Found in the comments of a youtube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwI6py78gsI (I didn't watch because I never watch youtube videos, only reading the comments.
Never gets old how most people never care about nutrition until someone vegetarian/vegan shows up. Then they’re protein and/or B12 deficient, and they’ll die for sure!
As a carnivorous fattie, I do care about nutrition. And in all fairness, I'm open to suggestions for naturally vegetarian foods.
Now, before I get a list of "vegan beef and tofu", what I mean by naturally vegetarian, is foods that don't include tofu (which I personally don't just like), or need to advertise being vegan. I am looking for foods that, from the beginning of the time, have never had meat removed, or replaced. I want "accidentally vegetarian" -foods.
My current favourite is bean-tomato soup, but it gets rather one note.
I think I get what you're saying, and I agree. It isn't really as simple as "just remove/replace the meat", because plant proteins simply just cook and handle differently than meat, and often time the meat is the core focus of a dish. Instead, the focus should be on recipes that are built around their ingredients. They can have a similar purpose to a traditional meat dish (I will take a black bean burger over a regular hamburger any day), but ultimately should be prepared different.
Also, in my opinion, tofu is amazing when it isn't just used as a drop-in meat replacement. It goes really great with sauces and also fries pretty well.
How do you fry tofu well? I've been following youtube videos where the cooks do a pretty good impression of having an orgasm when they taste their tofu, but mine is like deep-fried cardboard.
This is quite the point I tried to make. Yeah, at this poi t beans are the only plant protein that I get even decent. Never heard of a black bean burger, to be honest, it won't be the first recipe I'll be looking with my cooking record.
And for tofu. I know it isn't originally meat replacement, and I've seen dishes that look amazing, but I still have trust issues when it comes to tofu. Maybe I need to retry some time if I encounter it in a (proper) buffet sometime. Still, I don't trust it. I haven't been a fan of shrooms either, and they just wasn't my thing even now, when I recently tried to cook some. My SO liked the muahroom sauce though, so it wasn't just about my inability to cook them.
There are vegetable versions of every "incorporated" meal where all the ingredients are mixed together, like pasta, soup, curry, stir-fry, etc.. And for every other meal, the meat portion is easily replaceable with another portion of vegetables.
Going vegetarian really is as simple as "don't put meat in it". Just take it off the ingredient list. Meals do not naturally contain meat, so if you don't add any, they won't have any. It's not something to be "substituted" unless you are wanting to mimic a specific meal.
And that's why I'm still very carnivorous.
There is always a design of a mean. The origin of a meal. And when it comes to health, there almost every time has to be protein. Most naturally to humans, who started to reach their human nature by cooking the meat they've captured, and builing a culture while waiting for that food to cook, most common source of protein is meat. Thus, most of the meals tend to be born from the meat being a center piece, which is then extended with everything else.
There, however, are many means (that I would like to know about), that have originated from the lack of access to meat, yet with the need for the culinaristic taste in mind. These are the meals I am lookong for.
As said: not removing the meat, not replacing the meat but not in the need for the meat. This is a concept every vegetarian wants to ignore. I am not looking to becoming vegan, or replacing my meats with replacements. I am looking to balance my meat with originally vegetarian recipes. Partly because of health reason, but also becaise I also want to have a collection of recipes for carnivores, that does not sound repulsive.
I repeat: not to remove, not to replace, but designed from the beginnig around something other than meat. Considering all the replies I tend to get to these requirements tend o be "just drop the meat m'kay", I'm starting to doupt if there is a way to properly design a meal without centering it around the meat.
I would say lots of Indian food would fall into this category, there are lots of vegetarian by design meals which have things like lentils or chickpeas in to provide the protein that you're looking for. Something like a daal or chana massala curry is a good place to start.
This sounds more like what I'm looking for. Might be worth a try. Thanks.
Humans became human through learning to cook in general. Not just learning to cook meat. Cooking has a large impact on the digestibility of vegetables, not just meat.
If you wanted to be true to nature you would probably be eating very different meats to the ones you eat now. Things that grow locally like mammoth, buffalo, dogs, marmots, rats, even insects. Not imported animals like cows. You also wouldn't be eating meat as often because hunting isn't that reliable compared to foraging or harvesting crops. Modern agricultural plants don't exist so you have to deal with much smaller and less nutritious wild plants and vegetables.
I should point out I am not a vegan or vegetarian. I simply find it annoying when people use nature arguments while not understanding what the nature actually is.
Whatever. Good luck to you.
Same to you. This is why people who eat mainly meat don't even consider vegan food. All vegans seem to be fixated upon replacing the meat, when the answer for vegetarian food that tastes good is to have recipes that don't try to mimic meat diet.
Just one recipe. Is that too much?
This is why people who eat mainly meat don’t even consider vegan food.
No, the reason is that you have invented a false history to justify not even trying.
There are entire cultures where eating meat is either a rare occasion, or simply never done, even though they have access to meat and livestock.
People eat what they had available. Sometimes that was meat, many times it wasn't.
Just one recipe. Is that too much?
A simple vegetable soup is easy and nutritious. Most curries are vegetable-first and only become non-vegetarian by choosing to add meat instead of something like lentils or checkpeas. Vegetable lasagna is decadent and satisfying.
There are near-infinite recipes available of food that is plant-based and tastes good. But you have this list of exclusionary factors where you have decided that various meals "should" have meat, and therefore a meat-free version has made a replacement, and is therefore inferior and you aren't going to try it.
You don't need a recipe, you need a change of mindset.
Ok but a lot of the “replacement” I do is on par with replacing the original meat from a recipe to one that’s more palatable to American tastes. Black bean tacos are just as authentic as chicken tacos are. Chickpea or lentil curry is often more authentic than chicken curry considering the widespread long standing culture of vegetarianism on the Indian subcontinent. Falafel predates doner. And sometimes substitutions can be just good. I have a lentil shepherds pie I really like and did even when I’d just quit meat.
Some other foods that don’t need meat to be good and healthy are chili with beans, tortilla soup, and beans and rice.
If you enjoy spicy foods (not necessarily hot, but richly flavoured) have a look at Indian cuisine. If you dodge the dishes that are more westernised most things are made with vegetables, and delicious. There's a lot of variation between regions, so there should be plenty to keep you interested.
Ethiopian cuisine has a lot of dishes that are traditionally 100% plant-based and really good:
For instance, stuff like Kik Alicha (a sort of split pea stew) to things that are more like a stir-fry on top of injera bread. Here's one website talking about some of the various stuff though you can probably find more just from googling
Outside of Ethiopian cuisine, I also really like Koshary, which is an Egyptian street food with lentils, chickpeas, elbow macaroni, rice, crispy onions, and tomato sauce. Admittedly Koshary is a bit of work to prepare compared to most other dishes, but it's really good.
There's also stuff like falafel and hummus that are more widely known about in the West and plenty good too. There's plenty more I missing because this comment is getting too long. Looking up "traditionally vegan dishes in [random country]" will give you a lot of good recipes you'd never have known about
Falafel isn’t really accidental in its veganism, it’s just vegan because it’s a really old food meant for people who can’t afford animal products
I've been making black bean burritos for my kids for years, and they actually prefer that to burritos with meat in them. We are not vegetarian or vegan, but try to incorporate 3-4 meatless meals per week. Mainly because my wife has a degenerative kidney disorder that is compounded by proteins from animals.
Ingredients are:
Lime Can of black beans Bell pepper Onion Sharp cheddar cheese Avocado or guac Cumin Chili powder Salt Burrito sized tortillas Hot sauce (optional) Crispy jalapenos (optional)
Slice up the onion and pepper and toss it in a pan or skillet on medium-low. Add a little salt to help them sweat. Cook these till the onions are caramelized. At the end, add the juice from half of the lime and season with cumin and chili powder to taste. Remove from heat and set aside.
Put another pan/skillet on heat or rinse the pan you just used and placed back on heat.
Drain and rinse the black beans, then season with cumin, and salt to taste.
Shred the cheddar cheese and slice the avocado if you have one.
Assemble and toast the burrito, turning it as it browns.
Enjoy. I hope.
India has very delicious and even heavy foods, that are vegetarian. Though the heavy ones usually contain butter.
Ghee (said with a strong Indian accent).
One of my favorite facts about nature is the fact that practically nothing is vegan. Herbivores are basically constantly eating insects off of the plant matter they eat, and pretty much anything will eat eggs if they find them unguarded.
My point is that if you want to be “closer to what nature intended”, being a vegan with cheat days is probably the closest you’ll get.
Being vegan isn't about being "closer to what nature intended", it's about reducing cruelty and harm as much as practicable/possible.
Being vegan is a lot of things to a lot of people. It’s not only about animal suffering. This is true for some people but plenty of people are vegan for health reasons.
No they're on plant based diets. you don't stop using rabbit glue for health reasons, or not buy a leather couch for health reasons.
Veganism is not a diet, it is a philosophical and moral stance which necessarily includes making changes to one's diet among other things.
The dictionary disagrees with you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
ok but the vegan society, the literal originator of the word, disagrees with that.
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
I agree that many people view veganism as a diet, but they're wrong. It's a position of ignorance. you can probably find masses of people who understand feminism to be a superiority movement about oppressing men but that doesn't make that true.
Yeah but the difference is there is no dictionary definition that supports that definition of feminism. It’s just an interpretation. You could say the same thing about veganism as being a philosophy that animals are superior to people. That’s a more direct metaphor and you would be just as wrong, and no dictionary would agree with you.
Any “ism” will have multiple ways to define it, and those who coin a term don’t get to define its evolution. If you want to take the “GNU/Linux” approach and insist everyone else is using the word wrong then go for it. But in modern parlance, “vegan” is frequently if not almost always used to refer to the diet, whereas “veganism” does evoke the stricter definition you’re touting.
Dictionaries are just someone's attempt to record how people use words. They're not authorities on meaning, just records of use.
If someone says they're vegan you would expect them to use no animal products, including clothing, nail polish, colour pigments etc. That's not controversial, you can find shampoo and jackets marked as vegan it is a common understanding. That is just incoherent with health motivations, and indeed many "vegan for health " people do use animal products and have cheat days and crap. They aren't vegan, they're just dieting.
People call themselves lots of crap, doesn't make it true.
One of my favourite facts about people hating or finding "gotcha" moments to vegans/vegetarians is that most the time they don't have a clue why people are vegan or vege and miss the whole point.
... people are vegan precisely because they don't think we should derive our notions of morality from random observations of charismatic megafauna.
what on earth gave you the other idea? it's always carnists that are like "see you have stubby little canines, eat meat" or "see lions eat the children of a pride when they take over so we should... wait fuck I mean lions eat gazelles alive sometimes so, wait sorry I'll get it. Lions eat meat and are good role models as previously established so you should too"
carnists
🙄
it is the ideology that supports the use of other animals as raw material. The thing which means the idea of hitting a cat is probably horrifying to you but you're completely comfortable gassing a pig in order to eat their stomach fat.
I'm capable of holding 2 conflicting ideas in my head at the same time without a complete mental breakdown.
but unless you're scavenging carrion they do suffer.
Hens I raise in my backyard coop and slaughter humanely when they stop laying? You're telling me they suffer?
Yep. To be clear I don't think you're a bad person deliberately abusing them but it's likely that several things are true:
they're a breed that emphasises egg laying at the expense of their health and wellbeing. Jungle fowls, the birds chickens are bred from, lay around 12-20 eggs a year. Most chicken breeds lay about 10x that. This is hard on their body and shortens their lifespan. It is cruel to breed them in the same way it is cruel to breed pugs.
As the demand for hens is much higher than roosters it is highly likely many of their brothers were killed, often moments after being born in a hatchery by a putting them on a conveyor belt that feeds them, conscious, into a blender. I wish I was making that up. Or they were stuffed into trays and suffocated in co2, not a pleasant experience either way. The blender might even be less cruel there.
Because you view them as a means to an end it is unlikely you avail them to medical care of a quality you would give a child or a pet. Also it is likely they could enjoy more life when they stop laying but you do not view them as whole beings deserving of dignity and respect, so you kill them when they are no longer productive.
It is unlikely they are killed humanely, a humane killing is one we would be happy to use on another human as a way to die with dignity. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt you do anything so peaceful, consentual, and gentle.
This argument could be made to promote eugenics in humans, so I'm dismissing it outright.
The chicks were purchased before they were sexed, the roosters were slaughtered for meat much younger than the hens but not in a factory.
Of course I don't give them medical aid like I would with a human child. They are put out of their suffering when their usefulness ends, just as we do with all other animals. It just so happens that animals we keep as pets are useful for emotional reasons, which continues even in sickness.
I would happily die by beheading as a form of euthanasia, as the blood loss causes near instant shock and rapid loss of consciousness. If my brain could be destroyed in the process, I would prefer that even more. Both are preferable to slowly succumbing to a painful illness, as long as I have my affairs in order. Chickens don't have affairs to worry about.The only reason we don't do that with assisted suicides in humans is because of the mess it makes.
you would be gripped by a giant with no explanation at a time not chosen by you, held down, and decapitated? I umm don't think so.
Of course you can present the most sanitised and consentual version but that is not how you treat these animals. You admit that they aren't real living beings with internal worlds like yours to you. They are things you own, machines to use up and break down.
They suffer, you might call it acceptable or natural or even noble but they suffer.
If the giant that never harmed me for my entire life, and always provided me with the sustenance and shelter I need to live one day killed me before I knew what was happening, I would have a pain-free death, yes.
You're right that they suffer. All complex beings suffer in all environments. The amount they suffer is acceptable, and their lives are short but lavish compared to what they would live in the wild, or compared to never existing at all.
Living things are just that, things. Biochemical machines that exist to transform available resources into more copies of their genome. If they show no indication of sentience, then their lives are not worth anything in their own right. You don't need to pretend I'm sanitizing anything.
compared to never existing at all.
You may want to look into the repugnant conclusion. That path of reasoning is very flawed.
Do you mean to say you don't think chickens have signs of sentience? I'm not following that last thing. You would be completely happy to torture them if that was so, or rather it would be impossible to torture them in the same way it is impossible to torture a rock.
I think it's uncontroversial to say having your life taken away constitutes suffering, unless you're undergoing some extreme torture by staying alive, and causing suffering like that is inhumane. Just saying that you do it humanely doesn't really change anything tangibly.
It doesn't cause suffering to end a life unless that life is aware of its fate and becomes stressed out, or if that death leaves behind loved ones to grieve. Chickens don't grieve.
How are you so sure they don't grieve? They form social relationships, they defend each other, they groom each other, they cooperate. They have complex vocalisations, they warn each other even when they themselves aren't in danger.
Why are you so confident they feel nothing when a friend dies? why are you so confident they don't feel fear as you kill them?
First paragraph, oh this is a reasonable point-
Second paragraph, this person needs therapy.
Kinda wholesome
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=pwI6py78gsI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.