A vegan is a person who does not consumer any animal products. This includes meat, dairy, eggs and the like. *While veganism is word that means much more than just a diet for the context of this discussion we will sticking purely to the intake of animal products.*
Within the last month I have radically changed my diet. I was raised a typical southern boy. I hunted, ate lots of meat, and drank my milk with every meal like I was told. I never gave a second thought to the consumption of meat or animal products as it was how I was raised.
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive. Below I will quickly cover the three things above.
Health While there are many different studies which cover the relationship between animal products and various disease I will stick to the "mother of them all": The China Study. It is the most comprehensive study of nutrition there has been thus far. Here are the 8 principles that the book covers:
1.Nutrition represents the combined activities of countless food substances. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 2.Vitamin supplements are not a panacea for good health. 3.There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants. 4.Genes do not determine disease on their own. Genes function only by being activated, or expressed, and nutrition plays a critical role in determining which genes, good and bad, are expressed. 5.Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals. 6.The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages. 7.Nutrition that is truly beneficial for one chronic disease will support health across the board. 8.Good nutrition creates health in all areas of our existence. All parts are interconnected.
How the study was done was quite simple. They went into many small and rural china towns. They studied their diet and the existence (if any) of various diseases. The results are quite shocking
1. American health statistics are scary. You may feel fit as a fiddle, but the country is unwell. Almost a third of adults over 20 are obese; one out of thirteen people have diabetes; and heart disease kills one out of every three Americans. We also pay more for our health care than any other country, and we don’t have better health to show for it.
2. Animal protein promotes the growth of cancer. The book author T. Colin Campbell, PhD., grew up on a dairy farm, so he regularly enjoyed a wholesome glass of milk. Not anymore.
3. Pesticides are gross, but none switch on cancer like poor nutrition. The food you eat affects the way your cells interact with carcinogens, making them more or less dangerous. “The results of these, and many other studies, showed nutrition to be far more important in controlling cancer promotion than the dose of the initiating carcinogen.”
4. The study findings are bulletproof. After years of controversial lab results on animals, the researchers had to see how they played out in humans. The study they created included 367 variables, 65 counties in China, and 6,500 adults (who completed questionnaires, blood tests, etc.). “When we were done, we had more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet, and disease variables.” In other words, there’s no arguing with the findings, Meat Council of America. Sorry.
5. The results are simple: Eat plants for health. “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest.”
6. Heart disease can be reversed through nutrition. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., a physician and researcher at the best cardiac center in the country, The Cleveland Clinic, treated 18 patients with established coronary disease with a whole foods, plant-based diet. Not only did the intervention stop the progression of the disease, but 70 percent of the patients saw an opening of their clogged arteries. Dr. Dean Ornish, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, completed a similar study with consistent results.
7. Carbs are not the enemy. Highly-processed, refined carbohydrates are bad for you. But plant foods are full of healthy carbs. Research shows that diets like the Atkins or South Beach can actually cause dangerous side effects. While they may result in short-term weight loss, you’ll be sacrificing long-term health.
8. Plants are powerful. It’s not just cancer and heart disease that respond to a whole foods, plant-based diet. It may also help protect you from diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, bone, kidney, eye, and brain diseases.
9. You don’t have to tailor your diet for specific health benefits. Eating healthy can seem segmented—broccoli will prevent breast cancer, carrots are good for eyes, did you get enough vitamin C today? “Nutrition that is truly beneficial for one chronic disease will support health across the board.”
10. Plants do it better. “There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants.” Protein (YES, PROTEIN!), fiber, vitamins, minerals—you name it, they’ve got it, and the health benefits.
There is also a little absurdity involved in our consumption of cow's milk. I mean we literally are consuming a substance made for an infant cow. Does that many any sense? But of course for humans to get that milk we have to take it away from the infant cows (which are sold as veal regardless). Milk is something we were made to consume as a baby from our mother during a very special stage of our development and not our entire life. Especially from a whole different species of animals!
Also, something to keep in mind, an egg is simple a hen's "period". .
Ethical Reasons There is a wealth of information to be found out about the industrial meat industry. Too much for me to type, but I will share some resources that cover the basics.
One of the most famous websites (and short video) is find at meat.org. The video is called Meet Your Meat and covers the treatment of the most common animals raised purely for slaughter. Every second which passes by 300 animals are killed in the US for human consumption.
Now as I stated before I used to hunt. By no means am I about to join the Animal Liberation Front, but in no way, shape or form is the treatment of animals anywhere remotely near ethical. Animals getting their neck slit while still being alive, putting live pigs in boiling water, throwing live male chicks in the garbage, castrating bulls with no anesthesia, etc. Not even to mention the horrible living conditions where some animals can't even turn around or lie down. There are many other videos like the one above which highlight these standard industry practices. Animals can be happy and sad. They can feel pain just like we do, and have a strong desire just to stay alive.
Environmental "According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off U.S. roads."
At a global scale, it has been estimated that livestock contribute, directly and indirectly, to about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane emissions (which is far worse than carbon dioxide environmentally) and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions (per the book Livestock's Lone Shadow)
The sustain global meat demands we are literally killing the planet. The rainforests are being burned down to provide more cattle grazing room. We have to create more room to grown grain for the animals (which if everyone adopted a mostly plant-based diet we could feed everyone in the world, but that's a different topic!). If every other people group had the consumption levels as American's we literally would need about 4 more Earths, and we are exporting the American diet all over the world.
Then their is the problem with what to do with animal waste. This has been the cause of many water contamination leading to dirty drinking water to fish kills.
This is a very brief and informal post about a very complex and important topic. This isn't meant to explain every little detail. I ask you read and watch the little bit of information I provide, but don't stop their. If after all this research you still want to eat meat, then go for it. I am not here to tell you what to think, eat, etc. I don't think it is morally wrong to eat meat, but I would say it is immoral to participate in the modern meat industry by using its products.
This is what I want to discuss. The impact of meat production and consumption on the human body and the environment.
Also, please excuse any misspellings and grammatical errors. I am currently at work, and have been writing this hastily throughout the day.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
I can say for a fact ive had tried many vegan dishes, and let me tell you when eating a vegan burger its good, but nothing comes close to the real thing. I do occasionally like to where my PETA shirt "People eating tasty animals" I always get a few nasty stares but hey. If I became sick or had a disease that would require me to cut down on meat products then I would switch to being a vegetarian. I don't think I could ever give up milk/cheese/eggs It just wouldn't feel right.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: There is also a little absurdity involved in our consumption of cow's milk. I mean we literally are consuming a substance made for an infant cow. Does that many any sense? But of course for humans to get that milk we have to take it away from the infant cows (which are sold as veal regardless). Milk is something we were made to consume as a baby from our mother during a very special stage of our development and not our entire life. Especially from a whole different species of animals!
Reading vegans is always hard to me because of all the partisan stuff. But that's just beautiful. I was eating peanuts earlier, that's like a cumshot in mah face.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
1. correlation =/= causation 2. You can't eat all the food you want without gaining weight. Nuts especially, because a lot of them are really high in fat. Celery is an exception to the all-you-can-eat because you can't really digest them. The best way to not be overweight is to eat less and exercise more.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
We are not talking about processed foods like that. Of course. Skittles and Oreos are vegan too. I was speaking just of whole and raw vegetables, fruits, etc.
Guys, I have this crazy idea ! What about moderation ? You know something that ISN'T extremism ...
With the same reasoning, we should stop eating corns because it takes too much water, stop growing tomatoes and potatoes in Europe because it's not originated from there and various other funny aberrations.
On September 21 2012 06:18 Otolia wrote: Guys, I have this crazy idea ! What about moderation ? You know something that ISN'T extremism ...
With the same reasoning, we should stop eating corns because it takes too much water, stop growing tomatoes and potatoes in Europe because it's not originated from there and various other funny aberrations.
Nope. Radicals only. People who look down on others
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
Well I think the whole "thinking clearer" might be due to you increased discipline and a feeling of self-efficacy. The weight loss might also be a side effect of you actually considering what you eat before you eatit (just naming POSSIBLE variables that might interfere, not saying you are wrong per se).
I don't really care for the whole animal love side or whatever. Not that I don't like animals, but it's survival of the fittest. And If I can decrease my risk of dieing it seems fit to me. If all I have to do is start actually thinking about what I eat, well then I think even a different causal reason might bring me closer to that goal. Worth a shot in any case. I'm trying to figure out what to eat for breakfast though, most websites only give fancy stuff, not really suitable for everyday usage :D
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
We are not talking about processed foods like that. Of course. Skittles and Oreos are vegan too. I was speaking just of whole and raw vegetables, fruits, etc.
Even if you cut out processed foods, it's not a true statement. Try eating 4,000 Calories worth of nuts every day and not exercise and see what happens. Weight change is a numbers game - if you take in more than you burn off, you put on weight. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
To say that plant-based foods let you not worry about being overweight is just spreading misinformation.
Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
Well I think the whole "thinking clearer" might be due to you increased discipline and a feeling of self-efficacy. The weight loss might also be a side effect of you actually considering what you eat before you eatit (just naming POSSIBLE variables that might interfere, not saying you are wrong per se).
I don't really care for the whole animal love side or whatever. Not that I don't like animals, but it's survival of the fittest. And If I can decrease my risk of dieing it seems fit to me. If all I have to do is start actually thinking about what I eat, well then I think even a different causal reason might bring me closer to that goal. Worth a shot in any case. I'm trying to figure out what to eat for breakfast though, most websites only give fancy stuff, not really suitable for everyday usage :D
I eat fruit a good but. Toast. Tofu scrambles (which actually taste just like eggs if done right). Almond milk (or soy, hemp, rice, etc) and granola. Tea or coffee.
I guess the biggest hurdle was trying to lose our emotional attachment to food. Start to "eat to live" instead of "living to eat".
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
I'm sure our ancestors were a bit crueler in how they killed animals. Or at least, less efficient.
I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
We are not talking about processed foods like that. Of course. Skittles and Oreos are vegan too. I was speaking just of whole and raw vegetables, fruits, etc.
Even if you cut out processed foods, it's not a true statement. Try eating 4,000 Calories worth of nuts every day and not exercise and see what happens. Weight change is a numbers game - if you take in more than you burn off, you put on weight. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
To say that plant-based foods let you not worry about being overweight is just spreading misinformation.
Okay, you are right. If all you did was eat only nuts all day then yeah you would be overweight. That isn't what I was talking about, but none the less sorry for not being more specific.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
On September 21 2012 06:18 Otolia wrote: Guys, I have this crazy idea ! What about moderation ? You know something that ISN'T extremism ...
With the same reasoning, we should stop eating corns because it takes too much water, stop growing tomatoes and potatoes in Europe because it's not originated from there and various other funny aberrations.
Im not a vegan but since when does being consistent and steadfast in your beliefs makes you an extremist. I would rather be called a "radical" than be forever blowing in the wind, not living by any code.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
I dunno. It's just most vegans always rub me the wrong way. I always feel they got a stick up their ass and always have to explain to everyone why their diet is superior, at almost every meal. It's pretty annoying... I really haven't had any issues with vegetarians. It's like dealing with someone with food allergies who bitch about their food allergies, except they purposely chose to do that to themselves, so you just end up having no sympathy for them, because they chose that lifestyle.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
You realise that nuts provide an enormous amount of calories, right?
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
LOL, I am fairly recent vegan (about 1 year), so I guess I am in the "dick" category of my life. In all seriousness, its awesome that you've been veggie since birth, are you vegan though? If not, why (curious)?
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
Just skimming the thread and saw this. Just no, don't try to confuse people like this. This is 100% wrong. If you eat more calories than your body burns for energy they get converted to fats for storage. This works for all kinds of foods, not only meat... I've seen grossly obese vegetarians and underweight people who eat chiefly fast food. Weight is only a singular component of health and there are more factors weighing on it than diet.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Let's pretend for a moment that nature does confer some sort of conceptual intent predicated on design, how do we explain how harmonious human digestion and an omnivorous diet are? The human body explicitly secretes enzymes and metabolic agents that do wonders with animal tissue. Then again, taking behavioral cues from nature is a terribly silly way to go about things, but I can see no good reason to eliminate animal products given whatever signal we take from the world around us. A very large portion of my diet consists of eggs, red meat, chicken, and milk, and yet my lipid panel is incredibly healthy and my heart is stronger and more efficient than ever. Guess why? I don't overeat, I exercise regularly, and most importantly, I incorporate these things into my daily routine. If shunning all animal products helps you do those things, well more power to you, just do not pretend you've discovered some golden path to the Mountain of Holier Than Though through vegan diets.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
Well, humans cannot get essential long-chain fatty acids from ANY plant products. We have evolved to eat meat, because unlike our prime ape counterparts, we don't have the digestive system to turn short-chain fatty acids we get from plant matter into long chain fatty acids we need for development. Do you know why gorillas have huge abdomens? It's because they have a much more complex digestive system than us. Which is why it's unwise to compare us.
Health? I could really eat some more fruits and veggies, and my cholesterol is the tiniest bit too high (blaming massive amounts of potato chips for this X-D). But I've found that the best way to stay healthy and fit is to stop eating when you're full. I don't feel bad about eating a triple Baconator at Wendy's; if it's the only one I've had in, like, a month, and if it's the only part of that specific meal.
Ethics? No conflicts with me at all about eatin' meat. Vegetarianism I can more readily accept. I highly respect Artosis in particular for his views on it. I couldn't do that kind of diet myself, but I understand why people do so, even if I think their response is a tad extreme.
Environment? I think there are more substantial things we are doing that affect our environment than consuming meat. I also believe our Mother Earth is a tougher thing than people realize. Nature is a greater force on our planet than most of us realize.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
On September 21 2012 06:44 Elegance wrote: On the contrary, I don't eat vegetables (very finely ground to the point of no texture is fine unless its got a strong taste ie. mushrooms).
Ah! a man of reason! hehehe, jk.
Though I do notice my white American friends are far more inclined to remove vegetables out of their diet. Which I think is horrendous. They avoid eating as much vegetables as they can. I always try to get them to eat some veges, even simple things like lettuce into their diets... They avoid it so much, it's rather sad. I think for average caucasian Americans, parents don't do a good job balancing their kids diet.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
Circle of Life bro.
What does that mean? Are you implying that we are like lions or something (see "Lion King" movie song)?
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
On September 21 2012 06:09 Blacktion wrote: As a scientist all i can say is wow.
There is now a number of replies to this topic so i think ill elaborate on my post. 1. The OP created a long post but only gave one source: http://tctutoring.net/pdf/ChinaStudy.pdf The source he is a summary of a book (that anyone can publish, given money/a publisher who believes the book will sell) that gives no sources for its conclusions, a science based book with no sources?, i used over 20 while writing my undergrad dissertation. Zero evidence of peer review. 2. Theres a spelling mistake within the first 5 lines of the summary, peer review isnt just there for scientific accuracy. 3. Your post links no specific quotes from the book, in fact quotes from the author " I never intended to seek out evidence to support vegetarianism or veganism because of any preconceived ideas or experiences. Indeed, I tend not to use the 'V' words because they often infer something other than what I espouse." seem to suggest even he wouldn't support your post. -Judging by the fact the scientist behind the book seems to be respected in the community, seems to disagree with a large amount of your post, and you gave no specific quotes of him saying anything to support your posts conclusions, i have to conclude you are putting words in his mouth.
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Absolutely excellent post. I agree with every point, well said. Nature has no intention. It is ignorant and indifferent, including of human or other animal suffering. I would add that 99% of what we eat is organic in some form and has to be killed to give us sustenance, which means life is predicated upon death. We could still make a distinction between plants and animals due to their cognition, but at least it puts into perspective what life is all about so we don't get this misplaced notion that nature is all harmony and that humans invented cruelty.
- drink water (optional: with liquid chrorophyll), tea (green preferrably)
- avoid or limit trans fat, added sugar/salt, saturated fat (found in animal sources)
- exercise daily, sleep at least 8 hours, don't smoke or do drugs, don't stress, use relaxation techniques
- take Coenzyme Q10, resveratrol, Vitamin D3, Phosphatidylcholine, fish oil and a daily multivitamin (NOT ALL VERIFIED)
- before you die sign up for cyronics (requires around $250,000) and hope future technologies can repair you and possibly keep you immortal. although it is a traditional custom, NEVER cremate yourself as it results in the destruction of your brain and thus your current self forever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death)
I'm not vegan, because I just fucking love the taste of meat waaay too much to give it up. But I do support those who choose to do it for the ethical reasons. It's not that I (or any of the vegans I know) have an issue with the killing of animals for us to eat, its forcing them to live a horrid tortured existence while they alive in order to increase cost efficiency that is a moral issue worth discussing.
On September 21 2012 06:44 frantic.cactus wrote: Well, humans cannot get essential long-chain fatty acids from ANY plant products. We have evolved to eat meat, because unlike our prime ape counterparts, we don't have the digestive system to turn short-chain fatty acids we get from plant matter into long chain fatty acids we need for development. Do you know why gorillas have huge abdomens? It's because they have a much more complex digestive system than us. Which is why it's unwise to compare us.
Biologically were not made to eat just plant matter, it results in deficiencies. Ethically, well that depends on your values.
You are wrong. It is entirely possible to get all the essential amino acids from a vegan diet. Like any diet, one needs to take care and eat a balanced diet. There are 3 perfectly healthy vegan kids living across the street from me that haven't had an animal product a day in their life!
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
If you want to speak strictly biology and evolution, we were meant to have a mixed diet. There are very few naturally herbivorous human cultures because meat is an amazing source of nutrients and energy. Consumption of meat probably provided much needed energy to help homosapiens diverge from apes and develop more complex nervous systems. Sure, in this day and age it is completely possible and viable to live a vegetarian lifestyle if you live in a 1st world country. But that doesn't make it natural.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
I can understand vegetarianism. It's just fine to say "hey, I don't want to get my food from killing animals." I don't personally subscribe to that logic, but I see where those guys are coming from. But to say that even milking cows that were BRED for producing far more milk than their calves could ever drink is CRUELTY? Well, you've got to be an absolute idiot to think that for a second. Same with considering it cruel to eat unfertilized eggs. Veganism for health reasons is one thing. Veganism for moral reasons is ignorant as hell.
On September 21 2012 06:44 frantic.cactus wrote: Well, humans cannot get essential long-chain fatty acids from ANY plant products. We have evolved to eat meat, because unlike our prime ape counterparts, we don't have the digestive system to turn short-chain fatty acids we get from plant matter into long chain fatty acids we need for development. Do you know why gorillas have huge abdomens? It's because they have a much more complex digestive system than us. Which is why it's unwise to compare us.
Biologically were not made to eat just plant matter, it results in deficiencies. Ethically, well that depends on your values.
You are wrong. It is entirely possible to get all the essential amino acids from a vegan diet. Like any diet, one needs to take care and eat a balanced diet. There are 3 perfectly healthy vegan kids living across the street from me that haven't had an animal product a day in their life!
You realize Amino Acids and Fatty Acids are entirely different compounds?
And this is the biggest thing that bugs me about Veganism. Ethically, morally I'm all for it. If you think it's wrong to eat animals, that's all on you and I don't care. But when vegans start trying to justify and force Veganism on everyone else by claiming it's scientifically superior I get a bit irritated. Many of them only know the surface of the science needed to understand nutrition and how it interacts with the body but they feel perfectly fine telling you Veganism is superior...
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
Circle of Life bro.
What does that mean? Are you implying that we are like lions or something (see "Lion King" movie song)?
Yes. We are the ultimate predator, and like lions have evolved to get essential nutrition from meat and animal products.
Death is part of the circle of life, one day we will die and nourish the earth and give back what we have borrowed.
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Can I also point out that I think your view of "morality" is a little sparse(honestly I can't think of an appropriate word)? Cutting a plant in half or yanking it out of the ground without anesthesia, is literally the same thing except you don't hear it scream. In what way is that more "moral" than killing an animal?
Lastly the information about eating less chicken --> equal to taking x cars off the road is information designed to mislead since it doesn't even account for the eco-cost in terms of the food to replace the chicken.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
This is grossly untrue. Literally every vegan I have had contact with (4) was overweight.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
On September 21 2012 06:53 Acritter wrote: Consider this.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
I can understand vegetarianism. It's just fine to say "hey, I don't want to get my food from killing animals." I don't personally subscribe to that logic, but I see where those guys are coming from. But to say that even milking cows that were BRED for producing far more milk than their calves could ever drink is CRUELTY? Well, you've got to be an absolute idiot to think that for a second. Same with considering it cruel to eat unfertilized eggs. Veganism for health reasons is one thing. Veganism for moral reasons is ignorant as hell.
There are some places where those animals are forced to live in conditions so deplorable that the animals won't even eat because they lose their will to live and so they are force fed nutrients to keep them alive and producing milk/eggs/growing until they are ready to be harvested.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Yet the study showed the opposite affect, so i don't understand what your trying to say here.
Vegan here, just makes the most sense when you realize what factory farms are, what animal products do to your body, and the fact that vegan food rocks. I live in Portland though, and there are tons of vegan only places too eat, and shop from, so it's super easy, I would probably only be vegetarian in other cities. I know when I go to Kentucky I can't eat out, since half the people there don't understand what a vegan is. Factory farming is also horrible for the environment.
This thread probably won't go anywhere, some of the responses already..... TL is very anti vegan for some reason.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
This is grossly untrue. Literally every vegan I have had contact with (4) was overweight.
True, vegans come in all shapes and sizes. I put on 25 pounds since going vegan a year ago!
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Can I also point out that I think your view of "morality" is a little sparse(honestly I can't think of an appropriate word)? Cutting a plant in half or yanking it out of the ground without anesthesia, is literally the same thing except you don't hear it scream. In what way is that more "moral" than killing an animal?
I joke to people using your logic but in reality plants don't feel anything. They don't have brains.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Can I also point out that I think your view of "morality" is a little sparse(honestly I can't think of an appropriate word)? Cutting a plant in half or yanking it out of the ground without anesthesia, is literally the same thing except you don't hear it scream. In what way is that more "moral" than killing an animal?
I joke to people using your logic but in reality plants don't feel anything. They don't have brains.
Totally forgot plants don't have nerves, my bad lol.
There shouldn't be a discussion about health. As omnivores there is no known negative side effect to eating wild game. Now in the United States we tend to manufacture our meat to contain more salts and be more fatty for the benefit of flavor and over a long period of time can contribute to an unhealthy diet.
Scientifically, it's all sugar to your cells. The discussion should be limited to ethics. What we do to entire species of animals for our personal gain.
Personally I'm ok with eating meat up to a point where we don't adversely effect the natural structure of their species.
On September 21 2012 06:53 Acritter wrote: Consider this.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
Oh, I get it... NOW you care about animals! Silly me...
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
If you want to speak strictly biology and evolution, we were meant to have a mixed diet. There are very few naturally herbivorous human cultures because meat is an amazing source of nutrients and energy. Consumption of meat probably provided much needed energy to help homosapiens diverge from apes and develop more complex nervous systems. Sure, in this day and age it is completely possible and viable to live a vegetarian lifestyle if you live in a 1st world country. But that doesn't make it natural.
On September 21 2012 06:44 frantic.cactus wrote: Well, humans cannot get essential long-chain fatty acids from ANY plant products. We have evolved to eat meat, because unlike our prime ape counterparts, we don't have the digestive system to turn short-chain fatty acids we get from plant matter into long chain fatty acids we need for development. Do you know why gorillas have huge abdomens? It's because they have a much more complex digestive system than us. Which is why it's unwise to compare us.
Biologically were not made to eat just plant matter, it results in deficiencies. Ethically, well that depends on your values.
You are wrong. It is entirely possible to get all the essential amino acids from a vegan diet. Like any diet, one needs to take care and eat a balanced diet. There are 3 perfectly healthy vegan kids living across the street from me that haven't had an animal product a day in their life!
On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote: [quote]
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
Implying I haven't. My parents use to run a small grocery story, dad was a butcher. Use to do weekly runs to Farmer John w/ father as a kid to where they did the killing of da cows. Yeah, I know where meat comes from. Also, my dad came from a small farm in Taiwan, where it was common to kill chicken, cows, etc etc, with your own hands.
So yeah, I'd say have a pretty fucking good idea. Seriously, why do people assume so much?
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
This is grossly untrue. Literally every vegan I have had contact with (4) was overweight.
True, vegans come in all shapes and sizes. I put on 25 pounds since going vegan a year ago!
To make up for not eating animal products vegans have to eat high carb diets to get their nutritional requirements form grains etc. This makes you fat if you don't exercise. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegan-island/#axzz273CYcO81
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat industry.
I just want to preface this by saying that I don't give a damn what you choose to eat. Don't whine at me for being some vege-fascist, I just enjoy this topic.
There are many activities which animals partake in which we would find abhorent and disturbing. Hell, if we look at your lion example, when was the last time you saw someone ripping a cow apart with the hands and teeth so it could eat its fill of meat? I feel that would likely fall under the guise of animal cruelty, as it constitutes a completely unneccesary infliction of suffering.
Stating that canivores exist in nature as justification of massive industrialised factory farming makes no sense to me. I mean look at some of the shit animals get up to. Would you like to justify any of the actions outlined in those last four subheadings?
Factory farming is rife with horrible practices which exist simply predominantly because humanity can distance itself from every aspect of the process except the pleasure of consumption. Hell maybe that's not even true, maybe they just don't care remotely about any animal suffering and just want to be satisfied. This kind of viewpoint is commonly espoused in these kind of threads and it scares the shit out of me.
If I served you up a premium cut of meat from a healthy 30 year old man who died completely unavoidably from a stroke, would you eat it? Assume familial consent. Its a creepy question, but in what manner is it unethical? Now lets say you refuse to eat it, would you condemn me for doing so? Why?
On September 21 2012 07:14 wei2coolman wrote: Implying I haven't. My parents use to run a small grocery story, dad was a butcher. Use to do weekly runs to Farmer John w/ father as a kid to where they did the killing of da cows. Yeah, I know where meat comes from. Also, my dad came from a small farm in Taiwan, where it was common to kill chicken, cows, etc etc, with your own hands.
So yeah, I'd say have a pretty fucking good idea. Seriously, why do people assume so much?
You know when I was a kid implies the past... Factory farms have evolved since then, and they aren't your Farmer John's little farm. I assume you are a decent human being and would not defend current methods of raising animals for slaughter. I assume since you are defending eating meat in today's world, you don't understand where today's meat comes from.
I often have two questions I pose to vegans regarding the environmental & ethical cost of meat.
First, the disclaimers: yes, factory farms are terrible for the environment, animals, and people. No argument there. Yes, animals given feed use up considerable more resources for they calories they provide as compared to the crops used to feed them and thus most meat consumption can be considered quite inefficient (with all the problems that entails).
Acknowledging these facts does not, however, lead me to be vegan. Why?
Well there is meat production that occurs in an economical manner. I'm speaking here in part of the large western desert ranches. In these ranches there isn't enough irrigation available to grow human-feed crops. The plants that do grow are pretty tough and unpalatable. One of the few economically viable uses of the land (that benefits humans) is to graze animals on them. Particularly in the more southern regions where year-round grazing is possible, meat produced from these lands is not an inefficient supply of calories compared to other options (eating vegan). Sure, a relatively small percentage of our meat comes from these farms rather than factory-style operations. But it is an example that eating meat itself does not need to be a food-supply issue. Building a sustainable world demands less meat that is more carefully sourced, to be sure. But not necessarily vegetarianism/veganism.
As for the ethical consideration, I consider that up in the air. Sure, keeping a creature for the sole intent of killing and consuming it troubles some people. It does not trouble me, in particular with domesticated animals not part of factory farms.
Frankly, if no one ate beef the modern cow would exist only in zoos or go extinct. That does not seem to be a superior outcome for cows in general than a short life span spent\t in (here presumed loose) captivity and ending in a quick and violent demise. I understand there are good reasons to not share this view. But by and large, I think it persuasive.
I usually find vegans responses to these positions interesting.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
The people of Argentina and Uruguay would like to have a word. Both consume some of the highest amounts of beef per capita (I believe Uruguay is #1), and are almost totally bereft of factory farming. Furthermore, there are many large scale cow and chicken farms in the US that are not "factory" in design, and yet still produce huge amounts of food. My point is that your indictment of scale of consumption is a fantasy, and you are too quick to simply assume that every major producer is a corporate, earth-raping demon.
Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
ETA: The preaching is on both sides, to the people in the thread that just assume it's us that preaches to you. There's plenty of meat eaters that are 100% fine to ram their habits down my throat, but I'm not allowed to do it to you because I'm outside of the norm. In fact, from what I've seen, meat eaters are WORSE about it. All I have to do is mention I'm a vegan before everyone starts calling me abnormal. So, whatever you may think, you're considerably more preachy.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
This is pretty wrong. With a little research you can find meat products where none of the shit you think happens to everything happens. It wouldn't be much more expensive nor would it be rare because that's already going on and it's marginally more expensive. The reality is we overproduce the SHIT out of it for no reason and most of it gets thrown out.
On September 21 2012 07:14 wei2coolman wrote: Implying I haven't. My parents use to run a small grocery story, dad was a butcher. Use to do weekly runs to Farmer John w/ father as a kid to where they did the killing of da cows. Yeah, I know where meat comes from. Also, my dad came from a small farm in Taiwan, where it was common to kill chicken, cows, etc etc, with your own hands.
So yeah, I'd say have a pretty fucking good idea. Seriously, why do people assume so much?
You know when I was a kid implies the past... Factory farms have evolved since then. I assume you are a decent human being and would not defend current methods of raising animals for slaughter. I assume since you are defending eating meat in today's world, you don't understand where today's meat comes from.
Kid, is more like 14 years ago. I'm not that old T.T I'm only 21...
On September 21 2012 06:53 Acritter wrote: Consider this.
What use would there be for dairy cows and slaughterhouse cows if we did not eat meat or drink milk? Answer: none. What is the likelihood of those cows being able to survive and thrive in the wild if we set them loose? Answer: none. So if we stop drinking milk and eating meat, we are going to send all of these cows to extinction.
Right. But humans domesticated and bred cattle to cater their own purposes, i.e. being efficient milk/meat-machines that wouldn't have a chance of surviving on their own, in the first place.
Is it crueler to milk and cull a few cows, or wipe them from the face of the Earth?
The former, obviously, disregarding the fact that "a few" might be a slight understatement. If you change your perspective on animals for once, regarding them as individuals instead of some collective mass, you might get the point. Better to not exist than to lead a short and miserable life.
I can understand vegetarianism. It's just fine to say "hey, I don't want to get my food from killing animals." I don't personally subscribe to that logic, but I see where those guys are coming from. But to say that even milking cows that were BRED for producing far more milk than their calves could ever drink is CRUELTY?
Those vegan guys are coming from exactly the same direction Cows that are bred to produce milk are some sort of abomination with ridiculously huge udders. Their calves usually do not get a drop of that mother's milk but are fed with some kind of replacement, and apart from that they'll be slaughtered shortly after their birth anyways. Last but not least do those cows get killed once they do not produce a big enough amount of milk anymore for being cost-efficient. So, the logic of vegans doesn't really differ much from that of vegetarians. It's about not supporting abuse and killing of animals. Kind of simple, actually.
Well, you've got to be an absolute idiot to think that for a second.
On September 21 2012 06:25 kingcoyote wrote: [quote]
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote: [quote]
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
The people of Argentina and Uruguay would like to have a word. Both consumer some of the highest amounts of beef per capita (I believe Uruguay is #1), and are almost totally bereft of factory farming. Furthermore, there are many large scale cow and chicken farms in the US that are not "factory" in design, and yet still produce huge amounts of food. My point is that your indictment of scale of consumption is a fantasy.
I might consider more things factory farms then you, which probably changes the discussion. Basically any large scale slaughter of animals is a factory too me, I can not stand by and watch as thousands of animals are slaughtered for food when there are alternatives. I am now abandoning this thread, I have tried to defend vegans on TL in the past, and it always makes me frustrated and sad, good luck fellow vegans who are better debaters than I.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I invite you to visit the places where your food actually comes from, and not where you think it comes from. Anyone who thinks a factory farm is in anyway ethical is someone I can't have a reasonable discussion with,
If we went back to small family farms, with a few cows or what not, I would still have a problem eating meat, but then we could have an actual discussion that would be civil. If you defend the current meat on the market, which is all from factory farms and all the animals are treated unethically, then I don't really think much of your opinion. We would not be able to eat meat the way we do as a society without factory farms, meat would be much more expensive and very rare.
The people of Argentina and Uruguay would like to have a word. Both consumer some of the highest amounts of beef per capita (I believe Uruguay is #1), and are almost totally bereft of factory farming. Furthermore, there are many large scale cow and chicken farms in the US that are not "factory" in design, and yet still produce huge amounts of food. My point is that your indictment of scale of consumption is a fantasy.
I might consider more things factory farms then you, which probably changes the discussion. Basically any large scale slaughter of animals is a factory too me.
Well it is rather shortsighted of you to write off entire cultures of the world based merely on your lack of comfort with their rate of consumption. I daresay the gauchos know more about cows than you, and yet, because they eat beef as part of pretty much every meal, you aren't even willing to discuss ethics with them? Being narrow minded to the point of obstinance is not an appealing trait.
On September 21 2012 07:17 Rohan wrote: Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans. The reality is that few people give a shit about your life style choices and quite frankly I can't be bothered to talk to you about it unless I actually have some kind of relationship to you.
The reason it's considered preaching is because whether you like it or not it comes off as accusatory and as if that person could do anything about it. Yeah, if literally everyone stopped eating animal products there would be more animals and there's good/bad ramifications to that. Similarly if everyone in the world was just nice to each other everyone would be happier, but that's not exactly going to just happen and a single person has absolutely no influence on it if for no other reason than the fact that trolls actually exist in reality.
nothing convinces me more than a good steak... don't get wrong vegefood is tasty, still i always feel it always lack that meaty/fishy/eggy touch needed for a perfect lunch
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
Although you are right that poor nutrition can lead to cancer you fail to realize what poor nutrition is. Nutrition is providing your body with the nutrients it needs to survive. Your body needs very little carbs and, as you mentioned, highly refined carbs are horrible for you. However, continuing with this definition of nutrition you cannot dispute the fact that animal products along with vegetables provide the most nutritious diet with macronutrients (fat and protein) coming from animal products and vitamins and minerals and limited carb intake coming from the healthy vegetable intake
Edited to dispute another claim: Although it is possible to obtain nutrition from a vegan diet you are not taking into account the negatives that many of these products on you. Gluten is the most obvious example as it has recently been shown that at least 1/3 people are sensitive to gluten. Many other vegetables give bad nutrients to the body and can cause damage.
Not a vegan myself, but a lot of my close friends are vegans. All I'll say is, if you're not vegan, and think vegan food is "shitty" or "rabbit food" or whatever else... You're wrong. I've had some vegan food that is pretty delicious. Shared a vegan pizza with my friend the other day that was absolutely amazing.
On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote: [quote]
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
If that's all you've got in response to my ethical argument for veganism based on speciesism, then I am done with this conversation. I will give you 5 minutes to respond.
On September 21 2012 06:30 SolonTLG wrote: [quote]
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
Who freaking cares? He also probably doesn't sustain 100% from animal products in other places in his life. He's making an effort, and he probably does a pretty damn good job. I doubt some insects while he's sleeping is going to change his mind, that wasn't a conscious decision.
On September 21 2012 07:17 Rohan wrote: Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans. The reality is that few people give a shit about your life style choices and quite frankly I can't be bothered to talk to you about it unless I actually have some kind of relationship to you.
The reason it's considered preaching is because whether you like it or not it comes off as accusatory and as if that person could do anything about it. Yeah, if literally everyone stopped eating animal products there would be more animals and there's good/bad ramifications to that. Similarly if everyone in the world was just nice to each other everyone would be happier, but that's not exactly going to just happen and a single person has absolutely no influence on it if for no other reason than the fact that trolls actually exist in reality.
Nope, I've had people learn I'm a vegan and come over literally JUST to poke fun at me. Yep, lots of Vegans do preach their beliefs to other people. Lots of people who eat meat are happy to preach their beliefs at me. Loudly.
If it's a matter of ethics, well, the leg you're all standing on of: "Well we've always done it.." is...not good. Shows a certain lack of...erm, progression?
On September 21 2012 07:17 Rohan wrote: Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans. The reality is that few people give a shit about your life style choices and quite frankly I can't be bothered to talk to you about it unless I actually have some kind of relationship to you.
The reason it's considered preaching is because whether you like it or not it comes off as accusatory and as if that person could do anything about it. Yeah, if literally everyone stopped eating animal products there would be more animals and there's good/bad ramifications to that. Similarly if everyone in the world was just nice to each other everyone would be happier, but that's not exactly going to just happen and a single person has absolutely no influence on it if for no other reason than the fact that trolls actually exist in reality.
Speaking from experience as a vegetarian, I catch (playful) flak when I'm out eating with certain friends. Chosing a uncommon view makes one rife for critiquing.
On September 21 2012 06:32 wei2coolman wrote: [quote] I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
Who freaking cares? He also probably doesn't sustain 100% from animal products in other places in his life. He's making an effort, and he probably does a pretty damn good job. I doubt some insects while he's sleeping is going to change his mind, that wasn't a conscious decision.
Wheat threshing kills thousands of rabbits a year. Technically wheat is also causing animal harm, better give that up too.
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
There are very little environmental benefits to being a vegan. By being vegan you are promoting agriculture which is the #1 cause of destruction of wildlife.
On September 21 2012 07:17 Rohan wrote: Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans. The reality is that few people give a shit about your life style choices and quite frankly I can't be bothered to talk to you about it unless I actually have some kind of relationship to you.
The reason it's considered preaching is because whether you like it or not it comes off as accusatory and as if that person could do anything about it. Yeah, if literally everyone stopped eating animal products there would be more animals and there's good/bad ramifications to that. Similarly if everyone in the world was just nice to each other everyone would be happier, but that's not exactly going to just happen and a single person has absolutely no influence on it if for no other reason than the fact that trolls actually exist in reality.
Nope, I've had people learn I'm a vegan and come over literally JUST to poke fun at me. Yep, lots of Vegans do preach their beliefs to other people. Lots of people who eat meat are happy to preach their beliefs at me. Loudly.
If it's a matter of ethics, well, the leg you're all standing on of: "Well we've always done it.." is...not good. Shows a certain lack of...erm, progression?
Did you randomly mistake me for someone else or something? Again, it's accusatory bullshit like that that makes Vegans annoying. This idea that you can somehow preach your beliefs on to other people but they should have no capacity to defend themselves is mind boggling retarded.
I mean yeah I guess it would be nice if you could just talk at people all day and they could never disagree with you or have their own opinion but that's quite the fantasy you're rolling in.
We have to live off of something. Needless to say, the most "humane" thing to do would be to go and kill ourselves. However, there's a difference between directly slaughtering the animal and having the death come by unfortunate circumstances. That distinction is apparently lost on most people, though.
My last comment wasn't directed at you, btw. Just a general thing towards the thread.
It's fine if people want to disagree with me, but at least come along with a decently convincing arguement. Discussion is a healthy part of human culture, for sure, but where this sort of thing is involved...well. Discussion becomes pointless, because a lot of the arguments that are used are the only ones that exist. Is there an ethical way to kill something? The answer is "No.".
On September 21 2012 07:17 Rohan wrote: Before I start, going to say: Been a veggie since birth, switched over to veganism for various reasons: ethical issues, health problems and in all honesty, because I wanted a change.
Now: I lead a very active life. I work in a very physically and mentally demanding job, have played various sports for my county and country, and I've never had a problem with protein. Even while working out seriously, and requiring huge amounts of protein, I've barely had to supplement with a protein shake. Even if I had to, Soy & Brown Rice are totally fine.
It's a common misconception that vegans are "healthier" though. It's very easy to eat a junk food diet as a vegan, since lots of stuff that's junk food(: Soda, fries, chips, etc. etc.) is perfectly fine for us to eat. It's not fine in a health way though, we need to eat a broader diet of beans, green leaves and so on to stay healthy. In the same way that a meat eater has to, largely, do the same. Studies either way are largely flawed, sadly, so there's no real way of getting a clear cut example here.
The sad thing I find is this:
I choose to be a vegan based upon my own merits, and decisions regarding not killing animals for food. The arguements that people present to me on a regular basis really get to me. "We'd have to stop farming cows if everyone suddenly became vegan! Would you want them to die out?" Well, actually, I have no real issue with that. Ditto sheep, or any other animal that we farm purely for meat/eggs/milk. Phasing out entire species just because we've created them to eat seems more logical than slaughtering 10bn animals a year. To me, anyway.
As a final statement though: You're a carnivore...I get it. That's fine. However, I'm not. That should be fine as well. Why is it, that when I say something regarding animal rights I'm "preaching", and when you mock me, or attempt with a (usually piss poor) argument to somehow say what I'm doing is wrong are you just "sticking up for what you believe in". I'm aware I'm a minority, but if I don't preach to you, please don't feel the need to inform me how wrong I am while you're justifying the killing of another creature because you don't want to give it up because it tastes nice.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans. The reality is that few people give a shit about your life style choices and quite frankly I can't be bothered to talk to you about it unless I actually have some kind of relationship to you.
The reason it's considered preaching is because whether you like it or not it comes off as accusatory and as if that person could do anything about it. Yeah, if literally everyone stopped eating animal products there would be more animals and there's good/bad ramifications to that. Similarly if everyone in the world was just nice to each other everyone would be happier, but that's not exactly going to just happen and a single person has absolutely no influence on it if for no other reason than the fact that trolls actually exist in reality.
Speaking from experience as a vegetarian, I catch (playful) flak when I'm out eating with certain friends. Chosing a uncommon view makes one rife for critiquing.
I get poked fun at because I eat extraordinarily plain meals, it's my lifestyle, I'm very minimalist, it in no way has ever impacted me in the slightest. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about people who get into serious shit with you over your life decisions.
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
There are very little environmental benefits to being a vegan. By being vegan you are promoting agriculture which is the #1 cause of destruction of wildlife.
And eathing animals doesn't promote agriculture? Seriously?! Did you know that it takes approximately 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lbs of beef, along with hundreds of gallons of water?
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
There are very little environmental benefits to being a vegan. By being vegan you are promoting agriculture which is the #1 cause of destruction of wildlife.
And eathing animals doesn't promote agriculture? Seriously?! Did you know that it takes approximately 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lbs of beef, along with hundreds of gallons of water?
So you're saying the primary reason for agriculture in this country is to feed animals?
On September 21 2012 07:29 Rohan wrote: We have to live off of something. Needless to say, the most "humane" thing to do would be to go and kill ourselves. However, there's a difference between directly slaughtering the animal and having the death come by unfortunate circumstances. That distinction is apparently lost on most people, though.
Unfortunate circumstances? That translates to: another animal killed this animal and now I'm a scavenger. There is no actual ethical upside to watching something die and not interfering and eating it versus killing it yourself and eating it.
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
There are very little environmental benefits to being a vegan. By being vegan you are promoting agriculture which is the #1 cause of destruction of wildlife.
And eathing animals doesn't promote agriculture? Seriously?! Did you know that it takes approximately 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lbs of beef, along with hundreds of gallons of water?
And do you know how much grain is wasted each and every year? Where's your protest of plant agriculture to match the moral indignation of your veganism?
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
There are very little environmental benefits to being a vegan. By being vegan you are promoting agriculture which is the #1 cause of destruction of wildlife.
And eathing animals doesn't promote agriculture? Seriously?! Did you know that it takes approximately 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lbs of beef, along with hundreds of gallons of water?
So you're saying the primary reason for agriculture in this country is to feed animals?
Yes, most grain in the U.S. is fed to animals. "In 2005, over 58 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for feed." Source:http://www.soyatech.com/corn_facts.htm
My sister recently got a job in some sort of cow processing plant for quality assurance. Part of her training was to watch a video on how the cows are essentially turned into meat. First the cows are shot in the back of the head with some sort of stun gun, knocking them unconcious with no pain. Next they're strung on the assembly line that goes around and they have their throats slit(still unconcious, no pain). After that the blood and guts and whatever is drained and they continue to getting cut up etc. Of course it's no doubt different for other places, but it seemed pretty "ethical" to me, and I typically hate to see animals suffer. Sounds like a fine system to me, and it put some of my concerns to rest. Would vegans have a problem with it still?
I eat meat, drink milk, I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan of any kind and I honestly don't think I'll ever be capable of being one.
The only reason I would ever do so would be because of moral dilemma that consumption of meat requires the slaughter of animals..I really don't care for the health benefits all that much, I'm perfectly healthy as is..
That said, I do applaud vegetarians and vegans for what they do as long as they don't get all pretentious and "Holier than thou" about it, it's a lifestyle I find very difficult to grasp in the sense that I could never see myself doing it because I just like my animal products far too much. (Then again, many people look at me the same way for living straight edge so there's that, eh?)
If this thread turns any people from non-vegatarian/vegan into an actual one, good on that person, I hear there are some notable health benefits to it, it's not for me tho.
On September 21 2012 07:29 Rohan wrote: We have to live off of something. Needless to say, the most "humane" thing to do would be to go and kill ourselves. However, there's a difference between directly slaughtering the animal and having the death come by unfortunate circumstances. That distinction is apparently lost on most people, though.
Unfortunate circumstances? That translates to: another animal killed this animal and now I'm a scavenger. There is no actual ethical upside to watching something die and not interfering and eating it versus killing it yourself and eating it.
If I hit your dog in my car by accident, on a dark road, on the way home from work and kill it, or if I walk up to it and shoot it is there a difference?
If the vegans were a little less radical with the "You are burning down the planet!" they might enjoy a little more societal acceptance. From high school to today, you just don't ask why someone chose veganism, because you're in for an earful. It was a book on animal cruelty at farms for one acquaintance. Another, it was more of a dislike of meats (leading me to wonder why dairy and eggs were rejected, why she went vegan instead of vegetarian).
Still think it's a rather shortsighted view towards saving the planet. Economic development in nations still employing slash-and-burn techniques to agriculture will matter more than an army of 500 vegans. That's my own two cents about it.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
On September 21 2012 06:36 SolonTLG wrote: [quote]
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
Defining in what sense you mean it is "natural"? That term is subjective. I, now, "naturally" don't eat animals or animal products. We are not lions, sharks, or zebras, we are humans. Invoking other species is not relevant.
Also, I am giving an ethical argument for veganism. Morals are something entirely different.
eating animals "isn't extreme" because it happens in other species, so much so that they cause natural extinction patterns.
Clearly my use of normal, was in terms of the idea of consuming meat on a universal scale, not on individual. No need to twist my words, you clearly knew what I meant.
It is very much so relevant. Humans are omnivorous. just look at human evolution patterns, we have enzymes to digest meat, our bodies were made to do it.
No one here is claiming being vegan is bad. We just don't want to hear vegans complain about how meat eating is bad, when it's an obvious biological inclination.
Just like humans can choose to go without sex, but I don't want virgins bitching at people who do have sex because they have sex.
No, using the world "normal" implies judment because what is normal is a social construct.
Again, you cannot reference what other species do when I am giving an ethical argument for HUMANS not to eat animals. Other species do their own thing and we should minimize out inference in their lives.
It does NOT matter what humans did in the past in terms of meat consumption, only the future. Humans don't have to eat meat, I am proof of that. Humans can make ethical choices, and we can choose not to eat meat.
The sex example is a bad one. Obstaining from sex only affect that person. Eating animals affects animals.
No, the word normal means average, and guess what, averages can be measured.
This prosecution martyr attitude is the exact reason why regular people dislike vegans. And my sex comment was in reference to Vegan's holier than art thou attitude, not necessarily the subject at hand.
You have to prove that there's an ethical problem with eating meat, The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Nope, you might be thinking that a Normal Distrubution has an average, which it does. But the word "normal" implies judgment and is socally constructed and enforced.
Here is my argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
Who freaking cares? He also probably doesn't sustain 100% from animal products in other places in his life. He's making an effort, and he probably does a pretty damn good job. I doubt some insects while he's sleeping is going to change his mind, that wasn't a conscious decision.
Wheat threshing kills thousands of rabbits a year. Technically wheat is also causing animal harm, better give that up too.
Ahhh, you're on of those guys. Vegans, vegetarians and many other variations are trying to actively decrease any negative influence which they have on the planet. This is not a bad thing. Throwing facetiuous 'gotcha' statements around makes you look like an asshole. The act of living is an occupational hazard to every creature here. Some people just wish to diminsh the suffering for their neighbours, human or otherwise.
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans.
Really? Differs heavily from my experience. But I got to admit, I'm not approached aggressively most of the time, but kind of defensively. When me being a vegan comes up somehow - most of the time because I decline food that is offered to me - people seem to automatically switch to a defensive state where they feel the need to explain themselves to me, although I didn't say anything. I never initiate conversations on veganism with anybody, because it's fucking exhausting and you get to answer the same questions over and over again. I really feel that the popular picture of vegans as aggressive, annoying preachers is always reinforced by omnivores that just dislike that veganism exists.
On September 21 2012 06:18 Otolia wrote: Guys, I have this crazy idea ! What about moderation ? You know something that ISN'T extremism ...
With the same reasoning, we should stop eating corns because it takes too much water, stop growing tomatoes and potatoes in Europe because it's not originated from there and various other funny aberrations.
Im not a vegan but since when does being consistent and steadfast in your beliefs makes you an extremist. I would rather be called a "radical" than be forever blowing in the wind, not living by any code.
Proselytism is one of the marker of extremism. In this case, he isn't advocating for a more responsible way to consider our food - id est less meat, more vegetables, less fat, less sugar etc ... He is just presenting one side of the coin and accusing the food industry of being the devil. Sure there is some bad practice there with mistreated animals but do Apple treats his chinese workforce any better ? (all things compared) Also there is the appeal to emotions and various ridiculous or misused statements.
Balance is everything and while I too is in favor of a more educated food consumption, I don't fall into the pits of selecting only one piece of a bigger system.
I'm pretty sick of discussions about vegan/vegetarian diets on TL because they never get anywhere on this site. I don't want to be part of the discussion for this reason but nevertheless there is one argument I want to bring forward because this is something that bugs me everytime I read a thread on this topic here. The words normal and natural get thrown around in these threads all the time in favor of eating meat. In my opinion this is nonsense. A few hundred years ago slavery or torture was normal. Go farther back in time and rape or witchburning were a common practice. A lot of stuff we now see as immoral and unethical was "normal" and "natural" in the past. What is "normal" or "natural" should not be an argument. What should be an argument is wether something is inherently ethical or not.
On September 21 2012 07:34 Danglars wrote: If the vegans were a little less radical with the "You are burning down the planet!" they might enjoy a little more societal acceptance. From high school to today, you just don't ask why someone chose veganism, because you're in for an earful. It was a book on animal cruelty at farms for one acquaintance. Another, it was more of a dislike of meats (leading me to wonder why dairy and eggs were rejected, why she went vegan instead of vegetarian).
Still think it's a rather shortsighted view towards saving the planet. Economic development in nations still employing slash-and-burn techniques to agriculture will matter more than an army of 500 vegans. That's my own two cents about it.
I see,.. but I mean why contribute to the problem?
Going vegan/vegetarian and eating locally grown produce is one of the best ways to make an impact on the planet, and leaving a very small footprint behind. The only other way is to get involved with politics and changing the world, I support The Green Party, and volunteer with them, but I am by no means a politician, and I don't think I'm a leader. I'll never change the masses opinion, so being vegan is great for the individual.
By your logic if there was a huge blazing fire tearing down a city, we should all start little fires just cause, we can't stop the big fire anyways.
On September 21 2012 06:09 Blacktion wrote: As a scientist all i can say is wow.
Pretty much this.
Also, I've learnt over the years that it is not possible to argue with a vegan/vegetarian. Because essentially means arguing with the other person's beliefs system, which can never be rationalized.
We are meant to consume flesh. That's why it tastes better than any other type of food, and people who indulge are stronger and healthier than those who don't.
Worst part about veganism in the United States and most other places.... it's hella expensive.
On September 21 2012 07:45 Vorgrim wrote: We are meant to consume flesh. That's why it tastes better than any other type of food, and people who indulge are stronger and healthier than those who don't.
Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.
We aren't meant to consume flesh... we're omnivores that are built to receive any and all food in as large of quantities that we can stomach... and more. Flexible stomachs.
It's just that in Hunter Gatherer society that animals can be gorged upon while say, fruits and berries, can't. We enjoy meats because our bodies crave fat reserves, fat reserves we can and would get from plants if we had the choice. (I say this in that hunting animals expended large amount of energy while, for example, picking almonds off a tree expends likely less energy and with less chance of lacerated death)
I am not vegatarian/vegan, I eat meat because I like it, apart from that my digestive tract and my denture are perfectly fine to do so, how practical.
To the discussion, eating habits as a whole should be healthier as a whole in the western world, but this is not a question of "veggie or no veggie" but more a question of education. If people knew what is good for them, we would have much less obese people.
On September 21 2012 07:29 Rohan wrote: We have to live off of something. Needless to say, the most "humane" thing to do would be to go and kill ourselves. However, there's a difference between directly slaughtering the animal and having the death come by unfortunate circumstances. That distinction is apparently lost on most people, though.
Unfortunate circumstances? That translates to: another animal killed this animal and now I'm a scavenger. There is no actual ethical upside to watching something die and not interfering and eating it versus killing it yourself and eating it.
If I hit your dog in my car by accident, on a dark road, on the way home from work and kill it, or if I walk up to it and shoot it is there a difference?
So yeah I'm guessing you misinterpreted my post because you're this like super frightened "used to being picked on" guy--I was in no way attacking you, I was pointing out that the reason people get pissy with you is because you're genuinely annoying in the way you present your arguments. You aren't trying to change anyone's mind or make a difference, you're doing it because you know it bothers other people to annoy them with generally inaccurate information.
And for the record, no. There isn't. The dog died. I would find it weird and mysterious that someone shot my dog, but the way something dies has no real impact on the loss felt.
By that logic a father would feel more or less grief for their lost child based on how the child went, not that it was gone, which is incorrect.
From what I've read you're quite a poor vegan, and seem to care very little about the animals involved and more about being different, which isn't very appealing.
On September 21 2012 07:45 AngryMag wrote: I am not vegatarian/vegan, I eat meat because I like it, apart from that my digestive tract and my denture are perfectly fine to do so, how practical.
To the discussion, eating habits should be healthier as a whole in the western world, but this is not a question of "veggie or no veggie" but more a question of education. If people knew what is good for them, we would have much less obese people.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: There is also a little absurdity involved in our consumption of cow's milk. I mean we literally are consuming a substance made for an infant cow. Does that many any sense? But of course for humans to get that milk we have to take it away from the infant cows (which are sold as veal regardless). Milk is something we were made to consume as a baby from our mother during a very special stage of our development and not our entire life. Especially from a whole different species of animals!
Reading vegans is always hard to me because of all the partisan stuff. But that's just beautiful. I was eating peanuts earlier, that's like a cumshot in mah face.
Come on.
Except it's wrong. As opposed to "I heard" and "does it make sense?" there exists actual facts about human consumption of dairy milk. Fun fact is that we are not all equal to it, most westerners are used to drinking it for thousands of generations, whereas a majority of asians don't break it down well. If humans have evolved into being able to digest dairy milk it must mean that it gave an avantage over those that couldn't.
Not to mention that saying "a whole different species of animals" makes no sense as well, most mammal milk has the same compounds and can be drunk by humans. You can safely drink goat, sheep, buffalo, and even whale or horse milk!
It is true though that cow milk has a higher concentration of proteins and fat than human one, and should be used in reasonable quantities.
I love talking about veganism and all dietary labels with others when we discuss financial aspects, health aspects, and corporate influences. But what USUALLY happens is that someone can't wait to tell us how they think they're saving the planet, or saving a cute whatever, or how "progressive" they are,. Worse yet, on both sides, are the assholes who argue about our jaw structure to argue that humans are not/ or are designed to eat meat. Yeah, if were going to argue about something like biological predestination, put down your unnatural iphones and take off your sweat-shop clothes. That would make for a better party anyway.
By your logic if there was a huge blazing fire tearing down a city, we should all start little fires just cause, we can't stop the big fire anyways.
I think the more apt comparison is that he's saying we shouldn't dash to put out our fireplaces to stop air pollution when there's a lot more that we can do to counter it.
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
thats relatively the same as saying the average american eats just under 5lb's of food a day. and im guessing you figure takes into account exports whereas mine does not. its assuming that those 10billion 1150lb bull/cows (and this being the largest? animal being eaten you could consider it an extreme) are not being exported. if were taking into account smaller animals (chickens and the like) the 5lb's per person per day will decrease rapidly.
On September 21 2012 07:45 ShatterZer0 wrote: Worst part about veganism in the United States and most other places.... it's hella expensive.
Only if you eat fake animal products often and go out to fancy vegan places.
It's kind of hard to say that vegetables/fruits/grains which make up the core of the diet, are expensive.
Now, I do feel like eating out is slightly more expensive than for non-vegans. For instance, I ate at my "Fast food" place, veggie cafe the other day, and it was 24 dollars for 2 people, I am pretty sure most fast-food places are considerably cheaper and have dollar menu and crap like that(though please if you care about animals at all, avoid McDonalds and their fellow chains, they refuse to upgrade their standards for cage sizes). So if you are eating out, it's going to be expensive.
On September 21 2012 07:34 Danglars wrote: If the vegans were a little less radical with the "You are burning down the planet!" they might enjoy a little more societal acceptance. From high school to today, you just don't ask why someone chose veganism, because you're in for an earful. It was a book on animal cruelty at farms for one acquaintance. Another, it was more of a dislike of meats (leading me to wonder why dairy and eggs were rejected, why she went vegan instead of vegetarian).
Still think it's a rather shortsighted view towards saving the planet. Economic development in nations still employing slash-and-burn techniques to agriculture will matter more than an army of 500 vegans. That's my own two cents about it.
Yes but veganism isn't a bloc. Its an individual's choice. If that individual is a self-righteous prat then that's what they are. The reason they get hated on is presumably because they're going against the grain, are easy to stereotype and are passionate about their choices (it takes a lot of will power to avoid meat - its so good afterall). Characterising all of them because of their public image or anacdotal experience is foolish. I can only think of one vegeterian I know that maybe pushes the boundaries of acceptable conduct surrounding people's choices. One out of 15+ vegetarian/vegans.
If you meet a scumbag vegan/vegetarian, then that's just who they are as a person and in no way reflects all other vegan/vegetarians.
Also, I've learnt over the years that it is not possible to argue with a vegan/vegetarian. Because essentially means arguing with the other person's beliefs system, which can never be rationalized.
Correct, but there are many people who claim to share certain beliefs, e.g. that animals shouldn't be tortured/hurt or whatever, but still don't really give a fuck and buy the cheapest meat at the supermarket. Most of the people I know who 'proudly' eat meat cannot stand to watch a documentary about transportation of animals or slaughterhouses, or whatnot. You can argue with those people.
By your logic if there was a huge blazing fire tearing down a city, we should all start little fires just cause, we can't stop the big fire anyways.
I think the more apt comparison is that he's saying we shouldn't dash to put out our fireplaces to stop air pollution when there's a lot more that we can do to counter it.
Not as an individual though, what am I going to do, go convince the government to stop pollution all by myself?\
Yes there is way more we can do as a nation, as a society, as a planet to stop the pollution of our planet, but there is basically no bigger step as an individual.
I am not a vegan for environmental reasons, it's simply a bonus, but we shouldn't simply dismiss those that are, they are trying to make an effort.
On September 21 2012 07:45 ShatterZer0 wrote: Worst part about veganism in the United States and most other places.... it's hella expensive.
Only if you eat fake animal products often and go out to fancy vegan places.
It's kind of hard to say that vegetables/fruits/grains which make up the core of the diet, are expensive.
Now, I do feel like eating out is slightly more expensive than for non-vegans. For instance, I ate at my "Fast food" place, veggie cafe the other day, and it was 24 dollars for 2 people, I am pretty sure most fast-food places are considerably cheaper and have dollar menu and crap like that(though please if you care about animals at all, avoid McDonalds and their fellow chains, they refuse to upgrade their standards for cage sizes). So if you are eating out, it's going to be expensive.
Are you KIDDING me? Go to the middle of a city and buy some fruits and vegies. It's WAY more cheap to buy processed junk than real food.
Why the hell do you think the poor are fat and the wealthy thin? Because eating healthy is eating expensive... 800 calories from a 5 dollar cheeseburger or 10 bucks for a bag of greens with half the calories of the burger patty alone?
In case you were wondering, it's shit like that. It's because the conversation starts that way and not the other way around. Very few people actually aggressively attack people when they learn they're vegans.
Really? Differs heavily from my experience. But I got to admit, I'm not approached aggressively most of the time, but kind of defensively. When me being a vegan comes up somehow - most of the time because I decline food that is offered to me - people seem to automatically switch to a defensive state where they feel the need to explain themselves to me, although I didn't say anything. I never initiate conversations on veganism with anybody, because it's fucking exhausting and you get to answer the same questions over and over again. I really feel that the popular picture of vegans as aggressive, annoying preachers is always reinforced by omnivores that just dislike that veganism exists.
That's verbatim what I said. You aren't approached with hostility, you're approached with a natural defensive instinct as if you're accusing them of something.
I mean maybe you didn't realize this (I can't possibly understand how you wouldn't, but maybe..) it is incredibly, incredibly awkward and tense eating meat around someone who is vegan. You're doing something that is in direct conflict with an important, significant aspect of that persons life--if you're trying to get to know this person or even already know them but didn't know they were vegan this puts an immediate strain on the relationship from the meat eaters perspective because subconsciously you assume it bothers them.
For instance, if I were to tell you (which is accurate) that my largest and most infuriating pet peeve is people who eat with their mouths open. If you were someone who naturally eats with their mouth open (which isn't uncommon) how would you feel knowing that what you're doing is very irritating to me?
For a stranger? That feeling is minimal because you don't really care about that person, but for a good friend or a new friend it can be very awkward. The difference there being that I tell you upfront that it's something I don't like--but when you tell someone upfront that you're a vegan the assumption is that you disagree with eating meat and people who do it--whether you personally think that or not, that's the vibe it gives and that's peoples natural reaction.
This is not positively reinforced by the way vegans are often portrayed on their own media, they promote themselves willingly as people who spout doom and gloom and cast people who eat meat in a negative light. I dated a vegan, I heard the radio talk shows and the podcasts, I've read the books, most of them are hilariously biased and self righteous.
China and Japan is at each others throat , the world economy is in shambles as European Union is scrambling to The release of a movie that depicted Muhammad in unfavorable light has prompted many extremist Muslim into violence across the world and the attack of United States embassy in Libya killing 8 people including the US diplomat.
And statistically someone just died a horrible death somewhere as I posted this. But lets not worry about all that , THE ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP!!!
The likes of Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA goons has state in public that they are against any kind of animal exploitation this include pets, guide animals for the blind(yes for blind people), zoo, circus, and finally for medical experimentation(including those that can cure AIDS) or medical product which include insulin that is a necessity for many diabetic to continue living (PETA has diabetics to) But its okay when its a PETA use insulin because he/she needs it to save animals (its true! I have also kills some animals to preserve the ecosystem so its okay!! /sarcasm)
They supported ex-felons that give lectures to high school on how to make basic petrol incendiary device (Animal Liberation Fronts) they(ALF) are responsible for wrecking numerous medical facilities to “free” test animals subject.
I could go on but this should give an idea why people dislike the concept of vegan, yes PETA is an extreme example in this instance but they are the most outspoken animal rights organization that promote vegan lifestyle.
The society is plagued with countless problems to name a few : wars, overpopulation, extreme poverty in some parts of the world ,BUT LETS WORRY ABOUT THE KITTENS INSTEAD.
I don’t know what world these people live in that they can make the well being of an animal a priority but its certainly not one that I live in
On September 21 2012 07:58 VL-Orion wrote: China and Japan is at each others throat , the world economy is in shambles as European Union is scrambling to The release of a movie that depicted Muhammad in unfavorable light has prompted many extremist Muslim into violence across the world and the attack of United States embassy in Libya killing 8 people including the US diplomat.
And statistically someone just died a horrible death somewhere as I posted this. But lets not worry about all that , THE ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP!!!
The likes of Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA goons has state in public that they are against any kind of animal exploitation this include pets, guide animals for the blind(yes for blind people), zoo, circus, and finally for medical experimentation(including those that can cure AIDS) or medical product which include insulin that is a necessity for many diabetic to continue living (PETA has diabetics to) But its okay when its a PETA use insulin because he/she needs it to save animals (its true! I have also kills some animals to preserve the ecosystem so its okay!! /sarcasm)
They supported ex-felons that give lectures to high school on how to make basic petrol incendiary device (Animal Liberation Fronts) they(ALF) are responsible for wrecking numerous medical facilities to “free” test animals subject.
I could go on but this should give an idea why people dislike the concept of vegan, yes PETA is an extreme example in this instance but they are the most outspoken animal rights organization that promote vegan lifestyle.
The society is plagued with countless problems to name a few : wars, overpopulation, extreme poverty in some parts of the world ,BUT LETS WORRY ABOUT THE KITTENS INSTEAD.
I don’t know what world these people live in that they can make the well being of an animal a priority but its certainly not one that I live in
For the record, if it came down to you or the kittens, kittens win every god damn time.
On September 21 2012 07:58 VL-Orion wrote: China and Japan is at each others throat , the world economy is in shambles as European Union is scrambling to The release of a movie that depicted Muhammad in unfavorable light has prompted many extremist Muslim into violence across the world and the attack of United States embassy in Libya killing 8 people including the US diplomat.
And statistically someone just died a horrible death somewhere as I posted this. But lets not worry about all that , THE ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP!!!
The likes of Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA goons has state in public that they are against any kind of animal exploitation this include pets, guide animals for the blind(yes for blind people), zoo, circus, and finally for medical experimentation(including those that can cure AIDS) or medical product which include insulin that is a necessity for many diabetic to continue living (PETA has diabetics to) But its okay when its a PETA use insulin because he/she needs it to save animals (its true! I have also kills some animals to preserve the ecosystem so its okay!! /sarcasm)
They supported ex-felons that give lectures to high school on how to make basic petrol incendiary device (Animal Liberation Fronts) they(ALF) are responsible for wrecking numerous medical facilities to “free” test animals subject.
I could go on but this should give an idea why people dislike the concept of vegan, yes PETA is an extreme example in this instance but they are the most outspoken animal rights organization that promote vegan lifestyle.
The society is plagued with countless problems to name a few : wars, overpopulation, extreme poverty in some parts of the world ,BUT LETS WORRY ABOUT THE KITTENS INSTEAD.
I don’t know what world these people live in that they can make the well being of an animal a priority but its certainly not one that I live in
Dismissing veganism because of PETA is as silly as dismissing Christianity because of the Westboro Baptist Church, medicine because of narcotics, and money because of greedy people. PETA and veganism are not mutually inclusive, and AS THE OP POSTED, there are plenty of reasons to be a vegetarian besides ethics and morality. Health, economy, ease of purchase, smaller carbon footprint, making food cheaper as a whole for everyone... there are more than just a few reasons to support veganism that aren't the animal rights front.
That's verbatim what I said. You aren't approached with hostility, you're approached with a natural defensive instinct as if you're accusing them of something.
I mean maybe you didn't realize this (I can't possibly understand how you wouldn't, but maybe..) it is incredibly, incredibly awkward and tense eating meat around someone who is vegan. You're doing something that is in direct conflict with an important, significant aspect of that persons life--if you're trying to get to know this person or even already know them but didn't know they were vegan this puts an immediate strain on the relationship from the meat eaters perspective because subconsciously you assume it bothers them.
For instance, if I were to tell you (which is accurate) that my largest and most infuriating pet peeve is people who eat with their mouths open. If you were someone who naturally eats with their mouth open (which isn't uncommon) how would you feel knowing that what you're doing is very irritating to me?
For a stranger? That feeling is minimal because you don't really care about that person, but for a good friend or a new friend it can be very awkward. The difference there being that I tell you upfront that it's something I don't like--but when you tell someone upfront that you're a vegan the assumption is that you disagree with eating meat and people who do it--whether you personally think that or not, that's the vibe it gives and that's peoples natural reaction.
This is not positively reinforced by the way vegans are often portrayed on their own media, they promote themselves willingly as people who spout doom and gloom and cast people who eat meat in a negative light. I dated a vegan, I heard the radio talk shows and the podcasts, I've read the books, most of them are hilariously biased and self righteous.
Yes, I get that. Except that I didn't accuse them of anything and if they feel accused by my sheer existence I just conclude there might be more to it than wanting to please me.
Would you feel the same awkwardness if a new friend of yours declined your invitation to a hotdog because their religion forbids them to eat pork? (not trying to make a point, just curious)
I know people feel uncomfortable because they think I condemn them for what they do, but I still feel many of them wouldn't get so damn defensive if it weren't for their own suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat-consumption.
edit: there is no such thing as 'vegans' as an entity, it's a heterogenous group of people with different reasons, different strategies and different levels of frustration. Frustration is a huge factor when you're vegan for ethical reasons and face ignorance on a daily basis. I can show you a fair number of people who defend killing animals in a hilariously biased and self righteous manner without much of an effort.
On September 21 2012 07:58 VL-Orion wrote: China and Japan is at each others throat , the world economy is in shambles as European Union is scrambling to The release of a movie that depicted Muhammad in unfavorable light has prompted many extremist Muslim into violence across the world and the attack of United States embassy in Libya killing 8 people including the US diplomat.
And statistically someone just died a horrible death somewhere as I posted this. But lets not worry about all that , THE ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP!!!
The likes of Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA goons has state in public that they are against any kind of animal exploitation this include pets, guide animals for the blind(yes for blind people), zoo, circus, and finally for medical experimentation(including those that can cure AIDS) or medical product which include insulin that is a necessity for many diabetic to continue living (PETA has diabetics to) But its okay when its a PETA use insulin because he/she needs it to save animals (its true! I have also kills some animals to preserve the ecosystem so its okay!! /sarcasm)
They supported ex-felons that give lectures to high school on how to make basic petrol incendiary device (Animal Liberation Fronts) they(ALF) are responsible for wrecking numerous medical facilities to “free” test animals subject.
I could go on but this should give an idea why people dislike the concept of vegan, yes PETA is an extreme example in this instance but they are the most outspoken animal rights organization that promote vegan lifestyle.
The society is plagued with countless problems to name a few : wars, overpopulation, extreme poverty in some parts of the world ,BUT LETS WORRY ABOUT THE KITTENS INSTEAD.
I don’t know what world these people live in that they can make the well being of an animal a priority but its certainly not one that I live in
I care about world events, as well as animals. Just because my morals include animals, does not mean my other moral obligations go out the window. I am very worried about the current state of U.S. affairs, and I am involved in The Green Party campaign. I live in a world, where there is slaughter of millions and billions of innocent lives, and people like you dismiss it like it's not a big deal. What a joke. What world do you live in?
Zoo's and circuses are often bad to animals, I have personally protested Wringling Brothers.
Peta sets a bad example for vegans/vegetarians, and gives us awful publicity, I wish they would go away, some of the stuff they do is ok, sane, other stuff.. not so much. If you want to look at an organization that does something useful, look at The Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle is one of the nicest people I've met, the guy has done a lot for animals in D.C. recently.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: There is also a little absurdity involved in our consumption of cow's milk. I mean we literally are consuming a substance made for an infant cow. Does that many any sense? But of course for humans to get that milk we have to take it away from the infant cows (which are sold as veal regardless). Milk is something we were made to consume as a baby from our mother during a very special stage of our development and not our entire life. Especially from a whole different species of animals!
There is absurdity in eating plants. Lettuce is a leaf of a plant. Fruit are the means of sexual reproduction in plants! These things were made to gather light from the environment and turn it into energy for the plant and spread the plants genetic material, not to be eaten by an organism from a different Kingdom!
Milk at least was made for the specific purpose of consumption.
I think the question everything boils down to is this:
Is it better to never exist or exist only to be killed and eaten?
These animals wouldn't exist if we didn't farm them, and they don't have to suffer in order to be slaughtered. In fact, I would argue that non-factory farmed animals probably live a far better life than wild animals since they are mostly free of disease, famine, and predators. Of course factory farming is terrible, but isn't an indictment against all animal consumption the same way militant vegans don't invalidate veganism.
That's verbatim what I said. You aren't approached with hostility, you're approached with a natural defensive instinct as if you're accusing them of something.
I mean maybe you didn't realize this (I can't possibly understand how you wouldn't, but maybe..) it is incredibly, incredibly awkward and tense eating meat around someone who is vegan. You're doing something that is in direct conflict with an important, significant aspect of that persons life--if you're trying to get to know this person or even already know them but didn't know they were vegan this puts an immediate strain on the relationship from the meat eaters perspective because subconsciously you assume it bothers them.
For instance, if I were to tell you (which is accurate) that my largest and most infuriating pet peeve is people who eat with their mouths open. If you were someone who naturally eats with their mouth open (which isn't uncommon) how would you feel knowing that what you're doing is very irritating to me?
For a stranger? That feeling is minimal because you don't really care about that person, but for a good friend or a new friend it can be very awkward. The difference there being that I tell you upfront that it's something I don't like--but when you tell someone upfront that you're a vegan the assumption is that you disagree with eating meat and people who do it--whether you personally think that or not, that's the vibe it gives and that's peoples natural reaction.
This is not positively reinforced by the way vegans are often portrayed on their own media, they promote themselves willingly as people who spout doom and gloom and cast people who eat meat in a negative light. I dated a vegan, I heard the radio talk shows and the podcasts, I've read the books, most of them are hilariously biased and self righteous.
Yes, I get that. Except that I didn't accuse them of anything and if they feel accused by my sheer existence I just conclude there might be more to it than wanting to please me.
Would you feel the same awkwardness if a new friend of yours declined your invitation to a hotdog because their religion forbids them to eat pork? (not trying to make a point, just curious)
I know people feel uncomfortable because they think I condemn them for what they do, but I still feel many of them wouldn't get so damn defensive if it weren't for their own suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat-consumption.
edit: there is no such thing as 'vegans' as an entity, it's a heterogenous group of people with different reasons, different strategies and different levels of frustration. Frustration is a huge factor when you're vegan for ethical reasons and face ignorance on a daily basis. I can show you a fair number of people who defend killing animals in a hilariously biased and self righteous manner without much of an effort.
I would not eat hot dogs in front of that person out of respect for their beliefs.
And yes, I'm aware, that was kind of what I was saying.
edit: And no, that's purely speculation on your end. As someone who experiences this regularly, there is no suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat consumption, there is purely apathy. People have enough shit going on in their lives and making a drastic life change like straight up switching your diet like that is out of their scope of shit to worry about--people are more concerned with actually surviving, not surviving in a way that is less harmful to animals.
People who aren't vegetarians or vegans don't concern themselves with those thoughts. I mean it's a shitstorm example but, I'm an athiest--the thought and notion of god doesn't ever cross my daily life until it's brought up to me, for all intents and purposes I completely forget the concept of religion is even a thing. It wouldn't even exist to me if it weren't other people--same with vegans. I don't talk about where my food comes from, it doesn't cross my mind, I just got hired at an awesome company; I just moved into my own apartment; I'm looking for a girlfriend; I'm officially "on my own" and I have so much other shit to worry about that quite frankly they'll just have to wait.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
Independent thinking implies independent studies, you can't really use a provegan site as a reliable source, they are going to be biased no matter what. Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school.
So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
Edit : Full disclaimer; I eat meat even though the more time passes the more I enjoy fish and chicken and less red meat, and I also believe our usual westerner diet contains to much fat and meat compared to our needs. Also remember that (and this is not directed at the person I'm replying to or anyone in particular in this thread, but against an argument I've heard many vegans use) Homo Sapiens are an omnivorous species and that encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet. So while it doesn't make sense to eat as much nowadays it isn't abnormal or unhealthy either in reasonable quantities.
The name of this post should really be changed since the OP really did not mean for this thread to be a discussion about veganism but a platform for him to spread the idea of it. Giving demagogic assertions such as: “drinking milk is taking food from a baby cow, it’s absurd” or “an egg is a hen’s period” are not things that are said for the sake of discussion. Arguments like “it’s unnatural for an animal to consume the milk of another’s” are just plainly stupid since anything humans do is natural by definition – we are a part of nature.
Anyways, when one looks beyond these silly “emotion-stirring” arguments one can focus on the core reasons for one to choose a vegan life style. These are the health and environmental consequences (ethics I will comment on at the end)
“The China Study debunked” has 3,000,000,000 results on Google. I’m not saying that these claims are true, but I’m going to say that relying on a pop-book written by a vegan enthusiast and believing that its “findings” are all true is just not thinking critically. It is especially important to just always be in the mind set of “slight disbelief” at any claims that one makes in a subject that the other has no knowledge of. I know nothing about nutrition and therefore I cannot say what is right or wrong but a grand claim such as “Animal protein promotes the growth of cancer” is just silly. Any protein from an animal promotes cancer? Even say if I cook that animal real good and reduce the protein to its amino-acids it will still promote cancer? It’s like saying “amino-acids from animal proteins promote the growth of cancer” (I can be a bit demagogic too)… Which is just stupid since the proteins of all eukaryotes are mostly made up of the same amino-acids. Claims as such only prey on the mind of the ignorant. If you really want answers, go into Google scholar or a University library and check for real scientific articles about the subject that have been published in established journals, not some pop-book written by a man with an agenda.
Concerning environmental issues I’m pretty sure there is no denial that animals create loads of green-house gasses (fun fact: kangaroo emissions are low and is considered environment friendly meat (: ) but I’d like to raise counter points to think of the consequences of transforming the food industry to an all round plant industry: how many kg of plants do we need to replace a cow for instance in the human diet? I’m not just talking about the edible bits of the plant but the whole of it – most of the plant is made up of cellulose which humans cannot digest, unlike the cow which is fully consumed. Beyond that, how much land does it take to grow said kg of plants and how much water is consumed in the process compared to the cow (and the plants that the cow eats), essentially – what is the impact of such a change on water consumption and land occupation. The way I see it now there is a nice balance between raising meat and plants – the un-human-digested parts of the plants go to feed the does-digest-animal which is then eaten by the human. Just a point to think about.
Maybe it sounds like I’m pro-meat-eating but to be honest I really don’t know what is better, I just know there are silly arguments from both ends and one has to think critically about the subject and come to his own conclusions. The only thing I do think is worth discussing and everybody has a sense about is the ethical issues – since one makes his own ethics and there is no absolute truth, everybody is an expert. As that said, I’m going to take back saying that ethics are up for discussion since any discussion about ethics is futile – there is no absolute truth. With that in mind, I’m still going to spill my thoughts about animal consumption: I simply don’t care if they suffer. I only care about my own welfare. It would be nice if they were treated better and had better living conditions as long as it doesn’t have an effect on the price and regularity of distribution.
TLDR: don’t take anything someone says as truth, especially in topics you have no knowledge in. To enhance your knowledge go to the right sources. Think of counter arguments to anything you hear. There is no absolute truth in ethics.
I feel that the benefits of responsible animal husbandry are often overlooked or understudied in discussions like these. I would be one of the first to denounce the terrible way our food system is being run right now. The amount of waste, cruelty and environmental damage and down right terrible quality meat that are byproducts of the current system are staggering.
But my experience with small local farmers and their mixes of traditional and updated land and animal conservation techniques can make a huge difference not only to our environment but our health and wallets eventually as well. Many ruminants such as cows and buffalo have evolved to have a symbiotic relation with their environs by their seasonal herding and feeding patterns that would leave areas properly fertilized as the animals moved on to more plentiful sources of food. Over years in areas like the American Midwest this created wide swaths of land that was incredibly fertile and bountiful that was unfortunately wasted by our settler ancestors who let most of that "Black Gold" be turned to dust and blown away in storms.
Its also possible to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems through introduction of various herbivorous mammals. Such as using goats to eat overgrowth in state and national forests to cut down on wildfire prone areas which then make it possible to do more controlled burning techniques to facilitate the lifecycles of various trees and other plants that need fire make seeds be released. You can then manage the population of said goats to provide people with healthy affordable meat that is water efficient and feed on local fodder. Goats are fun!
I would post more examples but I am running short on time.
Also I feel that there really isnt enough unbiased data out there to be sure of anything since the whole issue can often bound up in various interests groups slinging money around.
Is there any information on the idea of ketosis vs a vegan diet with carbs? I stick to a ketogenic diet for most of the time (lost and trying to lose quite a bit of weight) and I haven't heard of any significant negative side effects. Same thing goes for paleo diets.
Anyone have any information on these two diets and how a vegan diet might be better or worse?
On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote: I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason.
I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it.
Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions Lives Yes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States.
thats relatively the same as saying the average american eats just under 5lb's of food a day. and im guessing you figure takes into account exports whereas mine does not. its assuming that those 10billion 1150lb bull/cows (and this being the largest? animal being eaten you could consider it an extreme) are not being exported. if were taking into account smaller animals (chickens and the like) the 5lb's per person per day will decrease rapidly.
No, the 10 billion number is just close approximation (due to rounding). It literally just counts the number of animals killed at slaughterhouses each year in the United States.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
Independent thinking implies independent studies, you can't really use a provegan site as a reliable source, they are going to be biased no matter what. Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school.
So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
The article is a foil with which to judge the China Study and the site is pro-health not pro-vegan.
"This site isn’t specifically low-carb or high-carb, vegan or carnivore, raw food or cooked food, or anything else that could be neatly labeled. My own experience as a (recovered) raw vegan taught me that diet-dogma is killer, so the emphasis here is on unraveling research rather than building an ideology."
Academics 'read a lot', they just get a piece of paper at the end. If you agree that diplomas aren't everything then there should be no problem with accepting her ideas .
On September 21 2012 08:23 CaptainHaz wrote: Is there any information on the idea of ketosis vs a vegan diet with carbs? I stick to a ketogenic diet for most of the time (lost and trying to lose quite a bit of weight) and I haven't heard of any significant negative side effects. Same thing goes for paleo diets.
Anyone have any information on these two diets and how a vegan diet might be better or worse?
Premise 1: You are what you eat. Premise 2: Vegans eat nuts. Conclusion: Vegans are nuts.
The few vegans I have met in my life provided rich support for that hypothesis. I have no trouble with people who restrict themselves, but people who just want to go out and preach, telling others what (not) to eat, are not on my list of pleasant people.
Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school.
So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
From a quick 30 minute scan of her critical history, I'd say her ideas are worth examining closely. Of course, the data is complex (which is half her point) and needs to be read individually and analysed personally. I think that 1) her criticism was 'flawed' enough to draw a critique from the study's author (scientists, particularly established ones rarely if ever bother to do a detailed critical response to something that is outright wrong) and 2) she was keen and responsible enough to recollect and reformat her thoughts in a more academic matter suggests that her work is honest, unbiased (as much as the Kuhnian in me allows for unbiased science, criticisms of her work never assert she is malicious, only naive) and her criticisms are worth examining.
I'm personally wary of anyone claiming some kind of authority in nutrition after reading 'bad science'. the author in that makes it clear that nutrition studies is a field littered with problems and outright fraud. Basing ANY lifestyle choices off something like the china study is a really, really dumb idea.
On September 21 2012 08:43 Dagobert wrote: Premise 1: You are what you eat. Premise 2: Vegans eat nuts. Conclusion: Vegans are nuts.
The few vegans I have met in my life provided rich support for that hypothesis. I have no trouble with people who restrict themselves, but people who just want to go out and preach, telling others what (not) to eat, are not on my list of pleasant people.
yeah the wish to preach their lifestyle to others appears to be strong with vegans. I know a girl who gives her dog veganic food. Being vegan yourself is all fine and dandy, but a dog? That is borderline animal cruelty.
Veganism as a concept is fine to me. Eating vegetables for health reasons or because you can't stand the thought of animals being killed is a fine stance to take.
Under the stipulation that: -You believe the rest of the world can still eat meat, just like Catholics should let the rest of the world have abortion -you are very very moderate in animal rights. No torture of animals, but we need them for testing and food. An animal gains "rights" in my mind when they are a pet. If someone's pet cat died, that sucks. If a cat died, nature. No polluting nature or torturing animals, but yes farming animals testing animals.
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
A response to Denise's critique by the author of the China Study himself, Dr Campbell:
As far as her substantive comments are concerned, almost all are based on her citing univariate correlations in the China project that can easily mislead, especially if one of the two variables does not have a sufficient range, is too low to be useful and/or is known to be a very different level of exposure at the time of the survey than it would have been years before when disease was developing. There is a number of these univariate correlations in the China project (associations of 2 variables only) that do not fit the model (out of 8000, there would be) and most can be explained by one of these limitations.
Analysis of her critique by a cancer researcher (first 2 posts):
(in response to the china study critique) Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you’ve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I’m impressed by your crude, and – at best – preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.
And here's another very thorough analysis of her critique that suggests she has not even read the book:
Regarding the title, it seems to be a strange question. Denise is undoubtedly a precocious, bright, and hard working young woman. Surely someone who had written a series of apparently thorough and impressive critiques of TCS would know the book like the back of her hand, right? How could anyone doubt whether she has read the entire book?
The question is actually quite understandable, and in the following series of posts myself and others will demonstrate why, in addition to scrutinizing the numerous claims she makes.
I try to have a balanced diet by eating a good amount of veggies and keeping a count on how much meat I consume.
One thing I don't understand is some vegans I know how have health problems, mainly being lack of iron and thus they take vitamin supplements. It's like hey.... did you know that those vitamin tablets could have been made from animals? You didn't see those pills being made, do you really trust what's on the label?
I don't always think vegans are too insane, they usually have good reasons. I for one would like it if regulations regarding farming of animals were stricter and heavily enforced. But I don't have anything against killing animals for food, or killing them for materials. As long as they don't live in agony/terrible conditions, and their death isn't terrible either.
I think being vegan for environmental reasons is silly, and for nutrition it kinda makes sense, but I can easily eat healthy and eat meat as well, like a normal person.
On September 21 2012 09:23 Zariel wrote: I try to have a balanced diet by eating a good amount of veggies and keeping a count on how much meat I consume.
One thing I don't understand is some vegans I know how have health problems, mainly being lack of iron and thus they take vitamin supplements. It's like hey.... did you know that those vitamin tablets could have been made from animals? You didn't see those pills being made, do you really trust what's on the label?
You can get vegan vitamin supplements.
You haven't seen most things you consume made, you need to do research before consuming things usually as a vegan. Don't assume they didn't do the research. If they didn't well, that means they might not be super 100% into the vegan thing, but that doesn't mean they aren't making an effort, they have made the big step of taking out meat, eggs, milk etc.
My cousin used to be a big strong dude that looked healthy enough to me. After he switched to a vegan/vegetarian diet he became thin, weak and pale. I'm sorry but after seeing that it's hard to convince me that such a diet is actually better for you.
Until the day I see a vegan or vegetarian that is big and strong I remain sceptical.
Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the word "natural?" What does it even mean? Isn't everything natural? I mean even our computers come from materials found in nature..
Is there a certain point things stop being natural and become artificial? I don't get it. I always see "natural" labeled on shit but I still have no damn clue what it's supposed to mean in any context. It seems so arbitrary.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: ... Now as I stated before I used to hunt. By no means am I about to join the Animal Liberation Front, but in no way, shape or form is the treatment of animals anywhere remotely near ethical. Animals getting their neck slit while still being alive, putting live pigs in boiling water, throwing live male chicks in the garbage, castrating bulls with no anesthesia, etc. Not even to mention the horrible living conditions where some animals can't even turn around or lie down. There are many other videos like the one above which highlight these standard industry practices. Animals can be happy and sad. They can feel pain just like we do, and have a strong desire just to stay alive. ... This is what I want to discuss. The impact of meat production and consumption on the human body and the environment.
First off, I agree that conventional meat farming is gross, unethical and hazardous to long-term health in many cases. Concentrated animal feeding operations create a lot of problems where they needn't exist. That said, I strongly object to the blanket assertion that ALL farming employs unethical treatment. To prove that you'd need to assess operations at every single farm, ranch and backyard chicken coop on the planet and come away with a 100% "failed to meet ethical standards" scorecard. It isn't going to happen. There are people out there who care about the lives and treatment of the animals too, and some of them raise them for slaughter. I can understand taking a moral stance regarding killing animals, avoiding meat and animal products to live in harmony with that respect for life, but short of that, I don't think veganism is the only option for those that object to conventional farming practices.
I don't think meat production or consumption are intrinsically bad for either the human body or the environment. Specific examples, some quite common, are bad in my opinion, and merit consideration by all reasonable individuals. As far as consumption goes, carnivores and omnivores all over the planet have been eating each other for millennia: it's how nature works, all the way down until you hit the photosynthesizers. Choosing to be a vegan is fine with me, but trying to frame it as the most natural, sensible way of doing things seems silly.
On September 21 2012 09:37 B.I.G. wrote: My cousin used to be a big strong dude that looked healthy enough to me. After he switched to a vegan/vegetarian diet he became thin, weak and pale. I'm sorry but after seeing that it's hard to convince me that such a diet is actually better for you.
Until the day I see a vegan or vegetarian that is big and strong I remain sceptical.
Patrik Baboumian - Former strongman and competitve body builder. Brendan Brazier - Triathelete Arian Foster - Texans running back; top 5 back in the league at the moment, maybe #1 Volkert van der Graaf - Assassin Georges Laraque - Pro hockey player. Petra Němcová - SUPER HOT SUPER MODEL Mike Zigomanis - Pro hockey player. Timothy Bradley - Undefeated WBO welterweight champ. Robert Cheeke - Bodybuilder Luke Cummo - MMA Fighter Mac Danzig - MMA fighter Jon Fitch - Boring ass MMA fighter Scott Jurek - runner Prince Fielder - baseball player ...
I'm actually vegan in a way, except I can eat meat.
Being allergic to seafood, nuts, eggs, and dairy does that to you (but nuts--and maybe seafood--are still okay in vegan diets). As with most of these topics I'm sort of moderate on this one. You can eat whatever you like, however you like it, if I don't care about you. I, however, will enjoy my meat and other such yummy foods. Animal cruelty is a real issue but I'm not as ardent about it by a long shot as are many people.
On September 21 2012 09:37 B.I.G. wrote: My cousin used to be a big strong dude that looked healthy enough to me. After he switched to a vegan/vegetarian diet he became thin, weak and pale. I'm sorry but after seeing that it's hard to convince me that such a diet is actually better for you.
Until the day I see a vegan or vegetarian that is big and strong I remain sceptical.
Patrik Baboumian - Former strongman and competitve body builder. Brendan Brazier - Triathelete Arian Foster - Texans running back; top 5 back in the league at the moment, maybe #1 Volkert van der Graaf - Assassin Georges Laraque - Pro hockey player. Petra Němcová - SUPER HOT SUPER MODEL Mike Zigomanis - Pro hockey player. Timothy Bradley - Undefeated WBO welterweight champ. Robert Cheeke - Bodybuilder Luke Cummo - MMA Fighter Mac Danzig - MMA fighter Jon Fitch - Boring ass MMA fighter Scott Jurek - runner Prince Fielder - baseball player ...
The list can go on. Just go to wikipedia.
... why would you use that sick fuck as an example of a healthy vegan?
On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote: That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for.
Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-)
If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption.
So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism.
Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though.
plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
As far as her substantive comments are concerned, almost all are based on her citing univariate correlations in the China project that can easily mislead, especially if one of the two variables does not have a sufficient range, is too low to be useful and/or is known to be a very different level of exposure at the time of the survey than it would have been years before when disease was developing. There is a number of these univariate correlations in the China project (associations of 2 variables only) that do not fit the model (out of 8000, there would be) and most can be explained by one of these limitations.
(in response to the china study critique) Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you’ve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I’m impressed by your crude, and – at best – preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.
Regarding the title, it seems to be a strange question. Denise is undoubtedly a precocious, bright, and hard working young woman. Surely someone who had written a series of apparently thorough and impressive critiques of TCS would know the book like the back of her hand, right? How could anyone doubt whether she has read the entire book?
The question is actually quite understandable, and in the following series of posts myself and others will demonstrate why, in addition to scrutinizing the numerous claims she makes.
Meat is murder! tasty, tasty murder..mmmmmmmhmmm. Seriously though I could not live without it
I had a veggie burger once though-absolutely 100% confirmed awful.
As a human being I just need to destroy it, consume it, then shit it out. Seems harsh but hey it's our nature. No use fighting it, we are at the top of the food chain...that being said I doubt a shark would worry about giving you anesthesia before it bit your arm off.
I think when discussing a topic like this, you should avoid the word "meant". We, nor any other animal is "meant" to eat one thing or another. You eat what you can and what keeps you alive and healthy. So whether you're talking about eat meat or something else entirely, it's almost always not a good idea to use it.
I'd say this: We have evolved as omnivores. So since we are lucky enough to be able to extract our glucose and various other nutrients we need from various sources, we may choose those we see fit. The options differ when you're trying to accomplish your goal of sustenance while being economical, sensitive to animal welfare, or environmentally friendly. Is there a wrong way to do it? Probably not.
An interesting story, apparently the two places where live the longest is Okinawa, and a small town in Italy. The two main contributing factors to this longevity are diet, and social stimuli. In both cultures elders a held in very high esteem, and are often very socially active. In fact, during an interview with the sort of "village elder" in the Italian City, the interview was interrupted 2 or 3 times by people coming and asking for the gentleman's advice. In Okinawa and in the Italian city (the name of which I forgot) eat a lot of fish, and a lot of vegetables. I think the fish is the really important factor.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: ... Now as I stated before I used to hunt. By no means am I about to join the Animal Liberation Front, but in no way, shape or form is the treatment of animals anywhere remotely near ethical. Animals getting their neck slit while still being alive, putting live pigs in boiling water, throwing live male chicks in the garbage, castrating bulls with no anesthesia, etc. Not even to mention the horrible living conditions where some animals can't even turn around or lie down. There are many other videos like the one above which highlight these standard industry practices. Animals can be happy and sad. They can feel pain just like we do, and have a strong desire just to stay alive. ... This is what I want to discuss. The impact of meat production and consumption on the human body and the environment.
First off, I agree that conventional meat farming is gross, unethical and hazardous to long-term health in many cases. Concentrated animal feeding operations create a lot of problems where they needn't exist. That said, I strongly object to the blanket assertion that ALL farming employs unethical treatment. To prove that you'd need to assess operations at every single farm, ranch and backyard chicken coop on the planet and come away with a 100% "failed to meet ethical standards" scorecard. It isn't going to happen. There are people out there who care about the lives and treatment of the animals too, and some of them raise them for slaughter. I can understand taking a moral stance regarding killing animals, avoiding meat and animal products to live in harmony with that respect for life, but short of that, I don't think veganism is the only option for those that object to conventional farming practices.
I don't think meat production or consumption are intrinsically bad for either the human body or the environment. Specific examples, some quite common, are bad in my opinion, and merit consideration by all reasonable individuals. As far as consumption goes, carnivores and omnivores all over the planet have been eating each other for millennia: it's how nature works, all the way down until you hit the photosynthesizers. Choosing to be a vegan is fine with me, but trying to frame it as the most natural, sensible way of doing things seems silly.
I was mainly speaking about big Industrial meat farms in my OP. I do know there are some smaller farms which do act more humanely to animals, but those are few and far between. They are usually driven out of business, or have extremely limited market share due to the bigger businesses.
To the people talking about the China study I just posted that because it was the most well known study. By no means is it the only one.
The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."
The problem with protein in the Western diet is actually more to do with eating too much than eating too little. Excessive protein consumption can lead to a number of serious health problems. Studies show that vegan diets provide sufficient amounts of protein, automatically met by a balanced, varied diet including grains (e.g. rice) and pulses (e.g. beans). Osteoporosis
Most of our body's calcium is in our bones. The small amount in our bloodstream plays an important role in functions such as muscle contraction and maintenance of the heartbeat. Bloodstream calcium is constantly being lost through urine, sweat and faeces. Replacement comes from the bones, which depend on fresh supplies from the food we eat. Diets rich in animal protein, such as that found in cows' milk, makes the blood more acidic. The body tries to neutralise this by drawing calcium from the bones into the bloodstream, which is filtered through the kidneys and lost through urine. The more dairy consumed, the more calcium the body needs to balance the losses. Therefore too much protein actually leaches calcium from the bones and contributes to weak bones and osteoporosis. Countries whose populations eat low-protein diets have lower rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures (1). Kidney Disease And Kidney Stones
Excess protein consumption produces more nitrogen than the body requires. This strains the kidneys, which must expel the extra nitrogen through urine, causing reduced kidney function. Over time, individuals who consume very large amounts of animal protein, risk permanent loss of kidney function. High animal protein diets also lead to more uric acid in the urine, and a general increase in urine acidity.Because of the acidity, the uric acid does not easily dissolve and can form into kidney stones. Heart Disease And Stroke
Saturated animal fats found in meat and dairy products raise cholesterol and can increase the risk of heart disease and strokes by blocking blood flow through the arteries. If the blood flow to the heart is blocked, a heart attack can occur. If the blood flow to the brain is blocked, a stroke can occur. Official dietary guidelines across the world recommend that no more than 10% of calories should come from saturated fats. In the UK, dairy foods contribute about 20% of total fat intake and over a third of saturated fat (2). Cholesterol is found only in animal products. Meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, and eggs all contain cholesterol, while plant products do not. Choosing lean cuts of meat is not enough; the cholesterol is mainly in the lean portion. Many people are surprised to learn that chicken contains as much cholesterol as beef. A diet rich in whole grains, vegetables, beans and fruits, is free of artery- clogging cholesterol and low in saturated fat. Cancer
Too much fat in the diet is the food-related factor most often identified for increasing the risk of contracting cancer, but protein also plays a role. Populations that eat meat and dairy products regularly are at an increased risk from cancers such as colon, breast, ovarian and prostate. Cows' milk contains a powerful growth hormone - IGF-1 - that stimulates the growth of malignant cells and has been identified as a key factor in the growth of human cancer. People drinking milk have increased levels of IGF-1 in their bodies (3). Diabetes
Studies in various countries have shown a strong link between the consumption of dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes. In 1992 researchers (4) found that a specific dairy protein sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be what destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. Insulin is required to convert glucose from food into energy. If the pancreas does not produce enough insulin then the glucose content in the blood is too high and diabetes occurs. Studies suggest that persons with type 2 diabetes (non-insulin dependent diabetes) can improve and, in some cases, even reverse, the disease by switching to an unrefined vegan diet (5).
Dairy And Crohn's Disease
Research has linked the intestinal disorder Crohn's disease - that causes fever, diarrhoea and pain after eating - with Johne's disease in dairy cows. The bacterium in cows interferes with their digestion, lowers milk production, and eventually kills those infected. This same bacterium has been found in the gut of humans suffering from Crohn's disease, whose symptoms include crippling stomach pain, diarrhoea and other intestinal problems. In addition to genetic factors and bacterial infections, Crohn's disease is affected by diet. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org) has reported that 'many people with the illness have little fibre - specifically vegetables and fruits - and too much sugar in their diet. Boosting plant foods, including whole grain bread and brown rice, while avoiding sugar, white flour, and white rice has reduced patient hospitalisations in research studies.' Allergies
Consuming dairy products has also been linked to a number of allergies such as asthma, eczema and wheezing, especially in childhood. Naturally, the best beverage for infants and small toddlers is mother's breast milk. Even after the first year, food allergies to milk and milk products are common. Many children and teens with irritable bowel syndrome, autism, asthma, and allergies improve when they stop drinking cows' milk. For people who suffer from Irritable Bowel Syndrome (intestinal problem), foods rich in fat such as dairy can make the symptoms worse. GM In Animal Feed
More than 50% of genetically modified crop material grown around the world goes into animal feed. As consumers around the world mobilise against GM products in their own food, few people realise that eating meat and dairy products is throwing a lifeline to the biotechnology industry. While most UK vegetarians rely heavily upon soya in their diet and need to take care to avoid GM crops, meat eaters have an almost impossible task. This is because soyabean oil and meal are common ingredients in compound animal feeds and may well include GM products. There is a danger that the alien DNA inserted into the soya may be taken up by the animal in its feed and eventually get into the human consumer as well. Vegetarian Nutrition
Some people going vegetarian worry about getting enough protein, calcium, B vitamins and other essential nutrients. The best evidence indicates that a balanced non-animal diet is the healthiest there is - for children as well as for adults.
"Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones. Cholesterol levels tend to be lower in vegetarians."
British Medical Association
"Appropriately planned vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets satisfy nutrient needs of infants, children and adolescents and promote normal growth."
The American Dietetic Association
"Vegetarian groups have been shown to have lower risks of cardiovascular disease, lower rates of obesity and longer life expectancy than meat-eaters."
The World Cancer Research Fund
I could go on, but a simple google search can find that animal products can be linked to certain diseases. This isn't me judging anyone or thinking I am superior, but simply trying to give out information. What you do with it and decide is on you.
On September 21 2012 09:37 B.I.G. wrote: My cousin used to be a big strong dude that looked healthy enough to me. After he switched to a vegan/vegetarian diet he became thin, weak and pale. I'm sorry but after seeing that it's hard to convince me that such a diet is actually better for you.
Until the day I see a vegan or vegetarian that is big and strong I remain sceptical.
Patrik Baboumian - Former strongman and competitve body builder. Brendan Brazier - Triathelete Arian Foster - Texans running back; top 5 back in the league at the moment, maybe #1 Volkert van der Graaf - Assassin Georges Laraque - Pro hockey player. Petra Němcová - SUPER HOT SUPER MODEL Mike Zigomanis - Pro hockey player. Timothy Bradley - Undefeated WBO welterweight champ. Robert Cheeke - Bodybuilder Luke Cummo - MMA Fighter Mac Danzig - MMA fighter Jon Fitch - Boring ass MMA fighter Scott Jurek - runner Prince Fielder - baseball player ...
The list can go on. Just go to wikipedia.
... why would you use that sick fuck as an example of a healthy vegan?
Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
"Fairly Slim" isn't Veganism... and there could be a multitude of reasons for that (if it's even true).
And like I said, if you don't live in a first world country what is the chance that you have the convenience of procuring a list such as this? And even if you can get such a list you probably can't get all the different seeds, beans and plants you need at a reasonable cost. I'll stick by what I said. The Vegan lifestyle is made possible by a certain standard of living which most people don't have.
This has actually changed my perspective on veganism quite a bit. Very interesting. If I was promised an additional 5 years on my life if I switched to vegan now, I certainly still wouldn't just because I like non-vegan foods so much. But there was always a 'concern' that went along with vegan diets, and I guess that can go away now.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
I'm rather surprised at how lacking your defense of a vegetarian diet is. You mention ALA, the predominant Omega 3 found in plant material, but fail to mention EHA or DHA, both of which are considered the "holy grail" of Omega 3's for their nutritional value. Furthermore, a proper balance of all three is correlated to the most significant improvement in overall health, and corresponding values decrease when one or more of the acids are absent, meaning all three are important. The only vegetarian way to get proper amounts of EHA and DHA is through seaweed supplementation, chiefly through kelp oil. Even then, large amounts are required and absorbtion efficacy is less than that of equivalent animal sources. In other words, a fair bit of extra supplementation is needed for vegetarians when it comes to optimal fatty acid intake, but it can be done.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
"Fairly Slim" isn't Veganism... and there could be a multitude of reasons for that (if it's even true).
And like I said, if you don't live in a first world country what is the chance that you have the convenience of procuring a list such as this? And even if you can get such a list you probably can't get all the different seeds, beans and plants you need at a reasonable cost. I'll stick by what I said. The Vegan lifestyle is made possible by a certain standard of living which most people don't have.
Yes, they might not be vegan exactly, but many third world countries eat way less meat, and they might need animal products of some kind, I actually don't really have a problem if you eat eggs your chickens grew, or your friends chickens grew and you traded for them(I'm not going to eat eggs or drink milk, cause its nasty). So if third world countries continue to use animals because they have too, so be it. It's when you go down to the supermarket and pick up eggs produced in mass in unethical situations I have an issue .
Families in Central America seem to have the closest resemblance to my diet, with maybe some meat included.
If everyone in the world ate meat once/twice a week, or month, then I would be content as a vegan with that change, it would not be optimal for me, but I feel like that change would better our world. I actually truly believe that someday we won't eat meat as a species anymore, and it will be considered archaic and barbaric if you do.
On September 21 2012 09:37 B.I.G. wrote: My cousin used to be a big strong dude that looked healthy enough to me. After he switched to a vegan/vegetarian diet he became thin, weak and pale. I'm sorry but after seeing that it's hard to convince me that such a diet is actually better for you.
Until the day I see a vegan or vegetarian that is big and strong I remain sceptical.
Patrik Baboumian - Former strongman and competitve body builder. Brendan Brazier - Triathelete Arian Foster - Texans running back; top 5 back in the league at the moment, maybe #1 Volkert van der Graaf - Assassin Georges Laraque - Pro hockey player. Petra Němcová - SUPER HOT SUPER MODEL Mike Zigomanis - Pro hockey player. Timothy Bradley - Undefeated WBO welterweight champ. Robert Cheeke - Bodybuilder Luke Cummo - MMA Fighter Mac Danzig - MMA fighter Jon Fitch - Boring ass MMA fighter Scott Jurek - runner Prince Fielder - baseball player ...
The list can go on. Just go to wikipedia.
... why would you use that sick fuck as an example of a healthy vegan?
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
i will mostly agree with your statements regarding the ethical/environmental consequences of the "typical" meat based processed "food" diet.
however, could you please answer one quick question. for thousands of years before the agricultural revolution, humans ate a diet of fruit/veg, meat, fish, nuts, etc... this is what our bodies are evolved to optimally ingest. in some regards this is what is known as the "paleo" diet.
as such, i get my meats from a butcher i know from farms in the area, not the factory farms prevalent in the industry. moderation in all things.
btw, i am a recovered veggie of 5+ years. now i am a "low-meat consumer". lamb is just too delicious.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
Yup. The point is, if you are in a third world country then you probably are too busy struggling to make ends meet to care even if you're getting correct nutrients. Only here in the developed world are we able to choose how we eat, an we are therefore in no position to preach.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault. Some people know what their choices cause by eating at McDonalds, and then there's a poor boy who caught a fish and that's all the food his family has for the night. You can condemn one, while forgiving the other.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that? It is of my opinion we can improve the state of third world countries and the world, and then eventually lead them towards a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.
If we gave all the starving countries, half the corn/grain we feed to cattle, they would be pretty happy.
personally i ahve no problem with Vegans or vegetarion, my sister is vegan and i never give her crap for it (aside from the odd joke all in good fun but thats a 2 way street)
but i cant stand the vegans who consider it there job to go around and let everyone else know how terrible eating meat is and how much healthier it is to go vegan
personally i dont actually eat that much meat, i enjoy having meat but more often i eat vegetarion meals because i like meat to remain a treat, theres nothing wrong with the way i chose to eat
yes its more "healthy" to eat only vegetables, but as long as you take interest in waht your eating and pay attention and avoid the already cooked dinners and stuff like taht theres no reason you cant enjoy some meat a couple times a week and come out of it completely healthy
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
This. We are blessed with a choice that we can choose to live a clean and healthy lifestyle here. If I am stranded in the woods and need to eat meat to survive, guess what I will. I do not think its morally wrong to eat meat if you absolutely have to. However, if you have a choice I do believe it is unethical given the "side effects".
The people posting about thirld world countries. We could give them nutrient rich plant based foods if we drastically reduced the amount of food that goes solely to the meat industry. We can help them become healthier.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Yes, largely because they couldn't afford it. As they've gotten wealthier they have switched to eating more meat. It is one of the big reasons why food prices have increased so much over the past decade.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
if anyone defends eating dog based on intellect then they are heavily biased, extremely uninformed or jsut plain dumb
people dont eat dogs because there cute, same reason we dont eat cats and dolphins if something gets labelled as "cute" or gets accepted as a standard pet it comes off the menu
thats why cows and pigs who are not cute and not pets stay on the menu
i find it ridiculous that Vegans constantly try to push there lifestyle choices onto others, eating only veggies is not the only way to get healthy its perfectly possible to mantain a healthy life and continue indulging in meats
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment of some animals is immoral, but I don't understand how drinking of dairy would be considered immoral. How is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong? Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
On September 21 2012 11:05 Forikorder wrote: personally i ahve no problem with Vegans or vegetarion, my sister is vegan and i never give her crap for it (aside from the odd joke all in good fun but thats a 2 way street)
but i cant stand the vegans who consider it there job to go around and let everyone else know how terrible eating meat is and how much healthier it is to go vegan
personally i dont actually eat that much meat, i enjoy having meat but more often i eat vegetarion meals because i like meat to remain a treat, theres nothing wrong with the way i chose to eat
yes its more "healthy" to eat only vegetables, but as long as you take interest in waht your eating and pay attention and avoid the already cooked dinners and stuff like taht theres no reason you cant enjoy some meat a couple times a week and come out of it completely healthy
I'm paleo and I eat more vegetables than vegans. Most vegans I know chomp down on grains, tofu, and sweets.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Why is it wrong to kill pigs for food yet not wrong to kill corn for food? Both are alive. I'm sure you have your reasons for drawing that distinction, yet I don't see how your reasons are any less arbitrary than my own carnivorous reasons.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Well one things happen in nature as nature is, without the faculty of reason and human empathy. That is why lions and other preys hunt and kill zebras etc. in the most brutal way like it's no one's business. Human's on the other hand have such faculties. Empathy, compassion. More importantly, we have the technology to do the killing less painful. This is an ideologica argument actually. It depends on how you believe animals should be treated and how humans should conduct their actions.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
I just came here to see if anyone reported getting any Vegan Powers... On one had I thing veganism is good, but also kind of excessive
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give
I belive for the most part we don't actually do this, the cows are bred to produce more milk than if they had evoloved naturally but very few cows(about 17%) in the US are give hormons to help production.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
While it's understandable to say that we shouldn't unnecessarily torture animals, your statement is putting animals at the same ethical level as humans, and I, and many others, sure as hell don't feel that animals are at the same level ethically as we are. Carnivorous or omnivorous diets have existed in a multitiude of species, including our own, since the beginning of said species. I really want to see an argument that can actually say that it is ethically wrong for me to kill an animal (as a general rule). It sure as hell doesn't follow any law of nature (as we can see), and I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to make an appeal to divine authority. Furthermore, I still want to see some evidence that straight up meat is bad; not that the shitty, processed meat that we eat here is bad for you, but that all meat, no matter what, is worse for you than going to a vegan diet, until then, I'm sticking with my omnivorous diet.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an intrepid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being, pain simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
I truly HATE these kinds of threads, I'm trying to lose weight but whenever I see these debates I feel an URGE to eat a double baconator with Cheese from Wendys TM . Strangely I also get the urge to eat eggs...
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
On September 21 2012 07:19 SolonTLG wrote: Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
So basically veganism just like communism and feminism preaches that if everyone suddenly starts thinking exactly like you and your comrades, the world would be in some sort of utopia. And to achieve this there is no better way than appealing to emotion slogannering such first world inventions like "animal cruelty" or "animal rights" and so on, when the truth is that by looking at a mirror you realize that the human race was designed to eat meat and nothing is going to change that. I'm preparing a lovely steak tomorrow, it's so delicious.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
I really feel that the argument in this thread is just a going in a circle around the subjectiveness of a peoples morals. You find it immoral the way that animals are treated, because you hold them on the same level as humans and believe they should be treated as such. And I simply don't hold animals on the same level as you. I think farm animals are raised for a purpose, and that is to be eaten, I don't feel sympathy for them simply because they lost the birth lottery. As a person who's life revolves around food, I found this debate to be an interesting read, and I thank you for expanding my knowledge on the subject. Since this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I felt like throwing in my 2 cents and now I'm stepping out.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
HOW can you compare human brain and dog brain? Or any other animal brain, for that matter? Human brain weight around 1.5 kg, thats dozens, hundred times more than animal brains. Noone can say for sure how any animal realizes this world simply because humans are only ones who can think.
There was a chicken who lived a year or two without a head. Look it up, i think there was an article about it in "Times" (somewhere in 1930-s).
Damn, that sounded way too harsh, and i already see how people will misread it. I had so many good points and arguments, but some responses and "facts"(from both sides, mind you) in this tread completely killed my urge to give somewhat comprehensible comments, leaving me in shock.
The more i speak with vegetarians/vegans, the more i have a feeling that they are a members of some cult. So theres no point of keeping up the argument.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
Substitute "animal" in your post with any minority that was treated badly in the past but which we try to treat equally now (take blacks, jews, whoever you want to) and you can be pretty damn sure that someone said the exact same thing about that group during that time.
Now we call that type of thinking barbaric, immoral and unethical. A few million years ago we used to chop another guys head off for trying to live next to us. We still chop other guys heads off for having a different belief or color of their skin but we can say that "anti-racism" is an appreciated concept in the western world. "Anti-specicism" is nothing more or less than extending that chain of thought.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
I never put it on the same level. But the argument as such as certainly not weak.
We are absolutely superior in intelligence and capability. But suffering is not exactly some emergent property of being able to geometry. It is engrained in much of life, especially those we call our close cousins. Go beat a dog with a pipe, then a human. In what ways does the behaviour differ? Both will try and avoid it, protect themselves, yell in pain. If we structure our morality in such a way to class suffering as bad, then we ought to extend it as best we can to all suffering creatures.
I mean, there are mentally disabled humans who will be less intelligent then some apes. Which do I have a greater ethical obligation to? Why not ignore species, and treat them as individuals living beings, rather than grouping all non-human things as ethically less important. Species, imo ought to be arbitrary in ethical action (in the same way race is now a non-issue in the ethical treatment of others).
I mean imagine we find a small tribe of non-homosapien 'humans', who possess nearly identical properties to huamns (and also taste delicious). Where ought they be ranked in our ethical ladder? Do we afford them as much ethical consideration as, say a pig? Factory farming them in tiny cages, all for the sake of their delicious meat? I mean, they're not human, so why worry? Or do we consider them ethically relevant becuase they, like us, can suffer.
I think that many vegans are huge hypocrites. I mean, many of them just do their part and that's great, but others are judgmental fucks and because of that I feel entitled to judge them right back.
It always bothers me when I read posts like OP's and a few vegan radicals who post here. Grand ideas about how veganism is the way to some sort of greater good. But really when you look into it, you find out these things.
1: The so-called objective arguments about the environment are absurd. We could wipe out all of our farm animals to reduce their carbon dioxide output. We could also gut Chinese orphans. Also, if you're so worried about carbon dioxide, why do you drive a car? 2: The moral argument is ambiguous at best and appeals to emotion. The fact that some animals are treated poorly does not mean that we shouldn't have them. We could also gut Chinese orphans since they could have bad lives. 3: Health: Your call. It's your body. But know that you can lead a healthy life without being a vegan.
So I say many of them are hypocrites because they chose that cause among many others, and that cause only. They bring up the environmental issues like they're most important things in the world, but when they're not eating grass they use automobiles and buy shit manufactured in China like the rest of us.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
I never put it on the same level. But the argument as such as certainly not weak.
We are absolutely superior in intelligence and capability. But suffering is not exactly some emergent property of being able to geometry. It is engrained in much of life, especially those we call our close cousins. Go beat a dog with a pipe, then a human. In what ways does the behaviour differ? Both will try and avoid it, protect themselves, yell in pain. If we structure our morality in such a way to class suffering as bad, then we ought to extend it as best we can to all suffering creatures.
I mean, there are mentally disabled humans who will be less intelligent then some apes. Which do I have a greater ethical obligation to? Why not ignore species, and treat them as individuals living beings, rather than grouping all non-human things as ethically less important. Species, imo ought to be arbitrary in ethical action (in the same way race is now a non-issue in the ethical treatment of others).
I mean imagine we find a small tribe of non-homosapien 'humans', who possess nearly identical properties to huamns (and also taste delicious). Where ought they be ranked in our ethical ladder? Do we afford them as much ethical consideration as, say a pig? Factory farming them in tiny cages, all for the sake of their delicious meat? I mean, they're not human, so why worry? Or do we consider them ethically relevant becuase they, like us, can suffer.
When we meet this tribe of delicious pygmies, I hope that there is vigorous debate, followed by a jubilant dinner celebration; for that night, we shall feast on the flesh of sub-humans.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
I never put it on the same level. But the argument as such as certainly not weak.
We are absolutely superior in intelligence and capability. But suffering is not exactly some emergent property of being able to geometry. It is engrained in much of life, especially those we call our close cousins. Go beat a dog with a pipe, then a human. In what ways does the behaviour differ? Both will try and avoid it, protect themselves, yell in pain. If we structure our morality in such a way to class suffering as bad, then we ought to extend it as best we can to all suffering creatures.
I mean, there are mentally disabled humans who will be less intelligent then some apes. Which do I have a greater ethical obligation to? Why not ignore species, and treat them as individuals living beings, rather than grouping all non-human things as ethically less important. Species, imo ought to be arbitrary in ethical action (in the same way race is now a non-issue in the ethical treatment of others).
I mean imagine we find a small tribe of non-homosapien 'humans', who possess nearly identical properties to huamns (and also taste delicious). Where ought they be ranked in our ethical ladder? Do we afford them as much ethical consideration as, say a pig? Factory farming them in tiny cages, all for the sake of their delicious meat? I mean, they're not human, so why worry? Or do we consider them ethically relevant becuase they, like us, can suffer.
Race is a non-issue because there are no significant differences between races. This is clearly not the case between species. By your logic, fumigating my house is equivalent to mass murder. As for your hypothetical, obviously we wouldn't "rank" them the same as a pig since they are of equivalent intelligence and consciousness.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
Substitute "animal" in your post with any minority that was treated badly in the past but which we try to treat equally now (take blacks, jews, whoever you want to) and you can be pretty damn sure that someone said the exact same thing about that group during that time.
Now we call that type of thinking barbaric, immoral and unethical. A few million years ago we used to chop another guys head off for trying to live next to us. We still chop other guys heads off for having a different belief or color of their skin but we can say that "anti-racism" is an appreciated concept in the western world. "Anti-specicism" is nothing more or less than extending that chain of thought.
We call it immoral because those minorities were still human fucking beings. The fact that you try to compare the hardships that Jews have gone through for thousands of years, that black have gone through in America, that countless other minorities have gone through in countless other cultures, to a fucking animal that has no higher intelligence and isn't even self-aware is so incredibly insulting that you deserve to be smacked right now. I am seriously floored that you can't understand how insulting it is to compare things like minority suffering and the Holocaust to animals.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
Because, other than a passing reference to some universal equality of "beings", you and other defenders of veganism fail to provide a good reason to equate humans with animals.
We, as humans, do not chew our cud or anything of the like. We can't even digest plant material properly in our stomach.
We are secondary consumers, not primary herbivores. It isn't efficient, but our bodies are designed to take in energy from meat supplemented with vegetation.
Debating the ethical/moral/health reasons that the food INDUSTRY is treating animals a certain way/processing food for our consumption is an entirely different debate, but for the purposes of being purely healthy, vegan-ism is definitely not necessary.
You can eat organic meat and animal products too. Or did your documentaries you watched not cover their health benefits, op? I think you had a bit of expectism when you were watching/looking into the whole vegan thing. You WANTED it to be true as you began researching it, so you found the logic to justify it.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
I never put it on the same level. But the argument as such as certainly not weak.
We are absolutely superior in intelligence and capability. But suffering is not exactly some emergent property of being able to geometry. It is engrained in much of life, especially those we call our close cousins. Go beat a dog with a pipe, then a human. In what ways does the behaviour differ? Both will try and avoid it, protect themselves, yell in pain. If we structure our morality in such a way to class suffering as bad, then we ought to extend it as best we can to all suffering creatures.
I mean, there are mentally disabled humans who will be less intelligent then some apes. Which do I have a greater ethical obligation to? Why not ignore species, and treat them as individuals living beings, rather than grouping all non-human things as ethically less important. Species, imo ought to be arbitrary in ethical action (in the same way race is now a non-issue in the ethical treatment of others).
I mean imagine we find a small tribe of non-homosapien 'humans', who possess nearly identical properties to huamns (and also taste delicious). Where ought they be ranked in our ethical ladder? Do we afford them as much ethical consideration as, say a pig? Factory farming them in tiny cages, all for the sake of their delicious meat? I mean, they're not human, so why worry? Or do we consider them ethically relevant becuase they, like us, can suffer.
Race is a non-issue because there are no significant differences between races. This is clearly not the case between species. By your logic, fumigating my house is equivalent to mass murder. As for your hypothetical, obviously we wouldn't "rank" them the same as a pig since they are of equivalent intelligence and consciousness.
So if ranking them is dependent on intelligence and consciousness, why can I not eat a severely mentally disablled child who is of the same intellectual level as a pig* (ignoring the awkwardness that would ensue)? Isn't capacity to suffer a better benchmark?
*I apoligize if this is offensive, it is not my intention and I have no desire to encourage a negative or harmful view towards disabled people. It is simply for the sake of argument.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
To be fair, just because you have a bigoted view (in your hypothetical situation), does not make your scenario justifiable.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
But they didn't. A pig did not suffer like a Jew that was murdered in the holocaust. A pig did not have hopes and dreams as well as a complete understanding of the fate that awaited it. Then have to watch its close family is taken or killed in a gas chamber. You comparing a pig to that is disgusting.
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
Because, other than a passing reference to some universal equality of "beings", you and other defenders of veganism fail to provide a good reason to equate humans with animals.
"I can see how it suffers for my pleasure. I don't want other beings to suffer for my pleasure."
That's all the reasoning I need personally. :o ... Where do you disagree? You think it's okay for someone to suffer because of weakness or lesser intelligence?
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote: [quote] What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 11:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:51 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:43 SupLilSon wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
Because, other than a passing reference to some universal equality of "beings", you and other defenders of veganism fail to provide a good reason to equate humans with animals.
"I can see how it suffers for my pleasure. I don't want other beings to suffer for my pleasure."
That's all the reasoning I need personally. :o ... Where do you disagree? You think it's okay for someone to suffer because of weakness or lesser intelligence?
Anecdotally, I once struggled with obesity. Throughout high school, I toyed around with vegan, low carb, and paleo diets. After a great deal of hard work and careful attention paid to my eating habits, I've found that I am most healthy with a protein heavy, low carb, vegetable rich diet. I give thanks before every meal, not to any God in particular, but to the grace of having the ability to eat that which satiates me and enables my health. I also luckily live in Washington and have a great deal of access to organic and small farm animal products. I've gotten to the point where pleasure is a tiny component of my food choices, so your oversimplistic premises simply do not reflect my reality.
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Rather: Oh, look here we are. Instead of actually trying to understand why that comparison makes perfect sense APART from "animals != humans" you prefer to make a snide comment.
Actually the other difference I can think of "no one intended to eat those people". The scary thing for me personally is the incredibly number of similarities between those cases.
What you fail to realize is that a great many people consider the very notion of an attempt at seperating the atrocity of the holocaust and the humanity involved a terrible insult to those who died. You are basically saying "Hey, I'm going to use your people's genocide, pretend humanity is divorcible from it, and apply it to non-humans."
That's a terrible insult? What I find to be a much bigger insult is to pretend that any of the people who died would want to see any other being suffer like they did. The reason we find the holocaust to be something insane that should never happen again is because we're able to find our own conscious logic between the fucked-up 'logical' reasoning ("they are sub-humans which deserve to not be treated equal") and our own emotional response if we think about those people as "fellow human beings" which leads to: "it's insane".
To put it into perspective I'll just go on with another quote that is all over this thread:
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
There's an innumerable amount of species that have eaten meat since the birth of said species. If anything can be said to be natural, meat-eating surely can. Animals eat other animals that are lower on the food chain. Every animal is lower us.
There's your logical argument for eating meat.
What you're saying is "We're just another animal". Personally, I think the step from "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow human" now says "fuck, we can't do that to another fellow animal".
We're not forced by instinct to eat meat. We're not forced to eat it because it's the only option we have. We can make the conscious decision whether we want to go down that path or not with every meal we eat. We as a species evolved above all those things. What's wrong with also evolving the way we think about other living beings?
But they didn't. A pig did not suffer like a Jew that was murdered in the holocaust. A pig did not have hopes and dreams as well as a complete understanding of the fate that awaited it. Then have to watch its close family is taken or killed in a gas chamber. You comparing a pig to that is disgusting.
We don't care whether a pig has hopes and dreams or suffers if he has to watch other pigs die. Substitute "pig" with "jew" and you have "the moral basis" of the holocaust. That line is way too thin to just let it slide. We don't care if a mother cow feels badly about her child being taken away. I'll throw some examples at you about elephants because those are some I knew where to find them easily:
"Joyce Poole documented an encounter told to her by Colin Francombe on Kuki Gallman's Laikipia Ranch. A ranch herder was out on his own with camels when he came across a family of elephants. The matriarch charged at him and knocked him over with her trunk, breaking one of his legs. In the evening, when he did not return, a search party was sent in a truck to find him. When the party discovered him, he was being guarded by an elephant. The animal charged the truck, so they shot over her and scared her away. The herdsman later told them that when he could not stand up, the elephant used her trunk to lift him under the shade of a tree. She guarded him for the day and would gently touch him with her trunk."
"Elephant researcher Martin Meredith recalls an occurrence in his book about a typical elephant death ritual that was witnessed by Anthony Hall-Martin, a South African biologist who had studied elephants in Addo, South Africa, for over eight years. The entire family of a dead matriarch, including her young calf, were all gently touching her body with their trunks, trying to lift her. The elephant herd were all rumbling loudly. The calf was observed to be weeping and made sounds that sounded like a scream, but then the entire herd fell incredibly silent. They then began to throw leaves and dirt over the body and broke off tree branches to cover her. They spent the next two days quietly standing over her body. They sometimes had to leave to get water or food, but they would always return."
"Occurrences of elephants behaving this way around human beings are common throughout Africa. On many occasions, they have buried dead or sleeping humans or aided them when they were hurt.[21] Meredith also recalls an event told to him by George Adamson, a Kenyan Game Warden, regarding an old Turkana woman who fell asleep under a tree after losing her way home. When she woke up, there was an elephant standing over her, gently touching her. She kept very still because she was very frightened. As other elephants arrived, they began to scream loudly and buried her under branches. She was found the next morning by the local herdsmen, unharmed."
Is that about sadness? Protecting other weaker "animals"? I don't know. I just know that a dog can be a wonderful mother to a cat. I know that a cat that likes me will notice when I'm sad will try to comfort me. Do I consider myself as more empathic than a cat? Yes. That's why I don't want to look away when I see a pig OR a human being OR a cat suffer needlessly. It doesn't boil down to eating meat for me personally, it boils down to unnecessary suffering. It shouldn't be tolerated for any species that can suffer.
I remember a leopard killing an ape, seeing it had a cub and it seemed that it suddenly felt bad about it and started caring. I don't know what it's about. But I can't stand up and say "lol, look, it's just a random thing that's meant to be used for my pleasure".
Oh this thread makes me facepalm, from the comparison between killing animals and minorities (wtf????) to the suspect of chickens surviving years without a head...
Oh and yeah in my opinion we are just another animal, basically a mammal without fur and a bigger, better brain, I honestly think it is pretty funny that some posters deny that notion. If we would indeed be able to make individual decisions based on available information why do we need stuff like anthropology, human psychology, biology? If individuals on a large scale would make rational decisions, behaviour could be exactly foreseen, as there should be always something like a best way. Infact the world does not work this way.
Sometimes it seems that we are smart enough to rationalize stupid behaviour but unable to do the right things...
I don't care if someone tries to eat vegan or whatever, it is the stupid rationalizations behind it, that make me facepalm hard
As a vegetarian my whole life mainly due to religious reasons, I am fairly biased. However, I have come to realize the true ethical reasons why killing animals is cruel. Animals kill each other because they have no way to reason and they have no alternative that humans do. If humans can survive well without putting other animals in horrible living conditions and brutally executing them, why do we feel so compelled to do the opposite?
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the stupidity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Your comparison is invalid, there is no need for "Any other takers" ....
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
Allright. I doubt you or anyone else with your stance will ever do it because it could compromise your views and your attitude but there's usually a point in those discussions where there's no other choice but this one. If you can watch the movie below through the end and still say "I don't give a fuck, animals are supposed to be slaughtered for my food" then just tell any vegan/most veggies who tries to talk to you about this topic that you did just that. They will most likely never bother you again.
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
I never said I was a vegan, nor superior, nor do I wish to denegrate mentally disablled people. I am simply searching for the root cause of why many people have little to no ethical obligation to non-human animals. If you could kindly post a reasonable defence, that doesn't appeal to either reasons (a) and (b) which I posted above. Or if they do then explain why they are sufficient. I assume you would more likely suggest that (b) is the case. Accepting that intelligence is the sole factor in determining ethical obligation, do I have more obligation toward an animal than a human, assuming it were possible to demonstrate that a regularly farmed and eaten animal was more intelligent than the human in question.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
Animals are not worth the same as humans in an ethical system. Fuck, come on, there is no way you're going to make the argument that they are. I mean really, I'm not an animal hater by any means, I really do like animals and the idea of even accidentally hurting an animal with my own hands is horrible to me, but that said, trying to put animals on the same ethical level as me or any other human is incredibly insulting to humanity.
Substitute "animal" in your post with any minority that was treated badly in the past but which we try to treat equally now (take blacks, jews, whoever you want to) and you can be pretty damn sure that someone said the exact same thing about that group during that time.
Now we call that type of thinking barbaric, immoral and unethical. A few million years ago we used to chop another guys head off for trying to live next to us. We still chop other guys heads off for having a different belief or color of their skin but we can say that "anti-racism" is an appreciated concept in the western world. "Anti-specicism" is nothing more or less than extending that chain of thought.
All minorities = human. Thus any minority still > animals. Why are you comparing minorities to animals, that is very degrading.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
Oh wow, you didnt just compare an 8 year old HUMAN girl to a cow did you? I suppose Hitler comes next, out of this thread now.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.
Oh and look here we are. People comparing a slaughterhouse to the freaking holocaust.
Sadly, Hitler is the ultimate destination for every internet forum that is slightly related to violence, human rights, and just about any topic actually.
On September 21 2012 12:48 DropBear wrote: How many starving kids in Africa are vegan?
Veganism is only possible from being in a society that allows excess.
Close to 100% of them are vegans, or at best vegetarian. You need to understand more about the nature of meat eating to realize that you have it backwards. Meat farming is absurdly more costly than farming grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat in places of poverty is considered more of a delicacy than an everyday consumption like we are used to in the west. It is several times more inexpensive to harvest grains and vegetables than it is to produce meat and dairy products. I think you are imagining veganism from the point of view of the western world, when you see organic products at the store twice as expensive as non-organic, or when our meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, but broccili and asparagus and strawberries aren't. You might be used to seeing expensive restaurants that offer vegan food that is 50% more expensive than your average sit-down place, or even compare it to going to McDonald's and getting a "meat" burger for $1. It's much different than that in reality.
On September 21 2012 11:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
I never said I was a vegan, nor superior, nor do I wish to denegrate mentally disablled people. I am simply searching for the root cause of why many people have little to no ethical obligation to non-human animals. If you could kindly post a reasonable defence, that doesn't appeal to either reasons (a) and (b) which I posted above. Or if they do then explain why they are sufficient. I assume you would more likely suggest that (b) is the case. Accepting that intelligence is the sole factor in determining ethical obligation, do I have more obligation toward an animal than a human, assuming it were possible to demonstrate that a regularly farmed and eaten animal was more intelligent than the human in question.
Cheers.
Same for you Lombard.
How about I choose C, the option that you failed to give, you dont eat your own. Retarded children are still human and can be interacted with in a human way. If some retarded aliens showed up at out doorstep, I'd think about eating them, depending on what weapons they have and how they taste.
You have some really good arguments here, which is a first for a vegan by my book
I am generally ill disposed against vegans because most view it as a fad.
I have no notion of nutrition whatsoever and i dont really care that much about my nutrition to look into it, so i have nothing to offer in this part of the discussion.
Ethically, i believe that unless they were consumed as meat or dairy products, most animals would have a very low population, similar to endangered species. Therefore, i believe that a life on the premise of slaughter is still better than no life at all. If everyone turned vegan we would see animal's population thin down to almost nothing, since why would anyone have farms if he can;t use the animals for food. In conclusion veganism would kill many more animals than it would save due to not eating them.
The enviromental part is something i don't agree at all. Animals definetely produce more CO2 and methane. however their effect on global warming is still something scientists dispute. Methane and CO2 are produced from other sources heavily, therefore it is unclear how much livestock contributes to this. Also as a sidenote we still don;t know just how much CO2 we need in the atmosphere for the greenhouse effect to be in the best stage, so for all we know maybe this co2 cows make is needed for the world to survive. In addition since most vegans i know are like fashion victims and just follow a fad after another, every single vegan i know owns a pet. 1 pet is worse for the environment than 10 farm animals, given that pets actually consume meat products aswell. Therefore it is highly hypocritical when a vegan talks about environmental reasons while he owns a pet and feeds it meat...
Something you did not include is taste, where i think veganism takes its biggest hit.
All i have to say in the end is that everyone should eat whatever they like. However spewing out hatred and declaring everywhere you go that you are a vegan is fucking stupid. I dont care what people do with their body, and when i BBQ i always toss some mushrooms for the vegan girls. however i swear if i get anyone else to tell me "how do you eat that?" i am gonna slap him so hard with my meat-eating hands...
On a lighter note, some thousand years back, vegans were just the village loosers :D
Hunting and killing animals is something we have in our blood, why try to get rid of it so hastily.
On September 21 2012 12:48 DropBear wrote: How many starving kids in Africa are vegan?
Veganism is only possible from being in a society that allows excess.
Close to 100% of them are vegans, or at best vegetarian. You need to understand more about the nature of meat eating to realize that you have it backwards. Meat farming is absurdly more costly than farming grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat in places of poverty is considered more of a delicacy than an everyday consumption like we are used to in the west. It is several times more inexpensive to harvest grains and vegetables than it is to produce meat and dairy products. I think you are imagining veganism from the point of view of the western world, when you see organic products at the store twice as expensive as non-organic, or when our meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, but broccili and asparagus and strawberries aren't. You might be used to seeing expensive restaurants that offer vegan food that is 50% more expensive than your average sit-down place, or even compare it to going to McDonald's and getting a "meat" burger for $1. It's much different than that in reality.
You know growing foods with pesticides and herbicides and hormones produces many times the food compared to the "pure" foods vegans eat right. No starving kid in Africa can afford to be a vegan.
On September 21 2012 11:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
Allright. I doubt you or anyone else with your stance will ever do it because it could compromise your views and your attitude but there's usually a point in those discussions where there's no other choice but this one. If you can watch the movie below through the end and still say "I don't give a fuck, animals are supposed to be slaughtered for my food" then just tell any vegan/most veggies who tries to talk to you about this topic that you did just that. They will most likely never bother you again.
We get it you love animals and wouldn't hurt them.
Stop trying to convert us and go about your life while we lead ours the way we like it.
And no, i don't have to watch a militant video just to get you off my back. being a vegan doesn't give you the right to get on your high horse and insult people or tell them what to do. Live and let live. wanting people to be like you only reveals your insecurities.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
Actually you chose (a) Humans are sacred. What your argument appears to boil down to is that because you are human, humans matter to you. Other animals/aliens are not human, so you have no ethical obligations to them. This is akin to what a christian might believe when the bible speaks of the earth as being under human stewardship and humans as god's special creation, whilst everything else is disposable, irrelevant and soulless. Biology demonstrates that humans are infact animals, and share many similarities which fellow life forms. These lifeforms, though less intelligent, are still capable of suffering in a manner similar to us. To me, this is what gives them ethical relevance. I've tried to understand opposing arguments, but they all seem severely faulty or undeveloped.
Anyways. I have work, maybe there will be some more stuff once I get back. Its been fun everyone, no hard feelings!
On September 21 2012 13:14 Dali. wrote: Actually you chose (a) Humans are sacred. What your argument appears to boil down to is that because you are human, humans matter to you. Other animals/aliens are not human, so you have no ethical obligations to them. This is akin to what a christian might believe when the bible speaks of the earth as being under human stewardship and humans as god's special creation, whilst everything else is disposable, irrelevant and soulless. Biology demonstrates that humans are infact animals, and share many similarities which fellow life forms. These lifeforms, though less intelligent, are still capable of suffering in a manner similar to us. To me, this is what gives them ethical relevance. I've tried to understand opposing arguments, but they all seem severely faulty or undeveloped.
Anyways. I have work, maybe there will be some more stuff once I get back. Its been fun everyone, no hard feelings!
<3
No, not eating your own is a biological imperative (instinct) that many higher biological beings have, it has nothing to do with religion.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others (HUMAN BEINGS) and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
Allright. I doubt you or anyone else with your stance will ever do it because it could compromise your views and your attitude but there's usually a point in those discussions where there's no other choice but this one. If you can watch the movie below through the end and still say "I don't give a fuck, animals are supposed to be slaughtered for my food" then just tell any vegan/most veggies who tries to talk to you about this topic that you did just that. They will most likely never bother you again.
We get it you love animals and wouldn't hurt them.
Stop trying to convert us and go about your life while we lead ours the way we like it.
And no, i don't have to watch a militant video just to get you off my back. being a vegan doesn't give you the right to get on your high horse and insult people or tell them what to do. Live and let live. wanting people to be like you only reveals your insecurities.
I want people to use their brains instead of giving me "I eat meat that's how I roll it's none of your business". If someone tells me "I hate black people it's not your problem, stfu" I act exactly the same. If someone can't give a rational reasoning for what he's doing, he's stupid. That's not an insult, it's an observation. If someone can't relate to others he shows a lack of empathy. If someone claims that animals don't suffer it's a mix of both.
PS: I'm not vegan.
PPS: I try to live as vegan as possible without it ruining my quality of life. If I buy milk in a store it will most likely be soy, if I'm im at someone's house I won't bitch about normal milk. If you consider the expectation that human beings should use their brain and consciously live their lives insulting and sitting on a high horse then I'm pretty happy about it.
Not thinking about why you eat what you eat or not wanting to know how it's produced is on the exact same level as not thinking about why you like or dislike a certain group of people and not wanting to understand them if they have a different background than you do. It's ignorant and stupid.
On September 21 2012 12:48 DropBear wrote: How many starving kids in Africa are vegan?
Veganism is only possible from being in a society that allows excess.
Close to 100% of them are vegans, or at best vegetarian. You need to understand more about the nature of meat eating to realize that you have it backwards. Meat farming is absurdly more costly than farming grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat in places of poverty is considered more of a delicacy than an everyday consumption like we are used to in the west. It is several times more inexpensive to harvest grains and vegetables than it is to produce meat and dairy products. I think you are imagining veganism from the point of view of the western world, when you see organic products at the store twice as expensive as non-organic, or when our meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, but broccili and asparagus and strawberries aren't. You might be used to seeing expensive restaurants that offer vegan food that is 50% more expensive than your average sit-down place, or even compare it to going to McDonald's and getting a "meat" burger for $1. It's much different than that in reality.
You know growing foods with pesticides and herbicides and hormones produces many times the food compared to the "pure" foods vegans eat right. No starving kid in Africa can afford to be a vegan.
Yes, using pesticides and growth hormones produces more food quantity than not using them. These chemicals have nothing to do with being vegan or not. Veganism is the idea of not consuming any animal-based products, and has nothing to do with these other procedures. It just so happens that people that are normally interested in veganism are also interested in eating more organic (without these pesticides and other chemicals) because of their health benefits as well.
Most places in Africa, South America, and almost all of Europe don't use any of these chemicals at all. In Europe it is illegal in most countries, and in poorer places like South America and Africa, it is too expensive to use them, therefore nearly all of the plant-based food they eat is organic and vegan.
How many dozens of meals do you think you can eat of rice, beans, quinoa, and vegetables in countries in Africa that would amount to a single dinner at a steakhouse in your town? There is a reason that nearly 100% of peoples' diet in African countries, India, southeast Asia, etc. are almost all plant-based -- they are much, much cheaper to produce.
I think you are using the view of what it means to be vegan in the western world and applying it to places around the globe instead of understanding their own situations. When some of the people in these countries make $1-$2 a day, do you think that they are going to save up to buy a steak for their family of 6, of get the biggest bag of dry rice and beans they can and go home and boil it for their family instead?
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
The notion that eating meat puts you at a higher risk of coronary heart diseases, diabetes and such stuff is highely misleading and ill informing. It is the quantity and quality that makes the poison. Also fats are not bad per se, again the quantity makes the poison.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
Agree, too. That's why I'm personally choosing to eat as few meat as possible. I remember choosing a Gulash though a few years at a place where I had literally no other options over not eating for a couple of days while exercising. =P
My point is, I won't even think about busting anyones balls who knows what's going on, still loves how meat tastes and decides for him or herself that it's cool once per week. That's just drawing the line a bit further away from me. For me it's about the conscious decision about what's on our table and where it comes from. The goal on a grander scale should be to find ways to inform those who are ignorant about those facts and show them that they are.
The problem is when people on the extreme end try to force their beliefs and ideologies to others. We can all agree on a stable middle line on this issue.
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
The notion that eating meat puts you at a higher risk of coronary heart diseases, diabetes and such stuff is highely misleading and ill informing. It is the quantity and quality that makes the poison. Also fats are not bad per se, again the quantity makes the poison.
Your country and my country are two of the fattest, most obese countries on the entire planet, and it just so happens that we are both two of the highest meat and dairy consumers in the world also. Yes quantity and quality make a huge difference, and so does genetics, age, active lifestyle, individual metabolisms, etc. But by reducing or abstaining from the consumption of these products, you greatly reduce your risk of those chronic illnesses.
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
The notion that eating meat puts you at a higher risk of coronary heart diseases, diabetes and such stuff is highely misleading and ill informing. It is the quantity and quality that makes the poison. Also fats are not bad per se, again the quantity makes the poison.
Your country and my country are two of the fattest, most obese countries on the entire planet, and it just so happens that we are both two of the highest meat and dairy consumers in the world also. Yes quantity and quality make a huge difference, and so does genetics, age, active lifestyle, individual metabolisms, etc. But by reducing or abstaining from the consumption of these products, you greatly reduce your risk of those chronic illnesses.
So consuming an excess of something might be bad for you? I'll have to bring this to Parliament before it's too late!
Question here. So I tried being vegetarian awhile ago and was slowly phasing into veganism. Overall it lasted 2 months or so. I felt fine, not much different. Ended up losing some weight, which I didn't really want since I was thin to begin with. This probably had more to do with a bad sleeping/eating schedule, though. I have since started eating meat again.
Anyways back to the question: the one thing I noticed a few weeks in which was a concern, was that if I lifted my hands suddenly, I could feel the circulation of blood at the tips of my fingers for a moment, kind of like a head rush I guess but in the fingers. I was exercising more as well so I was kind of confused about why it was happening. Anybody know what that would have been about?
It's gone now since going back to meat again. I'm interested in trying again but I'm kind of hesitant because of that experience.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
This argument means nothing. Of course some people might not be able to go to completely vegan, and I don't fault them for that.
This is like comparing first degree murder to killing somebody in a car accident that was barely your fault.
What is with you guys, we aren't preaching to the third world countries that they should go vegan. Where did he say that?
That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
On September 21 2012 13:31 Sickafant wrote: Question here. So I tried being vegetarian awhile ago and was slowly phasing into veganism. Overall it lasted 2 months or so. I felt fine, not much different. Ended up losing some weight, which I didn't really want since I was thin to begin with. This probably had more to do with a bad sleeping/eating schedule, though. I have since started eating meat again.
Anyways back to the question: the one thing I noticed a few weeks in which was a concern, was that if I lifted my hands suddenly, I could feel the circulation of blood at the tips of my fingers for a moment, kind of like a head rush I guess but in the fingers. I was exercising more as well so I was kind of confused about why it was happening. Anybody know what that would have been about?
It's gone now since going back to meat again. I'm interested in trying again but I'm kind of hesitant because of that experience.
Ask a doctor about it.
2 months isn't a period of time where the "common" vegeterian or vegan problems arise. One of the biggest mistakes I know guys new to this stuff make is to not make sure that they still consume enough protein (even though your problem doesn't sound like that). But, yeah. It basically boils down to "ask your doc". If he says either "not eating meat is bullshit" or "eating meat is bullshit", ask a different one. =D
It'd be nice if this thread would stop using "natural" and "unnatural" for arguments. Natural= non man-made? unnatural= man-made? I would never not buy something because it "man-made". That just means people have found a way to make something more efficiently (in some regard or another). Sometimes they are less healthy, sometimes they are more healthy. Also, would extremism be an action far from the norm? I swear, people throw words around without ever defining them.
To add, I'm a vegetarian. I do not feel like becoming a vegan is a viable option for many. A college student, for instance. It's very hard to find many vegan dishes on-campus dining. Someone who travels a lot, very hard to find vegan dishes. You basically cannot eat out. Milk/dairy is everywhere. I do not think the dairy industry is a good one, but it is nearly unavoidable.
Also, the killing of animals is also unavoidable for basic human life. We are much bigger and use things on a scale far greater than that of a petite rodent. We use animals for testing, though it can definitely be justified. Not to mention a lot of animal testing (such as mice) get treated pretty well when compared to something as grotesque as the meat industry. Driving and transportation will always result in animal deaths. Think of the squirrels.
Let's look at Dostoevsky, a man who became a pacifist vegetarian and wouldn't hurt a fly, in his late years. While you cannot argue that he is a good person in terms of morals, you may argue that his lifestyle isn't progressive and that it would be more beneficial to society and the world as a whole if he made the sacrafices necessary to live a successful and helpful (to the world) life. I like Dostoevsky, you guys should read his books.
So, being a vegan, is it worth it? I'd say no. Being a strict vegetarian, perhaps. I personally do what I can to not promote sick and disgusting industries. Everyone should make morals based on what their goals are in life. Obviously, the best goal in life is to find the meaning of life, because any other thing would mean life=meaningless. ^_~. Progressivism is the way to go!
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
The notion that eating meat puts you at a higher risk of coronary heart diseases, diabetes and such stuff is highely misleading and ill informing. It is the quantity and quality that makes the poison. Also fats are not bad per se, again the quantity makes the poison.
Your country and my country are two of the fattest, most obese countries on the entire planet, and it just so happens that we are both two of the highest meat and dairy consumers in the world also. Yes quantity and quality make a huge difference, and so does genetics, age, active lifestyle, individual metabolisms, etc. But by reducing or abstaining from the consumption of these products, you greatly reduce your risk of those chronic illnesses.
Of course this is true, but again the problem is not our meat consume per se, another guy listed some good things that happen to your body if you eat dead cow. Our problem is the excess, be it our eating habits, our daily brainless consumption or our lack of everyday movement to burn some of the stuff we put into us without questioning what we just ate.
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote: [quote] What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
The notion that eating meat puts you at a higher risk of coronary heart diseases, diabetes and such stuff is highely misleading and ill informing. It is the quantity and quality that makes the poison. Also fats are not bad per se, again the quantity makes the poison.
Your country and my country are two of the fattest, most obese countries on the entire planet, and it just so happens that we are both two of the highest meat and dairy consumers in the world also. Yes quantity and quality make a huge difference, and so does genetics, age, active lifestyle, individual metabolisms, etc. But by reducing or abstaining from the consumption of these products, you greatly reduce your risk of those chronic illnesses.
So consuming an excess of something might be bad for you? I'll have to bring this to Parliament before it's too late!
??
Most people in our societies don't consider the implications of our eating habits because our diets have generally been established for our whole lives and we don't question them because they have always been that way. This "excess" of meat eating you just mentioned is considered standard and normal by our societies, and as I was mentioning are the biggest forms of fuel for the #1 and #2 cause of death in my country. I was merely trying to make people more aware of the fact that their eating habits actually contribute more to the welfare of their whole life than they might think.
On September 21 2012 13:31 GoTuNk! wrote: I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I agree with you that junk foods are even less healthy than meat. I would disagree that you absolutely NEED meat to be a healthy man, as myself and many others are living proof otherwise. I do have some objections to your last assertion, however:
We do not actually have (proportionally) the same intestine length and gut of meat eaters. Carnivores generally have intestinal tracts that are roughly 3-6 times their body length, while herbivores have longer ones, up to 10-12 times body length. Ours is quite long, and much closer to the herbivore ratio. In addition, the level of our stomach acid isn't even close to that of most carnivores. Our intestines are not smooth, like those of carnivores - rather, ours are windy, so plant foods pass through slowly in order for the body to absorb the highest amount of nutrition.
If you look at our lack of claws and ideally shaped teeth, that is another point. We don't have claws or sharp front teeth needed to kill and subdue prey, and our teeth are primarily flat molars good for chewing.
On September 21 2012 13:31 Sickafant wrote: Question here. So I tried being vegetarian awhile ago and was slowly phasing into veganism. Overall it lasted 2 months or so. I felt fine, not much different. Ended up losing some weight, which I didn't really want since I was thin to begin with. This probably had more to do with a bad sleeping/eating schedule, though. I have since started eating meat again.
Anyways back to the question: the one thing I noticed a few weeks in which was a concern, was that if I lifted my hands suddenly, I could feel the circulation of blood at the tips of my fingers for a moment, kind of like a head rush I guess but in the fingers. I was exercising more as well so I was kind of confused about why it was happening. Anybody know what that would have been about?
It's gone now since going back to meat again. I'm interested in trying again but I'm kind of hesitant because of that experience.
It's difficult to tell or diagnose what that could have been caused from without a lot more information of course. But one thing I would certainly mention is that you could have started to become deficient in one or more nutrients unless you were careful and aware of what you were eating. The most common deficiencies on a vegan diet can be zinc, vitamin d, iron, vitamin b12 and... I am sure I am forgetting one...
These are not problems for vegans one you take the time to get used to the lifestyle. It is just a different approach to diet than we are normally used to, so takes some time and thought to understand what to be concerned with and what not to be concerned with. Most of us have spent our entire lives living the lifestyle of a particular diet so it is 2nd nature to us, and then when we suddenly change it so drastically, a few problems arise that need attention until you get used to the new lifestyle.
On September 21 2012 11:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] Unless I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason.
Imagine I am a cannibal and our paths cross in a massive deserted jungle. I chat to you for a while and find out you're on an entripid advanture and haven't seen a soul in a month. No one is with you, no one knows where you are. I am stronger than you and have the neccesary tools to kill and eat you. I know I can get away with it, since no one will know where to begin looking and just assume you've succumbed to nature. Should I cause you, another living being pain, simply for the desire to eat your flesh and muscle, even though I'm surrounded by non-feeling alternatives. Hmmm, what a moral dihlemma. I think for a second, then realise "I want to eat it. That's more than enough reason", and raise my axe.
First off, your entire scenario requires that humans and animals share some overarching degree of equivalency; I find this totally nonsensical.
Furthermore, just to play your game, I take excellent care of myself and am well practiced in outdoor survival, in addition to being above average in size and strength. Come at me bro.
Ok lets add one tweak. I happen to consider you of a lesser race than I, and do not afford you the same ethical relevance. As such it is nonsensical for me to afford you any mercy from my whims. I now eat you.
I'm sure we can all think of a time where this viewpoint was common (and perhaps still is). It is my belief that a time will come where our view of animals will change just as it has with certain groups of humans.
Again, you are simply expounding on the meaningless edge that gives way to the massive canyon that is the jump from people to animals. No, the difference between white and black people is not akin to the difference between humans and animals, not even close, and it in fact is incredibly insulting to those with minority racial status to hypothesize as such.
I didn't say minority and I didn't suggest it is the case. I simply presented my character with a reason to avoid your complaints about equivalency. I understand that there is a difference between humans and animals. The massive contrast in ethical obligation to human vs non-humans seems to be predicated upon the idea that either a) humans are sacred, or b) humans are smarter. I deny case (a) by simply acknowledging that humans are animals themselves and have comparable pain reception as other mammals. I deny case (b) by appealing to the ethical obligaiton we give a severly mentally disabled child, even though that child is not smarter than, lets say a pig (which we have no trouble culling and eating).* Surely if intelligence was the core factor, I'd eat the child and not the pig.
*I apologize if this is offensive, it is only for the sake of argument.
Retarded children and pigs are not even close to similar enough to warrent even the very beginnings of comparison.
I'll take that as your inability to provide a sufficient counter argument. Any other takers?
Instead, you should take that as a deferred anger at the incredulity you insist upon as a salient comparison. My brother has downs syndrome, and as a result, I've come into contact with a great many people who struggle with developmental disability, either they themselves or with that of a relative or loved one. That, for the purposes of an online debate, you are so eager to appropriate the terribly unfortunate scenarios of others and use them as a shoddy means of defending your supposed vegan superiority is quite telling of how absolutely bankrupt your position truly is. From Jews and Jim Crow Laws to retards and the disabled, both you and r.Evo are clearly desperate for a means of comparison.
I never said I was a vegan, nor superior, nor do I wish to denegrate mentally disablled people. I am simply searching for the root cause of why many people have little to no ethical obligation to non-human animals. If you could kindly post a reasonable defence, that doesn't appeal to either reasons (a) and (b) which I posted above. Or if they do then explain why they are sufficient. I assume you would more likely suggest that (b) is the case. Accepting that intelligence is the sole factor in determining ethical obligation, do I have more obligation toward an animal than a human, assuming it were possible to demonstrate that a regularly farmed and eaten animal was more intelligent than the human in question.
Cheers.
Same for you Lombard.
You don't get to pass on the burden of proof to the person that is saying that there is an absence of something. You have to justify the idea of a moral standard for animals that is equivalent to the moral standard we have for humans before others are required to justify not holding this position. You don't just get to say, "There's nothing there, now prove why it isn't there." That's a ridiculous approach to an argument.
As someone who has studied this topic in depth I have a few points to add
-Ethically do as you please, it is your life -Optimal nutrition has no regard for ethics. -A lot of vegetarians/vegans actually don't eat many vegetables at all they are eating processed foods and grains- this is obviously unhelathy. -Eating meat is always a easier way to get many of the nutrients you need as the forms are more bioavailable and concentrated. Let the animal get the nutrients from the their food then you get the nutrients from them. Example B-carotene and retinol (vitamin A), Heme-iron and non heme iron, K1 and K2. -Eating any diet free from processed foods is going to be better than SAD. Processing of foods IS the problem. -Most of the anti-meat studies are severely flawed
In conclusion for good health Eat healthy animals, Eat healthy plants, Move about lots and Get plenty of sleep. Avoid toxic things.
On September 21 2012 13:31 GoTuNk! wrote: I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I agree with you that junk foods are even less healthy than meat. I would disagree that you absolutely NEED meat to be a healthy man, as myself and many others are living proof otherwise. I do have some objections to your last assertion, however:
We do not actually have (proportionally) the same intestine length and gut of meat eaters. Carnivores generally have intestinal tracts that are roughly 3-6 times their body length, while herbivores have longer ones, up to 10-12 times body length. Ours is quite long, and much closer to the herbivore ratio. In addition, the level of our stomach acid isn't even close to that of most carnivores. Our intestines are not smooth, like those of carnivores - rather, ours are windy, so plant foods pass through slowly in order for the body to absorb the highest amount of nutrition.
If you look at our lack of claws and ideally shaped teeth, that is another point. We don't have claws or sharp front teeth needed to kill and subdue prey, and our teeth are primarily flat molars good for chewing.
Actually its more like human intestines are half length between hervibores and meat eaters "Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.".
However this argument fails to include the massive importance of gut size. Hervibores such as gorillas, cows, elephants (you name it) have huge guts on which veggies fermentate (aka rot and are digested by bacteria) so they can absorb cellulose in the form of bacteria poop. Humans can't even begin to process celulose so making and argument that they are meant to eat veggies as their main source of energy is not logically sound.
Humans don't have sharp claws or require huge teeth because we never needed them. We could also say that because our mouth doesnt move sideways like most vegetarians it isn't made for eating veggies, so its a moot argument at best. "Neanderthals unequivocally ate a diet that consisted of virtually nothing but meat- 10000-12000 calories of it a day. They also lacked sharp teeth and claws, but guess what? They didn't need them, because THEY HAD STONE TOOLS. In fact, hominids have been using tools for over 2 million years- plenty of time for them to develop the requisite biology for the digestion of meat. (Science Daily) Neanderthals had even bigger brains than modern humans, which is important due to the fact that their diet was so heavily meat-based, and the metabolic requirements of larger brains would necessitate calorically-dense food consumption, which means they had to eat meat, or they'd fucking die"(EHD, p. 167-168)
I don't think there is an all one definition of healthiness. What I can tell you is that to be a successfull athlete you need anywhere between 5k-12k calories a day (or even more), lots of protein and high levels of testosterone (which are correlated with cholesterol and saturated fat consumption).
Could you get all that with whey shakes, eggs and raw milk and test to the vein? Maybe, but I know its not pleasent to do and a lot unhealthier than just eating the meat.
As I said before, I have no problem with people not eating meat for religious/moral reasons (I love my pet), but humans thrive in strength and overall healthiness from meat consuption, and most likely became humans in the first place (got bigger brains) because they started eating meat.
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 10:31 SupLilSon wrote: Have any of the Vegans here taken a second to consider than the Vegan lifestyle is really only feasible if you live in a first world country? The majority of the world doesn't have convenient access to a huge variety of dietary supplements and unique foods such as legumes.
The OP also completely ignored (or didnt even realize) the fact that Fatty Acids and Amino Acids are completely different compounds. Still never acknowledged that a Vegan diet doesnt provide some essential FA...
Furthermore, what is the moral or ethical justification for Veganism if you discount the meat industry's practices? There are many ways to get free range meat which isnt the product of cruel animal mistreatment. It's probably less compromising to the average diet than Veganism is and most likely is more healthy.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't meat consumption in Asian countries very slim until fairly recently?
Also, here is a list of plants based ways to get Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
If you live in a third world country, and cant even read, your cute little list means nothing.
[quote] That bolded word is the problem, it implies a faith based position. From reading this thread I get the impression that it's like discussing atheism/religion, noone will move their position and facts will be dimissed, like I did just now. The discussion is pointless.
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
On September 21 2012 11:23 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Personally I love the metaphors used by Milan Kundera on this matter a lot. Especially considering that this whole thing isn't a huge topic in his books. One of his major chain of thoughts goes like this:
1) You can only truely see the character of a person if he or she is in total control of another living being. 2) There is nothing we are more in control of than our pets, our cattle, random animals we encounter. We have total and complete power over those animals. 3) Considering how we treat those with the complete power (and responsibility) humanity as a whole is failing on a very major scale when it comes to empathy and morality.
The bottom line is that being in total control over another human being and treating them horribly wrong isn't much different from being in total control over an animal and treating them horribly wrong. Personally I'm fine with everyone who could also slaughter their own food, but no one I know who actually DOES that dares to call it ethically, morally or empathically "right" to take another living beings live.
The only major point people tend to disagree on is where to draw the exact line. However in that case calling eating dogs "unmoral" but eating a pig during lunch is nothing more but hypocrisy.
this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:11 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I have had very very good discussions about veganism with people that aren't vegans in the past, It's when the conversation is on the internet when it comes down to this. There have been several threads about this on TL, and all of them have looked like this. I disagree that it's preaching, and I disagree it's faith based, It's more logic based for myself. Just look at the pig, super smart animals, smarter then dogs, and yet we eat them. Yet some meat eaters defend not eating dog, because they are smart, yet other cultures eat dog. The logic does not follow for me.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Honestly I love meat. I love to eat all kinds of vegan food too, but meat it's so delicious I couldn't care less if cows or pigs or whatever are treated with cruelty, there is no such thing as cruelty in nature, a lion wouldn't hesitate to kill a cow if it was hungry, why would I? that's what nature is all about. Now you can live your life without eating meat if you want, you can argue all you want but truth is you have a little lion inside that loves meat, you can deny that all you want, after all suggestion is a big thing, but the smell of meat makes your mouth salivate because you now it tastes so delicious and there is an evolutionary reason of why this happend, we are made to be like this. Vegan, then, is nothing but self-mutilation.
High grain/oils/salt is still 'vegan' but isn't going to make you feel good at all. High amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables is where it's at. Biggest challenge for beginners is learning to eat enough food (because you will be eating more calories) without relying on high fat sources.
On September 21 2012 14:03 spacemonkeyy wrote: -Ethically do as you please, it is your life
That is worded rather poorly or is just a really stupid statement. If you meant "ethically do as you please, so long as it only affects your life." then it would be much better. But as is, you are basically saying that because I have my own life and because I believe I should be able to slaughter everyone and everything, torture people for the hell of it, and take pisses on people's lawns, I can do that. Ethics are obviously a factor in this argument, you should not ignore it. Obviously people believe different things. But, even if people believe different things, there are more efficient and effective ways of getting what one wants and often people do not think far enough ahead.
Example: Steve believes that eating meat is okay because humans are superior (intellectually) and because he is happier when he eats meat, he eats it.
Allen on the other hand believes it is not okay to eat meat because he, despite enjoying meat, does not think an animal's life is worth the small gain to happiness he gets from it.
The two both get happiness from it, but believe different things. Steve doesn't think that it matters if an animal dies because the animal basically can't do anything else. But, what significance does intellect have if you do not use it for anything but to be happy? He is just the same as the cow that he ate. They both want to live happily*. Allen, though, takes into consideration an animal's life because he believes the cow has just as much of a right to live as he, himself does. If Steve wants to keep with his argument, he would have to have a greater purpose in life, otherwise his argument for doing his actions are rather poor.
*animal happiness is a controversial topic, though I think overall, scientists believe most animals have similar feelings of "happiness" as humans. Do not quote me on this, this is just from recollection.
Sorry, I sure hope that wasn't too long of a post on only one small part of your post.
On September 21 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: [quote] this is the msot ridiculous thing ive ever heard
i squashed a bug today, i guess that means im a souless psycopath and a serial killer jsut waiting to happen and should go turn myself in
you cannot expect someone to ahve empathy for a different species because there a different species, we dont know anything about how they feel or think
if i slap a human i know how it hurts because i understand the pain hes having since im human and have felt taht pain
if i slap a cow for all i know he didnt feel it, erego i know its wrong to slap a human because it hurts but theres nothing wrong with slapping a cow
its rediculous to expect anyone to have feelings for something that they have nothing in common with, a cow is just an animal, its a food source its not human that means its OK to kill it and eat it because thats what nature is
Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:26 Retgery wrote: [quote] What I'm hearing is that you are comparing eating meat to first degree murder in that it is morally wrong and humans should be severly punished in some way, but it's OK if we have no choice. I can understand why you would feel our treatment is immoral, but how is it any more immoral than a lion killing zebra. But I don;t understand how drinking of dairy would be immoral, how is cows performing a natural function that is not harmful to the animal wrong. Is it simply because we keep them domesticated?
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
On September 21 2012 14:03 spacemonkeyy wrote: As someone who has studied this topic in depth I have a few points to add
-Ethically do as you please, it is your life -Optimal nutrition has no regard for ethics. -A lot of vegetarians/vegans actually don't eat many vegetables at all they are eating processed foods and grains- this is obviously unhelathy. -Eating meat is always a easier way to get many of the nutrients you need as the forms are more bioavailable and concentrated. Let the animal get the nutrients from the their food then you get the nutrients from them. Example B-carotene and retinol (vitamin A), Heme-iron and non heme iron, K1 and K2. -Eating any diet free from processed foods is going to be better than SAD. Processing of foods IS the problem. -Most of the anti-meat studies are severely flawed
In conclusion for good health Eat healthy animals, Eat healthy plants, Move about lots and Get plenty of sleep. Avoid toxic things.
Wat!
A lot of vegetarians/vegans don't eat many vegetables at all? Where the heck do you get that idea? I've been shifting towards conscious decisions on what I eat over the last half a year, and I'd estimate I eat a good 3-4 times more "real vegetables" than before that. I also have a few vegan friends, and they're pretty big on organic / homegrown cooking. It seems inconsistent that people who are making conscious choices on what they eat wouldn't bother to take it as far as eating healthily while they're at it.
(This thread is awesome, though. Cool to see people like r.Evo actually making arguments for veganism make some sense without coming across as a total fucking whackjob. Keep at it, dudes! The people complaining about getting assaulted by vegan agendas voluntarily clicked this thread... methinks we're not as far from the idea of veganism as we think we are!)
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: [quote] It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
You were asked for authority, so you sent us the bios of 20 or so random people? How on earth can you think this backs up your argument?
On September 21 2012 11:35 r.Evo wrote: [quote] Last time I checked we used to call other human beings "dogs" which made it okay to slaughter them. Or we called them sub-human. Can you honestly step up and say "I have no idea how a dog feels when I kick him repeatedly therefor it's okay to do so"?
Unless it's an animal which is dangerous and might cause sickness or death soon, there is no reason to hurt it. If your only reason to squash a bug is "It annoyed me" than that's nothing better than than initiating a bar fight because "that guy annoyed me and I think I'm stronger". If you want to go down to that level, sure. Both show complete ignorance, lack of empathy and abuse of a position of power.
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote:
On September 21 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: [quote] It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
I like to think that we are more evolved than the lion killing a zebra. What you eat on a daily basis is NOT because of some millions of year old urge, it's not because there is nothing else to eat. It's a daily conscious choice based on all the information you have. Personally, I can't make the conscious choice that I want to see animals die for me. However, that's a personal thing. If you're fine with that choice, go ahead.
What annoys the crap out of me are people who don't want to have all the information (which is a sign for a low intellect), decide to ignore all the information available (which showcases ignorance at its finest) or have all the information, understand it and still do it without the slightest feeling of guilt (which shows a low level of empathy with other species).
Kinda hard to get out of there if you approach if on an analytical level. =P
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
No no no, I mean the published words, the meat of what you are saying, not some arbitrary list of international snake oil peddlers.
I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
On September 21 2012 11:43 SupLilSon wrote: [quote]
I stunned and fed a Preying Mantis 3 stink bugs about a week ago. I found both outside and didn't actually kill any of the bugs myself. Does that make me an accomplice to murder or is insects eating other insects not imoral?
While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
On September 21 2012 11:41 Olinim wrote: [quote]
So which is it? In your second paragraph you say it's completely a personal choice and if they're fine with it go ahead. Then in the very next paragraph you say that it should make them feel guilty. I am also sick of people in this thread equating animals to humans.
I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
You were asked for authority, so you sent us the bios of 20 or so random people? How on earth can you think this backs up your argument?
Also, ITT: anecdotal evidence.
No I don't think it does much, it's just all the information I have to back up some of what I am saying since I was asked. I could have provided nothing and just kept on talking about things that I have learned, picked up from studying, personal experiences and talking to professionals in the industries. Just providing what I can get a hold of at the moment in case anyone is interested in any of that. It would take me a lot more time than I have to dig up more information of works they have published, documentaries they have been in, speeches they have given, etc.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
I don't think it's a hard concept to understand. A main reason why you wouldn't eat any meat is because you do not believe it is moral. They clearly want to stay healthy, so they take dietary supplements. Is it bad to do so? I think it has been safely established that a vegan diet is not the optimal health diet. Anyone with half of G. W. Bush's IQ can realize that. Though, in general, I think you can live quite healthily off of a vegan diet if you eat the right things. Having a balanced diet doesn't rely on eating meat, I'm afraid.
@everyone
Please include links if you can to statistical data obtained from studies supporting your arguments. No one likes it when you say something without backing it up.
On September 21 2012 11:51 r.Evo wrote: [quote] While I appreciate that you try to treat me as your conscience: I don't know. Personally I love watching a Preying Mantis hunt and eat. I also have the same feeling for Lions. Seeing how nature works in an almost undisturbed way is amazing, it's checks and balances. I think I would also love to see humans hunt their food together.
What's over the top for me is taking a bunch of animals, putting them into a small place, causing them immense pain from birth to slaughter and all that to produce something we don't need in the first place. If there's no alternative, fine, go ahead. But they are. We have the brain to explore them and the empathy to feel with other living beings. We can make the conscious thought chain of "I don't want to be treated like that" -> "I don't want to see others being treated like that".
Not extending the same privilege to another species? Why the hell not? I don't want a stronger and more intelligent species to show up and raise me as cattle either.
[quote] I said it annoys the crap out of me and that I don't understand how to not feel guilty. I can find neither a logical nor an emotional argument to not feel guilty about it. If you can find either, please tell me about it.
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
You were asked for authority, so you sent us the bios of 20 or so random people? How on earth can you think this backs up your argument?
Also, ITT: anecdotal evidence.
No I don't think it does much, it's just all the information I have to back up some of what I am saying since I was asked. I could have provided nothing and just kept on talking about things that I have learned, picked up from studying, personal experiences and talking to professionals in the industries. Just providing what I can get a hold of at the moment in case anyone is interested in any of that. It would take me a lot more time than I have to dig up more information of works they have published, documentaries they have been in, speeches they have given, etc.
Looks like we just got Vegan'd. Nowhere in a single piece of accepted medical dietary research does it suggest half the things you describe as inherent to the digestion of animal products.
It's so hard to have this kind of conversation on a board. The OP just gets attacked 9:1.
What I'll say to those cutting down the veagans and vegetarians is, at least they have done their homework. They have looked at sites, seen stats, watched videos of slaughter houses and have come to a decision to change their lifestyle (even if they came to those decisions by looking at very biased media). Everybody else comes on here and screams about how "it's nature" and a bunch of other BS with little actual knowledge on the subject. And anything people know about eating meat has mostly been preached to them since they were kids by parents who were raised on eating meat OR the dairy/egg industry and meat industry.
I'm not saying veagans have the right information but I'm not sure those who fight veagans have the right information either. Talking to health experts, they've told me how terrilbe milk is for the human body, then again you hear from mainstream media that soy causes cancers. There are two sides to every story, at least they've looked somewhere else. Veagans have actually looked into this subject specifically and formed an opinion based on facts they've read not just piecing together what your beliefs are.
It's a big decision to go veagan, a major lifestyle change. You don't do that without doing your reseach. You may think it's weird but get over it, what have you done in your life to make the world a better place? What have you ever fought for? For the newest Iphone? I haven't noticed anybody pick up on what the OP said about the environment. It takes 8 times more fossil fuel to produce a meat over vegetables.
One more thing Mke Tyson is vegetarian and look at that guy, he's huge. Can be just as healthy, it's all about a balanced diet.
So again, get over it, they don't want to eat meat or drink milk, I don't know why this bothers you so much.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
I think it has been safely established that a vegan diet is not the optimal health diet. Anyone with half of G. W. Bush's IQ can realize that.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
You don't need dietary supplements on a vegan diet, but many people take them anyway. Look at all of the meat eaters that consume multivitamins and calcium pills religiously, despite being on a non-vegan diet. Most dietary supplements aren't necessary or healthy for either person anyway. When we take a synthetic pill of some kind, we are lucky to absorb and make ues of ~20% of the vitamin and mineral contents that are advertised because our bodies aren't able to digest them very well at all. In fact, often of the time people have gotten very sick and sent to the hospital because these pills aren't digesting correctly, or at all, and causing lots of internal problems.
On September 21 2012 14:03 spacemonkeyy wrote: As someone who has studied this topic in depth I have a few points to add
-Ethically do as you please, it is your life -Optimal nutrition has no regard for ethics. -A lot of vegetarians/vegans actually don't eat many vegetables at all they are eating processed foods and grains- this is obviously unhelathy. -Eating meat is always a easier way to get many of the nutrients you need as the forms are more bioavailable and concentrated. Let the animal get the nutrients from the their food then you get the nutrients from them. Example B-carotene and retinol (vitamin A), Heme-iron and non heme iron, K1 and K2. -Eating any diet free from processed foods is going to be better than SAD. Processing of foods IS the problem. -Most of the anti-meat studies are severely flawed
In conclusion for good health Eat healthy animals, Eat healthy plants, Move about lots and Get plenty of sleep. Avoid toxic things.
Wat!
A lot of vegetarians/vegans don't eat many vegetables at all? Where the heck do you get that idea? I've been shifting towards conscious decisions on what I eat over the last half a year, and I'd estimate I eat a good 3-4 times more "real vegetables" than before that. I also have a few vegan friends, and they're pretty big on organic / homegrown cooking. It seems inconsistent that people who are making conscious choices on what they eat wouldn't bother to take it as far as eating healthily while they're at it.
(This thread is awesome, though. Cool to see people like r.Evo actually making arguments for veganism make some sense without coming across as a total fucking whackjob. Keep at it, dudes! The people complaining about getting assaulted by vegan agendas voluntarily clicked this thread... methinks we're not as far from the idea of veganism as we think we are!)
Not all, what I meant is that instead of eating meat somef vego's substitute bad food (grains and processed foods).
On September 21 2012 14:03 spacemonkeyy wrote: -Ethically do as you please, it is your life
That is worded rather poorly or is just a really stupid statement. If you meant "ethically do as you please, so long as it only affects your life." then it would be much better. But as is, you are basically saying that because I have my own life and because I believe I should be able to slaughter everyone and everything, torture people for the hell of it, and take pisses on people's lawns, I can do that. Ethics are obviously a factor in this argument, you should not ignore it. Obviously people believe different things. But, even if people believe different things, there are more efficient and effective ways of getting what one wants and often people do not think far enough ahead.
Example: Steve believes that eating meat is okay because humans are superior (intellectually) and because he is happier when he eats meat, he eats it.
Allen on the other hand believes it is not okay to eat meat because he, despite enjoying meat, does not think an animal's life is worth the small gain to happiness he gets from it.
The two both get happiness from it, but believe different things. Steve doesn't think that it matters if an animal dies because the animal basically can't do anything else. But, what significance does intellect have if you do not use it for anything but to be happy? He is just the same as the cow that he ate. They both want to live happily*. Allen, though, takes into consideration an animal's life because he believes the cow has just as much of a right to live as he, himself does. If Steve wants to keep with his argument, he would have to have a greater purpose in life, otherwise his argument for doing his actions are rather poor.
*animal happiness is a controversial topic, though I think overall, scientists believe most animals have similar feelings of "happiness" as humans. Do not quote me on this, this is just from recollection.
Sorry, I sure hope that wasn't too long of a post on only one small part of your post.
I will clarify Eating meat or not is a complex ethical decision. Certainly if you think animals don't die in the production of your vege's your naive, then theres the whole ecosystem where animals provide the nutriets to plants when grown together (i.e not monoculture).
It is not a black and white decision.
If you decide eating meat isn't ethical then don't, if you think it is then fine. But don't tell me that your avoiding meat for nutritional purposes.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
On September 21 2012 12:01 SupLilSon wrote: [quote]
I actually completely agree with you. The way the meat industry generally works is both immoral and unhealthy. A lot of the reason meat consumption has been tied to increased chance of diseases and colon cancer is because of the way it is processed. The fact is if you eat good quality, free range meat it is not unhealthy in moderate portions. I eat a lot of meat and I have been trying cut down.
Completely agree. I don't see a big difference between someone aiming to consume good quality meat once a week and someone being completely vegan or vegetarian (even though most of those would prolly throw rocks at me for that statement =P). That's an attitude which showcases that someone thought about the whole issue and made a conscious decision.
"I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
The quality of the meat and dairy products you consume certainly has a huuuge impact on health, yes. Eating prime quality, organic meats and cheeses for instance is a lot healthier than eating McDonald's and hotdogs in which you consume massive quantities of preservatives, chemicals, genetically modified products, etc.
However, in general, the nature of meat and dairy is not healthy for our bodies to process, despite being organic and prime quality or not. Meat and dairy products have the highest contents of fats, bad cholesterol, saturated fats, and acidic animal-based protein of any other food we consume. They are direct contributors to the #1 and #2 leading killers in the US -- heart disease and numerous cancers. They also cause many other chronic illnesses like coronary heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc
If we abstain from consuming these foods, we can remove our risk of nearly ever having these major illnesses and diseases in our lives.
I don't mind people not eating meat for ethical or religious reasons (though I don't share them) but spreading lies about nutrition is something vegans should abstain from doing.
The leading cause of both heart deseases and cancer are sendentarism, high processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup. If you believe cheetos are healthier than meat, you are not very smart.
Animal meat (cow beef) has 0 transfat, more mono unsaturated fat than saturated fat, tons of bioavailable protein, and HEALTHY cholesterol and saturated fat required to produce testosterone, and therefore be a healthy man. Not to mention a shitload of vitamins and minerals.
Also humans evolved to eat meat, and that virtually any succesful athlete in the world bases his diet around MEAT, eggs and veggies. We have the intestine lenght and gut of meat eaters, and its actually how wolves and humans developed symbiosis; cause they wanted to eat the same shit.
I never said that eating cheetos or drinking soda is healthier or unhealthier than meat. People don't realize that the word vegan doesn't mean healthy. Like I mentioned in a previous post, vegan just means avoiding the consumption of any animal product. Eating cheetos, pepsi, oreos and all of that is 100% vegan, but provide much, much less nutrition than eating meat and dairy, just like you said. Eating vegan candy garbage and eating fruits/vegetables/grains are two totally different stories, but they both happen to technically be vegan.
Transfat isn't the only type of fat that is unhealthy. Trans fat happens to be the absolute worst kind of fat that we could possibly consume, but because a cow doesn't have any of it doesn't mean that a cow also doesn't have one of the highest saturated fat and cholesterol contents of any food.
Any cholesterol that you consume in the diet is unhealthy. Our bodies makes cholesterol, plenty for our bodies' needs, and any external source of cholesterol needs to be absorbed and eliminated through the liver that doesn't get clogged in our arteries already.
Animal protein has one good quality about it in my opinion -- it contains more of all of the essential amino acids than plant products have. However, animal protein is extremely acidic and causes our body to go into a process called leukocytosis that treats the protein like an infection or bacteria. The blood gets flooded with white blood cells and attacks it to neutralize the acidity.
When you digest highly acidic animal protein, your body releases lots of toxic wastes like urea and amonia that are detrimental to your body as these wastes go through your kidneys. Animal protein has a huge content of sulfur, which washes through the bones and disolves calcium out of your bones as it is being digested. Animal protein is also the most concentrated type of protein on the planet, so you get a huge surge of this every time you eat meat or dairy.
Because the high acidity of this protein dissolves calcium out of your bones, you see the highest cases of osteoporosis (osteo - bone, porosis - porous (porous bones)) in countries that have the highest animal protein consumption rates. Osteoporosis barely even exists in countries like Thailand and China for instance, but they are huge problems for us in America.
Animal protein also has no fiber content in it, so this highly concentrated, acidic protein absorbs very rapidly into your body, instead of happening slowly over several hours paired with fiber as it would with nuts and grains for instance -- plant protein is much gentler in the body because of this.
I'll have to get to your post about us evolving to eat meat and high-performance athletes eating huge quantities of meat later.
Source a reputable medical authority on this please.
Ian Brighthope Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci Melbourne, Australia President of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine. Professor Brighthope is a medical doctor & surgeon with over 20 years of practical clinical experience. He has specialized in Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, with a particular interest in heart disease, psychiatric disorders, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis, asthma, food and chemical sensitivities, diabetes and cancer.
Andrew W Saul Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author Rochester, New York Andrew Saul has a Ph.D. in Human Ethology and has been a consulting specialist in natural healing for over 30 years. As an author and veteran lecturer for three colleges his command of clinical nutrition is second to none. He is also the Assistant Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
Michael A. Klaper, M.D., is an American physician, author, and vegan. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1972 and served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital with the University of British Columbia. Practiced acute care medicine, and eventually became certified in urgent care medicine. He served as director of a vegan health spa in Pompano Beach, Florida from the early 1990s, where he observed the healing powers of plant-based nutrition.
Charlotte Gerson Founder of the Gerson Institute San Diego, California Charlotte Gerson is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson and the founder of the Gerson Institute. At 85 years of age she is vibrantly healthy and a strong advocate of nutritional healing. In her work at the Gerson Institute she is dedicated to healing and preventing chronic diseases using natural treatments that activate the bodies own healing response.
David Wolfe World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods San Diego, California David Wolfe is a leading authority on Raw Food and Superfoods. Coming from a family of two medical doctors David has an interesting perspective on health and healing that confirms his belief in the immutable universal law 'you are what you eat'. David coaches Hollywood Producers and Celebrities as well as some of the worlds leading business people and entrepreneurs.
Victor Zeines Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist Manhattan, New York Dr Zeines is a clinically trained Dentist who has been practicing Holistic Dentistry for over 25 years. He has a masters degree in nutrition and has studied acupressure, kinesiology and chiropractic care. Dr Zeines believes that poor nutrition is one of the major causes of tooth decay and gum disease which is a precursor to chronic disease and can be reversed with improved nutrition and supplementation.
Phillip Day Investigative Journalist Kent, UK Phillip Day is an author, investigative journalist and international speaker. His work revolves around uncovering the most effective treatments available today and distributing that information to as many people as possible. Phillip believes in taking responsibility for ones own health and that "prevention is worth a ton of cure at a thousandth of the cost."
Dr Dan Rogers Curing the "incurable" San Diego, California Dr Dan Rogers is a trained Medical Doctor and Naturopath. He has been treating patients using integrative medicine since the late 1970's. What makes him so unique is his success in treating patients that have been deemed "incurable" by medical practitioners or hospitals. Dr Rogers believes in the use of the Gerson Plus therapy which is a nutrition based form of detoxification and healing from within.
Jerome Burne Medical Health Journalist London, UK Jerome Burne is one of Britain's leading medical health journalists and a valuable contributor to Medicine Today. In his writings, Jerome brings the latest breakthroughs in medical health to a wider audience. He likes to emphasize that science-based does not always mean drug-based and that natural approaches are achieving astounding success rates.
Patrick Holford Founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition London, UK Patrick Holford is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. Patrick is a pioneer in new approaches to health and nutrition, specialising in the field of mental health. In 1984 Patrick founded the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, with his mentor, twice Nobel Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling. Patrick believes that vibrant health and resistance to disease can be achieved through optimum nutrition.
Dr Gert Schuitemaker Founder of the Ortho Europe Institute Gendringen, Netherlands Dr Schuitemaker is a traditionally trained Medical Doctor and Pharmacologist. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute of Europe and President of the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine in Toronto, Canada. Dr Schuitemaker believes we must first look at how we can help the patient through nutrition and supplementation before any type of medical treatment begins.
Arnaud Apoteker Biologist and organic food specialist Paris, France Arnaud is a biologist and is the head of the anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Greenpeace campaign in France. His passion for food which is clean, healthy and good for you, occupies his life. His profession makes Arnaud uniquely qualified to give us his perspective on the many benefits of organics and the hidden dangers of genetically modified foods.
You were asked for authority, so you sent us the bios of 20 or so random people? How on earth can you think this backs up your argument?
Also, ITT: anecdotal evidence.
No I don't think it does much, it's just all the information I have to back up some of what I am saying since I was asked. I could have provided nothing and just kept on talking about things that I have learned, picked up from studying, personal experiences and talking to professionals in the industries. Just providing what I can get a hold of at the moment in case anyone is interested in any of that. It would take me a lot more time than I have to dig up more information of works they have published, documentaries they have been in, speeches they have given, etc.
Looks like we just got Vegan'd. Nowhere in a single piece of accepted medical dietary research does it suggest half the things you describe as inherent to the digestion of animal products.
Why is that your ultimate conclusion to my comment about what I can personally provide? It didn't sound like I said anything like "nowhere in a single piece of accepted medical dietary research..." I simply said I don't have any of the information that you want provided at hand. People that follow a vegan diet aren't all walking, talking encyclopedias and databases for information that you personally want provided to you on the spot, I'm sorry.
On September 21 2012 14:47 Mstring wrote: The floor is yours.
What, do people actually think that a vegan diet is the optimal diet for humans?
@ spacemonkeyy (or w/e it is)
Oh, well thankyou for the clarification. Yes, in general I would agree, eating meat or not is actually rather minor in the grand scale of things. But, there is a fairly strong argument for 'not eating meat' when you look at the current Meatian industry.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
You don't see any problem that we have to fortify vegeproducts with processing just so we can rely on it? This on its own should raise some flags. Iron is another big one- Heme iron is a lot more bio-available than non-heme iron. Then all the amino-acids that we get from animals that otherwise we have to manufacture ourselves (not neccessarily a huge problem). As I mentioned before K1 and K2 are different from animal to plant soruces and so is B carotene and retinol.
For the record soy is a very suspect food -pyhtoestrogens -goitrogenic etc.
This is the problem with vegetarianism- subsittuting whole foods cows milk with highly processed foods soy milk. For the record cows milk is not necessarily that great for everyone depending on your heritage.
On September 21 2012 14:47 Mstring wrote: The floor is yours.
What, do people actually think that a vegan diet is the optimal diet for humans?
The optimal diet for every type of lifestyle is difficult to argue. He was just asking you to provide your opinion on the subject. Why don't you tell us what you know about a vegan diet, since it sounds like you dismiss the idea altogether. Of course there are pros and cons to both sides, but you seem to act like it is completely absurd and not possible on a long-term basis or something. Tell us what you think.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
Hi there, the body needs Vitamin B-12 in order to sustain the nervous system and helps in forming blood, now if you do not want a nervous system or blood, that is you choice. Vegan Website about B12
I never had a problem with vegans but the amount of misinformation i hear form some of them is actually sickening
There are no health benefits to going vegan. Monitoring your diet so that your body gets everything it needs and in the proper proportions does have health benefits. That can be done with a vegan diet, or a diet with animal products. You can also have a truly awful diet with either. Chicken eggs are immensely healthy for you. They have all the proteins your body needs, and in the proper proportions. They have 25% of the required daily intake of choline. Very few people meet this required intake, and its difficult to get without eggs in your diet.
Edit: A vegan could get the necessary amount of choline by consuming, per day: 7 cups of cauliflower or 5 cups of navy beans or 2 kg of tofu or 10 cups of almonds or 50 table spoons of peanut butter.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
You don't see any problem that we have to fortify vegeproducts with processing just so we can rely on it? This on its own should raise some flags. Iron is another big one- Heme iron is a lot more bio-available than non-heme iron. Then all the amino-acids that we get from animals that otherwise we have to manufacture ourselves (not neccessarily a huge problem). As I mentioned before K1 and K2 are different from animal to plant soruces and so is B carotene and retinol.
For the record soy is a very suspect food -pyhtoestrogens -goitrogenic etc.
This is the problem with vegetarianism- subsittuting whole foods cows milk with highly processed foods soy milk. For the record cows milk is not necessarily that great for everyone depending on your heritage.
There is no difference between soy milk being fortified with Vit. B-12 than the shelves next to the pharmacy at every grocery store in the country being fully stocked with calcium pills, multivitamins, fish oils and omegas, minerals, antioxidants and other supplements. What does that say about the SAD diet based on your rationale? Both vegan and non-vegan need to be careful and aware of what they eat and in what quantities.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
Hi there, the body needs Vitamin B-12 in order to sustain the nervous system and helps in forming blood, now if you do not want a nervous system or blood, that is you choice. Vegan Website about B12
I never had a problem with vegans but the amount of misinformation i hear form some of them is actually sickening
Erhm. Thats.... what I just said...?
The only thing you MIGHT need (as a supplement to a vegan diet) is Vitamin B-12.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
You don't see any problem that we have to fortify vegeproducts with processing just so we can rely on it? This on its own should raise some flags. Iron is another big one- Heme iron is a lot more bio-available than non-heme iron. Then all the amino-acids that we get from animals that otherwise we have to manufacture ourselves (not neccessarily a huge problem). As I mentioned before K1 and K2 are different from animal to plant soruces and so is B carotene and retinol.
For the record soy is a very suspect food -pyhtoestrogens -goitrogenic etc.
This is the problem with vegetarianism- subsittuting whole foods cows milk with highly processed foods soy milk. For the record cows milk is not necessarily that great for everyone depending on your heritage.
I'm wondering if some of your perspectives are shaped too heavily by your personal experience. For example, it might be easy for you to process cow milk and other dairy products. For many Asians that are lactose intolerant (I am, to a certain extent as well), dairy products aren't so "obviously good". In addition, we eat a lot of soy products, and there really isn't any issue with it. There certainly can be problems with soy production - for example, in Taiwan we are arguing about the pros and cons of GMO soybeans and the possibility of preserving our own seeds to better suit the climate and changing environment. But otherwise, there aren't any problems with soy per se that you wouldn't see with any other foods.
I am on a fully vegetarian diet, and I don't eat any supplementary pills. I can get calcium (because I try to avoid dairy) from Linseed, protein from soy and other plants, and iron from a variety of beans. Sure, the type of iron and other nutrients I get from my foods may differ from that from animal products, but I haven't noticed any distinction that necessitates my body requiring meat.
I'm able to work out several times a week without feeling low energy, and I'm fairly athletic. I don't want to argue that this is the only way to live, but I do want to say emphatically that your experience is your experience, and that you should try to avoid marking off possibilities if you haven't personally tried them out. Just a thought, cheers.
On September 21 2012 14:47 Mstring wrote: The floor is yours.
What, do people actually think that a vegan diet is the optimal diet for humans?
I think it's the optimal diet for me and many others find that it's the optimal diet for them. For all other humans not eating this way, it's not a simple matter of switching what goes in; a lot of beliefs need to be addressed and rewired. I think some people have too much pride to even give it an honest try. I've found it to be a journey, not a decision.
"No health benefits" simply doesn't match up with my experience and the experience of many others. All I can say to this is: give it an honest 30 day trial and then you'll really know the truth once and for all.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
Hi there, the body needs Vitamin B-12 in order to sustain the nervous system and helps in forming blood, now if you do not want a nervous system or blood, that is you choice. Vegan Website about B12
I never had a problem with vegans but the amount of misinformation i hear form some of them is actually sickening
Erhm. Thats.... what I just said...?
The only thing you MIGHT need (as a supplement to a vegan diet) is Vitamin B-12.
No you WILL need Vitamin B-12 supplements if you decide to go vegan. The way you are writing it with a emphasis on might sounds like you are saying, "You might need B-12 Supplements, you might not."
On September 21 2012 14:47 Mstring wrote: The floor is yours.
What, do people actually think that a vegan diet is the optimal diet for humans?
The optimal diet for every type of lifestyle is difficult to argue. He was just asking you to provide your opinion on the subject. Why don't you tell us what you know about a vegan diet, since it sounds like you dismiss the idea altogether. Of course there are pros and cons to both sides, but you seem to act like it is completely absurd and not possible on a long-term basis or something. Tell us what you think.
You must not have read all of the previous posts. That's alright. I'm a vegetarian, actually.
But yes... if we look at the evolution of man, we see that humans have been eating a omnivorous diet since forever. Now, usually over long periods of time, animals will adapt and adjust to certain things. Diet is not an exception. The diet that works best* for the animals stick to the animal. As animals change their lifestyles over the span of many years, their diet may change too. If their diet changes over the span of many years, their lifestyles will change. They are related. Meat provides a nice way of getting humans protein, iron, etc. that most the vegan diet will have trouble with. You will need to eat tofu, soy, nuts, bread, etc. in order to obtain similar nutrients. *not technically the best, but generally pretty close to optimal.
Yes, both have ups and downs, but a diet that excludes such a large amount of food will never be the optimal diet. Though I absolutely believe you can live quite sufficiently off of a vegan diet and a vegetarian diet. Being "healthy" relative to the majority is actually pretty easy because so many people are unhealthy.
That's about all I know. Sorry for including evolutionary concepts, that usually brings in more bickering over stupid-ass shit.
On September 21 2012 15:05 smokeyhoodoo wrote: There are no health benefits to going vegan. Monitoring your diet so that your body gets everything it needs and in the proper proportions does have health benefits. That can be done with a vegan diet, or a diet with animal products. You can also have a truly awful diet with either. Chicken eggs are immensely healthy for you. They have all the proteins your body needs, and in the proper proportions. They have 25% of the required daily intake of choline. Very few people meet this required intake, and its difficult to get without eggs in your diet.
A lot of people don't recognize that you can have a truly awful diet with either meat-eating or veganism, just like you said. It depends on a lot of factors of course and is normally more complex than people want to think.
Chicken, eggs, and every meat and dairy product have all of the amino acids in protein. The drawback to the protein in animal products has a lot to do with an earlier post I made about it making your blood very acidic and leeching calcium out of your bones. Eggs also have one of the highest concentrations of cholesterol of any food on the planet. The energy in that yolk is meant to give enough energy to fuel that chick for weeks.
Also you have to consider that these foods have to be cooked before you can consume them (normally), which destroys huge portions of the protein and vitamins and minerals in the food before you consume it. Vitamins and protein get destroyed really easily, but minerals are usually a lot more resilient thankfully. When you eat raw fruits and vegetables, for instance, you don't run into this problem at all and are able to make use of 100% of all the nutrients the food provides.
Aside from those ideas, you still want to think about how the food is grown and processed before it gets to your table. Considering chicken like you mentioned:
"Up to one-quarter of slaughtered chickens on the inspection line are covered with feces, bile, and feed. Dead and diseased animals are processed and end up in the supermarket. Chickens are soaked in baths of chlorine to remove slime and odor. Mixtures of excrement, blood, oil, grease, rust, paint, insecticides, and rodent droppings accumulate in processing plants. Maggots and other larvae breed in storage and transportation containers, on the floor, and in processing equipment and packaging, and they drop onto the conveyor belt from infested meat splattered on the ceiling. Slaughterhouses -- which by law must be inspected once every shift -- go as long as two weeks without inspection." -- Steve Striffler in "Chicken"
A guy earlier wanted me to start posting some of my sources for information and I just happened to remember this one. He was a guy that wanted to find out the truth about what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and wrote this book about his findings.
I am not vegan, and would not go vegan. I am happy for others to be vegan, however in some cases (as in, friends and the like) it has almost gotten to the stage where they are fanatical about trying to convert anybody who is not vegan..I'm sure there are ups and downs to whichever diet you choose, and I am sure that vegan and non-vegan diets can be healthy, and also unhealthy. Please, just stop pretending that vegan is the holy grail of nutrition :D
To be fair I am almost on a vegetarian diet atm, primarily due to circumstances, and not because I choose to be, and the most significant difference I have found is that I occasionally have less energy, but I also weigh a couple of kilos less (and I am a pretty skinny guy to begin with)
On September 21 2012 14:47 Mstring wrote: The floor is yours.
What, do people actually think that a vegan diet is the optimal diet for humans?
The optimal diet for every type of lifestyle is difficult to argue. He was just asking you to provide your opinion on the subject. Why don't you tell us what you know about a vegan diet, since it sounds like you dismiss the idea altogether. Of course there are pros and cons to both sides, but you seem to act like it is completely absurd and not possible on a long-term basis or something. Tell us what you think.
You must not have read all of the previous posts. That's alright. I'm a vegetarian, actually.
But yes... if we look at the evolution of man, we see that humans have been eating a omnivorous diet since forever. Now, usually over long periods of time, animals will adapt and adjust to certain things. Diet is not an exception. The diet that works best* for the animals stick to the animal. As animals change their lifestyles over the span of many years, their diet may change too. If their diet changes over the span of many years, their lifestyles will change. They are related. Meat provides a nice way of getting humans protein, iron, etc. that most the vegan diet will have trouble with. You will need to eat tofu, soy, nuts, bread, etc. in order to obtain similar nutrients. *not technically the best, but generally pretty close to optimal.
Yes, both have ups and downs, but a diet that excludes such a large amount of food will never be the optimal diet. Though I absolutely believe you can live quite sufficiently off of a vegan diet and a vegetarian diet. Being "healthy" relative to the majority is actually pretty easy because so many people are unhealthy.
That's about all I know. Sorry for including evolutionary concepts, that usually brings in more bickering over stupid-ass shit.
Oh, no I didn't read your earlier posts. I jumped on for the first time a page or two ago and didn't read the first 13.
If you consider a vegan that is aware of the nutrients that might become a problem if left alone and have already compensated for consuming them on a regular basis, what is the need to continue meat consumption? Especially with all of the unhealthy aspects of it considering the saturated fat and cholesterol content, the high acidity, the hormones and genetic modifications to the cow, and of course the ethical side?
I don't think it is as much "... a diet that excludes sucha large amount of food..." but more of a diet that includes the right food.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
On September 21 2012 15:20 FireSA wrote: So to add my two cents..
I am not vegan, and would not go vegan. I am happy for others to be vegan, however in some cases (as in, friends and the like) it has almost gotten to the stage where they are fanatical about trying to convert anybody who is not vegan..I'm sure there are ups and downs to whichever diet you choose, and I am sure that vegan and non-vegan diets can be healthy, and also unhealthy. Please, just stop pretending that vegan is the holy grail of nutrition :D
To be fair I am almost on a vegetarian diet atm, primarily due to circumstances, and not because I choose to be, and the most significant difference I have found is that I occasionally have less energy, but I also weigh a couple of kilos less (and I am a pretty skinny guy to begin with)
Unfortunately I would say more than 80%, maybe closer to 90%, of all the vegans I have come in contact with are stuck-up elitists that preach their shit left and right at anyone that comes their way. So many of them have become obsessed with the idea and feel it is their right and duty to religiously smear it all over everyone else. It's sad to see because there are many benefits to realize and experience over a long period of time on this diet, and they waste so many opportunities to actually get people interested in the idea with their shitty, high-horse attitude.
One thing I will say about a friend telling you all about the diet is this: I have learned that one of the hardest things to do about being healthy and fit on a vegan diet is watching your friends and family destroy their health. Once you are aware of the consequences of what we put in our body, and have taken the time to experiment with ourselves to notice the difference in our mood, attitude, energy level, body size and type, etc., it becomes very difficult not to want to say a lot of things to the people we care about when we can feel from the past what they are doing to themselves in relation to how we feel now.
Also a concept worth adding. The argument of -other animals eat meat, so why shouldn't we?- is sort of poor. Other animals are not as advanced intellectually. Some male animals will kill another male over a female mate. Should we do that too? The best way to think about these things is to look at the biggest picture possible and work your way down, relating how each bit of the "smaller picture" adds to the "biggest picture". If you believe the "biggest picture" is make humanity live indefinitely by expanding throughout the universe and outsmarting "nature" and what-not, then you should work on all of things to help to achieve that goal. If you believe the ultimate objective is world peace and happiness for all: man, woman, cat, dog, spider, etc. then you should probably stop eating meat and find ways to make the world go on without meat.
Anyway, I'm tired and would like to sleep. I wish you all the best in arguing over meat or no meat. Try to be logical, now.
On September 21 2012 15:05 smokeyhoodoo wrote: There are no health benefits to going vegan. Monitoring your diet so that your body gets everything it needs and in the proper proportions does have health benefits. That can be done with a vegan diet, or a diet with animal products. You can also have a truly awful diet with either. Chicken eggs are immensely healthy for you. They have all the proteins your body needs, and in the proper proportions. They have 25% of the required daily intake of choline. Very few people meet this required intake, and its difficult to get without eggs in your diet.
A lot of people don't recognize that you can have a truly awful diet with either meat-eating or veganism, just like you said. It depends on a lot of factors of course and is normally more complex than people want to think.
Chicken, eggs, and every meat and dairy product have all of the amino acids in protein. The drawback to the protein in animal products has a lot to do with an earlier post I made about it making your blood very acidic and leeching calcium out of your bones. Eggs also have one of the highest concentrations of cholesterol of any food on the planet. The energy in that yolk is meant to give enough energy to fuel that chick for weeks.
Also you have to consider that these foods have to be cooked before you can consume them (normally), which destroys huge portions of the protein and vitamins and minerals in the food before you consume it. Vitamins and protein get destroyed really easily, but minerals are usually a lot more resilient thankfully. When you eat raw fruits and vegetables, for instance, you don't run into this problem at all and are able to make use of 100% of all the nutrients the food provides.
Aside from those ideas, you still want to think about how the food is grown and processed before it gets to your table. Considering chicken like you mentioned:
"Up to one-quarter of slaughtered chickens on the inspection line are covered with feces, bile, and feed. Dead and diseased animals are processed and end up in the supermarket. Chickens are soaked in baths of chlorine to remove slime and odor. Mixtures of excrement, blood, oil, grease, rust, paint, insecticides, and rodent droppings accumulate in processing plants. Maggots and other larvae breed in storage and transportation containers, on the floor, and in processing equipment and packaging, and they drop onto the conveyor belt from infested meat splattered on the ceiling. Slaughterhouses -- which by law must be inspected once every shift -- go as long as two weeks without inspection." -- Steve Striffler in "Chicken"
A guy earlier wanted me to start posting some of my sources for information and I just happened to remember this one. He was a guy that wanted to find out the truth about what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and wrote this book about his findings.
Yes, there is a lot of cholesterol in eggs, but it is actually good for your cholesterol profile. I got this from WHFoods. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=92#healthbenefits They site a study in Mexico concerning the subject. It's counter intuitive and I don't understand why, but that's apparently how it is.
"Up to one-quarter of slaughtered chickens on the inspection line are covered with feces, bile, and feed. Dead and diseased animals are processed and end up in the supermarket. Chickens are soaked in baths of chlorine to remove slime and odor. Mixtures of excrement, blood, oil, grease, rust, paint, insecticides, and rodent droppings accumulate in processing plants. Maggots and other larvae breed in storage and transportation containers, on the floor, and in processing equipment and packaging, and they drop onto the conveyor belt from infested meat splattered on the ceiling. Slaughterhouses -- which by law must be inspected once every shift -- go as long as two weeks without inspection." -- Steve Striffler in "Chicken"
A guy earlier wanted me to start posting some of my sources for information and I just happened to remember this one. He was a guy that wanted to find out the truth about what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and wrote this book about his findings.
What a load of shit. Find a source without an obvious agenda, please. If what you're saying was even remotely true, there would have been huge news stories about it by now. Also, people would be getting food poisoning left and right. If my memory is right, the last big batch of e. coli was caused by prepackaged spinach a few years ago.
On September 21 2012 15:19 Hemling wrote: I eat vegetarian dishes sometimes and I wouldnt mind to cut down meat comsumption a bit altough giving it up entirely is out of the question sorry =)
I'm curious why the vegetarian alternatives usually are more expensive then the meat version, shouldnt it be the other way around?
Subsidies and supply and demand, I mean if over time the demand went up, then they could make production cheaper, if you suddenly had everyone wanting to eat vegan alternatives it would drive prices way up cause there wouldn't be nearly enough supply, it also depends exactly what the alternative is made of.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
Don't get turned off too easily. It is a lifestyle that takes a lot of planning and consideration if you are not ready for it. I have been doing this for 2 years now, and I still make significant changes to the food I eat, how I shop, when food is ripe to eat, how to plan for future meals, what to do if I am going to be away from home for most of the day, etc.
We spend our entire lives living one way, but then all of a sudden we want to change that lifestyle overnight and get good results. If we are used to waking up in the morning and eating cereal or pancakes and eggs, then go to a sandwich place for lunch, then come home for some kind of family meal for dinner or go out to eat again, it will be hard to supplement a vegan diet for that lifestyle unless you know how to prepare and plan to compensate and/or change your lifestyle.
It also takes your body months to reestablish itself to your changing diet if you persist with it. My father cannot eat a banana or an apple for instance, because he has spent so many decades eating hamburgers, hotdogs, frozen TV diners, and boxes of twinkies and oreos that his body has gotten used to the type of food he consumes and how to digest it best. You need to give your body sufficient time to adapt to the changes you are making to your body. Think about drinking for the first time or two or three -- you don't want to have a half a dozen shots of hard liquor your first times drinking until you get used to its effects and how your body deals with it.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
Don't get turned off too easily. It is a lifestyle that takes a lot of planning and consideration if you are not ready for it. I have been doing this for 2 years now, and I still make significant changes to the food I eat, how I shop, when food is ripe to eat, how to plan for future meals, what to do if I am going to be away from home for most of the day, etc.
We spend our entire lives living one way, but then all of a sudden we want to change that lifestyle overnight and get good results. If we are used to waking up in the morning and eating cereal or pancakes and eggs, then go to a sandwich place for lunch, then come home for some kind of family meal for dinner or go out to eat again, it will be hard to supplement a vegan diet for that lifestyle unless you know how to prepare and plan to compensate and/or change your lifestyle.
It also takes your body months to reestablish itself to your changing diet if you persist with it. My father cannot eat a banana or an apple for instance, because he has spent so many decades eating hamburgers, hotdogs, frozen TV diners, and boxes of twinkies and oreos that his body has gotten used to the type of food he consumes and how to digest it best. You need to give your body sufficient time to adapt to the changes you are making to your body. Think about drinking for the first time or two or three -- you don't want to have a half a dozen shots of hard liquor your first times drinking until you get used to its effects and how your body deals with it.
Do you think if you added salmon and organic eggs to your diet it would be less healthy? I'm just curious if you think there is an actual inherent health benefit to being vegan.
"Up to one-quarter of slaughtered chickens on the inspection line are covered with feces, bile, and feed. Dead and diseased animals are processed and end up in the supermarket. Chickens are soaked in baths of chlorine to remove slime and odor. Mixtures of excrement, blood, oil, grease, rust, paint, insecticides, and rodent droppings accumulate in processing plants. Maggots and other larvae breed in storage and transportation containers, on the floor, and in processing equipment and packaging, and they drop onto the conveyor belt from infested meat splattered on the ceiling. Slaughterhouses -- which by law must be inspected once every shift -- go as long as two weeks without inspection." -- Steve Striffler in "Chicken"
A guy earlier wanted me to start posting some of my sources for information and I just happened to remember this one. He was a guy that wanted to find out the truth about what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and wrote this book about his findings.
What a load of shit. Find a source without an obvious agenda, please. If what you're saying was even remotely true, there would have been huge news stories about it by now. Also, people would be getting food poisoning left and right. If my memory is right, the last big batch of e. coli was caused by prepackaged spinach a few years ago.
Why is it difficult for people to imagine that something they don't want to believe can be true? You can watch numerous videos and documentaries illustrating the conditions of this slaughterhouses yourself if you actually cared to learn the information -- you don't need to take it from this guy. In fact, why don't you go visit some of these slaughterhouses and see what you think when you come out? The illegal Mexican immigrants that worked in that facility didn't even eat the chicken themselves, even while working there.
The reason there aren't huge news stories about it are because the meat and dairy industry is one of the absolute most profitable and subsidized industries in the US, and goes through immense procedures keeping all of the dirty truths away from the public eye. If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we wouldn't be having this debate. What do you expect the facilities to be like when they have to process all of the body parts of over 30 billion land animals a year to feed our country?
The E. coli that you are talking about was from pig fecal runoff that infected fields of spinach in the area. That bacteria comes from the lower intestines of animals, not spinach.
I can argue that people get more than food poisoning... they get dead when they abuse meat and dairy by contracting coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, colon cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, and I can go.
The subject of veganism is mostly about wanting to find out the truth for yourself, and not about wanting to just oppose people that don't do things the same as you. If you care about any of this, you need to want to believe the truth and go discover things on your own, otherwise you will forever see people like me as a lunatic.
In fact, I convinced a vegan to start eating meat again and a vegetarian to start eating chicken just a few months before I decided to try veganism because I was so dumbfounded on the idea of not doing something that I had blindly done my whole life.
On September 21 2012 15:05 smokeyhoodoo wrote: There are no health benefits to going vegan. Monitoring your diet so that your body gets everything it needs and in the proper proportions does have health benefits. That can be done with a vegan diet, or a diet with animal products. You can also have a truly awful diet with either. Chicken eggs are immensely healthy for you. They have all the proteins your body needs, and in the proper proportions. They have 25% of the required daily intake of choline. Very few people meet this required intake, and its difficult to get without eggs in your diet.
A lot of people don't recognize that you can have a truly awful diet with either meat-eating or veganism, just like you said. It depends on a lot of factors of course and is normally more complex than people want to think.
This is the truest statement that you make in your entire post, and most of the health benefits from "going vegan/going vegetarian" actually can be achieved equally well with meat, just by paying attention to what it is you're eating in the first place.
On September 21 2012 15:20 CatfooD wrote: Chicken, eggs, and every meat and dairy product have all of the amino acids in protein. The drawback to the protein in animal products has a lot to do with an earlier post I made about it making your blood very acidic and leeching calcium out of your bones. Eggs also have one of the highest concentrations of cholesterol of any food on the planet. The energy in that yolk is meant to give enough energy to fuel that chick for weeks.
Also you have to consider that these foods have to be cooked before you can consume them (normally), which destroys huge portions of the protein and vitamins and minerals in the food before you consume it. Vitamins and protein get destroyed really easily, but minerals are usually a lot more resilient thankfully. When you eat raw fruits and vegetables, for instance, you don't run into this problem at all and are able to make use of 100% of all the nutrients the food provides.
This is where I start facepalming. First, Dietary Cholesterol does not have a significant impact on level of serum "bad" cholesterol; the studies that the US dietary guidelines are based on that tell you otherwise was performed in the 1940's and 1950's, by a drug company, and has several methodological errors. perscribing a diet low in cholesterol or saturated fat to "fix" high cholesterol is like perscribing that someone stop drinking water, to cure having to go to the bathroom. It'll do it, eventually, but it's not smart.
Second, nothing gets "destroyed" in cooking. Proteins are broken down into their constituent amino acids (and then rebuilt, in different and branching ways, and broken again.... etc.) but that does not change their nutritional value; if anything it makes them more easily absorbed. The protein in a cooked egg is significantly more bioavailable than that of a raw egg; something like 75 vs 99% (off the top of my head, but I can look this up. For comparison soy, the "best" vegan protein comes in at around 40% bioavailable). There may be some slight oxidation in the outside of the food, IF you cook it over high heat in a poorly surfaced pan, and it's burnt.... but that happens stirfrying vegetables much easier than it does to meat anyway.
On September 21 2012 15:20 CatfooD wrote: Aside from those ideas, you still want to think about how the food is grown and processed before it gets to your table. Considering chicken like you mentioned:
"Up to one-quarter of slaughtered chickens on the inspection line are covered with feces, bile, and feed. Dead and diseased animals are processed and end up in the supermarket. Chickens are soaked in baths of chlorine to remove slime and odor. Mixtures of excrement, blood, oil, grease, rust, paint, insecticides, and rodent droppings accumulate in processing plants. Maggots and other larvae breed in storage and transportation containers, on the floor, and in processing equipment and packaging, and they drop onto the conveyor belt from infested meat splattered on the ceiling. Slaughterhouses -- which by law must be inspected once every shift -- go as long as two weeks without inspection." -- Steve Striffler in "Chicken"
A guy earlier wanted me to start posting some of my sources for information and I just happened to remember this one. He was a guy that wanted to find out the truth about what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and wrote this book about his findings.
If you want to talk about inhumane conditions, lets talk about the workers in mega-orchards, or the damage to the earth that we do with factory farming of vegetables. If we want to talk about disease, lets talk about the proportion of vegetables that spoils during transportation.
What's the frequency of actual outbreaks of disease (e.coli, salmonella, etc.) from most of these slaughter houses? Doesn't happen very often, does it? That's why it's such big news whenever it actually does occur. So the cleaning methods being used - while they might sound terrible to you, reading them here on the internet are still effective - and that's what they're there for, not for sounding pretty. As far as living conditions, I quite frankly don't give a damn - it's necessary for me to afford my food, and I need this food to be healthy, therefore this needs to continue to happen. Why am I responsible for the feelings of a damn chicken?
On September 21 2012 15:27 CatfooD wrote: Oh, no I didn't read your earlier posts. I jumped on for the first time a page or two ago and didn't read the first 13.
If you consider a vegan that is aware of the nutrients that might become a problem if left alone and have already compensated for consuming them on a regular basis, what is the need to continue meat consumption? Especially with all of the unhealthy aspects of it considering the saturated fat and cholesterol content, the high acidity, the hormones and genetic modifications to the cow, and of course the ethical side?
I don't think it is as much "... a diet that excludes sucha large amount of food..." but more of a diet that includes the right food.
Saturated Fat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol is not unhealthy. A huge excess of these two things, coupled with complete inactivity on the part of the person consuming them, and a genetic risk factor for heart disease is unhealthy. More commonly unhealthy is micronutrient deficiency when a teenage girl tries veganism and thinks that all she needs to eat from now on is peanut butter sandwiches.
Acidity is a problem? Is that a joke? Explain that one please.
You can't argue about GMO's while you're eating soy. Soy and Corn are the first and second (respectively) most heavily modified organisms on the entire planet. Hell, Soy isn't healthy even before all the modifications.
Animals being fed hormones is a bad thing, you've got me there - but this is on the same level as the situation chickens are kept in, as far as I'm concerned - My "ethical stance" here is that I need food, and this is the way it has to be done for me to afford it. My survival is more important to me than the welfare of a chicken or cow. Apparently we disagree there - but that's an opinion, and neither of us are going to change each other's minds.
On September 21 2012 14:39 Zariel wrote: I still don't understand why would you choose to be vegan if you have to end up taking supplements. If your diet does not give you the satisfactory nutrition, then your diet is clearly not working. I just end up being dumbfounded when I encounter a vegan who takes dietary supplements. (Really though, inside my head I just want to slap them silly to have such logic)
Pretty much the only thing you MIGHT need is Vitamin B-12. A lot of vegan food (e.g. soy milk) has artificial B-12 in it already. Besides that, we're talking about 5-6 years of a STRICT vegan diet while purposely avoiding with B-12 fortified soy milk and similar stuff before the levels get to a unhealthy level.
Everything else can be obtained just fine.
Hi there, the body needs Vitamin B-12 in order to sustain the nervous system and helps in forming blood, now if you do not want a nervous system or blood, that is you choice. Vegan Website about B12
I never had a problem with vegans but the amount of misinformation i hear form some of them is actually sickening
Erhm. Thats.... what I just said...?
The only thing you MIGHT need (as a supplement to a vegan diet) is Vitamin B-12.
No you WILL need Vitamin B-12 supplements if you decide to go vegan. The way you are writing it with a emphasis on might sounds like you are saying, "You might need B-12 Supplements, you might not."
... If you consume enough vegan products enriched with B-12 (of which there are a lot), you won't need supplements. If you don't take any B-12 for 3 years, you won't need supplements. B-12 supplies last for up to 6 years and are easily refilled.
Only if you avoid any and all sources of B-12 out there you need artificial supplements. That is why you might need them, or you might not.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
Don't get turned off too easily. It is a lifestyle that takes a lot of planning and consideration if you are not ready for it. I have been doing this for 2 years now, and I still make significant changes to the food I eat, how I shop, when food is ripe to eat, how to plan for future meals, what to do if I am going to be away from home for most of the day, etc.
We spend our entire lives living one way, but then all of a sudden we want to change that lifestyle overnight and get good results. If we are used to waking up in the morning and eating cereal or pancakes and eggs, then go to a sandwich place for lunch, then come home for some kind of family meal for dinner or go out to eat again, it will be hard to supplement a vegan diet for that lifestyle unless you know how to prepare and plan to compensate and/or change your lifestyle.
It also takes your body months to reestablish itself to your changing diet if you persist with it. My father cannot eat a banana or an apple for instance, because he has spent so many decades eating hamburgers, hotdogs, frozen TV diners, and boxes of twinkies and oreos that his body has gotten used to the type of food he consumes and how to digest it best. You need to give your body sufficient time to adapt to the changes you are making to your body. Think about drinking for the first time or two or three -- you don't want to have a half a dozen shots of hard liquor your first times drinking until you get used to its effects and how your body deals with it.
Do you think if you added salmon and organic eggs to your diet it would be less healthy? I'm just curious if you think there is an actual inherent health benefit to being vegan.
Hmmm, it's difficult to say. I am not any expert by any means, and I am still learning things every day. I am mainly going off of my own testimony, research, and experiences. I eat about 97% vegan or so, but I just tell people I am vegan to make it easier to understand, and then I can explain later if it gets down to it. Every so often I will do something like eat a small piece of grilled fish, or a cup of Greek organic non-fat yogurt or ... something like those things.
If I could give any advise towards that idea, I would say this: Do what you can to eat the most organic firstly, and if you buy fish make sure it is wild caught and not farmed. Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have. Eggs I just wouldn't eat at all, because when you pass that thick, greasy egg yolk through your arteries, it clogs them up just like butter does. And then we put added salt on the eggs afterwards so we can shrink and clog our arteries at the same time, heh.
Wild caught fish is the best type of meat I could suggest eating. All of the animal biproducts are really high in saturated fats and cholesterols though -- butter, milk, yogurt, eggs, and cheese. If you are concerned about your consumption rates, just start by trying to eat meats and dairy products half as often, then half as often again a few weeks later. Doing things this way takes a longer time to notice changes in your body, since you aren't cutting a lot of the problems out completely, and you are doing it over a long period of time.
I've got to get to bed unfortunately, but I am glad I found this topic today and hope to be back in the next couple days after work. Nice chatting everyone. Cheers.
there seems to be several actively posing vegans ITT, so I would love for somebody to talk with about this. I have considered going vegan, or ketogenic, for a little while now, but being a university student means I'm totally strapped for cash, and honestly I'm not in a position to make a total lifestyle change like that right now. I honestly really dislike the current industrial food system, but right now I know my impact on it (should i choose to go vegan) would not matter much, and I would rather wait until I'm in a position (socially and economically) to make a really big dent, which I would very much like to do.
Something I would really like to hear about though (and this may differ from person to person) would be, if I were to find a local source of ethically treated animals (free range, taken care of properly, euthanized ethically, not force fed or abused etc.) would you still consider eating them unethical? I mean, I honestly need to do more research, but should it not be possible to form a sustainable way of eating meat/meat products, (i think i could handle reducing my meat consumption in general, and also paying more for properly treated animals)?
I do see dietary benefits to a vegan diet, but I also see benefits to many other diets as well. Heck, even just eating how I do already while slowly incorporating healthier things like whole grains and fewer processed foods seems like an option. The trouble I constantly run into whenever I look into this stuff is that everybody seems to be in 1 of 2 camps. 1- "OUR OPTION IS THE BEST. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. WE ARE THE HEALTHIEST, BESTEST, NOTHING TO LOSE SYSTEM, DISREGARD ALL OTHER SYSTEMS WHO SAY THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THEMSELVES". or 2- "yeah uuuh, i do exactly this, and here is an overly complicated single meal, but you can do similar things. if you need more than this single healthy thing then just look around, theres lots of info on the internet. everybody is kind of right and you just sort of, eat 'healthy' and you'll be fine. oh and by the way everything you think is healthy actually isnt. yeah uuh, heres some more generic 'pro-active' buzz words for you."
I'm REALLY desperate for a proper source of information. there are very few places I've seen that actually acknowledge other diets/systems, and everybody seems to just want to sell you their product and then take off with the cash and leave you in the dust. It seems extremely difficult to count every single calorie and nutrient and vitamin I'm getting, but when I don't I just sort of feel a little guilty about 'everything' that I eat because somewhere somebody has said that everything is terrible and everything in moderation and only eat this blah blah blah... I try to just not even buy blatantly unhealthy things, but then I go hear about how the soy sauce I use every day is terribly high in sodium, so I buy low sodium soy sauce. Then I see 'low fat ranch dressing' and i think 'great!' and afterwards I read about how not all fat is unhealthy and how all these products just hide behind artificial sweeteners or whatever. Ugh. that turned into a rant but whatever, it took too long I'm not deleting it lol. anyways the thing i think I was trying to get at was that I kind of understand the benefits to a lot of raw and organic vegetables/fruits etc, but it seems hard to distinguish what I should actually eat, seeing as how nobody seems to acknowledge how to actually incorporate these various healthy things into your lifestyle.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
Don't get turned off too easily. It is a lifestyle that takes a lot of planning and consideration if you are not ready for it. I have been doing this for 2 years now, and I still make significant changes to the food I eat, how I shop, when food is ripe to eat, how to plan for future meals, what to do if I am going to be away from home for most of the day, etc.
We spend our entire lives living one way, but then all of a sudden we want to change that lifestyle overnight and get good results. If we are used to waking up in the morning and eating cereal or pancakes and eggs, then go to a sandwich place for lunch, then come home for some kind of family meal for dinner or go out to eat again, it will be hard to supplement a vegan diet for that lifestyle unless you know how to prepare and plan to compensate and/or change your lifestyle.
It also takes your body months to reestablish itself to your changing diet if you persist with it. My father cannot eat a banana or an apple for instance, because he has spent so many decades eating hamburgers, hotdogs, frozen TV diners, and boxes of twinkies and oreos that his body has gotten used to the type of food he consumes and how to digest it best. You need to give your body sufficient time to adapt to the changes you are making to your body. Think about drinking for the first time or two or three -- you don't want to have a half a dozen shots of hard liquor your first times drinking until you get used to its effects and how your body deals with it.
Do you think if you added salmon and organic eggs to your diet it would be less healthy? I'm just curious if you think there is an actual inherent health benefit to being vegan.
Hmmm, it's difficult to say. I am not any expert by any means, and I am still learning things every day. I am mainly going off of my own testimony, research, and experiences. I eat about 97% vegan or so, but I just tell people I am vegan to make it easier to understand, and then I can explain later if it gets down to it. Every so often I will do something like eat a small piece of grilled fish, or a cup of Greek organic non-fat yogurt or ... something like those things.
If I could give any advise towards that idea, I would say this: Do what you can to eat the most organic firstly, and if you buy fish make sure it is wild caught and not farmed. Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have. Eggs I just wouldn't eat at all, because when you pass that thick, greasy egg yolk through your arteries, it clogs them up just like butter does. And then we put added salt on the eggs afterwards so we can shrink and clog our arteries at the same time, heh.
Wild caught fish is the best type of meat I could suggest eating. All of the animal biproducts are really high in saturated fats and cholesterols though -- butter, milk, yogurt, eggs, and cheese. If you are concerned about your consumption rates, just start by trying to eat meats and dairy products half as often, then half as often again a few weeks later. Doing things this way takes a longer time to notice changes in your body, since you aren't cutting a lot of the problems out completely, and you are doing it over a long period of time.
I've got to get to bed unfortunately, but I am glad I found this topic today and hope to be back in the next couple days after work. Nice chatting everyone. Cheers.
So what if I think being 200 pounds with under 10% body fat is healthier, and will give me more energy, than being an emaciated vegan? Unless I can get there as a vegan. Would I have to spend every waking hour cycling between working out and eating legumes? No, I'm gonna eat some freaking beef, and some freaking eggs. I'll be healthier for it and my arteries will be far from clogged.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Damn teach me. You're an inch taller and 10 pounds off from being twice my weight.
In other news, this topic is quite interesting. In more than one scenario it could turn into a very philosophical debate of evolution, since in a survival of the fittest we do what we want to or something? I tried being vegan for a week and it definitely wasn't fun. Vegetarian I can do. Vegan seems like far too much work for not enough satisfaction.
Don't get turned off too easily. It is a lifestyle that takes a lot of planning and consideration if you are not ready for it. I have been doing this for 2 years now, and I still make significant changes to the food I eat, how I shop, when food is ripe to eat, how to plan for future meals, what to do if I am going to be away from home for most of the day, etc.
We spend our entire lives living one way, but then all of a sudden we want to change that lifestyle overnight and get good results. If we are used to waking up in the morning and eating cereal or pancakes and eggs, then go to a sandwich place for lunch, then come home for some kind of family meal for dinner or go out to eat again, it will be hard to supplement a vegan diet for that lifestyle unless you know how to prepare and plan to compensate and/or change your lifestyle.
It also takes your body months to reestablish itself to your changing diet if you persist with it. My father cannot eat a banana or an apple for instance, because he has spent so many decades eating hamburgers, hotdogs, frozen TV diners, and boxes of twinkies and oreos that his body has gotten used to the type of food he consumes and how to digest it best. You need to give your body sufficient time to adapt to the changes you are making to your body. Think about drinking for the first time or two or three -- you don't want to have a half a dozen shots of hard liquor your first times drinking until you get used to its effects and how your body deals with it.
Do you think if you added salmon and organic eggs to your diet it would be less healthy? I'm just curious if you think there is an actual inherent health benefit to being vegan.
Hmmm, it's difficult to say. I am not any expert by any means, and I am still learning things every day. I am mainly going off of my own testimony, research, and experiences. I eat about 97% vegan or so, but I just tell people I am vegan to make it easier to understand, and then I can explain later if it gets down to it. Every so often I will do something like eat a small piece of grilled fish, or a cup of Greek organic non-fat yogurt or ... something like those things.
If I could give any advise towards that idea, I would say this: Do what you can to eat the most organic firstly, and if you buy fish make sure it is wild caught and not farmed. Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have. Eggs I just wouldn't eat at all, because when you pass that thick, greasy egg yolk through your arteries, it clogs them up just like butter does. And then we put added salt on the eggs afterwards so we can shrink and clog our arteries at the same time, heh.
Wild caught fish is the best type of meat I could suggest eating. All of the animal biproducts are really high in saturated fats and cholesterols though -- butter, milk, yogurt, eggs, and cheese. If you are concerned about your consumption rates, just start by trying to eat meats and dairy products half as often, then half as often again a few weeks later. Doing things this way takes a longer time to notice changes in your body, since you aren't cutting a lot of the problems out completely, and you are doing it over a long period of time.
I've got to get to bed unfortunately, but I am glad I found this topic today and hope to be back in the next couple days after work. Nice chatting everyone. Cheers.
Although it is true fish contains cholesterol, fish has an incredibly low amount of saturated fat that is required to actually get the cholesterol to form in the body. This is what separates red meat from fish.
Also the amount of cholesterol you do gain from eating the right amount of red meat/fish isn't that much. The only time high cholesterol diets become an issue is when you eat way more than your daily recommended. The funny thing is, people often give cholesterol a bad name, but in reality it's the saturated fats that get to you because it allows the cholesterol you eat form into cholesterol in your body. The body creates cholesterol on its own, I think it's something around 2000 mg a day, adding an extra 300 mg a day isn't going to make that much of a difference.
The thing I really don't like about vegan arguments is that they take stereotypical arguments about red meat and it's effect on health and blow it way out of proportion. I would rate them next to Apple vs PC users...
Well here is a fun message for you, Kombucha Tea which is a Vegan drink can cause cancer when drunk in excessive amounts. Carrots can turn the recipient orange if eaten to much. Star Fruit can cause kidney failure if eaten in excess.
The only reason why red meat is considered bad is because it tastes so much better than vegan food. Thus much more people eat the stuff and eat it in much larger quantities. If eaten in moderation (The exact same philosophy Vegans follow) then you will be fine, in fact most likely overall healthier than any vegan.
Also don't believe everything you read on the internet about Vegans being healthier. I've read lots of documents trying to portray Vegans as being a bad thing and a good thing. The same way I have read people saying that red meat is bad for you but also people saying it's good for you.
On September 21 2012 16:10 StayPhrosty wrote: there seems to be several actively posing vegans ITT, so I would love for somebody to talk with about this. I have considered going vegan, or ketogenic, for a little while now, but being a university student means I'm totally strapped for cash, and honestly I'm not in a position to make a total lifestyle change like that right now. I honestly really dislike the current industrial food system, but right now I know my impact on it (should i choose to go vegan) would not matter much, and I would rather wait until I'm in a position (socially and economically) to make a really big dent, which I would very much like to do.
Something I would really like to hear about though (and this may differ from person to person) would be, if I were to find a local source of ethically treated animals (free range, taken care of properly, euthanized ethically, not force fed or abused etc.) would you still consider eating them unethical? I mean, I honestly need to do more research, but should it not be possible to form a sustainable way of eating meat/meat products, (i think i could handle reducing my meat consumption in general, and also paying more for properly treated animals)?
I do see dietary benefits to a vegan diet, but I also see benefits to many other diets as well. Heck, even just eating how I do already while slowly incorporating healthier things like whole grains and fewer processed foods seems like an option. The trouble I constantly run into whenever I look into this stuff is that everybody seems to be in 1 of 2 camps. 1- "OUR OPTION IS THE BEST. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. WE ARE THE HEALTHIEST, BESTEST, NOTHING TO LOSE SYSTEM, DISREGARD ALL OTHER SYSTEMS WHO SAY THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THEMSELVES". or 2- "yeah uuuh, i do exactly this, and here is an overly complicated single meal, but you can do similar things. if you need more than this single healthy thing then just look around, theres lots of info on the internet. everybody is kind of right and you just sort of, eat 'healthy' and you'll be fine. oh and by the way everything you think is healthy actually isnt. yeah uuh, heres some more generic 'pro-active' buzz words for you."
I'm REALLY desperate for a proper source of information. there are very few places I've seen that actually acknowledge other diets/systems, and everybody seems to just want to sell you their product and then take off with the cash and leave you in the dust. It seems extremely difficult to count every single calorie and nutrient and vitamin I'm getting, but when I don't I just sort of feel a little guilty about 'everything' that I eat because somewhere somebody has said that everything is terrible and everything in moderation and only eat this blah blah blah... I try to just not even buy blatantly unhealthy things, but then I go hear about how the soy sauce I use every day is terribly high in sodium, so I buy low sodium soy sauce. Then I see 'low fat ranch dressing' and i think 'great!' and afterwards I read about how not all fat is unhealthy and how all these products just hide behind artificial sweeteners or whatever. Ugh. that turned into a rant but whatever, it took too long I'm not deleting it lol. anyways the thing i think I was trying to get at was that I kind of understand the benefits to a lot of raw and organic vegetables/fruits etc, but it seems hard to distinguish what I should actually eat, seeing as how nobody seems to acknowledge how to actually incorporate these various healthy things into your lifestyle.
I am a vegetarian and not vegan, but I hope I can still be somewhat useful. Regarding whether or not you want to make such a decision, it really comes down to your motivation. You do make a very good point though, that it takes time to change a habit (especially one as heavily entrenched as our eating habits), and that if you want to make a change, it's better sooner than later. Worse case scenario, you can always go back to eating meat if necessary.
When it comes to eating animals, it really depends on your own motivation for going vegan/vegetarian. One reason I don't eat meat is because of my problems with the industrial meat system, and if that's where you're primarily coming from, then yes, ethically treated animals would be less problematic to eat. I think it's definitely possible to eat meat in a more sustainable way, though it would certainly require a massive reduction in volume. In that sense, there's nothing necessarily wrong with eating meat.
However, I'd prefer not killing them at all if I can, because less pain is still worse than no pain, so in that sense I would still consider it unethical, based on *my own* beliefs and rationale for going vegetarian. If one day I'm in a place with little to none fruits and vegetables, I would be willing to eat meat, and I would be perfectly fine with it. I've just never been put in a situation where it's a necessity, rather than a conscious choice. So really, this one's up to you. I will note that the transition to a vegan diet is difficult for most people, and many prefer to slowly reduce their meat intake rather than trying to do it all at once, and in that sense I would prefer ethically treated animals over factory farming, yes.
You really have to understand your body - no one can say for sure what's the best for you. Certainly, everyone likes to think that they have the right approach and the best diet. I have no guarantee that my beliefs are *necessarily* the only way, and I only recommend it to those who are genuinely curious, like you. If someone asks, or the proper opportunity arises, I will gladly share my beliefs, but I have no interest in demonizing those who do choose to continue eating meat.
Arguably, TL isn't a proper source of information. Everyone here is mostly going off of what they know personally or anecdotally, so make of that what you will. It's true that there's a lot of information overload nowadays, which is why I emphasized knowing your body, and really paying attention to it to better understand how it processes different foods. In general, I think it's a good approach to be careful about anything that is sold to be "too easy", like no sugar, or low fat dressing, because in general these types of products use something else (potentially worse) to make up for it. I can give you some more specific advice if you're curious about anything in particular.
At the very least though, I think you're on the right track increasing your raw and organic vegetable/fruit intake. If you've been eating dairy and eggs all your life, you can try slowly cutting back on one or the other (simultaneously if you wish) and see what affect that has before you decide what your next step is.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
On September 21 2012 16:10 StayPhrosty wrote: there seems to be several actively posing vegans ITT, so I would love for somebody to talk with about this. I have considered going vegan, or ketogenic, for a little while now, but being a university student means I'm totally strapped for cash, and honestly I'm not in a position to make a total lifestyle change like that right now. I honestly really dislike the current industrial food system, but right now I know my impact on it (should i choose to go vegan) would not matter much, and I would rather wait until I'm in a position (socially and economically) to make a really big dent, which I would very much like to do.
Something I would really like to hear about though (and this may differ from person to person) would be, if I were to find a local source of ethically treated animals (free range, taken care of properly, euthanized ethically, not force fed or abused etc.) would you still consider eating them unethical? I mean, I honestly need to do more research, but should it not be possible to form a sustainable way of eating meat/meat products, (i think i could handle reducing my meat consumption in general, and also paying more for properly treated animals)?
I do see dietary benefits to a vegan diet, but I also see benefits to many other diets as well. Heck, even just eating how I do already while slowly incorporating healthier things like whole grains and fewer processed foods seems like an option. The trouble I constantly run into whenever I look into this stuff is that everybody seems to be in 1 of 2 camps. 1- "OUR OPTION IS THE BEST. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. WE ARE THE HEALTHIEST, BESTEST, NOTHING TO LOSE SYSTEM, DISREGARD ALL OTHER SYSTEMS WHO SAY THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THEMSELVES". or 2- "yeah uuuh, i do exactly this, and here is an overly complicated single meal, but you can do similar things. if you need more than this single healthy thing then just look around, theres lots of info on the internet. everybody is kind of right and you just sort of, eat 'healthy' and you'll be fine. oh and by the way everything you think is healthy actually isnt. yeah uuh, heres some more generic 'pro-active' buzz words for you."
I'm REALLY desperate for a proper source of information. there are very few places I've seen that actually acknowledge other diets/systems, and everybody seems to just want to sell you their product and then take off with the cash and leave you in the dust. It seems extremely difficult to count every single calorie and nutrient and vitamin I'm getting, but when I don't I just sort of feel a little guilty about 'everything' that I eat because somewhere somebody has said that everything is terrible and everything in moderation and only eat this blah blah blah... I try to just not even buy blatantly unhealthy things, but then I go hear about how the soy sauce I use every day is terribly high in sodium, so I buy low sodium soy sauce. Then I see 'low fat ranch dressing' and i think 'great!' and afterwards I read about how not all fat is unhealthy and how all these products just hide behind artificial sweeteners or whatever. Ugh. that turned into a rant but whatever, it took too long I'm not deleting it lol. anyways the thing i think I was trying to get at was that I kind of understand the benefits to a lot of raw and organic vegetables/fruits etc, but it seems hard to distinguish what I should actually eat, seeing as how nobody seems to acknowledge how to actually incorporate these various healthy things into your lifestyle.
If you want objectivity then test your blood. Try things, things you like, and then test. If it says you're healthy, then that's all there is to it. I guarantee you can get good results with both vegan and non-vegan diets.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
Frozen vegetables are better because they can be picked at optimal ripeness and then frozen. Fresh vegetables have to be picked a few days early so they don't spoil on the way to the store. The act of freezing something doesn't change its nutritional content at all. Frozen vegetables are simply washed, cut up, and quickly frozen.
Canned vegetables are not that great because they have to be boiled before they can be safely canned.
Boiling vegetables is probably the least effective way to cook them. Notice how the water will be colored when you're done. There's a fair bit of nutrition in that water. Add it to your potatoes or something instead of tossing it. The best way is to eat them fresh or lightly steamed.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research.
The funny thing about vegans and vegetarians are that they are usually very militant about their choice... then they have a weak moment, are dared into it or whatever, and eat meat... a burger or something. Whoops. now they aren't vegans/vegetarians anymore, because apparently meat is too good. I actually know several people who did this, after 2-3 years of being vegetarians, they tried meat and never went back.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
Frozen vegetables are better because they can be picked at optimal ripeness and then frozen. Fresh vegetables have to be picked a few days early so they don't spoil on the way to the store. The act of freezing something doesn't change its nutritional content at all. Frozen vegetables are simply washed, cut up, and quickly frozen.
Canned vegetables are not that great because they have to be boiled before they can be safely canned.
Boiling vegetables is probably the least effective way to cook them. Notice how the water will be colored when you're done. There's a fair bit of nutrition in that water. Add it to your potatoes or something instead of tossing it. The best way is to eat them fresh or lightly steamed.
Oh for christ's sake, just shove vegetables down your throat. A lot of them.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
I guess it comes down to the persons perception of morals. Personally I am an animal lover, I would never want to think of an animal being mistreated before it's inevitable death sentence. I don't feel bad about killing animals though, because once they are dead they can't feel anymore. Basically, as long as the animal lives an "OK" life and it gets killed without even really knowing about it then it's cool. A lot of these meat companies don't treat their animals nicely though...
I think the people's argument in which people think you should stop eating meat is so that you don't support the meat companies that treat the animals badly (Which isn't fair because not all meat companies do). I think it comes down to government regulations on the treatment of animals, I don't mind the minority of Vegans saying no to Meat, because it just brings the regulations up to shape.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
Frozen vegetables are better because they can be picked at optimal ripeness and then frozen. Fresh vegetables have to be picked a few days early so they don't spoil on the way to the store. The act of freezing something doesn't change its nutritional content at all. Frozen vegetables are simply washed, cut up, and quickly frozen.
Canned vegetables are not that great because they have to be boiled before they can be safely canned.
Boiling vegetables is probably the least effective way to cook them. Notice how the water will be colored when you're done. There's a fair bit of nutrition in that water. Add it to your potatoes or something instead of tossing it. The best way is to eat them fresh or lightly steamed.
Oh for christ's sake, just shove vegetables down your throat. A lot of them.
Of course. Everyone could benefit from adding any kind of vegetable to their diet. However, if you're concerned about getting that maximum amount of nutrition from them you should buy frozen vegetables, grow them yourself, or get them at a farmer's market.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research.
I appreciate the reply, and I know you're already aware of this because you seem like a smart dude, but you didn't answer either of my questions. You say that killing animals is not something that vegans "agree with." And you said a few lines before that that the inhumane conditions in factory farming "seem quite wrong." Niether of those, however, constitute legitimately reasoned responses.
What I would like to hear from a vegan/vegetarian is why they categorically disagree with killing animals. Why is it wrong?
And the corollary question is: granting that factory farming is wrong, why does that mean I ought to give up consuming any animal products whatsoever? How does that follow?
Just missing the point really- the main problem is all the processed carbohydrates- specifically sugars in the diet. Tofu, soy etc. are not whole foods- need a shit load of processing to get it to an edible form.
I seriously don't see how hard it is.
Eat healthy animals, Eat healthy plants, Move about lots and Get plenty of sleep. Avoid toxic things. - common sense, live by our design to the environment we were designed to live in. All this questioning about certain macronutrient and micronutrient ratio is reductionist science- take a step back, what makes sense of what we are supposed to eat historically.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research.
I appreciate the reply, and I know you're already aware of this because you seem like a smart dude, but you didn't answer either of my questions. You say that killing animals is not something that vegans "agree with." And you said a few lines before that that the inhumane conditions in factory farming "seem quite wrong." Niether of those, however, constitute legitimately reasoned responses.
What I would like to hear from a vegan/vegetarian is why they categorically disagree with killing animals. Why is it wrong?
And the corollary question is: granting that factory farming is wrong, why does that mean I ought to give up consuming any animal products whatsoever? How does that follow?
Because they have an emotional response to it. You do not, hence the disagreement.
On September 21 2012 07:34 Danglars wrote: If the vegans were a little less radical with the "You are burning down the planet!" they might enjoy a little more societal acceptance. From high school to today, you just don't ask why someone chose veganism, because you're in for an earful. It was a book on animal cruelty at farms for one acquaintance. Another, it was more of a dislike of meats (leading me to wonder why dairy and eggs were rejected, why she went vegan instead of vegetarian).
Still think it's a rather shortsighted view towards saving the planet. Economic development in nations still employing slash-and-burn techniques to agriculture will matter more than an army of 500 vegans. That's my own two cents about it.
I see,.. but I mean why contribute to the problem?
Going vegan/vegetarian and eating locally grown produce is one of the best ways to make an impact on the planet, and leaving a very small footprint behind. The only other way is to get involved with politics and changing the world, I support The Green Party, and volunteer with them, but I am by no means a politician, and I don't think I'm a leader. I'll never change the masses opinion, so being vegan is great for the individual.
By your logic if there was a huge blazing fire tearing down a city, we should all start little fires just cause, we can't stop the big fire anyways.
I don't think the overall problem of greenhouse gases is affected by such minute changes in personal diets. So the rancher comes on hard times because of a rise in vegetarianism, and raises a few less cows. Hardly a big deal. I'm also contributing to global warming through my gas, bowel movements, and breathing ... at some point you've gotta say ... it doesn't matter one small bit.
If shipping produce and using stuff like gaseous ripening techniques didn't make economic sense, they wouldn't be utilized so ubiquitously. It just makes sense to ship your produce goods to as many markets as you can competitively sell them in. In your fire example, I wouldn't consider throwing away my cigarette lighter because there's some firefighters battling some huge blaze around. It's a lighter ... and I'm craving a smoke!
On September 21 2012 07:34 Danglars wrote: If the vegans were a little less radical with the "You are burning down the planet!" they might enjoy a little more societal acceptance. From high school to today, you just don't ask why someone chose veganism, because you're in for an earful. It was a book on animal cruelty at farms for one acquaintance. Another, it was more of a dislike of meats (leading me to wonder why dairy and eggs were rejected, why she went vegan instead of vegetarian).
Still think it's a rather shortsighted view towards saving the planet. Economic development in nations still employing slash-and-burn techniques to agriculture will matter more than an army of 500 vegans. That's my own two cents about it.
Yes but veganism isn't a bloc. Its an individual's choice. If that individual is a self-righteous prat then that's what they are. The reason they get hated on is presumably because they're going against the grain, are easy to stereotype and are passionate about their choices (it takes a lot of will power to avoid meat - its so good afterall). Characterising all of them because of their public image or anacdotal experience is foolish. I can only think of one vegeterian I know that maybe pushes the boundaries of acceptable conduct surrounding people's choices. One out of 15+ vegetarian/vegans.
If you meet a scumbag vegan/vegetarian, then that's just who they are as a person and in no way reflects all other vegan/vegetarians.
Granted, veganism isn't a bloc by a classical definition. I happen to live in an area where it is very fashionable to be a vegan. Heck, at a past job I routinely ran into them buying meat for their husbands and being clueless about the purchase. The identifying characteristic is the activism and the centralism over the rationale for their choice. Okay so you don't like fish, you don't like how it tastes. Conversation might end there (I might suggest some grilling options as well or invite the person over to try my own). But if you have to cook for an assembly including vegans, don't even bother casually asking one of the non-bloc bloc because it will be 1) a book on cruel farm practices or slaughterhouse practices or 2) I'm stopping global warming and saving precious little chickens and cows that go moo. And they'll talk your ear off, man. So I characterize them as a group because of shared stories amongst them and verbosity with sharing them. No, they aren't self-righteous arrogant pricks, at least I believe not most of them. They've got an image to change, however. My sample size (In the neighborhood of 30-40) isn't enough to generalize to the nation or world. Yet, in my area of southern California, there's some recurring characteristics, and I've seen enough in this thread that the perception, at least, is widespread. Where is the mean on the scale from "Concerned about health issues of meat" to "Green Party voter/PETA protestor/I know every piece of literature on cruel animal abuse in last 10 years"? Maybe we'll get a scientific study on that one day =)
I don't know if this is directly relevant to discussion, but I wonder how this could affect future demographics of humanity. If vegan/vegetarians are more healthy, then they are more likely to leave offsprings. Darwin's natural selection occurs and more and more become vegan/vegetarian over generations? Tastes of vegetables might be better for future humanity than what we experience today because liking vegetable is "superior trait." It doesn't happen over 2-3 generations, but after 100 generations, maybe?
I hate these threads, people are so dogmatic. Personally like everyone else I think my way is best! Have your own garded and eat shitloads of meat and fish but kill it all yourself. Best stuff in the world. But seriously if you are bothered farming practices and are willing to pay for it you can buy from smaller sources and feel better about it. If you don't like how your body feels when you eat meat then don't! Pretty much most people can benefit from eating more vegetables. If you don't like meat I highly recommend fish. Buy wild. In my opinion its all good for you just stay away from sugar and processed foods and you are good to go from a health standpoint.
P.S. Eat wild alaskan seafood best stuff in the world.
The thing is, Danglars that you are generalizing, even if you recognize that it isn't enough of a sample size. You've got a tiny subsection of vegans in that area of southern California, and you don't like their image. But you're using that distasteful image to paint a narrative about vegans. That includes those in the United States, and in Taiwan, and everywhere else. Perhaps it is not that they have to change their image (though I'm sure that could help), but that you could acknowledge your image isn't really representative enough to actually mean anything. I can understand if you get turned off by how some of them behave, and that's fair. But please don't block yourself off to whether or not the message is reasonable or makes sense, because it's pretty unnecessarily dismissive of the significant number of vegans and vegetarians who behave otherwise. The world is a large place.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research.
I appreciate the reply, and I know you're already aware of this because you seem like a smart dude, but you didn't answer either of my questions. You say that killing animals is not something that vegans "agree with." And you said a few lines before that that the inhumane conditions in factory farming "seem quite wrong." Niether of those, however, constitute legitimately reasoned responses.
What I would like to hear from a vegan/vegetarian is why they categorically disagree with killing animals. Why is it wrong?
And the corollary question is: granting that factory farming is wrong, why does that mean I ought to give up consuming any animal products whatsoever? How does that follow?
im headed to bed after this, but ill try and give you an answer really quickly.
i tried to write a sentence to calrify like 4 times but deleted it each time because i'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "legitimately reasoned responses". I suppose the best i can do is to say that they value the life of an animal more than they value their appetite for meat. I'm not sure what else to say really. relating it to myself, i would say that if 1 person had to die to save 1000 people's lives then i would let that 1 die. if i had the choice, though, to kill a person for fun or not to kill that person, i would chose not to, because i believe that person has the right to live a happy life how they chose to. similarly, i would kill an animal if i had to because my family were starving and i had no other choice. then they would continue by saying they, given the choice, they would let and animal live rather than killing it for fun.
as for the factory farming conditions, i would ask you, do they seem right? honestly. i dont personally believe we cant eat meat at all, but it seems obvious that living conditions as well as milk/egg etc. extraction procedures and euthanasia practices all need to be improved. i find torture for no other purpose than convenience to be unacceptable, plain and simple.
as for your last bit, i would say that i disagree that vegans should force all other people not to eat meat, as i believe it should be every persons own choice, but i would say that it is quite a logical step to attempt to convince your friends and family of something that you are so passionate about. pushing it on other people may not be sensible, but another poster recently talked a bit about how painful it is seeing your loved ones suffer from unhealthy lifestyles after you have learned so much about them yourself. i cant argue for veganism over other healthy lifestyles, but i can say that many people live unhealthily simply due to ignorance, so it should be no surprise that people are attempting to spread what they believe to be good information on living a healthy lifestyle.
On September 21 2012 17:44 Orek wrote: I don't know if this is directly relevant to discussion, but I wonder how this could affect future demographics of humanity. If vegan/vegetarians are more healthy, then they are more likely to leave offsprings. Darwin's natural selection occurs and more and more become vegan/vegetarian over generations? Tastes of vegetables might be better for future humanity than what we experience today because liking vegetable is "superior trait." It doesn't happen over 2-3 generations, but after 100 generations, maybe?
It's possible, but I don't see meat eaters struggling to crank out millions of babies every year.
I didn't read the conversation after the first post, but i want to share my experience, regardless that only few may read this, but here we go:
About two years ago i saw some documentaries about healthy nutrition, the china study and especially athletes that lived vegan. The last thing was actually news to me, since i always had the typical stereotype vegan in my mind. I was eating meat several times a day at the time, and didn't really feel good about myself (not necessarily connected with meat only). So i said to myself, just give it a try for a day. What i want to say here is, that i didn't feel i missed anything from the first day. I didn't envy anyone who was eating meat, rather felt sorry for them. Just like with my more successful attempts to stop smoking.
So i was eating lots of carbohydrates at the time, and one of my main goals (loosing some weight) was not achieved by this. I was perplexed, i was actually gaining weight. Then, after a short talk to my father, i switched the diet to vegetables in the evening, still eating pasta mid day, and lost a lot of weight in ~ 2 months. (I still use this to lose weight when i feel i need to )
I was feeling really good about myself, and didn't have any thought on animal products. But i realized that i was getting disgusted by people who were eating meat, and therefore decided to eat it once in a while. This was a mistake in hindsight, since i now eat meat whenever i want to again (have to change that).
So i guess all i want to say is: 1. It's not hard! You can't get vegan food as easy when you're in a mall or somewhere (you can still get vegetarian food though), but if you cook for yourself, you won't feel any cutbacks. -> makes you feel like you accomplished something. First you think it will be hard, then you just naturally pass the meat in the supermarket. 2. You will feel more healthy. 3. You will look more healthy. 4. You can still be big, sportive, athletic, skinny, whatever you like.
I just eat whatever is available. If I'm in a country where people eat a lot of meat, I'll eat meat. If I'm in a country where people prefer a vegetarian diet, I'll eat that. I like meat, and I really like vegetables. A hot meal for me is potatoes + some kind of vegetable or fruit + a piece of meat.
Veganism, on the other hand, is almost decadent. The only reason vegans exist is because we, in the US and Western Europe, don't have any food shortages; we can eat whatever we want, basically. In most countries around the world, you just eat whatever's available.
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
Frozen vegetables are better because they can be picked at optimal ripeness and then frozen. Fresh vegetables have to be picked a few days early so they don't spoil on the way to the store. The act of freezing something doesn't change its nutritional content at all. Frozen vegetables are simply washed, cut up, and quickly frozen.
Canned vegetables are not that great because they have to be boiled before they can be safely canned.
Boiling vegetables is probably the least effective way to cook them. Notice how the water will be colored when you're done. There's a fair bit of nutrition in that water. Add it to your potatoes or something instead of tossing it. The best way is to eat them fresh or lightly steamed.
The problem about frozen food is that they require LOTS of energy and we should use less of that.
Another usually unanswered question is: Do we actually NEED that amount of additional vitamines and so on which frozen food has compared to the other versions? Humanity has survived without frozen food and so my guess is: No, we dont need that extra bit and can get by with non-frozen foods!
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
I guess it comes down to the persons perception of morals. Personally I am an animal lover, I would never want to think of an animal being mistreated before it's inevitable death sentence. I don't feel bad about killing animals though, because once they are dead they can't feel anymore. Basically, as long as the animal lives an "OK" life and it gets killed without even really knowing about it then it's cool. A lot of these meat companies don't treat their animals nicely though...
I think the people's argument in which people think you should stop eating meat is so that you don't support the meat companies that treat the animals badly (Which isn't fair because not all meat companies do). I think it comes down to government regulations on the treatment of animals, I don't mind the minority of Vegans saying no to Meat, because it just brings the regulations up to shape.
You're seeing immoral treatment of animals but all I'm seeing is efficiency.
On September 21 2012 18:36 maartendq wrote: [...] Veganism, on the other hand, is almost decadent. The only reason vegans exist is because we, in the US and Western Europe, don't have any food shortages; we can eat whatever we want, basically. In most countries around the world, you just eat whatever's available.
It is also very decadent not to eat our neighbor. Because we have enough food. We do not have to eat him. In many villages around the world they just rape women, because they don't have prisons and police. We should really go back to neanderthal ethics, because they knew what was right. + Show Spoiler +
On September 21 2012 16:07 CatfooD wrote: Fish has a lot of fats and cholesterol in it just like red meat, but it is a lot easier to digest and has healthy omega-3 fatty acids in it that red meat doesn't have.
Naturally fed animals contain omega-3 fatty acids. For example, beef from grass fed cows contain an omega3-omega6 ratio that's about 1:2.
A lot of the information that people throw around in nutrient debates are usually lies, or based on decades old research by companies with much to gain from the results. People (on both sides) need to do more research.
there it is again. 'everybody else is lies. im right. do more research.' i ask you, FROM WHERE?!?!?!? seriously, i;m looking at medical fucking journals right now and several of them have contested what i though to be established facts about nutrition. honestly i have heard from freaking EVERYWHERE that fish is healthier than red meat. now people are discussing how healthy eggs are. EVERYBODY says take the yolk out of the egg. there is 'eggwhite only' shit all over the place, and in the meantime im hearing that all eggs are terrible for you and, simultaneously, "cholesterol isnt as bad as you think". seriously. what. the. fuck.
edit- to the vegetarian - Thanks for reading my above post, I would actually really like some info on just cooking healthier. i.e. replacing using so much butter and salt and soy sauce when i cook my meals. also, a more specific question relevant to me currently would be are frozen vegetables particularly unhealthy? From what I understand you do get a lot more nutrients out of fresh (raw, even) vegetables, but aside from losing some of the possible nutrients, is there anything else particularly negative added to them or something?
Frozen vegetables are better because they can be picked at optimal ripeness and then frozen. Fresh vegetables have to be picked a few days early so they don't spoil on the way to the store. The act of freezing something doesn't change its nutritional content at all. Frozen vegetables are simply washed, cut up, and quickly frozen.
Canned vegetables are not that great because they have to be boiled before they can be safely canned.
Boiling vegetables is probably the least effective way to cook them. Notice how the water will be colored when you're done. There's a fair bit of nutrition in that water. Add it to your potatoes or something instead of tossing it. The best way is to eat them fresh or lightly steamed.
The problem about frozen food is that they require LOTS of energy and we should use less of that.
Another usually unanswered question is: Do we actually NEED that amount of additional vitamines and so on which frozen food has compared to the other versions? Humanity has survived without frozen food and so my guess is: No, we dont need that extra bit and can get by with non-frozen foods!
Some good information here, I have been a vegetarian for the last 21 years, and will continue to be one. I feel it has made me much healthier than all my meat eating friends my age. But, to each his own, it is nobody's right to tell someone else how to live. If eating tasty meat makes you happy... Go for it man.
On September 21 2012 18:36 maartendq wrote: [...] Veganism, on the other hand, is almost decadent. The only reason vegans exist is because we, in the US and Western Europe, don't have any food shortages; we can eat whatever we want, basically. In most countries around the world, you just eat whatever's available.
It is also very decadent not to eat our neighbor. Because we have enough food. We do not have to eat him. In many villages around the world they just rape women, because they don't have prisons and police. We should really go back to neanderthal ethics, because they knew what was right. + Show Spoiler +
[/sarcasm]
This argument may work against those who attempt to justify their killing of animals, as they are acknowledging the moral dilemma, but what of those of us that see no dilemma? I do not feel any compulsion to justify myself to anyone. Without guilt, what is your weapon?
I really hate it when vegetarians or vegans try to justify their stupid decision to the rest of the meat-eating world. Animals waste products are an environmental concern? We are killing them shortly after which drastically reduces their environmental impact. Furthermore, you take a shit nearly every day, maybe we should kill you and keep you from polluting the water or killing fish? There were plenty of other stupid things in the OP but this is the one that really made me snap... I just don't even know what to say...
I tried to turn vegan a year ago. I stopped eating meat and it was easier than expected. The most difficult part : cheese ! It's really hard for me to not eat cheese, so I still buy some, I also occasionally eat meat at some family dinner or stuff like that but don't buy anymore of it. I love the taste of meat but in the same time i realised that it was often what i wouldn't eat in my plate since I'm a kid. nerves, bones and veins are quite disgusting to chew.
I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Good thing I discovered : Chickpeas contain aout 20% proteine, which is way more than meat. It's delicious and can be eaten cold (houmos), or cooked. It's best to eat it with bread to help fix those proteines.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
Health While there are many different studies which cover the relationship between animal products and various disease I will stick to the "mother of them all": The China Study. It is the most comprehensive study of nutrition there has been thus far. Here are the 8 principles that the book covers:
Please don't cite The China Study as "the mother of them all". It isn't even in a peer reviewed journal. This gives it absolutely no credibility and therefore shouldn't be cited at all.
You should be very careful when spreading opinion as fact as it is very misleading.
My little sister is vegan and although I respect what she's doing, I will never be vegan myself. I have cut down on my meat consume in recent years, eating meat only 2 days a week and I buy my meat at the local farmer market instead of a super market. I could maybe live without meat, but never without milk/cheese.
What I find really annoying are vegans that try to force their way of living on other people like the OP. Especially if they are only vegan for such a short amount of time. You know there is this joke: "How do you know that someone is vegan? Don't worry he will tell you." It's like all they ever talk about. FYI... I don't care
Health While there are many different studies which cover the relationship between animal products and various disease I will stick to the "mother of them all": The China Study. It is the most comprehensive study of nutrition there has been thus far. Here are the 8 principles that the book covers:
Please don't cite The China Study as "the mother of them all". It isn't even in a peer reviewed journal. This gives it absolutely no credibility and therefore shouldn't be cited at all.
You should be very careful when spreading opinion as fact as it is very misleading.
basically my thoght.
It's interesting how people toss around so many studies, when most of them are either disproved or worthless. There's basically a bad study on virtually and opinion.
On September 21 2012 22:03 Malaz wrote: My little sister is vegan and although I respect what she's doing, I will never be vegan myself. I have cut down on my meat consume in recent years, eating meat only 2 days a week and I buy my meat at the local farmer market instead of a super market. I could maybe live without meat, but never without milk/cheese.
What I find really annoying are vegans that try to force their way of living on other people like the OP. Especially if they are only vegan for such a short amount of time. You know there is this joke: "How do you know that someone is vegan? Don't worry he will tell you." It's like all they ever talk about. FYI... I don't care
It's like religion. Believe what you want, but don't try to evangelize others too hard.
There is nothing wrong with eating meat. There's a lot wrong with eating too much meat. Socio-economically and ecologically. Moderation and education is the key for me.
If your conscience has a problem with any animal being killed for your diet, go ahead and go vegan, but leave me alone. My conscience is clear: I've grown up in a small village and we were butchering ourselves once or twice a year. I remember eating raw ground pork at the age of 5 when parts of the pig we raised were still hanging on the hook. I helped with processing the pig and slaughtered chickens and fish myself. That's 100% ok, my ancestors were doing it for thousands of years. It has to do something with respect towards the animal: You gotta know where it's coming from and what's behind it.
I got a huge problem with meat eaters thinking stuff like this is disgusting. The kind of people who think meat is faceless, comes out of a plastik pack and shove it into their faces all day long. To me eating meat is luxury. I'm a poor student atm, still I just buy in local butcheries as far as possible, because there's a lot wrong in the meat industry today.
On September 21 2012 22:12 r00ty wrote: There is nothing wrong with eating meat. There's a lot wrong with eating too much meat. Socio-economically and ecologically. Moderation and education is the key for me.
If your conscience has a problem with any animal being killed for your diet, go ahead and go vegan, but leave me alone. My conscience is clear: I've grown up in a small village and we were butchering ourselves once or twice a year. I remember eating raw ground pork at the age of 5 when parts of the pig we raised were still hanging on the hook. I helped with processing the pig and slaughtered chickens and fish myself. That's 100% ok, my ancestors were doing it for thousands of years. It has to do something with respect towards the animal: You gotta know where it's coming from and what's behind it.
I got a huge problem with meat eaters thinking stuff like this is disgusting. The kind of people who think meat is faceless, comes out of a plastik pack and shove it into their faces all day long. To me eating meat is luxury. I'm a poor student atm, still I just buy in local butcheries as far as possible, because there's a lot wrong in the meat industry today.
I think I said it multiple times through this thread, people like you (or the guy with the vegan sister above) aren't considered a "problem" by anyone but the most radical vegans/veggies. You make the conscious decision to participate as few as possible in a simply put barbaric industry. You - most likely (=P) - informed yourself, looked at options, weighed flaws and benefits and came to a decision. To me and most other people who don't chose to eat meat that's awesome. I don't see much difference between someone who eats meat 1-2 times per week and tries to get it from "good" sources and someone who doesn't eat meat at all.
The "problem" are people who decide to be ignorant about what they're eating, where it comes from, what's in it and justify their "opinion" with some kind of "lol that doesn't concern you leave me alone". If a person is the cause of someone elses suffering I think simply looking away is the most aweful thing anyone can do. It doesn't matter whether it's a person being abused, a dog being abused or cattle herded and slaughtered in conditions so bad that no one even wants to know about it.
The ability to extend the same empathy you feel towards a loved one for a random person or a random animal is one that definitely doesn't make this world a worse place. (;
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
That's nice, but I'll stick to my large consumption of meat products AND milk. For a thread on veganism, it sure disgresses too often into problemss that are caused by other factors rather than meat, such as diabetes, obesity, etc.
There is a connection between diabetes (type 1 I believe) and obesity to animal product consumption. You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
*This is just from some sources I have read. Don't use my posts to make your dietary choices.*
I'd bet you a billion dollars that if i eat 50 bananas a day id become obese. Or if i ate 1kg of nuts a day the same would happen (over 6000 kcal)
If i ate 50 slices of bacon i wouldnt (not saying that healthy either because it isnt) Diabetes type 1 is an autoimmune disorder, type 2 is the one you get from being obese and obesity and type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar not by meat.
(Disclaimer: Haven't read all the previous posts extensively, so if I've missed something, or someone already made this point, I apologize)
On the health issue, I think you should be wary of calling vegan diet uniformly healthier. I won't dispute that fruit, vegetables and the like should be the main part of your diet, but foreswearing all animal products is equally unhealthy in my opinion. To name the most obvious example, no known sources of vitamin b12 exists in a vegan diet, which means you risk megaloblastic anaemia and various neurological diseases. I realise science hasn't completely ruled out the possibility of working around this issue, and studies have provided examples of vegans apparently doing fine without supplements, but the same is true for people developing serious health issues because of a purely vegan diet.
The same is sort of true with proteins. While its perfectly possible to gain your required amount of protein through beans and suchlike, its much more difficult and require a greater degree of awareness as to what you eat. On the whole, to be certain your diet is adequate, you much more knowledge of good nutrition than you do if you just eat a "balanced diet". While this isn't neccesarily a bad thing, it means there are health risks involved unless you're somewhat informed about what you're doing. Edit: Without having researched it extensively, I would also postulate that to keep a healthy diet, you need a fair amount of different vegetables, fruits and nuts, which means its only really possible if you're from a 1. world country and have a certain amount of financial freedom.
Lastly, I find veganism an odd way of protesting against the exploitation of nature and animals specifically. First, as have been mentioned before, farms producing vegetables are equally "harmfull" for the environment in many ways. And second, I don't think not eating any meat at all is a relevant protest against the "meat factories" because as a vegan, they've already ruled you out as a potential customer. If you want to affect how they treat their animals, I believe buying meat, milk, eggs and whatnot from manufacturers that produce the food a more ethical (you can define what that means to you) way will do more to affect the market than simply swearing off animal products altogether.
I have difficulty following the whole "eating meat is unnatural" debate, as it seems to me that a) Nature has no purpose as such and b) since humans are capable of eating both plant and animal foods, neither is "more natural" than the other. And given that things such as vitamin b12 are impossible (or close to) to gain through vegan diet alone, its hardly MORE natural than eating meat, is it?
I can see how vegetarians are better from a moral point of view. When you are eating from the lower parts of the food chain you waste less biomass to feed yourself. Forgot the exact numbers but it's like 100 tons of grass produces 1 ton of cow meat and then cow meat is going to produce even less meat in the predator and so on.. That being said I will stick to eating meat. I just like how it tastes.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
That's not really true ^^. We are omnivore species and meat played very important role in our development. Also, we evolved, we're not made.
I have nothing against other people food taste, you eat what you like, you eat what makes you counfortable, the reasons does not matter. I guess I might be a bit vegan myself since my weekly diet consists of cola, pistachio and peanuts, and sometimes canned beans. Love beeing a student.
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
I'm sure our ancestors were a bit crueler in how they killed animals. Or at least, less efficient.
I'm sure our ancestors never factory farmed chickens. It's not just about about how the animal is killed, but how it is raised.
On September 21 2012 21:39 lem0ncake wrote: every single vegetarian/vegan person i've ever met looked like they were dying of aids or something. it can't be healthy
My fathers cousin is vegan and has osteoporosis.Age is mid 50s.
Meh, no point in not eating healthy because you like cute animals and don't like "the industry". Whatever some pseudo doctor said about milk and eggs being bad I don't believe anyone with a gram of brain would trust.
Also, fun fact that i remembered. Compared to normal sugar where over consumption is really hard the over consumption of fructose is really easy to do. This actually causes both eating problems ( your liver doesn't secret as much insulin and thus you fell like you can eat more ) and digestive diseases problems ( normal glucose goes into the intestines thus feeding bacterias/parasites, this will generally help you with defection but if you have any already present harmful bacteria or parasite you will likely have 3 times the problems as a vegan ).
Veganism and Vegetarianism are just lifestyle choices, nothing more. They do it because it makes them feel healthier or more superior for being "above" those who buy meat products or animal products more than any other reason. I've read the evidence for what they claim is "how humans are supposed to be" and its extremely biased. Enough to the point where I can't really take it seriously.
I'm a NASM-certified personal trainer. I worked near Washington D.C. in hospitals with recent-amputees (mostly war vets coming back from Middle-East regions) for nearly 3 years. I also worked with lighter cases where people were a bit overweight and trying to get back into shape. I just find that while there ARE athletes that are successful (I know there's some olympians too) being vegan/vegetarian, the benefits are truly marginal. I personally find it much easier to include a full diet for recovery. I don't think I ever looked at a muscular-dystrophy patient or a new amputee learning to use an artificial limb and thought "gosh you should cut out the strongest sources of protein".
I, myself just used my own methods for recovering from 3 surgeries which caused me to lose nearly 45 lbs of my body weight in the process. In just 3 months, I've gained all of it back and then a few pounds and feel more shredded than ever. I don't believe such a speedy recovery from so many operations could be possible with the far inferior protein intake.
While I don't believe the meat industry is operating properly at several levels, I also believe that most companies run that way. Banks, interest companies, credit companies etc all basically treat everything like its a number in a line and try to make all the money they can off you. Really I don't see how you can demonize the meat industry since so many other industries are so much more corrupt and hurt many more people (Monsanto/LIBOR scandal anyone?).
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: Also : Gorillas are vegans :D
Also not true. Most of them eat caterpillars and other insects as well.
It was already said: Meat consumption played a big part in our evolution, first of all the development of our brain. We are omnivores and wouldn't have become what we are with just leaves, fruit and seeds. I'm not an expert, but i thought this was common knowledge.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
But he turned a vegan! He is 100% sure man common didn't you hear? I'll repeat, he turned vegan!!!! That's gotta mean something right? I mean I started watching Suits so maybe I can practice law now!
I think he needs to learn what an omnivore is. Now that being said if you wanna just eat greens, be my guest, but don't piss on logic because you turned vegan and had some stupid revelation that is absolutely non-factual. It's almost borderline religious "I use to be Atheist, then god came to me and now I know we're mean't to be Christian!".
On September 21 2012 21:39 lem0ncake wrote: every single vegetarian/vegan person i've ever met looked like they were dying of aids or something. it can't be healthy
Facepalmed so hard. Please, take a look at what you just said. Eating vegetables = dying of aids....
On September 21 2012 21:39 lem0ncake wrote: every single vegetarian/vegan person i've ever met looked like they were dying of aids or something. it can't be healthy
I'll bet you've met a whole lot who didn't, but most of us don't go about announcing we're veggie to everyone we meet. Vegans have it harder to get a healthy diet but it's totally achievable.
Also look around, how much of the UK population actually looks healthy, most everyone is hugely fat and half the population look like they've got the plaugu.
On the point of humans being made to eat meat or not, while our teeth may suggest we're not exactly a top-of-the-line predator, we have digestive enzymes that clearly suggest a meat based diet. An example would be Gelatinase (found in the stomach) which is used to digest type I and type V gelatin and type IV and V collagen, which are proteoglycans in meat. Suggesting that we're not made to eat meat is simply untrue if you take a closer look at our digestive system. It clearly supports the consumption of both plant and animal matter. The only questionable product is milk, which you could argue that we are "meant to" (as in, its possible for the body to simply stop producing the relevant enzymes) stop eating. Whether that means we're not supposed to is a matter of opinion.
"Vegans have it harder to get a healthy diet but it's totally achievable."
This is disapointing to me, i was hoping that one of the reasons to turn vegan was that it is more healthy but apearently in general a vegan diet is less healthy then a diet with meat,and a vegan diet has to be balanced verry carefull to make up for the lack of meat. The only reason to become vegan then are ethical reasons.
It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians/vegans of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians/vegans I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
On September 21 2012 23:41 Rassy wrote: "Vegans have it harder to get a healthy diet but it's totally achievable."
This is disapointing to me, i was hoping that one of the reasons to turn vegan was that it is more healthy but apearently in general a vegan diet is less healthy then a diet with meat,and a vegan diet has to be balanced verry carefull to make up for the lack of meat. The only reason to become vegan then are ethical reasons.
Well - It gets easier if you accept supplements as part of your diet. For example b12 reinforced soy products and such. I'm not a vegan myself, so I haven't actually done this myself, but its perfectly possible if you bend a little here and there. If its purely a health issue for you though, eating a few eggs, a little bit of dairy products and meat a few times a week would - in my personal opinion - be a much easier, healthier alternative to going "all out". Combined with some awareness as to how the products you consume are produced, you can in my opinion get the best of both world. Then again, I'm not against meat consumption, so I'm biased. It does, of course, depend on your physical activity (as a professional soldier and enthusiastic "athlete", I can only echo the personal trainer who posted earlier), if you're very physically active, protein consumption becomes much more of an issue, and it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the pros of lean meat.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
By the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
I know there is a difference. However even though I was only a vegetarian I got a lot of shit from self-righteous people. I imagine for vegans it's even worse, so my post is pretty relevant.
Edit- If you like I'll go back to edit my post to say vegetarian/vegan but, yeah, you are being kinda dumb lol.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
By the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
I know there is a difference. However even though I was only a vegetarian I got a lot of shit from self-righteous people. I imagine for vegans it's even worse, so my post is pretty relevant.
Edit- If you like I'll go back to edit my post to say vegetarian/vegan but, yeah, you are being kinda dumb lol.
Sorry you didn't understand the sarcasm, thought it was dumbed down enough that even you could figure it out. Not really surprised though lol.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
By the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
By the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
But he turned a vegan! He is 100% sure man common didn't you hear? I'll repeat, he turned vegan!!!! That's gotta mean something right? I mean I started watching Suits so maybe I can practice law now!
I think he needs to learn what an omnivore is. Now that being said if you wanna just eat greens, be my guest, but don't piss on logic because you turned vegan and had some stupid revelation that is absolutely non-factual. It's almost borderline religious "I use to be Atheist, then god came to me and now I know we're mean't to be Christian!".
I tried to keep it civil :p
But yea, for the last tens of thousands of years we've been including meat in our diet (as any species would if they can) and this has impacted our body. Like pretty much all omnivores, this doesn't mean we need to eat a certain amount of vegetables and meat, but rather that we can survive on either, as long as we ensure the necessary nutrient intake.
In the end, the wolrd is ruled by greed and laziness, and meat is just the easiest way to get as many proteins as possible.
Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Most teenagers that decide to go vegan on a whim/out of edginess don't do their research and fuck themselves up. My sister, for example, became iron deficient and it took her years to get back to normal.
I'm not saying that veganism isn't healthy, because it is, but it requires a hell of a lot more work than most trendy vegans understand.
I have never had overweight issues so can't comment on that part. But yeah, technically the human body is made (and always have been) to consume meat. More so than dairy products or even eggs for that matter. There was something about an intestine being wider(same as for predators) compared to a thinner one of the rest, which helps with digesting meat.
Sad that some people say that they "learned" otherwise. On the moral factor: If the world stopped eating, let's say, overnight, even if we pretend that everyone would be fine with that and we didn't have starving issues, the way we have built our system right now, if we didn't simply "chop down" the animals, if we let them live till their natural deaths (which are far earlier than what they used to be, by the way), or if we let them out in the wild (a humane thing?), it'd end up in plague (no, really, plague) outbreaks everywhere (though nowadays we'd somehow manage that), wolves everywhere, those being the few obvious problems, with predictions of some worse. This is an argument for the vegans, not against, as we (on a global level) are practically forced to eat meat and such. With the meat nowadays rarely being healthy (and some types of meat never being healthy) it's a sad state to be in.
This isn't easily reversible. That said, there isn't that much of a moral issue in eating animals at all. There was a year or so where i felt bad for the animals that were killed for meat, although it has no direct connection with eating meat whatsoever. As animals, grown for slaughter, are slaughtered, then later, after many stages, you might be the consumer of that meat. The argument - If there weren't any consumers, the slaughtering wouldn't need to happen. As it turns out, we can't turn time back to the beginning of animal husbandry. (a shocker there) And a global "stop eating meat" would result in extreme amounts of food simply.. thrown away? What were the lives of those creatures for then?
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that the points made pro- and cons- are fairly vague, the movies that show production of meat often show the worst side of it possible, meant to "open the eyes" of people, when in reality it more often closes them. I do eat meat about once a week, mostly due to me "feeling like it", there are a lot of types of meat that i simply don't like the taste of. Dairy products shouldn't ever be considered morally bad to use (it can be drawn up by the few statements i made before), eggs.... I really don't have an opinion on. It's not like they were going to be the next generation anyway, uh... The biggest problem i see with all the vegans and counter-vegans are that the reasons behind them are sometimes stupid, often simply false.
You don't help the world by not eating meat, You aren't healthier by not eating meat (A research indicated that a vegan with good diet and a not-retarded person who eats meat have similar health results overall, with a few things different, most notably meat eaters might die 5 years younger, but having better health results on most parts of their body.) You aren't doing the right thing by eating meat. If you are a vegetarian/vegan because you, personally, dislike the taste of meat or you like vegetables better, or because you don't like the idea of eating meat, that's more than fine. If you are a vegan or a vegetarian due to some fairly false argument or because you've seen how cruel is the production, you are in the wrong. Sadly, i can't bash meat eaters like that, since there really aren't many arguments made in general. If there were, i'm fairly certain they would be wrong as well.
Like someone besides me said here, we'd benefit from eating less meat. Both health-wise(as tons-of-meat diets are really bad for you) and world-wise(getting the mentioned beforehand system to be simply less important), instead of not eating meat, but it's not morality that would make us do that. It's logic. And we, humans, often have a huge lack thereof.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
But he turned a vegan! He is 100% sure man common didn't you hear? I'll repeat, he turned vegan!!!! That's gotta mean something right? I mean I started watching Suits so maybe I can practice law now!
I think he needs to learn what an omnivore is. Now that being said if you wanna just eat greens, be my guest, but don't piss on logic because you turned vegan and had some stupid revelation that is absolutely non-factual. It's almost borderline religious "I use to be Atheist, then god came to me and now I know we're mean't to be Christian!".
I tried to keep it civil :p
But yea, for the last tens of thousands of years we've been including meat in our diet (as any species would if they can) and this has impacted our body. Like pretty much all omnivores, this doesn't mean we need to eat a certain amount of vegetables and meat, but rather that we can survive on either, as long as we ensure the necessary nutrient intake.
In the end, the wolrd is ruled by greed and laziness, and meat is just the easiest way to get as many proteins as possible.
Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Actually we can't survive on just meat.
"Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas."
Not sure if this is a joke. If not I'm not really sure what to say.
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Lulz. That first paragraph so good :D
Back on topic, I was a vegetarian for 10 years (not vegan) and decided to stop when my first son was born so I wouldn't have problems not eating the same thing as him and so he doesn't complain because whatever we eat, we all eat together, and this way I allow him the ability to decide on his own diet (when old enough) while teaching him the importance of a healthy and balanced diet. As has already been stated, there is nothing as good for you as moderation, in all things.
OP may feel healthier being a vegan, but when switching back to eating meat I didn't put on any weight. I don't eat red meat every day, nor do I eat meat every meal, but I do eat it, and eggs, and occasionally I will have a glass of milk. The point is, don't eat 5 burgers 3 times a day, make your own meals, don't live off fast food or carbs, balance your diet, man. If you don't want to eat meat, great, but you still need to make sure that you are eating balanced because fruit is full of (natural) sugars, and your body isn't made to eat nothing but fruit, either. Eat meat or don't but eat balanced. Done.
I can understand the ethical concerns but if Homo Sapiens were intended (by creation or evolution) to be vegans, our biology and physiology would be extremely different.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
But he turned a vegan! He is 100% sure man common didn't you hear? I'll repeat, he turned vegan!!!! That's gotta mean something right? I mean I started watching Suits so maybe I can practice law now!
I think he needs to learn what an omnivore is. Now that being said if you wanna just eat greens, be my guest, but don't piss on logic because you turned vegan and had some stupid revelation that is absolutely non-factual. It's almost borderline religious "I use to be Atheist, then god came to me and now I know we're mean't to be Christian!".
I tried to keep it civil :p
But yea, for the last tens of thousands of years we've been including meat in our diet (as any species would if they can) and this has impacted our body. Like pretty much all omnivores, this doesn't mean we need to eat a certain amount of vegetables and meat, but rather that we can survive on either, as long as we ensure the necessary nutrient intake.
In the end, the wolrd is ruled by greed and laziness, and meat is just the easiest way to get as many proteins as possible.
Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Actually we can't survive on just meat.
"Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas."
Not sure if this is a joke. If not I'm not really sure what to say.
If you'd look carefully, I added a little "if" clause to whether or not we can survive on meat alone.
And no, sadly enough it's not a joke. Never had a Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever try to convince me to join their religion. However, not a beer goes by or I end up talking to some lunatic who is religiously convinced that believing is wrong. My stance is everyone believes something, and to be honest, I don't care much. This doesn't discourage them. They keep on going. All night. Following me wherever I try to hide. Every single fucking day. I presume you have different experiences?
On September 21 2012 06:18 Otolia wrote: Guys, I have this crazy idea ! What about moderation ? You know something that ISN'T extremism ...
With the same reasoning, we should stop eating corns because it takes too much water, stop growing tomatoes and potatoes in Europe because it's not originated from there and various other funny aberrations.
Nope. Radicals only. People who look down on others
Agreed. I think moderation is the key. I personally do not eat any meat (with the occasional exception of seafood), but do not look down on those that do. The problem really isn't meat, the problem is quantity and quality of the meat that Americans (and other 1st worlders) eat. The meat form an animal raised on a factory farm and the mat from and animal raised in the wild are very different. The farm animal contains much more fat and much less lean muscle mass. As far as what is natural; humans have incisors and canine's for a reason. On the other hand, we also have molars for a reason. We are naturally omnivores.
On September 21 2012 21:31 Diks wrote: I turned vegan when I learned that humans are made to eat vegetables. We don't have any of the meat-eater animals parts (jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flore, etc...) We eat meat because of culture, taste and because it's easy to prepare. Watching how the animals were treated before finishing in my local store truly disgusted me and made me do the first step.
Pretty damn sure our jaws, teeth, stomach, bacterial flora (though I presume this adjusts to your diet) are adapted to eating meat. AND vegetables.
But he turned a vegan! He is 100% sure man common didn't you hear? I'll repeat, he turned vegan!!!! That's gotta mean something right? I mean I started watching Suits so maybe I can practice law now!
I think he needs to learn what an omnivore is. Now that being said if you wanna just eat greens, be my guest, but don't piss on logic because you turned vegan and had some stupid revelation that is absolutely non-factual. It's almost borderline religious "I use to be Atheist, then god came to me and now I know we're mean't to be Christian!".
I tried to keep it civil :p
But yea, for the last tens of thousands of years we've been including meat in our diet (as any species would if they can) and this has impacted our body. Like pretty much all omnivores, this doesn't mean we need to eat a certain amount of vegetables and meat, but rather that we can survive on either, as long as we ensure the necessary nutrient intake.
In the end, the wolrd is ruled by greed and laziness, and meat is just the easiest way to get as many proteins as possible.
Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Actually we can't survive on just meat.
"Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas."
Not sure if this is a joke. If not I'm not really sure what to say.
We can survive on an all meat diet and there have been cultures that have done it for extended periods of time although it is not common now.
Nice reading, i would like to try a vegan life for a while but i dont think i would stay with it.
About the ethical part: i dont understand comments like "10 millions animals are being killed every day", if humans werent suppose to eat meat we should get poisoned a died after some days but no, we dont die, we absorve the energy and go on. Also why dont we also say " 10 millions plants are being killed every day"? cause plants dont suffer? they are alive as well so whats the difference? just cause we cant see them suffer it doestn change the fact that we are killing them.
also
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Evolution made us what we are, we eat almost everything and there is nothing wrong. We kill to live, is part of the life.
I would not eat hot dogs in front of that person out of respect for their beliefs.
And yes, I'm aware, that was kind of what I was saying.
edit: And no, that's purely speculation on your end. As someone who experiences this regularly, there is no suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat consumption, there is purely apathy. People have enough shit going on in their lives and making a drastic life change like straight up switching your diet like that is out of their scope of shit to worry about--people are more concerned with actually surviving, not surviving in a way that is less harmful to animals.
People who aren't vegetarians or vegans don't concern themselves with those thoughts. I mean it's a shitstorm example but, I'm an athiest--the thought and notion of god doesn't ever cross my daily life until it's brought up to me, for all intents and purposes I completely forget the concept of religion is even a thing. It wouldn't even exist to me if it weren't other people--same with vegans. I don't talk about where my food comes from, it doesn't cross my mind, I just got hired at an awesome company; I just moved into my own apartment; I'm looking for a girlfriend; I'm officially "on my own" and I have so much other shit to worry about that quite frankly they'll just have to wait.
Yeah, I think there's much speculation on both sides here.
Another example: I know some people who are straight edge. They condemn the use of drugs for different reasons. I respect their positions, I think that a good amount of their arguments are perfectly valid, for example the fact that numbing unhappiness or discontent with drugs stands in the way of getting active and change something in your life/the world. Still I'll happily sip on my beer while they are watching without feeling a single sting of guilt or the need to find excuses. It's my decision if I want to drug myself into oblivion, I'm harming only myself, I'm not directly affecting others by doing so.
So I can't really put myself in the shoes of people who feel umcomfortable eating their meet with me being around. If you think it's fine, it's fine. If there wasn't a reason to feel guilty about it you wouldn't have the urge to explain yourself to me. There have been people admitting that to me.. many just don't want to be reminded that there are moral/ethical concerns about killing animals (while enjoying their steak) and get defensive.
On September 21 2012 21:39 lem0ncake wrote: every single vegetarian/vegan person i've ever met looked like they were dying of aids or something. it can't be healthy
Maybe they are the only people you ever met that weren't overweight? Healthy? So many English people are overweight, it is extremely near US levels. They just need to get more super-obese ones. As a child I lived with several English host families for football exchanges. The lack of vegetables in their normal average diet compared to the vegetable-deprived diet you see here on the continent isn't funny.
No wonders you think healthy people have aids.
On September 22 2012 00:04 Passion wrote: Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Guys, the reason this comment makes so little sense is because he must be a theist meat-eater. Completely blind and deluded on both accounts. Meat eaters don't tell people that eat meat to eat meat.
Just ask a random vegetarian or vegan how much shit they get from overweight unhealthy meat eaters.
On September 21 2012 21:39 lem0ncake wrote: every single vegetarian/vegan person i've ever met looked like they were dying of aids or something. it can't be healthy
Maybe they are the only people you ever met that weren't overweight? Healthy? So many English people are overweight, it is extremely near US levels. They just need to get more super-obese ones. As a child I lived with several English host families for football exchanges. The lack of vegetables in their normal average diet compared to the vegetable-deprived diet you see here on the continent isn't funny.
On September 22 2012 00:04 Passion wrote: Ps. Vegans reminds me more of atheists than religious people though! I've never met a religious person who tried to convince me of their ideas...
Guys, the reason this comment makes so little sense is because he must be a theist meat-eater. Completely blind and deluded on both accounts. Meat eaters don't tell people that eat meat to eat meat.
Just ask a random vegetarian or vegan how much shit they get from overweight unhealthy meat eaters.
I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
BIll Pearl says hi.
I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I did some stupid shit and hurt my back. I had to cut training volume way back. I found that my old-style protein-with-one-veggie diet was forcing me to "think" like a bodybuilder, so I switched to a _more_ plant-based diet without giving up meat.
I now eat an organic grass-fed hippie whatever the fuck piece of meat at most once or twice a week. I still lean on dairy once in a while (cottage cheese, sour cream) and a couple eggs at breakfast here and there. It's been a lot easier for me because my protein requirements aren't as high as they used to be. If I had to try to match my old nutrient profile with this kind of diet, I don't know how I would do it.
I do feel a lot better now. But honestly, I have moved from clean diet type a) to clean diet type b) several times before, and I _always_ feel better. I assume this is because you start picking up nutrients in different ratios your body doesn't normally get, and now a potential deficiency is being addressed. Boom, you feel great.
I'd be curious to see what would happen to a competitive figure _or_ strength athlete who eschewed the standard 1.0-1.5lb protein/bodyweight guideline and tried to eat a plant-based diet with an emphasis on seeds and legumes for protein. I know John Berardi tried something similar, but I never looked at the results of his self-study.
As an engineer, I do think there's something wrong with our food chain from an efficiency perspective. Is veganism the answer? I dunno. I do know, though, that's it's far more viable for everyone to try to grow some veggies and other plants on their balconies/porches than it is for everyone to try to raise a fucking cow. Maybe this vat-grown meat idea from the biotech industry will work out, but that's about as appealing to me as all the bullshit protein "supplements" I kicked to the curb a few years ago.
Good job bringing up this topic, OP. It's a snarly one. Snake oil everywhere, and limited information on your inputs. I think this is why it's occasionally easier for people to resolve to a "moral" argument instead of a scientific one -- because the "scientific" debates always devolve into senseless study-quoting. I mean, if I guy like Tim Ferriss can tour the world and write a bestselling health book that has a sample size of n=1, you know people are looking for some sort of clarity
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
BIll Pearl says hi.
I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I did some stupid shit and hurt my back. I had to cut training volume way back. I found that my old-style protein-with-one-veggie diet was forcing me to "think" like a bodybuilder, so I switched to a _more_ plant-based diet without giving up meat.
I now eat an organic grass-fed hippie whatever the fuck piece of meat at most once or twice a week. I still lean on dairy once in a while (cottage cheese, sour cream) and a couple eggs at breakfast here and there. It's been a lot easier for me because my protein requirements aren't as high as they used to be. If I had to try to match my old nutrient profile with this kind of diet, I don't know how I would do it.
I do feel a lot better now. But honestly, I have moved from clean diet type a) to clean diet type b) several times before, and I _always_ feel better. I assume this is because you start picking up nutrients in different ratios your body doesn't normally get, and now a potential deficiency is being addressed. Boom, you feel great.
I'd be curious to see what would happen to a competitive figure _or_ strength athlete who eschewed the standard 1.0-1.5lb protein/bodyweight guideline and tried to eat a plant-based diet with an emphasis on seeds and legumes for protein. I know John Berardi tried something similar, but I never looked at the results of his self-study.
As an engineer, I do think there's something wrong with our food chain from an efficiency perspective. Is veganism the answer? I dunno. I do know, though, that's it's far more viable for everyone to try to grow some veggies and other plants on their balconies/porches than it is for everyone to try to raise a fucking cow. Maybe this vat-grown meat idea from the biotech industry will work out, but that's about as appealing to me as all the bullshit protein "supplements" I kicked to the curb a few years ago.
Good job bringing up this topic, OP. It's a snarly one. Snake oil everywhere, and limited information on your inputs. I think this is why it's occasionally easier for people to resolve to a "moral" argument instead of a scientific one -- because the "scientific" debates always devolve into senseless study-quoting. I mean, if I guy like Tim Ferriss can tour the world and write a bestselling health book that has a sample size of n=1, you know people are looking for some sort of clarity
I am immediately incredibly suspicious of your entire story, in that you've carelessly conflated the diet and lifestyle of a powerlifter with a bodybuilder, when in reality the two require very different dietary approaches. So which was it?
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
So people and animals are different?
For the sake of this discussion I'd like to assume that, yeah.
I also love the "humans are not intended..." argument. I guess that's from the guys whose ancestors rode dinosaurs.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
BIll Pearl says hi.
I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I did some stupid shit and hurt my back. I had to cut training volume way back. I found that my old-style protein-with-one-veggie diet was forcing me to "think" like a bodybuilder, so I switched to a _more_ plant-based diet without giving up meat.
I now eat an organic grass-fed hippie whatever the fuck piece of meat at most once or twice a week. I still lean on dairy once in a while (cottage cheese, sour cream) and a couple eggs at breakfast here and there. It's been a lot easier for me because my protein requirements aren't as high as they used to be. If I had to try to match my old nutrient profile with this kind of diet, I don't know how I would do it.
I do feel a lot better now. But honestly, I have moved from clean diet type a) to clean diet type b) several times before, and I _always_ feel better. I assume this is because you start picking up nutrients in different ratios your body doesn't normally get, and now a potential deficiency is being addressed. Boom, you feel great.
I'd be curious to see what would happen to a competitive figure _or_ strength athlete who eschewed the standard 1.0-1.5lb protein/bodyweight guideline and tried to eat a plant-based diet with an emphasis on seeds and legumes for protein. I know John Berardi tried something similar, but I never looked at the results of his self-study.
As an engineer, I do think there's something wrong with our food chain from an efficiency perspective. Is veganism the answer? I dunno. I do know, though, that's it's far more viable for everyone to try to grow some veggies and other plants on their balconies/porches than it is for everyone to try to raise a fucking cow. Maybe this vat-grown meat idea from the biotech industry will work out, but that's about as appealing to me as all the bullshit protein "supplements" I kicked to the curb a few years ago.
Good job bringing up this topic, OP. It's a snarly one. Snake oil everywhere, and limited information on your inputs. I think this is why it's occasionally easier for people to resolve to a "moral" argument instead of a scientific one -- because the "scientific" debates always devolve into senseless study-quoting. I mean, if I guy like Tim Ferriss can tour the world and write a bestselling health book that has a sample size of n=1, you know people are looking for some sort of clarity
I am immediately incredibly suspicious of your entire story, in that you've carelessly conflated the diet and lifestyle of a powerlifter with a bodybuilder, when in reality the two require very different dietary approaches. So which was it?
Sorry, good point -- should have specified. After I herniated L2-L3 I tried to switch to training regimen that emphasized force distribution that didn't directly involve the lower back. i.e. universal chest press machines where the force vector goes through your upper body only. I associate that sort of training with "bodybuilding" -- I couldn't squat or deadlift. The extreme arc needed for competitive shirt benching was irritating my spine too.
I always associate that sort of training with bodybuilding. I kept training that way and eating "like a bodybuilder" to feel like I still had some ability to move iron, but it was hurting me in the long run. I'm looking into alternate disciplines now
Edit: I disagree that the two disciplines require incredibly different approaches. If you're trying to be SHW vs a figure model, yes. If you're trying to stay in a lower weight class (e.g. 75kg), they're don't have to be that different.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
BIll Pearl says hi.
I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I did some stupid shit and hurt my back. I had to cut training volume way back. I found that my old-style protein-with-one-veggie diet was forcing me to "think" like a bodybuilder, so I switched to a _more_ plant-based diet without giving up meat.
I now eat an organic grass-fed hippie whatever the fuck piece of meat at most once or twice a week. I still lean on dairy once in a while (cottage cheese, sour cream) and a couple eggs at breakfast here and there. It's been a lot easier for me because my protein requirements aren't as high as they used to be. If I had to try to match my old nutrient profile with this kind of diet, I don't know how I would do it.
I do feel a lot better now. But honestly, I have moved from clean diet type a) to clean diet type b) several times before, and I _always_ feel better. I assume this is because you start picking up nutrients in different ratios your body doesn't normally get, and now a potential deficiency is being addressed. Boom, you feel great.
I'd be curious to see what would happen to a competitive figure _or_ strength athlete who eschewed the standard 1.0-1.5lb protein/bodyweight guideline and tried to eat a plant-based diet with an emphasis on seeds and legumes for protein. I know John Berardi tried something similar, but I never looked at the results of his self-study.
As an engineer, I do think there's something wrong with our food chain from an efficiency perspective. Is veganism the answer? I dunno. I do know, though, that's it's far more viable for everyone to try to grow some veggies and other plants on their balconies/porches than it is for everyone to try to raise a fucking cow. Maybe this vat-grown meat idea from the biotech industry will work out, but that's about as appealing to me as all the bullshit protein "supplements" I kicked to the curb a few years ago.
Good job bringing up this topic, OP. It's a snarly one. Snake oil everywhere, and limited information on your inputs. I think this is why it's occasionally easier for people to resolve to a "moral" argument instead of a scientific one -- because the "scientific" debates always devolve into senseless study-quoting. I mean, if I guy like Tim Ferriss can tour the world and write a bestselling health book that has a sample size of n=1, you know people are looking for some sort of clarity
I am immediately incredibly suspicious of your entire story, in that you've carelessly conflated the diet and lifestyle of a powerlifter with a bodybuilder, when in reality the two require very different dietary approaches. So which was it?
Sorry, good point -- should have specified. After I herniated L2-L3 I tried to switch to training regimen that emphasized force distribution that didn't directly involve the lower back. i.e. universal chest press machines where the force vector goes through your upper body only. I associate that sort of training with "bodybuilding" -- I couldn't squat or deadlift. The extreme arc needed for competitive shirt benching was irritating my spine too.
I always associate that sort of training with bodybuilding. I kept training that way and eating "like a bodybuilder" to feel like I still had some ability to move iron, but it was hurting me in the long run. I'm looking into alternate disciplines now
Edit: I disagree that the two disciplines require incredibly different approaches. If you're trying to be SHW vs a figure model, yes. If you're trying to stay in a lower weight class (e.g. 75kg), they're don't have to be that different.
Well the biggest differences are water manipulation and lipid consumption, as powerlifters who put up "good" numbers for their weight class almost always have a good bit of fat and water left to cushion the joints, whereas BB'ers of any weight look to shed as much of both as possible. A good powerlifting coach will always advise a lifter to look up a weight class instead of down, as the chance of injury when shedding water and fat to hit a weight goal is much higher. In any case, I know that feel when it comes to back pain, good luck with continued health.
On September 21 2012 06:05 Vanimar wrote: I might actually try it, thanks :D
First few days honestly suck as your body transitions. After a month I have lost about 15 pounds. I feel much better, have more energy, and even feel like I can think more clearly. I do still eat some processed foods (vegan, of course), but I eat much more fruits and vegetables.
For anyone who is serious about trying to switch (even for a limited time) watch the documentary Vegucated. It covers 3 ordinary people as they switch to veganism for 6 weeks. It is a very interesting and entertaining movie!.
You should show me what a 3-3.5k calorie diet complete with the macronutrients required for bodybuilding and weigh training would look like that contains all the nutrients my body would need.
I don't even want to know how much food it would contain.
You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
That's bullshit. I could become overweight eating a combination of those. You lost weight because you ate under maintenance. I could do the same with a diet containing only meat, a diet containing only candy bars, etc.
BIll Pearl says hi.
I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I did some stupid shit and hurt my back. I had to cut training volume way back. I found that my old-style protein-with-one-veggie diet was forcing me to "think" like a bodybuilder, so I switched to a _more_ plant-based diet without giving up meat.
I now eat an organic grass-fed hippie whatever the fuck piece of meat at most once or twice a week. I still lean on dairy once in a while (cottage cheese, sour cream) and a couple eggs at breakfast here and there. It's been a lot easier for me because my protein requirements aren't as high as they used to be. If I had to try to match my old nutrient profile with this kind of diet, I don't know how I would do it.
I do feel a lot better now. But honestly, I have moved from clean diet type a) to clean diet type b) several times before, and I _always_ feel better. I assume this is because you start picking up nutrients in different ratios your body doesn't normally get, and now a potential deficiency is being addressed. Boom, you feel great.
I'd be curious to see what would happen to a competitive figure _or_ strength athlete who eschewed the standard 1.0-1.5lb protein/bodyweight guideline and tried to eat a plant-based diet with an emphasis on seeds and legumes for protein. I know John Berardi tried something similar, but I never looked at the results of his self-study.
As an engineer, I do think there's something wrong with our food chain from an efficiency perspective. Is veganism the answer? I dunno. I do know, though, that's it's far more viable for everyone to try to grow some veggies and other plants on their balconies/porches than it is for everyone to try to raise a fucking cow. Maybe this vat-grown meat idea from the biotech industry will work out, but that's about as appealing to me as all the bullshit protein "supplements" I kicked to the curb a few years ago.
Good job bringing up this topic, OP. It's a snarly one. Snake oil everywhere, and limited information on your inputs. I think this is why it's occasionally easier for people to resolve to a "moral" argument instead of a scientific one -- because the "scientific" debates always devolve into senseless study-quoting. I mean, if I guy like Tim Ferriss can tour the world and write a bestselling health book that has a sample size of n=1, you know people are looking for some sort of clarity
I am immediately incredibly suspicious of your entire story, in that you've carelessly conflated the diet and lifestyle of a powerlifter with a bodybuilder, when in reality the two require very different dietary approaches. So which was it?
Sorry, good point -- should have specified. After I herniated L2-L3 I tried to switch to training regimen that emphasized force distribution that didn't directly involve the lower back. i.e. universal chest press machines where the force vector goes through your upper body only. I associate that sort of training with "bodybuilding" -- I couldn't squat or deadlift. The extreme arc needed for competitive shirt benching was irritating my spine too.
I always associate that sort of training with bodybuilding. I kept training that way and eating "like a bodybuilder" to feel like I still had some ability to move iron, but it was hurting me in the long run. I'm looking into alternate disciplines now
Edit: I disagree that the two disciplines require incredibly different approaches. If you're trying to be SHW vs a figure model, yes. If you're trying to stay in a lower weight class (e.g. 75kg), they're don't have to be that different.
Well the biggest differences are water manipulation and lipid consumption, as powerlifters who put up "good" numbers for their weight class almost always have a good bit of fat and water left to cushion the joints, whereas BB'ers of any weight look to shed as much of both as possible. A good powerlifting coach will always advise a lifter to look up a weight class instead of down, as the chance of injury when shedding water and fat to hit a weight goal is much higher.
Um... I would suggest that a good powerlifting coach would try to predict who is going to show up to the meet in what weight class, and then try to figure it out from there
In my first meet, the records in the 148s were wayyyyy higher than the 165s. I picked up a "national record" in squat and deadlift by basically showing up with my gear -- the records had been set by someone who lifted raw.
Small leagues tend to be favored on the extreme ends, IMO -- you don't meet many middle-of-the-road people in powerlifting! haha
For 'real' competitors -- again, I'd say it depends. I see some powerlifters who are just really stoked at the idea of cutting weight. Most of them, though (American anyhow) just want to eat pizza and bacon and put heavy shit on their back. I approve
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
So people and animals are different?
For the sake of this discussion I'd like to assume that, yeah.
I also love the "humans are not intended..." argument. I guess that's from the guys whose ancestors rode dinosaurs.
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
Actually, the lion will choose to kill the weakest, youngest, most vulnerable animal it can find. Once it's gotten it's kill, the animal doesn't instantly die. It has to endure being eaten alive for some time.
Anyhow, plants are living things, too. Vegans, vegitarians, and eveyrone else who eats are all murderers. You can't eat a head of lettuce without killing it. Carrots? Let's not kill the carrot and eat it...
I´m by no means near being a vegetarian or vegan but... I´ve worked closely with the meat industry and I must say it´s just horrible. Even if there are laws and shit which says that "the animals has been living a free life and grown up healthy" it´s just bull. Animals today are being used just as machines in a long term production and when the machine is busted, just replace it. I feel bad about being a human being and seeing how we just manage to screw everything in history.
Becoming a vegetarian is my fist step in the right direction. Next one being a vegan.
Although I do not find this first post all that convincing. For me it´s more about moral thoughts.
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
Actually, the lion will choose to kill the weakest, youngest, most vulnerable animal it can find. Once it's gotten it's kill, the animal doesn't instantly die. It has to endure being eaten alive for some time.
Anyhow, plants are living things, too. Vegans, vegitarians, and eveyrone else who eats are all murderers. You can't eat a head of lettuce without killing it. Carrots? Let's not kill the carrot and eat it...
I remember one dude who once quoted that mass-farming of an acre of some grain (rice maybe? soy?) kills over 10000 frogs. The shit you learn! Sometimes, some of it is even true lol
On September 22 2012 02:07 Teodice wrote: I´m by no means near being a vegetarian or vegan but... I´ve worked closely with the meat industry and I must say it´s just horrible. Even if there are laws and shit which says that "the animals has been living a free life and grown up healthy" it´s just bull. Animals today are being used just as machines in a long term production and when the machine is busted, just replace it. I feel bad about being a human being and seeing how we just manage to screw everything in history.
Becoming a vegetarian is my fist step in the right direction. Next one being a vegan.
Although I do not find this first post all that convincing. For me it´s more about moral thoughts.
On September 22 2012 00:44 Topin wrote: Nice reading, i would like to try a vegan life for a while but i dont think i would stay with it.
About the ethical part: i dont understand comments like "10 millions animals are being killed every day", if humans werent suppose to eat meat we should get poisoned a died after some days but no, we dont die, we absorve the energy and go on. Also why dont we also say " 10 millions plants are being killed every day"? cause plants dont suffer? they are alive as well so whats the difference? just cause we cant see them suffer it doestn change the fact that we are killing them.
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Evolution made us what we are, we eat almost everything and there is nothing wrong. We kill to live, is part of the life.
You don't understand the ethical part. That's like the only one that makes sense.
If someone doesn't feel comfortable eating animals then that's a good enough reason for everyone. They don't want to. Apparently they feel comfortable eating other living organisms. You seem unable to grasp that people are different and have different values.
On September 21 2012 06:22 wei2coolman wrote: I personally couldn't go vegetarian, much less vegan. I love my meats, and animal products far too much. Mad respect to those who can do it without the "holier than art thou'" attitude.
As someone who has been vegetarian since birth, I can say I've noticed a very distinct inverse correlation between how long someone has been a vegetarian and how much of a dick they are about it. The recent converts are the absolute worst about that kind of stuff.
Gotta justify the change, after all.
I prefer the other poster's thought - moderation.
I don't find anything moderate about killing an animal or abusing an animal for milk/eggs.
I think we can have a discussion about veganism without the PETA tag lines.
For the record, I f*cking hate PETA! Their advertizements are often misogynistic and exploit women's bodies to achieve thier goals. I would like to know why you think eating animals ISN'T extreme?
It's natural, no? Lions eat zebras and stuff. Sharks eat fish. I don't see any protests against Lions from eating zebras and gazelles, do I? Sure I think most people should cut down on their meat consumptions, out of health reasons, but I don't see any inherent moral wrong doing out of the current meat eating society.
The only reason people think its wrong to kill animals is because we are self aware and project ourselves onto other animals . Other animals kill the shit out of eachother and eat eachother all the time , killing for food isn't immoral though I argue the way they are treated before death is another matter.
On September 22 2012 00:44 Topin wrote: Nice reading, i would like to try a vegan life for a while but i dont think i would stay with it.
About the ethical part: i dont understand comments like "10 millions animals are being killed every day", if humans werent suppose to eat meat we should get poisoned a died after some days but no, we dont die, we absorve the energy and go on. Also why dont we also say " 10 millions plants are being killed every day"? cause plants dont suffer? they are alive as well so whats the difference? just cause we cant see them suffer it doestn change the fact that we are killing them.
also
On September 21 2012 06:21 KwarK wrote: Complaining about how natural milk or eggs are on the internet is kinda odd. By that logic if nature had meant for us to remotely communicate abstract ideas with each other we'd be telepathic. Nature has no intention and humans are animals following our primal desires to consume, we use milk because we want to, nothing unnatural about it.
Using anesthesia on a bull you're castrating is fairly absurd, it won't make the post op any less painful for it and if you're really that concerned about animals avoiding pain you might as well go out to Africa and start tranquilising zebra as lions catch them. You're not torturing the thing, you're doing a simple medical procedure. Regarding animals getting their neck slit while they're still alive, that's pretty much the point. If the animal were already dead then you wouldn't slit it's neck, you'd go "someone has already done this one, pass me the next one" and then slit that one's throat. You slit their throat in order to kill them, that's the idea, of course you do it while they're still alive. If you didn't and still proceeded to carve them up to make steaks I think that'd be crueler.
Evolution made us what we are, we eat almost everything and there is nothing wrong. We kill to live, is part of the life.
You don't understand the ethical part. That's like the only one that makes sense.
If someone doesn't feel comfortable eating animals then that's a good enough reason for everyone. They don't want to. Apparently they feel comfortable eating other living organisms. You seem unable to grasp that people are different and have different values.
I think what you just wrote makes perfect sense. The problem is when vegans take their own ethical standards and tell everyone why their ethical standard is the 'correct' one.
I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote: I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see many "supplementalians" by 2100. Vegetables have life and growing them have environmental effects too. Also, supplements could give you perfect nutritional composition for your body. Then, why not? Most of the reasons vegans/vegetarians give for doing so today would be used by "supplementalism" as well. Or, just put entire humanity on a drip by 2200 or something.
On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote: I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you.
So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_-
On September 22 2012 02:36 Orek wrote: At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see many "supplementalians" by 2100. Vegetables have life and growing them have environmental effects too. Also, supplements could give you perfect nutritional composition for your body. Then, why not? Most of the reasons vegans/vegetarians give for doing so today would be used by "supplementalism" as well. Or, just put entire humanity on a drip by 2200 or something.
According to Ray Kurzweil we'll all be bits of information in space by then
I guess that's technically what we are now, but you know what I mean
I was a vegan for 2 years but then stopped because it got so friggin' boring. To stay vegan you really need a hard conviction about living vegan and about animal rights.
edit: also discussing this topic doesnt make sense at all. meat eaters will feel offended, vegans act as if they are something better, so the meat eaters will start to unite and make vegans look like fools, so they can feel better. if anyone wants to become a vegan, he simply does it. For himself and not for anyone else, or trying to make himself a better person than others. The attitude of many vegans that they entitle themselves to be a better being than others is one of the biggest reasons why vegans aren't liked in the society.
On September 22 2012 01:34 Monsen wrote: I would just like to refute the "lions eat zebras too" argument without taking a stance on the issue itself- The difference between the lion killing animals for food and humans doing the same is that the lion doesn't make a choice.
Only relevant if you show that eating meat is morally wrong.
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
By the way, there is a lot of criticism on that study saying that it is biased and flawed. Also, many studies show the disadvantages of a grain/bean diet.
On September 21 2012 23:44 tomatriedes wrote: It's funny to me when I see this thread filled with people accusing vegetarians of being preachy, when in my experience it's the exact opposite. When I used to be vegetarian I never once tried to initiate a conversation about vegetarianism or persuade anyone to switch but every time I had a meal with non-vegetarians I had to put up with taunting, insults, pressure when they found out I wasn't going to order/consume meat. In the end I went back to eating meat just because it was easier just to eat it rather than put up with all that BS, even though I know a lot of the meat I eat comes from factory farms and it does bother me.
None of the other vegetarians I knew at uni were at all preachy either. Some of you need to look in the mirror and realize who really has the issue with it.
This might sound like a dumb question but... I'm totally serious.
Do you know that there is a difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan? Cause no one in this thread has been talking about vegetarians lol.
I know there is a difference. However even though I was only a vegetarian I got a lot of shit from self-righteous people. I imagine for vegans it's even worse, so my post is pretty relevant.
Edit- If you like I'll go back to edit my post to say vegetarian/vegan but, yeah, you are being kinda dumb lol.
Sorry you didn't understand the sarcasm, thought it was dumbed down enough that even you could figure it out. Not really surprised though lol.
That was sarcasm to you? You actually thought you were being funny then? Wow, you are lame.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Damn, all those people who buy products from China must be supporting sweatshops. Better notify all those Apple product owners that they're responsible for the suicides of Foxconn workers.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
Thanks for the post, but I will stick to my delicious meats. I would be living a miserable life if I couldn't enjoy a nice steak every so often, or some hamburgers, or eggs for breakfast, or milk on my cereal (seriously I never understood the no milk thing but w/e).
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits."
I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits."
I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense.
also not true, you compare supporting a criminal act (poaching) which is illegal and criminal pretty much everywhere with behaviour that may or may not be unethical, basically you compare apples and oranges.
If you want to live without the inherent unethicness of our system, have fun with the other guy in the woods.
If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
Are you honestly, honestly saying "By buying a product from someone you're NOT supporting him"? I'm amazed at your experience when it comes to living in a forest but last time I checked the market regulates itself based on demand and supply. If you buy something you create demand. If you create demand you're responsible for it. Once again, it's not rocket science.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Damn, all those people who buy products from China must be supporting sweatshops. Better notify all those Apple product owners that they're responsible for the suicides of Foxconn workers.
Once more. Very slowly. If you buy a product from a slave driver, you support slavery. You as the customer chose with your money what you do or don't support.
How can you be oblivious to such a damn basic and simple fact about how markets operate? If the majority of people decide that they do NOT want to buy meat from places where animals are treated like shit the business has to choose between going bankrupt or adjusting their methods (aka supply) based on what the consumer wants to buy (aka demand). It's. Not. Rocket. Science.
On September 21 2012 16:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: I always find myself wondering this when vegans pop up on TL or IRL. Can someone explain to me why killing animals is wrong?
(A follow up question: let's grant for the sake of argument that factory farming is wrong. How does it follow that I ought to avoid eating animal products entirely?)
If i remember correctly, this has been previously discussed, but I'll try to add what I got out of it. Assuming you already understand the terrible conditions of animals in factory farms, it should be quite obvious that these methods are unethical and inhumane. To have an animal be tortured and put through extreme agony for most of it's life just for lower prices seems quite wrong to a lot of people. This being said, assuming perfect conditions I understand that a lot of vegans/vegetarians would rather not kill an animal just to be eaten when they have the choice of just eating fruits/veggies/legumes/etc. instead. I would think the idea of raising a living being just for the purpose of eating it is not something they agree with. To me personally I would not say such a thing is wrong, but I can still see a benefit to changing your lifestyle so that you truly understand what nutrients goes into and out of your body to maintain weight, health, etc. Choosing one style or diet over another I think is perhaps a much more nuanced debate, and one that I think needs more research.
I appreciate the reply, and I know you're already aware of this because you seem like a smart dude, but you didn't answer either of my questions. You say that killing animals is not something that vegans "agree with." And you said a few lines before that that the inhumane conditions in factory farming "seem quite wrong." Niether of those, however, constitute legitimately reasoned responses.
What I would like to hear from a vegan/vegetarian is why they categorically disagree with killing animals. Why is it wrong?
And the corollary question is: granting that factory farming is wrong, why does that mean I ought to give up consuming any animal products whatsoever? How does that follow?
im headed to bed after this, but ill try and give you an answer really quickly.
i tried to write a sentence to calrify like 4 times but deleted it each time because i'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "legitimately reasoned responses". I suppose the best i can do is to say that they value the life of an animal more than they value their appetite for meat.
I'll try to be a little more clear about what I mean by "legitimately reasoned."
My original question was "Why is it wrong to kill animals?" Your response, if I am following you correctly is that vegetarians think it is wrong to kill animals because they value an animal's life more than they value their appetite for meat. OK. I'll grant you that formula: killing animals is wrong for x person if x person values the life of animals more than his or her appetite for meat.
I don't value the life of an animal more than I value my appetite for meat. Is that wrong? Why? All we've really done at this point in the conversation is defer the question of "why is it wrong to kill an animal?" to "why is it wrong to value an animal's life less than an appetite for meat?" The question still remains.
I'm not sure what else to say really. relating it to myself, i would say that if 1 person had to die to save 1000 people's lives then i would let that 1 die. if i had the choice, though, to kill a person for fun or not to kill that person, i would chose not to, because i believe that person has the right to live a happy life how they chose to. similarly, i would kill an animal if i had to because my family were starving and i had no other choice. then they would continue by saying they, given the choice, they would let and animal live rather than killing it for fun.
Here we have a different set of moral criteria in play. Now you seem to be elaborating on your previous point about valuing life. Now you seem to be suggesting that it is the "necessity" of the act that determines whether or not it is right. So the second formula could be stated as follows: "If killing an animal is necessary for survival, then killing an animal is morally acceptable. If, however, killing an animal is not necessary for survival, then killing an animal is morally unacceptable."
This second point is even more problematic than the first, though. First of all, you're selecting an arbitrary point (i.e. the threshold of survival) as "necessary." My first question would be "Why is survival necessary? (An interesting corollary to this question is why your survival ought to trump the survival of the animal you have to consume in order to survive).
But even leaving aside the impossibility of demonstrating that survival is somehow intrinsically "necessary," you have the impossibility of definining "necessary to survival." Our civilization would literally collapse overnight if we stopped doing everything that was not either a) absolutely necessary to survival or b) unable to result in the death of an animal.Clearing land for a new construction is not necessary for survival and it certainly results in the deaths of animals, as does mining natural resources. Having electricity is not necessary for survival, but the maintenance of power on a national scale results in the death of animals. Think of all the squirrels that get offed by power lines! Operating automobiles is not necessary for survival, and pollution is doing a goddamn number on animal life worldwide. Wearing clothes is not necessary for survival in many climates, but the textile industry kills animals.
What would the world look like if human beings had never done anything that unnecessarily endangered animal lives? If we had subsisted in perfect equality with our brother and sister animals? I'll give you a hint: you and I wouldn't be having this conversation on the internet right now.
All of this isn't a logical argument against your criteria of necessity, of course. But I am trying to suggest to you that you don't really believe in that argument because you act in no way consistent with it. What I would like for you to do is to unpack it a little more. What factors really govern for you when it is right to kill an animal? Or does it really all just boil down to your first formulation, i.e. that you value the life of an animal more than you do eating meat?
as for the factory farming conditions, i would ask you, do they seem right? honestly. i dont personally believe we cant eat meat at all, but it seems obvious that living conditions as well as milk/egg etc. extraction procedures and euthanasia practices all need to be improved. i find torture for no other purpose than convenience to be unacceptable, plain and simple.
I have granted that factory farming conditions are wrong.
as for your last bit, i would say that i disagree that vegans should force all other people not to eat meat, as i believe it should be every persons own choice, but i would say that it is quite a logical step to attempt to convince your friends and family of something that you are so passionate about. pushing it on other people may not be sensible, but another poster recently talked a bit about how painful it is seeing your loved ones suffer from unhealthy lifestyles after you have learned so much about them yourself. i cant argue for veganism over other healthy lifestyles, but i can say that many people live unhealthily simply due to ignorance, so it should be no surprise that people are attempting to spread what they believe to be good information on living a healthy lifestyle.
Agreed. There are a lot of people emotionally invested in veganism, which I am not. But what I'm interested in are the alleged ethical reasons for not eating meat.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
Not only that -- if your aim is actually to get people to change their minds, this is probably the worst way to approach it. Calling people immoral or stupid isn't going to attract them to your cause
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Exactly, its like saying "I buy ivory artifacts and tiger skin products, but I am not responsible for the poaching and extinction that is happening in order to support my buying habits."
I am not trying to judge non-vegans/non-vegetarians here, and I usually hate to get into this debate because (like with most other debates), its impossible for either side to convince the other about the advantages/flaws of their viewpoints. However I just feel like calling out some really fallacious arguments that make no sense.
also not true, you compare supporting a criminal act (poaching) which is illegal and criminal pretty much everywhere with behaviour that may or may not be unethical, basically you compare apples and oranges.
If you want to live without the inherent unethicness of our system, have fun with the other guy in the woods.
No, I'm just comparing the underlying supply and demand mechanism in both the instances.
And your argument is utter bullshit. I don't have to go and live in the woods - its enough if I am aware of things, and try to make changes given a set of constraints . If anything, more people need to gain awareness of the situation that is being created as an indirect consequence of their purchasing habits, and then they will act as drivers to force companies to change their sourcing and manufacturing practices.
For the last time, I don't think meat eating is wrong. I just think the way meat is mass produced today like a factory line to satisfy the consumer demand is wrong.
Everyone should see for themselves how animals are raised treated and killed in a factory like envoirentment and then choose. Just educated yourself a little bit and see where milk comes from for example. the cows have to get in there lifespan 3 to 5 times pregnant to give milk in the end give like 50 (!) liters a day to be "economically useful"
if you dont want to educate yourself also fine. i think its in the responsibility of oneself to decide what to do and what not.
if you decide to go vegan its REALLY hard. you have to do alot of research. for example like in orange juice there is a pig inside in the form of gelatin (pig skin and bones) and they dont even have to say that on the boxes.
i try but its hard. the best way i found dont eat processed food. if you want potato chips peel a potato cut it really thin and but it in the oven.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
edit: lol I should have left it to r.evo. Oh well I felt compelled to add in my version
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with.
A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
You are a moron because you say plainly that I am responsible for animal abuse because I eat meat, which is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't need to be explained to you.
1. Do you know who I am or where I get my meat from? No 2. Considering #1 you still blindly make the assumption that I must be getting it from a source that abuses animals 3. Even if 2 was true (which you dont know) then me not buying it does not stop it from happening, the demand is still there and the process will still continue. 4. You are ignorantly connecting the 2 in such a fantastical way as to make us look like we are some kind of demonic evil "If you saw someone torture an animal and then offer the meat to you , you would eat it, that's what your doing, blah blah blha"
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with.
A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall.
We all have choices.
Allright.
-Woman wears revealing dress. Gets raped. Where did someone buy something from someone else? -Guy forces his child to make shoes. You buy that shoe. You support the guy who forces his child to make shoes.
-Farmer throws chicken against wall. You buy chicken from that farmer. You support his methods. You support throwing chicken against walls.
-You buy from McDonalds and not from Burger King. You support McDonalds, not Burger King.
You choose where your money goes. Your money supports a certain product which in return supports the way the product was made. It's your money. You're responsible for what you do with it. If you think someone does something you don't want to support, you don't buy his product. By buying his product you support his methods.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
You are a moron because you say plainly that I am responsible for animal abuse because I eat meat, which is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't need to be explained to you.
1. Do you know who I am or where I get my meat from? No 2. Considering #1 you still blindly make the assumption that I must be getting it from a source that abuses animals 3. Even if 2 was true (which you dont know) then me not buying it does not stop it from happening, the demand is still there and the process will still continue. 4. You are ignorantly connecting the 2 in such a fantastical way as to make us look like we are some kind of demonic evil "If you saw someone torture an animal and then offer the meat to you , you would eat it, that's what your doing, blah blah blha"
Read what I said.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it.
- if you're unable to distinguish that from "eating meat is supporting animal abuse" then I can't help you.
#1 doesn't matter because my above statement is absolutely true due to the way our markets work. #2 is about you failing to read my above statement. #3 is about you failing to understand how supply and demand works. Less demand, less supply. The claim that "Oh, I'm just one person I don't change anything" is ignorant, not proven to be true by history and not supported by economics. It's a stupid claim with the intent of shifting away responsibility. #4 Once again, read my original statement.
You taking a completely accurate statement, removing half of it and then arguing what a horrible person I am for making it surely makes me a moron.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
Your comparison to Syria and stuff is highely unethical itself as you equate human and animal suffering, nearly as fitting as the comparison between 8 year old girls and cows already brought in this thread.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
Illogical.
You cannot buy a tiger skin off of a live tiger. You can buy meat that was not abused. Your analogy is terrible. The person who chooses to abuse is soley responsible for their actions.
I have neither the time, means, nor ability to investigate the origin of every product I purchase and the background of every retailer, manufacturer, and employee of these organizations.
Edit: I quoted the wrong person but I cant fix it on my phone in a reasonable amount of time
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
While logical and consistent you don't take several points of view into account(your first sentence is fallacious as well). I for once had the exact same views you have(I'm vegan nowadays). The difference is that my conscience resonated with the intelligence of these animals whilst your have not(or you chose not to care, valid as well), you see I am not a Cheetah hunting, I am(was) a conscient human being buying a dead animal that was created only for feeding me and lived in a cage, this is not hunting for survival, this is choosing to eat meat cause it tastes awesome.
I have not the same instinctive nature those animals have I have not the presumption to assume that I have any real instinct left. I am not a Cheetah, I am a social being with awareness and conscience of the whole world. All moral is arbitrary you have that right, but for me this is as morally obvious as not fucking a prostitute from human traffick, it just feels sad.
Even though in the end I'd say 80% of my reasons to be a vegan are more related to how the way meat/milk/eggs industry works is too much polluting and how much we eat it, consumerist...reeks of everything I personally despise, feeling guilty every time I ate meat just wasn't cool.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
This is incorrect. Nice strawman.
You are (deliberately?) conflating human behaviour with animal behaviour. It is entirely consistent to expect that human beings' ability to reason imparts on us a moral responcibilty not possessed by animals (lacking such an ability), at least in classical philosophy (and the arguements in this thread really haven't developed beyond this).
Psuedo-rationalist are the worst of all as they appeal to their own argumentative subterfugue to appeal to entirely arbitrary views.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with.
A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall.
We all have choices.
Allright.
-Woman wears revealing dress. Gets raped. Where did someone buy something from someone else? -Guy forces his child to make shoes. You buy that shoe. You support the guy who forces his child to make shoes.
-Farmer throws chicken against wall. You buy chicken from that farmer. You support his methods. You support throwing chicken against walls.
-You buy from McDonalds and not from Burger King. You support McDonalds, not Burger King.
You choose where your money goes. Your money supports a certain product which in return supports the way the product was made. It's your money. You're responsible for what you do with it. If you think someone does something you don't want to support, you don't buy his product. By buying his product you support his methods.
I bought a chicken. I increased demand for chicken. Farmers increase supply. I don't choose HOW they increase supply or how they treat their animals.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
You're the one who turned :
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it.
into:
"you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse"
..and continued to call me a moron for it. Now you take your quote again and call me pretentious for it. I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to get across besides that you don't care what anyone besides you writes or says. That's pretentious.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Evidently it is. I am not responsible for other peoples' actions. If I buy shoes made in China, I am not responsible for their economic policy. I am not responsible for the factory owner cheating on his wife. I am not responsible for the factory workers having a broken AC unit. I am not responsible for the campaign contribution that the department store made to a political campaign that has values I do not agree with.
A woman who is raped in a revealing dress does not bear moral responsibility for rape. I am not responsible for animal abuse because the farmer who killed my chicken nugget threw the bird against a brick wall.
We all have choices.
Allright.
-Woman wears revealing dress. Gets raped. Where did someone buy something from someone else? -Guy forces his child to make shoes. You buy that shoe. You support the guy who forces his child to make shoes.
-Farmer throws chicken against wall. You buy chicken from that farmer. You support his methods. You support throwing chicken against walls.
-You buy from McDonalds and not from Burger King. You support McDonalds, not Burger King.
You choose where your money goes. Your money supports a certain product which in return supports the way the product was made. It's your money. You're responsible for what you do with it. If you think someone does something you don't want to support, you don't buy his product. By buying his product you support his methods.
I bought a chicken. I increased demand for chicken. Farmers increase supply. I don't choose HOW they increase supply or how they treat their animals.
It all started with me claiming that "If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it."
If you buy the "happy chicken with a cool life from the farmer next door" you increase demand for those and decrease demand for the one living on the equivalent of a piece of paper for his entire life. That's what I'm going at here. You make a conscious choice with your money to support something or not.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Not as pointless as arguing with a pretentious one. Do vegens realize that their snobby attitude is not doing them any favors?
Could you clarify on why you hold this unfalsifyable opinion that vegan's have a 'snobby attitude'? How is it that you imagine a number of people all having the exact same attitude? Isn't it more that the belief itself is what rattles you? Why else would you make such claims about a phenomena that can only exist in your imagination?
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
PS: If you know that company Z only employs people who aim to produce child porn in their basement... dingdingding. You're supporting it.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote: I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you.
So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_-
Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all. That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right. cheers. .__.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P
However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote: I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you.
So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_-
Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all. That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right. cheers. .__.
Oh, now it makes sense. Sorry for being an ass then. I guess you did notice the slight sarcasm while I thought you didn't and were just trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. Welp. Sorry and thanks for clarifying. <3
Edit: Found your walls of text. Even though I don't agree with you on all points they are among the best posts in this thread. Cheers!
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P
However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to push your point ad absurdum! I totally agree with you.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
While logical and consistent you don't take several points of view into account(your first sentence is fallacious as well). I for once had the exact same views you have(I'm vegan nowadays). The difference is that my conscience resonated with the intelligence of these animals whilst your have not(or you chose not to care, valid as well), you see I am not a Cheetah hunting, I am(was) a conscient human being buying a dead animal that was created only for feeding me and lived in a cage, this is not hunting for survival, this is choosing to eat meat cause it tastes awesome.
I have not the same instinctive nature those animals have I have not the presumption to assume that I have any real instinct left. I am not a Cheetah, I am a social being with awareness and conscience of the whole world. All moral is arbitrary you have that right, but for me this is as morally obvious as not fucking a prostitute from human traffick, it just feels sad.
Even though in the end I'd say 80% of my reasons to be a vegan are more related to how the way meat/milk/eggs industry works is too much polluting and how much we eat it, consumerist...reeks of everything I personally despise, feeling guilty every time I ate meat just wasn't cool.
If the suffering of an intelligent animal that feels pain is something that you and I have a moral obligation to stop, then the cause of the suffering is irrelevant, whether it be at the hands of a farmer or the paws of a cheetah. Whether humans or doorknobs are the cause, you either accept that you are personally responsible to stop it or you don't.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
On September 22 2012 02:28 r.Evo wrote: I just hate all the weird arguments being thrown around.
Nature intended us to eat meat? Guess what, it also did not intend us to eat meat, otherwise all vegans would be dead.
Evolution made it so we kill to live and have to eat everything? Evolution also brought pedophiles, racists and serial killers. And 4chan.
Those are all so incredibly flat arguments which are nothing more than a glorified "I don't care what you say I don't want to think about my food" or, from the other side, "I don't know how to argue that's why I'm throwing random shit at you".
Maybe "Humans are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer myself." -> "Animals are able to suffer, I hate how it feels to suffer." ---> "Making humans/animals suffer is a bad thing." is just a too universal and empathetic point of view for most people. Humanity as a whole just isn't there yet, considering we're not able to treat each others as equals on an emotional level in the first place.
although the arguments you make are wrong, they're fun enough to commend you.
So the arguments which I called out to be horribly wrong are wrong in your opinion. Thanks for agreeing! -_-
Evolution and mind aren't as related to make something the mind comes up with a part of evolution. The existence of mind, as we know it, compared to that of other animals and what not, is a part of evolution, indeed. As it is(was) necessary for the human to survive. What we do with it afterwards evolution has no impact on. For example, the teaching in schools simply remove the evolutionary aspect at all. That said, you seemed to simply call the extremes to show how the arguments often made by people are wrong. Which indeed they are, as i stated in a wall of text some pages before. Though yours wasn't correct as well, we are often able to understand if something's wrong even if we don't know what is right. cheers. .__.
Oh, now it makes sense. Sorry for being an ass then. I guess you did notice the slight sarcasm while I thought you didn't and were just trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. Welp. Sorry and thanks for clarifying. <3
Edit: Found your walls of text. Even though I don't agree with you on all points they are among the best posts in this thread. Cheers!
hah, yeah, on a subject where there is no solid ground, it's hard to make points many would agree on.
there is that thing with sarcasm on the internet. i'm quite a sarcastic person, but it's hard to see "slight sarcasms" and as that point made no sense in a completely sarcastic way, i was indeed a little bit confused : P.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
I actually think killing animals is wrong.
I also actually believe that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is the opposite of what your saying, that cheetah needs to eat it's natural prey to survive.
The big difference here is we, the human race, can live very happily and healthily off of a whole foods plant based food, the cheetah, can not. I mean Bill Clinton does it, I do it, I'm pretty sure most people could do it, even though I've seen posts in this thread, "I could never give up this/that". If you put forth an effort, I'm sure you could live at least a vegetarian lifestyle with basically no consequences, you would be able to eat great food, live healthy, and not supporting animal cruelty.
If your buying meat from a source that abused their animals, your supporting their animal abuse. For instance, if you bought from McDonalds, a known source for lots of animal abuse, then you are supporting a business that puts it profits before it's animals basic rights.
I personally believe killing any animal for eating purposes is wrong, but I respect those that eat "ethically" treated animals like actually free range long lived animals that were killed humanely(not the chickens eggs or meat that just simply say free range on the container, I mean you know the farm where that chicken came from, and have seen it's living conditions), or those that choose to eat locally grown eggs from their friends chickens, or milk from their friends cow, I don't see an issue with it.
So I don't really see whats moral inconsistent about my stance, I make a conscious decision about what I choose too purchase, if it was tested on animals, if animal products are part of it etc, and then I purchase or consume it if I deem it morally acceptable to me. For me I think I am way more morally consistent then the millions of meat eaters that stopped eating tuna for awhile (but continued to eat factory farmed animals) cause of dolphins being caught in nets, or other various things that people have been upset about, though I don't care cause I appreciate the fact that regulations have increased on fisherman.
I don't understand why, killing animals for consumption is wrong, is such a stance that people can't even respect the stance, and dismiss it openly, calling it a joke. Animals deserve rights, and protection, and I think if you look at the way we treat them with an open mind, and see what's going on, I'm sure many of you would come to the same conclusions I have.
I do think some of my teeth are made for eating meat. So i use them properly. Being vegan in poor countries is fuckin costly. Incorporating animal products is way better for the budget. I know some ppl that tried and gave up, just cause they cant afford it.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
See, the problem is in the tone. Vegetarians and Vegans always have this "air" about them that just stinks of snobbiness (at least most if not all the ones I know do) when they're talking about their dietary habits.
Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are part of a food chain. We can be eaten too! To eat in the food chain or to be eaten in the food chain whether you have a conscience or not (didn't they just suggest animals have some level of consciousness?) is simply a natural process. There's nothing right or wrong about it.
That being said, I do tend to boycott any part of the industry that is shown to treat its stock badly. Living creatures do deserve a certain level of respect. However I am not so limited in my thinking as to think that this holds true only for animals. All living things on this planet rely on each other directly and indirectly.
If you want to start throwing up barriers in the larger category of "living things" then at least do it consistently. You have to kill plants or animals to survive atm. If the V/V would just do their own thing instead of trying to bad-mouth everyone else who doesn't follow their way (means they're VERY closed-minded, not open-minded as you say), perhaps I would warm up the idea better. As of right now though, its just a silly thing that overly-sensitive people who discriminate against certain categories of living things tend to follow and preach very annoyingly.
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
PS: If you know that company Z only employs people who aim to produce child porn in their basement... dingdingding. You're supporting it.
Wal-Mart is 6 miles from my house. Peterson's (a local grocer) is 16. Where does my culpability end if I hold myself accountable for the actions of Wal-Mart? 16 miles? 160 miles? Wal-Mart easily saves my family over $2000 per year. How much is too much to ask my children to sacrifice?
When it comes to food, how much time and money am I required to spend researching its origins? 1 hour? Do I need to personally inspect the farm? I cannot accept moral responsibility for a line that is fuzzy, at best.
I used to refuse to eat at KFC until I realized what a gigantic hypocrite it made me.
On September 21 2012 06:10 ImAbstracT wrote: You can literally eat all the fruits, veggies, nuts, and plant based foods you want without worrying about being overweight.
What?
You could sit on your couch all day and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda and beer and have a perfectly vegan diet and be a lardass. I did it.
I've been vegetarian my entire life and ended up at 220 lbs at 5'11' before I dropped back down to 170. Not eating animal products doesn't magically erase Calories from oils, sugar and alcohol.
Classic case of bullshit vs bullshit...
First of all if you eat over maintenance you will gain weight no matter what type of food it is. There's no way around this.
As for the other guy, since when do potato chips, soda, and beer fall into the category of fruits, veggies, nuts? lmfao
Finally, the consumption of animal products has little to nothing to do with gaining weight. The only correlation here is the high calorie content of animal products that contain high concentrations of fat. It's worth noting fat doesn't make you fat unless the calories contained in the fat cause you to exceed your daily maintenance.
The amount of ignorance from both sides of the vegan vs. non-vegan debate is frustrating zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
On September 22 2012 03:21 Leth0 wrote: If you got something you wanna say about vegan thats cool, put all your positivity out there. When you start to try and claim some sort of moral high ground by saying ignorant shit like "you ate a hamburger therefore you support animal abuse" then you just look like a moron. More power to you living the way you want, with a lifestyle choice you made. No need to be disrespectful about it, like you are somehow a better person than me because of it.
What do you think you're doing if you buy something from someone? Is that your way of NOT SUPPORTING him? Jesus Christ.
Since you seem to think I look like a moron for claiming that supply and demand regulates our markets, please don't support me and give me money. ......................
If you do business with the company I work for, your money murders animals because that is how I spend my paycheck. That, or you are only responsible for your own actions. Silly.
You just said a woman being raped because she wore a revealing dress is a fitting example to show me that demand doesn't interact with supply. You're trying to top even that, eh?
One last time: Mr. X forces children to work for him to produce shoes. You buy shoes from Mr. X. Your money is supporting child labor. If you do not buy shoes from Mr X you do not support child labor.
If I do business with company Y and Mr. M who works for company Y uses his paycheck to shoot child porn in his basement I do not support him making child porn with my money. I had no business interaction with him. Now if Mr. M gives all his money to charity I also did not contribute to charity.
If however I buy a product from someone who intents to give 10% of the profits to charity, I did contribute to charity. It's really, really not that hard even if you try to pull the weirdest possible examples out of your hat.
It's exactly the same a buying heroine supports terrorism, considering that most of the world's supply of illegally trafficed heronine is grown in Afghanistan, or, if you live in the US you support drug barons and drug wars in Mexico and Columbia.
Well, yeah, obviously there has to be a point where you draw the line. "If I eat more beans and onions I will fart more and impact the ozone layer negatively" would be over the top for example. =P
However, that's a whole different level than "If I buy products produced via child labor I support child labor" or "If I buy meat from someone who abuses animals you're supporting animal abuse" which is kinda what this was about.
Thats my point. Moralist veges draw an arbitrary fuzzy line that they consider "over the the top" and then look down their noses at my line, which is clear and defininite and morally consistent.
You don't have to draw a fuzzy arbitrary line. You can choose to take responsibility for your own actions.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
Not true, by that logic you support slave like labour if you buy an iphone or things manufactored by peasants in China, you support child labour if you buy a football, you support heavy environmental exploitation if you buy anything which includes products from chemical corporations, you support experiments on indian slum kids if you buy vaccines and so on.
If you want to put yourself on an ethical high horse, you better cut your ties from the system you live in and move into the forest to live with the seasons like our ancestors did, otherwise don't nitpick stuff out to fit your agenda.
But he specifically said "if you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals". So if consumers have a choice, they should buy meat from companies that raise animals in humane conditions. Similarly there are many companies that offer alternatives in other areas, whether its renewable energy, environmentally friendly options, etc. So needing to live in a forest is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
But the logic is perfectly valid. I thought that was the whole purpose behind boycotting? People stop buying something or supporting a company in order to protest their activity. The only question is, how tied is a company to a certain negative occurrence (i.e. what type of response is appropriate), and do people have the practical ability (or moral strength) to live without the goods/resources that company produces/supplies if it is serious enough. But neither of those challenge the logic of his statement; if you buy an iPhone, you are in a (very) small way saying "how I got this iPhone is okay with me."
Just think of a more extreme case. If someone tortured an animal to death in front of you, and then offered you meat, giving him money is like a tacit endorsement for what he does. If he does not receive your money, then that sends a message that consumers don't want to financially support someone with those kinds of ethical/moral (never sure which one it is) standards.
Moreover this calling of a person being on their ethical high horse for pointing out something unethical is silly. Why is it so wrong to point out something unethical? Its like the person always has to be an elitist snob. We don't call people who want to stop massacres in Libya or now Syria to be on some "ethical high horse". They're just normal human beings who care about the lives of others. "Ethical high horse" should be reserved for some kind of extremist.
Of course the logic of supply and demand works in our system and the whole point of boycotting is to make that point clear, you are of course perfectly right. The point is every major company is involved in highely immoral stuff. Leading an ethical life means no buying from medical, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufactoring companies. In modern societies leading such a life is simply impossible. The root of this problem might be mass consumption and aiming for affordable prices, but this is another discussion.
Just to make a little example if you buy clothes which contain cotton or silk, you support the brutal exploitation of animals. If you buy medicine, you support the exploitation of animals and people from poor third world nations. If you buy stuff which contains products from chemical companies (for example every soft drink, every meal you eat daily) you support the heavy exploitation of our environment.
You could go on with such a list forever. Pointing that out is fine, but nitpicking one of these points (animal abuse via eating) ind ignoring the others is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with working on a principal solution of the problem at hand. These examples are the reason why the argument "you choose where your money goes to" is invalid. It is not possible to lead a lifestyle which is ethical in our socities, because exploitation is its very fundament. Blunt example, you don't eat meat, but you eat a lot of corn made in the third world. Now you spared some animals suffering, but you supported child labour. What is better? Point is again, infact you don't have a choice as long as you are a part of a western society, you automatically support exploitation regardless of what you are doing.
The only possibility to avoid such exploitation of animal, human and the environment is literally to cut all ties with the system you live in.
"Meh, I know this guy does horrible things but I'll buy his product anyway. No one cares what I do anyway. It's all the same. Everyone exploits nature and animals and children anyway, why should I care?"
Sad to hear such a depressive and powerless point of view. Can't do much more than wish you the best, arguing with a depressive perspective is rather pointless since part of it is refusing to see anything good or anything where you actually DO have influence over things. Trying to project that hopelessness onto others isn't really a cool move either, but I can't really blame your for it.
Funnily enough I probably have better nutrition habits than most people posting in this thread. If I eat steak, chances are that I already crossed the cow it is made of while jogging. If I buy tomatoes, asparagus or whatever I personally know the guy who produces it, where it gets produced etc. One of the advantages of living in a rural area.I am just not delusional enough to think that the whole population can do this,especially people living in urban areas. Also Nobody can do this all year. No, tomatoes and stuff don't grow in winters. The fact that we can have them all year is a result of environmental exploitation.
Of course, you are perfectly free to go into some bioshop and buy corn, which is ironically packed into plastic and hidden in a stupidly huge package made out of trees. Oh and the point of view has absolutely nothing depressing about it, I personally would call your point of view delusional out of sheer ignorance.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
It was because you were making the bizzare claim that plants were 'suffering' by being harvested.
Then try reading my post again.
I'm sorry but can you just tell me outright whether you are being serious about your claims? I'm either Romanian or there is a Poe's Law issue going on here.
Reproducing through edible fruit is not an indicator of sensory pain, a nevous system is.
Cows milk and chickens eggs... I would rather make the argument that you simply look at the food chain, and eat that which does not eat anything else. Because about 90% of any toxins and pesticides and what not are transferred to the consumer, while counting all the plants your cow (that made your milk) ate, only about 10% of the typical nutrients are transferred to you. So you end up with a lot more toxins than if you just ate plants to begin with; you get "100%" toxins and "100%" nutrients; which favours eating plants.
However, arguing that it's not "natural" to eat the eggs of another species, or not natural to drink the milk of another species, is completely bogus. Plants are a different species from you as well. You still eat them and all their seeds ("eggs"), DNA and what not. Coconut milk anyone? It was all intended for the plants to "procreate" (don't know the proper plant term); NOT for humans to consume (by the same logic applied in the OP).
It's perfectly common to drink the milk of another animal. People have done so for ages. The problems we face are caused by mass production which requires pesticides and chemicals for everything, such as shape, taste, colour, conservation ... you name it. Many of these you can avoid by staying away from typical processed foods. Some you can only stay away from if you eat organic foods, and some you may not have a decent shot at staying away from at all.
Then you must take your own body into account. Some people will swear to "veganism", while others will swear off carbs, simply because their body feels better, digestive system works better, and it is right for them.
You may wonder how previous generations made do without allergy meds and without diabetes shots, etc etc. And a big part of the answer is that these diseases did not really exist. Maybe cause those who had these symptoms quickly died, I suppose, but it's a growing trend. We eat alot of chemicals and poisons that we shouldn't. And as a result we get new ailments that we need to combat -- and for many the conclusion is simply to stay away from as much of it as possible; because in the end you'll feel a lot better being healthy than having an ailment that you need to live with and take pills for. Diabetes being an obvious "example" to explain what it is I'm trying to say, although it would not really apply to the point I'm making, as diabetes is rather linked to other health issues (although simply being fat isn't the only way to contract diabetes, as we all know).
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect.
Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.)
But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history.
Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect.
Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.)
But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history.
Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great.
It is only "right" if you believe you are responsible for the choices of other people.
I think this is a silly approach. To do right but only if it isn't inconvenientis not much of a moral code to live by.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect.
Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.)
But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history.
Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great.
It is only "right" if you believe you are responsible for the choices of other people.
I think this is a silly approach. To do right but only if it isn't inconvenientis not much of a moral code to live by.
no, I agree. Not buying meat cause it might be an abused animal isn't more "pure" than buying meat off an animal that was treated right. However, you are free to choose as you like, and everybody has their own moral code (or "lack there of" as some would call it). I agree with that other guy's criticism, but inherently you simply do not know anything other than "this coffee is fair trade" and "this coffee is not". Which do you go for? Some wouldn't care because they simply don't. Some wouldn't care cause they know people get abused anywhere and for whatever reason, and some would "care" and buy the fair trade, because, hopefully, it is creating decent jobs with decent livelihoods, at least within a small community, somewhere.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
This is exactly why the concept of responsible consumerism is flawed and why people who self identify this way are disgustingly smug. Their choices, while still evil, are less evil than YOURS. (According to this line of reasoning.)
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh?
In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'.
Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't.
Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'.
As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant.
On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote: One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency.
If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science.
You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands.
Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P
From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible.
Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
This is exactly why the concept of responsible consumerism is flawed and why people who self identify this way are disgustingly smug. Their choices, while still evil, are less evil than YOURS. (According to this line of reasoning.)
I try not to buy accidental vegan products made by companies that abuse animals as well. For instance, as a vegetarian, I did not eat at Chipotle despite it having a yummy veggie option because they abuse animals.
You can have responsible consumerism..
Also buying their veggie products, makes their demand for veggie products go higher. If everyone quit eating meat, the factories abusing animals would have no choice but to stop, beacause it wouldn't be profitable they would have to switch to the carrots.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh?
In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'.
Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't.
Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'.
As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant.
lol you must be severely mentally handicapped for sure. Haha. He writes unrelated stuff, I respond with asking if he is dumb or misunderstanding something (which he is, as it turned out). Huh?
Jokes aside: At least, please, read the actual comments before you start flaming and acting like a douche. It just makes you seem unbelievably immature.
Everyone should eat what their body tells them to. I need to eat meat, it makes me feel good. I do wish the food industry would treat animals a little bit better, though. And processed anything is worthless shit.
That being said, I suspect being hardcore vegan is extremely unhealthy in the long run, except if your entire lineage dates back to some herbivore monkeys or something the human orhanizm just wasn't built that way we are omnivores like bears roar.
On September 22 2012 05:12 sCCrooked wrote: See, the problem is in the tone. Vegetarians and Vegans always have this "air" about them that just stinks of snobbiness (at least most if not all the ones I know do) when they're talking about their dietary habits.
I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with mine. I know several people that don't eat meat and like my meat eating friends none of them randomly talk about what they eat with people they don't know. Meat eaters on the other hand often want to argue about it if they find out, my work partner doesn't eat meat and we always eat with each other so I'm pretty used to peoples reactions even though I'm a meat eater myself.
Perhaps being extremely opiniated about it more common with younger/new vegetarians but I don't remember it as very a common topic when I was younger either personally.
This thread has turned into quite the ridiculous tangent shitstorm (22 and up)... If you want to argue the humane practice of killing animals you should also argue the humane treatment of people and if your argument is that we should stop eating meat, then you best stop wearing clothing or buying technology.
Point is we need to raise awareness, bad shit happens and it slowly curves but we can't make illogically rash claims either. The world is progressively getting more liberal, things are slowly changing compared to 30 years ago but we can't all drop money on expensive meats at a butcher, and the industrialization of the meat industry thus far can't adequately solve the treatment of animals either so we're stuck between not eating meat unless it costs you an arm and a leg or eating meat that benefits off industrailizing which generally has inhumane practice.
I think what I'm trying to say is stop throwing around insults like you're all right, calm yourselves down and relax... Obviously we can't treat animals anyway we want, or ethically we shouldn't but feeding people is more important than animal rights and I apologize if you believe animals > humans but it is of my opinion you're frankly wrong. So right now, let's move the right way but not give up meat.
Hope that was clear ^^ in the CS lounge at my university, it's loud.
EDIT: Also opinions like "snobby vegans" or "snobby meat eaters" should all be taken out of the equation, it's rather ridiculous we're even saying things like that since it is a personal opinion and is subjective. People will be nice, mean, neutral about different things so it is no surprise this will be just like that.
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
I believe that is apple and oranges. Unless they are not eating meat because of ethical reasons that is. If they just eat vegan food because they enjoy it, the stance on abortion has nothing to do with it.
If they do it because of ethical practice, I suppose so.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
Ignoring the strawman nature of it, thats an interesting question.
I'm "pro choice" and I can't think of any reasons why it's better to drink alcohol or eat meat than not to, but I both eat meat and drink alcohol. And I could probably come up with hundreds of similar examples. Does that mean that I'm a hypocrite?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
So delicious eggs from my aunt's organic farm, where the chickens live in livestock paradise, are fine, right?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
So delicious eggs from my aunt's organic farm, where the chickens live in livestock paradise, are fine, right?
If the conditions are livestock heaven then that's great!
There are just so few of those livestock heavens, and the conditions that companies have to meet to write "free range" on their egg cartons in supermarkets aren't very good .
I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl in a small confined space where she is unable to move, and forcing her to have abortions?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
So delicious eggs from my aunt's organic farm, where the chickens live in livestock paradise, are fine, right?
If the conditions are livestock heaven then that's great!
There are just so few of those livestock heavens, and the conditions that companies have to meet to write "free range" on their egg cartons in supermarkets aren't very good .
So why not fight for the hard working organic and local farmers who make it their life's work to grow quality produce and raise well cared for livestock instead of immediately writing half off their livelihood?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl, and forcing her to have abortions?
No, my point is that vegans are against eating all eggs because some chickens are mistreated. By this logic, no humans should have abortion because some humans are mistreated, enslaved, whatever. Are all chickens mistreated? No Are all humans mistreated? No
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo.
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
There are multiple quack theories about this. Deficiencies in Omega 3s and iodine have also been suggested, to the great profit of the supplement industry.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl, and forcing her to have abortions?
No, my point is that vegans are against eating all eggs because some chickens are mistreated. By this logic, no humans should have abortion because some humans are mistreated, enslaved, whatever. Are all chickens mistreated? No Are all humans mistreated? No
What? Humans can't have abortions cause humans are mistreated? I still don't follow this logic/comparison, can you expand?
Some vegans like myself are ok with eating eggs from your's, friend's chicken or your uncle's farm or whatever where you know the conditions.. The problem is, those conditions are really rare. If you happen to have some eggs available, from chickens treated humanely, then by all means eat them, I don't care.
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because it was acceptable/neccesary previously, it remains ethically acceptable now?
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because it was acceptable/neccesary previously, it remains ethically acceptable now?
Yeah taking a step back that's not too convincing. I shall return with a better angle.
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
what is that even supposed to say? I literally don't know what way you're trying to tell me.
I'm pretty sure we're eating way more meat nowadays than people even 200 years ago, not even mentioning 20.000 years ago. Meat is everywhere nowadays. I'm eating meat pretty much every single day as a basis of my meals.
Besides yes, starvation leads to those things but guess what, 20.000 years ago starvation might have been an issue for a bunch of people no matter if they ate meat or not. The elimination of starvation is a rather new trend if the most recent 20.000 years is the data you're looking into.
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
I'll give you one source, since it's late here in Norway and I have to go to bed so my brain can function tomorrow at the lab, you can find the rest yourself in Nature.com and bioone.org. Have fun.
Haven't read the entire thread, but i read enough pages to make me want to share a couple of things.
I've been vegan going on 6 years now, (hardest part was not in fact giving up cheese, but in finding clothes/shoes cleaning supplies etc. that used no animal products.) and I feel like I've never been healthier. I am supremely active; I bike everywhere, teach yoga and kung fu, and am pretty ripped. Being vegan does not automatically make one healthy, (OREOs are vegan, but I dont eat those either) but it is my belief that optimal health can easily be achieved as long is one is conscious of what they need and eat. To be honest, if i could have any diet and eat exactly how I wanted, I would eat a raw foods diet (also vegan), but that's a discussion for another thread. One of the biggest differences for me health-wise is that I used to get frequent colds, coughs, and runny noses that have completely disappeared. Apparently I am mildly allergic to dairy, so I imagine not everyone would benefit the same way.
I first became vegan for health reasons. My family has a very strong history of both heart disease (dad's side) and cancer (mom's side), and after reading the China Study (contentious subject i know), I decided to try being vegetarian in hopes of beating the odds and not expressing the genes for either of those diseases. My room mate at the time was the one who gave me the book, so we both did it together, and over the course of about 6 months we gradually stopped eating other animal products as well until one day at the grocery store, the only non-vegan item in our cart was a tub of yogurt to make fruit smoothies, and we decided to take it out and be full on vegans.
If health were the only motivating factor behind my decision, I do not know if i would still be vegan, because i also believe that optimal health may be achieved with a diet that includes animal products. The main 2 reasons for my continued veganism are sustainability and the evolution of consciousness.
If everyone on the planet ate like americans do, the world could likely only support a population of around 6 billion ( we are already over 7 billion) while if everyone ate a plant based diet, over 14 billion people could live sustainably. If you take issue from my numbers, (I'm sure someone will =P) my main point is that a vegan diet uses vastly less resources than one which uses animal products; water being chief among those resources. If I could get all my energy requirements from sunbathing like a plant does and stop eating all together except occasionally for pleasure, I would do so.
The planet is evolving, and we are evolving along with it. If we as a species continue to condone the unethical treatment and torture of animals, how big of a step is it to condone such treatment of people? I know many people will say there's a huge difference, but I would imagine that anyone who has ever had a pet would agree that animals have at least some rudimentary form of feelings and emotions. Until mankind stops acting like a predator towards animals and resources, I do not think we can stop being predatory to our fellow human beings. We must instead evolve our collective consciousness to the point where the thought of *not* helping out a person in need or being kind for no reason is shocking instead of the current paradigm where such acts are seen as somewhat rare and extraordinary. This different way of thinking might be achieved without the whole world being vegan, however I think it would take much much longer. Perhaps too long.
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote: I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
What's 90%+ of whey made of... oh it isn't vegan.
Don't get me wrong, there is vegan whey, but generally it isn't.
Also define necessary protein. I take in between 1200 and 1500 calories of protein a day. Without meat that'd get boring pretty fast, and that's still counting cottage cheese. Completely vegan would make it excessively hard.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
I suppose my current stance on being vegan is similar to my stance on religion. I feel that it is an indicator that this person spends some time thinking about a very important issue that is important to me as well, but I don't necessarily agree that holding perfectly to their specific protocols are inherent in holding the same values.
On September 22 2012 10:10 Lucy1nTheSky wrote:The planet is evolving, and we are evolving along with it. If we as a species continue to condone the unethical treatment and torture of animals, how big of a step is it to condone such treatment of people? I know many people will say there's a huge difference, but I would imagine that anyone who has ever had a pet would agree that animals have at least some rudimentary form of feelings and emotions. Until mankind stops acting like a predator towards animals and resources, I do not think we can stop being predatory to our fellow human beings. We must instead evolve our collective consciousness to the point where the thought of *not* helping out a person in need or being kind for no reason is shocking instead of the current paradigm where such acts are seen as somewhat rare and extraordinary. This different way of thinking might be achieved without the whole world being vegan, however I think it would take much much longer. Perhaps too long.
there is such a huge leap between "hurting an animal that was raised for the sole purpose of food" and "hurting other people" that quite honestly im depressed you actually brought it up
quite honestly im having a headache jsut trying to figure this one out
only a small percentage of people actualy handle the slaughter and handling of the meat, the vast majority of people dont even think at all about what there eating used to be alive there completely disconnected from it and dont think about it
its not that they like hurting the animal, that makes no sense, they have completely detached themselves from the food being a living being
so unless your trying to say that 100% of criminals work in slaughterhouses its simply a hollow argument thats just coming from vegans "holier than thou" attitude its like the people who go to war over whos god is better
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
On September 22 2012 10:10 Lucy1nTheSky wrote: If health were the only motivating factor behind my decision, I do not know if i would still be vegan, because i also believe that optimal health may be achieved with a diet that includes animal products. The main 2 reasons for my continued veganism are sustainability and the evolution of consciousness.
Have you developed any ethical motivation for staying vegan? Is that the same for you as "evolution of consciousness"?
Love any type of animal I've tried and will continue to drink milk and dairy that comes from an animal. Extremely healthy and fit just from an active lifestyle lol don't need to eat leaves and shit from soy just to stay "healthy".
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
No problem. To respond to what you say:
I know we cannot judge the actions of other species but to reject speciesism means that no individual is given special consideration, or is assigned different values. To be simple it means that every (living) being is equal. If that is the case what I said will follow if you couple it to veganism. But even if we cannot judge other animals and only judge ourselves, what I say still follows. We might not be able to say that it is bad for a lion to kill a gazelle because a lion is a different species, thus we cannot judge it, but we will be able to say that a human cannot kill a lion. And if a human cannot kill a lion, it cannot kill a mouse, it cannot kill a bug, it cannot kill a plant. The list might even go on perhaps to entail microbes etc but I'd have to dig deeper into their biological status than I care to, to do so.
To the thing you say about plants not being sentient I've already given a response in my initial post. But to repeat the core
It is not bad to kill a man only because he feels pain, its always bad to kill a man, even if you kill a man that does not feel pain, or if you kill a man in a painless way. Thus, if to kill is bad, it doesn't matter if a plant can feel, it only matters if a plant can live, which it does. Moreover, since we can only eat something which lives or has lived (otherwise it will have no nutritional value) for us to eat will most likely mean to kill something in order to eat it. Unless ofcourse we scavenge, or only eat the byproducts of the living (fruits, eggs, milk etc).
Lastly, plants a species of living beings, if you reject speciesism for animals you must also reject it for plants, otherwise you discriminate against plants and you do so based on them being not sentient.
I'm sorry if this sounds like being a smart ass but I just thought I had to point that out. You can ofcourse still be a vegan, but the rejection of speciesism is not a reason to be vegan, in fact, and I hope I've made this clear, its actually incompatible with veganism unless you wish to die.
As for my personal views, I do not specifically care about plants or animals, I eat both.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.
I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.
In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
It seems TSORG has written a response, but it seems he is fighting more the definition of speciesism, rather than your core belief, so I would like to respond to you instead. (yes, it's important that you understand the definitions, so you may defend your position more accurately, but I believe it to be more relevant to address your core belief, not a misunderstanding on both parts of how exactly to word your position)
Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:
we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.
would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
No problem. To respond to what you say:
I know we cannot judge the actions of other species but to reject speciesism means that no individual is given special consideration, or is assigned different values. To be simple it means that every (living) being is equal. If that is the case what I said will follow if you couple it to veganism. But even if we cannot judge other animals and only judge ourselves, what I say still follows. We might not be able to say that it is bad for a lion to kill a gazelle because a lion is a different species, thus we cannot judge it, but we will be able to say that a human cannot kill a lion. And if a human cannot kill a lion, it cannot kill a mouse, it cannot kill a bug, it cannot kill a plant. The list might even go on perhaps to entail microbes etc but I'd have to dig deeper into their biological status than I care to, to do so.
To the thing you say about plants not being sentient I've already given a response in my initial post. But to repeat the core
It is not bad to kill a man only because he feels pain, its always bad to kill a man, even if you kill a man that does not feel pain, or if you kill a man in a painless way. Thus, if to kill is bad, it doesn't matter if a plant can feel, it only matters if a plant can live, which it does. Moreover, since we can only eat something which lives or has lived (otherwise it will have no nutritional value) for us to eat will most likely mean to kill something in order to eat it. Unless ofcourse we scavenge, or only eat the byproducts of the living (fruits, eggs, milk etc).
Lastly, plants a species of living beings, if you reject speciesism for animals you must also reject it for plants, otherwise you discriminate against plants and you do so based on them being not sentient.
I'm sorry if this sounds like being a smart ass but I just thought I had to point that out. You can ofcourse still be a vegan, but the rejection of speciesism is not a reason to be vegan, in fact, and I hope I've made this clear, its actually incompatible with veganism unless you wish to die.
As for my personal views, I do not specifically care about plants or animals, I eat both.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
No problem. To respond to what you say:
I know we cannot judge the actions of other species but to reject speciesism means that no individual is given special consideration, or is assigned different values. To be simple it means that every (living) being is equal. If that is the case what I said will follow if you couple it to veganism. But even if we cannot judge other animals and only judge ourselves, what I say still follows. We might not be able to say that it is bad for a lion to kill a gazelle because a lion is a different species, thus we cannot judge it, but we will be able to say that a human cannot kill a lion. And if a human cannot kill a lion, it cannot kill a mouse, it cannot kill a bug, it cannot kill a plant. The list might even go on perhaps to entail microbes etc but I'd have to dig deeper into their biological status than I care to, to do so.
To the thing you say about plants not being sentient I've already given a response in my initial post. But to repeat the core
It is not bad to kill a man only because he feels pain, its always bad to kill a man, even if you kill a man that does not feel pain, or if you kill a man in a painless way. Thus, if to kill is bad, it doesn't matter if a plant can feel, it only matters if a plant can live, which it does. Moreover, since we can only eat something which lives or has lived (otherwise it will have no nutritional value) for us to eat will most likely mean to kill something in order to eat it. Unless ofcourse we scavenge, or only eat the byproducts of the living (fruits, eggs, milk etc).
Lastly, plants a species of living beings, if you reject speciesism for animals you must also reject it for plants, otherwise you discriminate against plants and you do so based on them being not sentient.
I'm sorry if this sounds like being a smart ass but I just thought I had to point that out. You can ofcourse still be a vegan, but the rejection of speciesism is not a reason to be vegan, in fact, and I hope I've made this clear, its actually incompatible with veganism unless you wish to die.
As for my personal views, I do not specifically care about plants or animals, I eat both.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I don't consider plants sentient beings or whatever, however I can easily dismiss the plant killing argument for you.
In order to eat a cow, it must be raised and fed, it is mostly fed plant matter. By eating cow, I am indirectly killing way more plants AS well as the cow, in order to obtain the same amount of energy I could have got from a few plants.
Like I said before, i don't care about the plants, but If I for some reason did, I have to survive, and killing less plants(if for some reason they are sentient) is more humane then killing more plants and the animals that ate them.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
No problem. To respond to what you say:
I know we cannot judge the actions of other species but to reject speciesism means that no individual is given special consideration, or is assigned different values. To be simple it means that every (living) being is equal. If that is the case what I said will follow if you couple it to veganism. But even if we cannot judge other animals and only judge ourselves, what I say still follows. We might not be able to say that it is bad for a lion to kill a gazelle because a lion is a different species, thus we cannot judge it, but we will be able to say that a human cannot kill a lion. And if a human cannot kill a lion, it cannot kill a mouse, it cannot kill a bug, it cannot kill a plant. The list might even go on perhaps to entail microbes etc but I'd have to dig deeper into their biological status than I care to, to do so.
To the thing you say about plants not being sentient I've already given a response in my initial post. But to repeat the core
It is not bad to kill a man only because he feels pain, its always bad to kill a man, even if you kill a man that does not feel pain, or if you kill a man in a painless way. Thus, if to kill is bad, it doesn't matter if a plant can feel, it only matters if a plant can live, which it does. Moreover, since we can only eat something which lives or has lived (otherwise it will have no nutritional value) for us to eat will most likely mean to kill something in order to eat it. Unless ofcourse we scavenge, or only eat the byproducts of the living (fruits, eggs, milk etc).
Lastly, plants a species of living beings, if you reject speciesism for animals you must also reject it for plants, otherwise you discriminate against plants and you do so based on them being not sentient.
I'm sorry if this sounds like being a smart ass but I just thought I had to point that out. You can ofcourse still be a vegan, but the rejection of speciesism is not a reason to be vegan, in fact, and I hope I've made this clear, its actually incompatible with veganism unless you wish to die.
As for my personal views, I do not specifically care about plants or animals, I eat both.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I don't consider plants sentient beings or whatever, however I can easily dismiss the plant killing argument for you.
In order to eat a cow, it must be raised and fed, it is mostly fed plant matter. By eating cow, I am indirectly killing way more plants AS well as the cow, in order to obtain the same amount of energy I could have got from a few plants.
Like I said before, i don't care about the plants, but If I for some reason did, I have to survive, and killing less plants(if for some reason they are sentient) is more humane then killing more plants and the animals that ate them.
Well said, thank you! We all have to eat something, it is about minimizing harm indeed!
Recently my family has not gone full vegetarian, but close we still eat chicken and eggs but far more vegetables than we used to. Also we make smoothies made from beets, kale, flax seeds, and wheatgrass with mint and ginger thrown in for some flavor, they are the most disgusting thing i've ever eaten but they make the whole day sooooo much better.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being. 2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives. 3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives. 4. Plants live. 5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!
Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."
My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.
Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."
Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.
Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.
It seems TSORG has written a response, but it seems he is fighting more the definition of speciesism, rather than your core belief, so I would like to respond to you instead. (yes, it's important that you understand the definitions, so you may defend your position more accurately, but I believe it to be more relevant to address your core belief, not a misunderstanding on both parts of how exactly to word your position)
Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:
we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.
would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves.
In general, I don't really like extreme hypothetical questions that make vegans defend themselves. However, I will answer this one because I am a Star Trek fan: the Prime Directive.
If we were ever that advanced, then we would certainly have some form of the Prime Directive. Those "cave men" as you put it would just as much right to develop without interference as we humans did. Hey, this is a nerdy answer, but it is TL, lolz!
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.
But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.
As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.
Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:
1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants. 2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.
Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.
And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).
I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.
I don't consider plants sentient beings or whatever, however I can easily dismiss the plant killing argument for you.
In order to eat a cow, it must be raised and fed, it is mostly fed plant matter. By eating cow, I am indirectly killing way more plants AS well as the cow, in order to obtain the same amount of energy I could have got from a few plants.
Like I said before, i don't care about the plants, but If I for some reason did, I have to survive, and killing less plants(if for some reason they are sentient) is more humane then killing more plants and the animals that ate them.
I do not see how this dismisses the plant killing argument. The point is killing is either always wrong, it is sometimes wrong or it is never wrong. If it is never wrong, we need not have this discussion. If it is sometimes wrong we need to decide when this sometimes is. If it is always wrong it is as wrong to kill 1 plant as it is to kill 1 cow and 10 plants to feed the cow. One could say that the latter is more wrong than the former but they would still be both wrong. It seems like there is no other option, but there is, and that option is starvation out of free will. If you were forced at gunpoint to kill 1 human being or 10 human beings, killing one would ofcourse be the lesser evil, but there is another option, to not kill any of them and be shot yourself. I agree that this is radical, but it is the consequence of consistently living by those two theories. However, it is no longer neccesary to have this debate because he has already more clearly stated what he meant.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.
But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.
As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.
Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:
1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants. 2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.
Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.
And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).
I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.
It is a protest in some way, but its also about the same for me as not eating meat simply too hard for me to find those humane eggs, milk etc.. There is so much wrong with the current way we get eggs and milk, and there are so few places that treat animals humanely, that its basically all milk products and eggs on the market. Of course there are small family farms and exceptions, but it's almost everywhere. So many people talk in this thread about what about humane eggs, of course I support that, but I just feel for those that believe there are all these happy chickens and cows walking around and just dropping eggs and giving milk once in awhile. I honestly actually don't know if there is humane honey on this planet, I have not heard of any. Although I admit there is a difference between my not eating meat, and not eating something like butter.. if I was served butter by mistake instead of earth balance or whatever, then I don't think I would be nearly as upset as if someone slipped bacon in to my meal. (ok this paragraph kind of turned in to a rant and lost focus, sorry)
I respect those that choose to stay only vegetarian, I respect their effort, and I feel like for some the step to vegan might never happen, but I know they are at least thinking about the choices they make, hey, rock on veggies!
If for some insane reason plants were sentient, I would continue to eat plants, simply cause I have to survive, and eating plants "kills" less plants then eating the animals does.
I don't really like this idea that we can simply kill something without harming it, I think we simply just disagree here.
Making something not sentient? That sounds pretty fucked up to me, and we would be dabbling in some really weird sciences. What if you could make a human non-sentient, making something non-sentient seems to be just about as immoral as killing something to me.
If it is wrong it's wrong, but I'd rather do less wrong, then more wrong. I want to survive, so if it meant killing "sentient" plants, then I would kill sentient plants(for instance, I am a vegan, I haven't eaten meat in a long time, but if I was stranded and needed to survive in a place, I would do what I have to too survive.. including killing for food). What would I eat if not plants? If you have an alternative that I could live off of without harming them (and they were sentient) and I could live a healthy life, I would consider it.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.
But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.
As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.
Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:
1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants. 2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.
Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.
And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).
I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.
I actually don't think most people try to minimze needless suffering, otherwise everyone would be vegan, lol!
Regarding vegetarian to vegan, some vegans argue that the dairy and egg industries actually cause MORE suffering than the beef, pork, and poultry industries (on an animal-by-animal basis).
-Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnanted and attached to milking machines that cause infection. Their male calves are sent to veal farms and then slaughtered. The female calves are put back in the same industrial process.
-Male chicks are often ground-up alive because only hens are needed in the egg industry. Many egg laying hens never go outside a day in their short lives.
Regarding your hypothetical about plant consciousness, well, I get back to you if that happens. I don't have an answer for you now.
True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.
About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.
As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.
I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.
In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.
Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying.
It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant.
I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed.
Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life.
I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true.
I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position.
I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.
As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.
I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.
But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.
As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.
Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:
1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants. 2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.
Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.
And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).
I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.
I actually don't think most people try to minimze needless suffering, otherwise everyone would be vegan, lol!
Regarding vegetarian to vegan, some vegans argue that the dairy and egg industries actually cause MORE suffering than the beef, pork, and poultry industries (on an animal-by-animal basis).
-Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnanted and attached to milking machines that cause infection. Their male calves are sent to veal farms and then slaughtered. The female calves are put back in the same industrial process.
-Male chicks are often ground-up alive because only hens are needed in the egg industry. Many egg laying hens never go outside a day in their short lives.
Regarding your hypothetical about plant consciousness, well, I get back to you if that happens. I don't have an answer for you now.
You have to disattach what I'm saying from the current state of the world. Regard it as if I'm talking about the perfect world. If you would stumble upon a cow in the field that happened to have been pregnant but the baby died for some reason, the cow still has milk, what would be wrong with drinking it. And what if there was no water around for miles?
Also when I was talking about the many who try to minimize suffering I was talking about those who choose to be vegan, I think most do it for the reason that you do (they could also do it for pragmatic reasons such as health or the enviroment)
On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote: True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.
About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.
As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.
I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree.
I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you!
That was actually a response to BlueBird, but no problem.
Its funny because I actually could not sleep and was thinking about this all the time, I happened to glance over it before I went to bed and what you said struck me as interesting. When I couldnt sleep I just decided to sign up to this forum to reply. I was doubting if I would write my thesis about this subject but I decided not to because I did not want to burn my hands on such a hot topic, so I decided to write on belief and religion instead haha.
On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote: True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.
About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.
As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.
I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree.
I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you!
Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy
On September 21 2012 17:45 Funnytoss wrote: The thing is, Danglars that you are generalizing, even if you recognize that it isn't enough of a sample size. You've got a tiny subsection of vegans in that area of southern California, and you don't like their image. But you're using that distasteful image to paint a narrative about vegans. That includes those in the United States, and in Taiwan, and everywhere else. Perhaps it is not that they have to change their image (though I'm sure that could help), but that you could acknowledge your image isn't really representative enough to actually mean anything. I can understand if you get turned off by how some of them behave, and that's fair. But please don't block yourself off to whether or not the message is reasonable or makes sense, because it's pretty unnecessarily dismissive of the significant number of vegans and vegetarians who behave otherwise. The world is a large place.
Yeah so, I read the OP. Is this representative of the movement? Or is the OP directly off base. I don't see this big retaliation amongst all the pages here of vegans saying: * I'm not into this climate change activism, I just [[Reason X]] chose veganism. * Really, I don't get all these people that say they're making big changes one vegan at a time! Ethical and Environmental compose 66% of what OP is discussing. Not a personal choice for benefits (Healthy), but generalizable to global topics. And who's to say that someone making life choices in global concerns won't be advocates for these in their personal speech aka to use these as a platform for advocacy in conversations? It basically writes itself. Maybe Taiwan has a peaceful vegan community and maybe they're the atypical one sitting out there in stark contrast. There's a lot of unknowns there.
This is what I want to discuss. The impact of meat production and consumption on the human body and the environment.
Well, what I hear weekly or biweekly is basically this discussion, enthusiastically started by vegans in the supermarket, community, and restaurant.
People set the standards of livestock way to high imo... I mean the "greens" you're eating are living organisms too and yet they're sprayed with poison and grown to sizes they simply shouldn't be. Maybe we should start protecting the humane treatment of plants.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic but it's not like there is much point to saying "let's grow chickens, make them live a happy life, then kill them"... I'm all for stopping torture, but to expect everything to go back to the farm (where it actually is a brutal sometimes terrible thing with equpiment that's outdated) is just unrealistic.
On September 22 2012 14:51 NeMeSiS3 wrote: People set the standards of livestock way to high imo... I mean the "greens" you're eating are living organisms too and yet they're sprayed with poison and grown to sizes they simply shouldn't be. Maybe we should start protecting the humane treatment of plants.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic but it's not like there is much point to saying "let's grow chickens, make them live a happy life, then kill them"... I'm all for stopping torture, but to expect everything to go back to the farm (where it actually is a brutal sometimes terrible thing with equpiment that's outdated) is just unrealistic.
But perhaps there is a point, when the alternative (factory farming) entails chickens growing up covered in their own excrement, eating ground up dead diseased chickens mixed with their corn, so fat they can't take a step without collapsing, etc.
I'm not a vegan, nor a vegetarian, but I do my best to never eat factory farmed (a.k.a. most) meat. For a more in depth look at the food industry, see Food, Inc.
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.
I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.
In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.
Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying.
It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant.
I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed.
Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life.
I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true.
I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position.
I have to say this has been the most civil and reasonable discussion on this matter I have ever had, thank you for considering my stance and for respectfully giving yours without being condescending or "know-it-all". I have taken everything you stand into consideration and must admit even I am not completely solid on my position as there are so many grey areas and I can't help but feel compassion for women who are just simply not in a good position to have a baby. One thing that kind of intrigues me is that we as human beings tend to draw the line somewhere as to "when it is ok to destroy, and when it is not ok". Most everyone would agree that after a baby is born that it is not ok to destroy it, so the line must be before then. During pregnancy is where many people feel it is right to draw the line. Some say after the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it is wrong to kill it. Some say it is ok all the up until just before the baby is born. Others (including myself) say the line is at the moment of conception. The only reason I refuse to draw the line any farther is because I feel that is similar to playing "God" on deciding whether or not nature takes its course. Why can we decide for the unborn as to whether or not it deserves life?
Like I said before, the difference between a sperm and a zygote is that one is actively growing, the other is not, and to me that is significant, to others maybe not so much. Another thing I tend to look at is trying to put myself in the zygotes shoes. It's impossible, but I want to continue to grow and live now, so I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say I wouldn't have wanted to continue to grow and live then, despite not knowing whether or not I would have cared then. A big thing for me is that there are so many unknowns that it seems wrong for me to assume that it is 100% inconsequential to kill an unborn human. As far as the argument of everyone wearing condoms for a day, that seems kind of moot point. What difference does it make if everyone doesn't have sex? If theoretically you could go back in time (keyword THEORETICALLY) and prevent a pregnancy, would that be murder? I don't think so, because the person who would have been born no longer exist.
This ethical reason is a bit off imo. Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example: The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk. Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more
Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling?
Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow).
If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden.
Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds?
1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh?
In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'.
Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't.
Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'.
As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant.
lol you must be severely mentally handicapped for sure. Haha. He writes unrelated stuff, I respond with asking if he is dumb or misunderstanding something (which he is, as it turned out). Huh?
Jokes aside: At least, please, read the actual comments before you start flaming and acting like a douche. It just makes you seem unbelievably immature.
No, he made the rhetorical question of 'what about the cherry?' to counter your argument, which is silly anyway. But then you respond by explaining to him why cherry trees do what they do and ignoring the argument. If he didn't know that, he wouldn't be using it as an argument against you.
Clear example of poor english ability (or poor mental ability in general?) and now a clear example of bad manners. Why was this person not warned? Since this wasn't moderated and considering my history and bad blood with all the moderators here, because they hold a grudge against me because they disagree with my position and feel forced to abuse moderation powers after they run out of arguments and lose their cool, this guy is a retard and I have all the rights to call him that and not be warned. Thank you, TL moderators.
Btw, I like how you spoilered my comment so people have to click to read it, which most won't. I guess you do realize you make yourself look bad. But still you do it.
Reading back the thing now and seeing Deleuze's comment on Poe's law, he is entirely correct in that observation and all this has been futile.
1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it.
2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact.
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile?
5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor.
6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle.
7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you".
On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote: "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
On September 22 2012 17:08 Kaptein[konijn] wrote: I don't mind anyone being vegan. Still:
1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it.
2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact.
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile?
5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor.
6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle.
7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you".
On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote: "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
God that quote makes me cringe and just want to sink my teeth into a nice piece of chicken
On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote: True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.
About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.
As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.
I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree.
I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you!
Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy
I don't know much about happy cows, but I've eaten eggs from pretty damn happy chickens before. The family of a friend of mine has like 6 chickens and they have more space together than I had in my old apartement. Half outdoor, half indoor, they can cuddle when it's raining and some of them love it if you pet them a little. Unless their cock sees you, he'll chase you the fuck out. =P
Those eggs. Tasted. So. Incredibly. Good. I honestly didn't think the difference would be that big compared to "free range" eggs at the supermarket.
It's the same for most food imo, I'm pretty lucky because the area around here has lots of smaller farms where you can drive directly into their yard and buy off them. That stuff always beats the crap out of everything you get at your average supermarket.
On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote: True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.
About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.
As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.
I do respect people efforts (hence the "lol"), but I think most peoples efforts are misguided. For example, the whole "humane slaughter" and "happy cow" thing is so crazy to me. I understand why people go there, but I disagree.
I am tired and need to go to sleep now, good talking to you!
Have to agree 150% that the humane slaughter and happy cow thing are pretty crazy
I don't know much about happy cows, but I've eaten eggs from pretty damn happy chickens before. The family of a friend of mine has like 6 chickens and they have more space together than I had in my old apartement. Half outdoor, half indoor, they can cuddle when it's raining and some of them love it if you pet them a little. Unless their cock sees you, he'll chase you the fuck out. =P
Those eggs. Tasted. So. Incredibly. Good. I honestly didn't think the difference would be that big compared to "free range" eggs at the supermarket.
It's the same for most food imo, I'm pretty lucky because the area around here has lots of smaller farms where you can drive directly into their yard and buy off them. That stuff always beats the crap out of everything you get at your average supermarket.
Oh yes there are happy cows and chickens, I just don't think they end up on your dinner plate , eggs are slightly different cause you don't eat the chicken eating the egg.
On September 22 2012 17:08 Kaptein[konijn] wrote: I don't mind anyone being vegan. Still:
1. Watching your diet alone makes one more healthy, being vegan is not the only way. Personally I lift a lot of heavy weights, meaning I need a lot of protein+energy; on meat-less diet I'm eating 8 hours per day to reach my needs. Is there a vegan food that is equal to chicken: a truckload of much protein, no carbs and a very good amount of vitamins+minerals? The only vegan food high in protein I can think of is nuts, but it comes with a lot of carbs, a ton of energy, many saturated fatty acids and a lot firbre. In other words, you can't consume very much of it.
2. A diet that contains a moderate amount of meat is easier to find, gives more daily variety and is less expensive . Fact.
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
4. Regarding the above: why is it okay to take plant life but not animals? I've haven't seen any vegan or vegetarian ever address this. Plants have a nerve system. They're life. Again, facts. Is it because they don't have a cute smile?
5. If you're going with the climate argument: power plants still produce the vast, vast majority of human caused CO2, cars are just a few percent. If you want to save the climate, be consistent and stop using electricity, it's a much bigger factor.
6. I think it's good that some people are vegans. However, if everyone was vegan, I think we'd run into a shitload of additional problems. The amount of energy produced per "vegan acre" is pretty low, and the majority of plants we simply can't digest. Ever tried to eat grass? Cattle consumes grass, we consume them - circle of life, efficient cycle.
7. If any vegans out there wonder why there are societal stigmas against you, it's because of opinions like the one below. So judgmental, so much "I'm superior to you".
On September 21 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote: "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" is an attitude I don't want to tolerate. It showcases the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Then again, that's not about eating meat in general anymore as I said earlier. That's about ignorance and a low intellect and probably applies to most other subjects as well.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
If someone refuses to use his brain just to feel better about his opinion (aka ignorance) then, well, why would you wonder if someone who actually uses it calls him stupid?
3. Animals don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare farms to the holocaust; it's beyond ridiculous.
Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
There was a place and time where a pretty significant amount of people saw this as their truth. Few questioned it, lots of people helped making it happen. From todays perspective, do even the people who had some of those involved in their families call this one of the worst things that happened in history? Yes.
The one thing any minority which was treated badly in human history had in common was that they were weaker. Physically, mentally (think handicapped people) or just in plain quantity or social status. The only way to judge a persons true character is if you witness him or her in a situation of total power. In todays society animals are what we have total power over. And while there are lots of people taking great care of their pets and (hinthint) a lot of them are even treating them as equals we as a whole don't want to see or know about what happens in the slaughterhouses.
My great-grandmother (born 1910) was once asked about why she thought that the resistance was as low as it was against the holocaust. Her answer? "Those who didn't know about what happened exactly didn't want to know more, those who did know pretended that it didn't exist." -- partially because of fear of being persecuted, partially because it's impossible to lead a normal live when you think about someone you knew for all your live being moved to his death.
If you consume something without caring what it is, where it came from and how it was produced you're having the exact same mindset. The only difference is that it's about an animal, not about your former neighbour. That's judgemental, that's "I'm so much superior to you that I don't even give a single fuck whether you suffer or not."
We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
Omg, by drinking tap water, I am supporting massacre of billions of bacteria/germs at water purification facility. I have to be mindful of the sufffering of those lives. I don't hear that very often. Is it because somehow cow's life is more important than a bacterium?
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.
I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.
In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.
Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying.
It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant.
I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed.
Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life.
I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true.
I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position.
I have to say this has been the most civil and reasonable discussion on this matter I have ever had, thank you for considering my stance and for respectfully giving yours without being condescending or "know-it-all". I have taken everything you stand into consideration and must admit even I am not completely solid on my position as there are so many grey areas and I can't help but feel compassion for women who are just simply not in a good position to have a baby. One thing that kind of intrigues me is that we as human beings tend to draw the line somewhere as to "when it is ok to destroy, and when it is not ok". Most everyone would agree that after a baby is born that it is not ok to destroy it, so the line must be before then. During pregnancy is where many people feel it is right to draw the line. Some say after the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it is wrong to kill it. Some say it is ok all the up until just before the baby is born. Others (including myself) say the line is at the moment of conception. The only reason I refuse to draw the line any farther is because I feel that is similar to playing "God" on deciding whether or not nature takes its course. Why can we decide for the unborn as to whether or not it deserves life?
Like I said before, the difference between a sperm and a zygote is that one is actively growing, the other is not, and to me that is significant, to others maybe not so much. Another thing I tend to look at is trying to put myself in the zygotes shoes. It's impossible, but I want to continue to grow and live now, so I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say I wouldn't have wanted to continue to grow and live then, despite not knowing whether or not I would have cared then. A big thing for me is that there are so many unknowns that it seems wrong for me to assume that it is 100% inconsequential to kill an unborn human. As far as the argument of everyone wearing condoms for a day, that seems kind of moot point. What difference does it make if everyone doesn't have sex? If theoretically you could go back in time (keyword THEORETICALLY) and prevent a pregnancy, would that be murder? I don't think so, because the person who would have been born no longer exist.
Hey, thanks for actually responding to me and not just ignoring me, which I get sometimes with a thing like this. I agree it was definitely not an easy decision to come to, and your post made me look into it a lot more than I had previously, but my point still stands I believe.
What I was trying to get across with the hypothetical condom situation was that it comes down to my opinion that actively making a decision to put sperm away from eggs so they cannot join and the sperm dies is the same as actively making a decision to put a zygote away from a womb so that it cannot form and will die. We do not limit which people are allowed to reproduce, but we do limit which sperm are allowed to reproduce. This is because sperm are basic cells which, while 'alive', are not actually conscious beings who feel pain. It is many weeks into a pregnancy before a fetus develops individuality (as in, could end up being twins), or before it develops the capacity to feel pain, or before it develops consciousness and self awareness. I'm sure you understand much of this biology info, but I really just want to re-frame it so you understand my line of thinking. Why do you find that 'actively growing' is so important? And why only actively growing zygotes? Stopping a married couple trying to have kids in the act of sex is also actively deciding to stop an event which could have otherwise resulted in a child, yet stopping them is not what you would call 'abortion', why? In both an abortion and the above situation there is an egg inside the woman which will die unless she actively decides to keep it alive. I'm assuming you don't see every period as an abortion, yet each period contains a living cellular microorganism which would start to grow into a person if the woman did not stop it. I personally feel that the egg does not have enough of the basic functions of a human being to be considered a living person, and I feel the same about the early portion of an actual pregnancy. a zygote will divide its cells on its own and an egg will not, however this is not the definition scientists use to decide if a microorganism is "living". A zygote still relies entirely on the woman's decisions for survival, just as an egg does. (how long before we must draw the line, though, is a much more difficult question. suffice it to say that the longer it takes to be aborted, especially after the parents are aware, the better the reason for abortion must be imo)
You try to put yourself 'in the zygotes shoes', and yet you find this is the limit of what you can conceive of as the beginning of the life, but other events prior to and after the actual zygote formation are critical to it's existence. It is because if this that I believe it is wrong to think of a zygote as an early human being, as the act of letting it exist inside of a woman is no different to me than the act of letting a woman have sex. You cannot truly put yourself in a zygote's shoes any more than you could put yourself in any other microorganism's shoes. It is quite simple, the organism doesn't "want to continue to grow and live" any more than the bacteria on a dirty kitchen counter. It is their basic evolutionary function to cellularly divide and grow and exist, but I'm sure you do not consider bacteria to be equal to a human being. Over time a fetus develops these 'human' characteristics, but before it is even remotely close to having them I do not think you can call a zygote a full human being. Sure, there must be some sort of line drawn on what is human, but I would say this should be associated with what makes a thing human, not just what makes cells divide.
In summary, in this case the act of doing something is no different from the act of not doing something when the result is the same, a baby will not exit a womb. We do not see having a period as being the same as killing a human being because the mother has the right to decide when to have a child. By having her period she has not ended something that was a living, breathing, (conscious, self aware, pain feeling) human being. She has let a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby. By using a morning after pill she is doing the exact same thing, she is letting a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby.
It is vitally important to understand for ourselves what is and isn't a living being.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
That's not the same thought at all. I dare you to make a poll here and ask how many people agree with you. Spoiler: no one does. At which point (if you have the balls to take the dare), you'll claim that everyone is uninformed, ignorant and intellectually inferior. Just like in Starcraft: if you see everyone lagging, then it's you who lags.
I also see you ignored my other points, as expected.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
You know I can change the statement as well, does not mean it has any more (sarcastic) force...
"Plants don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare growing and eating them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
"Rocks don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare enslaving them and using them as commodities in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
"Ideas don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare how we abuse them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote: Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan? Example: Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?
In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.
You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.
The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.
Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.
I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.
I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.
In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.
Okay, thanks for hearing me out. I wonder, perhaps if you read this and then reread my post you might get a little insight into what i was saying.
It's interesting to me that you believe life begins as conception, as in, the instant a sperm touches an egg, life begins. To me, a sperm is just as alive as a zygote (what first forms when sperm and egg meet), though a sperm has a short lifespan, and a zygote does not. I do not feel bad when a sperm dies, just as I do not feel bad when a zygote dies, because ia zygote is honestly only a few cell divisions above a sperm. Sure, a zygote unhindered will form a human, but so will sperm when they're near eggs. The act of touching to me is not quite so significant.
I see the decision not to create life as being just the same as killing life before it fully develops. Because, is not the act of finding a partner to have sex with, just as important as the actual act of sex? You cannot form a baby without a sperm and an egg, and in most cases this means two people finding each other and having sex. So would it not be correct to say that if we were (hypothetically) to prevent everyone from having sex on a single day (say, by forcing them to use a condom), that we were killing every baby that would have been made that day otherwise? We would be actively stopping a thing which would naturally happen with human beings which would lead to more human life. So what about a single person? To me the idea of babies not being made is less important than the discontinuation of our species if we all use condoms every time. The result of these masses of people using condoms means potential children are not formed. This is also the result of masses of people getting abortions, more potential children are not formed.
Another point would be to say that the quality of one's life is inherently related to the need for one's life. If a pet dog has an inoperable tumor and is in pain, a vet will put it down. I see this as kindness, as the dog had little to no quality left to the remainder of it's life. If a child is in a coma and will never wake and are slowly dieing while the family suffers (can't put food on the table) from medical bills, I would say it would be right for the parents to decide to 'unplug' the equipment keeping them alive and let them die. To me it then follows that if, say, a 16 year old girl living on the street is raped, I would call it kindness to let her make the choice to have an abortion or not. No, I certainly cannot make the decision for her, but if she is in a proper state of mind and is fully aware of the consequences of her actions, I believe she has the right to make her own decision. This is assuming she has received proper consultation, and that she feels that she does not currently posses the ability to raise a child with a quality of life worth living. Perhaps this child would've been born, and she would've gone back on the street and abused substances, and the child would've lived a short life in pain and misery, unloved, and then died. Personally I believe it would be better if such a child were not brought into this world in the first place. Obviously this is an extreme situation, but the point is that such things can happen, and that if the choice is denied to women legally, they often go through other methods which can actually kill the mother as well. Obviously there needs to be improvements to the current system, but this is true of many aspects of our lives. We need to work to create support systems and ensure that the people making these decisions are not doing so uninformed, etc. Perhaps in the future we will develop a way to incubate a human egg all the way into a full grown baby, and perhaps there will be a sort of adoption system with enough checks and balances that it actually creates a loving home and a proper childhood experience. In this case, it would be obvious to me that any life would be preserved, but in our current situation, we cannot afford to decide that all life is worth living. The parents of the child in the coma had to decide to end their child's life, because the child was not in a position to make that decision and the parents understood that he would not have any quality left to his life. So, I believe that because an unborn child cannot make a decision for itself, it must fall to the mother/father to decide whether or not the child will have any quality to it's life.
I feel alright killing a plant, as it is not sentient and does not feel pain. I would feel bad killing an animal, because the reverse may be true.
I understand your position, and I know it seems reasonable just to want to live and let live, but I think if you give it some more thought you might find that there is merit to my position.
I have to say this has been the most civil and reasonable discussion on this matter I have ever had, thank you for considering my stance and for respectfully giving yours without being condescending or "know-it-all". I have taken everything you stand into consideration and must admit even I am not completely solid on my position as there are so many grey areas and I can't help but feel compassion for women who are just simply not in a good position to have a baby. One thing that kind of intrigues me is that we as human beings tend to draw the line somewhere as to "when it is ok to destroy, and when it is not ok". Most everyone would agree that after a baby is born that it is not ok to destroy it, so the line must be before then. During pregnancy is where many people feel it is right to draw the line. Some say after the fetus is capable of feeling pain, it is wrong to kill it. Some say it is ok all the up until just before the baby is born. Others (including myself) say the line is at the moment of conception. The only reason I refuse to draw the line any farther is because I feel that is similar to playing "God" on deciding whether or not nature takes its course. Why can we decide for the unborn as to whether or not it deserves life?
Like I said before, the difference between a sperm and a zygote is that one is actively growing, the other is not, and to me that is significant, to others maybe not so much. Another thing I tend to look at is trying to put myself in the zygotes shoes. It's impossible, but I want to continue to grow and live now, so I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say I wouldn't have wanted to continue to grow and live then, despite not knowing whether or not I would have cared then. A big thing for me is that there are so many unknowns that it seems wrong for me to assume that it is 100% inconsequential to kill an unborn human. As far as the argument of everyone wearing condoms for a day, that seems kind of moot point. What difference does it make if everyone doesn't have sex? If theoretically you could go back in time (keyword THEORETICALLY) and prevent a pregnancy, would that be murder? I don't think so, because the person who would have been born no longer exist.
Hey, thanks for actually responding to me and not just ignoring me, which I get sometimes with a thing like this. I agree it was definitely not an easy decision to come to, and your post made me look into it a lot more than I had previously, but my point still stands I believe.
What I was trying to get across with the hypothetical condom situation was that it comes down to my opinion that actively making a decision to put sperm away from eggs so they cannot join and the sperm dies is the same as actively making a decision to put a zygote away from a womb so that it cannot form and will die. We do not limit which people are allowed to reproduce, but we do limit which sperm are allowed to reproduce. This is because sperm are basic cells which, while 'alive', are not actually conscious beings who feel pain. It is many weeks into a pregnancy before a fetus develops individuality (as in, could end up being twins), or before it develops the capacity to feel pain, or before it develops consciousness and self awareness. I'm sure you understand much of this biology info, but I really just want to re-frame it so you understand my line of thinking. Why do you find that 'actively growing' is so important? And why only actively growing zygotes? Stopping a married couple trying to have kids in the act of sex is also actively deciding to stop an event which could have otherwise resulted in a child, yet stopping them is not what you would call 'abortion', why? In both an abortion and the above situation there is an egg inside the woman which will die unless she actively decides to keep it alive. I'm assuming you don't see every period as an abortion, yet each period contains a living cellular microorganism which would start to grow into a person if the woman did not stop it. I personally feel that the egg does not have enough of the basic functions of a human being to be considered a living person, and I feel the same about the early portion of an actual pregnancy. a zygote will divide its cells on its own and an egg will not, however this is not the definition scientists use to decide if a microorganism is "living". A zygote still relies entirely on the woman's decisions for survival, just as an egg does. (how long before we must draw the line, though, is a much more difficult question. suffice it to say that the longer it takes to be aborted, especially after the parents are aware, the better the reason for abortion must be imo)
You try to put yourself 'in the zygotes shoes', and yet you find this is the limit of what you can conceive of as the beginning of the life, but other events prior to and after the actual zygote formation are critical to it's existence. It is because if this that I believe it is wrong to think of a zygote as an early human being, as the act of letting it exist inside of a woman is no different to me than the act of letting a woman have sex. You cannot truly put yourself in a zygote's shoes any more than you could put yourself in any other microorganism's shoes. It is quite simple, the organism doesn't "want to continue to grow and live" any more than the bacteria on a dirty kitchen counter. It is their basic evolutionary function to cellularly divide and grow and exist, but I'm sure you do not consider bacteria to be equal to a human being. Over time a fetus develops these 'human' characteristics, but before it is even remotely close to having them I do not think you can call a zygote a full human being. Sure, there must be some sort of line drawn on what is human, but I would say this should be associated with what makes a thing human, not just what makes cells divide.
In summary, in this case the act of doing something is no different from the act of not doing something when the result is the same, a baby will not exit a womb. We do not see having a period as being the same as killing a human being because the mother has the right to decide when to have a child. By having her period she has not ended something that was a living, breathing, (conscious, self aware, pain feeling) human being. She has let a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby. By using a morning after pill she is doing the exact same thing, she is letting a potential situation go by which could have resulted in a baby.
It is vitally important to understand for ourselves what is and isn't a living being.
I'm done trying to debate this, but thank you for enlightening me on your point of view. I stand my ground with where I believe for now. While I would prefer a world with no abortion, I am still very torn on this subject because there is so much I simply do not know about it and I accept that it is happening and have no intention of trying to stop anyone from getting one, only express my beliefs when asked. Maybe some day I will change my mind again, believe it or not I used to be pro-choice, but for now I'm still not convinced abortion is acceptable.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others.
I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food.
I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm.
So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
That's not the same thought at all. I dare you to make a poll here and ask how many people agree with you. Spoiler: no one does. At which point (if you have the balls to take the dare), you'll claim that everyone is uninformed, ignorant and intellectually inferior. Just like in Starcraft: if you see everyone lagging, then it's you who lags.
I also see you ignored my other points, as expected.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them.
Animals are sentient beings who are conscious, have emotions, and feel pain. Killing them is inhumane and arguing for killing them because you like being ignorant is like arguing for killing jews because you like being ignorant. I can get nutrition from killing and eating humans, yet this is not acceptable because I have other choices.
A family has a pet dog, they love it, and the dog loves them back. The dog runs to the door and wags its tail when then return because it is happy to see them, and so is the family. The family would NEVER consider crushing the dogs puppies at birth because of their gender, and they would NEVER consider cutting the dog open while it was still alive because it's more efficient than spending time and money killing it first. Yet these are some of the practices that happen with other animals, simply because we don't spend any time thinking about other animals. I can love humans, I want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. I can love animals, and i want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing.
Also, your entire counter to his "I eat meat" and "I hate black people" argument was entirely subjective. Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say? You're trying to support your argument by saying that you "bet" people would agree with you, instead of actually providing any support for your argument.
You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself. An animal does not simply store everything it takes in as meat. Mammals give off heat and excrete waste, these release energy that was obtained from whatever they ate.
Yes, veganism is not the 'ultimate solution' to climate change, but the solution is not "everybody stop using electricity" as you suggest. Because this sounds sarcastic to me, I'll assume you don't really mean it, and therefore you leave us with the choice of doing nothing, but this too seems ineffective at combating climate change. There are many things everyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of beef you eat is one of many things you can do to reduce your impact. Carpooling, recycling, riding a bike, upgrading the efficiency of your home, and purchasing sustainable products, as well as making your voice heard to your local government are all small things that can help.
Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat.
Animals deserve many more rights than they currently receive, which is a major reason why some people chose to become vegans.
Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system. It is imperative that people begin to educate themselves on a healthy diet, and (although they do exist) the argument vegans tend to make is rarely against other forms of eating healthy, but rather simply arguing against the average food people eat today.
There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs)
Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
That's not the same thought at all. I dare you to make a poll here and ask how many people agree with you. Spoiler: no one does. At which point (if you have the balls to take the dare), you'll claim that everyone is uninformed, ignorant and intellectually inferior. Just like in Starcraft: if you see everyone lagging, then it's you who lags.
I also see you ignored my other points, as expected.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
Why would I NOT ignore your other points if I mostly agree with them?
I'm not sure how you're failing to see the parallel between "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" and "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone".
-"Both statements include "I do x because I like doing x" - while that obviously is an argument it's also a very shallow one without any backup. Just like "I don't like blacks because I don't like them" the argument "I eat meat because I like it" is one that only a person can make who never really thought about the whole topic. -Both statements convey the intent to not wanting to discuss the opinion itself. Whether you would like to call that stubborn or stupid is up to you.
Why would I make a poll about something that can be also done by just going through the sentences word by word? Polls have a tendency to reflect opinions. When we have opinions that aren't in line with what we would like to think of ourselves they tend to be heavily biased, up to the point of lying to ourselves just to keep our integrity up before ourselves.
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
I never said anything against consuming animals for nutrition. That's fine by me. What I do say something against is putting a bunch of living beings under horrible circumstances because of a stupid ideology or pure pleasure. We have lots of people in this thread who proudly shout out how they eat meat on a daily basis, some even multiple times. That's not about nutrition. In fact, we are able to make the choice to get the nutrition we need from sources which do not include treating animals like total crap.
Since that exact choice exists for pretty much everyone who is able to post in this thread every single one of us could act up to the responsibility that comes along with the freedom to choose. Not stepping up to that privilege at all by making a conscious, informed decision goes back to what I outlined above: It's typical for a low intellect and highly ignorant.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others.
I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food.
I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm.
So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right.
Pretty much the only point I disagree is with the line you're drawing for "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible". For me what I need to relate to something on an emotional level is to understand it's responses with my senses. If a dog or cat gets kicked, it will show me that it hurt it. Same goes for pretty much any mammal.
Do you really think that there is nothing besides humans you wish to preserve if possible? I just can't get that attitude at all. Besides that, we'd all be dead if everyone would think like that.
As for how we treat animals, sure it IS possible to raise animals for food without treating them badly. Though for one, probably not in the huge quantities we like to shove meat into us and for the other most people don't seem to want to know about which meat comes from where. =P
Here;you can choose between A and B. You realy have a choise here,but i will just let you know that A is the right choise and B is the wrong choise. Its not that you can not choose B, its just that if you choose B you are an asshole.
It almost reads like this and its not much of a choise then annymore. If you realy think its a choise you should respect whatever people choose. Somehow wish that in this thread there would be more emphasisis on the healthy aspects of veganism and unhealthy aspects of eating meat, instead of the moral aspects. There are manny indications that veganism and other more extreme eating habits have verry healthy effects. Now that i have read more about it, manny famous people who where vegan or had other extreme diets claim to have gotten enormous amounts of energy from it. Would love to read more about thoose things and the bad effects of eating meat in this thread instead of the endless moral discussion.
For example,Eating red meat makes you more vulnerable to getting adicted to annything in general.
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them.
Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say?
Hitler killed minorities because he hated them and wanted to cleanse the world of them. We kill animals because of their nutritional values. I'm not going to spend more time arguing this silly point, if you don't see the difference between those two then I don't know what to say.
And yeah, of course you're going to pretend you don't care what a poll says, because that any sane human doesn't need much time to realize the stupidity of comparing racism/Hitler with the animal industry. Talk about a slippery slope.
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
And I'll repeat what I stated before: it's statements like these why some vegans are social recluses. You're calling the entire world ignorant and stupid.
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself.
Ah yes, more energy goes in than goes out; no argument there. But explain to me how much energy you would've gained from that grass and those bushes?
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat.
The simple fact is that we don't know if plants feel pain. This we do know: 1. Plants have nerves 2. Plants are a form of life
You are killing both. How do you feel?
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system.
I agree - but the fact remains that it's much easier, more practical and less expensive to live as an omnivore than as a vegan. You have to look really close at your diet and take supplements (B12) to sustain your needs on a vegan diet. It's incredibly hard to get enough bio available amino acids when you're into power sports on a vegan diet. All those nuts contain so much fibre that you're constantly on the shits. Meanwhile, I'm having my chicken 'n rice, get all vitamins, minerals, high quality essential amino acids with a decent amount of energy, needing no supplements at very low price. By the way, how reliable are those supplements? Do you know how they're made? How effectively they're absorbed by the body?
On September 22 2012 19:09 StayPhrosty wrote: There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs)
Please tell me how many Mr. Olympia's were vegans? There might be a few winners of some competitions - compared more than a thousand non-vegans that won.
At 7 to 8 gram of protein/100gr in edible form, chickpeas are high in protein for vegan food, yes. Unfortunately, that's still nothing compared to the 25g/100gr in chicken. Moreover, said peas contain a good amount of carbs and 6 grams fibre, contrary to chicken on both accounts. You want to get 30 grams of protein from those peas, you'll also have 24 grams of fibre, which is already 80% of the maximum daily amount for males. You will be on the shits 24/7 and have your intestines sucked dry from all that fibre.
So, still waiting for that source of lean protein+vitamins & minerals that the supposedly (more) healthy vegan diet can provide.
So to conclude: not, removing the richest source of protein, minerals and vitamins generally is not a good thing to do with your diet. Yes, you can still come around if you're not into power sports, but it takes a lot of effort, money, inconvenience when eating out, and some supplements.
Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person.[/QUOTE]
Vegans don't have constant diarrhea :/. Greatly increasing fiber intake can make things messy for a few days until you get used to it, but after that you're all good.
Hitler killed minorities because he hated them and wanted to cleanse the world of them. We kill animals because of their nutritional values. I'm not going to spend more time arguing this silly point, if you don't see the difference between those two then I don't know what to say.
If you simply ignore what people say and twist their sentences so it fits your skewed view of how all animals exist for your pleasure, there is no point to even try. Here is my original statement about which you wanted to run a poll because as we all know the majority (which wanted at one point in history to not let woman vote, kill Jews and have Blacks as slaves) is always right.
You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
You took that quote and mixed it with "He compared killing Jews because we don't care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them." ... Sure, a few guys might have started the whole ordeal because of other reasons. The majority stood there and didn't want to know about it or pretended it's not that bad. Why is that comparison completely valid?
Because the majority of "I eat meat 10 times per week"-posters in this thread stated that they don't want to know how the animals they're eating are treated or that it's no big deal. Exactly the same train of thought.
PS: Please look at what you're writing. You just claimed that racist people aren't ignorant because of their reasonings and then you claimed that plants suffer just like animals or humans if they die. .. ..
and then you claimed that plants suffer just like animals or humans if they die. .. ..
It's pretty safe to say that plants don't suffer like us. They don't feel pain, they don't have a nervous system, pain would have absolutely no biological meaning for them, because they can't run away.
On September 22 2012 21:49 SnipedSoul wrote: Vegans don't have constant diarrhea :/. Greatly increasing fiber intake can make things messy for a few days until you get used to it, but after that you're all good.
I eat a ridiculous amount of dead animals and I don't have diarrhea unless I'm sick which happens every other year.
If you want to really save the environment, Suicide > Veganism. Better yet, take out as many of these cancerous humans as you can before you take yourself out.
and then you claimed that plants suffer just like animals or humans if they die. .. ..
It's pretty safe to say that plants don't suffer like us. They don't feel pain, they don't have a nervous system, pain would have absolutely no biological meaning for them, because they can't run away.
so what you're trying to say is that it's perfectly fine to kill something and eat it as long as it can't feel pain? What about narcotizing animals before killing them?
Let's say for the sake of it, we go back to how it used to be a couple of hundred years ago, cattle ("normal" ones, not the ones bred for making as much milk as possible) living a considerably nice life and when the time comes you're giving it a painless death so you can eat it instead of giving it to the bugs and worms :p I don't see a problem with that. Why do we have to completely stop eating meat if the problem isn't whether or not we're killing other beings but whether or not they suffer for our sake. Sure the first one deals with the problem indirectly but shouldn't we just try to attack the problem itself?
This thread is inspiring to me from a psychological point of view. There is something about people that makes them self mutilate for moral reasons (is that the only reason?), it used to be about religion back in the days where people preferred not do to anything to not commit any sins that would take them to hell, that same twisted self mutilation, I though, was a thing of the past but it's origins must be biological: Now people self mutilate not to not commit any sins but because they don't agree with the treatment of animals (but support abortion on the basis that a woman should "chose" not to have a baby even when the method to get rid of it it's artificial?), so they chose not to eat anything comming from an animal, the reason seems to be morality again but why should anybody self mutilate because of morals, not eating animal products yourself is not even an efficient way of changing the system but people still insist to go with it and just like with religion they will preach from a holier-than-thou attitude, well not all of the vegans do this, but then again not all religious people do it, but some of the vegans, which is enough for me when it comes to this comparison.
At the end of the day both groups are trying to save the world. I guess this orientation of self-mutilation is quite common, I've seen it in communists with good education who refuse to work high paying professions out of a sense of solidarity with the working class, "as not to exploit them", or rock lovers who refuse to get anywhere close to people that listen rap. What motivates a human being to self-mutilate behind senses of morals?, That is an interesting question, but like I said the answer must be biological because of the similarities, it's like twins who like the same colour without them not knowing each other.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others.
I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food.
I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm.
So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right.
Pretty much the only point I disagree is with the line you're drawing for "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible". For me what I need to relate to something on an emotional level is to understand it's responses with my senses. If a dog or cat gets kicked, it will show me that it hurt it. Same goes for pretty much any mammal.
Do you really think that there is nothing besides humans you wish to preserve if possible? I just can't get that attitude at all. Besides that, we'd all be dead if everyone would think like that.
As for how we treat animals, sure it IS possible to raise animals for food without treating them badly. Though for one, probably not in the huge quantities we like to shove meat into us and for the other most people don't seem to want to know about which meat comes from where. =P
I think we tend to anthromorphise too much. You kick a cat or a dog, and it will react in the way its brain is wired to in order to minimise or stop damage to itself. We then interpret that as pain (a subjective experience) because we are capable of subjective experience, and because if a similar thing happened to us we would experience pain. Does it actually experience pain? Probably, but noone knows.
So, I'll go out of my way to avoid harm to anything that can communicate sentience to me. I'm not gonna go around needlessly killing/harming anything that can't, but I'm not gonna lose too much sleep over whether they live or die. That pretty much applies equally whether I'm taking medicine to kill parasites that make me feel shitty, or whether I'm paying for animals to be raised and slaughtered for meat.
You can call it selfish if you like, but at the end of the day, pretty much everything anyone does it selfish
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
A person who uses their brain and the ability to make conscious choices is, if you consider intelligence a standard, intellectually superior. You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
That's not the same thought at all. I dare you to make a poll here and ask how many people agree with you. Spoiler: no one does. At which point (if you have the balls to take the dare), you'll claim that everyone is uninformed, ignorant and intellectually inferior. Just like in Starcraft: if you see everyone lagging, then it's you who lags.
I also see you ignored my other points, as expected.
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: Since this comparison is something most people refuse to understand, I'll rephrase it for you: "Jews don't have the same rights as human beings. Regardless of the faults of the industry, please don't compare burning them in millions to how we raise our animals; it's beyond ridiculous."
Did you just spend half a minute comparing executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition?
No, he did not just compare executing humans because of their background to consuming animals for nutrition, he just compared killing jews because we dont care about them to killing animals because we dont care about them.
Animals are sentient beings who are conscious, have emotions, and feel pain. Killing them is inhumane and arguing for killing them because you like being ignorant is like arguing for killing jews because you like being ignorant. I can get nutrition from killing and eating humans, yet this is not acceptable because I have other choices.
A family has a pet dog, they love it, and the dog loves them back. The dog runs to the door and wags its tail when then return because it is happy to see them, and so is the family. The family would NEVER consider crushing the dogs puppies at birth because of their gender, and they would NEVER consider cutting the dog open while it was still alive because it's more efficient than spending time and money killing it first. Yet these are some of the practices that happen with other animals, simply because we don't spend any time thinking about other animals. I can love humans, I want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing. I can love animals, and i want to do what I can to prevent them from dieing.
Also, your entire counter to his "I eat meat" and "I hate black people" argument was entirely subjective. Honestly who cares what a TL poll on the subject would say? You're trying to support your argument by saying that you "bet" people would agree with you, instead of actually providing any support for your argument.
You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
Your "circle of life" argument about cattle eating grass is factually incorrect. It has been cited several times in this thread but I'll repeat it for you, it takes more plant matter to raise a cow for eating, than it would take to eat plant matter yourself. An animal does not simply store everything it takes in as meat. Mammals give off heat and excrete waste, these release energy that was obtained from whatever they ate.
Yes, veganism is not the 'ultimate solution' to climate change, but the solution is not "everybody stop using electricity" as you suggest. Because this sounds sarcastic to me, I'll assume you don't really mean it, and therefore you leave us with the choice of doing nothing, but this too seems ineffective at combating climate change. There are many things everyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of beef you eat is one of many things you can do to reduce your impact. Carpooling, recycling, riding a bike, upgrading the efficiency of your home, and purchasing sustainable products, as well as making your voice heard to your local government are all small things that can help.
Regarding your argument against vegans not caring that they kill plant life, this has been addressed REPEATEDLY, but again you incorrectly assume nobody has ever said anything about it. Vegans consider animals to be sentient, conscious beings capable of feeling pain, while plants are not. Therefore plants should be eaten and animals should not, when a lot of people have such an easy choice in what they eat.
Animals deserve many more rights than they currently receive, which is a major reason why some people chose to become vegans.
Diets containing meat are generally easier to maintain in the current western world. But that does not mean it is inherently the best way to eat. In fact, a diet consisting entirely of prepackaged, convenience, processed, and other junk food would EASILY be more available. Actually this the leading causes of death in north america today are due to the current food system. It is imperative that people begin to educate themselves on a healthy diet, and (although they do exist) the argument vegans tend to make is rarely against other forms of eating healthy, but rather simply arguing against the average food people eat today.
There are many cases of professional body builders, weight lifters, olympic and professional athletes who ear vegetarian or vegan. I cannot say what is the "best" method, but I can say that there are many methods available. (Just as an example for protein, chickpeas are very high in protein as well as very low in saturated fat, and low in net carbs)
Anyway, please read a little more and try to perhaps consider that someone who has devoted their life to avoiding an entire food category may likely have done a little research about it, compared to the average person.
because someone does not agree with you and reject your oppinion on a subject does not make that person ignorant. i think none of the people who have been arguing against the view that animals should have similar or the same rights as humans based on them being sentient have shown or pleaded ignorance in their defense... this is such a non-argument i find it weird that you can throw it out there and still try to continue civilised discussion.
the point for me is a simple as this, we treat rocks different from people in practical and theorethical sense, why would we treat them the same in moral sense? it wouldnt really be intuitive to do so. We treat plants different in practical and theoretical sense, why not also in moral sense? Same goes for animals. We treat rubies and bricks different, we treat cacti and pinetrees different, and we treat cats and dogs different. We treat all humans the same in practical and theoretical sense because they are all similar in potential, even though we treat adults different than kids, and sick people different than healthy ones etc. It makes sense to treat them all similar in practice (we send all our kids to get education) it makes sense to treat them similar in theory (neuro-science is not any different for me than it is for you) and we treat everyone similar in moral sense (most moral systems are universal laws that apply to everyone so to speak, this is ofcourse a simplification but it should do). Ofcourse we consider every human individual, as we do every individual dog or plant and even collection of stones (mountains) or individual stones. But we feed a dog like a dog and not like a cat because it is a dog and not a cat... Why would we have moral applications meant and designed for humans transferred to a dog when we would in no other way treat a dog like a man. (I'm aware that some people do see their dogs as companions or even as friends, and that they often imagine the dog to have human qualities or imagine even that the dog understands not just obeys what he is being told, they even give them clothes or let them write books, but even these people I think would admit that dispite all these warm feelings they have, a dog is still not a human).
Now explain to me why it would make sense to treat an animal similar to humans in moral sense when we do not treat it similar in practical and theoretical sense? Also if we give an animal rights, do we also demand of the animals that they fullfill the duties that are attached to these rights? Humans do not just have rights, but duties as well and they are part of the same package. (But i digress now, its besides the point even). One can ofcourse say that we share the common ability to suffer and therefor it would make sense to treat animals the same morally as humans. But we share the common ability to sustain life with plants as well, why do we not treat them the same morally? After we do have a moral code that covers murder, aka ending the ability to sustain life. But we can go further, why do we not also treat rocks similar in moral sense, rocks and humans share the common quality of existing (existing withing the cosmos, the cosmos being the place where everything exists). I agree morals get a bit fuzzy on existing but there is enough metaphysical background for those interested to make for an interesting debate (object orientated onticology for example). But why not ideas? Why should we treat ideas any different than humans when we both share that humans are capable of imagining both? Maybe that is a step too far? But please tell me on what grounds do you draw the line at the ability to suffer and on what grounds is that line any more valid than any line before or after the one you draw? We treat them all different in practical and theoretical sense and application after all.
i can understand very well why people draw the line at the ability to suffer, but to act as if this is something that is inherently moral, evil, good or whatever and not just an arbitrary boundary is something i cannot agree to. drawing the line at human or rational being is also arbitrary, drawing the line at living being is equally so. but if someone can convince me otherwise i will reconsider.
You attacked him for being "judgmental", yet you failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer to "SHOULD WE KILL THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN" He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
That is hardly a fact, besides the epistemological discussion about knowledge, justification, belief, universal laws, causation/corrolation and probability, the discussion on whether there are actually any things as moral facts is not close to being decided. and even if there were facts, the interpretation of these facts might also be of subjective nature and not of objective nature. it is rather dogmatic of you to just make such a bold claim and not back it up. and then even make the bolder claim that you have the right to look down on other people for having different views on you. i have never read any document that mentions this right. or do you think there are such things as universal rights of nature bestowed upon us by the grace of being what? humans? sentient animals? living beings? things in existance? possibilities? you are making so many assumptions here, how can you say for certain that one person is looking for the truth and the other is not? even if one is right and the other is wrong both could be looking for the truth. what you say here shows so much prejudice i do not see how you behave any better than the people you condemn.
vegans are cool, meat eaters are cool, everyones cool, i try not to eat meat as much as i used to because of factory farming, but its a hard thing to stop completely. And I can imagine us in the future looking back on the way we eat animals today with disgust.
On September 22 2012 23:13 Nevermind86 wrote: This thread is inspiring to me from a psychological point of view. There is something about people that makes them self mutilate for moral reasons (is that the only reason?), it used to be about religion back in the days where people preferred not do to anything to not commit any sins that would take them to hell, that same twisted self mutilation, I though, was a thing of the past but it's origins must be biological: Now people self mutilate not to not commit any sins but because they don't agree with the treatment of animals (but support abortion on the basis that a woman should "chose" not to have a baby even when the method to get rid of it it's artificial?), so they chose not to eat anything comming from an animal, the reason seems to be morality again but why should anybody self mutilate because of morals, not eating animal products yourself is not even an efficient way of changing the system but people still insist to go with it and just like with religion they will preach from a holier-than-thou attitude, well not all of the vegans do this, but then again not all religious people do it, but some of the vegans, which is enough for me when it comes to this comparison.
At the end of the day both groups are trying to save the world. I guess this orientation of self-mutilation is quite common, I've seen it in communists with good education who refuse to work high paying professions out of a sense of solidarity with the working class, "as not to exploit them", or rock lovers who refuse to get anywhere close to people that listen rap. What motivates a human being to self-mutilate behind senses of morals?, That is an interesting question, but like I said the answer must be biological because of the similarities, it's like twins who like the same colour without them not knowing each other.
are you really comparing abstaining from eating meat for ethical reasons with self mutilation? Your grammar (or lack thereof) makes it really hard to understand what you are saying. And what does abortion have anything to do with this?
On September 22 2012 18:05 r.Evo wrote: We realized it's an incredibly stupid thing to not give the same rights we have for white rich males to poor people, women, black people, jews. Hundred years before those changes people have brought up the exact same arguments you're making to justify something that can't be justified. We justified killing other humans with "They're just dogs, they don't have the same rights as we do." - Now we say the exact same thing about animals to make us feel better about treating them like shit.
I don't think you need to project your own feelings about animal slaughter onto others.
I agree that it's unnecessary to "treat animals like shit", but that's a bit tangential since there's no need to treat them like shit to raise them and slaughter them for food.
I think everyone has a line between "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible", and all other forms of life. Personally, I draw the line at "creatures that I can relate to (because they can unequivocally communicate sentience)", which means humans only.
I don't think there's a reasonable argument that all life is sacred just for the sake of it. For example, if you got septicaemia, noone in the world would refuse life saving antibiotics simply in order to avoid the genocide of billions of bacteria. Even higher life forms are contentious - parasitic helminths are higher life forms (by which I mean eukaryotes), but they kill millions of people a year. Again I don't think anyone in the world would argue against killing them in an infected person, even if that person's life is not at risk and it's only to make them feel better. And although a cow is bigger and looks more like a human, it is no more capable of communicating sentience than the worm.
So I think it is entirely reasonable to use completely different standards for humans vs other forms of life. If you want to disagree and not eat meat then go right ahead, but having a different opinion doesn't make you any more (or less) right.
Pretty much the only point I disagree is with the line you're drawing for "forms of life that I empathise with and wish to preserve if possible". For me what I need to relate to something on an emotional level is to understand it's responses with my senses. If a dog or cat gets kicked, it will show me that it hurt it. Same goes for pretty much any mammal.
Do you really think that there is nothing besides humans you wish to preserve if possible? I just can't get that attitude at all. Besides that, we'd all be dead if everyone would think like that.
As for how we treat animals, sure it IS possible to raise animals for food without treating them badly. Though for one, probably not in the huge quantities we like to shove meat into us and for the other most people don't seem to want to know about which meat comes from where. =P
I think we tend to anthromorphise too much. You kick a cat or a dog, and it will react in the way its brain is wired to in order to minimise or stop damage to itself. We then interpret that as pain (a subjective experience) because we are capable of subjective experience, and because if a similar thing happened to us we would experience pain. Does it actually experience pain? Probably, but noone knows.
So, I'll go out of my way to avoid harm to anything that can communicate sentience to me. I'm not gonna go around needlessly killing/harming anything that can't, but I'm not gonna lose too much sleep over whether they live or die. That pretty much applies equally whether I'm taking medicine to kill parasites that make me feel shitty, or whether I'm paying for animals to be raised and slaughtered for meat.
You can call it selfish if you like, but at the end of the day, pretty much everything anyone does it selfish
Yeah, I definitely see your point. On another scale it's similar to whether the color red means the same to you as it means to me. =P
On September 22 2012 23:13 Nevermind86 wrote: This thread is inspiring to me from a psychological point of view. There is something about people that makes them self mutilate for moral reasons (is that the only reason?), it used to be about religion back in the days where people preferred not do to anything to not commit any sins that would take them to hell, that same twisted self mutilation, I though, was a thing of the past but it's origins must be biological: Now people self mutilate not to not commit any sins but because they don't agree with the treatment of animals (but support abortion on the basis that a woman should "chose" not to have a baby even when the method to get rid of it it's artificial?), so they chose not to eat anything comming from an animal, the reason seems to be morality again but why should anybody self mutilate because of morals, not eating animal products yourself is not even an efficient way of changing the system but people still insist to go with it and just like with religion they will preach from a holier-than-thou attitude, well not all of the vegans do this, but then again not all religious people do it, but some of the vegans, which is enough for me when it comes to this comparison.
At the end of the day both groups are trying to save the world. I guess this orientation of self-mutilation is quite common, I've seen it in communists with good education who refuse to work high paying professions out of a sense of solidarity with the working class, "as not to exploit them", or rock lovers who refuse to get anywhere close to people that listen rap. What motivates a human being to self-mutilate behind senses of morals?, That is an interesting question, but like I said the answer must be biological because of the similarities, it's like twins who like the same colour without them not knowing each other.
Yeah, I thought about cutting myself on daily basis but decided to not eat meat instead. Can't get rid of those self-mutilating mental disorders easily.
Becoming vegan because of any "lets not hurt animals" point of view is stupid, because we are built to eat meat as well as plants and often enough hypocritical since those people dont try to eradicate cats as well. Cats do play with their food and the mice will have their moments of fear and terror and pain (when they are "half-dead") and thus they prove that all these things are PART OF NATURE.
The thing which we - as responsible human beings - should be against is an UNNECESSARY ABUSE of animals and this includes the "chicken batteries" which are producing our eggs and the cheap mass meat producing methods of our conventional farmers. Too many antibiotics are used in our food production process (especially in fish farms!) just for the sake of profit.
So which meat should we eat? Obviously only the local and biologically produced stuff AND in a reduced amount. That is the only choice which makes sense, since an increase in biologically produced foodstuff will hopefully make conventional producers switch to biological production and thus humanity would improve. This is our job as responsible consumers to form the market instead of "not taking part in the decision making and letting the rest of the idiots destroy the world by their greed". So go biological and convince your producers.
Tell me it isn't a extreme to not eat any food that comes from animals. For biological reasons you are supposed to eat all kinds of food, including fish, eggs, etc. Of course there are good reasons to keep a balanced diet, but vegans seems to me more a group of people that have a political agenda than a group of people that share a particular diet. Their political agenda is clear: They criticize a system that "tortures" animals but that is what carnivores are supposed to do, you have to kill to eat, it is how nature works, so these people claim to like all natural things but ignore the fact that killing other animals for food is natural.
Then some of these vegans started talking about abortion, how it is ethical for a woman to decide not to have a child, which would be unnatural because a procedure must be practiced. This leads me to my next question: What if meat could be produced in tubes through a clonation-like method, just like people were produced in that masterpiece of a book Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, would they start eating meat beause is produced in tubes and no animals were killed? That would be more "civilized" I suppose?
Self-mutilation is depriving of something that you want, going against instincts for no apparent reason other than some sense of morals. Morals are practical to some extent, I think that a sense of morals is something biological, from an evolutionary point of view having morals is good for the species because it brings certain stability that garantees reproduction, fear of commiting rape because of how everybody else would look at you sure existed when all of humanity lived in tribes in Africa, after all we are a social species. Now on to vegans the reason they chose their diet is political or moral if you want to call it that, rather than having a more balanced diet, because a more balanced diet would have to include products that come from animals, it is hypocritical and inefficient because millions of animals die at harvests, crushed by machinery and poisoned by pesticides, so even if you eat vegan millions of animals still die, then the reason is that sense of morality, that same sense of morality that drives communists and feminists to proclaim that if everybody though like they did the world would live in some sort of Utopia. If morals (and I believe this to be true) have a biological origin, a twisted sense of morals could be a twisted biology, that would explain a lot of extremes, extremists are pretty much alike, what changes is the cause, what drives a person to force others to wear a Burqa?, the same reasons that drive a person not to eat milk to not torture cows.
You can feel offended by what I just said and I apologize for that. But sometimes comments have to be raw or they would lack sincerity, if we all lacked sincerity we would all be politicians and that would be not only a terrible world but a very boring one. You can dislike what I said, but you shouldn't ignore it, art it's not supposed to be judged but contemplated, the same can be said I guess to a person's opinions. I don't have anything against vegans, bottom line is they're probably cool people, but still it is a weird moral reason not eating any animal products, a weird extreme worth to look at.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
On September 23 2012 00:13 Nevermind86 wrote: Tell me it isn't a extreme to not eat any food that comes from animals. For biological reasons you are supposed to eat all kinds of food, including fish, eggs, etc. Of course there are good reasons to keep a balanced diet, but vegans seems to me more a group of people that have a political agenda than a group of people that share a particular diet. Their political agenda is clear: They criticize a system that "tortures" animals but that is what carnivores are supposed to do, you have to kill to eat, it is how nature works, so these people claim to like all natural things but ignore the fact that killing other animals for food is natural.
Then some of these vegans started talking about abortion, how it is ethical for a woman to decide not to have a child, which would be unnatural because a procedure must be practiced. This leads me to my next question: What if meat could be produced in tubes through a clonation-like method, just like people were produced in that masterpiece of a book Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, would they start eating meat beause is produced in tubes and no animals were killed? That would be more "civilized" I suppose?
Self-mutilation is depriving of something that you want, going against instincts for no apparent reason other than some sense of morals. Morals are practical to some extent, I think that a sense of morals is something biological, from an evolutionary point of view having morals is good for the species because it brings certain stability that garantees reproduction, fear of commiting rape because of how everybody else would look at you sure existed when all of humanity lived in tribes in Africa, after all we are a social species. Now on to vegans the reason they chose their diet is political or moral if you want to call it that, rather than having a more balanced diet, because a more balanced diet would have to include products that come from animals, it is hypocritical and inefficient because millions of animals die at harvests, crushed by machinery and poisoned by pesticides, so even if you eat vegan millions of animals still die, then the reason is that sense of morality, that same sense of morality that drives communists and feminists to proclaim that if everybody though like they did the world would live in some sort of Utopia. If morals (and I believe this to be true) have a biological origin, a twisted sense of morals could be a twisted biology, that would explain a lot of extremes, extremists are pretty much alike, what changes is the cause, what drives a person to force others to wear a Burqa?, the same reasons that drive a person not to eat milk to not torture cows.
You can feel offended by what I just said and I apologize for that. But sometimes comments have to be raw or they would lack sincerity, if we all lacked sincerity we would all be politicians and that would be not only a terrible world but a very boring one. You can dislike what I said, but you shouldn't ignore it, art it's not supposed to be judged but contemplated, the same can be said I guess to a person's opinions. I don't have anything against vegans, bottom line is they're probably cool people, but still it is a weird moral reason not eating any animal products, a weird extreme worth to look at.
Your basic points are: -Humans are carnivores. -You have to kill things to get food. -Carnivores are supposed to torture their future food. -Not eating meat equals self-mutilation. -Not choosing to support a certain product or method of production has zero influence on supply and demand. -The reasons to wear a Burqua are the same that drive a person who chooses to not eat milk because the production method equals torture in their opinion.
I'm not sure what you want to hear besides: "All those points are utter bullshit." - They make no sense and there is no possible backup for them. I'd usually say "If you can give me reasonable backup I can probably see your point", but those things are simply impossible to backup. A basic wikipedia/google search alone makes all of those arguments look pretty damn bad.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
Oh, so instead of the "all humans are cannibals/meat eaters" you mean the point about all vegetarians wanting their food to taste like meat? I don't want my tofu to taste like meat. And yes, I do in fact dislike the taste of cow/beef/chicken meat nowadays.
Wait, no, you mean the valid point about how eating bread is much more unethical than eating a cow because it's killing more bugs and micro-organisms?
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
instead of responding to a troll article perhaps respond to something that atleast was intended to be serious, wether you agree or not. dont feed the troll i thought was common sense, whether you are vegan or not
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:44 Asmodeusx wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:44 Asmodeusx wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:44 Asmodeusx wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:24 kmillz wrote: Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
"1) You aren’t saving the lives of animals
I get it. You don’t like it when the heads of baby cows and pigs are chopped off, but do you really think eating that tofu burger is saving lives.
Fruits, vegetables, and grains are a staple among vegetarian diets, but did you know that millions of animals die just so you can enjoy that piece of bread? Eating foods like grains means destroying ecosystems and all of its inhabitants. It means killing all the little animals, birds, bugs, and microorganisms that live among the fields.
Do you know how many little animals and microorganisms die when farmers use machines to plow through wheat fields? The answer is a lot more than 1 cow.
As cheesy as it sounds, everything in life requires sacrifice. Animals are killed to get meat and ecosystems are destroyed to get grains. So the next time I’m eating a steak, don’t you dare judge me for killing a cow. 2) There is absolutely zero scientific proof showing that going vegetarian is healthy
When I want to believe something, I need proof. I need definite scientific proof.
And no, proof doesn’t mean reading a quote in Shape or MensHealth magazine. In order to convince me about anything I need to see a scientific study that shows causation not correlation.
For example, eating less food will make you loss weight. This is a stone cold fact that will remain true no matter what.
However, there is absolutely ZERO proof showing that going vegetarian will decrease your risk of heart disease, cancer, or whatever nasty stuff you can think of.
The only thing we have are thousands of studies showing a correlation between an increased risk of disease and an increase in meat consumption. We have studies that conclude that eating meat “may increase” your risk of heart disease, but this doesn’t mean crap. It’s inconclusive and doesn’t prove anything. Saying that your risk of heart disease “may increase” from eating red meat is like saying you “may” be able to breath fire if you eat enough jalapenos.
And yes, before you get all crazy on me, I have read the China Study a.k.a the vegetarian’s wet dream. For those who don’t know, the China Study was a big study conducted by Dr. Campbell who basically concluded that meat is killer.
While the China Study garnered a ton of media attention a couple years ago, it is also an incredibly flawed study despite it’s massive scale. But talking about all the flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and basically debunked every single aspect of it.
People need to stop believing the mainstream media, and need to start looking at the actual research and facts.
[The leaders of anti-vegetarians] 3) You don’t get to eat meat
I know this is a bit obvious, but being a vegetarian means that you don’t get to eat meat. EVER. That means no steak, bacon, horse, or BBQ ribs. The closest thing you’ll ever get to meat is some glued together crap made of wheat and soy.
And please, don’t tell me that your veggie burger tastes better than my double bacon cheeseburger, okay? Don’t tell me “Oh, but it tastes just like the real thing.” No it doesn’t, you rationalizing crazy person. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, a piece of tofu will never taste as good as a greasy piece of beef.
So if vegetarians are so concerned about their health, then why do they opt for highly processed foods likes breads and cereals that are not found in nature as opposed to real animal meat which has been around since…. forever. It makes no freakin sense. 4) Vegetarians are actually eating animals without knowing it!
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
Forget the stupid dead animal shit. Forget the arguement about taste. Even forget the health part. I posted the article because I thought it was funny, the main point I wanted to highlight is this:
Do you deny that farming vegetables kills animals?
If so, maybe you should read this article about "Why being vegetarian can kill more animals than eating meat"
Basically what I am saying is that refusing to eat animals or animal products simply is not going to reduce the amount of animals that are being killed. I would argue that the best way to approach "stopping animals from mistreatment" (which seems to be the primary concern of vegans) is to raise awareness and gathering support for a political agenda aimed at stricter regulations on the process through which animals are converted into food, stricter penalties for being cruel or tortorous to animals, etc..
Considering what we are, and where we come from; The whole vegan approach should be interpreted from a psychiatric angle. It involves more denial and reverse rationalization than your average religious fanatic could come up with. If anything, I'm glad I'm not slave to such a half-measure lifestyle (it's like using a smaller engine to save oil, lol).
I only eat meat from local farms...none of that factory-farm meat; I refuse to support that. If one wants to eat vegan/vegetarian, that's great, but I despise this "holier-than-thou" attitude many vegans/vegetarians seem to have. Humans are omnivores like it or not, but if one simply does not like meat, that's perfectly acceptable.
On September 23 2012 03:26 tMomiji wrote: I only eat meat from local farms...none of that factory-farm meat; I refuse to support that. If one wants to eat vegan/vegetarian, that's great, but I despise this "holier-than-thou" attitude many vegans/vegetarians seem to have. Humans are omnivores like it or not, but if one simply does not like meat, that's perfectly acceptable.
^^this I respect.
On September 23 2012 03:09 Demand2k wrote: Considering what we are, and where we come from; The whole vegan approach should be interpreted from a psychiatric angle. It involves more denial and reverse rationalization than your average religious fanatic could come up with. If anything, I'm glad I'm not slave to such a half-measure lifestyle (it's like using a smaller engine to save oil, lol).
A lot of times this is their argument (not ok with killing animal etc...). Not many use physiological argument as this is harder to maintain a stance on.
edit: "3.There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants."
Incorrect: Protein has a lesser quality in plants than meats. Fact. Fat is virtually not found in plants but yet is it is used and needed for proper body function (brain, thermo regulation, etc...)
On September 23 2012 01:44 Asmodeusx wrote: [quote]
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:44 Asmodeusx wrote: [quote]
You're being a fool by arguing against group of people who don't have a unified set of rules. Your points will be correct in argument's with some vegetarians and incorrect with others. That makes your emotional response pretty useless.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
Forget the stupid dead animal shit. Forget the arguement about taste. Even forget the health part. I posted the article because I thought it was funny, the main point I wanted to highlight is this:
Do you deny that farming vegetables kills animals?
If so, maybe you should read this article about "Why being vegetarian can kill more animals than eating meat"
Basically what I am saying is that refusing to eat animals or animal products simply is not going to reduce the amount of animals that are being killed. I would argue that the best way to approach "stopping animals from mistreatment" (which seems to be the primary concern of vegans) is to raise awareness and gathering support for a political agenda aimed at stricter regulations on the process through which animals are converted into food, stricter penalties for being cruel or tortorous to animals, etc..
The entire premise of the article you linked talks about vegetarians, and examines the case where a vegetarian replaces their meat protein intake with eggs. Rather more specific than the conclusion you draw from it.
I read your argument as "there is a chance that vegetarians/vegans could cause more animal suffering/death than omnivores, therefore the idea of becoming a vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons is wrong". If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to disagree - I think when it is impossible to predict the outcome of an individual's actions, the intention alone is enough to make the decision reasonable (even if the outcome is the same or even worse).
Someone may become a vegan because they intend to reduce animal deaths. Even if they inadvertently increase animal deaths, 1) they cannot possibly know that and 2) if they are ethically comfortable because of the intention then isn't that mission accomplished?
I'd liken it to a doctor giving blood transfusions. Obviously the intention is to make someone better, but every now and then he is going to kill someone who was otherwise going to be absolutely fine if he'd done nothing. That doesn't make it useless or harmful to give transfusions.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote: [quote]
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
Forget the stupid dead animal shit. Forget the arguement about taste. Even forget the health part. I posted the article because I thought it was funny, the main point I wanted to highlight is this:
Do you deny that farming vegetables kills animals?
If so, maybe you should read this article about "Why being vegetarian can kill more animals than eating meat"
Basically what I am saying is that refusing to eat animals or animal products simply is not going to reduce the amount of animals that are being killed. I would argue that the best way to approach "stopping animals from mistreatment" (which seems to be the primary concern of vegans) is to raise awareness and gathering support for a political agenda aimed at stricter regulations on the process through which animals are converted into food, stricter penalties for being cruel or tortorous to animals, etc..
The entire premise of the article you linked talks about vegetarians, and examines the case where a vegetarian replaces their meat protein intake with eggs. Rather more specific than the conclusion you draw from it.
I read your argument as "there is a chance that vegetarians/vegans could cause more animal suffering/death than omnivores, therefore the idea of becoming a vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons is wrong". If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to disagree - I think when it is impossible to predict the outcome of an individual's actions, the intention alone is enough to make the decision reasonable (even if the outcome is the same or even worse).
Someone may become a vegan because they intend to reduce animal deaths. Even if they inadvertently increase animal deaths, 1) they cannot possibly know that and 2) if they are ethically comfortable because of the intention then isn't that mission accomplished?
I'd liken it to a doctor giving blood transfusions. Obviously the intention is to make someone better, but every now and then he is going to kill someone who was otherwise going to be absolutely fine if he'd done nothing. That doesn't make it useless or harmful to give transfusions.
What? I'm pretty sure you only get a blood transfusion when you need one...
Also I think it's pretty funny that the Vegans have dropped the whole psuedoscience approach in favor of the guilt approach.
I see a bumper sticker on occasion that says something to the effect of "Respect all life, go vegan". The irony in this statement can't really be lost on everyone, can it?
The fact that most humans empathize more with certain organisms - their own kind, or those with similar features and emotions - seems like a pretty simplistic way of ranking their value. You discard countless generations of strange and unique microscopic organisms every time you turn the thermostat. Every time you eat cooked food, take a shower, brush your teeth. We kill innumerable amounts of rodents, birds, insects, and competing "weeds" just to satisfy the agricultural output necessary to feed ourselves. You may choose to swat an insect because it stings you, or sit on it accidentally on a bench. You eat other organisms and kill, regardless of your desires, because it is the nature of existence to do so.
I think the main concern should be for environmental damage from things like overfishing and meat production's toxic run-off. Some people will say that agriculture is more responsible for these things than the meat industry, but in reality most of the land for agriculture is used to produce grains that feed animals (corn&soy) and transform ecosystems into pasture/range for cows to live chemically safe in their own filth. It's a shame that agricultural development is partner in crime to the meat industry's ambitions, and that you can't save the world or yourself by simply eating a vegan diet. I think it would be nice if we could design a system that both feeds us more effectively and minimizes the burden on our fellow inhabitants of the planet. Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, it does us no benefit to wipe out species we haven't studied very well when the very very few species we have studied are IMMENSELY valuable to our fight against disease, hunger, and other factors to early death.
Something to be considered is that new research shows that plants can think just like animals/humans can. So when you think about it when you're uprooting a plant to eat it, it would be feeling as much pain as if we were being killed.
On September 23 2012 04:35 Psychonian wrote: Something to be considered is that new research shows that plants can think just like animals/humans can. So when you think about it when you're uprooting a plant to eat it, it would be feeling as much pain as if we were being killed.
On September 22 2012 10:10 Lucy1nTheSky wrote: If health were the only motivating factor behind my decision, I do not know if i would still be vegan, because i also believe that optimal health may be achieved with a diet that includes animal products. The main 2 reasons for my continued veganism are sustainability and the evolution of consciousness.
Have you developed any ethical motivation for staying vegan? Is that the same for you as "evolution of consciousness"?
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:54 kmillz wrote: [quote]
You're being a fool for ignoring my first sentence (and obviously the parts in the article which state exactly which rules they are referring too), it is specifically targetted at those who choose to be a vegan for ethical reasons (those morally opposed to harming animals if you need me to be even more specific) and those who choose to be vegan because they think it is a superior diet for health reasons.
If you actually read the article it also notes at the top:
"Note: This post is not meant to target those who are vegetarians for religious reasons or those who are vegetarians because they have some chronic disease that doesn’t allow them to eat meat. Instead, I’m targeting every single idiot out there who is a vegetarian for reasons like animal cruelty and health benefits."
You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
Forget the stupid dead animal shit. Forget the arguement about taste. Even forget the health part. I posted the article because I thought it was funny, the main point I wanted to highlight is this:
Do you deny that farming vegetables kills animals?
If so, maybe you should read this article about "Why being vegetarian can kill more animals than eating meat"
Basically what I am saying is that refusing to eat animals or animal products simply is not going to reduce the amount of animals that are being killed. I would argue that the best way to approach "stopping animals from mistreatment" (which seems to be the primary concern of vegans) is to raise awareness and gathering support for a political agenda aimed at stricter regulations on the process through which animals are converted into food, stricter penalties for being cruel or tortorous to animals, etc..
The entire premise of the article you linked talks about vegetarians, and examines the case where a vegetarian replaces their meat protein intake with eggs. Rather more specific than the conclusion you draw from it.
I read your argument as "there is a chance that vegetarians/vegans could cause more animal suffering/death than omnivores, therefore the idea of becoming a vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons is wrong". If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to disagree - I think when it is impossible to predict the outcome of an individual's actions, the intention alone is enough to make the decision reasonable (even if the outcome is the same or even worse).
Someone may become a vegan because they intend to reduce animal deaths. Even if they inadvertently increase animal deaths, 1) they cannot possibly know that and 2) if they are ethically comfortable because of the intention then isn't that mission accomplished?
I'd liken it to a doctor giving blood transfusions. Obviously the intention is to make someone better, but every now and then he is going to kill someone who was otherwise going to be absolutely fine if he'd done nothing. That doesn't make it useless or harmful to give transfusions.
So basically what you are saying, if a person eats food that comes from animals, that is only ok up until they learns it comes from animals and that eating things coming from animals is wrong, then it must stop eating all animal products until it learns that all non-animal products inadvertently cause animal deaths too, then either the person must not eat anything and die or eat whatever the fuck they want.
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
It's crazy how happy and content I am with my life, after "Scourging myself" every freaking day, man, maybe we should scourge more people!
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're right. People who don't eat meat would love to eat meat but force them to not do it because of strictly moral and ethical reasons.
Having to restrain myself from punching stupid people in the face out of strictly moral and ethical reasons brings me much more suffering than not eating meat. In fact, I'm actually pretty damn happy with the latter.
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
it's brought up constantly because it still holds true. If it's (only) about pain and the ability to suffer vegans should be perfectly fine with eating animals as long as they're treated correctly and don't suffer; e.g. narcotized when being killed + a "normal" life. Some people in here seem to agree with that, some people think it's even wrong to eat a cow that grew up on a farm, having a "normal" (probably fictional as well because those rarely exist^^) life. I totally agree it's a shame how animals are treated nowadays and it should change but you can improve that without telling people to stop eating meat in general. It's not about "producing" animals for the sole purpose of being eaten (some day) either for reasons already brought up.
It's a purely cultural / personal thing without any reasoning behind it besides "i don't want animals to suffer", which again, I agree with, but the approach is just bullshit from my point of view. Of course you can stop eating meat if you think having meat without animal suffering is impossible to begin with and consider any other approach to be utopian.
Edit: Obviously I did not go into reasons like people who have to go vegan for various reasons and don't have an option.
This thread sported a lot of top end intellectual performances. I went to the whole thread again to save them for other readers who didn't went through the whole thing, but still want to enjoy all the highlights. And here they are:
PS: Some of these thoughts might be trolling, hard to tell if all the posters were actually serious.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
[/QUOTE]
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.[/QUOTE]
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry. [/QUOTE]
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows. [/QUOTE]
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place.[/QUOTE]
HOW can you compare human brain and dog brain? Or any other animal brain, for that matter? Human brain weight around 1.5 kg, thats dozens, hundred times more than animal brains. Noone can say for sure how any animal realizes this world simply because humans are only ones who can think.
There was a chicken who lived a year or two without a head. Look it up, i think there was an article about it in "Times" (somewhere in 1930-s). [/QUOTE]
Show me how to eat a carrot without killing it. [/QUOTE]
Being vegan just makes you better than most people.[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:
we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.
would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves.[/QUOTE]
You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.[/QUOTE]
He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. [/QUOTE]
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what." [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't go full vegetarian, but I do believe in moderation. People who only eat meat and are picky with their veggies will suffer in the long run. No meat seems to extreme for me
In an effort to save money, I eat cheap- meat is expensive, but so are many vegan 'alernative' meals. I don't go out of my way to eat in any particular way.
I eat for what I am doing. For example if I know I'm running a 10K, I'll eat pasta the night before.
I try to avoid all extremes when it comes to my diet.
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're right. People who don't eat meat would love to eat meat but force them to not do it because of strictly moral and ethical reasons.
Having to restrain myself from punching stupid people in the face out of strictly moral and ethical reasons brings me much more suffering than not eating meat. In fact, I'm actually pretty damn happy with the latter.
I never even said I agreed with his statement, I was just clarifying his reasoning for BlueBird. It's really funny though how worked up you all get over the fact that not everyone shares your morals and values. The whole zealousy and fanaticism that goes along with Vegans really turns me off.
On September 23 2012 05:22 AngryMag wrote: This thread sported a lot of top end intellectual performances. I went to the whole thread again to save them for other readers who didn't went through the whole thing, but still want to enjoy all the highlights. And here they are:
PS: Some of these thoughts might be trolling, hard to tell if all the posters were actually serious.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place
HOW can you compare human brain and dog brain? Or any other animal brain, for that matter? Human brain weight around 1.5 kg, thats dozens, hundred times more than animal brains. Noone can say for sure how any animal realizes this world simply because humans are only ones who can think.
There was a chicken who lived a year or two without a head. Look it up, i think there was an article about it in "Times" (somewhere in 1930-s).
Show me how to eat a carrot without killing it.
Being vegan just makes you better than most people.
Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:
we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.
would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves
You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
some of them are really funny XD sadly half of them atleast were meant seriously
even more sad is that the more eloquent posts are just ignored and get lost between biggots calling each other biggots and trolls calling everyone else stupid.
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote: [quote] You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
It might be a trolling article but it still has valid points that you have yet to refute.
I haven't done anything
On September 23 2012 02:10 r.Evo wrote:
On September 23 2012 02:02 Djzapz wrote:
On September 23 2012 01:58 r.Evo wrote: [quote] You're taking an article which uses "LOLOL YOU ALL EAT DEAD HUMANS OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALL CANNIBALS" as one of his arguments to point out that a certain group of people are idiots?
Cool point.
So what's the problem with that?
You don't think the statement "Every human is a cannibal because he eats stuff that grew on dead bodies at one point" is a pretty stupid one? Last time I checked you had to eat a human to be a cannibal. That's why we don't call everyone one even though pretty much all molecules in his food have belonged to a living organism at one point.
So how come if calling everyone a cannibal is stupid but calling everyone someone who eats dead animals isn't? Please tell me.
That's a mess. Seems like people are saying stupid things and I don't know what's going on
lol. You sound confused. Quote from the article with "lots of valid points":
This past summer, I took a Biology 101 class at a community college to fulfill some general education requirements for my degree. While the class was a complete waste of my time and I pretty much bull-shitted my way through it, I did learn something quite interesting.
I learned about the food web, which is basically description of “who eats who” in the environment.
It goes something like this:
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
tl;dr: Even if you're not a cannibal you're technically eating dead humans, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. Which is, sorry, pretty damn stupid.
But didn't the guy argue against that silly argument?
Which guy? The one in the thread who quoted the article? No.
Funny article about why being a vegan for ethical reasons is completely stupid, as well as highlighting why it doesn't make you healthier than non-vegans.
The one writing the article? No, it's his reasoning for how it's impossible to not eat meat which means all vegetarians are hypocrites.
Also, yeah. The guy talking about troll articles wins. qq. t.t
Forget the stupid dead animal shit. Forget the arguement about taste. Even forget the health part. I posted the article because I thought it was funny, the main point I wanted to highlight is this:
Do you deny that farming vegetables kills animals?
If so, maybe you should read this article about "Why being vegetarian can kill more animals than eating meat"
Basically what I am saying is that refusing to eat animals or animal products simply is not going to reduce the amount of animals that are being killed. I would argue that the best way to approach "stopping animals from mistreatment" (which seems to be the primary concern of vegans) is to raise awareness and gathering support for a political agenda aimed at stricter regulations on the process through which animals are converted into food, stricter penalties for being cruel or tortorous to animals, etc..
The entire premise of the article you linked talks about vegetarians, and examines the case where a vegetarian replaces their meat protein intake with eggs. Rather more specific than the conclusion you draw from it.
I read your argument as "there is a chance that vegetarians/vegans could cause more animal suffering/death than omnivores, therefore the idea of becoming a vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons is wrong". If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to disagree - I think when it is impossible to predict the outcome of an individual's actions, the intention alone is enough to make the decision reasonable (even if the outcome is the same or even worse).
Someone may become a vegan because they intend to reduce animal deaths. Even if they inadvertently increase animal deaths, 1) they cannot possibly know that and 2) if they are ethically comfortable because of the intention then isn't that mission accomplished?
I'd liken it to a doctor giving blood transfusions. Obviously the intention is to make someone better, but every now and then he is going to kill someone who was otherwise going to be absolutely fine if he'd done nothing. That doesn't make it useless or harmful to give transfusions.
So basically what you are saying, if a person eats food that comes from animals, that is only ok up until they learns it comes from animals and that eating things coming from animals is wrong, then it must stop eating all animal products until it learns that all non-animal products inadvertently cause animal deaths too, then either the person must not eat anything and die or eat whatever the fuck they want.
No. If we say that veganism may reduce or increase animal suffering: since it's not possible for any vegan to know whether their own, personal eating habits are harming animals, it is never necessary for an "ethical vegan" to stop eating meat.
It is only necessary (and possibly sufficient) for them to be satisfied that their actions will, on average, reduce animal suffering (if that is indeed their goal).
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're right. People who don't eat meat would love to eat meat but force them to not do it because of strictly moral and ethical reasons.
Having to restrain myself from punching stupid people in the face out of strictly moral and ethical reasons brings me much more suffering than not eating meat. In fact, I'm actually pretty damn happy with the latter.
I never even said I agreed with his statement, I was just clarifying his reasoning for BlueBird. It's really funny though how worked up you all get over the fact that not everyone shares your morals and values. The whole zealousy and fanaticism that goes along with Vegans really turns me off.
Did you ever think about why people might react "zealous" or "fanatic" or "worked up" if you claim that their eating habits are on the same level as cutting themselves? OBVIOUSLY a statement like that when it comes to simply "not eating meat" gets a negative response equal to the statements bullshit-factor.
Let me dispute some of the 8 principles the book listed.
1.Nutrition represents the combined activities of countless food substances. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. -Same concept as physiology of all organisms, makes sense.
2.Vitamin supplements are not a panacea for good health. -This is obviously true. Vitamins are just a fraction of compounds your body utilizes
3.There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants. -If this book explicitedly says this, then I suggest you buy another nutrition book. No plant-based protein has a better ratio of essential amino acids than animal counterparts, thereby making animal protein more efficient (aka high quality). And have they no idea of B12 deficiency that affects 12 out of 13 vegetarians? The small amount of folate naturally occurring in plant based food does not get absorbed much. And what about iron...... don't even get me started on iron. How could anyone say that plants provide these nutrients "better" when it is universally recognized as otherwise?
4.Genes do not determine disease on their own. Genes function only by being activated, or expressed, and nutrition plays a critical role in determining which genes, good and bad, are expressed. -What about cytogenetic diseases? Teratogenic diseases? Are you saying hereditary conditions and mutagenic diseases can be cured by eating certain types of food which will "shut off" some genes? This is preposterous. Mutagens are remediated through the actions of antioxidants (which obviously come from food) but that has nothing to do with genes, it has to do with maintaining balance between oxidative and reductive reactions going on in your body. Genes do affect the individual's tendency to develop mutations or their rate of DNA repairs, but how could you say food can turn this function off? Unless you are completely starving yourself and depriving the body the essential building blocks (e.g. amino acids), many genes in your body are expressed all the time. There is no "shut down" button, not always. Bottom line, Food is a factor, genes are another factor, but you cannot integrate these two variables into one and assume that food is a control center for gene expression. This is only partially true, for genes that are regulated by compounds that are provided by food, rather than synthesized by your own body.
5.Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals. -True. Antioxidants
6.The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages. -Watch out for the wording. "Can?" This statement is useless to me because I can also say that I "can" win the lottery jackpot. It does not imply it'll happen. Many diseases that affect cells in your body multiply too quickly, that there is no "reversing" the cancer in later stages. No matter how much tomatoes and broccolli you eat, it won't happen.
7.Nutrition that is truly beneficial for one chronic disease will support health across the board. -Idiotic, false statement. If you have gout, it's in your best interest to limit purine intakes. When you do that, you might feel better because uric acid formation is decreased. But did limiting purine intakes improve your general health? No, just your gout. It's true you'll generally "feel" better as a whole person because gout is gone, but that does not mean your other body functions have improved. Purines are important components of your DNA, so how the hell does limiting the supply of these nitrogen compounds supposed to improve your overall health, other than the one condition which is affected by dietary purine levels?
8.Good nutrition creates health in all areas of our existence. All parts are interconnected. =)
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're right. People who don't eat meat would love to eat meat but force them to not do it because of strictly moral and ethical reasons.
Having to restrain myself from punching stupid people in the face out of strictly moral and ethical reasons brings me much more suffering than not eating meat. In fact, I'm actually pretty damn happy with the latter.
I never even said I agreed with his statement, I was just clarifying his reasoning for BlueBird. It's really funny though how worked up you all get over the fact that not everyone shares your morals and values. The whole zealousy and fanaticism that goes along with Vegans really turns me off.
Did you ever think about why people might react "zealous" or "fanatic" or "worked up" if you claim that their eating habits are on the same level as cutting themselves? OBVIOUSLY a statement like that when it comes to simply "not eating meat" gets a negative response equal to the statements bullshit-factor.
why dont you adress the problem at heart, why is drawing the line at boundary A better or worse than at boundary B (or C or D etc) and on what grounds can we justify making such a claim that A is better or worse than B and who decides wether A is better or worse than B and why?
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
And, just to get it out of my system, the people making a comparsion between meat in any way and the holocaust, are you really that idiotic, or is it just because of the anonymity of the internet? Im asking you that as a german btw, are you really that stupid?
This is awesome. Someone obviously took an ecology class. It's all about the retarded wastage of water.
And, even though it will be overlooked within 3 pages, as everything is on a forum... Vegan is no animal products. No butter or dairy or fats. Anything at all... even eggs. My wife pulled it off for 3 years, but now is just a vegetarian. She does allow dairy and egg.
On top of ALL the things you listed, Factory Farmed meat is just trash. All the additives and antibiotics and steroids and the crappy food they are forced to eat... all the fat because they aren't allowed to move... its 30X worse for you than natrual meat would be.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
And, just to get it out of my system, the people making a comparsion between meat in any way and the holocaust, are you really that idiotic, or is it just because of the anonymity of the internet? Im asking you that as a german btw, are you really that stupid?
This is awesome. Someone obviously took an ecology class. It's all about the retarded wastage of water.
And, even though it will be overlooked within 3 pages, as everything is on a forum... Vegan is no animal products. No butter or dairy or fats. Anything at all... even eggs. My wife pulled it off for 3 years, but now is just a vegetarian. She does allow dairy and egg.
On top of ALL the things you listed, Factory Farmed meat is just trash. All the additives and antibiotics and steroids and the crappy food they are forced to eat... all the fat because they aren't allowed to move... its 30X worse for you than natrual meat would be.
Nah, i did not take an ecology class, thats actually common knowledge (at least i hope).
About the other sentences, i dont even know where i listed things, and talked about quality of meat and stuff. And thanks for quoting something that i posted in a heat of the moment and edited out after a minute, ninja. -.-"
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants that would otherwise be used for human consumption.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
On September 23 2012 09:20 FraCuS wrote: What's your opinion on a seafood and vegan diet? Pescatarian?
I think its healthy. Im not a huge fan of fish (except salmon), so sadly thats not for me, but i actually could consider a diet based on fish as protein, if there is a fish that tastes good enough (for my taste).
And, im sorry, i dont have any ethical problems with eating fish or meat, so i guess i cant give the answer you wanted. :/
On September 23 2012 09:20 FraCuS wrote: What's your opinion on a seafood and vegan diet? Pescatarian?
I think its healthy. Im not a huge fan of fish (except salmon), so sadly thats not for me, but i actually could consider a diet based on fish as protein, if there is a fish that tastes good enough (for my taste).
On September 23 2012 09:20 FraCuS wrote: What's your opinion on a seafood and vegan diet? Pescatarian?
I think its healthy. Im not a huge fan of fish (except salmon), so sadly thats not for me, but i actually could consider a diet based on fish as protein, if there is a fish that tastes good enough (for my taste).
grouper? snapper? none of those appeal?
I never had snapper, grouper (having kinda a language-barrier here, grouper is a "Zackenbarsch", i ate a Barsch before, but not a Zackenbarsch) is not for me. But snapper is 40-50€ per kg here, so thats too expensive for me on a "daily" basis. I actually decided to order some for next Friday, just to try it out (as a "treat" to myself) - but as i said, dont know the prices where you live, over here its a luxury-fish.
Edit: or better: to me its a luxury-fish, not a "bread and butter" thing.
the only reason eating animal products is unethical is when those products come from mistreated animals. as for the health aspect; vegetarian burgers have just as much superfluous bullshit as regular ones youd buy at the store. i eat tons of meat and im one of the healthiest people i know. you just need a balanced diet, a reasonable amount of excercise and meat that hasnt been grown in some lab.make friends with a farmer.not a feed lot owner. a farmer. i think people need to pay more attention to where their meat comes from, and less about whether eating it is ethical or healthy, which it IS if you do it sensibly; imo. my food poops on your food <3
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
On September 23 2012 09:20 FraCuS wrote: What's your opinion on a seafood and vegan diet? Pescatarian?
I think its healthy. Im not a huge fan of fish (except salmon), so sadly thats not for me, but i actually could consider a diet based on fish as protein, if there is a fish that tastes good enough (for my taste).
grouper? snapper? none of those appeal?
I never had snapper, grouper (having kinda a language-barrier here, grouper is a "Zackenbarsch", i ate a Barsch before, but not a Zackenbarsch) is not for me. But snapper is 40-50€ per kg here, so thats too expensive for me on a "daily" basis. I actually decided to order some for next Friday, just to try it out (as a "treat" to myself) - but as i said, dont know the prices where you live, over here its a luxury-fish.
Edit: or better: to me its a luxury-fish, not a "bread and butter" thing.
Whoops, completely missed your context xD. Again, I apologize. I live near the gulf so technically we can fish them quite easily. They are delicacies. Anyway my point is you don't like fish a whole lot but have you tried the different types available cheaply (they are quite delicious especially the white meat although the bones are annoying) when cooked properly (grilled with assorted veggies) etc...
I do want to note on topic that fish diet is a wee bit dangerous as the mercury lvl is something you need to worry about. It is rare to find fish in clean water now days. pescatarian people need to watch their health much more and imo its not worth it.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
On September 23 2012 10:34 Toasterbaked wrote: I might understand why people turn vegans in concern for the environment, but I don't understand the people who are vegans in concern of the animals.
you know there are 30 pages here of excellent arguments both for and against eating meat, perhaps you might try reading a little bit...
I eat meat. If you asked me to ethically defend eating meat, I really couldn't. Obviously I don't enjoy harming living things, as I'm sure the majority of the people in this thread don't. Having it done out of sight and out of mind isnt an ethical solution, and I definitely think it's good for people to be well educated on what actually goes into meat production. I doubt anyone in this thread would be against more humane and compassionate regulations in the meat industry, it's something that meat eaters and vegans alike should push for.
It all comes down to health. It's possible to live a healthy life as a vegan or vegetarian, no doubt, but the same goes for a balanced diet. And in that context, its much easier to get complete and balanced nutrition when meat is included. I honestly think the morality argument is just inconsequential here. Agriculture destroys swaths of natural habitats, annihilates ecosystems, causes death to countless animals and is plausibly actually worse for our planet than meat production is. Regulation and progession needs to be pursued on both sides of the fence here.
All that said, synthetic meat is in the process of becoming a reality, and I do think we'd have an ethical obligation to switch to such a practice once it becomes feasible. Limiting the suffering of our fellow creatures is an admirable goal and we should definitely take all the steps we can to limit it, with synthetic meat being the end goal.
It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
On September 23 2012 14:25 erin[go]bragh wrote: I eat meat. If you asked me to ethically defend eating meat, I really couldn't. Obviously I don't enjoy harming living things, as I'm sure the majority of the people in this thread don't. Having it done out of sight and out of mind isnt an ethical solution, and I definitely think it's good for people to be well educated on what actually goes into meat production. I doubt anyone in this thread would be against more humane and compassionate regulations in the meat industry, it's something that meat eaters and vegans alike should push for.
It all comes down to health. It's possible to live a healthy life as a vegan or vegetarian, no doubt, but the same goes for a balanced diet. And in that context, its much easier to get complete and balanced nutrition when meat is included. I honestly think the morality argument is just inconsequential here. Agriculture destroys swaths of natural habitats, annihilates ecosystems, causes death to countless animals and is plausibly actually worse for our planet than meat production is. Regulation and progession needs to be pursued on both sides of the fence here.
All that said, synthetic meat is in the process of becoming a reality, and I do think we'd have an ethical obligation to switch to such a practice once it becomes feasible. Limiting the suffering of our fellow creatures is an admirable goal and we should definitely take all the steps we can to limit it, with synthetic meat being the end goal.
A lot of meat eaters might like regulation in theory, sure it's more humane and doesn't that sound wonderful that the farm animal might actually see sunlight, or might be able to turn around one time during it's life(McDonalds won't be updating gestation crates until 2017 in the U.S, these aren't illegal in the U.S in 47 states, it's just getting bad press for all the big fast food places.. look them up.. they are BANNED in Sweden and the U.K. as well as California, Arizona and Florida).. but in reality the companies that produce the meat defend against regulations and the people eating meat defend against the regulations when it actually comes down to it, saying it would drive up prices crazily if even half of what animal rights activists lobbied for were passed, and it truly would.. . I am sure many of the meat eaters posting would be upset if all of a sudden they can only eat meat once in blue moon, or if as a poor student it was something you could no longer afford ever. You simply could not keep up with current demands if what I as an activist would demand for the animals(personally I wouldn't want anyone to eat an animal, but I feel that will come in time as our society learns and grows, can't force it on people, doesn't mean i can't protect those innocents being slaughtered by the millions though)
So regulation is a long slow hard grind... and sometimes even reversed when you get more people in office that are in the pockets of the companies. You see the same thing on the agricultural side with subsidies, regulations and crap. You get some regulations put down that do some good and then four years later someone else takes office who is in the pocket of the industry and repeals them in the name of smaller government and making money. Basically it's not just about whats best to make the animals happy otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I had the pleasure of meeting Wayne Pacelle, who is the President of The Humane Society, and he lobbies in D.C. for regulations, and I for one would not want to switch shoes with him. He tries very hard and only makes small hard steps when we need giant leaps.
And as far as America is concerned we are all about our profits, fines for not meeting the regulation might even be cheaper sometimes then doing something like changing killing methods, or increasing "pen sizes", if it nets you more profit overall, and your still allowed to move your product, then people do it... Some companies have been fined and cited multiple times before changing something.
I completely agree we need to regulate agriculture a lot, and we need to find sustainable ways to do things without harming the planet, that is a great idea, and I am all on board with it. I've been hearing a lot about synthetic meat, but I've heard a lot of meat eaters and vegans say they aren't willing to eat it for various reasons. Maybe it's just cause it's new and people are scared of change.
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
Simple question for you: what is the purpose of your post? What are you trying to achieve?
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by humane. Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial so I think it happens to be literally humane to do so.
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
Simple question for you: what is the purpose of your post? What are you trying to achieve?
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by humane. Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial so I think it happens to be exceptionally humane to do so.
Differences, differences!
^^ I don't think lumping a group of people that care about something important, as a bunch of crazies is obvious to us vegans, but thanks for your insight.
Humane means merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable according to the internets... I didn't mean it as a human act but yeah.
so basically I don't think killing animals to eat them very is kind or tender or compassionate. The history of humanity does not really matter to this discussion, we have done plenty of things in the past that we think are pretty awful or dumb and we no longer do. Slavery is a good example. I think someday us humans will look back at the way we treat animals today and think "What the fuck ?"
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by humane. Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial so I think it happens to be exceptionally humane to do so.
Differences, differences!
^^ I don't think lumping a group of people that care about something important, as a bunch of crazies is obvious to us vegans, but thanks for your insight.
Humane means merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable according to the internets... I didn't mean it as a human act but yeah.
so basically I don't think killing animals to eat them very is kind or tender or compassionate. The history of humanity does not really matter to this discussion, we have done plenty of things in the past that we think are pretty awful or dumb and we no longer do. Slavery is a good example. I think someday us humans will look back at the way we treat animals today and think "What the fuck ?"
My bad. I ninja edited you. I was really just making a play on words, and if I hadn't screwed up my post in the first place it would have been hilarious!
But personally I think the chances of humanity ever looking back on eating meat and thinking of it in the way that contemporary Westerners think of slavery is about nil. And that's a generous estimate. Not to mention the whole idea, implied by your post (and by so many other posts in this thread, i.e. that as history progresses humanity grows kinder, more moral, more enlightened, etc. etc.) is informed by an egocentric and, well, ahistorical interpretation of history. But that might be outside the scope of a discussion about why killing our furry friends is a mean thing to do.
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by humane. Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial so I think it happens to be literally humane to do so.
Differences, differences!
Not to mention that if every human were to suddenly go vegan tomorrow, we'd have to immediately slaughter 90% of the livestock population or risk the destruction of our ecosystem. What the hell is humane about that?
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
Not to mention that if every human were to suddenly go vegan tomorrow, we'd have to immediately slaughter 90% of the livestock population or risk the destruction of our ecosystem. What the hell is humane about that?
if we all suddenly ate meat as much as, say, the average american non-vegan/vegetarian, there would be an insane rise in the demand for meat. meat prices would skyrocket to the point where poor people would begin to suffer and die. many of these people would not have the knowledge/ability to provide themselves with proper nutrients. this would be equally inhumane, therefore your argument is entirely without merit. not a single vegan here believes it is the ultimate goal or duty to immediately slaughter every animal, in fact i would say it is quite the opposite, and any rational person could see that this change must happen over time. if i remember correctly, you are also quoting somebody who is essentially defensing eating meat because humans have eaten meat for much of history. this theory has been debunked many times throughout this thread, but essentially it comes down to that face that "nature" has no "intent", and therefore simply because we have done something does not mean it is valid to continue doing so. humans have raped and murdered for much of history, but this does not mean that these things are inherently human, and that we cannot work to stop them. please read at least a couple pages back, there are a lot of really well thought out posts here that are being repeatedly overlooked, and even if you still hold to your position there are a million better points to try to make than the one in your poorly thought out post.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
Basically, I got no problem with your refusal to eat meat or animal products, but don't tell me you have superior morals because everyone has different opinions of what is right and what is wrong.
On September 23 2012 14:49 Mstring wrote: It was only when I decided to drop meat and dairy out of my diet that I became aware of the mental fog I was under and I watched it lift away. I wasn't bogged down by pride and false belief, I just admitted that I didn't really know what was true and gave it an honest go-- nothing to lose. It was daunting at the beginning but I trusted that doing what I thought was right would pay off. When I eat primarily raw fruits and vegetables I feel more than motivated in life, I feel driven by a fire raging inside.
Changing what's on your fork has dire social consequences which may require a complete life rewire. In some people, this might be too much of a loss for their "self" to take leading to potentially violent opposition. I'm not interested in polemics. I'm just here to spread the word of this incredible lifestyle and to hear of the experiences of others.
It's not about restriction and limitation, it's about freedom from addictions that you're ignorant of (i.e. born into).
News flash: if you eat like shit for the majority of your life and then make a concerted effort to clean up your diet, you will feel—shock, surprise!—worlds better. You can attribute this change, if you like, to the divine power of veganism, but in reality people can and do achieve better health, energy levels, mental wellbeing, and clarity through any number of dietary strategies. The important part is cutting out the truly shitty convenience foods (be they animal or fruit or vegetable) that make up so much of the average, on-the-go Westerner's diet.
Assuming that veganism is the only way, truth, light, etc. is just magical thinking. And it's also (due to condescending, conversion-experience, I-once-was-blind-but-now-I-see narratives like the one you've just posted) the reason why so many vegans find themselves almost universally dismissed when they get on the subject of their diet.
They're like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses who are consistently surprised and indignant at the doors being closed in their face.
He could feel better not just because of what he eats, that could be a big part, but because the good that he is doing by not consuming sentient creatures
Of course there are other ways to be healthy, I agree with you that making choices about what you will eat will make you feel a ton better.. however there none that are as humane .
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by humane. Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial so I think it happens to be literally humane to do so.
Differences, differences!
Not to mention that if every human were to suddenly go vegan tomorrow, we'd have to immediately slaughter 90% of the livestock population or risk the destruction of our ecosystem. What the hell is humane about that?
I don't think the whole population is going to go vegan tomorrow.
I don't want everyone to be vegan, In my perfect world, everyone would be mostly vegan. Vegetarian with a very low amount of eggs/dairy, and no honey(unless someone gets a way to extract honey without killing bees). The reason being is cause you can humanely get milk/eggs, but not in the huge amounts currently desired by our populations, so there would be a much lower amount available for consumption.
To be honest putting some animals that were born purely for human profits out of their misery for the sake that there won't be more in their place in the future (see the conditions they live in) sounds humane too me, I don't pretend to have all the answers especially for a highly unlikely, very large situation such as that. There are people that literally have posted they eat MORE meat because of our efforts, Trust me, Sadly, It's going to be awhile and a slow process before we can get the majority on our side, I happen to live in area with a super high concentration of vegans/vegetarians(I shop at a local co-op thats completely vegetarian, and I have an all vegan grocery store, and tons of vegan food places from sit down to fast food), but when i go to Kentucky to visit my family, I am in a very different place, and I actually don't eat out cause I have had issues there.. (you can't order vegetable dishes at some places, for instance green beans without butter and bacon 0.o)
However, there seem to be more people aware of the situation, and more and more vegans/vegetarians, or people cutting down on meat. I believe there is a meatless mondays movement going around(It's crazy how much meat is in the average american's diet...), the first lady of the U.S.A. has implemented a vegan option in public schools, more and better regulations are being implemented over time. some countries are banning inhumane practices such as gestation crates.. I feel like the future looks less dim every day, and maybe someday, We can actually face the problem of everyone being vegetarian/vegan head on.
I'm still waiting for valid vegan arguments on health. Can someone explain me how not eating an entire group of extremely nutritious foods somehow leads to a better diet?
It's like saying "Hey I'm going to improve my cardio by refusing to jog, cycle, swim, play soccer, basketball, boxing or hockey".
Here are the cold hard facts:
1. If you are on exclusively vegan food, you must take supplements (Vit B12, Calcium, Iron). You will also have a lot of trouble getting essential amino acids. Why are they called essential? Because humans can't make these 8 amino acids by themselves, contrary to real herbivors. So much for "we're not meant to eat meat".
2. There is no vegan food that even comes close to chicken/turkey in delivering the amount of protein (high bioavailability, many BCAAs), vitamins and minerals per calorie or per kg while still being low in carbs, fat and fibre.
3. Why are there almost no succesful vegan power sports athletes? See the two above.
4. Being vegan is a typical first-world phenomenon. Only rich people (by global standards) can afford to. What's more, in our primal days, having killed an animal meant the people were going to be having a tremendous amount of nutritrion/kg in a short time. Why were we hunters in the first place? Why did we lose the ability to make 8 amino acids by ourselves over the years? Very simple: because we feasted on animal products. Again: the "we're not meant to eat meat" argument is ridiculous.
5. A product like soy might seem innocent and organic, but is not without its downsides. Often times it's processed with hexane, a neurotoxin. Then there's the fact that soy contains enzyme inhibitors which (among others) reduce amino acid digestion (which a vegan diet is already depleted of). There's also isoflavons that reduce thyroid function. All of these are true for unfermented soy: soy milk, soy burgers, tofu, soil bean oil.
To conclude: yes, you can have a good vegan diet if you don't do explosive sports, but it's always going to be vastly inferior to a diet that includes meat. The fact that many meat-eaters have an unhealthy diet (and lifestyle) doesn't mean meat is going to be inherently inhealthy.
The going vegan for health argument is simply not true. The only valid reason to go vegan is of ethical nature, most of which seems to be a protest against bad animal treatment. And that's fair enough.
On September 22 2012 19:46 SnipedSoul wrote: Hypothetical: If plants were capable of feeling pain, would you force yourself to starve to death?
I have answered that question already in this thread, and no I would not, I want to survive after all .
You can scroll through the thread, and you'll find that eating plants directly "kills" less plants then indirectly eating plants by eating animals.
But cows can be fed plantmatter that does not yield a lot of nutritional value for humans, or did I miss someone saying how delicious and healthy grass and hay is? I'm aware that cows can also be fed corn and such.
Umm that's fine and yes that is possible(even though for factory farms it's not true) , but saving more food for humans is not the argument being made. If the argument is that plants feel pain, then you can't say that grass and hay feel less pain, Therefore, your still "killing" less overall plants by eating your plants directly then consuming the animal that ate them. So according to the argument, well plants "feel" pain too!(which is silly), then the least cruel diet that would let me remain alive would be one where I don't eat animals still. ' Also, just because cows can be fed grass/hay, factory farm animals are fed a pretty ridiculous amount of grains, and random other things.
I can't believe how many people are sticking to this stupid plant argument on TL btw, It's pretty shocking how many people have brought it up.
The self mutilation comments made me laugh, Not eating meat now = cutting one self?
You're willingly imposing constraints and limitations on your life for strictly moral and ethical reasons. It's not really like cutting yourself, more like scourging.
You're saying it's better to live a life completely unfettered by any sort or moral or ethical considerations?
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
I eat meat because I value eating meat more than I value the life of the animals. Same applies to all the other animal products we use: Soap, medicine, fertilizer, gelatin, toothpaste, leather, etc.
Should I also live in a cave so my large house that took a whole lot of trees to cut down doesn't result in dead forest wildlife? Ride a bike everywhere so I never hit any cats or possums in my car? Should machines in farming be banned because they chop up field mice and bunnies?
I'm perfectly fine with killing billions of animals to improve human welfare.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
I'm no vegetarian, I don't have any ethical problems with killing an animal for food, but I have stopped buying meat at supermarkets, simply because it's crap quality. In the old days, only the aristocracy could afford meat, it was simply too expensive for the normal people, and I think that's how it should be again. Sure, if you fill animals up with antibiotics, you can keep them in minimal cages and reduce the productions costs to sell cheap meat, but people shouldn't buy this shit. Or take minced meat: if I buy it at the supermarket and fry it at home, it'll just leak water, and reduce it's size by half. I talked to a biologist at my university, and he told me the food industry is "enriching" meat with water, so it's heavier and sells for a better margin. The whole business is perverted.
Now, I only buy meat at my local butcher. I know where and how he keeps his cows. This meat is expensive to produce, hence it is expensive to buy, as it should be, so I can only afford it once a week. I'm feeling healthier than ever since I started this.
TLDR: quality meat CANNOT be cheap. People should go back to considering it a special treat on sundays.
I do have one question: Is there a way to see this China Study data? I don't really care about a nice text to go with it, but I want to see the actual data they took (i.e. is there a scientific publication to go with it or is it just a book?)
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more.
seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more.
seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
It seems quite obvious we should place ourselves first and the things closest to us next? Sorry but that's your opinion. For me it makes no sense. Either it's "only us" or it is "anything that lives". You implicictly defined what is called a MEASURE and applied it to measure a DISTANCE. Then you said that what is near us is our first step, and dream about extracting matter from almost nothing so that science can make us creatures that live without killing anything. First of all, a meat eater can define the rest of the animal world "far" and not "close", plus it is stupid to desire to avoid to kill to live, due to the impossibility of reaching that and also because it is a basic concept in nature and there is nothing wrong with it. Essentially this proves that a meat eater can reach the conclusion that the status quo is fine without using any half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking. So nice try on the last line provoking joke, but you failed hard at it.
Stop dreaming and be real. With a dreaming attitude and leaving all the work to others (science) you solve nothing. The real point is ethics of treatment, not to avoid killing since no one can.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
...I wrote exactly what you said in my post?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark.
Go to a place with chicken living outside. No one cuts their peckers off because it's not part of their normal behavior.
Basically it's a procedure that's considered animal cruelty, but if you shove enough chickens into a small enough room it becomes a necessity to stop them from killing each other. So.. maybe... we should... shove less of them.... into a room... that's... too... small? ;; ... Just an idea.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
Chicken, and I guess turkeys aswell, have a strict hierarchy, i.e. pecking order. If you keep up to 40 or so chicken in a pen, it's no problem, they'll figure it out, and everything is fine. If you put more together, they start picking each other to death, because they can't figure out who's in charge. So basically the industry is forcing them into unnatural behavior, and then debeaking them so they stop killing each other.
Was a vegan for a bit and a veg for many years. Fact of the matter is nobody gives a shit about your ethics. Seen enough animal cruelty to know what animal cruelty really means, and have been a vegan and vegetarian to understand what that means. Not eating a poached egg is not gonna save a swarm of baby chickens from being made for consumption.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more.
seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
Warning: Harcore Metaphysics
I dont know if you have read what I wrote a couple of pages back and what has just been ignored but this is kinda an answer and its one that I can accept to certain extent. If I understand correct you are basically wanting to give equal moral status to these things that we have a common ground with. And your claim is that this is a progress, we start from a point, where we only give this moral status to humans based on the ground that we are all humans (this actually not the first step, it would start at giving it to yourself, then to those closest to you, then to those of the same group, country, ethnicity, species) We are now at the point where we are on the verge of including animals in this "consciousness" and giving them the same moral status. Basically this is an ongoing emancipation of everything but in a set way because we go from what is closest to us to what is further and further away from us (Its kinda like Hegelianism this thought). So we should embrace animals now and give them a moral status, plants should be next, next thing would be bacteria? doesnt really matter, in my previous post ive written about human beings, sentient beings, living beings, existing beings, to possible beings. I think possible beings is the last step, but feel free to add another. Lets call this thought the emancipation of everything (where everything is everything thats possible, but perhaps we should even include the impossible).
There are a few things I would like to note, this is no longer about diminishing (animal) suffering in itself (although its ofcourse the result of this emancipation). This emancipation thought is grounded in a sense of equality and the wish that it is extended not only to every human but the everything in existance. But its a process that is progressing in a linear way, from closest to farthest away, thus its implicitely impossible for us to emancipate plants but deny it to animals, it would actually be irrational. Note ofcourse that there are alot of practical problems with this because even although we give moral status to these beings we cannot give them the same practical or theoretical status and it should be wrong to do so. If we start treating a plant like a human in every way the plant will die. But in a certain way the emancipation thought is about equality in value not about equality in everything. But there are still other problems, which you have no doubt seen as well, if we cannot eat animals on the common ground that we both suffer, we should not eat plants on the common grounds that we both live. Your answer to this is that you believe that science will offer a solution, even though I'm not sure how this would work, because I fail to see how we can sustain life in nourishment by something that is not life itself, i will accept this for now. So if science comes with a type of food that is not a living being but can still sustain us it would have to be an existing being, because it is already hard to see how something that is not living can sustain something living, i completely find it impossible to see how something that does not exist (and thus must be a possible being or perhaps even an impossible being) can sustain something that does exist. But then comes the next problem, with this existing being we share the common ground of existance, so are we allowed to eat it? Perhaps existing beings are of the nature that they never go out of existance, they will simply be transformed (a thought shared by both monotheistic religion and science). Thus eating an existing being would not be wrong because we do not end its existance. Allright, so even though its all shady how this will turn out, its something we can work with.
But my objection to this thought is the following: I do not agree with an emancipation of everything because for me the goal of emancipation is participation in society and the groups of beings that we treat practically and theoretically different cannot participate in our society even if we would treat them morally the same. At the same time I think the morals work such that when you think of them you believe that everyone should think so and is capable of doing thinking so. But when we give moral status to non human beings, they are not capable of giving this moral status back to us. My criteria would be to give moral status to those who can give or could have probably (here using the scienctific term of probability) given it back to us. Thus this would include babies, retarded people, and down right evil cruel bastards. Why do I deny it to other animals then and further down the line to living beings etc, because I deny that if they would ever develop the cognitive requirements for morality that they would have a morality similar to our own. I think that to believe that that would be the case is severe anthromorphism. Ofcourse it is possible that they would have similar morality, but I dont think it is probable.
On September 23 2012 05:22 AngryMag wrote: This thread sported a lot of top end intellectual performances. I went to the whole thread again to save them for other readers who didn't went through the whole thing, but still want to enjoy all the highlights. And here they are:
PS: Some of these thoughts might be trolling, hard to tell if all the posters were actually serious.
Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism Indeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing.
Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species.
This is why I am vegan.
I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan.
We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry.
It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows.
If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place
HOW can you compare human brain and dog brain? Or any other animal brain, for that matter? Human brain weight around 1.5 kg, thats dozens, hundred times more than animal brains. Noone can say for sure how any animal realizes this world simply because humans are only ones who can think.
There was a chicken who lived a year or two without a head. Look it up, i think there was an article about it in "Times" (somewhere in 1930-s).
Show me how to eat a carrot without killing it.
Being vegan just makes you better than most people.
Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:
we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.
would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves
You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought.
He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance.
fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables
This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature.
So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
This thread opened my eyes like the General Election thread... There are some really really stupid people on the internet. It's one thing to be for or against, another thing entirely to have ridiculous conclusions as to why that is.
My favorite was the colonizing of planets, priceless really.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest.
And antibiotics = Germ genocide.
Common man, germ lives aren't equatable to animal lives!!!
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest.
And antibiotics = Germ genocide.
Common man, germ lives aren't equatable to animal lives!!!
The guy must be trolling. If serious, he should look at the good chance of already being dead without antibiotics, think of influenza and stuff. Or he is also one of the guys "rejecting" speciesism. Some of these guys would give voting rights to fruitflies if they could Not everyone in this thread came to the conclusion that the words "species" and "race" indeed have different meanings.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
First of all i eat meat myself but i strongly admire and respect ones decision to stop eating meat. Doing that out of love to our fellow creatures is a very respectable thing. It's very disinterested. Your whole argument that plant life forms are equal to animal life forms is an absolute joke. I dont want to be offensive but i literally had to facepalm when i read it. Please believe me when i say that animals are not different from humans especially high evolved mammals. The human being is just the most successful of them all due to the capability of complex thinking and reasoning which correlates to the exceptional well evolved nervous system (most important the actual brain). That leads to my actual point which is that plants don't have a nervous system like animals do. Therefor they cant suffer pain or "sadness", whatever you call it. Plants are lifeforms right but life is defined by a few terms. A few of them are: Metabolism, the capability to regulate themselves, reproduction, crating a closed system that zones it from the environment (e.g. membranes of cells) and a few others...
These things in itself dont imply that we have to take care of single individual plants. Damage comes if you ruin a whole ecosystem but thats a long way to go and wont happen due to nutrition. They dont possess consciousness. They dont have a nervous system.
With that background it is ethically an absolute mistake to equalize every life form that stands below just for the sake of it just because we're the most powerful of them. Your argument that plants contribute to the ecosystem is weak because the amount of plants we eat doesn't even matter because humans grow everything on farms repeatedly. The only thing i can think of is if forrests are being chopped down for the space to build additional plant fields. But to be honest i dont think that would be the case if many of us would focus on vegan/vegetarian diet.
I often get the feeling that meat eaters feel the need to defend themselves with every weak argument they can find. One should just respect a nice decision of another man to stop eating meat. And if you dont want to stop eating meat at the moment everyone could at least reduce it quite a bit which is obviously a good thing.
PS: Your last sentence is offensive (of course many meat eaters defend themselves with everything they have. For some reason they feel offended by threads like this) but his thinking is actually clearer and has more reason behind it than yours.
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark.
Go to a place with chicken living outside. No one cuts their peckers off because it's not part of their normal behavior.
Basically it's a procedure that's considered animal cruelty, but if you shove enough chickens into a small enough room it becomes a necessity to stop them from killing each other. So.. maybe... we should... shove less of them.... into a room... that's... too... small? ;; ... Just an idea.
The reason I replied to your post is because it sounded like you think debeaking itself is the problem, whereas it looks more like it's man's solution to a problem that might be man-made, or might be entirely natural. Maybe I misinterpreted you.
Wikipedia claims it happens even on free range farms, but the reference doesn't have a link so I can't follow it up. I have no idea what the truth is, but adding emotive spin to it makes it more difficult to find what the truth actually is. - do chickens peck each other to death in the wild? - do chickens kept on free range farms still peck each other to death? (wikipedia says yes)
Those sound like questions that you'd want answering before you decide whether debeaking is harmful - but it sounds like you've already decided that the crowded environments are the cause. I'm not convinced the evidence is good enough to decide (unless you know something I don't?)
[OT: The other reason I replied was because you kept talking about "cutting off their peckers", and when I saw your images tagged as NSFW I thought you were talking about a completely different procedure ^^]
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
First of all i eat meat myself but i strongly admire and respect ones decision to stop eating meat. Doing that out of love to our fellow creatures is a very respectable thing. It's very disinterested. Your whole argument that plant life forms are equal to animal life forms is an absolute joke. I dont want to be offensive but i literally had to facepalm when i read it. Please believe me when i say that animals are not different from humans especially high evolved mammals. The human being is just the most successful of them all due to the capability of complex thinking and reasoning which correlates to the exceptional well evolved nervous system (most important the actual brain). That leads to my actual point which is that plants don't have a nervous system like animals do. Therefor they cant suffer pain or "sadness", whatever you call it. Plants are lifeforms right but life is defined by a few terms. A few of them are: Metabolism, the capability to regulate themselves, reproduction, crating a closed system that zones it from the environment (e.g. membranes of cells) and a few others...
These things in itself dont imply that we have to take care of single individual plants. Damage comes if you ruin a whole ecosystem but thats a long way to go and wont happen due to nutrition. They dont possess consciousness. They dont have a nervous system.
With that background it is ethically an absolute mistake to equalize every life form that stands below just for the sake of it just because we're the most powerful of them. Your argument that plants contribute to the ecosystem is weak because the amount of plants we eat doesn't even matter because humans grow everything on farms repeatedly. The only thing i can think of is if forrests are being chopped down for the space to build additional plant fields. But to be honest i dont think that would be the case if many of us would focus on vegan/vegetarian diet.
I often get the feeling that meat eaters feel the need to defend themselves with every weak argument they can find. One should just respect a nice decision of another man to stop eating meat. And if you dont want to stop eating meat at the moment everyone could at least reduce it quite a bit which is obviously a good thing.
PS: Your last sentence is offensive (of course many meat eaters defend themselves with everything they have. For some reason they feel offended by threads like this) but his thinking is actually clearer and has more reason behind it than yours.
Im sorry but why is saying I draw the line at sentient any better than saying I draw the line at living or I draw the line at human? Ofcourse plants are different from animals, and like you say animals are different from humans. But we also have common ground. Animals suffer but we usually do not attribute them higher emotions and reason, thus I would argue that the world plants live in is as different for non-human animals as is the world humans live in. I have not yet heard one person give a good argument why it is wrong to say that animals do deserve moral consideration that also on the same grounds excludes plants or other form of living but not sentient beings from deserving moral consideration. Thus the decision remains arbitrary.
You make an arbitrary decision, another makes an arbitrary decision that is different from yours and you facepalm at it while you are both doing the same thing and both are not providing any good arguments why one decision is better than the other.
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote: Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
First of all i eat meat myself but i strongly admire and respect ones decision to stop eating meat. Doing that out of love to our fellow creatures is a very respectable thing. It's very disinterested. Your whole argument that plant life forms are equal to animal life forms is an absolute joke. I dont want to be offensive but i literally had to facepalm when i read it. Please believe me when i say that animals are not different from humans especially high evolved mammals. The human being is just the most successful of them all due to the capability of complex thinking and reasoning which correlates to the exceptional well evolved nervous system (most important the actual brain). That leads to my actual point which is that plants don't have a nervous system like animals do. Therefor they cant suffer pain or "sadness", whatever you call it. Plants are lifeforms right but life is defined by a few terms. A few of them are: Metabolism, the capability to regulate themselves, reproduction, crating a closed system that zones it from the environment (e.g. membranes of cells) and a few others...
These things in itself dont imply that we have to take care of single individual plants. Damage comes if you ruin a whole ecosystem but thats a long way to go and wont happen due to nutrition. They dont possess consciousness. They dont have a nervous system.
With that background it is ethically an absolute mistake to equalize every life form that stands below just for the sake of it just because we're the most powerful of them. Your argument that plants contribute to the ecosystem is weak because the amount of plants we eat doesn't even matter because humans grow everything on farms repeatedly. The only thing i can think of is if forrests are being chopped down for the space to build additional plant fields. But to be honest i dont think that would be the case if many of us would focus on vegan/vegetarian diet.
I often get the feeling that meat eaters feel the need to defend themselves with every weak argument they can find. One should just respect a nice decision of another man to stop eating meat. And if you dont want to stop eating meat at the moment everyone could at least reduce it quite a bit which is obviously a good thing.
PS: Your last sentence is offensive (of course many meat eaters defend themselves with everything they have. For some reason they feel offended by threads like this) but his thinking is actually clearer and has more reason behind it than yours.
Im sorry but why is saying I draw the line at sentient any better than saying I draw the line at living or I draw the line at human? Ofcourse plants are different from animals, and like you say animals are different from humans. But we also have common ground. Animals suffer but we usually do not attribute them higher emotions and reason, thus I would argue that the world plants live in is as different for non-human animals as is the world humans live in. I have not yet heard one person give a good argument why it is wrong to say that animals do deserve moral consideration that also on the same grounds excludes plants or other form of living but not sentient beings from deserving moral consideration. Thus the decision remains arbitrary.
You make an arbitrary decision, another makes an arbitrary decision that is different from yours and you facepalm at it while you are both doing the same thing and both are not providing any good arguments why one decision is better than the other.
I clearly underlined my argument by saying that animals have the ability to suffer while plants dont which is common scientific believe. Furthermore i stated that we have to care about plants as a whole because destroying an ecosystem is wrong. I say that picking of individual single plants isn't a bad thing and cant be compare to killing animals which hopefully everyone here can relate to (reasons for that are obvious).
So i clearly showed the reason for the line i draw which makes my point not arbitrary. It's arbitrary on the other hand to say that we cant eat living organism at all because right there there is no reasoning behind it. If suffering isn't reason enough for some people that we at least try to reduce our consumption of meat i cant help it. My reasoning is everything else than arbitrary.
Of course humans are different from animals (higher evolved thats all... today we even believe that some animal possess self consciousness which ofter correlates to the amount of brain mass in relation to body mass) but taking that as the single reason to act arbitrary about the issue is wrong as much as it is wrong to put animals and plants on the same level. Thats just my opinion on the whole issue. I respect the decision of other i just state my reason on it.
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that.
Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species.
I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that.
Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species.
I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good. I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree. This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^). We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from
I love mah meat too much to go Vegan, but for those who are considering it, make sure you get the neccessary amino acids!! I'm sure its been stressed a bunch in the past 36 pages, but it is extremely important
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that.
Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species.
I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good. I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree. This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^). We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from
I dont think our opinion is very different, if different at all regarding the suffering of animals. We only regard the problem from different perspectives I think and there was some mix up involved (atleast on my part) regarding your views on the moral status of animals.
but there is indeed not much left for us to talk about regarding this topic so have a good day
The whole "vegans are morally superior" argument is completely ridiculous to me, and here is why: humans are animals, yes. Animals eat other animals. Are you going to condemn a cat for hunting and eating a mouse? If you want to condemn factory farming, good for you - seriously! No sarcasm there! Factory farming is a horrible industry no matter how you look at it. But what about local farms that treat their animals well? Better yet, what about people who still hunt for food? How is a human hunting and eating a deer any different from a cat hunting and eating a mouse or a fox hunting and eating a rabbit? That is just how nature works - it's the circle of life, if you will. The food chain exists for a reason. Humans are omnivores like it or not and there is nothing unnatural about a human eating meat.
If you want to argue about eating meat, there are legitimate ecological (this applies to farming only) and health arguments against it, though the health arguments vary from person to person. But the only valid ethical argument is against factory farming - there is no legitimate ethical argument against eating meat in general.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that.
Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species.
I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good. I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree. This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^). We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from
I dont think our opinion is very different, if different at all regarding the suffering of animals. We only regard the problem from different perspectives I think and there was some mix up involved (atleast on my part) regarding your views on the moral status of animals.
but there is indeed not much left for us to talk about regarding this topic so have a good day
On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote: The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me.
Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful.
My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more.
I focus on helping humans and animals .
I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer.
And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now).
Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008).
In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency.
Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
...I wrote exactly what you said in my post?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark.
Go to a place with chicken living outside. No one cuts their peckers off because it's not part of their normal behavior.
Basically it's a procedure that's considered animal cruelty, but if you shove enough chickens into a small enough room it becomes a necessity to stop them from killing each other. So.. maybe... we should... shove less of them.... into a room... that's... too... small? ;; ... Just an idea.
The reason I replied to your post is because it sounded like you think debeaking itself is the problem, whereas it looks more like it's man's solution to a problem that might be man-made, or might be entirely natural. Maybe I misinterpreted you.
Wikipedia claims it happens even on free range farms, but the reference doesn't have a link so I can't follow it up. I have no idea what the truth is, but adding emotive spin to it makes it more difficult to find what the truth actually is. - do chickens peck each other to death in the wild? - do chickens kept on free range farms still peck each other to death? (wikipedia says yes)
Those sound like questions that you'd want answering before you decide whether debeaking is harmful - but it sounds like you've already decided that the crowded environments are the cause. I'm not convinced the evidence is good enough to decide (unless you know something I don't?)
[OT: The other reason I replied was because you kept talking about "cutting off their peckers", and when I saw your images tagged as NSFW I thought you were talking about a completely different procedure ^^]
I think the problem is the definition of free-range. I honestly don't know what it is in Germany, so I can't speak to that, but wikipedia is probably using the USA's USDA definition, which is basically "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING: Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FACTSheets/Meat_&_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp#4).". That does not mean they can't be in a confined area with way too many birds with unnatural conditions and unethical treatment... leading to pecking. I know several people with chickens, and while they do peck each other some, they don't do it until death, not even close as far as I know, yes this is anecdotal evidence, but saying that free range chickens peck each other too, this must just be normal for 15% of birds to be pecked to death.
Basically when you buy "free-range" eggs or meat at a supermarket in the U.S.A. it's a crapshoot, you might get a product that had worse conditions then otherwise...
Again, I am sorry if the definition is different for Germany.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
there are basically 2 discussions which are mixed.
one is about eating meat and the other one is about factory production of food (made from animals).
both sides mostly agree that what happens in the factory production of food is cruel. most also find that something has to be done about it, but then there is one side claiming that we shouldnt eat meat to achieve this with perhaps a smaller group of people claiming that we shouldnt eat meat at all because it is immoral. the other side does not find this to be the case.
the omnivore argument is aimed at the first discussion not the second. and ofcourse its not the only or best argument thats been posed in the thread by either side.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
ive posted a very long reply to your reasoned approach, I would like to hear your thoughts on it. I think its one page back.
i would like to point out the possibility that there are no better positions just different positions which can be equally reasonable. this problem is still being debated and where it used to be in favor of those who believe in objective moral facts etc the balance seems to be swinging more in favor of subjectivism lately (and perhaps even relativism)
Veganism is rather non-sensical from the standpoint of health, as you can get much healthier diet while being vegetarian without having to painstakingly try to have a healthy diet. Vegetarian diet and ones close to it are natural in the sense that it is not hard to make them give you everything you need without actually spending a lot of time thinking about what you eat. That is as far as healthiness argument goes. As for moral issues, the solution is not to cease eating animal products, but to treat the animals humanely. If even painless killing of animals is a problem, then I would like to point out, no cows (and ...) will be alive once we stop eating them, they are completely dependent on humans to exist in nature.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
The problem is that most people are severely under eating vegetables, then jump onto a vegetarian/vegan diet and feel much better and then think it's some miracle. My friends almost all eat a starch and fat based diet while I eat a diet consisting of vegetables and protein and fruits. There is no problem in eating meat in moderation.
Veganism is a first world luxury. Getting omega 3 from flaxseed oil and whatever, getting protein from beans and glued together processed plant protein. If you think not eating animal products makes you a better person then so be it. The fact is that meat is under priced and I am going to eat meat because I like the taste and don't want to hunt online for plant protein. I may not be doing the environment a favour but whatever, it's not like every time you have sex you're trying to make a baby.
People saying eating meat is bad for your health? I don't buy it for one second. We've been hunting and eating meat for far too long. If it was that bad we would have died out already. The only reason we have considerably developed brains is because of a diet rich in cholesterol, protein and fat. We certainly did not live in caves and get our daily caloric needs from eating leaves and roots. However I do not approve of the burger, fries and hot dog diet most people are living on. Eat your leafy greens like spinach and cabbage, eat broccoli, cauliflower, lots of good starches like sweet potato, eat lots of different colours. Eat some mixed nuts, some seaweed as well. Eat fruits and berries. Eat lean meats and fatty fish. It's really not that hard.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
Sophistry at its best. Do you feel actual empathy for plants, as in the feeling of empathy not some artificially constructed thought ? If so, you are one of the few and that's about it. And no it is not science that placed empathy and fairness in center of our moral code. Long before science and philosophies and different moral codes came to be created by us people were already using empathy and fairness as their basis for moral decisions. It is the way humans are made. Other moral codes are just trying to capture the reality.
As for the rest of your post it is completely wrong argument. We also do not punish mentally ill people for some actions they do and yet we find killing them morally reprehensible. Your whole argument falls apart after that. And that even assumes I consider right-based approach to morality worthwhile. I never said a word about giving animals rights as I did not frame the question in terms of rights. Rights are just approximations of moral rules and for discussing this topic are completely inadequate. It is quite possible for things to be morally wrong without any rights being involved anywhere.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
I have already made a few pages worth of points, I suppose I will repeat myself. Almost everything you do in life indirectly or directly came from an animal dying. If you are eating non-animal products, chances are animals still died so you could eat that food (giant machines chopping wheat fields slaughtering critters for example), so don't tell me I'm wrong for eating meat. For those who say it is healthier, there is 0 scientific evidence to show it is healthier to not eat meat. Being gluttonous is wrong in my opinion, but not eating meat. I'm not suggesting that I am morally superior to you in this regard, I am only stating that I think we are equal, because I see nothing wrong with eating meat and I see nothing wrong with not eating meat.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
Sophistry at its best. Do you feel actual empathy for plants, as in the feeling of empathy not some artificially constructed thought ? If so, you are one of the few and that's about it. And no it is not science that placed empathy and fairness in center of our moral code. Long before science and philosophies and different moral codes came to be created by us people were already using empathy and fairness as their basis for moral decisions. It is the way humans are made. Other moral codes are just trying to capture the reality.
As for the rest of your post it is completely wrong argument. We also do not punish mentally ill people for some actions they do and yet we find killing them morally reprehensible. Your whole argument falls apart after that. And that even assumes I consider right-based approach to morality worthwhile. I never said a word about giving animals rights as I did not frame the question in terms of rights. Rights are just approximations of moral rules and for discussing this topic are completely inadequate. It is quite possible for things to be morally wrong without any rights being involved anywhere.
Good post.
I didnt say that science was the only one to do that, just that it did but that there are other possibilities too, for example the foundation of God, or the foundation of Reason. I do not deny that empathy plays a role in any of them tho.
I do not feel empathy for plants, but I do not feel it for animals either. However if i would see a video of animals getting tortured I would have strong emotions about that. But I would have similar emotions if it was a video about huge parts of forests getting cut down or a piece of art getting defiled. It seems quite senseless to me, but I cannot relate to that piece of art, nor the tree or the animal as I can to a human being. i do not believe they deserve moral consideration, but that doesnt mean i believe they do not deserve consideration at all.
I think you are aware of the difference between type (human beings) and token (you, me, obama, person x). We think all humans are entitled to certain priviliges, they are called Universal Human Rights. Some people argue that animals are entitled to the same or similar based on their capability to suffer. I do not agree with this. Ive explained why in a post on page 35. What you say about handicapped people comes down to me to the difference between type and token, I think the entire type of humans is entitled to rights which also comes with responsibility atleast to uphold this right for others, allthough we sometimes make an exception for certain tokens which lack the cognitive or physical ability to take their responsibility because we believe that if they had not had these limitations they would have acted as we would expect a healthy person should have and therefor we do not punish them for their shortcomings. I deny that this is the same for animals, and that people who do believe so are antromorphising too much. Thus it is possible for us to do not hold babies, or handicapped people responsible for their actions and still attribute them moral rights while we do not hold animals accountable for their actions but also not attribute them moral rights.
But thats that, if you do not consider such an approach worthwhile, may I ask what you would consider to be so?
The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
the studies are aimed at the massive bio industry, but do not say anything about not eating meat you have hunted or fished for example. the points that many vegans raise are ethical and not enviromental, while these imo makes much more sense and indeed has some good support (but meaning also that if we find a way to solve these problems we do not have to go vegan). but in that sense we should kind of go back to a stone age or quickly invent or change to cleaner but durable powersources that can be implemented also in small enough ways to make transportation with that source possible.
the health issue is something else, i do agree that its important that people are properly informed but in the end their health is their own responsibility and if they do not find it important, and instead prefer to live a "good/fun.hedonistic" life they should be able to. they should be able to smoke as long as they do it where it doesnt affect others, they should be able to drink alcohol etc (a very big chance that most of the people here who have raised the health argument drink alcohol while that is so destructive for your body). what the 2nd study seems to say is more or less "be moderate", which doesnt have anything to do with being brainwashed.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
I've heard fundamentalist Christians that argue the exact same way as you: "Unbelievable! You atheists are so arrogant!" A video is worth a million words so get back to me after you've seen this:
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
I've heard fundamentalist Christians that argue the exact same way as you: "Unbelievable! You atheists are so arrogant!" A video is worth a million words so get back to me after you've seen this:
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
Thats not true i gave this argument a few times.
You can't just use the same "killing life in general is bad" argument over and over again. You have to differentiate forms of life. A plant is nothing more than a well organized union of living cells (Not exactly a plant but algae are a good example of that although more primitive). Thats all there is. The will to survive is nothing but evolution which defines itself through random incidents and changes. Not often but sometimes such a change is beneficial which leads to an increased chance to reproduce for the individual (mutations in genetic code, etc). The point is there is no will so survive, there is no character behind it. Life is just organized material (higher evolved life forms included i.e. humans, the difference is the nervous system which i stated a few post before). Yes i speak from a very scientific point of view but thats common believe in science which i personally find very reasonable and understandable.
Who cares if you kill a bunch of cells as long as it doesn't affect an ecosystem? Really the only problem with killing plants is if you wipe out a whole plant species which means you'd have wiped out something that was a product of millions of years of evolution. If you're sick and take antibiotics you kill thousands of bacteria... I can reduce that to the most primitive forms of life and it doesn't change anything.
I don't understand that argument that killing life in general is bad. Realistically it's best to draw the line there where empathy plays a role because we can identify with that. Everything else in my opinion is arbitrary because these are plain believes without any reason just like religion is.
I'm happy that there are some people who grant animals rights (not the same rights humans have of course). Animal rights just means that animals are taken care of, nothing more.
You are right animals don't really have a sense of justice for the most part but this doesn't have to affect human behavior does it? We love our pets even though they are the most selfish beings you could imagine. It's as you stated the drive to live thats right. Evolutionary it's a very successful strategy for the specie to establish itself ^^' I feel a bit weird because i'm really nitpicking but you have to talk about details sometimes right? ^^
Your standpoint is similar to mine i guess when i talk about suffering. So i dont understand your argument that you wouldn't grand animals moral rights. Moral consideration vs consideration. What exactly is the difference for you there?
Also you are talking a lot about perspective of things and why one side can say that they act the right way an the other side is not. Well that's just believes but some are more reasonable based on good facts that supports them.
Edit: One last thing. The capability to feel empathy is ALSO just a product of evolution even though a pretty good one. Humans are working together and thats the most powerful tool we have. Without the capability to feel empathy mankind certainly would not be as far as we are now
Your standpoint is similar to mine i guess when i talk about suffering. So i dont understand your argument that you wouldn't grand animals moral rights. Moral consideration vs consideration. What exactly is the difference for you there?
moral consideration for me has to do with things being good or bad in itself. consideration has to do with something being better or worse or (un)neccessary to achieve a certain goal. We give buildings consideration, we consider if its ok to build somewhere, if its ok to take it down, how it must look etc. We do not consider them morally however. If someone blows up a building no person will feel sorry for that building (perhaps in they will feel sorry for memories or beauty lost, but you get my meaning i hope). I'd consider animals similarly, we need to change the way bio industry works because in the long run this will just be impossible to maintain, that we decrease animal suffering is a bonus for me, not the main goal.
perhaps as you say, the line is drawn where we are empathic, i am just not empathic with animals thus i do not draw the line at animals but at humans. i might reply more in depth tomorrow, its late now, but your post deserves a better answer.
Allright,
first of all, if we have to differentiate forms of life, I dont see why we do not make a difference between humans and other animals. Or between (higher developed) mammals and other animals. If my argument that we can be empathic with plants is sophistry at best I fail to see how the same argument for animals isnt. I doubt there are many people that truly feel empathic with all animals in the "animal kingdom". Surely they feel related to some, but how many feel related to reptiles (because truly, how much do we actually have in common...) or bugs? Spiders?
We should not make the mistake that science can tell us how we should live our lives, science is amoral. It can tell us how something works, or why it is that something works how it works. But it cannot tell us if something is good or bad in the moral sense. It can tell us that many people believe for example killing animals is morally bad. But does that mean that we find it bad because we are empathic with them (and thus allowing us to have moral feelings for them according to you) or are we empathic with them because we find it bad? (hmm that is not a very clear distinction, i lost that in translation.) At the same time we should not mistake the tools for the reasons. Empathy is the tool that enables us to be moral, but it is not therefor the reason why we are moral, or the reason for our morals. Our eyes enable us to perceive something as beautiful, but they are not the reason why we find something beautiful to look at, only how we it is possible that we find something beautiful to look at. From a scientific point of view it makes sense that we are empathic with certain animals because we domesticated them to do certain things for us, or to use them for certain needs. But this requires that we take care of them to a certain extent and if we have zero capacity to even feel a caring thought for them we would neglect them and thus we could not use them. But this goes only for a small group of animals. I guess now, that we have the luxury to no longer have to care about other things as much, that this empathy has gone into extremes to both sides where on side percieves them as a commodity, a wheel in the machine in which even humans just play a part, or the other side, where the argumant but humans are just animals as well is used only to compare animals to humans and not the other way around, thus pretty much humanizing all animals.
You can't just use the same "killing life in general is bad" argument over and over again. You have to differentiate forms of life. A plant is nothing more than a well organized union of living cells (Not exactly a plant but algae are a good example of that although more primitive). Thats all there is. The will to survive is nothing but evolution which defines itself through random incidents and changes. Not often but sometimes such a change is beneficial which leads to an increased chance to reproduce for the individual (mutations in genetic code, etc). The point is there is no will so survive, there is no character behind it. Life is just organized material (higher evolved life forms included i.e. humans, the difference is the nervous system which i stated a few post before). Yes i speak from a very scientific point of view but thats common believe in science which i personally find very reasonable and understandable.
When you talk about plants scientifically you seize to talk about them morally, but when you talk about animals and humans scientifically you connect it to morals still, while they are two different domains and while we may perceive connections, correlations and perhaps even causation this is false. Ethics is still the domain of metaphysics imo, atleast how we discuss it, with rights and everything, and therefor beyond physics by definition. When you say it is bad to kill a plant when you harm the ecosystem, you say it is not bad to kill a plant in itself, just if it harms the ecosystem of which we are part and thus we harm ourself, and we find ourselves to be sufficient reason not to do something. We do not say it is bad to kill a human because we hurt the enviroment. Perhaps we disagree on this but I think its still a valid point, we find (developed) human life sacred in itself, from a scientific point of view this makes little sense beyond the point that we struggle to survive. But that would mean we should only find our own lives sacred. Ofcourse there comes the role of empathy, because we can relate to another human being who we perceive to be similar to us and in a similar struggle we can perceive their life to be sacred as well. But since it is life which is sacred here I do not see why animals (and I do not believe we are empathic with all animals) should be considered but plants not at all, or only as far as they impact us. I do agree we need to draw a line, we need to make a difference. which leads me back to my initial question, why is making a difference at human any better or worse than making it at animal, or at plant. And I want this question answered ethically since thats what we are discussing.
Who cares if you kill a bunch of cells as long as it doesn't affect an ecosystem? Really the only problem with killing plants is if you wipe out a whole plant species which means you'd have wiped out something that was a product of millions of years of evolution. If you're sick and take antibiotics you kill thousands of bacteria... I can reduce that to the most primitive forms of life and it doesn't change anything.
i dont see how killing a human changes anything as well in the scope of things, or why killing a cow to eat it changes anything either.
I don't understand that argument that killing life in general is bad. Realistically it's best to draw the line there where empathy plays a role because we can identify with that. Everything else in my opinion is arbitrary because these are plain believes without any reason just like religion is.
from a scientific point of view perhaps, but from a scientific point of view it is pointless to have a discussion about morals. not how we perceive them to manifest in the world but whether or not something is actually good or bad. like you said even for higher animals it is just random mutations then why bother... the latter part of your post makes no sense at all. even if you do not agree with the reasons given doesnt mean there are not any reasons. ive given plenty i believe.
Also you are talking a lot about perspective of things and why one side can say that they act the right way an the other side is not. Well that's just believes but some are more reasonable based on good facts that supports them.
that is true but we have gone into it so deep that i feel we have reached a point where it is hard to say wether we feel a certain way because the facts support it or that we cling to facts that support the way we feel. besides that we are talking in a domain where the existance of such moral facts are quite debatable and ambiguous.
and about the last thing you say, i do not deny that empathy is useful, but to be useful doesnt mean that it is good in a moral sense. internet is useful, its not good or bad. cars are useful, they arent good or bad, even though we can say that cars are good or bad related to a certain problem, such as the problem we have with the enviroment which is deteriorating.
k, it has be become an outright mess this post, good luck XD
Wow, 37 pages and still going strong. I guess its time for me to put my 5 cents in this discussion.
First of all: I am not going to say anything about moral/health/ethic concerning veganism/vegetarianism. There was enough things said about it during last 37 pages, i will only repeat what have been said before.
What i want to talk about, is why vegetarianism became so popular in first world countries. There is only one explanation - profit.
For that, let us go a little back and say something about human needs. Every human have needs: need to eat, need to sleep, need to entertain himself... You know the list. Now, if we will summarize all humans needs (in money equivalent), you will get the maximum size of the market(basically, how much money people will spend on their needs). The maximum amount of money that can be involved into production, giving some sort of profit.
So it is all cool and stuff, but at some point, the maximum value will be reached. The markets will be (they actually are) full. Having a full market, means that if more money will be invested in it - there will be no profit. People simply don't need that much.
But here is the problem: You still need to invest your money somewhere, if anything, simply because of inflation (+ more income is always a nice thing). But what to do, all human needs are satisfied, there is nothing to produce more. Wait... We can make human need more!
This is what is happening in most first-world countries. Markets became so full, that it is cheaper to develop a new market and take leading positions there, than try to claw your way on one of already existing markets. Think about it: why vegetarianism is most popular in first-world countries?
There is a war going on. It happens in your head. It happens for your head. And, sadly, it happens above your head. Because of the race for better profits, company started to develop completely new markets (I'm not talking only about vegetarianism here, it's more common). People are forced to have more needs, or to transfer their needs from one product to another. One might ask: "Well being vegetarian isn't about buying some expensive food, its about not eating meat!" Well, it kinda is. Since vegetarianism got popular, a whole new branch of food companies got developed, who produce for this need. Moreover, person who decided to stop eating meat, will consume more plant-based food (he have to eat something), thus making that market grow more, and making "meat" market shrink. Heck, even the development of new ways to kill animals (more humane ways) demanded for a whole bunch of money to be spent.
Now why am i telling all this? Its not like we can do something about it, I hardly believe there is someone who controlled who this process. I also want to mention that i am not against vegetarianism, i consider it be each person choice - what to eat. However, it pains me, that some people might be oblivious to the fact, that they are forced to need more. Ask yourself - how much of moderns "needs" that you have was forced to you? It's not right when human is a slave of his needs, human need to excel, not succumb.
Anyway, just wanted to give another point of view to the whole problem, not sure if did good enough job though. Hope that gives someone things to think about.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
A lot of people in this thread has plenty of statistics to support meat eating for a diet that doesn't consist of downing pills and protein powder. Whilst the first study you cited is relevant, the second one is a joke in the context of this discussion.
The religiously brainwashed statement goes both ways, I've seen some vegans (and a few in this thread) that argue with the same ferocity and dogma that the fundamentalists exhibit.
EDIT: I also frequent bodybuilding.com forums and the amount of hoops that vegans have to jump through to maintain a high muscular body in comparison to a vegetarian diet is quite insane.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
Took the words out of my mouth, I love when people start their argument off with "alot" or "many" or "a majority" or "a good number" of people in X group are "brainwashed" or "insert X condescending generalization here". It really makes you feel like agreeing with them doesn't it?
At a global scale, it has been estimated that livestock contribute, directly and indirectly, to about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane emissions (which is far worse than carbon dioxide environmentally) and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions (per the book Livestock's Lone Shadow)
All other points aside, I just would like to make a quick comment: You should be careful when stating that Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Usually the "heat trapping efficiency per molecule" used for this argument depends on the concentration of the greenhouse gas. Basically, since there's much less Methane in the atmosphere than CO2, you get a bigger number. Second, Methane doesn't absorb at the spectral maximum of infrared emission from earth, like CO2. Third, and most important, Methane is resorbed from the atmosphere on a short timescale (9-12y). For CO2, we're talking centuries. It's much trickier to ged rid of CO2.
Most other points have already been discussed. I agree that industrial processing of animals has reached a level that is repulsive at times and completely non-sustainable. I consider Veganism mainly as some kind of protest against this, and as such I applaud the people that are consequent and vocal enough. From a health point of view, it forces people to think about their food, which usually leads to a better lifestyle (no matter how you construct your diet).
However, I think you have to take everything with a grain of salt. I feel the problem is more industrialization and globalisation of food production than just consuming animal products. Going back to a more small-scale, local agriculture might be more sustainable than being strictly vegan. If we switch from meat to soy, we can also proceed to burn off the rain forest in order to plant more soy. Of course this would still be more efficient than cows, but that doesn't prevent people from being stupid.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
What is "natural" and "unnatural" is very much not important in todays society and what moral choices we make. I'm a vegan and a quite militant one at that, but as soon as someone says "Veganism is so totally natural!" I rage. Just like I rage when someone says "Eating meat is so totally natural!" Both add nothing to the discussion and are completely empty statements. Fuck that.
I also can't fathom how anyone can say that veganism is bad for you "because you have to take pills to take in B12". People have to take pills for a lot of different reasons, if I have to take a pill to stay healthy while not slaughtering innocent animals then I fucking eat that pill. It's not the biggest investment ever and people eat a lot more "unnatural" things systematically than B12-pills.
I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
But...but... Think of all the innocent (god I hate that word) animals that you are mercilessly slaughtering!
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
But...but... Think of all the innocent (god I hate that word) animals that you are mercilessly slaughtering!
Please don't derail an entire post with an argument completely irrelevant to the ones I presented. I realize you are being sarcastic, but TL is not a circlejerk you know.
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
But...but... Think of all the innocent (god I hate that word) animals that you are mercilessly slaughtering!
Please don't derail an entire post with an argument completely irrelevant to the ones I presented. I realize you are being sarcastic, but TL is not a circlejerk you know.
You clearly have not been paying attention to the thread, or any thread in General Discussion for that matter. Any time a point is brought up, the subject is completely changed and another argument is waged on that. It's the cycle of these discussions and nothing ever gets solved. My post was just a satirical remark on what would have eventually been brought up in response to your post.
On September 24 2012 21:23 pyrogenetix wrote: The problem is that most people are severely under eating vegetables, then jump onto a vegetarian/vegan diet and feel much better and then think it's some miracle. My friends almost all eat a starch and fat based diet while I eat a diet consisting of vegetables and protein and fruits. There is no problem in eating meat in moderation.
Veganism is a first world luxury. Getting omega 3 from flaxseed oil and whatever, getting protein from beans and glued together processed plant protein. If you think not eating animal products makes you a better person then so be it. The fact is that meat is under priced and I am going to eat meat because I like the taste and don't want to hunt online for plant protein. I may not be doing the environment a favour but whatever, it's not like every time you have sex you're trying to make a baby.
People saying eating meat is bad for your health? I don't buy it for one second. We've been hunting and eating meat for far too long. If it was that bad we would have died out already. The only reason we have considerably developed brains is because of a diet rich in cholesterol, protein and fat. We certainly did not live in caves and get our daily caloric needs from eating leaves and roots. However I do not approve of the burger, fries and hot dog diet most people are living on. Eat your leafy greens like spinach and cabbage, eat broccoli, cauliflower, lots of good starches like sweet potato, eat lots of different colours. Eat some mixed nuts, some seaweed as well. Eat fruits and berries. Eat lean meats and fatty fish. It's really not that hard.
Exactly, the argument that vegan is healthy is generally false. I've seen too many have diets of processed soy, low nutrient carb sources, and even a lot of processed sweet food. If you do Veganism for health do it right at least and eat nutrient dense foods as you mentioned. But, that is still not enough, many vegans lack Vitamin K2 especially the MK-4 form, and Vitamin B12. MK-4 is almost exclusively found in animal sources. While you can get MK-7 from vegan sources it is inefficient to convert it to MK-4.
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
I've never taken the vegan/vegetarian standpoint seriously because of this post. Their arguments mostly seem to boil down to health and morals. The problem I have with the health side is that they criticize meat specifically for being unhealthy and tell you to look at all the fatties that eat McDonalds. The problem I have with this stance is I can show you very unhealthy diets that contain no meat, very unhealthy diets that contain meat, and I can also show you the other side of that spectrum. I use evolution for dietary choices. Humans have spent hundreds of thousands of years eating a diet before agriculture came along, and I would argue that this is the diet our body is best at digesting. It contains meat. As far as the moral side of it goes I find it to be a wash.
What is "natural" and "unnatural" is very much not important in todays society and what moral choices we make. I'm a vegan and a quite militant one at that, but as soon as someone says "Veganism is so totally natural!" I rage. Just like I rage when someone says "Eating meat is so totally natural!" Both add nothing to the discussion and are completely empty statements. Fuck that.
i agree with this, otherwise we should all abandon the internet and all such things everything about technology is as "unnatural" as you can get, culture is pretty much the opposite of "natural" and the list can go on.
I also can't fathom how anyone can say that veganism is bad for you "because you have to take pills to take in B12". People have to take pills for a lot of different reasons, if I have to take a pill to stay healthy while not slaughtering innocent animals then I fucking eat that pill. It's not the biggest investment ever and people eat a lot more "unnatural" things systematically than B12-pills.
whether or not the downsides of going vegan weigh up against the upsides have nothing to do with the diet being "unhealthy/bad for your health" (assuming that this is so, im not sure, i dont care about it much). If a diet means that you lack in vitamins or any other stuff that you need then its unhealthy, nothing else can be said about that (except to deny that it actually is unhealthy). whether or not that means anything to you is up to you. smoking is bad for you, even though it gives pleasure and people do many different things to enjoy themselves. that doesnt change that smoking is bad, but if you dont care about your health (or not that much that you'd give up smoking) then that argument doesnt mean anything to you.
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
The "new market" argument make no sense to me. Eating only fruits and veg is much cheeper. As far as having two guys eat nothing but meat... Well that really doesn't prove anything. Humans are Omnivorous we can survive anywhere on the herbivore-carnivore scale. Eating a balanced diet with various protein sources, small amounts of fat, and mostly long burning carbohydrates is, from what I understand, the undisputed best diet plan. Whether those protein sources are made up of plants or animals is really up to the user. I prefer to limit my animal sources, others prefer to eliminate animal sources entirely, and you like to only consume animal sources. We will all survive. But, consuming only animal products is not a sustainable way for everyone to eat. It's not really possible to produce that much meat. And if we tried the animals raised for that meat would have to be live in horrendous conditions.
I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
On September 26 2012 07:01 nerak wrote: I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
Be surprised if its cheaper than my meat diet...5 dollar foot longs at subway, 4$ for 2 mcdoubles and 2 mcchickens...10$ large pepperoni and bacon pizza (feeds me and my girlfriend).
On September 26 2012 07:01 nerak wrote: I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
Environmental concerns are a VERY good reason to argue for vegetarianism. Cattle consume fifty percent of all the fresh water on earth (!) and (approximately) all of the people on this earth who would starve in a year could be adequately fed if America - and only America, apparently - reduced its red meat intake by only ten percent. APPARENTLY. These figures, though only apparent, still startled me. And though I love red meat more than any other food (guilty as charged), this made me drastically reduce my consumption of it. I didn't obliterate it, I just stopped eating it two, three, four times a week...now I eat it maybe once every two weeks and I actually seem to be healthier for it too.
On September 26 2012 07:01 nerak wrote: I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
Environmental concerns are a VERY good reason to argue for vegetarianism. Cattle consume fifty percent of all the fresh water on earth (!) and (approximately) all of the people on this earth who would starve in a year could be adequately fed if America - and only America, apparently - reduced its red meat intake by only ten percent. APPARENTLY. These figures, though only apparent, still startled me. And though I love red meat more than any other food (guilty as charged), this made me drastically reduce my consumption of it. I didn't obliterate it, I just stopped eating it two, three, four times a week...now I eat it maybe once every two weeks and I actually seem to be healthier for it too.
Um, could you please provide some links? I find it incredibly hard to believe some of the things you posted, especially considering there is already enough food on this earth to fully support everyone with a 2000+ calorie diet:
On September 26 2012 06:37 Xanbatou wrote: I feel that staunch Vegans and Vegetarians are severely misguided. In fact, I feel that most people that think they know anything beyond basic nutrition are severely misguided. The fact is, people still don't truly understand nutrition. For example, everyone knows that eating a meat-only diet is pretty dumb, right? You need vegetables and fruit and other nutrients that you just don't get eating only meat. It's common knowledge that if you only eat meat, you're going to have a bad time.
Well, that common knowledge isn't necessarily correct. Take a look at this documentation of two men that ate nothing but meat for a prolonged period of time:
The two men did not become even remotely unhealthy, which is something that most people would not have expected. Human beings have been eating meat for ages and ages and to suddenly suggest that we shouldn't be eating meat is completely bewildering. When anyone makes a claim as outrageous as that, it will take a gigantic amount of evidence before I am convinced they are right.
I really think that the previous poster was correct. I think that the markets are fully saturated and companies are trying to lure people into buying different things with all sorts of advertisements and funded studies to convince people to go vegan, or vegetarian, or gluten-free, or whatever the hell else is the trending thing of the year.
I really think people should be far more wary of subscribing to new ideas about nutrition, especially when this new idea is promoting you to buy some other stuff.
The "new market" argument make no sense to me. Eating only fruits and veg is much cheeper. As far as having two guys eat nothing but meat... Well that really doesn't prove anything. Humans are Omnivorous we can survive anywhere on the herbivore-carnivore scale. Eating a balanced diet with various protein sources, small amounts of fat, and mostly long burning carbohydrates is, from what I understand, the undisputed best diet plan. Whether those protein sources are made up of plants or animals is really up to the user. I prefer to limit my animal sources, others prefer to eliminate animal sources entirely, and you like to only consume animal sources. We will all survive. But, consuming only animal products is not a sustainable way for everyone to eat. It's not really possible to produce that much meat. And if we tried the animals raised for that meat would have to be live in horrendous conditions.
That's because you aren't thinking about it. The argument is that its too hard for newer companies to put a dent in the already existing, well established companies. So instead of trying to compete, they try to create a new market for a new type of consumer like vegans, for example. Then they fund advertisement to try and convince people to buy this new vegan stuff instead of whatever they were buying before from the existing power players in the market. Basically, instead of trying to compete with existing powerhouses selling certain products, they create a new market where they can become a powerhouse and try to get people to buy from them.
That being said, poor conditions for cattle is one pretty good reason for being vegan/vegetarian. However, I don't really care about that, so it doesn't matter to me.
On September 26 2012 07:01 nerak wrote: I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
Environmental concerns are a VERY good reason to argue for vegetarianism. Cattle consume fifty percent of all the fresh water on earth (!) and (approximately) all of the people on this earth who would starve in a year could be adequately fed if America - and only America, apparently - reduced its red meat intake by only ten percent. APPARENTLY. These figures, though only apparent, still startled me. And though I love red meat more than any other food (guilty as charged), this made me drastically reduce my consumption of it. I didn't obliterate it, I just stopped eating it two, three, four times a week...now I eat it maybe once every two weeks and I actually seem to be healthier for it too.
Um, could you please provide some links? I find it incredibly hard to believe some of the things you posted, especially considering there is already enough food on this earth to fully support everyone with a 2000+ calorie diet:
I said apparently. That means I don't -know- for sure it's just what I -heard-. If it's incorrect please feel free to correct me. The point was more that hearing it spurred me to be a little healthier...and this farming isn't good for the environment any way you spin it.
On September 26 2012 07:01 nerak wrote: I'm a vegetarian for 5 years now, because of enviromental concerns. I think we only eat meat because we're used to it.
I don't care about the health benefits. The ethics of eating animals don't concern me because my religion actively talks about how humans have the right to eat animals.
But since there isn't such thing as malnultriction caused by lack of meat, why not give it a try, if there are benefits for the environment? Because we crave meat. It's like a dietary addiction, like many people have with sugar.
Just getting rid of an addiction - and being able to eat meat whenever you want, instead of needing it to not feel hungry - is another reason why I'm glad I became a vegetarian.
But I don't think getting vegan anytime soon, tbh. A vegan diet is more expensive than a vegetarian one and I don't have the money. In the other hand, a vegetarian diet is less expensive than one that includes meat.
actually u can get malnutrition being just a vegetarian. you have to select and supplement your diet quite well to get all the essential amino acids and proteins that you'd normally get from meat. And no its not an addiction, the human race is designed (if you believe in God or whatever) or evolved through millions of years to eat and digest meat. We are omnivores, that's that.
how is the title to this "veganism: a discussion" allowed ?
to open a 'discussion' you need to present arguments both for and against whatever the issue is that you want to open for debate
the op only offers the negatives to meat consumption, and nothing specifically on veganism, or on vegetal alternatives to covering the nutritional needs that animal products offer; moreso, the topic seems to be about animal products, but the proposition of the end of the op is to discuss meat consumption, which is at best loose talk on vegetarianism, not veganism
so, can we have a different title and more coherent op so we can discuss animal treatment, vegetal alternatives to animal products, and meat consumption in different topics of their own since they're all complex topics in their own right?
I'm a vegan and while part of me almost always wants to talk about veganism (or vegetarianism) - a fairly broad topic - I usually decide not to. My understanding of our species is that almost everyone is effectively* incapable of prioritizing much of anything over their own self-convenience. Whether it's ethics, health, wastefulness or whatever - it doesn't really matter. It is whatever to people. What's real to people is what they want to be real which is whatever supports their current contentment. Of course, I gave the thread a try, but, of course, the thread is littered with people who have nothing more to contribute to the conversation than their own sealed mind trying to justify or validate itself in any way possible. I suppose I'm just bitching, but it is construable that someone out there may read this and realize that that is really essentially all they are doing - and perhaps they find that mode of existence to be undesirable for themselves? Wishful thinking.
Good luck to the people who are still willing to try to engage in intellectually honest discourse with people who by and large just don't have it in them to meet you on that level of simply being honest and putting in a genuine effort to consider the matter from any sort of angle that isn't already blatantly conjured up to justify stuff :X I mean that - I appreciate that you are making the effort. I prefer to let others have their own explicit interest in the matter first. Otherwise you're just asking someone if they want to explore the possibility of being a morally reprehensible or nutritionally ignorant person. Their answer is no. These matters are actually quite simply sorted through by everyone who approaches them with a commitment to being informed and honest about these things. Anytime you have to essentially babysit someone through making every single step toward the eventual goal of a comprehensive understanding, it's pretty clear that they give two shits about actually reaching that goal. And that's about what goes on with this stuff
It's kinda like when newbs (even your friends!) rage and you tell them how shit really is and they don't want to hear it because it means they have to admit that they actually did anything wrong, so they never actually change. It's actually exactly like that. A good example of how abysmal people are at wanting to, let alone being able to engage in the basic vulnerability required to admit to their mistakes. For all the cliche contexts or 'logics' that people go through in their discourses on veganism - It remains my opinion, after nearly a decade of regularly experiencing veg talks of all sorts, that this is the real point of failure for this matter - and oh so many others.
I think I am going to start encouraging people to be vegans now so there will be more bacon for me.
Global bacon shortage "unavoidable," group says
comments 131 inShare29 More
By Alex Sundby
Play CBS News Video
(CBS News) BLTs next year might have to forego the B, according to a British trade group.
Britain's National Pig Association, "the voice of the British pig industry," warned recently that a global shortage of bacon and pork "is now unavoidable" because of shrinking herds.
The trade group reported Thursday that annual pig production for Europe's main pig producers fell across the board between 2011 and 2012, a trend that "is being mirrored around the world." The group tied the decline to increased feed costs, an effect of poor harvests for corn and soybeans.
Even though the pig association issued its dire prediction as part of a campaign to get British supermarkets to pay pig farmers more for their products, the possibility of a pork shortage received plenty of coverage in American news outlets.
But the projected decline isn't news to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In its monthly outlook report (PDF) from August, the department linked a reduction next year in the United States to this year's drought in the Midwest. The government expects corn and soybean meal prices to go up and hog producers to cut production in an attempt to control losses in their operating costs.
Considering those factors, the USDA forecasted next year's pork production at 23 billion pounds, a decrease of about 1.3 percent from this year's estimated total. That breaks down to Americans consuming slightly more than 45 pounds of pork per capita in 2013, a reduction of more than 1 percent from this year's estimates.
The decline in production could be worse in Europe. On Wednesday, British Pig Executive Mick Sloyan told European retailers that pork losses could be as high 10 percent in the latter half of 2013, which could double pork prices, according to the U.K. pig association.
Hi, quick questions, I know that things are not white of black, I would just like explanations and sources to answer my questions
- Is too much fruits bad ? Because of sugar ?
- From my internet research blender is not too good because it causes nutriments to die due to oxidation.. true ?
- How to balance raw food and cooked food ? I saw too many videos of fanatics and raw gurus that sell many products on their websites and I don't fucking trust them at all ...
- Anyone knows about Brian Clement ?? What's your personal opinion about what he says.. and his work ?
- Where do you get your proteins from ? seeds, legume and nuts ?
- Any reliable websites/youtube channel/book that I could learn from ? I mean it seems that when it comes to vegan, people just make video based on their thoughts and beliefs, not from actually proven facts... That's a bit scary
On May 31 2013 05:27 E.L.V.I.S wrote: Hi, quick questions, I know that things are not white of black, I would just like explanations and sources to answer my questions
- Is too much fruits bad ? Because of sugar ?
- From my internet research blender is not too good because it causes nutriments to die due to oxidation.. true ?
I'll answer these two since they're simple.
You cannot eat too much fruit. What you want to avoid is excessive amounts of fruit juice. Fruit juice has a ton of sugar without much of the fiber and nutrients you get from the fruit itself.
Don't worry about using a blender. It theoretically can increase oxidation rates, but the change would be so miniscule you'd never notice outside of a laboratory. People on the internet have all kinds of strange ideas about nutrition. I once saw a website that claimed ordinary table salt is poisonous. Not simply bad for your health, actually poisonous.
On May 31 2013 05:27 E.L.V.I.S wrote: Hi, quick questions, I know that things are not white of black, I would just like explanations and sources to answer my questions
- Is too much fruits bad ? Because of sugar ?
Too much of anything is usually bad.
- From my internet research blender is not too good because it causes nutriments to die due to oxidation.. true ?
I wouldn't worry about it
- How to balance raw food and cooked food ? I saw too many videos of fanatics and raw gurus that sell many products on their websites and I don't fucking trust them at all ...
I wouldn't trust anyone trying to sell something or any 'gurus'.
- Anyone knows about Brian Clement ?? What's your personal opinion about what he says.. and his work ? nope
- Where do you get your proteins from ? seeds, legume and nuts ?
meat
- Any reliable websites/youtube channel/book that I could learn from ? I mean it seems that when it comes to vegan, people just make video based on their thoughts and beliefs, not from actually proven facts... That's a bit scary
thats because it's hard to advocate veganism using facts
- Do you eat soja products and processed food ?
by soja do you mean soy? I avoid it. There's some link (nothing really substantiated though) to lowering testosterone and no real reason to actually eat it.
Probably not going to directly answer your questions ELVIS, but everything I know about veganism comes from this set of articles on veganism. Perhaps something useful can be gleaned from there?
Hey, I've been researching for few weeks now... Mostly found shitty websites with low documentation, no sources, just mother fuckers bullshitting then try to sell their miraculous health product, 60$ books and DVD, their 100$/100ml bottles of "secret health potion" or whatever... I never thought that I would find this kind of website in like 90% of the cases... I am depressed by the number of assholes but well, expecting the opposite is quite naive I know !
I don't have it in me at the moment to become a full Vegan, but if I were to it'd be due to the ethical reasons surrounding it. I'm a vegetarian currently, and I've never been happier with myself. It's a slow process though, I ate meat and vegetarian dishes for a few years before completely making the switch. I don't really miss it all that much, and if there are co-ops around the area, that would be a better alternative than just getting your meat from a factory.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5205982_700b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-06.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-03.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-05.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/animalrightsa.jpg/)
