[eBook] Free: "Everyday Vegetarian Family Cookbook: 100 Delicious Meatless Recipes" $0 @ Amazon

1070

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

nocure on 18/05/2020 - 14:40 amazon.com.au (2484 clicks)

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Everyday Vegetarian Family Cookbook: 100 Delicious Meatless Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner Recipes You Can Make in Minutes! features some of the most delicious and easy vegetarian recipes on the planet! They can be served on their own or as side dishes with some meat.

If you’re looking for quick, healthy and nutritious meat-free meal ideas for you and your family, this book is for you!

US Link

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

Amazon Cloud Reader

• dynaflow on 18/05/2020 - 14:47 Comment score below threshold.
  • 

    Raynes on 18/05/2020 - 15:05

    +23

    dear god what possesses you to post pure cringe like this?

    • ntt on 18/05/2020 - 16:23 Comment score below threshold.
• 

  morediscount on 18/05/2020 - 14:50

  -3

  Waiting for the comments….

• 

  hashtagbargain on 18/05/2020 - 15:47

  Hey guys does anyone know how I can download the books I have bought from amazon in the epub version so I can load it into ibooks?

  • 

    CC123 on 18/05/2020 - 21:38

    They have a free iOS app that allows you to read the books.
    I don't think you can import it to iBooks due to DRM

• 

  cameldownunder on 18/05/2020 - 16:02

  Meat, fish, vegetarian. I am confused. Seems that being vegetarian includes also not eating fish, prawns and the likes. But Fish is not meat.
  So Meatless is not vegetarian as it might include fish.
  Also it is weird it say meatless, should it not be meat free ? I am sure vegetarian would be upset even if there would be "less" meat.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 18/05/2020 - 16:08

    +8

    There are various types of vegetarians.

    Vegan - no animal products
    Lacto Vegetarian. Milk included In diet
    Ovo Vegetarian. Eggs included indiet
    Lacto-ovo vegetarian. Milk and eggs included in diet
    Pescatarian (Pescetarian) Fish included in diet
    Pollotarian. No red meat or fish/seafood. Poultry is included
    Flexitarian mostly vegetables with occasional meat.

    • 

      Flop on 18/05/2020 - 17:47

      +1

      Veganism has nothing to do with vegetarianism. Veganism is seeking to avoid the suffering and explotation of animals. Lacto ovo vegetarians call themselves vegetarians and most of them exploit and cause suffering to animals unnecessarily for their pleasure. The guy that coined the term Vegan and started the Vegan Society includes nothing about veganism being vegetarian and no vegan calls vegan "vegetarian" because they are nothing alike. Egg consumption kills more animals than beef consumption per calorie in standard production, western lacto ovo vegetarianism is a belief system whereas veganism is a lifestyle.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 18/05/2020 - 18:03

        +1

        Never said it was. All I did was list the diets that restrict or remove meat in some way.

      • 

        Tycn on 18/05/2020 - 18:25

        +2

        Veganism has nothing to do with vegetarianism.

        They can both be dietary styles. They have a lot to do with each other in that food that adheres to the vegan dietary requirement is vegetarian. At least one of them can be a philosophy/belief system (as it seems to be quite strongly for you)

        Veganism is seeking to avoid the suffering and explotation of animals.

        The only way to avoid the suffering and exploitation of animals is to destroy the planet. Or failing that, at least to remove yourself from the planet. I daresay most people who are vegan or follow any of the diets that mantez mentioned are aiming to reduce the suffering and exploitation of animals (unless it's for medical or other reasons). Maybe based on what you're saying if someone substitutes their beef consumption for eggs the calculus doesn't really work out, but it's not black and white like you're suggesting

        • 

          afoveht on 18/05/2020 - 19:17

          @Tycn: You're uninformed. Perhaps stick to talking to things you actually know about and let vegans speak for themselves.

          • 

            Tycn on 18/05/2020 - 19:45

            @afoveht: Go on then ;)

            • 

              afoveht on 18/05/2020 - 23:59

              +1

              @Tycn: They have nothing to do with each other. Vegetarianism is just another arbitrary dietary restriction: no meat, no fois gras, no caged eggs, no dolphins, no whatevers - they're just arbitrary lines drawn wherever the person wants to. Don't eat cattles' flesh, but wear their skins on your back and kill their children for their milk - vegetarianism is the epitome of illogicality when performed for any reason trying to have any semblance to concern for animals. It is as antithetical to veganism as any other form of intentional animal exploitation. More so even because it is so often misconstrued and misrepresented as some form of "veganism lite." It is not.

              • 

                ProfessorBargain on 19/05/2020 - 01:47

                +1

                @afoveht: It's not so much arbitrary, as to where you draw the line for moral culpability.

                With moral vegetarians generally placing that line at the direct killing of animals for a product, and vegans at the indirect killing of an animal for a product.

                Though if you wanted to continue along the arbitrary lines argument, most vegans would also be guilty of such.

                After all, from consumer electronics, to most plastic products, to batteries, to "paper" money, a great many things are tainted by the presence of animal components.

                Would that then render veganism, in its pursuit of improved animal welfare, illogical, in that it generally didn't entirely remove all animal exploitation from an individual's consumption habits?

                No, just as moral vegetarianism isn't illogical in the same regard.

                • 

                  afoveht on 19/05/2020 - 08:46

                  +2

                  @ProfessorBargain: There is nothing "indirect* about killing cattle for their skins.

                  And again, this idea of "killing" as some moral line is something veganism is not interested in - veganism is against any intentional violence, be that killing or keeping in a cage or any other measure that a person would generally consider a violation of a basic right to be left alone. Killing is an arbitrary line in itself; heaven forbid the only crime people could be charged with is murder.

                  Would that then render veganism, in its pursuit of improved animal welfare, illogical, in that it generally didn't entirely remove all animal exploitation from an individual's consumption habits?

                  No. Because veganism is based on a practical philosophy. It's not about purity of person, rather clarity of vision. Vegans will do what they do in order to remain functional persons, and they cannot be expected to know everything about everything. If non-animal alternatives are available them vegans will use those, as far as they can manage according to their own abilities.

                  So some scientist decides to jam apples down the throats of monkeys to see what happens; does that mean I now stop buying apples because the apple cartel sells apples to the science cartel?

                  Vegans look forward to a world with zero intentional animal exploitation, and are the only people campaigning for such a state of affairs. Veganism is the only position that affords nominally equal (moral) consideration to all sentient beings. Veganism is about the way a human views their place in the world amongst all its other sentinent inhabitants, not what foods are right and wrong.

                  • 

                    ProfessorBargain on 19/05/2020 - 17:24

                    +1

                    @afoveht: Wasn't referring to the killing of cattle for leather as being "indirect", as that's as direct as you can get.

                    Yeah, "drawing the line at exploitation" would have been a more accurate summary of general veganism.

                    As with anything, vegans themselves aren't a monolith, though, with the philosophy varying greatly according to who's asked.

                    As with yourself, the extent to prevent, or not partake of any process involving direct/indirect exploitation of sentient animals, seems to terminate at where your abilities may be unduly tested.

                    While others may go further, including non-sentient animals in their considerations, modifying what plants they eat, or even cultivating part of their own diet, to reduce their consumption of pesticide-reliant crops (with organic pesticides killing more "incidental" insects than synthetic pesticides).

                    Then there's those that would feel "forced" to kill insects, for "daring" to exist in their living space, or suggesting that it's somehow "self-defence".

                    Which ventures into the "arbitrary" distinctions that you ascribed to moral vegetarianism, which is really just variances in morality, and present within all applied philosophies.

                    • 

                      afoveht on 19/05/2020 - 18:40

                      @ProfessorBargain:

                      with the philosophy varying greatly according to who's asked.

                      Sure, some vegans will be abolitionists, some will be utilitarians, some will be bonged up hippies, but all vegans will understand the basic idea of abstaining from intentional harms. And they will also understand that veganism is not a perfect solution in a perfect world, and that's part of the defining principle "as far as is practicable."

                      Then there's those that would feel "forced" to kill insects, for "daring" to exist in their living space, or suggesting that it's somehow "self-defence"

                      I would kill you if I thought you were a threat. That does not make me a general murderer, nor give me any reason to exploit you. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

                      Perhaps read a book about veganism to understand more about it. "An introduction to animal rights" by Gary Francione would clear up much for you. Also perhaps stop the most blatant exploitations - like impregnating mammals and killing their kids to take their milk - while tinkering with the frills.

                      • 

                        ProfessorBargain on 20/05/2020 - 13:37

                        @afoveht: Household insects aren't legitimate threats (outside of exceedingly rare circumstances), and neither are any Australian spiders, either. You just have to take the proper precautions, and corral them into a container.

                        I brought up insects being killed for being a "nuisance", or mis-categorised as threats, to point out the potential for variability within the philosophy (as in any), down to one of the core tenets, to not inflict unnecessary harm.

                        It's not the same as reading the book, but I went through a presentation by the same guy, with his particular strain seeming to have a particular fixation on sentience, with relevant rights afforded according to such. Which in itself differs from the views held by those that founded the named philosophy, likewise opposing exploitation and harm to animals, but without the focus on sentience as the sole mandate for compassion (after all, fish weren't deemed sentient at the time).

                        So you've got some vegans of similar sentiments (not him, though) consuming clams and certain mollusks, owing to the assumption that they're not sentient (despite them having neurons, ganglia, reacting to presumed threats [including shadows], skittering about in reaction to tidal shifts, and finding one another to have children with), while others won't exploit/consume any animal life, sentient or presumed not.

                        Good to learn about the sentience angle many vegans prosecute, whereas previously I would have thought it was purely the valuing of animal life, without sentience being regarded.

                        I'll definitely give the book a read, though, as it's currently free here..

                        • 

                          afoveht on 20/05/2020 - 16:11

                          @ProfessorBargain:

                          Household insects aren't legitimate threats

                          That need not be, and is open to interpretations. Vegans do not necessarily "love" animals and are not necessarily dedicated to active animal protection; vegans do respect that all sentient beings have their own interests and afford them a right to not have those interests unnecessarily violated. An animal, human or nonhuman, that violates my own rights, such as a right to my own space, cannot expect me to respect their own rights.

                          If someone strays into my own space I will take measures that feel appropriate to me. If a cockroach pisses me off in my own space I will deal with them however I see fit; that might mean seeing them out the door, or maybe it might mean squashing them under my foot. If they encroach my own space and they don't piss me off then there's a good chance I won't care about them. I will not otherwise wantonly seek out cockroaches to exploit or kill. Each violating person, human or cockroach, will be dealt with in a manner that is appropriate as determined by me, because veganism is not about surrendering self interests.

                          So you've got some vegans of similar sentiments (not him, though) consuming clams and certain mollusks, owing to the assumption that they're not sentient

                          Like all progressive schools of thought, veganism is subject to development, and adjustment according to the best standards from other fields, eg. the position of natural sciences on ideas like sentience. Personally, eating bivalves holds no interest to me, and I prefer to err on the side of caution on the matter, but consuming bivalves can be well justified on immediate ethical grounds if an honest scientific appraisal renders them not sentient. (There may of course be further considerations beyond those relating to violating the rights of a sentient being, but those are outside the direct scope of veganism and deserve their own scrutiny.) The "problem" of a vegan consuming bivalves is generally a distraction by nonvegans - there aren't many "holes" in arguments for veganism so this type of targeting is not unexpected.

                          sentience angle many vegans prosecute, whereas previously I would have thought it was purely the valuing of animal life,

                          Which in itself differs from the views held by those that founded the named philosophy,

                          It is now all about sentience and nothing else. Those who found the philosophy doesn't mean much; there is evidence of this type of thought thousands of years ago, modern "veganism" is nascent and developing.

                          People often confuse life (a physical process not necessarily related to sentience) or some mystical animal quality as something veganism is predicated on - nothing is further from the reality.

• 

  Ocker on 18/05/2020 - 16:31

  -7

  Sign in our local butcher's shop window:
  Att. all Vegans - I killed the cow that was eating all of your food.

• 

  slee123 on 18/05/2020 - 19:03

  Not available anymore

  • 

    Richard Axe on 18/05/2020 - 21:56

    +1

    Still free on US store…
    https://www.amazon.com/Everyday-Vegetarian-Family-Cookbook-D…

    • 

      mducpham on 18/05/2020 - 22:18

      You attempted to purchase an item while in a different country/region than listed on your Amazon account.

      Are you traveling outside your country/region?

      Please contact customer service in order to continue purchasing Kindle items.
      i got this error when trying to "buy" does anyone else have the same issue?

    • 

      Lan Mandragoran on 20/05/2020 - 01:56

      Not anymore, it has a cost now.

• 

  djk on 19/05/2020 - 00:13

  +1

  Author has other free books as well on amazon us.
  Thanks Op

• 

  VanderDB9 on 19/05/2020 - 09:47

  +1

  Thanks

• 

  drewmoney on 19/05/2020 - 10:11

  +2

  Even non-vegetarians could get some use out of this during shortages. Thanks OP.