Advertisement

eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

topic posted Fri, June 22, 2007 - 4:55 AM by  Atul
Share/Save/Bookmark
Are eggs vegetarian?


There seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether eggs are or are not vegetarian. In Sikhi our rehit says we should not eat egg, be it processed, i.e. in cakes etc, or whole, as in an omelette, this is enough for us but for those that want a few more scientific facts, read on. This is a section taken from a Jainism article on meat and eggs. It has some interesting points and describes why eggs are not vegetarian.





Facts about Eggs

Do you remember as a child your mother telling you not to eat cakes or pastries that had eggs because you are a vegetarian? Many times I have heard people saying, eggs are vegetarian food and are good for health so we eat it. The myth about vegetarian eggs and its health-promoting qualities are misleading. Its consumption by so many vegetarians is really shocking. The ignorance of such matter has spread so far that people resist believing that an egg has potential life and that an egg has an unborn chick within its shell. Man's desires for food has made him go to extremes and leading him to eat those foods that are coloured with violence and pain. Nature has its reason for eggs, not by way of food for man but as an important link in the reproductive system of hens. It is the craving for violent food that actually numbs the feeling and thinking capacity of the human being. He ignores going deep into the subject and shuns the truth of the matter. But how long will he remain in darkness? For facts are facts and they will never change whether he accepts it or not. Let us look at some facts about eggs and remove the ignorance that prevails in our mind. The facts you are about to read are taken from the book Hundred Facts about Eggs by Dr. Nemi Chand.

Eggs of all birds are structurally alike (See the McDonald Encyclopaedia of Birds of the World, Page 30-31). Their internal structure is meant for reproduction of progeny and not for human consumption. By eating eggs, man has reverted to the hunting stage of his civilisation. He is meddling both with nature and with the reproductive system. The egg is totally forbidden for those who believe in non-violence. Right from the rearing of hens to the hatching of their eggs, there is violence all over. A visit to any poultry farm will support this fact. In poultry farms, hens are considered no better than egg-producing machines. They are confined to a narrow space of 15" x 19" in the midst of several hardships and tensions that are naturally passed on to the blood and system of those who eat their eggs and turn them into imbalance personalities. Chickens are housed in small-congested cages known as chickenhavens. Due to shortage of space, they naturally become violent, offensive, obsessed and quarrelsome. They attack one another in a barbarous manner. So they are de-beaked. Due to de-beaking, they are unable even to drink water. Do we not realise the cause of our present widespread complexes, aggressiveness and suffering in the chicken-havens? As mentioned earlier, hens are de-beaked to prevent them from fighting and wounding one another.
The de-beaking is done in brown light, especially during the night when hens become almost blind. The lower beak is cut. If any mistake is made, the hen is deprived of food for the rest of her life. The hen has to starve at least for three days due to the wounded beak. Wouldn't this act of cruelty affect the egg-eater?

Hens are given five kinds of violent-generating foods: bone meal, blood-meal, excreta-food, meat-meal and fish-meal. Can we dare to call eggs vegetarian food even after learning this? The term vegetarian egg is a first-rate misnomer. The purpose of a fertile egg is to animate life, but an infertile egg has no such purpose and as such should be considered totally inedible.

Battery and factory eggs are harmful to health. It is better that we abstain ourselves from eating them. The egg produced without any contact with the male bird (and thus producing an infertile egg) is also animate because it is born out of the hen's body with its blood and cells. Therefore, its consumption is 100% non-vegetarian. According to the famous American scientist Mr. Philip J. Scamble, no egg is without life in it. The scientists at Michigan University in America have proven it beyond doubt that no egg - fertile or infertile - is without life (inanimate). The hen gives infertile eggs during the absence of the male bird. But it has been observed that she gives an infertile egg before the day of contact with the male bird - and also the next day. In other words, she can give a fertile egg even without contact with a male bird. On the fifth day, again she gives a fertile egg. This means that the semen of the male bird remains lying in her body for a considerable duration. In some cases, this duration has been observed to be as long as even six months. A fertilised egg is a pre-birth stage of a chicken; unfertilised eggs are the result of the sexual cycle of a hen and very unnatural. Both are non-vegetarian food. Victoria Moran, the author of the book Compassion:
The Ultimate Ethics says, to eat fertilised egg is in fact to consume a chicken before its birth (The Ethic on borderline). I was told that an unfertilised egg is the product of a bird's sexual cycle and can hardly be regarded as natural food for Man. Whether the egg is fertile or infertile, life is essentially there; and it has all the symptoms of life, such as respiration, brain, feeding ability, etc. There are 15,000 porous-breathing holes on the shell, the cover of the egg. The egg begins to rot at a temperature of less than 8^ Celsius, 00^ Fahrenheit. When it begins this process, its rotting manifests itself through evaporation of the water content. The egg becomes infected by germs and thus becomes diseased. The progress of the rotting soon reaches the shell of the egg.

Eggs contain cholesterol in large quantities. The yellow bulk of the egg is the major source of cholesterol. Cholesterol narrows down the arteries and may eventually lead to a heart attack or to paralysis. Eating eggs may also lead to rheumatism and gout that can cause serious and painful joints in old age.






All the above facts lead to prove that eggs are not vegetarian and so let us re-think about the issue of eggs and realise that a balanced vegetarian diet contains an abundance of health protecting nutrients and fibres without eggs.
posted by:
Atul
India
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Fri, June 22, 2007 - 7:18 AM
    and this isn't the only animal product that isn't vegetarian.

    it goes for every animal product. Cheese, milk, and so on. EVERY cow is fed animal products, just like the hens.
    It takes around 10 fish in the sea to grow especially bred fish (like salmon).

    Really, the only way is VEGAN.
    • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Fri, June 22, 2007 - 8:47 AM
      "They are confined to a narrow space of 15" x 19" in the midst of several hardships and tensions that are naturally passed on to the blood and system of those who eat their eggs and turn them into imbalance personalities."

      In my opinion we should stay away from arguments like these, because they are not scientific. Most people will look at statements like these and think they are absurd, and thus discount the entirety of your argument. I'm not saying it's wrong, necessarily, in fact I believe it is true from a psychological standpoint. But if you're going to make an argument like this, you should definately phrase it differently, otherwise people will just roll their eyes and stop reading.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Fri, June 22, 2007 - 10:15 AM
        Exactly, and agreed.

        I have abstained from most of the conversations in this group (vegetarians) because the moment someone misuses the word “fact” I realize the rest of the conversation is futile.

        In general “Tribe” (as a whole) suffers from a disproportionate number of well intentioned deeply passionate people that read a few books, or know how to search Google well enough to find the first missive that matches their model of the world. I have dropped out of most of Tribe, and specifically what few scientific groups there were because well intentioned and passionate people tend to be louder than those with years of dedicated research and education behind them. Several of my friends have done the same. One, a computational biologist (that is also a vegetarian), simply gave up, and closed down several of his tribes.

        The worse thing is that the very information people in general are seeking is obfuscated by these zealot soap box cryers.

        Second in line to that is that I really mean it when I say well intentioned, and passionate. Sadly, this seems to go hand in hand with righteousness, which pretty much extinguishes any logic or accountability.

        However, if but one message could be taught, it would be that this is all a journey, a direction, not a state, not a destination.
        • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

          Sat, June 23, 2007 - 4:40 AM
          As a person who does not eat eggs but does eat dairy, I would suggest we concentrate on the thing all vegetarians have in common - not eating meat. That, for me, is the definition of vegetarian - not eating meat. Certain foods, like eggs and dairy, are borderline. And certain topics, I've learned, people (including myself) feel passionately about. I just have to steer clear of these and if a flame war develops just let it burn itself out over time.

          That said, we can always strive to develop and increase our tolerance and respect for differing views. One thing I do like about tribe - there's a lot of tolerance and acceptance here. A sense of community which implicitly entails tolerance for different perspectives.
          • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

            Sat, June 23, 2007 - 12:55 PM
            meh, I'll never tolerate or accept anyone who thinks eating eggs and/or dairy is ethical. But I agree, this is a vegetarian tribe, not a vegan one, so there should be no arguments on vegan vs vegetarian here. That's what the vegan tribes are for.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

              Sat, June 23, 2007 - 2:27 PM
              "meh, I'll never tolerate or accept anyone who thinks eating eggs and/or dairy is ethical. "
              lol!!! :D

              As for the issue of eggs, I as a vegan of course agree with the original poster and in fact think the same about ALL animal products.
              In fact animals raised for dairy and eggs suffer comparatively more than those raised for meat. Vegetarianism has little to do with the animals and much more to do with the person eating (not wanting animal's flesh inside them)

              BUT yes this IS a vegetarian tribe and by not eating animal flesh vegetarians still save more than 60 lives a year which is not a number to be ignored, regardless of the reasons why these lives are saved, they are still saved.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

            Sun, August 19, 2007 - 12:00 PM
            I can see that eggs are definitely classified as meat (being a chicken embryo'n all)...but there's nothing BORDERLINE about dairy at all. Vegetarian refers to not eating meat, not excluding any and all animal product. Milk may come from a cow or goat or sheep, but it ain't meat.
            • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

              Mon, August 20, 2007 - 7:06 PM
              right, the ORIGINAL VEGHED cultures used milk & honey
              cos ya dont really harm those animals by harvesting it
              cos a cow (and a female human) body will lactate until deliberate weaning

              that is, the body produces milk until its udders/breasts are too full (no recipient)
              so you can *naturally* milk a cow beyond her calf's needs without exhausting her, really
              cos a human can't milk a cow 24/7 --
              but the machines in our factory farms that do such things DO harm them.

              milk could never have become an organism. nor honey.
              dead (even unfertilized) egg meat is/was considered on the meat side therefore...
              and honey/milk with the vegs.
            • Curious....Who's to say?

              Tue, August 28, 2007 - 10:17 PM
              I'm curious, is there any "law/bible/proven definition" that describes vegetarian and vegan? Everyone I talk to seems to hold a slightly different opinion...using animal products (i.e. leather), animal causes, lacto/ovo consumption, fish eating, eating non-hooved animals (silly, I know). I'm still "new" to this. I slowly started down the road to vegetarianism 5 years ago. First by giving up beef (I actually know someone who died from the human form of mad-cow), then anything that resembled an animal, like chicken on a bone, until one day (2 years ago) I got fed up with "bird flu", "mercury poisoned fish", anti-biotic injected this, hormone filled that - and quit eating meat that day. SO glad I did it!

              My understanding is that Vegetarians do not consume flesh (yes, there's the egg/life argument, but for the sake of this argument, let's say eggs are not YET flesh), but may consume dairy and egg products (personally, the sight of an egg - the mucousy insides - revolts me, BUT I do consume products with egg in them, like Quorn "chik" patties). And vegans do not consume any animal products, including eggs, dairy, meat broth, etc.

              I know there are many "levels" of vegetarianism and veganism, and I'm often asked "what are you?". I hate putting a term to it, but since many are sincerely interested friends, I humor them by saying "I am a strict vegetarian with vegan tendencies". I do not eat any flesh, gelatin, nor chicken or beef broth (amazing how many people are surprised when I won't eat french onion soup or a white sauce made with chicken broth), but I do eat eggs IN products and eat cheese. I do not drink animal milk...mmmm, love soy! If it weren't for my love of the flavor of exotic cheeses, I probably would be able to fully convert to veganism now. Also, I am "phasing out" all animal product things from my home (cleaners tested on animals, leather, etc.). So am I what I say I am? (oh boy, I'm opening a can of non-gelatin worms here!)

              Ok, bring it on! (but be nice, I'm trying to "go all the way"!) :D
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Curious....Who's to say?

                Wed, August 29, 2007 - 6:54 AM
                Akasha, I personally believe that your understanding is correct.

                As well you may call yourself what you wish (Akasha seems like a good choice ;-) but I also believe that strict vegetarian fits well.

                I think you are totally on your way and doing a lot of good.
                It is not about perfection it is about reaching for it to the best of our ability and also realizing that life is about the road not just the results (in my opinion at least) also there is no points system in life, and eating one muffin with eggs does not mean that you have to "start back from scratch" or anything...;-)

                It's a process and very few of us go vegetarian overnight and even fewer go vegan right away.

                the issue of trace ingredients is a bit less black and white in my mind because the reality is that if we lived in a world without animal industries tomorrow, those products that have eggs in them or egg whites or trace amounts of something would not have those ingredients in them because they would not be available (or they would be much too expensive to use)

                By actively not supporting the animal industries (and congratulations and good luck on eliminating all other animal products from your life, (animal tested, leather , etc)) you are having a powerful impact, and if an egg slips in once in a while, unless there is a health aspect to your "vegan tendencies" ;-) then I don't believe it's a huge deal.

                As for phasing out clothes and leather and all that, if anyone calls you on it, I would tell them that you are not independently wealthy and also do not want to throw away clothes that still fit you, and do not want to add to our landfills, so it may take a while as you slowly buy a new wardrobe before they are all gone,

                and I don't think it makes you any worse of a vegetarian if you have old leather boots that you still wear, as long as you don't buy any new ones, it's cool.

                keep it up. You are a wonderful person.
                • Re: Curious....Who's to say?

                  Wed, August 29, 2007 - 9:15 AM
                  i've been vegan like 15 months and vegetarian like 5 years before that, and i've had the same leather wallet for like the last 10 years. like antoine said, getting rid of it would just send it to a landfill, and that's just pointless and wasteful. the thing is so worn out i couldnt sell it to anybody. although lately i've been thinking about it more and more and its starting to gross me out... so i might get rid of it soon anyway, even though it probably has a few good years left in it.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Curious....Who's to say?

                Wed, August 29, 2007 - 4:15 PM
                For my part, I don't think there's any 'levels' of vegetarianism beyond whether one consumes eggs or dairy.

                NO vegetarians will eat meat (and I've never known a vegetarian to consume meat-based broth either, because, well, that came from meat). Within the sphere of vegetarianism, some don't think there is anything unhealthy or harmful about eating eggs. Others don't have a problem with dairy because milk-based products are not meat and don't necessarily involve harm to the animal.

                As for the difference between vegetarians and vegan, it's pretty clear-cut: for vegetarians the definition refers to the total exclusion of meat from their food intake, but that's where it ends. Vegans, however, not only refuse to eat meat itself, but refuse any and all animal-derived food products as well. Vegans ALSO refrain from using animal-derived products aside from food; i.e. clothes made from wool or leather, personal care products, etc. Veganism is very strict, making NO allowances for the use of animal products whatsoever.

                There's no degrees of meat consumption within vegetarianism. If someone eats fish and chicken but no red meat, they're still not a vegetarian. If they eat no chicken or beef but do eat fish, they are STILL NOT a vegetarian, whatever the Catholic church might say about fish not being meat. (The term for someone who eats no meat other than fish, is pescetarian). To eat the flesh of an animal is to eat meat, period, and so doing precludes one from being a vegetarian.

                Having said that, I do know people who eat meat at particular times of the year, such as a friend who eats meat during Christmas and Thanksgiving, and *no* other time, and another friend who only eats the game her husband shoots, which limits her meat consumption to about one month out of the year. They both qualify themselves by saying they are "mostly vegetarians" or that they "eat vegetarian 90% of the year." At least they're honest about things. But to eat ANY SORT of meat regularly and call yourself a vegetarian, nope.
    • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Sun, June 24, 2007 - 6:05 AM
      : EVERY cow is fed animal products :

      While I understand what you are saying with this statement, perhaps the intention was to say "Every factory-farmed cow is fed animal products".

      Historically speaking, factory farming of livestock is a relatively new development. Prior to that (i.e. over nearly all the history of the Jain religion), cows never ate animals.
      • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Sun, June 24, 2007 - 8:56 AM
        what's your point? the situation 50 years ago has no bearing on the situation today. the fact is, if factory farming didn't exist, there would be far fewer vegetarians in the world.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

          Sun, June 24, 2007 - 1:07 PM
          I agree with you Matt...while I know this is a vegetarian tribe (including lacto and ovo vegetarians as well as vegans) and therefore will not argue the ethics of dairy products, stating how animals where treated and what their lives was like 50 or a thousand years ago doesn't mean anything to the realities of today.

          Too often people use this as an argument...for example I have a lot of Hindu friends living here in Canada who buy their milk at the regular grocery store who make the argument that cows in India are well treated (which I can argue, but again I won't in this tribe) and according to Hindu beliefs are sacred...But the point is they are buying their milk fromt he regular dairies...and here the owners run factory farms and they definitely do not believe that cows are sacred or even deserving of a little respect. So how does that "belief" apply to milk purchased HERE?

          Here and today even "organic" "happy" cows are fed high protein meal (and often meat...remember "organic" only means no antibiotics and pesticides in the feed many "organic farmers" can still feed their cows high protein fish or other animal meal and still be labelled "organic") and organic DOES not at least today and in North American and even European society mean humane or kind...all cows even the "organic" ones get killed and have their babies taken away from them. and many "organic farms" keep their cows in factory farming style confinement.

          ...presenting an argument based on what the Jains may or may not have done 50 years ago in another land will not change that reality.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

          Sun, August 19, 2007 - 12:01 PM
          I don't know about their point, but MY point is that you cannot make absolutist statements that are immediately recognized as untrue if you expect to be taken seriously.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Sun, June 24, 2007 - 7:57 PM
    I am not surprised that a Jainism article says that eggs are not vegetarian. My understanding of Jainism is that they are more careful than other Hindu groups about harming life and using and eating animals. The very strict Jains go much farther in their daily actions than any other vegetarian or vegan group that I know of. The Jainism purists brush the ground in front of them before they step there so that they will not harm any insects on the ground. They will not urinate into a toilet because they will be disturbing the organisms that are in the water. Usually these extreme Jains are also naked. I am not an expert by any means, but I don't think we should use Jainism as an example of how to be a vegetarian.

    I have always thought that eggs can be included in a diet that is called vegetarian. The American definition of vegetarian can include eggs. When I first stopped eating meat at age 16 I ate eggs and it seemed to help me stay away from meat. I think there is a place for eggs in a vegetarian diet. Personally I don't eat eggs except in small quantities like in cake or pancakes, and I am mostly avoiding those kinds of foods now, too, since I am now aiming to eat as vegan as I can. If one is trying to avoid meat for ethical or environmental reasons, then eggs are certainly as bad as meat.

    Since being a vegetarian is so much better for the environment than meat eating, I think we should make it easier for those trying to give up meat for ethical or environmental reasons and say eggs are okay for vegetarians. Once one becomes comfortable with vegetarian food choices, giving up eggs would be the next step towards responsible eating.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Sun, June 24, 2007 - 8:00 PM
      deserved to be repeated:"Since being a vegetarian is so much better for the environment than meat eating, I think we should make it easier for those trying to give up meat for ethical or environmental reasons and say eggs are okay for vegetarians. Once one becomes comfortable with vegetarian food choices, giving up eggs would be the next step towards responsible eating. "

      Of course this is a side-bar (and not relevant to the lacto-ovo vegetarians)but as a vegan activist I of course always tell people to go vegan, but I acknowledge that it takes time and learning new recipes and so forth, so i tell them that anything that they can do in the direction of veganism is good as long as veganism is the ultimate goal.

      the same is true here.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 2:37 PM
    i'm about to destroy a few peoples' sense of 'community' on this board. sorry. but here it goes.

    notangian, you did just what you complained about - explicated an argument without a single specific reference (to his text). no quotes, nada. nice job. (i think matt was just giving advice on style)

    ok everybody, anybody else notice that ATUL IS IN INDIA.
    he says he is A SIKH.
    his argument is mixed with science and cultural/moral tradition, so any criticism or notice thereof (notangian, matt) is, uh, moot!
    his english not so great. (so, matt, uh, that pretty much addresses your advice.)

    narayan - 'not eating meat' as a definition of vegetarianism (so eggs could go either way) is FINE for you
    BUT shouldn't you know that 'vegetarianism' is incidental to a metaphysical diet for MANY vegheds?
    according to the vedas, material nature is in three modes - goodness, passion, and ignorance.
    we try to eat 'good' foods. MEAT IS NOT one of them, but in that same vein neither are garlic, onions, etc
    so for some eastern VEGheds, defining their style by animal content is an insufficient definition.
    you should know this.

    antoine -
    as far as hindus who buy regular milk are concerned
    a practicing hindu offers their food to a deity
    who then purifies it of its karma
    (eating vegetables is NOT karma free but most deities won't accept/purify non-veg offerings at all)
    so, GOD tends to understands when, ah, we're doing the best we can. jesus.

    christie - as far as eggs relieving a protein (meat) craving - try dahl (an indian letntil). any bean + rice = complete protein. you have no excuse that 'eggs' helped you stay vegetarian. that's bullshit.

    i think that 'vegetarians' who eat eggs have made a good start. but ought to keep going; they've fallen short.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:42 PM
      okay Neelam as I said I will not argue against lacto-ovo vegetarians in this tribe. (trust me I got lotsa things reeling in my mind to say about your idiocies and badly formulated ideas, but I'll just leave it at this)

    • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 4:49 AM
      : so for some eastern VEGheds, defining their style by animal content is an insufficient definition.
      you should know this. :

      I know that we're not going to get anywhere if we as non-meat-eaters don't stick together.

      One of the stupidities being vegetarian helped me give up was my conviction that I was always right.

      Many of us here are not coming to veg from a Hindu background. You should have more understanding for this. Hinduism is built on a foundation of tolerance. Sadly, these days, even that bedrock foundation is being badly shaken.

      Still, I'm glad we're getting these issues out into the open. Better than keeping them bottled up inside. By hashing them out, we at least have a shot at reconcilation. It's a long shot, perhaps, but a shot nonetheless.
    • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:29 AM
      Neelam, of course I have had dahl! I used to live in India, and have visited India this year even. I eat Indian food in restaurants and at home. Dahl comes in many varieties, and American style lentils can also be used in countless ways. I am not saying eggs are great, just that in my opinion they are okay for American vegetarians to eat and still call themselves a vegetarian. I don't know what other cultures and countries say about vegetarians eating eggs.

      Personally I agree eggs should be cut out as much as possible because of animal rights issues. But if someone is not a Hindu or other religion that bans meat eating and they have their own chickens which are treated humanely, or buy from someone who is treating their chickens well, then eggs don't seem to be a bad dietary choice. The well treated chickens are laying eggs freely and I don't think it is bad karma to eat them.

      Free range chickens, by the way, are not treated humanely. Eggs from chickens can be called free range if given only tiny amounts of time out of the inhumane cages American chickens are kept! I applaud anyone who stops eating eggs bought from stores, and I never buy them, nor does my vegetarian fiance Dave. Still I think if a vegetarian wants to eat eggs, it is up to them and okay with me, as moderator of the vegetarians! tribe, if they call themselves a vegetarian.
      • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Tue, July 3, 2007 - 8:40 AM
        hey antoine - feel free to email me then. i'd love to hear your criticism of my writing.

        narayan, as for sticking together - see my last sentence.

        and the 'tolerance' of Hinduism has branched out in today's corrupt societies, and been corrupted, yes
        such that many Hindus eat meat. let's be intelligent about our tolerance...
        old-school Hindus consider animals a part of their village too.
        that's why they're allowed to run through them (the villages)!
        so, killing a neighbor (eating an animal) then is NOT TO BE TOLERATED.

        yes, eating no meaty body part, but only eggs/honey/milk
        i think IS much better (again, see my last sentence...)
        but could go even farther... for those inclined to be motivated
        by my slap in the ass............... :)

        and yes, let's keep discussing! i dont write to be ignored, so respond more! :)
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Thu, July 5, 2007 - 3:18 AM
    i've been a vegi for over 26 yrs now and (used to) agree that "eggs and dairy" are vegitarian products, BUT i've recently dropped the eggs from my (and familys) diet because the egg/chicken industry is so filthy. i mean it's a really dirty business. the condition they keep the chickens in that produce the eggs is really sad, kept in a box with the lites on 24 hrs so they are just "egg machines", and when they stop producing the're off to see Cournal Sanders.
  • Unsu...
     

    Shits n Giggles

    Mon, July 9, 2007 - 1:35 AM
    I eat a vegan diet. I accept however that human beings are omnivores. Eggs are high in protein. They are also beast embryos and give me the subatomic ass splatters! If you want to eat eggs then eat whatever your diet demands of you. Eggs and dairy are not vegetarian. Veal comes from dairy cows, eggs are meat plain and simple(just because its embryonic doesn't excuse it as being veggetarian its meat) You eat eggs you eat meat. I still love you if you eat meat, I don't hate on anyone, but you are not a vegetarian. Heres what the dictionary says of the word vegetarian in the English language
    VEGETARIAN: noun eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or fish or (often) any animal products
    So a vegetarian eats a plant based diet (anything edible grown from the ground)
    If you eat dairy and eggs, but otherwise have a vegetarian diet then in the English language you are referred to as a LACTO-OVO-Veggitarian because aside from eating a plant based diet you also choose to eat dairy and eggs. Ive had people who eat fish (pescatarian) tell me they are vegan or vegetarian. The problem that comes with people improperly identifying diets is that they often serve tainted food, because they don't really understand the concept of a true plant based diet. I remember a friend handing me a grilled cheese sandwich and saying here eat this its vegetarian. I don't eat dairy it doesn't grow from the ground and it gives me ass fire so eating it would be very problematic. The article is written from the religious perspective of a Jainist. Spirituality can only be expressed not proven, so while I agree the argument might be lost on some it still has validity as it is a spiritual viewpoint.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Shits n Giggles

      Tue, July 10, 2007 - 10:22 AM
      Wonderful it would be if we could each decide what words “really” meant?

      Sadly, we have to conform to a metamorphic mired and temporally transient lexical landscape. A somewhat democratic process exists, which is often bent by zealots, especially those willing to ban together…such as the internationally recognized “Vegetarian Society”

      Ooo, look, a recipe for eggs. www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert...ieces7.html

      Or Dictionary.com “1.a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.”

      Interesting how your version undermined the logical lemme “or” which makes emphatic that this is not so “simple.”

      Let’s not even indulge ourselves with the etymology and permutations of the word “meat.”

      But, keep the torch…you might be able to redefine or refine the meaning, and perhaps even get the popular keepers of definitions to abide by your indubitable point of view.


      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Shits n Giggles

        Tue, July 10, 2007 - 10:10 PM
        How are eggs not meat? Its a baby chicken embryo...
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Shits n Giggles

          Tue, July 10, 2007 - 10:31 PM
          Well, aside from the analogy that you have decided that something that is gray is black, because it clearly is not white, I guess we should go back to both chemistry and biology 101.

          An unfertilized egg is “pre-meat”

          Perhaps I can frame it this way: Let’s pretend you were born and raised vegan (this would be very dangerous, an argument I know you will love to have later, but let’s work on this one first).

          You then grew using materials that were “pre-meat” called collectively plant matter. But the thing most responsible for your collective growth was the complex collections of proteins. No “meat” in, but magically meat out. Not quite.

          Eggs are simply a very efficient mix ready to make meat. We might call it “ultra-pre-meat-mix” (If I were a marketing type guy). Just add catalyst, and bang, you make a thing (like a chicken, or a snake, or politician).

          I can whip you up a batch of material in a lab that is pretty much the exact same as what is in an egg, but in a test tube. It would be expensive, and take a lot of plants (there are hundreds if not thousands of amino acids to be harvested). We would probably need to synthesize a few things.

          But, this is really not a conversation about chemistry or biology. It is about religion and dogma. How about we simply agree to eat anything that voted for Bush? This may solve many arguments…and problems.
          • Re: Shits n Giggles

            Wed, July 11, 2007 - 2:32 AM
            Message to self:

            It's all about tolerance. Are we willing to tolerate the egg-eaters among us? Are will willing to tolerate the occasional-fish-eaters among us? Are we willing to tolerate (gasp!) the meat-eaters in our midst? Are they not doing the same thing we once did?

            It's all about self-reflection. Ask: Why do I feel so angry when I see someone is advocating eating/not-eating eggs, fish, dairy, what-not? Why do I feel so damn cock-sure? Why do I feel so self-satisfied? Why do I feel like I've "made it", like "the buck stops here"? Don't I see that these feelings set the stage for arguments, fighting, subtle violence?

            What you eat is important. What you think/feel is even more important. The two are inter-related.

            Dive deep in yourself. Introspect. How much real distance have you put between your current self and your previous (meat-eating) self?
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Shits n Giggles

              Wed, July 11, 2007 - 11:26 AM
              Im not being intolerant. I dont care if you eat eggs, dog shit or drink babies blood. All Im saying is that Im pretty sure eggs are meat and not vegetables. Do I care if you eat eggs? I dont give a damn honestly. I would just like to know whats vegetable about eggs thanks.... And what the hell is pre-meat? Thats an argument Ive never heard before...
              • Re: Shits n Giggles

                Wed, July 11, 2007 - 12:00 PM
                " Thats an argument Ive never heard before. "

                Why attack it? Have you never attempted to justify something that you do?

                How can we vegetarians hope to reduce violence when we constantly fly off the handle when faced with someone who eats differently than we do?

                I'm saying this because I fly off the handle too. The arguments people put forward to justify eating unclean things just gall me. But I realize that my own intolerance is my problem, not theirs. It's also irrational, because there's no reason for it. (Unless it helps someone to stop eating meat, but that's unlikely - kind of like fighting a war for peace.)

                All this arguing is violence, too, just more subtle than meat-eating. I realize some people here that avoiding violence may not be a significant motivating factor of everyone here for being veg, but certainly for most of us it is.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Shits n Giggles

                  Wed, July 11, 2007 - 12:04 PM
                  Well said, Narayan. Both of your posts today have been very insightful and inspiring.
              • Re: S**** n Giggles

                Wed, July 11, 2007 - 5:45 PM
                Sure eggs are not a kind of vegetable, I don't think anyone is going to say that. I'm just saying that in the broad definition of vegetarian, most people think eggs and dairy can be included. I see your point, that it would be nice if the general public knew the difference between vegetarian and ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and doing something to educate the average person about it is great. But if you use childish language while trying to educate, you are not likely to get very far.

                In my opinion, since there are many more strict vegetarian (like vegan) tribes on Tribe already, I'd like to see all types of vegetarian's points of views welcome here, and even meat eaters who want to eat vegetarian more often than they were before. If a meat eater decided they would only eat meat once or twice a week, and wanted some support and information, don't you think we should help if we can by being supportive? Cutting back meat consumption is a big step for the average American, and if a large number of Americans were to cut their meat back to once or twice a week, it would change the meat industry in a big way. Do we want to exclude them from this tribe just because they cannot call themselves a vegetarian?

                And next time you ask a friend to make your sandwich a vegetarian one, when he/she offers you food, you could be clear and tell him/her that you don't eat dairy or eggs. Vegetarian is just not a clear enough word to expect everyone to get it exactly.
                • Re: S**** n Giggles

                  Sat, July 21, 2007 - 8:56 AM
                  I have often mused that according to my reasons for being vegetarian (environmental impact, pesticide and toxin absorption, and wayyy down the priority list, kindness), I could eat earthworms and perhaps even snails and other low on the ol' food chain animals. I decided not to eat any 'adult organisms from the kingdom Animalia', however, because...it's just kind of grody, and hardly necessary.

                  Much respect to the vegans out there for being more hardcore than us ovo-lactos, but really, you all need to lighten up on the subtle haterating here. I don't give pesco-ovo-lacto-vegetarians a lot of shit, even though I think they are complete poseurs for eating fish and have thus subverted the definition of vegetarian; the point is that they are doing what they can. Call an ovo-lacto-vegetarian a non-vegetarian if you'd like, but that is missing the point of each person's individual goals for themselves and the planet.

                  I think I'm going to go bug those folks in Vegans Are A Pain In The Ass now.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: S**** n Giggles

                    Mon, July 23, 2007 - 9:51 AM
                    >>>the point is that they are doing what they can ... each person's individual goals for themselves and the planet<<

                    HOLY GOD I'm so tired of hearing this bullshit argument. My individual goal could be to kill one of every animal on the planet and mount their heads on my wall. How does "doing what you can" justify negative behavior? For the majority of people in this country, their individual goal is to do whatever is necessary to fulfill their short-term desires (greed) without giving a second thought to the negative impact their choices have on the world around them (selfishness).

                    Personally, I think all lacto-ovo vegetarians are great people. Anyone that can give up meat in this twisted meat-centric chauvenist society deserves a lot of respect in my book. I just think it's a shame that they're not doing more, when making the step from vegetarian to vegan is the logical choice (for any reason a person might choose to be vegetarian) and is a relatively painless process.
                    • Re: S**** n Giggles

                      Mon, July 23, 2007 - 6:40 PM
                      damn, thank you, matt -- you spoke much more concisely than i did
                      but with similar passion and p.o.v.

                      i believe in a basis of objective/absolute reality
                      beyond which we then have our own personal realities.
                      i therefore understand that meat-eating and animal slaughter are indeed
                      objectively/absolutely greedy and selfish...

                      thanks for your 2c! :)
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: S**** n Giggles

                    Sun, August 19, 2007 - 11:57 AM
                    I call people who eat no other meat besides fish pescetarians. I think a lot of that misconception is less the fault of them being poseurs than the non-uncommon idea that fish isn't meat. Blame the Catholic church. =P
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Shits n Giggles

        Mon, July 16, 2007 - 7:34 PM
        "Sadly, we have to conform to a metamorphic mired and temporally transient lexical landscape. "

        Eschew obfuscation by employing colloquilisms in leiu of abstruse erudite cant.
      • Re: Shits n Giggles

        Tue, August 28, 2007 - 10:31 PM
        ok, I posted earlier about some of these very questions...

        so if people eating eggs and dairy are NOT vegetarian, what is the definition of vegan and how is it different? (since some of you were reporting dictionary definitions)

        I just looked up "vegan" in one dictionary and it says...

        "a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet"

        well, isn't that the same definition given for "vegetarian" by some?

        again, truely curious, not lookin' to start an argument. :)
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Shits n Giggles

          Wed, August 29, 2007 - 4:19 PM
          No. I gave my own answer above, but down here, to briefly respond: Vegetarians don't eat meat, and that's all there is to it. They/we generally will not have a problem eating dairy products or things like honey. Even though these are animal-derived, they're not *meat* and for the most part, avoidance of meat is a vegetarian's sole concern. Vegans are the ones who refuse to consume ANYTHING that came from an animal, meat or otherwise. They also take it beyond their food and refuse to use animal-derived products in their clothing, etc.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Sat, August 18, 2007 - 7:39 PM
    There's a reason why it is becoming more and more common for vegetarian to refer strictly to the exclusion of meat from one's diet and not to the use of by-products (consuming honey, drinking milk, etc) and certainly not to the use of animal products in one's clothes or personal care products.

    I can also appreciate the tacking on of terms such as lacto-ovo or various combinations. I tend to roll my eyes when you get people who attempt to claim to be vegetarian while they eat chicken or fish, because obviously being vegetarian involves more than merely the exclusion of red meat or beef from one's diet.

    However, it's borderlining on ridiculous to say that the consumption of dairy products precludes one from being a vegetarian. There ARE small farms whose cattle are raised on vegan feed. People fortunate enough to live in particular regions will know this. I'll accept there's been studies done that link people's mental wellbeing to the foods they eat. But suggesting that the consumption of eggs will turn a person into a psychotic, bloodthirsty maniac? Sorry, that's NOT a "fact."

    With eggs, I can understand the idea that they're not vegetarian, especially fertilized eggs. For myself, however, I don't have any qualms about calling myself a vegetarian while I continue to eat eggs, especially when they are my SOLE source of animal-based protein. I certainly don't eat MANY of them; my cats tend to eat more eggs than I do. I do feel compelled to point out, however, that I make a strong point about ONLY buying eggs from particular sources. There are several individuals in town who raise free-ranging hens who are NEVER subjected to such barbaric practices as debeaking or confinement within a tiny cage. These hens are also fed a 100% vegetarian diet, which is, in at least one case, 100% organic. These eggs are considerably more expensive than the supermarket variety, costing me $2 a dozen, which is one reason why I don't eat eggs very often.

    Conscientiousness counts. Hell, I know a woman who calls herself an 80% vegetarian because her ONLY source of meat comes from the elk and moose her husband bags once per year. Her reason for not eating meat has to do with the shit that goes into it, so she's not against eating it as long as she knows where it comes from and that it's only ever been fed vegan food and never once treated with hormones or antibiotics or anything. Yeah, conscientiousness counts. It's entirely possible to eat meat that has been humanely raised and slaughtered (and yes, I know that some people are of the belief that being raised for slaughter is itself an inhumane practice) and NOT once ever treated with artificial chemicals or fed animal-based feed.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Sun, August 19, 2007 - 6:54 AM
      there are two separate issues here Amy.
      One of semantics and one of animal rights.

      as for the semantics I 100% agree with you...I always call myself a vegan or a herbivore for exactly that reason...it's more precise.
      the definition of vegetarian does include the consumption of animal products such as honey, dairy and eggs as well as the usage of animal products such as wool. Silk and leather would be slightly more contentious because of the fact that in order to produce the product that animal MUST be killed.

      But even many vegetarians will use leather and still consider themselves vegetarians because vegetarian simply means someone who does not consume meat (and fish and chicken are meat too) so technically speaking someone who eats eggs, milk, honey and uses all forms of animal products and by-products but does not eat animal flesh is a vegetarian (regardless of the definition of eggs as meat in Hindu culture and on this thread, they are not strictly speaking or biologically speaking meat)


      However, what you call yourself alters only you and does not affect reality. And this is the animal rights point.

      If you are vegetarian (lacto-ovo, etc) and you wish to convince me of the ethics of egg and milk productiopn. LISTEN: if you want to eat the stuff go ahead but the fact that you choose to eat the stuff does not make the production of it become nicer and more ethical.

      I would prefer a bit of honesty: say you are not concerned with the suffering of bees, hens, cows and calves, that you do not feel that their suffering is relevant and that for you it is good enough to not eat meat...that is fine...it's your choice....but please don't try to spin it to make it sound like egg and milk and honey production can be done in a way that is respectful of the animals used to make these products....that is simply NOT TRUE.

      even small local farm's bottom line is profit...and they don't give two shits about Bessie the cow or the fact that she is constantly impregnated and then has her baby taken from her..... and that after many years of this she becomes hamburger....and they surely don't care about her unnamed baby...

      they don't care at all about their hundreds of faceless hens who are all kept celibate and force-molted to produce unfertilized eggs, over and over, until their bones and bodies are so depleted that they can't even walk when they have their throats slits and are turned into chicken pot pies.

      The kindly beekeepers do not give a crap how many bees they slaughter when they steal the honey from the hive and in fact most (even organic) bee keepers will destroy entire hives (as in kill hundreds of thousands of bees) at the end of the season because it is more economically feasible to start from scratch in the spring than to keep the hive during the winter hibernation cycle.

      If I give to charity it does not mean that if I stole from the convenience store that is no longer theft because I gave to charity... In the same way if the choice of not eating flesh is a sound ethical choice please do not try to make the eating of other animal products an ethical one as well. it is fine that it is your choice, and more power to you for it, but your choice does not change reality.

      Also organic has NOTHING to do with the treatment of animals it's all about the feed and the chemicals, not the care. There is no guarantee of how well the animals are treated.
      Free range can mean that they are out of their cage for an hour a day or that 300 chickens are all crammed "freely" in a small room with a concrete floor, they are not technically in cages but packed in there so tightly that it may as well be.

      anyhting that anyone does to limit suffering in even a small way is a good thing in my book. So do what you can and call yourself what you wish based on what you are doing, and rather than trying to turn the steps you haven't taken yet into positives, I recommend that you just focus on the ones you have taken already whcih are wonderful...what's the number? 65 animals a year who'se lives are saved by a lacto-ovo vegetarian? that's still a lot!! remember that.
      • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Sun, August 19, 2007 - 8:56 AM
        im sorry, but the original vegetarian cultures of the world
        did not split hairs over this animal food (honey, eggs) and that animal product (leather, what have you)

        being a vegetarian ORIGINALLY meant 'leaving animals ALONE'

        meat-eaters changed the meaning.
        if you want ethical recognition for being hormone-meat-free, come up with a new term.
        real vegetarianism is a human vs. animal behavioral assessment.
        not just about food.

        that's just patting yourself on the back for 'making an effort' but still harming weaker creatures...
        not very steward-like.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Sun, August 19, 2007 - 1:57 PM
        Antoine,
        Is there any particular reason you felt the need to lecture me on things I NEVER claimed?
        Ah, okay, getting to the meat of your post, you’re absolutely right that the issues are one of semantics and another of animal rights.
        You covered the bit about vegetarianism versus veganism quite well: vegetarianism doesn’t refer to the total exclusion of animal product or byproduct, it refers simply to abstaining from meat-consumption. What the definition was originally or a hundred years ago really just isn’t relevant. Vegans are those who not only refuse to eat meat, but also refuse to consume byproducts such as dairy or honey, AND also refuse to use animal content in anything they wear. Since you also have vegetarians who won’t consume dairy but will eat eggs, and those who will consume dairy but not eggs (which, admittedly, get closer to the true definition of vegetarianism since by not eating eggs they avoid altogether the argument of whether eggs count or not for a vegetarian diet, the tacking on of such terms as lacto- and ovo- can be really helpful. As I said upthread, I know that people who consume fish are not vegetarians; I try simpy to educate them on this fact and suggest that they call themselves pescetarians instead, because in large part this is a matter of ignorance: it is VERY common to see such phrases as “meat and fish,” and even “meat and poultry,” which count at least for a portion of the reason why so many people think that meat=beef and doesn’t seafood of any sort. I certainly had to have this conversation with Dad when I explained to him I’d become a vegetarian and he kept trying to find ways to serve me meat-dishes and claim that they weren’t going to impinge on my new dietary lifestyle.
        “But even many vegetarians will use leather and still consider themselves vegetarians…”
        Annnnnd you’re saying this…why, exactly? It’s already been established by the both of us that they’re not incorrect for doing so. So what’s the purpose of this redundant ‘but’ statement?
        “However, what you call yourself…animal rights point.”
        What exactly is YOUR point? I didn’t suggest that what I called myself affected anyone other than me, so why you feel the need to lecture me in that condescending, professorial tone, I can’t figure.
        I did not attempt once to convince ANYONE of the ethics of egg and milk production, though I think you might’ve meant ‘consumption’ instead. Not only is your tone condescending, but your words are presumptuous.
        I thought I made it clear in my last post that I choose to eat things which come from ethical sources. I started on the path to becoming a vegetarian by first making the decision never to eat beef or wear cattle-derived products, such as leather, ever again, because I researched how much of a detrimental impact the cattle industry has on the world in so many different ways. From there, it was a natural progression to finding out EXACTLY what goes on in slaughterhouses and how mass-market consumption animals are “raised.” Later, I did research on the overall, general health of omnivores versus vegetarians, and there you have it. There is also the fact that I am very much concerned about the chemicals and crap that goes into our bodies from the food we eat. I am vegetarian ALSO for the same reason that I try to eat organic produce as much as possible.
        I don’t have any qualms about eating meat from a survival standpoint. I don’t think it is immoral to eat animals. If I had the time, skill, and inclination, I would eat fish I caught myself, but only so long as I could be assured that the fish were ‘organic’ as well, not laden with heavy metals or swimming in polluted waters.
        Sorry, but while MOST, and most is the keyword, people who raise animals aren’t interested in the health and happiness of their livestock, it is incorrect to suggest that ALL are not, that ALL are unconcerned with the welfare of the animals in their keeping. I have the good fortune to live in an area where people do raise their own chickens and cattle, and my parents live in an area where there are several local beekeepers. I KNOW how these people care for their animals. I already made it clear that I buy my eggs from people who take VERY good care of their chickens, because these people operate from the standpoint that a healthy, happy chicken lays healthy eggs. They are NOT interested in mass-market production and they are NOT conventional egg-producers. Are they typical? No, but that was NEVER my argument. I would buy my chicken from them as well, but the people from whom I buy eggs don’t slaughter their chickens for meat sales.
        (In case you missed it elsewhere, I do buy chicken…for my cats, who eat a raw meat diet. I never touch the stuff).
        Drop your bullshit presumptions: I AM concerned with the suffering of animals as I find it to be EXTREMELY relevant; you have no basis from which to think otherwise. When it comes to honey, I buy my honey ONLY from a particular source, from a man who has been keeping bees for longer than I’ve been alive, and who treats his bees VERY ethically and humanely. The thing about being conscientious is knowing exactly where your food comes from, insofar as it is possible for you to do so.

        I don’t actually drink or cook with dairy-based milk because I have a major case of lactose-intolerance; instead I stick with soy-, rice-, and almond-based milks. However, I would not use dairy-based milk anyway, for the above-mentioned reason that I avoid patronizing the cattle industry in any way, shape, or form. There are, however, some people not far from my area who raise goats and do sell the milk. And, surprise, surprise, they treat their goats very well.
        That small, local farms’ bottom line is profit does not preclude humane treatment of animals. Most of the people in my town are affiliated in some way with a farm or ranch; in many—the majority, I daresay—cases, it is not their primary source of income, but in any case, the welfare of their animals IS a primary concern, whether you want to admit it or not, and not necessarily because they are not concerned with profit. They are NOT factory farms, after all, and have some emotional connection to their animals. Granted they don’t see the animals as PETS by any means, but they care a great deal about the health and happiness of their livestock.

        Maybe it’s just that I’ve had the opportunity to know a lot of these people personally, and even visited their homes in many cases, but, sorry, you’re simply wrong if you think that no rancher ever gives a shit about the wellbeing of its animals. Yes, even the ones who raise animals for slaughter.
        “even small local farm's bottom line is profit...and they don't give two shits about Bessie the cow or the fact that she is constantly impregnated and then has her baby taken from her..... and that after many years of this she becomes hamburger....and they surely don't care about her unnamed baby...”
        Again, wrong. At least locally. I won’t deign to speak for all the cattle ranchers out here, but I know a couple of families who raise a handful of cows “on the side” more or less and don’t keep their cows pregnant around the clock and who DON’T butcher the cow once she’s too old to conceive. If anything, the milk cows turn into pets when they’re retired. The caveat, of course, is that these people *are* the sort not interested in making a huge profit because they’ve reached a point where they no longer attempt to compete with the major cattle ranchers in the area. If I drank dairy, I would absolutely get my milk from them.

        “they don't care at all about their hundreds of faceless hens who are all kept celibate and force-molted to produce unfertilized eggs, over and over, until their bones and bodies are so depleted that they can't even walk when they have their and are turned into chicken pot pies.”
        Absolutely wrong. Not very many people out here raise chickens, but I know a few who do, and they don’t do this. In this case, the hens definitely ARE pets and the families wouldn’t even dream of slaughtering them. The kids of one family can’t even bring themselves to eat store-purchased poultry.


        “The kindly beekeepers do not give a crap how many bees they slaughter when they steal the honey from the hive and in fact most (even organic) bee keepers will destroy entire hives (as in kill hundreds of thousands of bees) at the end of the season because it is more economically feasible to start from scratch in the spring than to keep the hive during the winter hibernation cycle.”
        I don’t know any local beekeepers, but there’s a few in my old hometown in the South, and, sorry, once again you’re wrong. At least in one count. I don’t know a lot about the practice, but I can tell you that there’s one keeper who cares a lot about his bees and certainly does NOT destroy hives at the end of the season.
        The whole point of my tirade is to take you to task for your contention that it is NEVER possible to raise animals humanely. It simply is not true, and I outright resent your assertion that even people like myself who do our homework and ‘shop’ around, getting to know the farms from which we would be getting our product, are just deluding ourselves because at no time is it ever possible to consume animal product that was derived without harm to the animal. You talk as if you need to educate me on how MOST farms and ranches treat their animals, and this was just not necessary. I’ve made it plain from the start that I search out the farms that DO treat animals humanely. That MOST don’t was never a question.
        I’m not of the view that the exploitative nature of keeping animals negates the idea of humane treatment from its inception. Deal with it.

        “If I give to charity it does not mean that if I stole from the convenience store that is no longer theft because I gave to charity...”
        What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What the hell does it even MEAN? If you’re trying to make some sort of analogy, you fail. Try again.
        “ In the same way if the choice of not eating flesh is a sound ethical choice please do not try to make the eating of other animal products an ethical one as well. it is fine that it is your choice, and more power to you for it, but your choice does not change reality.”
        I never said that my choice affected reality, and I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. But I got a newsflash for you: Your opinion does not MAKE reality. I haven’t attempted to make the eating of other animal products ‘an ethical choice.’ I HAVE pointed out that it is entirely possible to find products made in environments which treat animals ethically.


        “Also organic has NOTHING to do with the treatment of animals it's all about the feed and the chemicals, not the care. There is no guarantee of how well the animals are treated.”
        Please point out where I said this. Oh, right, you can’t. Because I didn’t say it. I’m WELL aware that organic is a completely separate issue. Refer back to that thing about not making presumptions AND not putting words in my mouth.

        “Free range can mean that they are out of their cage for an hour a day or that 300 chickens are all crammed "freely" in a small room with a concrete floor, they are not technically in cages but packed in there so tightly that it may as well be.”
        Yes, it can mean both of those. It can ALSO mean that the chickens are allowed to roam, period. But since I don’t buy supermarket eggs whose claims cannot be verified easily, and DO buy them from people whose chickens I have seen roaming freely about, I know precisely where my eggs come from and how the hens that produce them are treated.

        “anyhting that anyone does to limit suffering in even a small way is a good thing in my book. So do what you can and call yourself what you wish based on what you are doing, and rather than trying to turn the steps you haven't taken yet into positives, I recommend that you just focus on the ones you have taken already whcih are wonderful...what's the number? 65 animals a year who'se lives are saved by a lacto-ovo vegetarian? that's still a lot!! remember that.”
        Whoa, suddenly I’m getting a pep talk instead of a lecture? Wow.
        Sorry to break it to you, but I didn’t go vegetarian to ‘save’ animals lives in the sense of not killing them for food. If someone I knew and trusted brought a hunted deer or rabbit for me to consume, I’d eat it in a heartbeat. Buddy, I’m NOT “trying to turn the steps I haven’t taken yet into positives.” I have no intention of going further than I already have. The steps I’ve taken are as far as I’m going, period. The things I’m still doing or haven’t done aren’t unethical or ‘negatives’ merely because YOU think so. Remember what you said up-top about how what I choose for myself doesn’t alter reality? You should really consider applying that argument to yourself---because no matter how much you may dislike something, YOUR morals do not define reality for anyone other than YOU.


        • Unsu...
           

          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

          Mon, August 20, 2007 - 4:57 PM
          Amy, if we are talking about the definition of vegetarianism as someone who does not eat meat, then fine, we have nothing to discuss. We agree: one can be called vegetarian and eat eggs.

          However, YOU are the one who opened up the larger issue of ethics and morality and the treatment of animals...so if you wish to open up the larger issue of animal RIGHTS

          That is something else altogether.

          And my analogy may not have anything to do with the tea in China but it has everything to do with this conversation and all your facile rationalizations to justify the enslavement and slaughter of animals.

          What the analogy of the theft and the charity was meant to illustrate is that regardless of how good some of the choices that you make are, this does not affect the other choices that you make. Each is independent...there is no overflow...just because you are vegetarian to save animal lives, does not mean that magically everything else that you do will save animal lives.

          If you wish to establish that it is enough for you to not eat meat, that is perfectly fine. And the fact that you do not eat meat DOES save many animal lives and prevent much suffering, but we must separate the act from the actor and the reality from the intention.

          The person who consumes eggs and milk (the actor) is not necessarily a bad person, but that does not change that the act of taking eggs from a hen is not a good act (if we consider the hen at all).

          Also, your good intentions do not alter reality. This is a bit like the meat-eaters who talk about their connection with all living beings and the wind and the moon and the cycle of life and all that to try to turn the violent slaughter of an animal into a good thing.

          Please.

          The hen does not WANT you to take her eggs. Those eggs are NOT yours to take. And I doubt that any goat (no matter how "well treated") will want her baby taken away from her soon after birth (organic standards: 3 days) just so that you can eat the cheese made form the milk that she naturally produced for her kid!

          You may feel nice and comfortable in the lie that the chickens and goats are well treated but ask the goat-milk producers what they do with the kids, ask the egg-producers how old are their hens, and where are their roosters and how many hens do they have
          etc etc.

          While the act of abstaining form meat consumption is a good one and it is plenty compared to the average American consumer, this act does not miraculously make egg and milk and honey production sweet and respectful and those who abuse the animals for their products do not miraculously become kindly friends to the animals just because you wish it and because your intentions are good.

          These products ARE vegetarian and on this a vegetarian tribe I will never tell a vegetarian that they are not vegetarian for consuming these products...but I will stop short when someone tries to convince me of the ethics of these products.

          Or perhaps you are trying to convince yourself?

          Say that it is not on your radar or that you are focussing on other things, or doing the best you can...but please don't try to turn a sword into a bouquet of flowers.

          Can you really convince yourself that hens WANT us to keep them celibate and force them to lay egg after egg?
          (healthy hens lay healthy eggs, please! you want some fries with that propaganda!)

          Can you really convince yourself that goats WANT to have their kids put in the back of a truck moments after birth to be later roasted on a spit, while you milk them and impregnate them again!
          Can you really convince yourself that bees want to work all season for YOU to take THEIR honey?

          And you DO know that ALL animals, hens, goats, cows, even horses, end up at the slaughterhouse...right? there are no pet cemeteries for farm animals. You do know that right?

          So just like you laugh at the vegetarian who wears leather (I have met many by the way) it is the same, its less an issue of preventing suffering but more of delegating... the animal is not strictly speaking killed for the product that you consume but she is killed afterwards, and that is okay.

          Amy, call yourself what you want but what you call yourself does not change reality.

          But that does not mean that everyone needs become vegan, we all make choices in life and decide where to draw the line, but where we personally choose to draw the line does not change reality, it is simply where we choose to draw the line.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

            Mon, August 20, 2007 - 5:47 PM
            Antoine,

            I was warned about you in a PM. After two posts, I can see why.

            Your first mistake is in assuming I'm attempting to rationalize anything. You're flat-out wrong. I'm not. I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks about my choices, so I have no need to justify myself. My choices ARE based on my personal ethics, but guess what? My ethics ARE NOT _your_ ethics; for that very reason, I have no need to rationalize my actions to make them fit my ethics: they already do.

            Your second mistake is in assuming that I became vegetarian to save animals lives. I didn't. I ceased eating beef and consuming cow-derived dairy in order to remove myself from the cattle industry. I began eating organic-fed meat for health reasons. Ultimately I stopped eating meat for health reasons as well. At no point does the belief that killing animals for food is cruel enter into it; I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat meat. As I said elsewhere: deal with it.

            "While the act of abstaining form meat consumption is a good one and it is plenty compared to the average American consumer, this act does not miraculously make egg and milk and honey production sweet and respectful and those who abuse the animals for their products do not miraculously become kindly friends to the animals just because you wish it and because your intentions are good."

            Stop putting words in my mouth. I never ONCE said that the act of abstaining from meat automatically made egg, milk, and honey production humane practices; I did, however, make it clear that I make a point of only obtaining my eggs and honey from sources which DO treat their animals humanely. Nor did I suggest that because I "abstain" from meat, that all dairy and honey producing individuals automatically are transformed into "kindly friends to the animals" in order to make me feel good about the choices I HAVEN'T made.

            YOU are the one who cannot accept that it is actually possible for that to be the case. YOU don't want to believe it is possible, so you automatically assume I'm the one making rationalizations in order to justify myself. YOU cannot believe a person would actually go out of their way to find humanely-produced animal-derived products. None of that is my problem. The fact is, because I DO give a shit about the welfare of dairy animals and bees, I make an effort to only acquire my products from humane sources. That YOU can't accept that as a possibility isn't my problem. Again, fucking deal with it.

            "These products ARE vegetarian and on this a vegetarian tribe I will never tell a vegetarian that they are not vegetarian for consuming these products...but I will stop short when someone tries to convince me of the ethics of these products."

            I'm not trying to convince you of the ethics of anything. You pulled that assumption clear out of your ass. My actions are a direct result of my ethics, and, again, don't conflict; the problem is that you are applying YOUR ethical standards to MY actions.

            "Can you really convince yourself that hens WANT us to keep them celibate and force them to lay egg after egg?
            (healthy hens lay healthy eggs, please! you want some fries with that propaganda!) "

            I don't know a lot about the process of egg-laying, but I do know that the eggs I get are fertilized, which kinda negates the idea that the hens are forcibly kept celibate.

            "Can you really convince yourself that goats WANT to have their kids put in the back of a truck moments after birth to be later roasted on a spit, while you milk them and impregnate them again!"

            Try again. Once more you fail to grasp that most is not all. The place where I've seen family-raised goats does NOT take the kids away from their mothers and the goats are NEVER 'put in the back of a truck' to be taken somewhere for roasting on a spit.

            "Can you really convince yourself that bees want to work all season for YOU to take THEIR honey?"

            Bees don't have the wherewithal to care.

            "And you DO know that ALL animals, hens, goats, cows, even horses, end up at the slaughterhouse...right? there are no pet cemeteries for farm animals. You do know that right?"

            Well, no, they don't all end up at the slaughterhouse. Quite a few of the local ranchers I know butcher their own animals without sending them to a slaughterhouse, and, *gasp*, do it HUMANELY. Again, I'm not against the killing of animals for food, so this in itself does not bother me. And, well, given that a lot of these ARE family operations, more than a few of the animals HAVE been buried in the fashion of pets.

            "So just like you laugh at the vegetarian who wears leather (I have met many by the way) it is the same, its less an issue of preventing suffering but more of delegating... the animal is not strictly speaking killed for the product that you consume but she is killed afterwards, and that is okay."

            Get over yourself. I never said I laughed at vegetarians who wear leather. I know quite a few vegetarians who do exactly that, actually. The reason being they are vegetarian for HEALTH purposes and don't give a shit about the cattle industry or the welfare of the animals.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

              Mon, August 20, 2007 - 11:02 PM
              Antoine is convinced that hens can't be healthy without eating their eggs. I'm not sure if he's ever had hens.

              While it is true that store bought "free-range" eggs don't come from happy hens, I have personal experience with the fact that hens can be kept well nourished and healthy, and NOT be fed their eggs back.

              Hens have been bred for centuries to overproduce eggs (we never "force-molted" ours and they laid about 1 a day each). They are able to sustain this nutritionally because they are fed more than they are in the wild. The hens that had serious nutritional problems because of this died off long ago. Hens have essentially evolved to overproduce eggs (and not be fed back to them).

              Say what you will about the original act of breeding them to overproduce, but the fact is that thats what they do now. And no they don't seem to care that much when you take their eggs. They hardly bat an eye. This of course is because the hens that were bothered by it and became agressive were probably more likely to be killed and eaten by breeders in the past. With the more docile and accepting hens more likely to be bred. But the fact is, they really don't seem to care.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                Mon, August 20, 2007 - 11:05 PM
                Note, I'm not advocating buying eggs from the store. If your concerened about animal welfare, do not buy eggs from the store, free-range or no.

                But if you have friends that have well treated birds, I wouldn't worry about it to much. And somehow I doubt hens get sexually frustrated. But even if so, hens don't have to be celibate to lay eggs.
            • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

              Tue, August 21, 2007 - 9:29 AM
              >>>Bees don't have the wherewithal to care. <<<

              Were you a bee in a past life? lol

              >>>Quite a few of the local ranchers I know butcher their own animals without sending them to a slaughterhouse, and, *gasp*, do it HUMANELY.<<<

              "Butcher" and "humanely" do not belong in the same sentence together. Unless the animal is wounded or sick and is put down to spare it from pain, killing it is not "humane", it doesn't matter how you do it.

              On another note, this issue of whether feeding a hens eggs back to them is necessary for humane treatment is interesting. I know that Farm Sanctuary feeds their eggs back to the hens, and they are arguably the most humane farm in the country. My question is, if you don't do it, what do you add to their diet to counteract the calcium depletion caused by the constant egg production? How do you *know* this supplement to their diet sufficiently adds back to their bone mass such that they avoid any pain. Even on the magical happy land farms that Amy speaks of, the birds are probably killed before the symptoms present themselves, so it seems like it would be difficult to know for sure.
              • ra
                ra
                offline 25

                Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                Tue, August 21, 2007 - 11:33 AM
                >>"Butcher" and "humanely" do not belong in the same sentence together.

                I agree. The concept of killing an animal, to turn its corpse into a product, humanely is patently absurd.
                Taking the animals life is the issue. Not how it's taken. Their lifes are theirs. Not ours to use as we see fit.
                I also don't buy the bs from meat eaters that say they "love animals." What they really mean is they love specific species and to hell with other ones.
              • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                Tue, August 21, 2007 - 11:57 AM
                I agree with you that the idea of humane egg production is wishful thinking.

                My in-laws keep chickens (hens, often with one rooster in the bunch) for eggs. They crush the eggshells and feed them back.

                Also, the hens have completely bare bottoms from constantly attacking eachother. Having the rooster there makes no difference, as far as I can tell.

                This entire discussion is taking place on questionable ground, however. We as vegetarians should go farther than merely not eating certain things. We need more vision. Merely not eating something is not enough. Consider a world in which vegetarians are the majority. What vision are we presenting of such a world? How would it work? Would the animals left in such a world really be much better off than they are today? (I'm not saying they wouldn't be - obviously the disappearance of factory farms would be a huge improvement - but is that all we're aiming for?)

                You see, there's this 900-pound gorilla of an issue here with us that we're ignoring: WHERE could these animals possibly live normal lives if we weren't constantly exploiting and killing them? Are we willing to make room? There's precious little natural habitat left, and what there is continues to shrink as human habitations encroach further and further. Our lifestyle (involving things like driving a car, using electricity, cutting down forests to make room for monoculture farming, building single-family houses with yards, all the infrastructure to support those houses and allow inhabitants to commute to and from work, etc.) is inimical to it.

                Aren't some of the points being made in this discussion a bit moot (not to say petty) considering the larger picture?

                I know what we're all against, but what are we FOR?
                • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                  Tue, August 21, 2007 - 1:06 PM
                  Narayan, I'm a little confused on exactly what animals you're referring to, or what question you're asking.

                  Are you asking, "if we all stopped eating meat, where would the farm animals go?"

                  Or are you asking, "as human population continues to rise, where do we expect to leave *any* habitat available for any animals but humans?"

                  As far as the first question goes, when demand for animal products diminishes, the population of animals raised for food will also diminish. It's not as if all the sudden everyone will stop eating meat, so they'll just let all the cows and chickens go into the wild. It will be much more gradual than that. As demand drops, the industry will reproduce fewer and fewer animals. Demand will never drop to zero, so there will always be some of these animals around.

                  The second question is much more difficult, obviously. Many scientists predict that the rapid growth in human population will slow down over the next century as more countries begin to industrialized. But the population will continue to grow, just more slowly perhaps. There's really nothing to be done about this problem, short of government enforced limits on human reproduction, which will probably never happen on a global scale. In my opinion, there's nothing we can do to stop the current Holocene extinction event we are living in, and the majority of animal species will die out within the next few centuries as human population continues to rise, and we continue to destroy the environment. Eventually it will lead to such harsh conditions (risen global temperatures, more natural disasters, lack of food, lack of energy resources, etc.) that human population will start to decline instead of grow. I doubt we will ever die off completely, unless there's some sort of astronomical mass extinction event; we are adaptive enough that we will survive in some capacity (e.g. Waterworld :D ).

                  Eventually in another 500-1000 years Earth will be pretty barren as far as resources go (energy and food), human population will be small, and the planet will start to heal itself. IMO there's absolutely nothing we can do about this, because for every aware, environmental conscience, ethically-minded person on the planet like you and me, there are at least a thousand people that don't have the luxury of thinking about these things (because they're more concerned about not starving) or do have the luxury and just don't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves (95% of Americans).
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                    Wed, August 22, 2007 - 2:06 AM
                    Matt: Your second question comes closest to my meaning. I don't see any essential difference between farm animals and wild animals (of course, there are superficial behavioral differences, mostly related to the environment in which they are kept). Animals are animals. The question is, as you say, where will animals be able to live if humans keep on commandeering habitat, making it uninhabitable?

                    Your post, I think, echoes the sentiments of many. The problem of human ignorance seems so huge that dire consequences seem inevitable. The voices clamoring for more "growth" and "development" (i.e., destruction) are too loud - they drown out the weak voices warning that the fish are dying, the birds are dying, the bees are dying, etc. Few people realize how dependent our lives are on having habitats on the earth capable of supporting animals. If those habitats (or, as you put it, "resources") disappear - the animals will be the first to go, and humans will soon follow.

                    But I don't agree that this is a foregone conclusion. To say that is rather defeatist and it makes me wonder whether you are serious.

                    All I'm saying is that merely not eating something isn't going to cut the mustard. We have to do more. As my teacher often says, quoting Gandhi: "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." The solution, of course, is for us to reduce our wants and be happy with what Earth provides. This, by the way, is also the solution to the carbon/greenhouse gas/climate change problem, which is driven exclusively by unbridled consumption and habitat destruction.

                    We need communities of people, young and old, but especially the young, committed to this kind of lifestyle and rejecting the dominant religion of consumerism-fueled "growth" and "development".

                    This, in my opinion, is where we should be focusing our energies - not on arguing the fine ethical points of vegetarian diets. If we're really concerned about animals, then we should also be concerned about where they will live. Otherwise we're killing them (and ourselves) off just like the meat eaters are.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                      Wed, August 22, 2007 - 6:42 AM
                      "I don't know a lot about the process of egg-laying, but I do know that the eggs I get are fertilized, which kinda negates the idea that the hens are forcibly kept celibate. "
                      okay so that is actually worse Amy.
                      I suggest byou ask someone who knows about egg farming (that is what I did when I was exactly where you are now a few years ago: I was buying organic eggs and struggling with the ethics of it)

                      the struggle is fine as long as you are honest.

                      If you buy fertilizd eggs, what happens to the chicks? and more specifically what happens to the male chicks?

                      you buy the "false alarms" as it were, which would imply that the ones that are fertilized would be kept by the "farmer" to be enslaved as long with their parents, but the females become hens, the males become roosters, and you can't have too many roosters in a coop. Biology is 50/50 so that means that of all the babies half of them would be males.

                      so would do your kindly egg-farmers do with the eggs?

                      and how old are their hens? How long do they keep them? and if the rooster does fertilize the hens, how fast does their coop grow? How many hens do they have? how many hens did they have 10 years ago? If the number is approximately the same then something is amiss.

                      and you conveniently ignore the mjost saliant point: where do they ALL eventually end up?

                      the slaughterhouse.

                      so while the hen is not killed for you, she will be killed. No farm animal dies of natural causes and is buried in the backyard with a headstone and a ceremony.

                      As for your warning and your "try agains" and all the confrontational language, I'll let that go. It is a hard realization that you are coming to. Once you realize that I am not your enemy and that you are actually fighting with yourself and your own views of yourself, you'll feel better, and eventually MUCH better. Change is good and learning is always beneficial.

                      and REALLY learning, as in not going into a situation and trying to reinforce what you already think is true, but REALLY trying to discover the truth.

                      I highly recommend that you contact farmer brown, he helped me a lot when I was where you are now:
                      www.askfarmerbrown.org/

                      Amy it is wonderful that you are so passionate to being compassionate and being kind. The world needs more kind people like you. Keep it up and most of all keep searching for the truth.

                      And if ever you need actual advice or are struggling feel free to PM me anytime in the future, contrarily to what people may have send to you about me in PMs and such, I hold no ill-will towards you. I am challenging your opinions and your views, and the relaity of animal exploitation, but I blame the act, not the actor, and the fact that you are asking these questions make already makes you a hero.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                        Wed, August 22, 2007 - 7:04 AM
                        B. ofcourse I never raised chickens as I am a city boy and, now since I am a believer in animal rights I would never raise any animals for my own reasons. Regardless of how well you believe the animal is treated it is disrespectful of her rights to use her for profit.

                        But does the fact that I have never actually raised chickens make my arguments wrong? Animal exploitation exists at the monstrous scale that it does now exactly because most people have no direct contact with farm animals, and they only see the eggs as products in a styrofoam container, the meat is a cellophane product. So you are saying that my compassion for these animals without having ever actually raised them is somehow incorrect?

                        Listen, I haven't sold drugs or robbed a bank before, but I can still have an opinion about theose things. Likewise when I need my sink fixed I call a plumber, this does not mean that I don't deserve to have a sink ;-D

                        I deleguate. When I was struggling with veganism, I called egg-farmers and visited egg industry websites. I sent them emails and asked questions. I contacted Farmer Brown and also small organic farms. I asked themquestions, real questions like the ones I recommended that Amy ask.
                        I didn't like the answers so I had to consider the possibility that I may be wrong (and that is where learning begins)

                        As for evolution. I don't think you understand it very well. Hens have not "evolved" over the last 3000 or even 7000 years...(and neither have I or you for that matter) the X-men movie aside, evolution occurs over MILLIONS of years. Biologically the hens of today are THE SAME as the red jungle fowl of 12 thousand years ago, that laid 6 to 12 eggs A YEAR and flew up to the top of trees to roost. They have been enslaved, mutilated and BRED, but breeding is not evolution.

                        It may make you feel better to think that somehow these hens are fitting into their natural role, but the reality is that they are NOT. Nature never intended them to be forced to lay so many eggs, and their bodies can not take it (as Matt explained very well). And nature did not create them to produce protein for you. The miracle of life does not exist just so that you can eat eggs. And the cycle of mother feeding her baby is not just in place so that you can have a cup of rocky road ice cream.


                        And Narayan, There is room for the animals. Almost 30 per cent of the worlds land mass is being used for animal production (U.N. figures), and these animals are being bred for that very purpose if they were not bred anymore, they would naturally regulate themselves.

                        Yes it will be important as sustainable societies of the future that we set aside wild land and keep it wld, but there is no reason to think that if we stop the domestication of animals that we will be overun with them. First it will occur over many years, second if we are not contributing to their growth artificially they will find their natural balance.

                        or we could believe as a man once told my wife at a demo: "If we don't eat the cows they will eat us!" :-)
                        • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                          Wed, August 22, 2007 - 2:27 PM
                          >> As for evolution. I don't think you understand it very well. Hens have not "evolved" over the last 3000 or even 7000 years...(and neither have I or you for that matter) the X-men movie aside, evolution occurs over MILLIONS of years. Biologically the hens of today are THE SAME as the red jungle fowl of 12 thousand years ago, that laid 6 to 12 eggs A YEAR and flew up to the top of trees to roost. They have been enslaved, mutilated and BRED, but breeding is not evolution.<<

                          I understand that what the previous poster that Antoine is answering does mean breeding, not evolution. And hens have been bred to be the docile animals they are today, by farmers, just as dog breeders have developed the qualities in the many different types of dogs over the years of domestication.

                          This does not make any of it right, I just want to clarify that Amy, Narayan and B all are making valid and intelligent points in this conversation. I think all points of view about eggs and hens from the vegetarian perspective are worth reading, and help to educate us all.

                          Antoine, you have lots of experience and knowledge about respecting animal rights, living vegan and the steps one goes through to get there. I like to read your perspective. Your opinions are helping me look at things more closely, as I am personally moving toward the vegan lifestyle.

                          But please remember that not everyone in this vegetarian tribe is a strict vegetarian, nor do all vegetarians choose this diet because of animal rights. Probably many vegetarians here are not intending to go vegan, and their points of view are welcome here and probably very helpful to people that might read threads in this tribe who are not yet vegetarian, even, but want to learn more about it.

                          Even though I am mostly vegan nowadays, I liked what Amy had to say up thread. If more meat eaters learned where their meat and eggs were coming from and made careful buying decisions, this world would be a better place!
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                            Wed, August 22, 2007 - 2:59 PM
                            I agree with you Christie, and in fact I believe I said things to that effect many times in my previous posts (that consuming eggs IS vegetarians, and that lacto-ovo vegetarians do a lot of good: saving 65 animal lives every year...etc...) so I think I have remembered that this is a vegetarian tribe and have attempted to be respectful of this, however when animal rights are brought up it of course leads to the issue of veganism.

                            I tend to be pretty clear in my views but usually try to respect each tribe individually.

                            All I wanted to clear up was the belief that egg and dairy farming is respectful of animal rights and ethical. It is not, but life is not a game, we don't acumulate points, and it's all about learning and doing the best we can.

                            I can give you an example...up until a few years ago, sweat-shop labour was not really on my radar...since it appeared to be really hard to know for sure the conditions of the workers that made my clothes and other houselhold products.

                            A friend openned my eyes to it, I researched it...and a very interesting issue of Satya magazine helped me find even more ressources.

                            Now I always buy fairly traded goods, or to the best of my ability when it is not disclosed i try to find out...just like with veganism if I have doubts I don't take the chance...

                            But it was not always like this. For a few years I was vegan and buying clothing made in SriLanka and Bangladesh and China and probably in sweatshop conditions, now I had my justifications for it (I felt I had no other choice, humans can take care of themselves, economic reasons, etc etc) but these are irrelevent to this conversation.

                            What is relevent is that while I did not really concern myself with these issues, I would NEVER have claimed that sweat shops are a GOOD thing. Perhaps I would justify my choices and even say that "I could not go that far" or whatever....but I did not believe that MY CHOICE would all of sudden affect the reality of sweat shops and just because it is not on my radar does not make unfair labour fair.

                            Likewise as I said many times it is fine if Amy and others make the choices that they make, we all strive in our own way, and it is not automatic. It takes a while.
                            But it is one thing for us to say that we are vegetarian and feel that it is enough for us, but it is quite another to attempt to transform the egg, milk and honey industry into respectful, ethical and kindly industries that exist in the best interest of the animals, just because we choose to use these products.

                            This entire thread (as illustrated even in the title) is a challenge to the defintion of vegetarianism and I did not start this thread and I don't believe the OP started this thread to insult or disrespect anyone, simply to open a conversation, and i am contributing my perspective as others can contribute theirs.

                            I do not however agree with your interpretation of the evolution remarks. Of course it would be up to the posters to clear it up, but from what I understand and most of the times when people bring up evolution in this context it is as a "fait accompli" and the issue of evolution is brought up to imply that hens are "like this" now and that it the humans who raise them are therefore somehow respectful of this "new animal" ...therefore somehow blaming human history and therefore taking responsibility away form present day humans and the present day industry...it leads to the arguments of "it has always been like this" and even more damaging that nature is changing and that we must evolve with it...

                            and the reality is not so...Nature does not evolve like this...and breeding is an abheration not an evolutionary step.

                            In fact piglets who escaped slaughter in mexico and ran into the forest started to become wild boars again. Within their own lifetimes their hair grew striped designs and brown hair. And by the next generation they had tusks again.

                            breeding is temporary, evolution is permanent.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                          Wed, August 22, 2007 - 4:43 PM
                          None of the following is meant to be taken as justification for factory farming. Thats different. I was saying chickens have been bred (or evolved, they are the same thing, see below) to lay a lot of eggs and generally don't have nutrtion problems if well fed. Evolutionary arguments aside, you can check that out. Thats not to say that the eggs you buy from the store are from well nourished or well treated chickens There is no argument there, as I've said for the umpteenth gazillionth time.

                          As far as evolution goes. Sorry to burst your bubble, I think I understand it pretty well:
                          It is really common for people to think of artificial selection ("breeding"), as something different from natural selection. The difficulty stems from the fact that people think humans are somehow seperate from the environment, like were some special case. But really artificial selection is a special KIND of natural selection. The only thing that makes it artificial selection is the environmental pressure which causes the selection is human desires. I thought that would be understood. (Darwin actually used artificial selection to espouse the idea of naturaly selection in The Origin of Species, this worked because it is the exact same process, but with environmental pressures that are very easy to discern--i.e. human desires)

                          Chickens ARE very different from the wild chickens that they were domesticated from. For one thing, they lay a ridiculous number of eggs. A trait that would quickly die out in the wild because of problems with nutrition and predators that would have much more serious effects if chickens weren't protected from predators and fed so much (or ideally)

                          I assume what you mean by them being the "same" is that they are the same species. A domesticated chicken could breed with a wild chicken. So yes, they are the same SPECIES, but they aren't the SAME. The important differences came about by evolving, or being bred, to live with humans.

                          Nature does not intend things (atleast not that you or I know of, unless you've found some being called NATURE and happen to have had a conversation with it). Evolution is not some concious magical process. Atleast not the kind of evolution I'm talking about, I'm talking about Darwin's evolution, not some panthiestic theological evolution (one in which there is a being that "intends" things to happen and which humans are some force seperate from the process).

                          And while were on evolution, actually, speciation usually occurs over tens of thousands of years, not millions of years. (read about punctuated equilibria for an introduction to that idea) But I wasn't talking about speciation anyway--because as I said domesticated chickens are the same species as wild chickens.

                          I did not mean that you had to have had chickens to be an authority on this subject. But I don't think that nutritional defficiencies are inherently a problem in chickens that don't have their eggs fed to them--I know this because I had chickens which had no apparent nutritionaly defficiencys. Thats not to say that chickens in egg production facilities are well nourished or well fed.

                          Whether or not its OK to raise a chicken and "steal" their eggs...I don't even know what to say to that. I guess I'm a chicken opressor.
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                            Wed, August 22, 2007 - 5:40 PM
                            well this is where I will call YOU out B. you say that I do not need to have chickens to believe what I believe but then you proceed to say that you "think" that chickens are not nutritionally defiicent if they do not have their eggs fed back to them.

                            I already stated that I am a city boy therefore I have never raised chickens, but when i want to know something I ask those who do know, I don't base myself on what I "think"...and most sanctuaries and rescues that have rescued hens feed the eggs back to them to compensate for the nutritional deficiency. I am sure that they know since they are veterinarians and animal resucers who do in fact live with hens.

                            Not only do you in fact completely misunderstand evolution and give much too much importance to humans in the equation, but as well you contradict your own argument, and proove my point.

                            I am not arrogant enough to claim to understand all of the mysteries of life, but I stated that evolution ocurred over millions of years and not only a few thousand...you say: " speciation usually occurs over tens of thousands of years, not millions of years."

                            I agree. And humans have not domesticated chickens for more than tens of thousands of years...we have domesticated them at the most 12 thousand years, which is just barely over ONE ten ...not tens of thousands.

                            the hen that we have BRED to behave according to our desires is the same animal evolutionary speaking then the red jungle fowl of before domestication...

                            humans have not specialized the chicken or any other animal for that matter.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                              Wed, August 22, 2007 - 5:43 PM
                              Matt, No...I could try to find it, but it was an article that was forwarded to me many years ago...and then a few years afterwards I saw a show on the about it.
                              I think it was called the wild pigs of "and the name of the mexican province" or something like that...it was funny cuz it all happenned over less than ten years, and so people document these piglets in the forest and then much later you could see the brown fur and the small tusks...pretty cool.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                              Wed, August 22, 2007 - 6:00 PM
                              "the same animal evolutionar[il]y speaking"

                              And what exactly do you mean by that? As I said I wasn't talking about speciation. . I can only assume from what you said that you think speciation is the only evolutionaryil significant case. Not true at all. Divergent evolution happens without leading to speciation. And divergent evolution is important, and is well with the realm of "evolutionary speaking" . I THINK that you don't have enough background in evolutionary theory to know what you are saying when you say "evolutionarily speaking" because you would never have said "evolutionarily speaking" and discounted the case of divergent evolution without speciation.

                              You've never actually read anything on how darwinian evolution works have you ? Thats OK, it doesn't mean your less intelligent or anyting, but don't try to beat someone with their own stick. I know how to use it better. (evolutionary theory is a hobby of mine)

                              Anyway, this is all moot. Evolution has nothing to do with ethics. Because something IS some way, or has evolved some way, doesn't mean it OUGHT to be that way (something everyone should have drilled into thier heads in primary education: don't try to get an OUGHT out of an IS). I know you understand that perfectly well. The only reason I brought up evolution is because I am PRETTY SURE (you can be cocksure as you want, but your not going to intimidate me into puffing up and laying out The Truth in imitation of you). Anyway, nutritional needs I THINK can be met without having the eggs fed back to the chickens. If your so sure that this isn't the case, why don't you prove it? I've had some actual experience seeing healthy chickens who wern't fed there eggs. You apparently are SURE (you don't think of course, your absolutely sure, because Antoine can never be anything less than absolutely sure) that I was mistaken. Maybe I was, but I don't THINK so.
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                                Wed, August 22, 2007 - 6:05 PM
                                woops, I went on a tangent and lost track of what I was saying

                                The only reason I brought up evolution is because I am PRETTY SURE (you can be cocksure as you want, but your not going to intimidate me into puffing up and laying out The Truth in imitation of you), that birds which had serious nutritional deficiencies from overproduction of eggs and couldn't make up for it with the increased feeding died off over the course of domestication.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                        Wed, August 22, 2007 - 7:05 PM
                        Antoine,

                        You are not merely challenging my opinions and my views, you are practically telling me that the research I have done is for naught and coming very, very close to telling me that because the experiences I have of talking to local farmers and ranchers and in many cases visiting their homes, don't match what YOU want to believe, that I don't know what I'm talking about.

                        I'll say it again: Most is NOT all, and I have the fortunate luxury of living in a locale that provides easy access to farms that DON'T use mass-production factory-farming techniques. Because I CAN, I am able to acquire my eggs from sources which raise their hens humanely.

                        I didn't ignore your most salient point. In fact, I addressed it directly. It's just not true. It's rarely EVER true when people use such statements as 'all' without qualifiers.

                        I detest slaughterhouses and factory-farm practices. I don't patronize such places.

                        What I resent is your insistence on such things which simply aren't true: Your insistence that EVERY animal eventually winds up at the slaughterhouse, for example. No, they don't. I haven't once said that they all end buried in the backyard as family pets, although yes, some actually DO. But that they don't does NOT by any stretch of the imagination imply that they ALL end up at the slaughterhouse.

                        As I've pointed out, I don't have a problem with killing animals for food. Hell, I may be a vegetarian, but my cats are not. I buy organically fed, humanely slaughtered chicken for them, as well as locally-caught fish and occasional game; in point of fact the cats eat more egg than I do. Amazingly, I am able to buy ALL of that from NOT-SLAUGHTERHOUSES, since this is borderlining on ludicrous.
                        • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                          Thu, August 23, 2007 - 10:08 AM
                          >>>But that they don't does NOT by any stretch of the imagination imply that they ALL end up at the slaughterhouse. <<<

                          haha... when he says "sent to the slaughterhouse" he doesn't literally mean "sent to the slaughterhouse". All he means is the animal is being killed for food. Whether it's done in an actual slaughterhouse or someone's backyard, what's the difference? You're still killing the animal. It sounds like you seem to think that the place in which the animal is killed has some bearing on how "humane" the act of killing is.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                          Fri, August 24, 2007 - 10:48 PM
                          Amy.
                          your facts are wrong. The reality is that the biggest problem for organic meat producers is slaughterhouses...there are not enough organic slaughterhouse ...but again organic has nothing to do with how the animal is treated just what food the animal is fed and what chemicals are used.

                          we also have quite different definition of what treating an animal humanely is.

                          Your farmers who have hens and roosters would wind up with a HUGE amount of chicks...and there is no way that they could keep all those chicks...and "spent" hens would also end up at the slaughterhouse.

                          Your cats are not in this conversation and not really relevant because there is no slaughterhouse that operates only for cat food.

                          If you are vegetarian but have no problem with killing animals for food, then I will let you resolve that contradiction on your own...to me it's like being a feminist who has no problem per se with rape or a social worker who does not necessarilly have an issue with child abuse.


                          What is ludicrous is that you actually believe that the animnals used to produce your eggs and milk do not end up at the slaughterhouse...they do...they ALL end up at the slaughterhouse (and for birds there are NO LAWS organic or otherwise for the slaughter of birds...NONE.)

                          and even if the "farmer" at the egg factory kills the chicken himself "humanely" to the hen getting her head chopped off...it's still death, regardless of how "humane" YOU think it is...she does not want to die...and guess what she does not want to be used to produce your omelette either.

                          and Britt if she CHOOSES to discard her egg that is her right, and it does not allow us to enslave her and USE her becasue we want to eat those eggs...these arguments are hypothetical and serve no purpose if hens were all in the wild living in their natural environment and the entire egg industry was just about waiting for that odd unfertilized egg discarded by the hen, there would be no industry...while you may have observed this happening, you must know that in the reality of FOR PROFIT egg farming, NO ONE rellies on the discarded egg...please...

                          And Amy, the hen is not on this planet to serve your needs. She exists for her own reasons.

                          The goat does not want to have her baby taken away from her right after birth (which is another point that you completely ignored) ask a dairy goat farmer: the kids are sold for "parties" there are many cultures who still roast baby goat, and if you go ask your butcher, he will tell you when he will have a whole bunch of baby goats available...in organic operations you can go pick up the baby goat yourself, alive, at the "farm"

                          You misunderstand me Amy, factory farming is horrible, but ANY rasing of animals for their products or their flesh is a violation of that animal's RIGHTS do you get it?

                          and I am not even talking about freedom vs. slavery...it's not even at that point yet...it's a few steps even before that...you need to think about it a bit more Amy, if the animal is "raised" to produce wool, eggs, milk...the reality is that all animals age...just like we do, so after a few years the wool si of poor quality, the eggs are fewer, the milk is more scarce...and then the animal is SPENT (that is an industry term) and SENT TO SLAUGHTER...this is a reality for ALL operations whether they be large or small.

                          and we also have a very different definition of humane...humane slaughter is an oxymoron...it is not possible to treat someone humanely if we plan on killing that person.

                          The only humanely "raised" animals live in sanctuaries where they are never used for what they can produce, where they are seen as valubale individuals that deserbe love and respect and where they die of NATURAL CAUSES.

                          Perhaps you don't patronize such places as slaughterhouses but the "farmers" that you buy your eggs and dairy from certainly do.
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                            Sat, August 25, 2007 - 12:05 AM
                            Antoine,

                            You're damned and determined not to listen, so I'll address one point only of your post;

                            I'm a vegetarian for HEALTH reasons. I never once claimed to be vegetarian because I think it's wrong to kill animals for food. Thus there is no contradiction.
                            • ra
                              ra
                              offline 25

                              Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                              Sat, August 25, 2007 - 10:38 PM
                              Whoever said this quote

                              "I'm a vegetarian for HEALTH reasons. I never once claimed to be vegetarian because I think it's wrong to kill animals for food. Thus there is no contradiction."

                              Needs to grow a conscience. It's great that you don't eat decomposing corpses but animals are not our slaves to murder.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

                Tue, August 21, 2007 - 1:16 PM
                If calcium deficiency is a problem there is an immediate indication of it in the strength of egg shellls. If the eggs shells are easy to break (and many store bought egg shells are sadly) they sell calcium supplements at all feed stores. Its not usually a problem though. My chickens did eat all day, we had a yard filled with insects and leafy greens that they liked to eat, and they had the run of it. There was never any nutritional problems
              • Thank you!

                Wed, August 29, 2007 - 9:46 PM
                yeah, so if one person goes up and shoots someone in the head, killing them instantly and the deceased never knew what "hit" them, then it's humane. Well, it is if you think butchering animals is humane. sigh. taking a life is murder, regardless of what it is.

                if you ever saw in person (or in film footage - there's plenty) how a dairy cow is "humanely" killed, you wouldn't think it's so humane. My parents had a dairy farm for a few years when I was young. They had a friend who owned 2 farms, due to his brother dying suddenly, leaving a 2nd dairy farm.

                I had the unfortunate opportunity to see a cow being killed. The bolt that is supposed to stun and hopefully kill them before their throat is slit, more often than not, does NOT do the job. I watched the cows walk calmly into the tiny pen, immobilizing them. They kept chewing their cud as they waited to see what happened next. Bang! the bolt smashed into their skull and the cow started screaming (yes, they scream). Immediatly her throat was slit, yet she had a wild, terrified look in her eyes until the blood finally drained enough to render her dead. This happened with several cows before I started to feel sick. The farm boy from down the road said "you'll be eating her at McDonald's next week. Needless to say, this 10-year-old girl gave up Micky D's then and there.

                I don't recall what brainwashing or "ignorance is bliss" propaganda helped me to block the horrible memory from my young mind, but it allowed me to eat meat for another 10 years before I saw a film that showed the slaughter process, and yes, it's still the same.

                It seems you feel you're being attacked, Nimbrathil (Amy?), and have become a blindly hostile defender of your stance. Try to not let other people's words affect you so much, and just think on it for yourself. I know that's how I came about to vegetarianism. Mostly for animal rights, but also for health reasons.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Thu, August 23, 2007 - 3:47 PM
    Hi, I thought i'd share my knowledge about poultry and egg production.
    My father is a farmer and rancher, my grandfather is a rancher, my great grandfather is a rancher, etc.
    Anyway, a chicken will often just lay an egg and leave it out in the open, they dont always just sit on the eggs.She'll often lay it and if you don't pick it up it will just go rotten. In other cases the eggs are sat on for the usual period of time until the chicks hatch.When they've been set on a while they have a certain sort of smell to them and I can assure you they're nothing youd want to eat.
    I've picked out several "out in the open" eggs, and generally if a hen is going to sit on the egg, she lays it in an out of the way place and/or begins to build a nest.
    Now, i'm not quite sure why some are sat on and some aren't, maybe it has to do with whether or not the egg was fertilized successfully.Chickens also don't normally have very good memories, and this could also play a role in it.
    I've even seen them try to lay in trees before..the eggs just splatter on the ground and make a mess..one time I actually successfully caught one like this.
    In regards to factory farming, i'd agree that the birds are treated horribly and it's nothing you want to eat. One difference I have noticed between the egg of a healthy chicken and that of one that has been cooped up and not given the right nutrition is the color of the yolk.The yolk of a store bought egg tends to be a pale yellow colors - the color of our eggs is a very deep, dark orange-ish color.It's also far more rich.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Thu, August 23, 2007 - 4:02 PM
    Oh yes, and I have seen people feed eggs back to the chickens, many times they only feed eggshells back, and this is done for the reason of giving the chicken calcium.However, this isnt strictly neccessary, and they can be given ground up oyster shell to replace lost nutrients, and to my knowledge, it works just as well.
    As far as eggs being "meat" or "pre meat" or whatever, this is a debate much like pro or anti abortion, one that will probably stretch on forever.
    For some reason this recalls to mind the "chicken or the egg" riddle..
    I don't think eating eggs is inhumane at all if they are a) treated well and b) the eggs are left alone by them and they have absolutely no interest, which happens quite often in my experience.
    I'm more interested in vegetarianism for health than I am any sort of religious reason, though - and I understand that the classification of such often depends upon that.In many Eastern religions, for instance, it would be a complete no-no.
    As long as nothing is being hurt and i'm not being hurt by it, i'm fine - and I realize that this is rather playing fast and loose with the definition of vegetarianism, but i'm fine with that.
    • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Fri, August 24, 2007 - 12:26 AM
      Hi Britt, like the question of whether or not eggs qualify as vegetarian food, the answer to the "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" question depends on who you ask. A Christian would say God created the chicken first. A Hindu, or a Jain, would say the egg (i.e. the Cosmic Egg) was first. :-)

      And you're right, there's no end to the resulting arguments, just as there is no end to human ignorance.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Thu, August 23, 2007 - 4:47 PM
    I apologize for posting so much but i wanted to address something else. Not all eggs that are laid are fertilized so there is no potential for life. Hens lay regardless of whether ot not an egg is fertilized.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Sat, August 25, 2007 - 9:15 AM
    Um, to my knowledge, the eggs you buy from the supermarket are unfertilized. There's no reason to keep a cock with hens if the eggs arent going to be used to make chicks.
    Eggs are laid regardless of whether they are fertilized are not. Please research this.
    Furthermore, our chickens are not caged, they run around our farm freely, they arent "enslaved" and live very good lives.
  • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

    Sat, August 25, 2007 - 9:18 AM
    Sorry about the double posts. I am having technical difficulties.
    It's quite easy to control the amount of chicks you get from a hen. You simply keep the rooster away from the hen, and use him when you want.
    Yes, we rely on those "discarded" eggs, and i'm sure others do also.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

      Sat, August 25, 2007 - 4:19 PM
      Britt I suggest you read all the posts before claiming that someone needs to do their research...I only brought up fertilized eggs because Amy said:
      "I don't know a lot about the process of egg-laying, but I do know that the eggs I get are fertilized, which kinda negates the idea that the hens are forcibly kept celibate. "

      I do know quite a bit about hen biology and egg production because when I was a meat-eater and then a lacto-ovo-vegetarian I did a lot of research by speaking with egg-production companies ('farms") and speaking with animal husbandry experts as well as finally Farmer Brown (th e link to whom I posted in a previous post, but I will again : www.askfarmerbrown.org ... and he helped me to realize how wrong i was and explained to me the truth about egg-production (and wool, and many toher things) and that is why I made the choice to become vegan.

      I am not saying that everyone needs make the same choice, just don't lie to others or yourself about the choices that you make and their impact.

      I never claimed to be a source of knowledge for agriculture since Iive in Toronto and am not a farmer...which is why I asked experts

      and as well just because you have chickens does not make you an expert...that's why when my cats get sick I go see a vet, because the fact that I live with cats does not make me a cat expert.

      My issue has NEVER been that eggs are not vegetarian, they are according to the defintion. and if one chooses to eat eggs, in my book you are still vegetarian...my problem is why do you need to MAKE egg production into something that it is not.

      Amy goes so far as to speak of HUMANE SLAUGHTER!
      How exactly can one kill another HUMANELY?

      and then Amy speaks about humanely raised animals...well if killing someone is humane in her book, I'll make sure never to ask Amy to babysit my cats.

      and likewise she insists and so do you apparently that hens used for the sole purpose of producing eggs are not objectified or enslaved...THEY BELONG TO YOU therefore they are slaves....and the fact that you are talking about "controlling" the amount of chicks, and "keeping" the rooster away and still don't see that your hens are enslaved is mind boggling to me, and I expected a bit more enlightenment in a vegetarian tribe.

      Say that you don't really care too much about the rights of hens, and/or say that you do not feel that the desires of hens matter, but don't try to make me believe that hens WANT to be used for egg production (regardless of how well you think you are treating them)

      And again ALL animals used for their products will get killed at the end of their lives. So by supporting that industry you are supporting their slaughter, regardless of how well you think they where treated until then.

      The only difference is that they are not being killed for your directly, but they are being killed.

      And Britt I believ it is YOU who needs to do your research, because your and Amy's beliefs are fine for you to have, but they are just that BELIEFS...Animal agriculture does not actually work like that in reality, regardless of how hard both of you wish it.

      Even if the defintion of humane that Amy insists upon were to be considered, the reality is that and read carefully here:

      there is NO DIFFERENCE based on humane treatement from organic to non-organic.
      Organic slaughterhouses are very rare and have nothing to do with humane, but much more to do with cleanliness, and volume.

      All slaughter is supposed to comply with humane slaughter regulations and organic farms are not defined by being more humane.

      and here's the clincher (pay attention Britt) those "humane slaughter" (sic) laws apply to cows, pigs, goats and horses, they do not apply to birds or fish. THERE ARE NO HUMANE LAWS FOR BIRDS...which means that your egg laying hen, whether she is an "organic" egg-laying hen or a factory-farmed egg laying hen, will eventually end up thrown on the floor and hung by her feet on a conveyor belt and get her throat slit while she is still alive just like the tyson hens: www.torturedbytyson.com/

      and that is the law, so while the egg prodcution does not technically kill the hen, there are no laws to regulate HOW she is treated nor how she is killed.

      Oh and by the way THIS is what is considered "humane slaughter" : www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp

      As I said many times I have no problem with people saying that they do not feel that egg production is a priority to them (that is their choice) and that they wish to focus on excluding meat alone, (also their choice) and that by buying organic from small farms they are having less of an impact and that it is comparatively LESS cruel...Obviously, I don't agreee that it is not a priority. but I do agree that it is less cruel than factory farms...but but to claim that it is NOT cruel, that it is NOT a violation of the hens rights, that they are NOT killed (or killed "humanely") that is simply too much.

      eat eggs if you want but stop trying to make people believe that your hens are happy. They were not put on this earth to provide you with eggs.

      We only learn when we accept the possibility that we may be wrong.
      • Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

        Sun, August 26, 2007 - 1:58 AM
        : but I do agree that it is less cruel than factory farms...but but to claim that it is NOT cruel, that it is NOT a violation of the hens rights, that they are NOT killed (or killed "humanely") that is simply too much :

        Yes. It's good to tell people the truth about "farms" in general. The animals are enslaved and ultimately killed. But I don't think you should be using this truth to clobber other vegetarians with. Maybe we can find nicer ways to work with people and enlighten them, eh?

        Even a Vegan diet does not exempt you from all the cruelty that is being perpetrated on Nature (e.g., through habitat destruction). You are a participant in it (albeit - perhaps - a rather unwilling one), along with the rest of us.

        All vegetarians (including Vegans, of course) deserve some credit for being willing to actually make some real changes to their lifestyle by way of relatively decreasing its negative impact. This is a sign of real compassion. Vegans arguably decrease their impact a little more than non-Vegan vegetarians. Maybe that means they're more compassionate. But from the tone of your posts I have my doubts.

        Don't get me wrong, Vegan is fine as far as it goes. Make sure you stay healthy and all. But there's so much more to be done, you know? So many more, and more egregious, wrongs being committed against Nature. So many more, and more beneficial, ways to increase your compassion (and that of others). Rise up above the level of your own false individual identity and, above all, stop attacking your brothers and sisters in the name of "making a point".
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: eggs are non vegetarian with proof ?

          Sun, August 26, 2007 - 1:44 PM
          Narayan...Exposing a cruel act does not make the person exposing it cruel.

          I am pointing out the truth and cruelty of egg farming how does that make me less compassionate??? And I am definitely not clobbering anyone.
          Please. If I must be respectful of you perhaps you should treat me with a little respect as well.

          I have said more than three times that I give credit to vegetarians who consume other animal products for what they do, I don't know how many times I have to say it to get credit for it...gimme a break Narayan, there's being respectful and then there's just coddling.

          How am I not nice?
          I have not insulted anyone nor have I said anything that was not nice.

          All I am saying is that if a person wants to eat eggs because they feel that abstaining from meat is enough that is perfectly fine and they are in fact having an impact...however, why do they need to then turn around and MAKE eggs a compassionate choice as well?

          the two things are not connected.

          As you said there are many other things that we all do in our lives that can affect the world negatively, for example, I don't drive and don't own a car because I do not wish to contribute to fossil fuels, but if once in a while a friend gives me a ride in their car, I will accept it, because I do not want to be rude but I do acknowledge that the car pollutes, I don't claim that because I am a vegan than the car magically creates no pollution because I happen to be in the car. ;-)

          Likewise just because vegetarians choose to abstain from eating meat does not automatically mean that everything else that they do becomes compassionate. Just because they are vegetarians does not mean that magically the egg industry BECOMES kind because Amy and Britt believe it to be.

          You bring up my imperfections Narayan, somehow this is to show that since I am not perfect than others don't need to try at all?
          No one is perfect, but the fact that you may find me somehow lacking does not make the plight of the hens any better.

          Read my posts again without your own defensiveneess and you will relaize that perhaps I am demanding, and perhaps even unapologetic but I am never mean and surely not uncompassionate.

          and I find it odd that my entire point is to be compassionate towards cows, goats, chickens and bees and I am the one being called not compassionate.

Recent topics in "Vegetarians!"