The Bees On Their Knees???
Posted by charlie_fo_farley on May 03, 2011 · Member since Feb 2011 · 618 posts
Here's your chance to weigh in on this timely and important and raging debate: Honey or not? And for those of you who quickly say, "Not no way; not no how!" What the F is Ward going to call Mrs. Cleaver from now on?!?
You really do bring a sparkle to vegweb...
Sorta like VegWeb Windex!? I like it!!
CFF, you are like the vegweb all-natural, organic, apple cider vinegar glass cleaner. I would not stoop to call you windex! ;)
btw, I see you are from TN - that is SO cool!!
vegweb all-natural, organic, apple cider vinegar glass cleaner.....
Like the grandpa in My Big Fat Vegan Wedding?
LOL, CFF! And I don't even know what that means!! :)
There is no rational basis to avoid harming any animal that is not capable of being a Rational Economic Actor, from insects to chimps. But most animal products are not very healthy and/or not very agriculturally efficient. Real honey (not to be confused with the fake junk that most corrupt government regulation monopolies popularize into being called "honey") is relatively expensive, and will become increasingly so as agriculture becomes more high-tech (ex. robotized greenhouses, hydroponics, etc), and bees become less of a help and more of a nuisance. Almost all of calories in honey come from sugars, and it is not a particularly good source of any nutrients compared to plant foods that haven't been passed through an insect's digestive system beforehand.
There is no rational basis to avoid harming any animal...
Thanks for responding, Alex. Interesting opinions you offered. I have seen some reports (results from scientific studies and lots of nutritionists' conclusions) that conflict with several of your opinions. I guess the debate rages on....
Of all the many unsupported conclusions, there are two conclusions here that seem particularly unfounded and potentially harmful so I wanted to highlight these.
The biggest concern would be that you say it is not rational to avoid harm (including torture I take it?) of animals. First, this seems sociopathic, and so I wanted to give you a chance to explain your opinion. But also, why did you leave humans out? You went from "insects to chimps," stopping just shy of Homo sapien. Seems odd. After all, many humans are not really decent rational economic actors. For instance I might look at you or others and think you are not fit as an economic actor, or you at me, and so on. This on the surface sounds impressive and elaborate and technical with "Rational Economic Actor" being in caps and such. But at a basic level (I don't have time to read a bunch of inane books, whether philosophic, religious, socio-economic, sociopathic, or otherwise) what could possibly justify such a, by all apparences, irrational conclusion?
The other would be white table sugar over honey, which you clealy indicated was the right, rational chioce. Why?
Care to explain these or any other of the opinions your offered?
Thanks again for participating!
I can't have an "animal rights" debate on every single thread, and, frankly, I am more interested in discussing nutrition. I do, however, at times feel obligated to briefly mention that I disagree with the implied validity "animal rights", like I did in my previous post - 24 words out of 122. Why is it so shocking that someone might want to be a vegan for health-related reasons without supporting "green" (socialist) politics as well?
In my previous post, the word "avoid" is meant to imply a sacrifice - if sufficient benefit can be gained from harming an animal, as can be the case in scientific experiments, then it is the logical course of action. I've explained the distinction between human and all presently-known non-human animals, and how people who treat animals unethically ought to be handled, on the "animal rights" criticism thread, which is where this conversation should be moved. I will catch up with that thread... eventually... someday...
The honey-related points that I've made, which could be overlooked, were: (1) real honey is increasingly expensive, and (2) it's mostly sugar. And, no, I'm not a paid spokesman for the maple syrup industry of New Hampshire - that stuff is all sugar too. :P
I can't have an "animal rights" debate on every single thread, and, frankly, I am more interested in discussing nutrition. I do, however, at times feel obligated to briefly mention that I disagree with the implied validity "animal rights", like I did in my previous post - 24 words out of 122.
Surely you are not suggesting that I search out and read every post you have ever made on animal rights and defense of animal harm, so as to better understand your *opinion* on this you offered in *this* thread? Now I read Socrates in college as a course requirement. Until all your opinions are required reading in a college courses on logic and argumentation, I'll pass thanks ;) We should note that your opinion was in stark contrast to your blunt demand of others to keep things scientifically based.
Primarily my point was and is, however, this: the position that there is no rational basis to not harm animals is cruel, asinine, confused, and indefensible. You may thank me for no longer mincing words.
...as can be the case in scientific experiments, then it is the logical course of action.
It seems a naive trap for a weak, dull mind to think, "Scientists know what they are doing, golly gee they should get a pass and can treat plant, animal, mineral, and Earth any way they wish, on the hope that they may somehow by accident help mankind." After all their most "Earth shattering" discovery to date resulted from the Manhattan project which has devastated millions of humans lives and animals and hundreds of thousands of acres of Earth for decades and is still the foundation of man's insecure, miserable geo-political struggles today. No, scientists are generally driven out of profit, at least those funding their "discoveries" are, and thus they find what they seek, which is primarly a more efficient way to make war and merely a way to convince the public to do more of what they want for more money.
So, I find this ("scientific advancement") a less than compelling argument to "sacrifice" any species on the following basis: 1) scientists' research and discoveries are largely and primarily used to destroy man, not benefit him, 2) it is the scientists themselves (or their paid spokemen, all funded by the same greed) who subjectively claim they can help mankind and yet have done very little to prove this, in contrast to the cost in countless human and animal lives they've sacrificed and money they have garnered in the wake of their achievements, 3) No one is accountable years, decades, centuries down the line to quantify what scientists who experiment on animals (in the lab) and humans (in the field), have achieved for mankind in contrast to what it has cost us.
*** Now is the time for you to insert your redention of Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" speach, Col. Kilgore.
Why is it so shocking that someone might want to be a vegan for health-related reasons without supporting "green" (socialist) politics as well?
I am vegan, (ie not "I want to be") for health reasons. I do not "experiment" with it, either, I live it, to the best of my ability. I am neither a socialist nor an animal rights activist. So the dichotomy you clumsily attempt to establish, most probably born from ignorant stereotypes, religious superstitions, and/or cultural prejudices, is fictitious, sir.
In summary, your "economic actor" defense still seems subjective and thin and unsupportable, which is why I gather you did not try. Perhaps I will have to wait until I return to college for more degrees AND your comments in vegan forums are required reading. Again I could, perhaps, say the same about you: that you do not produce on par economically against a standard that I have set, thus are eliminate-able. There are plenty of experiments, both live and dead, we could perform on you that may tell mankind a great deal about the human organism, much more so even than experiments on animals. What would not be rational rather is for you to provide a justification in your defense of your life over another. What you have is no more than modified Jim Crow logic, "Some humans and animals all voted today that animals are expendable to chance a better life for humans, based on greedy claims from some lobbying group. Fine print: to have voted you needed to enter the polling booth on 2 legs, and 2 legs only, and not be a chicken or chimp."
*** Insert your "your're a hypocrite for killing bugs/rodents when plowing fields, and microorganism when you use mouthwash" argument here to attempt, in vain, to justify your position, Mr. Snopes.
In final, final summary, a question: were you really only taking vague, passive/aggressive shots at others you have argued with on other threads, and harbored resentment over, in a childish hope to make yourself feel better about reprehensible, destructive lines of thought? That is the impression I got here and that I get from many of your posts. I could be wrong, Kilgore ;) I am going to call you, affectionately of course, "Gordon Kilgore-Snopes," if you do not mind.
I would like to add a few words if i may. I ate honey as my primary sweetener before going vegan. I still have half a jar of local raw honey in my cupboard. (which has every thing sticky all around it from being lazy and pouring it out of the jar at one point). Honey is an amazing thing, it will never go bad, which is why i refuse to get rid of it. I don't eat it now as a vegan, and am still rationalizing it in my head if it is "legal" or not in the vegan world. I would love to host bees if i ever buy a house, I don't know if i am allergic, but i know my husband is. I have always wanted to use an epi pen on someone. libby and i have something in common, we are both sadistic. I really do think that it is important to host though, esp with the declining bee population. Lets face it, if they disappear we are fucked. that is unless we get a bunch of these guys to pollinate http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQA1jPL8RwgNY2XCFAq6dpq-1z3-uDp-cOcu1UhBv43mW6QQiCP
Will i eat honey again? maybe, as it is a great natural help with seasonal allergies as hespy stated.
I didn't like the choices.
I simply don't eat honey because it doesn't come from a plant, not because of bee oppression or an animal rights issue. To me a vegan diet is plant based. I don't have a sweet tooth and I like sugar and agave and don't really ever come across the need for honey. If it's on the list on ingredients in a package I don't consider that food vegan.
It's nothing I feel passionate about.
If this is simply an "is honey vegan?" question, I would say no, it is an animal product. Is it vegetarian? Yes, since the bee is not killed in the process. I am not vegan. I have a jar of honey that was given to me by a friend about 3 yrs ago. It came from a project a home schooled kid did one year. He decided to learn about bees and keep a bee hive. I use it very occasionally in certain teas but as a rule, I don't use much sweetener. I have a definite preference for local honey over major corporation honey.
This is kind of a sidelight but they have come to the conclusion here that one of the things that is harming the bees are those mobile-phone signal towers. Apparently the magnetism or signal or whatever screws up the bees' navigation system. They are also really encouraging people to keep bees. I just bought some tomatoes that came with a sticker that said "Naturally Pollinated" and had a bee logo.
This is kind of a sidelight but they have come to the conclusion here that one of the things that is harming the bees are those mobile-phone signal towers. Apparently the magnetism or signal or whatever screws up the bees' navigation system. They are also really encouraging people to keep bees. I just bought some tomatoes that came with a sticker that said "Naturally Pollinated" and had a bee logo.
this is disconcerting.
A lot of stuff is grown in polytunnels here. Not a lot of bees hang out in them, so the pollination has to be done artificially.
Pages