Finally, a good vegan hot dog

19 Responses

1. systmc

   27|Jul|2004 1

   I had the pleasure of spending a week in Seattle this past May. You can read my journal entries about the trip here and here. Seattle’s vegan restaurants floored me! Three places I really enjoyed were Araya’s Vegetarian Place, Pizza Pi, and Mighty-O Donuts. Next time I visit I’ll be sure to track down Cyber-Dogs. I also want to give Rainy Day Vegan Cafe a try.

2. Ryan

   27|Jul|2004 2

   Pizza Pi was awesome… I’ll be writing about that place shortly. :)

   I’m definitely looking forward to getting back to Seattle before too long.

3. Cattleman

   27|Jul|2004 3

   It’s a slow summer day here in the office, and I ran across your little rant. It’s all quite hilarious, and it’s nice to know that there’s people out there doing so well that they can afford to be this picky. Vegetarianism is the sign of a truly advanced economy. Guess that whole capitalism thing really does work.
   I just thought I’d point out the irony of your great tasting vegan dog. As the son of a cattle producers and soybean farmer I know a little about both. The vast majority of soybeans grown in the U.S. are used for livestock feed. Why you ask in a time when vegetarianism is so prevelant? Because it is cheaper to clear rainforest in south america, grow soybeans, and ship them to the U.S. than it is for a good honest American farmer to grow them.
   So, by eating your delicious vegan dog, not only did you contribute to lower feed prices for hard working American ranchers, but you contributed to the deforestation of the rainforest by consuming Brazilian soy products.
   Just no way to ease your overactive conscience is there?

4. jack

   27|Jul|2004 4

   Cattleman, whats the deal? Are you so defensive about everything or just this issue? Is this some attempt to make yourself feel better about something grinding at your conscience? Actually, if it were only the vegetarians and vegans who needed to be satisfied, there would be no profitability in deforestation. That requires much more demand, like, say, to feed the millions of cattle raised for non-veg. diets. Also, take away the cattle industry in America and land for growing soybeans becomes much less expensive. As far as the advanced economy thing, way wrong again. Most of the 3rd World exists on veg. diet because it is so much more efficient than meat-based diets. Finally, exactly how is a conscience “overactive,” anyway? That defies all reason. Conscience is a feeling, a reaction to reason, logic, how we make sense of the world in relation to our personal ethics, morals, values, etc. To say that one can have “too much” in essence seems very cynical, but then responding to such innocent, harmless blogs as this with so much negativity and sarcasm, I guess, reveals how truly consistent you are.

   Ryan, I agree about the difficulty of finding a good veg. dog. Glad you found one in Seattle but still looking for something available nationally. Anyone have any suggestions?

5. Ryan

   27|Jul|2004 5

   Jack — Nice response. I do agree how it’s funny that having an “overactive conscious” is looked down upon. And why my posting about looking for a good vegan hot dog was somehow indicative of how picky and privledged I am. There are quite a few countries that nowhere near as rich as us (if you want to call them “less advanced,” go for it) that have existed on primarily vegetarian diets for thousands of years. People have this misconception that vegetarianism is something that only the rich can afford to do. False. I mean, yeah, if you’re going to buy heavily processed stuff instead of fresh fruits and vegetables, yes… but that’s true whether or not you’re vegetarian.

   Anyway.

   I’m trying to get back in touch with the owner of Cyber-Dogs to find out if she makes her own or if she gets them from somewhere. I’ll be sure to let you know what I find out.

6. Cattleman

   28|Jul|2004 6

   I’m not sure how you got the impression of a defensive posture out of my response. I congratulated the author on his ability to participate in a horribly inefficienty lifestyle. I dont see that as defensive. I don’t need to make myself feel better. I’m quite happy with my way of life. I don’t need to have a weblog explaining my diet to the world in an attempt to justify my actions. As I said, it was a slow day at the office and I thought I’d give the readers out there a few things to chew on.
   Jack is correct that the primary cause of rainforest deforestation is cattle farming. Now why is that? Because protectionist European trade policies prevent American beef from being exported to the EU. If free trade were practiced then the market for south american beef would not be artificially high and it would not be profitable to burn forests to raise cattle. However, the second lagest cause for deforestation of the rainforest is soybean farming. The demand for soybeans is in very large part due to vegetarians.
   Lets keep looking at your arguments. Take away land for cattle farming and you could grow more soybeans? 95% of the land cattle are pastured on in the U.S. is not suitable for cultivation. You cant grow soybeans if you only get 18 inches of rainfall a year. Therefore the most efficient use of the land is growing livestock.
   Soybean farmers in the U.S. can’t compete with South American soybeans because of our production costs. Vegetarians demand for soybeans causes more soybeans to be grown on former south american rainforests, and American soybeans are used to feed cattle at a reduced cost to the cattleman. This is pretty standard stuff.
   It seems to me that vegetarians could never make a reasonable economic or moral argument for their position, thus I say overactive conscience. For every primitive culture you name I can name another that lives on a primarily meat eating diet. Eskimo’s and Inuits for example get little or no vegetables. The healthy choice is a balanced diet. Vegetarians can’t argue that.
   The only reason you have for not eating meat when it comes down to it, is because you cant stand to think that a fuzzy little animal was killed. This is an overactive conscience. These animals are treated humanely and have a very high quality of life. That’s pretty good for a soulless dumb brute. At the risk of opening a whole other can of worms. It often baffles me how at my college the same people that will be picketing to not eat meat because its cruel to animals one day, can be seen demonstrating in a pro-choice rally the next. Folks need a dose of reality. Only in a society this depraved could a dichotomy like that be acceptable.

7. Ryan

   28|Jul|2004 7

   I don’t need to have a weblog explaining my diet to the world in an attempt to justify my actions.

   I’m not trying to justify anything, and I’m not quite sure what leads you to believe so.

   These animals are treated humanely and have a very high quality of life.

   You have got to be kidding me. Seriously, you’re joking, right?

   That’s pretty good for a soulless dumb brute.

   Wow. Just… wow.

8. Cattleman

   28|Jul|2004 8

   Ryan,
   I think that we can appreciate that we disagree with each other. My purpose in responding to your posting was to have a discussion. Instead of getting meaningful discussion I get personal attacks, accusing me of being defensive, and a list of my own quotes. So far the only refutation of my points of veiw have been “wow..just wow”.
   This is a common problem with liberals. Since your arguments are based on emotion and not reason, when they are questioned, liberals take it personally. Im just a bored intern killing some time. I don’t really care what you do. Beef demand is at an all time high and I could care less if you eat meat or not. I’m just interested in having a discussion, which you seem incapable of fostering.

9. Ryan

   28|Jul|2004 9

   So far the only refutation of my
   points of veiw have been “wow..just wow”.

   Honestly, how do you expect me to reply with a statement like that? Referring to animals as “soulless brutes?” How are they any less likely to have souls than humans? And does that somehow imply that they don’t feel pain, or kinship, or loss, or fear? Absurd and disproven many times over.

   This is a common problem with liberals. Since your arguments are based on emotion and not reason, when they are questioned, liberals take it personally.

   Not true. And making a blanket statement like that is just ill-informed. I can’t speak for all “liberals,” but I make all of my decisions based on emotions and facts. There’s plenty of reason behind my decisions, though they may be different from your reasons. Doesn’t make them any less valid.

   discussion, which you seem incapable of fostering.

   And where are the personal attacks coming from, again?

   OK, fine. Let’s back it up a bit.

   These animals are treated humanely and have a very high quality of life.

   I’d *love* to see where you can find any information to justify this statement. I, on the other hand, have seen plenty of footage, read plenty of literature, and talked to people who have first-hand knowledge of the brutal torture that goes on in factory farms. Tell me how a pig being hung from its feet and having its throat slit without anesthesa is humane. Tell me how a cow getting a bolt in the head (which rarely kills it on the first try) is humane. Tell me how a chicken forced to live in a space too small to even allow it to spread its wings or turn around is humane. Tell me how living in a feces and urine-infested factory is humane. Tell me how chickens getting their beaks cut off without any anestetic is humane. Tell me how a calf being torn from its mother after hours or days and then being made purposely anemic just to make a more palatable skin color is humane.

   Folks need a dose of reality.

   You’re telling me.

10. Cattleman

    28|Jul|2004 10

    In regards to your animal cruelty, all very good points. If they were true I would be outraged. Its very easy to sit in a comfortable city back east somewhere sipping some starbucks and pontificating about the inhumanity of food production.
    I can’t speak for chicken or pork, I know nothing about them. I have however seen the process of beef production in its entirity, first hand. I havnt formed my opinions from PETA propganda video’s or CNN’s sensationalistic reports, I’ve been there.
    Whoever told you that cattle are rarely stunned on the first blow, was wrong. The technology in this area is very relible and the animals feel no pain. The factory farms you villainize do not exist in our industry. We have the technology to prevent unessecary cruelty to animals and we use it. Extremists who have an axe to grind with our industry publish that kind of propoganda, and its simply untrue.
    A world of vegetarians would cause more environmental devistation than anyone can imagine. Most of the world is unfit for crops. Without livestock production millions of acres would have to be plowed up to grow crops. That acreage would come from rainforests, grasslands, and, various other natural resources. Face it, livestock is an integral part of a balanced diet and a neccessity to our survival. Livestock production preserves open spaces, the cleaness of our water, and the biodiveristy of our wildlife.
    I’m glad you folks can afford to live that kind of lifestyle. Someones making an awful lot of money of your nutty lifestyle. As for the rest of us, give me a steak. Rare.

11. Alex

    28|Jul|2004 11

    Peta documentaries are real. You may call it propaganda because it serves Peta’s agenda (ethical treatment of animals), but videos showing “humane” treatment of cows (though, what’s so humane about KILLING a cow to eat it) from Factory Farms would be equally deemed as “propaganda” for the meat industry.

    This is to say that I have seen videos from Peta and not from Peta and they both displayed the same thing happening in factory farms. I don’t think a conspiracy to stage cow slaughtering and supply the inhumane footage to Peta to boost the vegeterian foods industry is in order. You seem to insinuate that.

12. Kim

    30|Jul|2004 12

    Cattleman,
    Of all of the things you’ve written on this site so far, I think the statement of yours that baffles me the most is this one:

    “Livestock production preserves open spaces, the cleaness of our water, and the biodiveristy of our wildlife.”

    What??? Last time I checked, livestock production in the U.S. as it currently stands (ie, factory farms) encourages the overuse of open spaces, pollutes the water supply and the air (ever been downwind of a big pig farm?), and decreases the wildlife population through the conversion of their natural habitat into more places to cram in more livestock. I’m not saying that meat production is the only cause of these problems (because urban sprawl has a big hand in these issues as well), but I would say it’s one of the causes.

    A couple of other thoughts:
    1. You made a comment that Ryan’s site is a place for him to “justify his actions.” But it seems like the person who seems to feel a need to justify his actions and push his viewpoint is you, not him. Otherwise, why would you come back and post here multiple times? It doesn’t seem like you really want to have a discussion, you want to try to tell someone why you think they are wrong.
    2. You said meat consumption is an integral part of a balanced diet and also necessary to our survival. Speak for yourself. I’ve been a vegetarian for over 10 years and a vegan for four of those years, and not only am I still standing, I feel better than I ever did when I ate meat and have become open to a much greater variety of foods than most Americans eat. So I think a more accurate statement would be that you feel meat is necessary to your survival. But it’s not necessary to mine.

    If being a compassionate person and having concern for the environment and the other species we share it with is having an “overactive conscience,” than may mine overreact for the rest of my life.

13. Jennifer Stock

    26|Sep|2004 13

    I’m all for the effort to make sure the animals we raise for consumption are treated as humanely as possible — i.e. in a way that minimizes fear, stress and isolation. I don’t believe modern science has “proven” that animals have a soul, as stated above, but they certainly have measurable emotional responses similar to humans. also, we validate our own method of civilization by treating animals with respect.

    However, I don’t see the difference between consuming a chicken and consuming a carrot. Plants are every bit as alive as mammals. I suppose the most non-violent means of harvest would be taking only the fruit and seeds of plants, which does not harm the generating organism and in fact confers it some benefits, namely that of being tended and protected. Still, one is destroying, by it through one’s digestive tract, the ultimate purpose of those seeds, which is to create more of itself.

    We are born into a bewildering world where everything feeds off of everything else. If only we could be like plants, which live primarily on pure chemicals, we could finally escape all the ethical dilemmas we must face by the simple fact that we must eat to live.

    The designer of our universe is difficult if not impossible to interrogate. we don’t know why things are the way they are. in the face of this frustration, made even stronger by the lack of coherent faith expressed by most vegetarians, which in my experience seems to consist primarily of a naive nature-based polytheism, the vegetarians re-direct their discomfort with a universe that is drenched with blood and pain onto their fellow humans, as if we meat eaters were responsible for a nature “red in tooth and claw.”

    Perhaps I am too generous in ascribing any kind of faith to most vegetarians. It has been said that only to an atheist is death the ultimate injury. I don’t think drawing artificial lines between what it is “right” to eat makes the world any better. A vegetarian diet engenders poor health in every individual I’ve met, and, as Cattleman points out, it is far less efficient to get one’s calories completely through plants than through meat.

    It does benefit the vegetarian, however, in that it confers a sense of moral superiority and allows for the creation of a sense of “us” versus “them”, one of the most basic of human instincts. It could be argued that this instinct has caused far more blood to be spilled than the practice of eating meat: far more human blood. Instincts can be reshaped, modified by dint of our complex brains. But creating a world in which we do not have to consume to survive is still beyond the horizon of our current abilities.

14. JustPassingBy

    13|Apr|2007 14

    Jennifer Stock, eating a chicken is like eating an entire supermarket’s stock of carrots, not just one. Note that any comments you have made about vegetarian cruelty, therefore applies to meat-eating multiplied many times over. A vegetarian is preserving more of “the designer’s” creations by eating closer to the base of the food chain.

    Is there “modern-scientific proof” that you possess a soul? (Do you assume every living being does not have a soul unless proven otherwise?)

    Isn’t “their polytheism” vs. “my monotheism” a case of “us” vs. “them” and therefore aren’t you doing the same thing you suggest vegetarians are doing, i.e, contributing towards human blood spilling?

    A meat-based diet causes more health problems than a vegetarian one, all other things being equal. A pregnant human is recommened bigger portions of vegetables and fruits and asked to restrict intake of animal products like fish and liver.

15. 2MorePts

    13|Apr|2007 15

    2 more points that have yet to be brought up (via Vegan Freak & Vegan Sourcebook):
    1. Humans will never find peace with other humans until they can embrace peaceful co-existence with all living things. If you’ve ever abused or seen an abused animal or human you know what I mean.
    2. While #1 may seem tree-hugger, consider your argument for human existence if aliens far more intelligent than ourselves came to earth b/c of our resources.

    I’ve heard & researched all sides (vegan, vegetarianism, omnivore) & Veganism is the most compelling, ethical, & compassionate way to live life. And for the record, I am not vegan but am on a path to be there within the year. It’s amazing how far removed Americans have gotten from their food sources & de-sensitized toward killing others that its become 2nd nature to accept the status quo.

16. FutureState

    13|Apr|2007 16

    Years from now we will look back at how foolish we were to kill animals for their meat & by-products; just like we currently look back at how foolish slavery, bigotry, killing in the name of , & “women can’t work” arguments were. Get with the times, Cow-BOY!

17. Gary

    16|Apr|2007 17

    Jennifer Stock says: “However, I don’t see the difference between consuming a chicken and consuming a carrot.”

    Does she see no difference between sawing the limb off a dogwood and sawing the limb off of a dog? Is she saying if she had to make the choice between those two options, she would flip a coin?

    Would she swerve to run over the chicken and spare the carrot?

    Does she posit that there’s no difference between slicing into a tomato and sticking a knife in the side of a live lamb?

    Is that what gets her through her omnivorous day?

    There are two common, self-serving, convenient psuedo-metaphysical constructs that remain popular among omnivores as means to rationalize their daily participation in eating flesh and in creating beings just to be killed and eaten.

    One is basically “animals have no feelings.” No interest in living, no emotions, no capacity for joy and fear, elation and despair. That has been thoroughly disproven, and it’s also obviously not true from simple observation and common sense. But some die-hard omnis hang onto to it.

    The other branch of omni feel-good-ology is “everything is equally sentient and equally capable of feeling.” When taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human and smashing a rock are equivalent. But again this defies not only science but common sense and observation. Can anyone look at the pig mentioned earlier, writhing in pain, screaming, defecating, as he hangs on a hook, and then thrashing wildly as he is dunked into scalding water, still alive and conscious - and compare that to the “suffering” of a plant pulled from the ground?

    If plants do feel pain - through some as-yet-undetected mechanism, as they have no nervous system and no detectable pain receptors, then God, or the gods, or evolution, or all three are playing some kind of sick cosmic joke, as the plants have no way of escaping their presumed torment.

    Heeding the Occam’s Razor rule, it is far easier to be as compassionate as possible, and to attempt to follow the Golden Rule, and admit when you’re not, than to think up wildly implausible schemes to excuse easily avoidable cruelty. Among its many other virtues, veganism is easy on the conscience.

    I’ll respond to Cattleman’s contributions down the road a piece.

18. Gary

    19|Apr|2007 18

    A few more thoughts on Jennifer Stock’s comments.

    She states: “It has been said that only to an atheist is death the ultimate injury.”

    I believe she is confusing death with murder. Most vegans implicitly express their view (and most people’s view) that a quick, painless death is prefereable to severe, prolonged suffering, when they euthanize their companion animals. I imagine many support “right to die” laws also. But even the most pious believer in God and heaven does not want to be murdered, or have their loved ones shot down. I doubt that a gunman’s defense of “Well, I was only hastening their delivereance to the afterlife” would be very convincing to a jury or comforting to survivors.

    Not only do we kill animals by the billions each year, we breed them expressly to have them killed as soon as profitable - which is a profound devaluation of their intrinsic worth and intentional violation of their interests - and we do so arbitrarily, for pleasure.

    She says: “We are born into a bewildering world where everything feeds off of everything else. If only we could be like plants, which live primarily on pure chemicals, we could finally escape all the ethical dilemmas we must face by the simple fact that we must eat to live.”

    We can more like plants - that is, decreasing the amount of killing and suffering on our behalf - by eating a plant-based diet and earnestly looking for and subsequently implementing practical ways to reduce our impact on the earth and its inhabitants. We may not be able to completely escape all our ethical dilemmas caused by having to eat to live, but by doing the best we can to peacefully coexist with the other species of the world (as well as members of our own species), we can go a long way toward removing those dilemmas and bringing our lifestyle more in line with our basic moral principles, including the Golden Rule and acting with compassion; we are not helpless in this respect.

    She says: “A vegetarian diet engenders poor health in every individual I’ve met.”

    I invite her to meet my wife and me. Or any of the dozens of vegetarians I know. Then we can head over to the cardiac ward and see how many vegetarians and heavy meat-eaters there are. I have to really wonder about statements like this. Where does she live? There are healthy vegetarians at every veg- or animal protection-related gathering in every medium and large town in the country - and in many countries. How can I ascribe any credibility to any of her arguments when she makes statements that are so blatantly, empirically disproved?

    She says: “It does benefit the vegetarian, however, in that it confers a sense of moral superiority and allows for the creation of a sense of “us” versus “them”, one of the most basic of human instincts.”

    Speaking for myself, and I’m quite sure for many other vegans, when I act in accordance with my conscience, and advocate treating nonhumans with respect and kindness through a vegan diet, I do so because I am compelled to help the victims of cruelty and injustice, and because I believe vegansim is one step toward a far more peaceful world. I would gladly - in a heartbeat - give up any presumed “moral superiority” and “us vs. them” mindset in return for the developed world adopting a vegan diet and including animals in their moral universe. I would shut down my blog and throw out my leaflets and sit on the porch and play guitar, to anyone who walked by, and quite possiby to the squirrels racing up and down the tree, or as an accompaniment to the songbirds’ joyous singing.

19. Corinne

    24|Jun|2007 19

    As for the sustainability of food consumption, I would like to point out the reason eating animals can be useful — their ability to consume food that humans cannot eat, such as grasses. However, modern farms feed their animals food that humans can digest, such as corn. Not only does the farmer then reduce the amount of food we get per land, they also make the meat less healthy for consumption (http://sustainablechoices.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-grass-fed-farms-in-bay-area.html)