Poll of the Day > Just had my first fully vegan meal. Was pretty good.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not vegan but my friend is and she made dinner tonight. Butternut squash soup, with sourdough toast topped with ricotta and mushrooms.

Not bad, but I don't see myself becoming vegan. Chicken tastes too good to live without.
---

Man I love(d) ribs and a lot of cured meats. You find other things to eat and enjoy. Nice that you had an enjoyable meal though
---

Sounds good.

Tofu and quinoa are tasty and you can make delicious dishes with them that are close replicas of dishes with meat, but you just can't replicate the primal experience of tearing apart dead animal flesh with your teeth.

Save for the mushrooms I'd eat it.
---

Also ricotta isn't vegan so unless she uses a cashew cheese or something you just ate vegetarian
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Save for the mushrooms I'd eat it.

The mushrooms weren't raw, they were sautéed (I think) with rosemary, olive oil and white wine + spices. Not sure if that makes a difference for you.

I've had tofu I think, definitely had quinoa on multiple occasions. They can be good. And saitan(sp?) but I'm not a fan of that. Might never had good/properly prepared saitan though.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Also ricotta isn't vegan so unless she uses a cashew cheese or something you just ate vegetarian

Is cheese not vegan? I thought the whole vegan thing was not hurting animals. Cheese/dairy leave the animals alive afaik

anyway she says she's vegan so I guess it could have been some sort of vegan cheese. If it was fake it was pretty close to real tasting, I couldn't tell the difference
---

Terminonatator posted...

Is cheese not vegan? I thought the whole vegan thing was not hurting animals. Cheese/dairy leave the animals alive afaik

Uh but the thing is the dairy industry does hurt animals (and male calves born to dairy cows will be sent for slaughter). It goes hand in hand with veal. Vegan means no animal products whatsoever. Dairy industry is pretty awful from the perspective of animal treatment.

Though I've heard some mistaken people call their diets with cheese vegan so I don't know.

There's some decent vegan cheese options.
---

I'm against factory farming but some vegan shit is crazy. Like wtf you won't even eat honey?
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I'm against factory farming but some vegan shit is crazy. Like wtf you won't even eat honey?

Strictly speaking honey is an animal product and consuming animal products is not vegan... Though you can find some that will call it a plant product. Commercial honey making is also rife with issues mistreating colonies, pushing more bees towards colony collapse, and forcing them to live unhealthy lives collecting pollen from monoculture crops. Then most major brands of honey are often counterfeit and full of Chinese corn syrup. Just like cows make their milk for their calves, bees make honey for their colony and it's taking something from them to harvest the honey.

Vegan would mean no wool (or lanolin), no leather, nothing with animal products added... And there's a lot of small products added where you don't expect them. Food colorants. Thickeners. Flavors.

There's also plant based eating which does allow honey and depending on who you ask allows for some dairy.
---

Crazy I didn't know vegans don't eat honey. Dang.

I'm not opposed to eating vegan, but there's dairy and honey and eggs in so many things... animal fats. I'd say I could be vegan but I'm way too lazy to read all those labels to determine if they're "safe"

Kudos on you if you have that wherewithal.
---

So do vegans eat grain?

You realize many animals are killed when the grain is harvested, right?
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

So do vegans eat grain?

You realize many animals are killed when the grain is harvested, right?

Do vegans drive cars? do vegans realize that countless creatures die on the roads?

Do vegans drink water? they must realize aquatic life is killed in water filtration processes

Do vegans breathe air? they must realize fish will die when left out in the atmosphere

Come on man

Vegans do not consume animal products. That's it. There is no ethical consumption under late capitalism. You can still choose to not consume animal products.

Not consuming animal products has a much lower net loss of life and cruelty, as those animals people eat also must eat much more grain from fields other animals die in
---

But you won't wear leather or fur or wool
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

But you won't wear leather or fur or wool

yes you would be a consumer acquiring those goods. Vegan = no animal product lifestyle.

If it's not clear enough that also means not wearing them as clothing, or in cosmetics, or anywhere

You do not consume (or wear) items with animal products.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

So do vegans eat grain?

You realize many animals are killed when the grain is harvested, right?

Do vegans drive cars? do vegans realize that countless creatures die on the roads?

Do vegans drink water? they must realize aquatic life is killed in water filtration processes

Do vegans breathe air? they must realize fish will die when left out in the atmosphere

Come on man

Vegans do not consume animal products. That's it. There is no ethical consumption under late capitalism. You can still choose to not consume animal products.

Not consuming animal products has a much lower net loss of life and cruelty, as those animals people eat also must eat much more grain from fields other animals die in

On top of this, the whole "you can't completely avoid animal products/byproducts, so it's not even worth trying" is a fallacious argument.

"You can't prevent all rapes from happening, so why bother making rape a criminal act?"

It's dumb logic.
---

Far-Queue posted...

On top of this, the whole "you can't completely avoid animal products/byproducts, so it's not even worth trying" is a fallacious argument.

"You can't prevent all rapes from happening, so why bother making rape a criminal act?"

It's dumb logic.

Yep

Oh one person can't totally eradicate factory farming and shitty practices? let's just not do anything about it and never mention the issues, we can continue the status quo, and talk down to anyone putting in the (considerable) effort to do things differently
---

Yeah, cheese is vegetarian, not vegan.
---

So you're okay with them dying to get grain, but not meat?

It doesn't make sense
---

Terminonatator posted...

Chicken tastes too good to live without.

My thought, exactly.

Either way, there is lots you can do with just veggies.

SmokeMassTree posted...

So you're okay with them dying to get grain, but not meat?

It doesn't make sense

Ideally none would die, but animals die all the time for a number of reasons. Harm minimization.

I'm not okay with animals suffering under factory farms and being sent to slaughterhouses for my own personal culinary enjoyment. Or for them to suffer for other products, especially when there's no need.

You could be a touch less obtuse on the difference there
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Not consuming animal products has a much lower net loss of life and cruelty

No, not at all. There will always be a demand for meat. Less people eating meat would mean the meat that is produced would go to waste which is a much worse thing. That would literally mean the animal died for no reason.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

So you're okay with them dying to get grain, but not meat?

It doesn't make sense

Ideally none would die, but animals die all the time for a number of reasons. Harm minimization.

I'm not okay with animals suffering under factory farms and being sent to slaughterhouses for my own personal culinary enjoyment. Or for them to suffer for other products, especially when there's no need.

You could be a touch less obtuse on the difference there

But you're okay with them suffering and senselessly dying for grain?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Not consuming animal products has a much lower net loss of life and cruelty

No, not at all. There will always be a demand for meat. Less people eating meat would mean the meat that is produced would go to waste which is a much worse thing. That would literally mean the animal died for no reason.

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

You could be a touch less obtuse

That's be like asking water to stop being wet.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNqSGolI_N8
---

Serras posted...

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.

That meat will already be at the store anyway. But not like demand for meat will ever drop anyway.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Serras posted...

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.

That meat will already be at the store anyway. But not like demand for meat will ever drop anyway.

I think that's a pretty baseless claim. Demand for meat has increased dramatically within decades (per person) because people think they need meat for every meal. You think the demand for meat per person could never go back down to what it was before, it could only go up? No matter what happens socially or environmentally?

http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

If enough people stop having that kind of defeatist attitude, demand could definitely go down. You might as well be telling people their vote doesn't matter
---

GhostGiblet posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Serras posted...

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.

That meat will already be at the store anyway. But not like demand for meat will ever drop anyway.

I think that's a pretty baseless claim. Demand for meat has increased dramatically within decades (per person) because people think they need meat for every meal. You think the demand for meat per person could never go back down to what it was before, it could only go up? No matter what happens socially or environmentally?

http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

If enough people stop having that kind of defeatist attitude, demand could definitely go down. You might as well be telling people their vote doesn't matter

It went up because the population did. It has nothing to do with thinking that you need meat for every meal. Vegetable and grain use went up too obviously. So did water consumption. Anyway that's not a defeatist attitude since I don't care about not eating meat. It would only be defeatist if it came from somebody who wanted to be vegetarian/vegan.
---

Revelation34 posted...

GhostGiblet posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Serras posted...

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.

That meat will already be at the store anyway. But not like demand for meat will ever drop anyway.

I think that's a pretty baseless claim. Demand for meat has increased dramatically within decades (per person) because people think they need meat for every meal. You think the demand for meat per person could never go back down to what it was before, it could only go up? No matter what happens socially or environmentally?

http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

If enough people stop having that kind of defeatist attitude, demand could definitely go down. You might as well be telling people their vote doesn't matter

It went up because the population did. It has nothing to do with thinking that you need meat for every meal. Vegetable and grain use went up too obviously. So did water consumption. Anyway that's not a defeatist attitude since I don't care about not eating meat. It would only be defeatist if it came from somebody who wanted to be vegetarian/vegan.

The data in that table is per capita, not total. It went up per person.

You don't have to agree with a goal to be defeatist about it. You're saying no matter how many people decide to be vegetarian/vegan, it won't reduce demand for meat, which is inaccurate and defeatist.
---

GhostGiblet posted...

Revelation34 posted...

GhostGiblet posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Serras posted...

There's a difference between not eating meat that's already on your plate and lots of people just not buying meat. If demand decreases, supply will decrease as well, because no company wants to waste excessive amounts of product. That'd cut into their precious profits, after all.

That meat will already be at the store anyway. But not like demand for meat will ever drop anyway.

I think that's a pretty baseless claim. Demand for meat has increased dramatically within decades (per person) because people think they need meat for every meal. You think the demand for meat per person could never go back down to what it was before, it could only go up? No matter what happens socially or environmentally?

http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

If enough people stop having that kind of defeatist attitude, demand could definitely go down. You might as well be telling people their vote doesn't matter

It went up because the population did. It has nothing to do with thinking that you need meat for every meal. Vegetable and grain use went up too obviously. So did water consumption. Anyway that's not a defeatist attitude since I don't care about not eating meat. It would only be defeatist if it came from somebody who wanted to be vegetarian/vegan.

The data in that table is per capita, not total. It went up per person.

You don't have to agree with a goal to be defeatist about it. You're saying no matter how many people decide to be vegetarian/vegan, it won't reduce demand for meat, which is inaccurate and defeatist.

Of course it went up per person if the population did. That is just common sense. Also no you actually do have to agree with it in order to be defeatist.
---

you just blow smoke on the bees and they fly away and make more honey somewhere else LMAO
---

>Of course it went up per person if the population did. That is just common sense

No, it doesn't. If every person eats one pound of beef, it doesn't matter if there are one million people eating one pound of beef or 900 billion people eating one pound of beef, the per-person amount/average is the same. If the average goes up that means each person is eating more meat on average, not that there are just more people.

> you actually do have to agree with it in order to be defeatist.

Okay, that's not really the issue anyway. Your argument does not hold water. Cultural factors and availability of factory farmed meat drove per-person meat consumption up. Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that.
---

GhostGiblet posted...

>Of course it went up per person if the population did. That is just common sense

No, it doesn't. If every person eats one pound of beef, it doesn't matter if there are one million people eating one pound of beef or 900 billion people eating one pound of beef, the per-person amount/average is the same. If the average goes up that means each person is eating more meat on average, not that there are just more people.

> you actually do have to agree with it in order to be defeatist.

Okay, that's not really the issue anyway. Your argument does not hold water. Cultural factors and availability of factory farmed meat drove per-person meat consumption up. Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that.

No you really just don't understand common sense. The demand is because of the total population amount. More resources are being used all around. Oh and you're definitely wrong about that. There are far more meat eaters than vegetarians/vegans.
---

Revelation34 posted...

GhostGiblet posted...

>Of course it went up per person if the population did. That is just common sense

No, it doesn't. If every person eats one pound of beef, it doesn't matter if there are one million people eating one pound of beef or 900 billion people eating one pound of beef, the per-person amount/average is the same. If the average goes up that means each person is eating more meat on average, not that there are just more people.

> you actually do have to agree with it in order to be defeatist.

Okay, that's not really the issue anyway. Your argument does not hold water. Cultural factors and availability of factory farmed meat drove per-person meat consumption up. Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that.

No you really just don't understand common sense. The demand is because of the total population amount. More resources are being used all around. Oh and you're definitely wrong about that. There are far more meat eaters than vegetarians/vegans.

Sorry, but this is basic math. Increasing the total number does not inherently increase the average. If there's ten students in a class with an average grade of 70, adding a hundred new students to the class does not automatically increase the average. If you have a cage with two hamsters in it and each hamster eats 100 pellets a day, adding a new hamster that also eats 100 pellets a day does not increase the average.

I never claimed there were more vegetarians than meat eaters...
---

GhostGiblet posted...

Revelation34 posted...

GhostGiblet posted...

>Of course it went up per person if the population did. That is just common sense

No, it doesn't. If every person eats one pound of beef, it doesn't matter if there are one million people eating one pound of beef or 900 billion people eating one pound of beef, the per-person amount/average is the same. If the average goes up that means each person is eating more meat on average, not that there are just more people.

> you actually do have to agree with it in order to be defeatist.

Okay, that's not really the issue anyway. Your argument does not hold water. Cultural factors and availability of factory farmed meat drove per-person meat consumption up. Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that.

No you really just don't understand common sense. The demand is because of the total population amount. More resources are being used all around. Oh and you're definitely wrong about that. There are far more meat eaters than vegetarians/vegans.

Sorry, but this is basic math. Increasing the total number does not inherently increase the average. If there's ten students in a class with an average grade of 70, adding a hundred new students to the class does not automatically increase the average. If you have a cage with two hamsters in it and each hamster eats 100 pellets a day, adding a new hamster that also eats 100 pellets a day does not increase the average.

I never claimed there were more vegetarians than meat eaters...

Actually in the first example the average would change because there would be a bunch of different grades being added to the class.

Also you did: "Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that."
---

> Actually in the first example the average would change because there would be a bunch of different grades being added to the class.

Yes obviously, but it doesn't mean it necessarily increases from the number of students being larger, which is the point. Think of the hamster example. That's what you're saying when you say that the consumption of meat per person only rose because there are more people. Averages don't work that way.

>Also you did: "Your idea that consumption of meat is something that can never change is already proven wrong by that.

Okay, I'm done. That in no way implies that there are more vegetarians than meat eaters.
---

I could sort of see myself becoming vegetarian, but VEGAN?! Hell no. Cheese and milk are too good.

Revelation34 posted...

No you really just don't understand common sense. The demand is because of the total population amount. More resources are being used all around. Oh and you're definitely wrong about that. There are far more meat eaters than vegetarians/vegans.

False, the per capita consumption of meat in the USA (and many other nations) has steadily increased. Per capita is separate from population increase. Couple it with natural population increase and the amount eaten goes up quite a lot each year. 270 pounds per person per year is a shit ton of meat and so much more than was eaten decades ago. 10 billion animals killed each year for red meat and poultry in the US, and countless marine creatures killed.

No one has asserted that there are more veg eaters than omnivores in the US. Some nations have a high veg population. The americas are full of meat eaters. Estimates are about 7 million vegetarians (and 1 million of them are vegans) in the USA. That's it. But that country loves excess and meat.

From the meatmongers themselves: http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/meat-consumption-per-capita-climate-change

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

RESULTS
Overall meat consumption has continued to rise in the U.S., European Union, and developed world. Despite a shift toward higher poultry consumption, red meat still represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.S (58%). Twenty-two percent of the meat consumed in the U.S. is processed. According to NHANES 20032004, total meat intake averaged 128 g/day. The type and quantities of meat reported varied by education, race, age, and gender.

CONCLUSIONS
Given the plausible epidemiologic evidence for red and processed meat intake in cancer and chronic disease risk, understanding the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the U.S., where meat is consumed at more than three times the global average, should be particularly pertinent to researchers and other public health professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic disease.

The USA is on the increase. Many countries are decreasing meat and dairy consumption, and are classifying meat as unhealthy. Canada is rewriting its food guide to discourage meat/dairy consumption. Even without this, Canadians have decreased their meat intake year over year in the last decade.

http://nationalpost.com/health/health-canada-prepares-to-rewrite-the-food-guide

Belgium has just put red meat in the junk category on their food guide

https://www.livekindly.co/belgiums-new-food-pyramid-meat/

Diets will change in time, and current meat consumption is not sustainable with the population already on the planet. Something has to give.

And as more people stop participating in these industries, the agri giants lose some of their stronghold. More research will be done into the health effects of animal product consumption. Like type 2 Diabetes for example.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/886006
---

Anyway this topic was about a vegan meal. TC I want to know what kind of vegan ricotta they made, I have seen some neat recipes and it would be awesome to know for making lasagna. and if not maybe pass on that cheese is not vegan.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Anyway this topic was about a vegan meal. TC I want to know what kind of vegan ricotta they made, I have seen some neat recipes and it would be awesome to know for making lasagna. and if not maybe pass on that cheese is not vegan.

It wouldn't be vegan since ricotta is a type of cheese.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Anyway this topic was about a vegan meal. TC I want to know what kind of vegan ricotta they made, I have seen some neat recipes and it would be awesome to know for making lasagna. and if not maybe pass on that cheese is not vegan.

It wouldn't be vegan since ricotta is a type of cheese.

No kidding, i already said that. But there are "vegan ricotta" recipes that make for a similar texture and flavor for cooking purposes.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

No kidding, i already said that. But there are "vegan ricotta" recipes that make for a similar texture and flavor for cooking purposes.

Yes but some of those recipes call it "cheese" like this one.

http://www.simple-veganista.com/2012/10/cashew-ricotta-cheese.html
---

Revelation34 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

No kidding, i already said that. But there are "vegan ricotta" recipes that make for a similar texture and flavor for cooking purposes.

Yes but some of those recipes call it "cheese" like this one.

http://www.simple-veganista.com/2012/10/cashew-ricotta-cheese.html

What even is your point
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

So do vegans eat grain?

You realize many animals are killed when the grain is harvested, right?

Do vegans drive cars? do vegans realize that countless creatures die on the roads?

Do vegans drink water? they must realize aquatic life is killed in water filtration processes

Do vegans breathe air? they must realize fish will die when left out in the atmosphere

Come on man

Vegans do not consume animal products. That's it. There is no ethical consumption under late capitalism. You can still choose to not consume animal products.

Not consuming animal products has a much lower net loss of life and cruelty, as those animals people eat also must eat much more grain from fields other animals die in

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, ok?

you just enjoy being condescending, like a typical vegan, ok?

hey make sure to let us know you're vegan, like, 5 more times this week, ok? not every single potd'er saw it more than once, ok?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

TC I want to know what kind of vegan ricotta they made, I have seen some neat recipes and it would be awesome to know for making lasagna. and if not maybe pass on that cheese is not vegan.

I'll try to find out. I'm 80% certain it was vegan cheese, I just wasn't aware cheese wasn't vegan. She is really into the vegan thing so I'm sure it wasn't real dairy cheese.
---

Mead posted...

What even is your point

Cheese is a dairy product.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

What even is your point

Cheese is a dairy product.

Except when the word vegan is used to specify that it is not

It may not technically be cheese but it is an approximation so people are going to use the same term. Deal with it
---

Mead posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

What even is your point

Cheese is a dairy product.

Except when the word vegan is used to specify that it is not

It may not technically be cheese but it is an approximation so people are going to use the same term. Deal with it

Then call it something else. The literal definitions exist for a reason.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

What even is your point

Cheese is a dairy product.

Except when the word vegan is used to specify that it is not

It may not technically be cheese but it is an approximation so people are going to use the same term. Deal with it

Then call it something else. The literal definitions exist for a reason.

Shut up.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

What even is your point

Cheese is a dairy product.

Except when the word vegan is used to specify that it is not

It may not technically be cheese but it is an approximation so people are going to use the same term. Deal with it

Then call it something else. The literal definitions exist for a reason.

In English the term "vegan" is used as a qualifier. Anything that follows it is vegan (without animal products). vegan cookies means no eggs, butter, or milk. Vegan sauce means no meat, butter, milk, etc. vegan cheese means no dairy or rennet. It's really not at all difficult. using the qualifier word vegan is calling it something else.

Terminonatator posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

TC I want to know what kind of vegan ricotta they made, I have seen some neat recipes and it would be awesome to know for making lasagna. and if not maybe pass on that cheese is not vegan.

I'll try to find out. I'm 80% certain it was vegan cheese, I just wasn't aware cheese wasn't vegan. She is really into the vegan thing so I'm sure it wasn't real dairy cheese.

Nice, thanks. I found one recipe with sunflower seeds which seemed promising. Always looking for more recipes.
---