PDA

View Full Version : 'Top 10 Veg-Friendly Major League Ballparks' in USA



Korn
May 21st, 2011, 09:36 AM
Top 10 Veg-Friendly Major League Ballparks (http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/05/18/top-10-vegetarian-friendly-major-league-ballparks.aspx)
I've never been to a ballgame stadium, but I hope whoever it makes these meals are smart enough to make them vegan and not only vegetarian - so all their veg*n customers can eat/buy them.

CoolCat
May 21st, 2011, 10:46 AM
I doubt a veg*n would watch a game where they bat a dead animal through the air and catch it with more dead animals? I don't see the veg friendliness in having cheeseless nacho's to go with that tbh.

Korn
May 21st, 2011, 01:09 PM
I don't see the veg friendliness in having cheeseless nacho's to go with that tbh.
Most people who eat veg food aren't vegans. Many of them use dairy products, and lots of people just want to reduce their meat intake without going vegan or totally meat-free. And just the fact that stuff like meatless burritos, vegetable stir-fries, veggie pasta etc is available at something as mainstream as a ballgame stadium servers as a reminder/an ad for the fact that people don't need meat/animal products.

Plus - what's best.... someone who 'bats a dead animal through the air' which chewing on another dead animal - or someone who does it while eating a vegan meal? The amount of chicken, burgers, cheese, fish etc. needed to feed all these people...

http://www.peta.org/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer-Blogs-Components-WeblogFiles-00-00-00-01-48/6765.AT_5F00_T_5F00_Park_5F00_465.jpg_2D00_550x0.j pg

...is enormous compared with what it takes to produce some balls and some gloves. It's not OK to do something which harms other because one already is doing something else which is harmful anyway, so...


I don't see the veg friendliness in having cheeseless nacho's to go with that tbh.
I do! :-)

Leather is used to produce balls, but animal products are also used to produce certain musical instruments (and much more). Veg*ns wouldn't eat meat while listening to an album with instruments containing animal products (eg. certain drum skins). We live in a non-vegan world, and I hope no vegans believe that it's possible to stay 100% away from animal products. That would only exhaust them and eventually mean that they could end up getting sick of the whole vegan message and start eating meat etc. again. That certainly wouldn't help anyone.

CoolCat
May 21st, 2011, 02:39 PM
Of course it isn't possible to lead a complete vegan life in a non vegan society... but some things are avoidable. For me this is one of them. I don't see it differently than the middle-eastern / afghan game where they drag and throw a (n unprocessed) dead goat arround. Well minus the horses then.

As for the less harm, I don't think you can apply maths to harm. Saying only 50 cows got abused and killed instead of 150 makes no difference if you are one of those 50 cows. And gentle nudging people to a life with less abuse runs the risk of reaching a point where people go "WELL HAVEN'T WE DONE ENOUGH ALREADY" before they are even close to vegan. TBH the only ways I see major change is through scandals (condemned meat being sold by rogue people, contaminated meats / dairy reaching the food chain, disease in livestock, cloned animals causing cancers or something,...) and price increases (true prices) for products making animal cruelty unaffordable for people... and a change in law. But that last one is not for any day soon. I think only few people have it in them to care enough to become vegan just because it is the right thing to do. Most are just too selfish. But I would be happy proven wrong of course.

Korn
May 24th, 2011, 08:23 AM
but some things are avoidable. For me this is one of them.
Hi again, although *not* watching people play ballgames certainly isn't part of the definition of vegan, going to see a baseball game is certainly avoidable. But lots of people obviously go and see such games, and therefore it is, from a pro-animal point of view, important that meat free and vegan food is available there. There has been a campaign for this, which is slowly starting to show results, and with all due respect, it's hard to imagine something more counterproductive for promoting a vegan lifestyle than vegans stating that it doesn't really matter if the food served at public places will be more veg-based and less animal-based. As a matter of fact, while vegans may represent, say 1% of the population, all those would want or wouldn't mind a more veg-friendly lifestyle may represent, say, around 30%.

One vegan saving 100 animal lives during x months: 100 animals saved.
30 'veg friendly' people reducing their animal product consumption by 40% in the same period: 1200 lives saved.

As a group, their animal product consumption rate is much more important than ours - simply because there's a lot of them out there.

Look at this: While their simple adjustments could save millions of animal lives every year, vegans discuss if the some micrograms of this or that in product X is animal derived. As an example: if you get 3 mcg B12 daily from fortified food; B12 which for some reason would be animal derived, you would end up having consumed 0.05 gram animal products after 50 years. It would take you 85,000 - yes, eightyfive thousand years - years to consume the same amount of animal products as these baseball watchers get from eating one chicken.

This is simplified, and of course - in order to make x ounces of something animal derived, more than x ounces of an an animal based source is often needed. But vegans have been wanting more vegans options at restaurants, fast food chains etc for decades, and I truly can't see how the changes that now pop up at an increasing rate isn't good news: they make it easier to reduce animal suffering.

And I certainly think that it's easier for them to go vegan if they're already halfway there (demonstrated eg. by the many lacto-vegetarians who later go vegan).




As for the less harm, I don't think you can apply maths to harm. 'Maths', in this context this, is just a way to monitor, or 'measure', reality. If tasty, veg*n options will become (and remain!) available in canteens, hospitals, schools, fast food chains etc.. more people will buy them. Call it maths if you will, but when more people will get a chance to try vegan/vegetarian food and like it, fewer people will eat meat, dairy products, eggs etc, and the end result is that fewer animals will be harmed and killed.



Saying only 50 cows got abused and killed instead of 150 makes no difference if you are one of those 50 cows.
True, but it makes a difference if you are one of the 100 that are not abused/killed. You can see it as 'maths' if you like, or just... reality.



And gentle nudging people to a life with less abuse runs the risk of reaching a point where people go "WELL HAVEN'T WE DONE ENOUGH ALREADY" before they are even close to vegan. TBH the only ways I see major change is through scandals (condemned meat being sold by rogue people, contaminated meats / dairy reaching the food chain, disease in livestock, cloned animals causing cancers or something,...) and price increases...
There are loads of factors that influence people's decisions pro/con using animal products, the main one being old habits. Meeting other people with a different lifestyle also make a difference. Learning about what actually happens in the process of producing meat/milk etc. has made a difference for many people. Learning that vegan food is as tasty as the food they already eat certainly has been important to those who used to think that veg*ns live on salad and potatoes. Getting diseases linked to consumption of animal products has been the major factor for many who stopped using meat etc.

So - when you say that 'scandals' and price increases are the only things that can cause a major, pro-vegan change looks to me as you say that there's no need to promote veganism, spread information about vegan nutrition, or make veg-friendly products more available. Is that what you're actually saying?

If only 500 people go watching a ballgame and eat something vegan instead of a chicken every Sunday, that's 500 fewer chicken eaten and killed weekly. That's not 'maths applied to harm'. That's 500 chicken, every week, which don't need to first suffer through a life in captivity and then have it ended with a brutal death. How can this *not* make a difference - for these 500 birds?

sandra
May 24th, 2011, 09:25 AM
I think any way that enables non vegans to experience the vegan way of life is a good thing. I would rather a crowd at one of these games ate vegan food............it would give them the opportunity to realise that vegan food is 'normal' food. If even a few of them become vegan because of it, then that's all good.
As vegans we come across hidden animal products every day..........even the car or bus we travel in has animal products in it's tyres. What do we do? Stay at home and wait to die?
I don't understand this 'all or nothing' approach, i.e. if the ball and gloves aren't vegan then everything else can't be. If veganism is to become more widespread in this world it will be by a bit by bit approach, it won't happen over-night. :)

CoolCat
May 24th, 2011, 07:23 PM
...
So - when you say that 'scandals' and price increases are the only things that can cause a major, pro-vegan change looks to me as you say that there's no need to promote veganism, spread information about vegan nutrition, or make veg-friendly products more available. Is that what you're actually saying?
...


No, I think raising awareness about why we all should be vegan is a good thing. What I do oppose though are initiatives like "meatless mondays"... That gives the message that just "reducing suffering" is already good enough. And that was why the original post caught my attention... it kinda says "hey you can eat vegan food whilst we kick a dead animal arround for fun"... it's a bit double.

sandra
May 25th, 2011, 07:42 AM
I agree that just 'reducing suffering' isn't enough but I think anything that starts people thinking about veganism is a good thing. I'm sure there are lots of people who have supported 'meatless Mondays' and then ended up giving meat up altogether. I think every change (however small) is a good thing. I've noticed that a lot of cookery programmes on tv for instance make vegetarian options whereas 20yrs ago they would never have thought of doing that. As has been said before, we aren't going to convert people overnight, it will be a slow process but we will get there eventually. :)

Korn
May 25th, 2011, 09:20 AM
What I do oppose though are initiatives like "meatless mondays"... That gives the message that just "reducing suffering" is already good enough.
I don't see Meatless Mondays containing a message saying that it's enough to avoid meat only one day per week. I think it's a great way to get people started/better at learning how to cook, regularly, without meat. If a family would have Meatless Mondays for a couple of years, they'd probably find out that some of they stuff they had on Mondays was really good and something they could eat more of. But if someone would launch "Vegan Wednesdays" as an alternative/addition to Meatless Mondays, that would of course have been better! A Norwegian study showed that the amount of people interested in trying a meat free diet was 12 times as high as the number of people who actually were vegetarians. And - they have to start somewhere. The sad thing would be if the veg*n alternatives they tried were highly processed soy products with only a fraction of the nutrients intact. If their first meeting with veg food is fake meat/fake cheese which doesn't taste like 'the real thing' they might not be so impressed.


it kinda says "hey you can eat vegan food whilst we kick a dead animal arround for fun"... it's a bit double.
Well, as you know by now, I don't see it as a double... these ballgame stadiums, unlike our forum, certainly aren't reserved for vegans. :-)