Nope, it's not taboo at all, if it's presented as the result of an evidence-based rationale. Or, if it is presented within the context of an attitude of "this is the judgment I have reached, acknowledging my own inherent bias." Judgments, however, that are the result of non-critical, highly prejudiced thinking--and which are baldly presented as a matter of universal truth--are definitely offensive to many people. To give an example: "I believe gay marriage is wrong because X says it is, and because they will spread their immorality to any children they raise." That statement tells me a person as simply adopted a position based upon some external authority, and not as a result of their own personal rationale. It strikes me as highly emotional, and biased against gay persons as a matter of principle, and not based upon any actual evidence of their fitness as either citizens or as parents. An alternative: "I believe gay marriage is essentially inferior to heterosexual marriage, because any children raised in a gay family will be missing out on having both the male and female perspectives in parenting. There have been a few recent studies looking into this, and they suggest x, y, z." This second argument, while it goes against my particular view of SS relationships, gives me pause, because it raises a pertinent question, and it relies upon logic and evidence, versus emotionalism and empty appeals to authority. I may still reach a different conclusion than the person making this argument based upon various other pieces of evidence; but, I will concede that it is a valid argument, and is not necessarily made with contempt of individuals with SSA in mind, but instead suggests a more circumspect viewpoint. I would argue that most other people, regardless of their political views, would feel the same. Judgments, even ones that go against the mainstream, are not the problem; the problem is that most people making judgments tend to go for the crass, emotional ones, that are based upon prejudice and contempt, and that is what most people find unacceptable these days.

I took dh's name when we were married, as we were both conservative Christians at the time, and it was just what is done in those circles. Since we have both evolved philosophically away from that religion, I do sometimes wish I hadn't changed my name. However, it was dh who actually first suggested changing it back. Though since I have established my professional identity under my married name, it would be too much trouble to go back and change everything now. I was really miffed earlier this week, when I attempted to get my new enhanced license (from TX to MN), and presented no less than: my certified birth certificate, my SS card (with my married name on it), my marriage certificate signed by the priest/ officiator, my bank statement (with my married name), and my tax return from last year (again, with my last name.) Do you know that the office called me after and said that they could not approve my license until I provided a certified copy of my marriage license to prove my married name is my legal name?? Did I mention that my SS card and my tax return (for the last 14 years) both show my married name??? So, while dh gets his application approved (because you know, he never changed his name), mine has gotten sidelined while I undergo the extra expense to procure a certified marriage certificate from the state we were married in. I totally get why women would not change their last names. It's stupid B.S. like this, in addition to all of the recent barriers being thrown up around things like procuring voting cards with the correct matching legal name, that would have me strongly advise my daughter, if I had one, to just keep her own name. (That's assuming she would even desire to formalize a relationship in marriage.)

Seriously, I've used it, and never gotten hassled about it. On a classical education board, the term should not need to be explained (over and over and over...). Considering the the word Christian, itself, was originally a derogatory term for followers of Christ, how ironic is it that using a diminutive of the term is considered the insult? So, the term Christian comes about as a form of mockery by nonbelievers, and believers embraced it. Then, said term comes to be represented and expressed in a shorter form that originated from believers themselves, but that symbol, X, is what is rejected by some today as being the mockery?? Paul said he taught "Christ crucified," which was "foolishness to the Gentiles." I don't think Christ was foolish at all (assuming he existed), but the hostility some believers evince about the nature of the symbol X is simply ridiculous. For goodness sake, I've seen Christian evangelical tee shirts with the Greek symbol on them. Are they, like albeto, trying to dictate the terms of the discussion!? (At what point does the rabbit with a watch run down a hole, lol?)

Nah. Next time, you should just confirm all her dark opinions about your motives, and grab as many candy bars and magazines as you can hold (mouth included). And then just stare back at her expectantly.

It wouldn't even occur to me to say anything to someone with more items. It just wouldn't. I have many times offered to let people with a few items ahead of me, if I have many items. I do this as a courtesy, regardless of "line laws," lol. But not for that old crone! So glad you barked back at her!

It is what it is. Usually around $1100 for our family of three. Mostly vegetarian, includes eating out a few times a week. Between school, hockey and TaeKwonDo, we are already busy. As we add more activities, DH finds less time to cook, as several Indian and Thai dishes can take 2 hours or longer.

Looks like drought has been an ongoing (and worsening?) issue. This is in conjunction with increasing feed and forage prices, which drought may also have contributed to. The article below claims that the reduction in cattle head has been accelerating since 2007, with 1.9 million fewer cattle since then. http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2013/02/where-have-all-the-beef-cows-gone.html This 2005 article (it's a PDF) cites drought as one of the causes of declining numbers of cattle in the 1970's: "The 1970s cattle cycle was affected by President Nixon's beef price freezes, oil price shocks, drought, and unusually high grain prices." The cached link is here. This article mentions the ongoing depletion of the Ogallalla aquifer that has been going on since the 1970's. An article on California's drought mentions the "terrible" drought of the late 1970's in comparison with the current drought. An article on Texas' drought history mentions significant droughts in the 1950's, 1980's, and 1990's. I'm not a rancher or a farmer, so maybe someone here who is can chime in with their experience.

You know what, that epic drought in Texas in 2012 reduced many herds. If the projections regarding the desertification of the Western U.S. over the next 50 to 75 years are accurate, then we have a lot more than animal agriculture under threat. ETA: the reference for the aforementioned desertification of most of the US.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!

Well, I haven't made that argument here at all. I was pretty up front with my criticism of the film, even though I'm practically a vegetarian, myself, and married to another vegetarian. I stated early on that I don't try to convert anyone, and that includes my own child. He still eats meat and I support his right to his own conscience on the matter. If you read my early posts on this thread, my biggest objection to big ag is it's treatment of people. So, I feel I am not coming from any kind of extreme here. I just think that one can acknowledge the environmental and health threats involved with the way most meat is produced without having to be consigned to a marginal position. Honestly, I feel that most meat options should actually come from the small farming and independent ranching sector. That would mean steeper prices, but a much healthier, nutrient-dense, and better tasting product, as well as being better environmentally.

Also, regarding my comment about eating lamb that a few posters have quoted: cuteness has nothing to do with my aversion to lamb (or sheep, for that matter). I tried it once in a curry and it made me want to puke. It tasted and smelled awful. Most animal flesh has that effect on me now though. I can eat fish, but pork and chicken turn my stomach.

Sure, but doing the math, there is not enough grassland to feed all 90 million head of cattle, even if we included all of North America. Feedlots are the (sloppy) solution to that physical limitation. Thus, our current dilemma with water consumption, contamination, and other secondary problems such as soil erosion and chemical contamination of water due to the monoculture farming that is used in part to support feedlots. Oh, and the rise of antibiotic-resistance, that's another very serious consequence of Big Ag, or really any animal farming that involves feeding animals antibiotics regularly. Honestly, I see no other solution to the mounting issues of resource depletion and environmental destruction besides reducing meat consumption. (Or, reducing the numbers of humans, and I don't want to go there.) As I stated earlier in the thread, this is already happening, not because vegetarianism or veganism are increasing, but because meat eaters are consuming less meat. I'm not sure if the reasons for that are economic or health-based or something entirely different.

My concerns are: -water consumption -contamination of waterways and runoff leading to things like E. coli in spinach fields.

Call me a wuss, but I can't eat lamb. Can't even stand the thought.

Here is an interesting article on the subject that suggests that the answer is a reduction in eating meat, not totally eliminate it. In fact, there has already been a significant reduction in overall meat production in the U.S, which is due to meat eaters cutting back--not due to an increase in vegetarianism or veganism. http://m.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/06/less-meat-smil

Of course. But now we have millions of Americans, in a landscape carved up by cities, spawling suburbs, industry, and monoculture farming . We have (barely) enough water and land for that, or for millions of buffalo, but not both.

I don't know much about the history of veganism. I do know that the Indian cuisine my DH makes for us is based upon the Hindu lacto-vegetarian diet, which permits milk, but no eggs or meat. That certainly is not a modern or western contrivance. Frankly, after having Thai and Indian cruisine as the basis of our diet, most other cuisines are very bland by comparison. American cuisine typically depends on meat, not spices, for flavor. We don't miss meat, although I definitely would miss dairy and eggs. DH is more interested in becoming vegan, mostly because he has had malignant hypertension and high LDL in the past. Since he gave up meat, his blood work has drastically improved.

It's all about small steps, IMO. It also needs to be said that the US food system is not set up to be particularly helpful in making healthy choices. It needs to be recognized that any movement towards a fresh veggies and fruit oriented diet is going against the tide.

Maybe. But, one can still eat paleo and reduce meat intake. Nuts, eggs, legumes, mussells, and fresh veggies, are good diet staples. Honestly, eating tons of meat is not really economically viable for many middle class families nowadays.

I believe it definitely helps to reduce in any way possible. I respect that food is a heavily inculturated subject and involves a lot of emotions like comfort and it binds people together. I think that's another issue I had with the film, the statement that "you cannot be an environmental activist and consume animal products." That all-or-nothing approach is a convert's mindset, and is not particularly helpful or practical in reducing reliance upon animal products.

The only argument I have with the film is some of his calculations, such as 300+ lbs of meat per person. From what I have been reading, most Americans have reduced their meat intake over the last several years, mostly due a combination of health and economic reasons. The most recent figure I read was an average of less than 140 lbs meat per person per year. Still unsustainable, but much lower than his figures.

Such a decision never affects just you or your health. Your spouse, your children, your extended family and friends are all exposed to an alternative perspective on diet and health. For me, with my knowledge of public health risk associated with things like salmonella, E. coli., etc, along with the environmental aspects, and finally the social/ human aspects of it, eating meat just has lost its appeal to me. I do get how overwhelming such a decision is though. I don't pressure or attempt to convert others to my view.

Ha! We just watched it, too. Honestly, none of the information presented was new to me. I'm already familiar with the tremendous toll agriculture takes on the environment. There are dozens of studies and credible reports to substantiate the claim that the environmental cost of eating meat is absolutely phenomenal. Honestly, DH has been vegetarian-going-on-vegan for a few years now, mostly due to his disgust with how both people (workers) and animals are treated as commodities and horribly abused by Big Ag common practices. For myself, I have already given up meat 90% of the time and working towards vegetarianism. What did it for me, is the complete contempt that industry has for Americans, whether they are workers, small farmers, or consumers. So, they won't get my money.

Home schooling is almost mainstream in many areas. You're really not that countercultural. :D

Hey, I am stoked about getting to ice skate outdoors for the first time ever. In Dallas, I had very negative associations with the words "ice" and "cobblestone."