage their message. Farmers are always under pressure and opportunity to cut standards, and there is a strong agri/farmers/supermarket/haulage lobby that the scum in govt will always appease. In my lifetime, animal welfare standards in the UK have not improved in total. There have been gains and losses and almost zero public discourse. We still have live meat exports [to grovel to the ME] and imports [to con the public about 'British' meat], rubber stamped live testing, a majority of Halal slaughtering, battery and overintensive farms.

The shame to me of this polarised campaigning is that the middle ground which does not suit the lobbyists, is the right one. We should be eating a low meat, little waste diet. I have the time to strip a cooked freerange chicken, freeze the scraps, use the liquids in soup, compost etc. I can see that most people barely have time for takeaways. If the government wants to evangelise about booze with a minimum price, then perhaps minimum meat/milk/egg prices are useful to drive out imported and low standard food.

[Mr. Fox]

I found the first chapters of Keith’s book to be plausable, readable, and reasonable. The later chapters were a bit “religious� for my taste, but people are entitled to a view, except when forced in an agressive manner.

I dunno - I found chapter 4 quite illuminating, for instance on page 183 where she points out:

Clinical studies in rigorously controlled environments have also found that low-fat diets increase anger, depression, and anxiety. Low cholesterol levels occur “more often amongst criminals, individuals diagnosed with violent or aggressive conduct disorders, homicidal offenders with histories of violence and suicide attempts related to alcohol, and people with poorly internalized social norms and low self-control.�

It helped me understand why perhaps some vegans can come across as preachy, sanctimonious and judgmental when they don't know the first thing about you besides your occasional enjoyment of a bacon sandwich.

I agree with fuzzy, such polemic fundamentalism does nothing to promote the calls for raising the standards of good husbandry or a sane agricultural policy. Still, I'm sure it all helps generate fodder for that arch-cockwomble Jeremy Vine's show.

[Catweazle]

Militant Vegans and Vegetarians do a good job of bringing treatment of animals to the publics attention - too many people think a sausage is born in a plastic tray.

I'm an omnivore, but I raise, kill and butcher and increasing proportion of meat myself. I'm proud of this, and admittedly a bit smug. Not everyone has the room to do this, but I think more people should try.

One effect of raising your own animals for food - it makes you think a lot more about how you use meat, and makes you use a lot less of it. Many meals are better with less meat - a stir fry with just a few shreds of home-raised pork in it is so much better than one with a load of Tesco's meat in it.

It wasn't long ago that back yard chickens were common, eating scraps and insects, providing eggs and ultimately a roast dinner that could feed a family for a few days. Bring it back.

[vtsnowedin]

admittedly a bit smug.

I like that. "A man has to know his limitations".
I can't go with you on the stir fry with just a little bit of meat in it. There is too little and too much but a good balance makes about a quarter of the volume meat and three quarters vegetables a meal that works every time with no leftovers.

[kenneal - lagger]

............ and there is a strong agri/farmers/supermarket/haulage lobby that the scum in govt will always appease.

You can''t lump farmers into that lobby Fuzzy. They are being screwed into the ground by supermarkets at the moment. Milk is used as a loss leader and all "supermarket offers" are paid for on a compulsory basis by the farmers out of their, in many cases, already loss producing prices.

In my lifetime, animal welfare standards in the UK have not improved in total. There have been gains and losses and almost zero public discourse.

What about the banning of veal and farrowing crates in the veal and pork industries? What about the banning of chicken in cages? There have been numerous welfare upgrades in the UK although not in the EU and, as a result, UK farmers are trading at a disadvantage over EU farmers. UK farmers are suffering because the UK public, who have campaigned for the higher welfare standards won't then pay extra for UK produced food.

..overintensive farms.

These are a result of very low supermarket prices and the consumer buying on cost not quality. If consumers, or the majority of them, bought the quality ranges of food in supermarkets the supermarkets would stock accordingly. Consumers get what they ask for in general. If you want to pay shit prices, and most people do in the UK, you will get shit products. You can't continue to cut the price of something in a climate of rising costs, and rising fuel costs push up the price of everything in the farm chain, and not expect quality to go down. In "quality" I include welfare standards.

[kenneal - lagger]

A Guardian article on Quorn and how it, and the many other fake meats now on sale, are highly processed "food" products and questions how good they are for any one to eat. An unusual position for the Guardian, methinks!