I just don’t see it as a religion to force down other people’s throats.
And from your other comment, oils are processed foods on top of the fake meats still containing preservatives.
I’m glad you don’t shit yourself, that means you don’t need to pay attention to my warning about MC in the fake meats. Some people have reactions to it, though. Are you also going to tell me that Lactose Intolerance is bullshit because you’ve never shit your pants from drinking milk?
I just don’t see it as a religion to force down other people’s throats.
Of course not. The moral imperative not to be needlessly cruel and violent is not religious in nature. It is philosophical. It is also something that most people feel deeply, even if they fail to be consistent with those feelings.
Do you think preventing child abuse is “a religion to force down people’s throats,” or do you see that children have a right not to be beaten, and moral people have a duty to protect them from it? Am I forcing my religion down your throat if I stay your hand from striking your child? Would you say, “It’s fine if you’re against child abuse. Don’t beat your children, but don’t try and tell me how to raise mine!”
I take your point, but it assumes that I see killing an animal for sustenance as being needlessly cruel or violent in all cases. In factory settings with no regulation, yes it is most likely true. However, if you consider living off the land and all that, honoring the animal and respecting nature, etc. then I don’t have an issue with it.
There are certain regions of the planet, like large swaths of the USA and many more, where killing animals for sustenance isn’t needed at all in the present world. Yes, there are a lot of arguments for converting cow land into crop land. On the flip side there are areas of the world where the communities have to rely on their livestock for sustenance (whether by lack of infrastructure or climate or both), and it’s probably 50/50 whether or not some do it humanely. Animals killing other animals for sustenance is something that has been a part of evolution and survival for a very long time.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare it like you are to child abuse for these reasons.
In factory settings with no regulation, yes it is most likely true.
So, statistically and in practice, greater than 99% of the time. I think we can dispense with the fig leaf and just admit that killing an individual who doesn’t want to be dead is cruel and violent. You might try to argue that it was necessary, and if (for example) it makes the difference between a human living or dying, then that is a valid justification, but it does not make it not cruel and not violent. That truth remains, despite any necessity.
honoring the animal and respecting nature
How do you honor and respect an individual you killed against their will? This is a lie people tell themselves for the sake of moral license. It’s only convincing when you want to be convinced. Its function is to allow one to think of themselves as a good person, while doing things that good people do not do.
Animals killing other animals for sustenance
What animals do, or for that matter, what other humans do, has no bearing on the morality of what you and I do. Lions eat their partner’s young. Great role model! There are rapists in the world. That does not mean it is okay for you and I to also rape.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare it like you are to child abuse for these reasons.
The animals we create are morally entitled to the exact same unconditional love and protection as our own children. The act of creation creates a debt, not an ownership. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human infant, a puppy, or a piglet. Creating intelligent life specifically to exploit it is abominable and indefensible.
The only preservatives in there are cultured dextrose and vitamin E. Vitamin E occurs naturally in meat anyway, and cultured dextrose is just dextrose that’s been fermented. It’s used as a natural preservative in tons of foods, including deli meats.
Nothing in there is something I would consider “processed”, but I guess that depends on your definition of processed. If fermentation is “processed”, then tons of healthy natural foods are processed, including yogurt, cheese, kombucha, and sauerkraut.
Not necessarily. Extracting oil, you can say, is a form of processing, just like juicing an orange. I think it makes the label somewhat useless to say that, but sure. When you eat a raw soybean, though, you’re consuming soybean oil. That’s not processed in any way.
That’s an amusing semantic ploy. Let us say I am using “oil” in the culinary sense, which would not include fats still trapped in cells and fibers of the plant.
It’s a spectrum, not black and white. Ranges from minimal- to ultra-processed. I’m referencing anything more than minimal (which is as simple as slicing an apple). I have less GSI issues when my intake is raw and whole.
I just don’t see it as a religion to force down other people’s throats.
And from your other comment, oils are processed foods on top of the fake meats still containing preservatives.
I’m glad you don’t shit yourself, that means you don’t need to pay attention to my warning about MC in the fake meats. Some people have reactions to it, though. Are you also going to tell me that Lactose Intolerance is bullshit because you’ve never shit your pants from drinking milk?
Of course not. The moral imperative not to be needlessly cruel and violent is not religious in nature. It is philosophical. It is also something that most people feel deeply, even if they fail to be consistent with those feelings.
Do you think preventing child abuse is “a religion to force down people’s throats,” or do you see that children have a right not to be beaten, and moral people have a duty to protect them from it? Am I forcing my religion down your throat if I stay your hand from striking your child? Would you say, “It’s fine if you’re against child abuse. Don’t beat your children, but don’t try and tell me how to raise mine!”
I take your point, but it assumes that I see killing an animal for sustenance as being needlessly cruel or violent in all cases. In factory settings with no regulation, yes it is most likely true. However, if you consider living off the land and all that, honoring the animal and respecting nature, etc. then I don’t have an issue with it.
There are certain regions of the planet, like large swaths of the USA and many more, where killing animals for sustenance isn’t needed at all in the present world. Yes, there are a lot of arguments for converting cow land into crop land. On the flip side there are areas of the world where the communities have to rely on their livestock for sustenance (whether by lack of infrastructure or climate or both), and it’s probably 50/50 whether or not some do it humanely. Animals killing other animals for sustenance is something that has been a part of evolution and survival for a very long time.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare it like you are to child abuse for these reasons.
So, statistically and in practice, greater than 99% of the time. I think we can dispense with the fig leaf and just admit that killing an individual who doesn’t want to be dead is cruel and violent. You might try to argue that it was necessary, and if (for example) it makes the difference between a human living or dying, then that is a valid justification, but it does not make it not cruel and not violent. That truth remains, despite any necessity.
How do you honor and respect an individual you killed against their will? This is a lie people tell themselves for the sake of moral license. It’s only convincing when you want to be convinced. Its function is to allow one to think of themselves as a good person, while doing things that good people do not do.
What animals do, or for that matter, what other humans do, has no bearing on the morality of what you and I do. Lions eat their partner’s young. Great role model! There are rapists in the world. That does not mean it is okay for you and I to also rape.
The animals we create are morally entitled to the exact same unconditional love and protection as our own children. The act of creation creates a debt, not an ownership. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human infant, a puppy, or a piglet. Creating intelligent life specifically to exploit it is abominable and indefensible.
If I added some olive oil to a recipe, I wouldn’t consider it processed. Here are the ingredients of Impossible burger meat:
- https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018937494-What-are-the-ingredients-in-Impossible-Beef-Meat-From-Plants
The only preservatives in there are cultured dextrose and vitamin E. Vitamin E occurs naturally in meat anyway, and cultured dextrose is just dextrose that’s been fermented. It’s used as a natural preservative in tons of foods, including deli meats.
Nothing in there is something I would consider “processed”, but I guess that depends on your definition of processed. If fermentation is “processed”, then tons of healthy natural foods are processed, including yogurt, cheese, kombucha, and sauerkraut.
Oil is itself processed food.
Not necessarily. Extracting oil, you can say, is a form of processing, just like juicing an orange. I think it makes the label somewhat useless to say that, but sure. When you eat a raw soybean, though, you’re consuming soybean oil. That’s not processed in any way.
That’s an amusing semantic ploy. Let us say I am using “oil” in the culinary sense, which would not include fats still trapped in cells and fibers of the plant.
The term “processed food” is entirely semantic. What is considered “processing”?
It’s a spectrum, not black and white. Ranges from minimal- to ultra-processed. I’m referencing anything more than minimal (which is as simple as slicing an apple). I have less GSI issues when my intake is raw and whole.
https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/processed-foods/
So yes, I would consider all those things you listed as processed.
Processed water is an interesting concept.
Or do you just mean cheese and yogurt etc?
I feel like the label just becomes useless if something like a bowl of oats is “processed”.