Veganism...why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

TestECull:

You mean you live in some backwoods-ass part of the world that doesn't know what the combine harvester is?
Mass produced produce is produce produced on a scale many times over and above what that farm's local area needs. See: The grain industry in America. We make so much of that shit we can feed the world several times over. It's mass produced.

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. What I reacted on was your sentence doesn't make sense. "People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots"

What, do you really believe that a few american combine harvesters collectively slaughter more animals per annum than the repugnantly towering number of 58 billions?
I don't see how you can say produced produce kills far more and in far more painful ways than livestock farming (of the reasons I described in my earlier post and you conveniently ignored) Even if it was, it still wouldn't be an example of hypocrisy on the vegans part.

CarlMinez:

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. What I reacted on was your sentence doesn't make sense. "People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots"

It makes perfect sense. People don't seem to realize just how many animals suffer in the production of common, mass produced produce. If they want to go vegan on moral grounds they had best be growing their own food using equipment and methods that doesn't do that sort of damage. If they don't, if they happily buy produce grown on mass farms and claim they're doing the morally right thing they're idiots for making sure their 'morally right thing' is actually morally better than the wrong thing.

I also don't suppose I should mention how much wildlife lacks a habitat things to the enormous farms such equipment enables...

What, do you really believe that a few american combine harvesters collectively slaughter more animals per annum than the repugnantly towering number of 58 billions?

And I suppose America is the only country in the world that uses them, right? I mean, Europe and Asia totally can't have common, mass-produced farm equipment that has existed for 60+ years and has the capability to boost output per acre exponentially, right?

Jiggy:

Yeah, like I said, it's just a fun fact.

You may not be suggesting that, Vegan Doodler on the other hand was, I remind you that it was her example that sparked this. I'm just pointing out that her example doesn't work.

Yes, Spiders aren't as good as Cows are. That's why we mostly consider them pests and kill them simply because we don't want them around, this is in spite of them having useful properties.

I draw the line at humans. From a "can I eat it" perspective everything else is fair game as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean you should, it just means that I don't really care unless we are talking about endangered species and that's mostly because the impact that might have on the entire ecosystem could be difficult to foresee. If they were to "farm" said animals, as in raised for the express purpose of eating them, it doesn't really bother me. I also see no sense in being pointlessly cruel, killing them is inevitable, but they should atleast be given a decent life to compensate.

Well I guess we end up with similar, if not completely the same perspectives on this then. I don't believe that eating meat is inherently wrong, I just believe in a certain quality of life leading up to the point of eating. And as what is offered isn't up to the my standards, I don't want to hand over money for it thereby supporting it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be as massively developed as we are, and the whole "raising for the express purpose of eating them" wouldn't be needed. I'd actually be more for communal area's for hunting, with controlled access thereby meaning the population of animals inside could be monitored. But I've always preferred a more literal take to "survival of the fittest" than most... Basically, if you want meat, you go get it and have to put the effort in. If you aren't good enough, or aren't that way inclined, then no meat for you.
But that's idle wishing, we have too many people for it to happen.

The word you are looking for is sapient, it doesn't really bother me that you used sentient, but others will get on your ass for it.

Obviously, I don't know what would happen. At this point your theoretical beings would be like early humans, I don't think we would enslave them, as I've already brought up, we've already learned the enslaving sapient beings is bad. We will however certainly study them, which would require a few of them, some preferably dead. I doubt that given time nobody would eat one of them, but we also have cannibals, so that is to be expected, would we eat them in general? I don't think so. I assume we would probably offer them knowledge and a general better standard of living, uplift them if you so will. Depending on precisely where we however stand by that point, what would want from them, if anything at all, is questionable. Aside from a couple of them for study purposes that is. I wouldn't equate that to slavery by the way, more like a Job, except for the dead ones, that would be (I assume that this would be necessary) to desect them.

I wanted more your opinion than what you think might happen. Besides, we learnt enslaving humans is bad, these wouldn't be humans. You drew the line at humans, not at sapient beings.

There are no health benefits.

The objection to industry standards is "won't somebody think of the animals!"

and pollution is a general problem with industry, I see no reason to dwell on pollution in the meat industry, especially when it tends to be the same people that have huge issues with atomic power.

Not compared to a perfect meat diet maybe, no. But comparing the average diet of a meat-eater to the average diet of a vegan there is a significant health benefit, particularly as lots of meat contains so much crap. If you raise your own animals, or get them from a source that doesn't use hormones, and take in a balanced diet of your quality meat and other bits. Then yes, there is no health benefits. But meat today is not of that quality usually.

So comparing the 2 ideal diets? I have no idea if one would ultimately be better than the other or not, but in the current situation for the average person, comparing the 2 sides average diets, veganism usually turns out healthier.

I guess I was meaning more "industry practices" than "industry standards", my mistake, which extends to more than just the conditions of the animals.

I'm all for lowering all types of pollution, not just meat industry, but this is the one relevant to the topic at hand, veganism. It's not more prevalent than coal-power plants in china, (or world-wide, but china's the biggest user), but it's the one that does change by making demands when it comes to your food.

Why exactly would you say that? Let's go with a different Animal, Cows don't live in the wild, so they aren't the best example here. Let's take Lions for instance. Lions kill each other for mating purposes, Lions will kill the offspring of another Lion. Would you judge a Lion for doing so? No? Then why would you try to uphold a Human to "values" you falsly percieve in animals? Animals aren't bothered by killing, they just don't have the means or motivation to do it on the scale we do. This is another case of "humans are different dude".

In regards to "wasted" potential. The only wasted potential that could be named in general for humans would be those with disabilities and simply because they could have potentially not had disabilities. I don't quite see what you are considering wasted potential. Is a Teacher wasting their potential as a human because they became a teacher and not a brain surgeon? Hardly. How about a waste management professional? Is that person wasting their potential as a human despite the fact that we need waste management professionals? You could perhaps argue that they personally could have aspired to be more, but the only person squandering their potential is someone who kills themself.

Ah, but I'm answering why cows are supposably better, not lions. And you still get wild herds of cows, they aren't all domesticated, and in any case why does the idea they don't live in the wild make them not the best example? Humans don't live in the wild usually either. I don't judge the lion for doing so, no, but I expect that if Humanity wants to take the claim that it is inherently better or worth more than a lion, they have to show that they are. I don't have a problem with killing, I have issue with the way it is conducted. Not just the extreme cases, the fact that as it needs to be done on such a scale, it has to be done so sloppily.

Have you actually informed yourself about bovine behavior studies? They exist, I don't have to actually look it up, they have to exist.

I haven't been greatly informed on them no, when I attempt to look I find mostly bovine behaviour in terms of milk yield/quality, and same with meat.

Assuming you are right about nobody actually studying them, but you aren't right about that, you can't be, they would have to be studied even if only to be able to use them the way we do.

Why? We started using them way before behavioural studies existed and has there ever been a point when we would have been able to just stop if tests came back with significant results? The common attitude is cows are stupid so we can do what we like with them.

It alone isn't, it's the notion that we actually think about that and other things like it, we are simply on a entirely different mental level, I am simply trying to convey to you that a Death to a Cow is not the same as Death to a Human.

Again, my point earlier, there is no way of testing if a cow thinks about these things. Maybe as we fiddled with sticks and came out on top of the food chain, they already figured it out and have stopped wondering. And even if it doesn't, even if it is an entirely different mental level, and Death to a Cow is different to Death to a Human. Our concept of death may be different but does it make the act of dying somehow different?

So, you are a believer on some kind? If not, you should know that atheism doesn't say much about what you do believe, only what you do not. Being a atheist does not mean you do not have any beliefs. I personally believe that everything just stops and my consciousness will cease to exist, but I don't know that to be truth, so it's a belief. I also don't believe in this percieved huge increase in Atheists, I believe that the Internet allows us to be more outspooken, so you are just now noticing.

Not really, if I was going to join any organised religion, it would probably be Buddhism. They sound closest to correct in my mind, but I need to sit down and read more sometime. Ok, but my point still stands, perhaps more so if some people have always been Atheists. You have decided what you think will happen after death, and so you are no longer actively thinking about it. If we had no common language and you didn't know I was wanting to know what you thought about, how would you tell me your concepts of life and death.

Yes, it would. But the Meat Industry is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is population. And the problem with population is not birth rate, but longevity. In short, one of our biggest problems is that we have too many old people that use resources without contributing anything. Getting rid of the Meat Industry as a answer? I doubt it. We need to up our general efficiency, that will help.

And Abandon, in the other thread, tells me its not population, its waste management. I personally think it's a combination of all of these things. We are too wasteful, live too long without contributing, the population rate will soon make population a problem, and the attitude of how much people eat are all problems, and addressing all of these things would help. I'm not saying it'll solve everything, but it helps. It's a positive step.

Once more, Cows are not Humans. A Cow has no concept of slavery. But if we must do this, like I've already mentioned, specifically without predators, herbivores would just eat and breed, eat and breed until they destroy a entire ecosystem and starve. Their numbers would increase faster then the ecosystem would allow, very much a similiar problem to what humans are facing, the difference being that we are smart enough to notice it.

We wiped out wolves, the predator. And even if on Britain this wouldn't work, elsewhere it would eventually balance out. If humans all disappeared tomorrow, the world would not end. Predator numbers grow for the large amount of food now available, and the livestock numbers decrease, thereby lowering the number of predators as there is now less food. Unless you're talking about releasing ALL the animals currently bred as livestock, in which case there would be problems. But I was suggesting reducing, rapidly yes but not overnight, livestock, not freeing them to roam the hills.

Just because we notice the problem doesn't mean we are solving it, some still insist it's not a problem at all. That it's not economically viable to fix. All sorts of other crap.

If Cows were Humans perhaps, but we've already established that they aren't. That isn't a assumption, it's a fact.

Slaves of the day weren't considered real humans, they were considered beasts of burden, an ox to pull your plow, that was a fact of the time. Facts change with more knowledge, and with changing definitions. I never suggesting that cows are human.

Even then, his status as a Ex-US President mean a significant amount of people with sufficient technology would be looking for him and by extension you.

Bad example on my part then, I was looking for a whipping boy we could agree on, but fine. On random selection, you are more likely to get someone unhelpful than helpful.

Follow that line of reasoning and you will notice the Butterfly effect and notice that it cannot be neglected. You can be a terrible person and just how terrible you are may make the world a better place because people do not want to be you. It's not a redeeming quality on a personal level, it doesn't have to be. There is no clear divide here. I can't say "Person X was Bad and therefore, if we had the possibilty, we should go back in time and stop them from existing" <-- That would have unforseeable consequences.

I'm not even starting Butterfly effect arguements because otherwise we are going into the realm of there is no sense in changing anything as it could just blow up in your face. It leads to exactly the kind of abstract alternative realities you complained about earlier. My line of reasoning is not that they shouldn't have existed, only that if someone could have become a brilliant medical professional and cured cancer, but instead as their way of thinking didn't relate well to early education, they never made it to higher education and to those discoveries. That is wasted potential. I'm talking about things they cause to happen at least vaguely directly.

Instead of why not, because I can see that. I'm just kind of wondering, why would that be a goal you would want to pursue?

Meh, ever guy has to have a goal. I was younger, I liked the idea of travelling places and trying new things, so why not? Obviously not my life ambition, just something along the way.

Phisi is wrong and I disagree. But that's ok, people can be wrong sometimes, you've been wrong plenty of times too :)

Much. Thank you.

Everyone is sometimes. Glad it's better.

If it really can count, yes. Like I said, I'm not prepared to simply believe that, I'd need some better proof and I'd want it to be demonstrated that the Elephant that cannot] count is a exception. Otherwise I'm not going to start saying Elephants in general can count.

I agree with that being messy. I however have also long since said that keeping heavily retarded people alive is pointless beyond the emotional spectrum, I just don't tend to mention it often, people don't like hearing those kinds of truths.

I'm not saying in general they can, but with training they can. Just as humans with training can, it's not some inate ability. Therefore they are similar enough in mental capacity that I consider them close.

Agreed, it's not a popular opinion, though I share it.

I personally think that we are doomed if we don't eventually give up on the notion of countries, preferably sooner then later. Communication is one of the barriers that I see making that difficult.

Might have just been better if Rome hadn't fallen, and we didn't end up with dark ages in the middle... Alas, wishful thinking, gotta go from the now.

Colour-Scientist:
Bloody hippies.

Goddamn hippies!

TestECull:

It makes perfect sense. People don't seem to realize just how many animals suffer in the production of common, mass produced produce. If they want to go vegan on moral grounds they had best be growing their own food using equipment and methods that doesn't do that sort of damage. If they don't, if they happily buy produce grown on mass farms and claim they're doing the morally right thing they're idiots for making sure their 'morally right thing' is actually morally better than the wrong thing.

I also don't suppose I should mention how much wildlife lacks a habitat things to the enormous farms such equipment enables...

And I suppose America is the only country in the world that uses them, right? I mean, Europe and Asia totally can't have common, mass-produced farm equipment that has existed for 60+ years and has the capability to boost output per acre exponentially, right?

You forget that a large percentage of cattle is grain fed, using up 1/3 of the worlds grain production. So even then, it still results in more deaths. We need less farming, but lowering meat production would actually assist that, as its not being fed to the cow instead of people.

The reason I'd say veganism is something people in general should do, is because of how much less energy it takes to grow plants compared to raising animals. If the meat production got drastically reduced and the crops used to feed animals went to humans instead, we'd solve a lot of the hunger problems the world currently has, given proper distribution, of course. It would also reduce CO2 emissions by quite a lot, as livestock is a pretty massive source of greenhouse gases(no, I kid you not, this would actually have a serious impact).

Then again, this isn't going to happen unless governments provide heavy subsidiaries to farmers who don't spend crops on raising animals, and/or heavily tax meat to make it less attractive to buy. Individuals going vegan doesn't help the slightest in that sense.

Oh, and the "ZOMG HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF THE ANIMALS ATE YOU, MEAT-EATERS ARE MURDERERS"-moral-implications-thing: No, I honestly don't give a damn. We're omnivores. We eat widdle animawlz with salad and mustard, and we've done so a long time. If you want to not contribute to that, feel free, as I can sympathize with not wanting to contribute to animals being killed. However, I'm going to enjoy my delicious steak anyway.

TestECull:
-snip-

It's very disingenuous to suggest that a vegan diet causes greater suffering than an omnivorous one. The majority of animals we eat are completely grain fed and even those that are allowed out to pasture have their diet subsidised to some extent. This means that not only are the adorable little woodmice turned into sprinkles by the combine harvesters, but the grain is then fed to cows and pigs which are in turn horrifically slaughtered. Thus, cutting out the middle man does reduce overall suffering and is the morally superior option.

TestECull:
image

You think that discriminates between grassland wildlife, wayward day laborers and the target crop?

Lemme spoil the story for you: It doesn't. It sucks in whatever is in front of it. It doesn't care if that happens to be the crop being harvested, weeds, inattentive day laborers, the wife's Lexus, woodland critters, a bicycle. It doesn't care. It just sucks it all in and chops away with equal abandon. The only thing that keeps it from sucking in anything that wanders in front of it is the driver seeing that, and the driver cannot see small critters below the crop.

So true. My Dad and uncles are always upset when they hear that shriek and squish and then had to stop the tractor to pull a mangled, still twitching fawn out of the swather. One more good use of a pocket knife (y'know, since some of the poor little buggers are still alive when the guys get back there).

However, if they ever found a rattlesnake in a round-bale, they'd laugh and cuss in equal measure. Laugh because they hate those snakes, and cuss because it could end up poisoning the cattle.

Jammy2003:
You forget that a large percentage of cattle is grain fed, using up 1/3 of the worlds grain production. So even then, it still results in more deaths. We need less farming, but lowering meat production would actually assist that, as its not being fed to the cow instead of people.

You seem to be assuming that diverting that grain used by animals to human consumption, or even replacing that 1/3rd of grain grown for animals with other crops could take the place of the animals raised using it in the human diet. While I am quite in favour of eating animals raised on foods closer to their natural diet instead of grains, I'm not sure enough could be raised without them to meet human nutritional requirements. And having people eat more grain and less meat than they already do would be a public health disaster on a level I don't even want to think about. You think obesity and heart disease are a problem now?

manic_depressive13:
It's very disingenuous to suggest that a vegan diet causes greater suffering than an omnivorous one.

I don't believe that's what he's suggesting. What I think he is getting at is that if Vegans are going to claim some moral superiority for eating a diet that doesn't involve harming or killing animals, they damn well better be able to back up that sense of moral superiority. If they eat food that is mass produced using large farming equipment, then they are likely fooling themselves into believing they aren't harming anything when it's not really the case. It's not a matter of one causing more harm than the other, but rather a matter of someone claiming to cause no harm had better be walking the walk.

Vivi22:

Jammy2003:
You forget...

You seem to be assuming that diverting that grain used by animals to human consumption, or even replacing that 1/3rd of grain grown for animals with other crops could take the place of the animals raised using it in the human diet. While I am quite in favour of eating animals raised on foods closer to their natural diet instead of grains, I'm not sure enough could be raised without them to meet human nutritional requirements. And having people eat more grain and less meat than they already do would be a public health disaster on a level I don't even want to think about. You think obesity and heart disease are a problem now?

Yes, conservation of energy means that it couldn't be less effective, and if people are getting on fine with the current level, they can only get on better with that. Besides, I said lowering, not eliminating. Eliminating grain-fed perhaps, doesn't eliminate all meat.

People eat far more meat than they need to. I ate a plain cheese pizza a couple of days back with 160% of my RDA protein for one meal. Besides, as you just said, it wouldn't have to be grain, it could be other crops, and I think a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg.
You don't see people living off McDonalds getting fat because of the salad now do you?

I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

TestECull:

CarlMinez:

Yeah, but that's irrelevant. What I reacted on was your sentence doesn't make sense. "People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots"

It makes perfect sense. People don't seem to realize just how many animals suffer in the production of common, mass produced produce. If they want to go vegan on moral grounds they had best be growing their own food using equipment and methods that doesn't do that sort of damage. If they don't, if they happily buy produce grown on mass farms and claim they're doing the morally right thing they're idiots for making sure their 'morally right thing' is actually morally better than the wrong thing.

I also don't suppose I should mention how much wildlife lacks a habitat things to the enormous farms such equipment enables...

What, do you really believe that a few american combine harvesters collectively slaughter more animals per annum than the repugnantly towering number of 58 billions?

And I suppose America is the only country in the world that uses them, right? I mean, Europe and Asia totally can't have common, mass-produced farm equipment that has existed for 60+ years and has the capability to boost output per acre exponentially, right?

You're avoiding the issue. I still find it hard to believe that the entire world's harvesters manage to kill that many animals annually. Firstly, the only animals small enough to not be visible to the driver (and I assume that the majority of Combine harvester drivers are not psychopathic individuals that would run over a big, fully visible cow if they saw one) must be rodents and reptiles. These animals aren't "mass produced" like livestock certainly is, and my guess is that if 58 billion of them died each year from combine harvesters alone, they'd be extinct by now. Or well, maybe not extinct, but they'd certainly depopulate rapidly wherever the combine harvester hazard exists. Keep in mind that I don't include instincts as I couldn't care less for those.

So no, I don't think that this earth's number of active combine harvesters can produce over 58 billion non-human animal deaths each year.

But even so, it still isn't a logical argument on your part. Think about it, you are trying to prove vegans hypocrites for caring about animals, whilst simultaneously causing them harm. That's ad hominem, not an reasonable argument against their stance. And it's not even a proper example of hypocrisy, seeing as for a vegan to be a hypocrite when telling you that supporting the meat industry is unethical, the vegan would have to eat meat, which he or she be definition can't. Hypocrisy is doing the very thing you tell other's not to.

I could still say however that it shows a certain inconsistency in the vegan's ethical reasoning if he or she is against factory farming, but still supports the harvesting industry which kills large amounts of animals. Be that as it may, but that just means that they contribute to one problem, whereas you still contribute both to the unfortunate animal deaths caused by harvesting, but also the animals who died in factory farming. The vegans negative impact on the lives of animals would still be less than that of yours.

In fact, this kind of reasoning is a common logical fallacy. We all inevitably cause suffering for other humans and animals. It's all about what you can do as an individual to minimize this suffering, whether it's buying fair trade items, minimizing your environmental impact or not eating meat.

Calibanbutcher:
I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter that vegans have lower rates of heart disease and some forms of cancer than non-vegetarians, and statistically live longer than meat eaters? Not to mention the decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers, diabetes and obesity and lastly hypertension.

Also, how can you know so very little of something that you at least took the trouble posting a comment about? I mean, finding these facts took me about 30 seconds. Also, these facts are not from some hippie animal-liberation website. They are from the freaking American Dietetic Association.

Calibanbutcher:
I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Comparing average meat-eater diet to the average vegan one? Yes, there are. No eating the crap that is commonly in meat. Not eating the large amount of saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease and cancer.
Compared to the ideal meat-eater diet with good quality meat and a controlled diet making sure you get exactly what you need? I don't really know if there is any benefits then, but how many people follow that?

Because you can't get B12 from all the vegan products that are fortified to cover that problem, such as soy milk or cereals. Jesus, I live with a no supplement vegan, they haven't been collapsing or dying yet. Why the hostility bro?

CarlMinez:

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter... -snip-

Or/and what he said.

Jammy2003:
Yes, conservation of energy means that it couldn't be less effective,

Human nutrition doesn't work that way. Replacing meat with grains does not get them the protein, saturated fat, or other nutrients which we need and can get most efficiently from animal sources. It would also introduce more of a food into the human diet which wreaks havoc on blood sugar levels and human hormones and is causally linked with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease just to name a few things on the tip of the iceberg.

Human nutrition is not a simple matter of calories in minus calories out, source of said calories be damned. The source does matter, hormones and the diets interaction with them, insulin in particular, are what cause obesity, and such a gross oversimplification as cutting out the middle man tries to apply conservation of energy to an extremely complex system where energy is not the sole concern, but also the source of that energy, and the nutrition that comes along with it. Using strict conservation of energy to try and back up your point is not only something which isn't supported by nutritional science, it flat out obfuscates the truths of human nutrition behind the veil of misapplied scientific principles.

Besides, I said lowering, not eliminating. Eliminating grain-fed perhaps, doesn't eliminate all meat.

But many people already fail to eat enough meat because decades of misinformation and bad science have them worried more about saturated fat than sugar and grains. A myth which has exacerbated obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the first world.

People eat far more meat than they need to. I ate a plain cheese pizza a couple of days back with 160% of my RDA protein for one meal.

Government nutritional recommendations are rarely based on good science, and a one size fits all prescription rarely fits anyone. The government recommendations for protein are pretty much in line with the bare minimum people should be getting if they don't want to lose muscle mass and/or die. In actuality, people should be getting quite a bit more than the government recommends, particularly if they're active.

Besides, as you just said, it wouldn't have to be grain, it could be other crops, and I think a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg.
You don't see people living off McDonalds getting fat because of the salad now do you?

You're operating under the assumption that eating too much meat causes people to get fat and develop heart disease. It doesn't. If you want to find the real culprit you can kindly direct your attention to wheat based products and sugars. You want to improve the nutrition and overall health of every single person in the western world? Stop farming grain and use that land to raise either vegetables or animals. Because we've had decades of people attacking meat and fat consumption and it's gotten us nowhere. All the while government has been subsidizing the real problem causers such as wheat producers and HFCS.

CarlMinez:
Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter that vegans have lower rates of heart disease and some forms of cancer than non-vegetarians, and statistically live longer than meat eaters? Not to mention the decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers, diabetes and obesity and lastly hypertension.

Show me some studies comparing vegan diets to paleo or other low carb diets including meat instead of the diet of the average American which is filled with grains, sugars, vegetable oils andother processed garbage and these statistics will be more meaningful. I've yet to see studies which actually compared vegan diets to those types instead of just stacking the deck in favour of vegan diets by comparing to one of the worst diets in human history.

Jiggy:

Vegan_Doodler:

Jiggy:

words

Ok, can I ask what is so laughable about my valid point?

Jiggy:
I'm not suggesting you stoop to the level on intellegence of a cow, I'm saying, where do you draw the line? Is it just everything below our level?

You may not be suggesting that, Vegan Doodler on the other hand was, I remind you that it was her example that sparked this. I'm just pointing out that her example doesn't work.[/quote]
Ummmmmm... My be I'm just not getting the right context here but I never sujested you stoop to the level of a cow, and when you are referring to "her", I'm actually a dude, yeah.

Jiggy:

Vegan_Doodler:

Jiggy:

Ok, can I ask what is so laughable about my valid point?

That alone makes me feel compelled to post the video again...ah what the hell

You don't a valid point, you are laughably wrong.

About?

Vivi22:
-snip-

If you read my post again I think you'll see I didn't suggest replacing eating meat with grain, I said placing it with veg. To clarify, more than one type of vegetable as well. My point is, there are vegans and vegetarians who get by fine, eating a diet that is balanced using other sources, meat is not the only way.

Anything we eat has been linked to all sorts of stuff. Saturated fats found in meat (not found in primary sources of vegan protein) have been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease and all sorts. I didn't say just eat sugar and grains, I said vegetables. And I'd love to see this source that says too much meat can't cause obesity or heart disease. Please, do share.

You're arguing against points I never made. I never claimed wheat to be the messiah of foods, nor sugar, I said "a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg". I never claimed RDA gave you exactly what you wanted, only pointed that if in one meal I obtain more than 160% of the apparent minimum (which could be higher if I'd had pepperoni instead of cheese), then there is probably something wrong there. That was all.

Jiggy:
You don't a valid point, you are laughably wrong.

Also this...

Jiggy:
I'm not suggesting you stoop to the level on intellegence of a cow, I'm saying, where do you draw the line? Is it just everything below our level?

You may not be suggesting that, Vegan Doodler on the other hand was, I remind you that it was her example that sparked this. I'm just pointing out that her example doesn't work.

Ummmmmm... My be I'm just not getting the right context here but I never sujested you stoop to the level of a cow, and when you are referring to "her", I'm actually a dude, yeah.

TestECull:

Vegan_Doodler:

TestECull:
Veganism is a way for idiots to think they're doing something good for animals.

Don't call people idiots.

I'll call whoever I want an idiot.

These people are acting on there moral compass and trying to do what they think is right, that's an honorable way to live a life.

Anyone who blindly follows their moral compass without thinking about how doing so might do MORE damage than if they did nothing at all is a fucking idiot. People who buy Priuses on moral reasons are idiots, as those things do more environmental damage before they're ever purchased than an SUV does over 20 years of heavy use. People who call themselves vegans and buy nothing but mass produced produce are idiots, as their mass produced produce kills far more and in far more painful ways than livestock farming.

Wow, way to represent the species man.

peruvianskys:
I have the exact same position; if I wouldn't do it to a retarded child, I wouldn't do it to an animal.

Oh, sweet! Now I have a way to justify my meat eating life-style.

I would be almost violently opposed to veganism except I have a plan. Our evolution into intelligent sentient beings was dependent on our varied omnivorous diet. I forsee a "The Time Machine" style future where normal Humans will have evolved past most of our handicaps. Vegetarians will have evolved but be entirely dependent on a regimen of vitamins to stave off death. Vegans will have devolved into an exceptionally smug form of lichen, in thrall to their ant overlords.

As a vegan, I can say that the key to understanding veganism, is investing the time to look into the issue yourself.

I don't have several hours to write up all the arguments (though in short form, they are usually confined to three topics - Environment, Health and Ethics), so in stead I'll recommend watching the following two films as relatively quick primers on veganism:

Earthlings describes the ethical and environmental reasons for veganism.

Forks over Knives (site) describes the health reasons.

Additionally for the people who prefer books I'd recommend checking out "The China Study", "Diet for a New America" and "The World Peace Diet" for a more comprehensive understanding.

ishist:
I would be almost violently opposed to veganism except I have a plan. Our evolution into intelligent sentient beings was dependent on our varied omnivorous diet. I forsee a "The Time Machine" style future where normal Humans will have evolved past most of our handicaps. Vegetarians will have evolved but be entirely dependent on a regimen of vitamins to stave off death. Vegans will have devolved into an exceptionally smug form of lichen, in thrall to their ant overlords.

What about level five vegans? I.e. those that dont eat anything that casts a shadow?

On topic I looked into vegatarianism but its not for me. Good for them though, although they always look miserable at Christmas, eating their Nut loaf or whatever

Jammy2003:

Calibanbutcher:
I just wanted to drop in real quick, because someone was going on about the health benefits of a vegan diet:
There are none.
The only thing that surely awaits you, the moment you decide to go on a purely vegan diet without supplements, is death by Vitamin B12 deficiency.

Comparing average meat-eater diet to the average vegan one? Yes, there are. No eating the crap that is commonly in meat. Not eating the large amount of saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease and cancer.
Compared to the ideal meat-eater diet with good quality meat and a controlled diet making sure you get exactly what you need? I don't really know if there is any benefits then, but how many people follow that?

Because you can't get B12 from all the vegan products that are fortified to cover that problem, such as soy milk or cereals. Jesus, I live with a no supplement vegan, they haven't been collapsing or dying yet. Why the hostility bro?

CarlMinez:

Yeah, I guess that it doesn't matter... -snip-

Or/and what he said.

Please bear in mind, that there are far more meat-eaters than vegans, so of course, going with that there are more cases of heart deficiency and what-not. But the health advantages don't come from eating vegan but from actually thinking about what you are going to eat, not eating most kinds of fast-food and thinking a few seconds before stuffing your face.
I have also seen a study with 25 morbidly obese americans, who basically ate nothing but fast food and soda, who, after going on a strict vegan diet, suddenly felt better, had less heart problems, etc.
Is that due to veganism?
Of course not, it's becasue they took care not to eat junk food anymore.
But of course most vegand - meat comparisons decide to go the easy route and compare vegan diets to fast food loving fat and sugar junkies.
And every single other diet on the planet could win against these odds.
And concerning Vit B12:
Your food has to be fortified.
Synthetic (or sometimes also organic) Vitamin B12 has been added to your food.
It's a form of supplement in my book...
Soy beans actually contain very little Vitamin B12, as do cereals, so it's very safe to assume that the soy milk and the cereals were infused with Vitamin B12 artifically, thus making it a Vitamin B12 supplement in my book.

Vegan_Doodler:

Sorry to pick on such an old post but I didn't have time to post the other day, and sorry if these points have already been made but I couldn't find them so...

Then you either weren't looking very hard or you failed to comprehend it, I'm not entirely sure which is more likely.

The only reason cows have a negative impact is because there are so many that have been bread for the purposes of farming,

Guess what? The only reason a Cow doesn't have a inherently negative impact is because we and other species eat them. A Cow not being eaten will only breed, eat and shit.

and the idea that herbivores destroy entire eco systems doesn't really hold up, if that where true plant life would be extinct, herbivores would die out, and carnivores would die out, humans weren't always around to 'control' them.

It holds up, you just couldn't figure out why all on your own. Let me help you out:

Cow has no predators -> Cow lives it's life until it's natural death -> Eats a fuck ton and let's out lot's and lot's of methane -> breeds, now we have even more cows that do nothing but eat, shit and breed -> rinse and repeat until the number of cows cannot be sustained by the eco system, the eco system collapses and the cows fucking starve.

By the way, your reasoning is terrible. Because Humans are the only Predators that do and ever have existed, huh? Predators eating Herbivores is the only way the system even works. So you either didn't understand the context or you are ...unenlightened. Yeah, that doesn't sound too harsh.

Humans actually are (initially) an inherent drain on the world, think about it, how many of us are actually usefull, how many of use are doctors or scientists, it's an unspoken truth that the majority of humans aren't really all that special.

Because Doctors and Scientists are the only useful people, huh? Get some perspective.

snipped for the sake of all our intelligence

Posting Pictures of Barn Yard Animals in a comparison to Terrorists and Dictators...why don't you just go full circle and post a picture of yourself next to the barn animals?

On a side not can we sop with the whole veganism isn't healthy thing, you would be hard pressed to find an unhealthy vegan, and well..

Oh, it isn't unhealthy, not necessarily, it's terribly inefficient, that's why it isn't as good as simply having a balanced diet.

Humans are at the absolute peak of the food chain. It's wonderful. :)

Whenever I think about human accomplishments like the factory-line food production or laboratory animals, it just fills me with such bliss. I enjoy my medicine and my food and I can just marvel at how we've advanced from simple predatory behaviour to manufacture (delicious) food at this magnitude.

I don't really care about how they live, to be honest. They're subhuman and thus available to us for use however we see fit. Just as how seals are available for use by killer-whales in whichever way they see fit (food).

No, the arguments of slaves being seen as subhuman once upon a time is invalid as they're members of the same species as us. Though... if anyone here considers themselves a sentient cow and thus the spokesperson for bovines everywhere, I can accept your point, no problems. ;)

Now to a few things I've seen here that I took issue with:
Exhibit #1

Vegan_Doodler:
Wow, way to represent the species man.

Vegan seen here representing his beliefs in a manner that will certainly not cause prejudice at all.

Now, I generally don't have any issues with other people's personal beliefs and I think I can let them live as they will as long as they don't encroach on the comfort of a fellow human being... I do however have issues with people representing their beliefs by means of attacking others, thus invalidating them in the eyes of their opponents.
Much in the same way as I dislike gamers shooting up schools and making the rest of us look bad.

So, have a call-out, guy. I insist.

Exhibit #2

Troublesome Lagomorph:
Because eating animals "is immoral and unnatural." That's what the only vegan I've known says. Oh and "humans are actually herbivores that force themselves to eat meat from a young age."

I wanted to snip out the bits that are subjective about "morals" but it would be choppy, and I need to acknowledge hat this person is just the messenger, and I maintain my policy of not shooting those.

With regards to the bolded section, however:
image

Jammy2003:
Saturated fats found in meat (not found in primary sources of vegan protein) have been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease and all sorts.

Those links have been frequently and consistently debunked as of late. In fact, now that the mechanisms which cause heart disease in the first place are better understood, it's not only impossible for the consumption of saturated fat to cause it, it actually prevents it by creating more optimal levels of good and bad cholesterol in the blood stream, and by not causing the inflammation which damages arteries in the first place and allows small LDL particles to take up residence in the artery walls. If you'd like to read a bit more about it then check out the book Wheat Belly by Dr. William Davis. He's a cardiologist who looked at a ton of research, lists all of his sources, and has been reversing heart disease in his patients by encouraging them to give up grains and follow a low carb, high fat diet which includes plenty of meat and fat.

And I'd love to see this source that says too much meat can't cause obesity or heart disease. Please, do share.

Again, read that book because it explains the mechanisms behind both in quite a bit of detail. You can also check out the documentary Fathead by Tom Naughton or pretty much anything by Gary Taubes as a place to start looking into low carb diets and myths like the lipid hypothesis.

But to answer your question about obesity more directly, it's pretty much impossible to become obese from over eating meat when you understand the mechanisms by which people actually store fat. First, fat is primarily stored as a result of insulin triggering the storage of blood glucose as fat. This typically will not happen unless blood glucose levels rise to high and we can't efficiently burn it off quickly enough to prevent it being a problem. This won't happen when you eat meat. Protein and fat have no impact on blood sugar levels and can't cause the spikes which trigger fat storage. Only carbs can do that, and only in sufficient quantities. This is why the biggest culprits are sugar and wheat which will spike post-meal glucose levels into the diabetic range for most people, triggering insulin release to deal with the issue. But it's not just limited to sugar and wheat. For someone trying to actively lose weight, even fructose in many fruits can cause problems if they have more than 1-2 servings a day, usually because these peoples hormonal and metabolic systems are so out of whack that they can't handle any sugar anymore, even fructose.

This is a bit of an oversimplification mind you. There are other factors at play in how someone stores fat such as their sensitivity or resistance to insulin and how readily their body will tap into fat stores for energy if needed, but the gist is that obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. all stem from over consumption of carbohydrates. Even worse is that carbs such as wheat and sugar will stimulate appetite and make people crave more when their blood sugar inevitably crashes creating one hell of a vicious cycle. Not only will that not happen on a low carb diet which includes plenty of meat and fat, but they provide greater satiety after consumption and more consistent energy levels throughout the day. Many find they can go hours longer between meals without eating and be perfectly fine because their blood sugar is under control and their body is utilizing the fat for energy instead of carbs.

You're arguing against points I never made. I never claimed wheat to be the messiah of foods, nor sugar,

No, but you did try to equate a simple concept such as conservation of energy to a complex system such as the human body which runs on more than simple calories, and argue that cutting out animals is more efficient because it loses the middle man. Your post also implied to me that you were arguing people would be better off if that 1/3rd of the worlds grain went straight to people instead of animals. But since that wasn't your intention I apologize for the misunderstanding. But the reality isn't as simple as you made it out to be, and ignores that animals are a very efficient source of protein, fat and nutrients we outright can't get from plants with any efficiency, and is certainly the more optimal choice since a diet including meat, particularly in larger quantities than the USDA recommends is much closer to the diet most people, particularly of European descent, have been eating for millions of years.

I said "a lot of people in this world could do with a lot less meat, and a lot more veg". I never claimed RDA gave you exactly what you wanted, only pointed that if in one meal I obtain more than 160% of the apparent minimum (which could be higher if I'd had pepperoni instead of cheese), then there is probably something wrong there. That was all.

I agree something is wrong there, but what's wrong is that the USDA pulled nutritional recommendations out of their ass and are often swayed by the whims of whichever lobbyists have the deepest pockets. The best research out there does not support their recommendations.

I mean look at it this way: of the three major macronutrients, protein, carbohydrates and fat, there is one that humans can get 0 of in their diet and be perfectly fine. I'll give you a hint: you're not going to find much of this macronutrient in a steak. So if we can thrive on diets with 0 carbs (the only down side being you're not going to run any marathons on 0 carbs), then why do the USDA recommendations call for eating the bare minimum of those you need to live, while recommending around 300g of carbs a day, most of that in the form of wheat based products? The answer, quite simply, is the people making the nutritional recommendations also happen to be paying pretty big subsidies to grain farmers. Wouldn't want all of that government money to be wasted on crops no ones eating I suppose.

Spy_Guy:
snip

That's actually my point. That was the only vegan I knows defense for being a vegan. It was in quotes for that very reason.

Calibanbutcher:

Please bear in mind, that there are far more meat-eaters than vegans, so of course, going with that there are more cases of heart deficiency and what-not. But the health advantages don't come from eating vegan but from actually thinking about what you are going to eat, not eating most kinds of fast-food and thinking a few seconds before stuffing your face.
I have also seen a study with 25 morbidly obese americans, who basically ate nothing but fast food and soda, who, after going on a strict vegan diet, suddenly felt better, had less heart problems, etc.
Is that due to veganism?
Of course not, it's becasue they took care not to eat junk food anymore.
But of course most vegand - meat comparisons decide to go the easy route and compare vegan diets to fast food loving fat and sugar junkies.
And every single other diet on the planet could win against these odds.
And concerning Vit B12:
Your food has to be fortified.
Synthetic (or sometimes also organic) Vitamin B12 has been added to your food.
It's a form of supplement in my book...
Soy beans actually contain very little Vitamin B12, as do cereals, so it's very safe to assume that the soy milk and the cereals were infused with Vitamin B12 artifically, thus making it a Vitamin B12 supplement in my book.

Well maybe you are looking at the wrong studies, not my problem.
Others exist, I'm sorry for you wasting your time looking at such obviously biased ones, but I assure you biased studies exist both ways.

In regards to B12:
1) It's not my food, get your facts right.
2) Well we have different ideas of supplements then, to me a supplement is something you actively take ie. a tablet.

Jiggy:

Vegan_Doodler:

Sorry to pick on such an old post but I didn't have time to post the other day, and sorry if these points have already been made but I couldn't find them so...

Then you either weren't looking very hard or you failed to comprehend it, I'm not entirely sure which is more likely.

Man, I I meant I actually couldn't find posts with these points.

The only reason cows have a negative impact is because there are so many that have been bread for the purposes of farming,

Guess what? The only reason a Cow doesn't have a inherently negative impact is because we and other species eat them. A Cow not being eaten will only breed, eat and shit.

Because we eat them more are farmed, and there for have more of a negative impact.

and the idea that herbivores destroy entire eco systems doesn't really hold up, if that where true plant life would be extinct, herbivores would die out, and carnivores would die out, humans weren't always around to 'control' them.

It holds up, you just couldn't figure out why all on your own. Let me help you out:

Cow has no predators -> Cow lives it's life until it's natural death -> Eats a fuck ton and let's out lot's and lot's of methane -> breeds, now we have even more cows that do nothing but eat, shit and breed -> rinse and repeat until the number of cows cannot be sustained by the eco system, the eco system collapses and the cows fucking starve.

By the way, your reasoning is terrible. Because Humans are the only Predators that do and ever have existed, huh? Predators eating Herbivores is the only way the system even works. So you either didn't understand the context or you are ...unenlightened. Yeah, that doesn't sound too harsh.

Wow way to be real condescending man, very classy. You do realise taking what you just said to its logical conclusion would mean all live would have died out years ago. Animals don't continually bread, and I've even head they die some times so that's got to lower their numbers, right. "Because Humans are the only Predators that do and ever have existed, huh? " My point was that what you are saying is the only reason cows haven't killed of the planet yet is because humans keep their numbers down (complete opposite of what they do but whatever) but humans weren't always farming them, so logicically we wouldn't be here talking about it because cows would have fucked up the planet.

Humans actually are (initially) an inherent drain on the world, think about it, how many of us are actually usefull, how many of use are doctors or scientists, it's an unspoken truth that the majority of humans aren't really all that special.

Because Doctors and Scientists are the only useful people, huh? Get some perspective.

Now you are putting word in my mouth while displaying my actual words two lines above, I didn't say that they where the only useful examples did I, I just used them as examples because they where the first to jump to mind.

snipped for the sake of all our intelligence

Wow, thanks man how considerate of you!

Posting Pictures of Barn Yard Animals in a comparison to Terrorists and Dictators...why don't you just go full circle and post a picture of yourself next to the barn animals?

I really don't get this needs to be asked. Because I'm not a terrorist or dictator, you where saying that humans are inherently superior, evidently they are not. A human has far more potential to be destructive than a cow, and I don't think I would call a cow a terrorist unless I was a blade of grass.

On a side not can we sop with the whole veganism isn't healthy thing, you would be hard pressed to find an unhealthy vegan, and well..

Oh, it isn't unhealthy, not necessarily, it's terribly inefficient, that's why it isn't as good as simply having a balanced diet.

Sun>Plant>Animal>human
Sun>Plant>Human
Seems more efficient to me.

Seriously though, I don't think I did any thing to warrant that kind of condescending reaction.

Vivi22:
-snip-

So basically, you hate carbs. Carbs are bad. That's what your arguement seems to boil down to? I'm simplifying because I've had enough long debates in the first 11 pages of this thread, and don't want to get into any more. I wrote 1 paragraph, you gave me 7. You want to debate with me this late in the thread? Go back and read what I wrote before, I have no interest in writing it all out again

Ok, maybe I will read the book sometime, I'm not gonna do it right this second to debate with you though. Animals are a very efficient source of lots of things, yes. However we can't sustain the level of production we currently have, and you are suggesting we have more?

With your talk of the USDA I'm gonna assume you're American, 70-80% of your grain production goes to livestock. That's a lot of wheat, making a lot of meat. And the conditions or practices aren't too good either, meaning there is also a lot of crap quality meat. Maybe a diet of good quality meat, and low carbs is good for you, but that isn't what the average person is going to get.

You are arguing against points nobody has raised, and I'm not interested in playing devil's advocate for you. I don't know as much about carbs as you seem to, so I'm not gonna defend them. I do know it's possible to live healthily on a vegan diet though, and you are pretty much completely off topic to the thread at this stage.

Spy_Guy:

Vegan_Doodler:
Wow, way to represent the species man.

Vegan seen here representing his beliefs in a manner that will certainly not cause prejudice at all.

Now, I generally don't have any issues with other people's personal beliefs and I think I can let them live as they will as long as they don't encroach on the comfort of a fellow human being... I do however have issues with people representing their beliefs by means of attacking others, thus invalidating them in the eyes of their opponents.
Much in the same way as I dislike gamers shooting up schools and making the rest of us look bad.

So, have a call-out, guy. I insist.

I wasn't attacking him with my belief, I don't do that. If you read the guys original post he says "vegans are idiots" several times, when I replied in a completely respectable manner he said "I'll call anyone I like an idiot". While I admit my "Wow, way to represent the species man." line doesn't add anything to the conversation is and isn't really worthwhile, I didn't say that because he doesn't share my beliefs, I said that because he was being a dick.

And I'd appreciate if you quote me don't do it out of context so that I have to explain what really happened.

Vegan_Doodler:

Jiggy:

Vegan_Doodler:

Sorry to pick on such an old post but I didn't have time to post the other day, and sorry if these points have already been made but I couldn't find them so...

Then you either weren't looking very hard or you failed to comprehend it, I'm not entirely sure which is more likely.

Man, I I meant I actually couldn't find posts with these points.

So?

Because we eat them more are farmed, and there for have more of a negative impact.

And if they weren't eaten their existence would be entirely negative.

Wow way to be real condescending man, very classy. You do realise taking what you just said to its logical conclusion would mean all live would have died out years ago.

No, it absolutely does not. But I forgive you.

Animals don't continually bread, and I've even head they die some times so that's got to lower their numbers, right. "Because Humans are the only Predators that do and ever have existed, huh? " My point was that what you are saying is the only reason cows haven't killed of the planet yet is because humans keep their numbers down (complete opposite of what they do but whatever) but humans weren't always farming them, so logicically we wouldn't be here talking about it because cows would have fucked up the planet.

Except that's not what I was saying. But I forgive you for that too.

What I said is: Cows without Predators = Inherently Negative Animal

That boils down to: The only good thing about Cows is that they can be eaten.

Humans actually are (initially) an inherent drain on the world, think about it, how many of us are actually usefull, how many of use are doctors or scientists, it's an unspoken truth that the majority of humans aren't really all that special.

Because Doctors and Scientists are the only useful people, huh? Get some perspective.

Now you are putting word in my mouth while displaying my actual words two lines above, I didn't say that they where the only useful examples did I, I just used them as examples because they where the first to jump to mind.

And yet you are still wrong and I have already explained, in length, precisely why your are wrong and also why you need to get some perspective.

snipped for the sake of all our intelligence

Wow, thanks man how considerate of you!

I'm sorry, but that was for everyone else, as the culprit, I'm afraid you are already infected.

I really don't get this needs to be asked. Because I'm not a terrorist or dictator, you where saying that humans are inherently superior, evidently they are not. A human has far more potential to be destructive than a cow, and I don't think I would call a cow a terrorist unless I was a blade of grass.

Note that I said full circle. Now think really really hard about what I could have been implying with that.

As I've already stated, I've long since explained all of this. But, once more, in short, just for you:

Cows have no potential beyond being used for resources and even people that do bad things can cause good things while doing bad things.

Oh, it isn't unhealthy, not necessarily, it's terribly inefficient, that's why it isn't as good as simply having a balanced diet.

Sun>Plant>Animal>human
Sun>Plant>Human
Seems more efficient to me.[/quote]

Well you also think posting pictures of dictators and terrorists next to barn animals constitutes a argument, I think it's safe to disregard what you think, especially when the actual point flew about 5 Miles over your head.

Seriously though, I don't think I did any thing to warrant that kind of condescending reaction.

Think harder.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked