Split Thread Skepticism and Vegetarianism

[Chanakya]

Some modern breeds that are well looked after will produce unfertilised eggs all year round, as many as one every other day, if you didn’t remove them they’d soon be roosting on a mountain of eggs!

Yep, unfertilized eggs are a thing, I know. Agreed, maternal instincts or no maternal instincts, eating those shouldn't raise ethical issues, if they weren't specifically bred and "farmed" for that purpose, but instead were genuine rescues treated well throughout.

Personally, I have no issues with regular eggs either, given how @icerat does it, with rescue chicks raised and treated well all their life long right till the end --- and provided, in this latter case, that the hens do not have maternal instincts for their eggs, and do not "grieve" when we take away those eggs.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The Official Rules for Veganism don't require you to discard belongings acquired prior to going vegan.

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

 

[novaphile]

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

Hence the Simpsons put down\joke: "I'm a Class 5 Vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

 

[Chanakya]

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

Ehh, do your own thing, by all means. I myself use leather. Even despite acknowledging and agreeing with the ethical argument against its use, so far I still do. So it's not like I'm doing the sanctimonious thing of trying to force my ethics down your gullet, I mean I don't force no-leather-use down my own gullet.

But, I mean, to talk of it being disrespectful to the animal, when you throw away a belt or a coat or shoes made from actually the hide taken off that creature --- that's a bit much. That kind of "respect" and "disrespect" seems so ...twisted, that I thought a brief post pointing that out might not be out of place.


eta: Sure, it can be thought of as disrespectful of the craftsman that made that product, if you're so inclined. Or maybe disrespectful of the money that went into buying an expensive leather item, and so disrespectful of the effort gone into earning that money, if you're so inclined, sure. Or even, if you're so inclined to think of it, disrespectful of someone that gifted it to you. I mean, it's not necessary to think that way, it's just a thing: but it makes sense to think that way if you're so inclined. ............But disrespectful of the animal whose hide went into making it, to no longer use that item, to throw it away? That's so ...twisted, that thinking.

(Sorry, no offense! Just ...well, what I said.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, seriously? Well then, in that case, like I spelled out, the argument implied in your initial paragraph, that was addressed to me, was completely wrong. And, coming from you, who are no stranger to either critical thinking in general or to the Nirvana Fallacy in particular, I'm afraid it's actually a joke, even if you hadn't intended it as such.

Completely wrong? How is it possible to avoid all kinds of animal suffering in your existence? You can't be a human without in some way having animals suffer to have put you there. Vegans draw a line - in my experience, it's usually at the "I will not personally cause any animal to suffer" (or "directly") but even they will partake of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, to take just one example, that were tested on animals before being approved for human use. I've known people whose line is "this product was part of an animal once and that revolts me". But those who believe that they can participate in modern society while denying all animal suffering are naïve, in my opinion. Yes, I've known some of those too.

In short, animals are going to continue to suffer regardless of anybody's individual dietary choices. Humans exploit non-human animals in many ways, and always have.

The second paragraph also looks completely utterly wrong, but yeah, I'm not going to go to town analyzing a throwaway comment to someone else.

I was describing my behaviour and the reasoning behind it. How can it be "wrong"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Hence the Simpsons put down\joke: "I'm a Class 5 Vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

I've heard someone say "I won't eat anything that has shoulders".

 

[theprestige]

Flesh is flesh. Meat is meat. Animals are robots or p-zombies, or what have you. Biomass is biomass. Eat what you want, how you want. Form emotional attachments if you want. Be vegan if it makes you a better person.

 

[Chanakya]

Completely wrong? How is it possible to avoid all kinds of animal suffering in your existence? You can't be a human without in some way having animals suffer to have put you there. Vegans draw a line - in my experience, it's usually at the "I will not personally cause any animal to suffer" (or "directly") but even they will partake of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, to take just one example, that were tested on animals before being approved for human use. I've known people whose line is "this product was part of an animal once and that revolts me". But those who believe that they can participate in modern society while denying all animal suffering are naïve, in my opinion. Yes, I've known some of those too.

In short, animals are going to continue to suffer regardless of anybody's individual dietary choices. Humans exploit non-human animals in many ways, and always have.

But so what? You started your post to me with an "Except". That indicates you're clearly implying that this somehow detracts from the vegan ethical argument.
...Otherwise, how is it even relevant, to point out that the harm-minimizing-for-ethical-reasons vegan is not eliminating all harm? And that "Except" clearly indicates your implied argument. ...Which argument is the Nirvana Fallacy thing.

I was describing my behaviour and the reasoning behind it. How can it be "wrong"?

That sounded like a joke to me, honestly. I didn't say that as a snide put-down. ...Thing is, if everyone flocked to the vegetarian dishes in the buffet, and as a result the vegetarian food literally ran out, then:

1. Not necessarily, but very probably, the ethical vegan/vegetarian will probably not mind, because that means there's so many others also moving away from exploiting animals.

2. If that makes for a trend, veg dishes running out and meat dishes going uneaten, then the caterers will in future make more of the veg dishes and less of the meat ones.

Which makes that reasoning, in context of a discussion on the ethics of it, kind of jokey.

But, on the other hand, as far as specifically this part of your post, if no argument was implied, then fair: Just your actions; and your thoughts that lead you to, or accompany, those actions: those in themselves are neither right nor wrong, they are what they are, is all.

 

[varwoche]

But so what? You started your post to me with an "Except". That indicates you're clearly implying that this somehow detracts from the vegan ethical argument.
...Otherwise, how is it even relevant, to point out that the harm-minimizing-for-ethical-reasons vegan is not eliminating all harm? And that "Except" clearly indicates your implied argument. ...Which argument is the Nirvana Fallacy thing.

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans. It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ehh, do your own thing, by all means. I myself use leather. Even despite acknowledging and agreeing with the ethical argument against its use, so far I still do. So it's not like I'm doing the sanctimonious thing of trying to force my ethics down your gullet, I mean I don't force no-leather-use down my own gullet.

But, I mean, to talk of it being disrespectful to the animal, when you throw away a belt or a coat or shoes made from actually the hide taken off that creature --- that's a bit much. That kind of "respect" and "disrespect" seems so ...twisted, that I thought a brief post pointing that out might not be out of place.


eta: Sure, it can be thought of as disrespectful of the craftsman that made that product, if you're so inclined. Or maybe disrespectful of the money that went into buying an expensive leather item, and so disrespectful of the effort gone into earning that money, if you're so inclined, sure. Or even, if you're so inclined to think of it, disrespectful of someone that gifted it to you. I mean, it's not necessary to think that way, it's just a thing: but it makes sense to think that way if you're so inclined. ............But disrespectful of the animal whose hide went into making it, to no longer use that item, to throw it away? That's so ...twisted, that thinking.

(Sorry, no offense! Just ...well, what I said.)

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

 

[Chanakya]

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans.

Sure, agreed.

It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

Well, that "except" at the start of his post clearly carried an implicit argument.

Otherwise, standalone, that's true, even if completely obvious.

 

[theprestige]

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

X-shaming must be a power word in your culture.

 

[Chanakya]

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

Wasn't talking about diet at all. Wasn't even talking about using leather. Was talking about the absurdity of thinking of stopping using leather by discarding the leather products as somehow disrespectful of the animal whose hide was stripped away to make the leather. That's ...absurd, nonsensical, that thinking. It's twisted, in the sense that it seems to treat the act if killing a sentient being and using its hide for our own purposes as somehow ...respectful of that animal? Yep that's twisted. It isn't as if this was an organ donor voluntarily donating their hide for those shoes or that belt.

And how is "no offense implied" bigoted? How is any of this bigoted? I use leather myself. And, regardless of that, why is pointing out the absurdity in your thinking bigoted? That's just a random term you're throwing back at me in lieu of defending your position. I mean, since you aired your thoughts in this discussion forum, then presumably you meant us to discuss it if we had any thoughts on it, surely.

But I did mean it when I'd said no offense was intended. So I won't argue this beyond this post. But just to clarify things again: This isn't about diet, or even about use of leather per se.

 

[Orphia Nay]

X-shaming must be a power word in your culture.

I wasn't using it like that. "Bigoted" is though.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Wasn't talking about diet at all. Wasn't even talking about using leather. Was talking about the absurdity of thinking of stopping using leather by discarding the leather products as somehow disrespectful of the animal whose hide was stripped away to make the leather. That's ...absurd, nonsensical, that thinking. It's twisted, in the sense that it seems to treat the act if killing a sentient being and using its hide for our own purposes as somehow ...respectful of that animal? Yep that's twisted. It isn't as if this was an organ donor voluntarily donating their hide for those shoes or that belt.

And how is "no offense implied" bigoted? How is any of this bigoted? I use leather myself. And, regardless of that, why is pointing out the absurdity in your thinking bigoted? That's just a random term you're throwing back at me in lieu of defending your position. I mean, since you aired your thoughts in this discussion forum, then presumably you meant us to discuss it if we had any thoughts on it, surely.

But I did mean it when I'd said no offense was intended. So I won't argue this beyond this post. But just to clarify things again: This isn't about diet, or even about use of leather per se.

It's not my position. It was my position. I am still sensitive about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans. It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

Sure, agreed.

Accepted. It was an observation that didn't need to be made.

There are many valid reasons to be a vegetarian or a vegan. Whatever someone's reason is is not anyone else's business.

 

[Darat]

Yep, unfertilized eggs are a thing, I know. Agreed, maternal instincts or no maternal instincts, eating those shouldn't raise ethical issues, if they weren't specifically bred and "farmed" for that purpose, but instead were genuine rescues treated well throughout.

Personally, I have no issues with regular eggs either, given how @icerat does it, with rescue chicks raised and treated well all their life long right till the end --- and provided, in this latter case, that the hens do not have maternal instincts for their eggs, and do not "grieve" when we take away those eggs.

Surely the only solution to your concerns regarding removing eggs from rescue chickens causing emotional distress (if it does) is to kill the rescue chickens rather than inflicting continuing emotional distress for the rest of their lives?

 

[Chanakya]

Surely the only solution to your concerns regarding removing eggs from rescue chickens causing emotional distress (if it does) is to kill the rescue chickens rather than inflicting continuing emotional distress for the rest of their lives?

Haha, no! The simplest solution to my concern would be to continue doing what I already do, which is refrain from eating eggs (as well as meat, et cetera).

Okay, where I was coming from is, I'm aware of, on one hand, those unfertilized eggs things, and on the other of free range hens that are used for both eggs and to eat them. In as much as they involve specifically breeding the hens, they don't gel with what I personally think is ethical eating --- or, to put it less grandly, I couldn't stomach eating those, the way I'm wired at this point in time. ...But then, here comes @icerat, talking about something that, while in retrospect is obvious enough, but it had never occurred to me. Like rescue puppies and kittens, he adopts rescue chickens, rescue hens. And how completely cool is that. And he also eats their eggs, ...and then I go thinking, hey, I could very well eat eggs on those terms, eggs that are a great protein source, and eggs that I love eating anyway regardless of their nutrition value. Except I wouldn't raise them myself, but buy them if available, happily paying a premium for them, hell I wouldn't mind paying four or five times the price of regular eggs if I get them on those terms. ...But then, as I go celebrating this in my mind, comes the thought, what about the maternal instinct thing, does it apply for eggs?

So yeah, if it turns out hens do feel maternal about eggs (as I'm sure they do about their actual hatched chicks), or if we're not sure about it, then the easiest "solution" is to simply go on not eating eggs, which is what I do in any case.

Not a big deal. This is just as applies to me, to what I personally am comfortable doing, and is emphatically not meant as judgment on what anyone else is doing or not doing.

 

[ahhell]

Haha, seriously? I mean, I've heard that joke, sure, but how you relate this makes it seem like it actually happened. If that's actually the case, then that's hilarious! And good to know, that such a thing is actually possible.

Heard it straight from my sisters, she could have embellished an urban rumor I suppose.

 

[Chanakya]

Heard it straight from my sisters, she could have embellished an urban rumor I suppose.

Right, as people pointed out in the thread, that's a thing, and other similarly weird effects as well.

 

[SteveAitch]

Haha, no! The simplest solution to my concern would be to continue doing what I already do, which is refrain from eating eggs (as well as meat, et cetera).

Okay, where I was coming from is, I'm aware of, on one hand, those unfertilized eggs things, and on the other of free range hens that are used for both eggs and to eat them. In as much as they involve specifically breeding the hens, they don't gel with what I personally think is ethical eating --- or, to put it less grandly, I couldn't stomach eating those, the way I'm wired at this point in time. ...But then, here comes @icerat, talking about something that, while in retrospect is obvious enough, but it had never occurred to me. Like rescue puppies and kittens, he adopts rescue chickens, rescue hens. And how completely cool is that. And he also eats their eggs, ...and then I go thinking, hey, I could very well eat eggs on those terms, eggs that are a great protein source, and eggs that I love eating anyway regardless of their nutrition value. Except I wouldn't raise them myself, but buy them if available, happily paying a premium for them, hell I wouldn't mind paying four or five times the price of regular eggs if I get them on those terms. ...But then, as I go celebrating this in my mind, comes the thought, what about the maternal instinct thing, does it apply for eggs?

So yeah, if it turns out hens do feel maternal about eggs (as I'm sure they do about their actual hatched chicks), or if we're not sure about it, then the easiest "solution" is to simply go on not eating eggs, which is what I do in any case.

Not a big deal. This is just as applies to me, to what I personally am comfortable doing, and is emphatically not meant as judgment on what anyone else is doing or not doing.

Many years ago ('late '50s/early '60s? - oh, I feel old! ) I had a couple of aunts in Sudbury who kept chickens.

They left pottery eggs in the hen-house 'nests'. Presumably to get round the hens' maternal feelings? Or to stimulate them to lay more?

 

[Chanakya]

Many years ago ('late '50s/early '60s? - oh, I feel old! ) I had a couple of aunts in Sudbury who kept chickens.

They left pottery eggs in the hen-house 'nests'. Presumably to get round the hens' maternal feelings? Or to stimulate them to lay more?

That's interesting!

I looked it up, and apparently it's not so much to get them to lay more, but to encourage them to lay inside the coop rather than elsewhere where you might not find the eggs. And some other incidental reasons as well. They talk about preventing stress as well, but that's generally, and not on account of specifically the hens' emotional distress at having their eggs taken away. (So it would appear that maternal instinct is not a factor for those pottery eggs. It could be they don't mention it, for obvious reasons --- but then again, it's probably a stretch to simply assume that last, given that they don't in fact say anything about it. So yeah, I'm going with the maternal instinct thing is not a factor, at least not as far as those pottery eggs of your aunts.)

Link: https://chickcozy.com/blogs/knowled...A-DESxIAPaVMZqrLgzvdCKsOugU382XcerXK6WTCb-mvz

 

[catsmate]

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

I remember a fascinating conversation a few years ago with a vegan dominatrix.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I remember a fascinating conversation a few years ago with a vegan dominatrix.

God, what one could do with this in the Humor section. What a terrible, terrible waste.

 

[catsmate]

God, what one could do with this in the Humor section. What a terrible, terrible waste.

I leave it to you....

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The "orange from carrots" is a House side plot

 

[icerat]

Specifically as far as the rescue chickens: Very cool. Speaking for myself, I can find no ethical reason to refrain from eating eggs on those terms. You're not breeding them for this, but actually giving chickens that would otherwise have a hard life, as good a life as any chicken or hen can have (like you say). And might those eggs, if hatched, make new chicken and hens? Sure, but they aren't born yet, so that's like the abortion issue, that is to say a non-issue.

No rooster, so they're unfertilized

Although as I type this, as I'm in the process of verbalizing/textualizing my full agreement with your eggs thing, just now this one ...quibble, comes to mind. How much of a maternal instinct do hens have? I've no clue about that. When a hen has laid an egg, does she have the usual maternal instincts about that egg itself, as opposed to the chick after it has hatched? If so, then keeping rescue chicks is very cool, but eating their eggs not so much. But if they don't have much of a maternal instinct about eggs, then all good.

Depends on the chicken, and goes in phases. Some of them get *very* maternal and just want to sit on the eggs. We have fake ones for that.

(That's a question I'm actually interested in. If the answer is no, as far as their maternal instincts, then I'm happy to eat eggs on those terms. That is, I don't see myself raising rescue hens, chicken, whatever, but I'd be happy to pay considerably premium prices for eggs from such an enterprise, that raises hens on strictly those terms, either for the eggs themselves directly, or else by contributing to such enterprise/s and then becoming one of the people who they send those eggs to. But that's assuming the answer to the question about maternal instinct for eggs is a No.)

There is the minor quibble that we're providing an "after market" for chicken breeders, so contributing to demand. Not really significant though, given the numbers. A few years ago my then wife heard a local farm was about to slaughter most of their flock (a regular occurrence sadly) and were selling the live chickens for 1 crown. She called them about it and they asked "how many do you want?" and she said "how many do you have to get rid of?" The answer ... "oh, about 26000" . Perfectly healthy chickens, just to be killed and thrown away because they weren't producing eggs fast enough. . We took I think 9. All that we could house with our existing flock.

 

[icerat]

Some modern breeds that are well looked after will produce unfertilised eggs all year round, as many as one every other day, if you didn’t remove them they’d soon be roosting on a mountain of eggs!

Oh, this happens! I'm pretty certain I've discovered the historical roots of the "easter egg hunt" tradition! It's to put the kids to work to find where the bloody chickens have decided to lay eggs this year ....

We have lovely hatching places in the chicken house (currently got 16 chickens) but every year 3 or 4 of them will decide to find somewhere in the yard they prefer. Just this week found a pile in the bushes near the pool. At least 20 eggs! I suspect from last summer though. We do the "float test" to see if any are still good.

 

[icerat]

Except that you really can't rule out all animal suffering in your behaviour unless you choose not to partake in modern society at all. Vegans draw a line, but exactly where they draw the line is up to them.

That's no different to anyone else. We all draw lines on what amount of suffering to others (including animals, and yes, even plants) that we are willing to tolerate.

 

[Chanakya]

No rooster, so they're unfertilized

Ah, cool.

Question: How hen-like (as opposed to egg-like) are chicken/hen eggs?

(I've generally been of the view --- without giving this much thought at all, till now --- that for me personally, whether an egg is fertilized or not makes no difference, given I'm fine with abortions. But, it occurs to me now, that may not be comparing like with like. That's a question of factuality, after all, that can be answered definitely.) (It's my impression that chicks come out of the egg and directly start staggering around on their own two legs, soon find their bearings, and start running around. But I've not actually watched an egg hatch, so I've no clue if that's even true.) (But of course, with unfertilized eggs, that question itself is moot.)

Depends on the chicken, and goes in phases. Some of them get *very* maternal and just want to sit on the eggs. We have fake ones for that.

Right. ...Another question, if I may: Do hens necessarily lay eggs, even without roosters, or can you keep hens that never ever lay eggs?

(It's very cool that you're adopting rescue chickens and giving them a good life! I'm just wondering if it's possible to do that without bringing eggs into the equation at all.) (And it's fine, as far as I'm concerned, and for what it's worth, should that be possible, and you're going for the eggs nevertheless --- after all you are giving those chickens, who were slated for the butcher's knife, with either a brief or a long but in either case a horrible life till they got there, so in either case it's cool, your personal endeavor with the hens. No criticism implied with my question, regardless of the answer.)

There is the minor quibble that we're providing an "after market" for chicken breeders, so contributing to demand.

Right, I've heard vegans voice this objection.

While at one level their reasoning makes sense, but at another level it doesn't. True, the after market thing, absolutely. But on the other hand, what about the individual chickens themselves, those living sentient creatures, whether 9 in number or 90 or 26,000? You're giving them a good life, which they wouldn't have had going by (some) vegans' reasoning.

I don't know that there's any right answer. One does what one feels is right, I guess --- and that provided one is empathetic enough in the first place to even think about any of this, as you have. But even at that level, lessening individual suffering, increasing individual happiness --- of those individual rescue chickens, I mean to say --- does seem to me the more ...compassionate thing to do.

Not really significant though, given the numbers. A few years ago my then wife heard a local farm was about to slaughter most of their flock (a regular occurrence sadly) and were selling the live chickens for 1 crown. She called them about it and they asked "how many do you want?" and she said "how many do you have to get rid of?" The answer ... "oh, about 26000" . Perfectly healthy chickens, just to be killed and thrown away because they weren't producing eggs fast enough. . We took I think 9. All that we could house with our existing flock.

Great, it's really wonderful that you've taken the trouble to do that, and continue doing that!

 

[novaphile]

Right. ...Another question, if I may: Do hens necessarily lay eggs, even without roosters, or can you keep hens that never ever lay eggs?

Yes, hens lay, that's what they do, there's no rooster required.

(Extremely rarely, some of the heritage breeds will lay 'clone eggs' these are genetic copies of the female and take about twice as long to incubate, so they are rarely successful without intervention. I believe that trait is much more common in some turkey breeds.)

Depending on the breed, laying season length, breaks, and eventual cessation of laying are variable.

Typically mine live for three to five years after they cease laying.

(Because I like to have heritage breeds.)

Commercial laying breeds like ISA Brown are very different, they lay more, more often, and have a greatly reduced lifespan.

When I have birds that are no longer laying, I call them 'pensioners', I like to have them around like pets, and they still 'work' in terms of keeping the weeds down, and protecting the flock.

 

[arthwollipot]

(I've generally been of the view --- without giving this much thought at all, till now --- that for me personally, whether an egg is fertilized or not makes no difference, given I'm fine with abortions.

I guarantee that you have never eaten a fertilised egg.

 

[novaphile]

I guarantee that you have never eaten a fertilised egg.

Interesting.

While that probably holds true for someone who has only ever eaten commercially produced eggs, i.e. egg farms, it would be less so for people who have eaten eggs from farms etc. where the flock has a rooster.

There is apparently no difference in the flavour.

 

[arthwollipot]

While that probably holds true for someone who has only ever eaten commercially produced eggs, i.e. egg farms, it would be less so for people who have eaten eggs from farms etc. where the flock has a rooster.

Maybe.

 

[theprestige]

Interesting.

While that probably holds true for someone who has only ever eaten commercially produced eggs, i.e. egg farms, it would be less so for people who have eaten eggs from farms etc. where the flock has a rooster.

There is apparently no difference in the flavour.

Maybe.

Pretty sure if Chanakya came up eating farm fresh eggs, they would have told us by now.

 

[varwoche]

There were two issues with what happened then. The first was that I was labelled a hypocrite for being vegetarian, and the whole concept was rejected as such by those who commented.
The second was that I was criticised for being a lecturing vegetarian, when I had been at pains to say the exact opposite. No matter how much I tried to counter this strawman, the forum members involved simply repeated their lies about me.
So, I came away from that episode with the conclusions that this forum was highly critical of the idea of being vegetarian, and some members saw it as an opportunity for repeated dishonesty.

I've definitely observed unwarranted criticism of vegetarians and vegans during my 21 (!) years on this forum. Unwarranted in that some people fail to acknowledge the health benefits. I've also observed broad brush assumptions that vegetarians/vegans are preachy. Sure, some are.

 

[ahhell]

I've definitely observed unwarranted criticism of vegetarians and vegans during my 21 (!) years on this forum. Unwarranted in that some people fail to acknowledge the health benefits. I've also observed broad brush assumptions that vegetarians/vegans are preachy. Sure, some are.

I really do think the toupee fallacy is at work there. Especially on the internet, I wouldn't know someone is a vegetarian/vegan unless they told me. Why are they telling me, probably because they're the preachy sort. I've definitely seen the opposite to, the preachy anti-vegetarian sort. That may be even more prone to toupee, I can see a vegetarian wanting to discuss vegetarianism on the internet for general lifestyle talk but why would a meat eater want? Seems more likely on account of wanted to dunk on vegetarians than just to discuss the pros and cons in a civil way.

That being said, I do think the health benefits are often overstated, which is my only real quibble with vegetarians. The are better people than me for the most part.

 

[Chanakya]

Yes, hens lay, that's what they do, there's no rooster required.

(Extremely rarely, some of the heritage breeds will lay 'clone eggs' these are genetic copies of the female and take about twice as long to incubate, so they are rarely successful without intervention. I believe that trait is much more common in some turkey breeds.)

Depending on the breed, laying season length, breaks, and eventual cessation of laying are variable.

Typically mine live for three to five years after they cease laying.

(Because I like to have heritage breeds.)

Commercial laying breeds like ISA Brown are very different, they lay more, more often, and have a greatly reduced lifespan.

When I have birds that are no longer laying, I call them 'pensioners', I like to have them around like pets, and they still 'work' in terms of keeping the weeds down, and protecting the flock.

Ah, thanks for that. I'm sure this is basic enough info, but I hadn't been aware, mainly because I never gave it a thought. This: that hens lay eggs anyway, no matter what --- unlike cows and milk, for instance.

Agreed, on those terms, eating eggs from rescues seems completely ethical, no matter your hang-ups. At least if you've got your own set-up, like you guys do, you and @icerat. (Not so much commercial enterprises working with rescues, though, because of the after-market effect @icerat mentions. At larger scales that actually becomes a factor.)

 

[Orphia Nay]

I think the "preachy" thing is sometimes just meat eaters feeling guilty just because in a discussion about food habits, vegetarians/vegans dare to mention their own preferences.

 

[The Don]

I think the "preachy" thing is sometimes just meat eaters feeling guilty just because in a discussion about food habits, vegetarians/vegans dare to mention their own preferences.

It's certainly my experience that I get the most defensive when my position isn't well supported and/or I'm not completely convinced myself.

If I'm absolutely convinced of my position and have ample evidence then I may be a little condescending (another flaw of mine) but I won't be defensive.

That's what causes me to raise my eyebrows when "alphas" get so defensive. Surely the opinions of us betas (and gammas and so on) shouldn't represent a challenge.

Many of my petrolhead friends don't feel at all threatened by EVs and are happy to discuss the pros and cons. The people who are most anti EV probably do have an inkling that they'll be on the wrong side of history.