Melanie Joy on the ideology of Carnism

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One person’s individual experiences are necessarily very limited, and I only have his claim of alleged inaccuracy, which I weigh against the numerous sources that tell me otherwise. So no, his unsupported assertions of inaccuracy aren’t entitled to much weight .
I actually think that’s fair, I was just curious as to your reasoning. All right then.
 
For those interested, here is the thread we’re referring to:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=714343

We went back and forth until finally I just posted a quote from Aquinas and left. This was because the debate was making no headway; we’d reached the “unstoppable force-immovable object” section of the debate, so I figured there was no longer a point in me continuing.
In my opinion, I believe we reached a point where your position, after being subjected to decisive scrutiny, proved itself to be wholly untenable.
 
Why not contest the factual claims with information that is backed up by evidence that we can examine? In other words, why not support your assertions with well-sourced links?
But you aren’t supporting your assertions with well sourced links. The source you use have obvious errors. Unless you want to show me where chickens have a uterus.
 
In my opinion, I believe we reached a point where your position, after being subjected to decisive scrutiny, proved itself to be wholly untenable.
Well duh, of course that was YOUR opinion. :rolleyes:
 
But you aren’t supporting your assertions with well sourced links. The source you use have obvious errors. Unless you want to show me where chickens have a uterus.
Please quote the specific factual assertion that you claim to be inaccurate.
 
Well duh, of course that was YOUR opinion. :rolleyes:
Yes, and I more than welcome anyone on here to go through the exchange and evaluate the arguments objectively. I’d be very interested to see what other people have to say about it.
 
I have twice. They claim that chickens had their uterus torn out, something that a chicken doesn’t have.
Can you please quote it again? I’m asking for a specific, verbatim quote followed by a link.
 
Yes, and I more than welcome anyone on here to go through the exchange and evaluate the arguments objectively. I’d be more interested to see what other people have to say about it.
I posted the link for other people to look at.

[Edited because I misunderstood part of your post]
 
I posted this before
Why vegetarianism will not save the world
Up until a few weeks ago, the choice would have been easy. As a vegetarian, the soy burger is the ‘moral’ choice – relying on the least amount of animal suffering, the least amount of carbon/water use, and the best way for me to sleep at night.
After reading Lierre Keith’s stunning and personal book “The Vegetarian Myth” now I’m not so sure.
And yet, in her concise and poetic manifesto, ex-vegan Lierre argues that vegetarians and vegans have been led astray. We’ve been told that we can have a “killing-free” existence, and the path is paved with entirely vegetable diets. But herein lies the myth:
The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.
 
  1. You can’t be objective. No really, you made arguments, you’re always going to assume your arguments are more valid then mine.
  2. I posted the link for other people to look at.
I believe I have the ability to step back and examine my arguments objectively – sometimes I conclude, on reflection, that they aren’t very good. But like I said, I welcome other people to look at the exchange and offer their opinions as to what they think.
 
I believe I have the ability to step back and examine my arguments objectively – sometimes I conclude, on reflection, that they aren’t very good.
Frankly, I don’t really think anybody does. Which is fine-you think your arguments are correct, I don’t. We know that already.
 
Can you please quote it again? I’m asking for a specific, verbatim quote followed by a link.
It was your link
Roughly three million hens die every year as a result of prolapsed **uteruses, **a condition that arises when an egg sticks to the lining of a hen’s **uterus **and pulls the uterus out along with it as it passes.
Now that I have complied with your request. Please show me a link from an independent source that shows the earth could sustain the world’s population on a vegetarian diet.
 
Thanks for pointing this out. I’m no expert on hens, but it could be: a) hens do have uteruses, or b) the term is technically inaccurate but a convenient shorthand, which I don’t see as problematic.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20393758

ag.ansc.purdue.edu/nielsen/www245/lecnotes/avianrepro.html

extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/AS/AS-525-W.pdf

ps.fass.org/content/87/10/2107.full.pdf

upc-online.org/chickens/chickensbro.html
Now that I have complied with your request. Please show me a link from an independent source that shows the earth could sustain the world’s population on a vegetarian diet.
I don’t know what you mean by “independent”–nonvegan? Either the criticisms of the book are sound or not; they should be evaluated on their own terms.
 
Thanks for pointing this out. I’m no expert on hens, but it could be: a) hens do have uteruses, or b) the term is technically inaccurate but a convenient shorthand, which I don’t see as problematic.

I don’t know what you mean by “independent”–nonvegan? Either the criticisms of the book are sound or not; they should be evaluated on their own terms.
Hens will be very surprised:eek:
Of course you don’t see a problem, but it is inaccurate. What it does is relate it to a woman which is dishonest. You asked for an example of them being inaccurate there it is. You dismiss it as a convenient shorthand. It makes your source unreliable for presenting the truth. It makes it suspect for everything else they write. I wouldn’t use it as a source if I were you. They didn’t even spell the word right.
 
The short 6-min video at the bottom is worth viewing:

carnism.com/index.php/2012-05-09-15-00-33
Spence,

Diet for a Small Planet was the first introduction to the notion that we eat too much meat. I agree.

There are a variety of informational pieces out there about meat eating and honestly eating red meat is not a priority. I need Protein. Fish, Fowl, beans/rice and all other varieties of foods can provide that protein.

3 lbs of marinated Labrador? Why did she marinate it only for 3 hours? Why not overnight?

This reminds me of the joke…”have you heard about the Vietnamese Cook Book….101 ways to Wok your dog”?

I have traveled around the world and seen some weird foods. I watch Bizarre foods and Anthony Bourdain. People eat weird stuff. I have eaten weird stuff.

In my opinion Vegan is the best diet in the world for health. My priest is Vegan. I asked him why and he said because he believes that it provides more food for other people in the world. I am thinking of getting a Spirooli to make noodles out of carrot and zucchini.

Vegetarianism would be my second choice for health. This leads to the Asian, Chinese, Thai and Indian Cuisine. They do great cooking without meat and with very little meat.

I think people eat way too much meat and the only thing that I was thinking after watching Melanie Joy and her explanation of the “invisible carnism” was that someone ought to teach her about General Semantics and what is called a paradigm…I also thought if anyone had her phone number I might call her…purely for professional reasons….
 
Hens will be very surprised:eek:
Of course you don’t see a problem, but it is inaccurate. What it does is relate it to a woman which is dishonest. You asked for an example of them being inaccurate there it is. You dismiss it as a convenient shorthand. It makes your source unreliable for presenting the truth. It makes it suspect for everything else they write. I wouldn’t use it as a source if I were you. They didn’t even spell the word right.
I posted several links that refer to a hen’s uterus.
 
Why not contest the factual claims with information that is backed up by evidence that we can examine? In other words, why not support your assertions with well-sourced links?
Thread through the endless PETA propaganda entries you mean? No thanks. How about you going into a real facility and then we can compare notes?

Regarding branding, it appears something like 16% of cattle are hot iron branded, or so one study says. Most cattle (over 50%) have no identifying markers at all, and most of those that had identifiers had plastic ear tags. cattletoday.com/archive/2006/September/CT616.shtml. The rate for calves is even lower.

Now, if I may be allowed to do so, I live in cattle country and see cattle constantly. I am aware of no cattleman who hot-iron brands. Branding here is essentially nonexistent, and this is either the second or third biggest cattle producing state in the U.S. Virtually all around here use plastic ear tags. I use them myself. Metal “bangs” tags mentioned in the study are applied by veterinarians to heifers. That’s required by law if the heifers are vaccinated for brucellosis. Vets are also required to register those vaccinations. There’s a reason for that, but it would take too long to explain and probably wouldn’t be interesting anyway.

It really and truly would be educational for you if you actually visited a competent poultry farm or a cattle ranch. I think you would be very surprised how benign it all actually is, and how well cared for the animals are. Are you willing to test what you think you know? I think I would prefer knowledge to ignorance, particularly if I was going to talk about it to others.

Oh yes, one other nonsensical assertion in your article. There is this big myth about chickens being “overbred” so they can’t stand up. I have been in poultry growout houses, and they certainly can stand. There are several chicken processing facilities in my part of the state. Occasionally, a chicken or two will escape into the yard. The rule here is that if a chicken gets outside the yard, it’s free to anyone who can catch it. People do that. The chickens can not only stand, they can run, and are not easy to catch. And the people who take them home say they’re just like any chicken, though they’re a bit more robust than many breeds. I have seen many thousands of them, and they most resemble the big “White Rocks” we had at home when I was a kid. Google “White Rock chicken” and you will see what they look like.

If you want to know what a poultry house really looks like, here are some photos. Look at the third one down. Yes, there are windows, contrary to what your article asserts…big ones. No, they’re not overcrowded. Just look. The one where some of the chickens are in cages or perhaps baskets would be a better term, and some are not, is an egg house. All hens like to find a sheltered place to lay their eggs; a place where the others won’t bother them. These hens select which of the cages they lay their eggs in. They go in, lay their egg, (one/day, usually) the egg drops into a conveyor and the hen leaves. The hens to the left are waiting for the cages or just left. But the room allowed for them is similar to that in a growout facility.
tysonfoods.com/About-Tyson/Live-Production/Chicken.aspx

The chickens have food and water available at all times and in multiple locations. The producer (an individual farmer who is required to keep up to standard to keep his contract) must completely remove the floor after each flock, totally disinfect the entire facility, and replace it with about a foot of wood shavings and/or cottonseed hulls for a new floor. The houses are heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. The lights are dimmed at night and the chickens sort of nest in the wood shavings or hulls just as they would on Old MacDonald’s Farm of yore.

No, I don’t raise poultry. I just know a fair number of people who do. They are good people, in no way cruel, and do an excellent job. They are all individual family farmers who own their facilities. It isn’t easy work, but they end up with very significant assets and income once their mortgages are paid off. The “integrator” (like Tyson’s or Smithfield) insures their mortgages.

And just so you know, the “catchers” don’t abuse the chickens either, contrary to the bogus photos PETA or HSUS puts out. Why? Because they’re contract workers, and their pay depends on how many live, uninjured chickens they deliver to the processor out of the whole flock. I have seen them do it, and they really do try to avoid any injury to the birds. They can’t get away with even bruising them because the FDA inspectors reject bruised parts and the plant keeps track of that. One who knows nothing about it would be astonished to know just how good recordkeeping is in that industry. The integrator knows exactly how many birds it delivers to the growout farmer, their nutritional and health information during the growout period in intense detail, and exactly how many come back and in what condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top