Veganism...why?

[Jammy2003]

When did I say we were carnivores? Seeing as we don't have teeth like a tiger and fruit/vegetables were the core diet of our great ancestors we can be neither of two extremes. We do need meat but sometimes we eat too much, often the wrong type of meat.

the arguement we NEED to eat meat instead of the large quantities of veg to keep up calories is a bit of a fail.

Not really, the most common problems for a vegan is malnutrition especially in the young. The advice for vegans is to eat more rather than to eat less in order to get the recommended daily allowance of minerals and vitamins.

If were are going to use the "eat well plate" for reference

Spoiler

Then that's well of a quarter off the plate in which they need to compensate for which contains quite a bit of fat,minerals and vitamins. I suppose you don't need it but life without it isn't easy.

I never said you did, you pointed out ours was shorter than herbivores, I pointed out ours was longer than carnivores. I never said we were herbivores.

Malnutrition can be a problem, but not if you actually research things. Of course you have to eat a larger quantity of veg compared to meat, but it takes less to produce.

Can't see the image, my internet is playing up but I'm gonna guess its a plate with portion sizes? It's a strange concept that's pretty new to humanity... Life should be easy for us for some reason? Why? Ease leads to laziness and greed, which is where half the problems I see these days stem from.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

 

[Stu35]

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a **** who mistreats his dog. Even more so if it's an awesome dog like a Border Collie, Schaeferhund or a Husky.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

You could say the same thing about sports, religion or relationships. All of those things aren't really necessary, but people enjoy them anyway. I don't have a problem with what people choose to do as long as it does not effect me, and they don't try to rub it in my face.

Honestly, you can't tell someone their beliefs are wrong without sounding incredibly arrogant.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a **** who mistreats his dog.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

Indeed.

Humans don't enslave animals because animals have no concept of slavery.

If this very second, every cow, sheep and pig were freed, you know what they would do?

The same thing they do everyday.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think we're animals and we have a place on the food chain that must be adhered to, it's our duty as humans to keep the lower species in check.

Like we need to eat them to do that, these days.

 

[Denamic]

I completely disagree with the last line even if it is just semantics because nature isn't a thing that's going out of its way just to trip hikers down mountains.

Actually it is.
It's not 'going out of its way', as it's not conscious.
But gravity happens to be a pretty important part of nature.
Well, technically, nature is everything.
The universe is nature, and by extension, we are nature as much as any tree.
But I digress; let's pretend 'nature' is that greenish place with trees in it.

Genocide is an active thing, allowing something to die naturally is passive and there for no blame.

Inaction carries blame as well.
If you see someone drowning in a river, that in this scenario you can easily save, opting to not save that person is your decision.
Your decision is what killed that person; your role being passive or not is of little consequence.
If I decide to release my dogs in the middle of a forest, they'll die.
It being 'natural' doesn't detract from the fact that I'm responsible for it.

Apart from that I half agree with you and I though I was the only one that noticed that pets where esentialy highly evolved parasites, (that's right felix! get a job!) but I do have to say that my quwarle is with the fact that they are being kept in the first place, if they are supposed to be dead at this point then we should let them bow out with not stick around because their useful.

This stance that 'nature' is some sort of higher power that we have to obey is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Physical laws of nature I can abide by, mystical tree spirits, or whatever, deciding what species shall live or die, not so much.

 

[Jammy2003]

Actually... Sorry mate but I know this person, and the amount of effort they go to educate themselves means they have cut out animal products, things tested on animals, clothing and.... pretty much anything it is possible to?
Also, I did the civil thing, and ASKED where it was directed. It was directed at the first half of the thread. So.... Mine is valid (Or at least correct) and yours isn't.

"Most vegans are ignorant" is not the same as all are, so it's quite the assumption you are throwing around there. Do you know most vegans? Or is this just vegans you happen to have met? Anecdotal evidence?

(Man ya butchered that quote, I fixed it for ya though!)

So they dont live in any place or ride in a car made in the last decade or so? Hm interesting, and do you know exactly how many things have been tested on animals? Most modern science and medicine is based on animal testing so...your friend will have a short but apparently blissfully ignorant morally superior life!

And its strange, I looked back through the posts, I didnt see you ask or get answered as to what portion the post was referring to... If you could like me to that I would be happy to be informed!

And now for your viewing pleasure. A vegan xenomorph!

(Yeah, I noticed once i posted it but i never got used to the system enough to know how to fix it)

I just want to ask, so its better to do NOTHING than to do what you can? You're right, most stuff recently is at least based on things that were tested on animals. But surely it's better to at least do the best you can isn't it?

Somethings in society are practically IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, some things aren't. As a matter of fact, she lives in a house substantially older than 10 years old, and doesn't own a car. But one day she might not, and that'll be a decision that'll be made then. The point is to make a CONSCIOUS decision.

And in regards to animal testing in medicine, its actually pretty ineffective if you look at the success crossover from animal trials to human trials. It's been suggested by professionals in the field that it has set back medical development a large number of years.

As to that, you can't see it, because they didn't post it to me. I go to uni with the person, and asked them outside of this forum. I can always get them to log on and confirm if you'd like?

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

I seem to remember hearing about this kind of speech once, I think it was called level headed logic, I tip my hat to you sir.

 

[jklinders]

Nature is far more cruel than humans ever were.

But Humans are still cruel. We may be less cruel to animals than nature is, but we are far crueller to them than we are to fellow humans.

Cruelty is an entirely human concept.

No Cow has ever died thinking 'Well, that bipedal thing with the bolt-gun was fucking mean to me!'

I hate to simplify what is, for me, quite a complex series of issues crossing Morals, Nature, Mans ability to overcome nature, the fact that man is the only truly sentient and intelligent animal in nature, and a whole host of other things, but what this whole thing really boils down to for me is:

The Cheetah does not care what the Springbok feels when it dies.

The fact that we even moderately consider the 'feelings' of our prey is an anomaly. One which I share in - I don't like unnecessary cruelty to animals, and as with most westerners, I value certain animals above others - I may disapprove of a farmer of Battery-cage hens, but I'd happily set fucking fire to a **** who mistreats his dog.

Once again though, on a sheer intellectual, 'lets look at this through the cold eyes of logic' way of things - The fact that we herd and domesticate our prey does not change the fact that this is all it is - Prey. It's a commodity.

The Cheetah, will never, ever care what the Springbok feels when it dies. The Springbok will never, ever consider that it's a cruel world which put it in the same area as something that wants to (and has the capability) to chase it down and eat it. It certainly won't consider it's life to have been better than a Cow that lived it's entire life in a field, before getting a bolt through it's head.

Only humans can draw distinctions between the two. Ultimately they're the same thing.

We're just better at it than the Cheetah.

This pretty much sums up my own perspective, far better than I would have put it.

It won't end the argument as the whole vegan thing is like a pool of gasoline in a forest fire in the internet but it is by far the best way to express my own perspective.

 

[Eamar]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

I seem to remember hearing about this kind of speech once, I think it was called level headed logic, I tip my hat to you sir.

I know why some omnivores attack vegans but it's still rather pathetic; veganism infers they are cruel and in some ways inferior, so they feel the subconscious need to one-up the vegan and assert themselves as correct. This is why the general tone of their messages is conceit--what better way to look better than someone than make your opponent look foolish and silly. It's similar in some ways to how bullies with low self-esteem and a poor sense of self worth attack seemingly weaker peers to appear better.

If someone is professing their beliefs and being a preaching annoyance, yeah, feel free to tell them where to go. But to come into a thread and attack strangers and insult an entire belief unprovoked because you don't like it? Are we that immature and pathetic?

I look down on assholes more than I do someone with a belief I disagree with.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

I completely disagree with the last line even if it is just semantics because nature isn't a thing that's going out of its way just to trip hikers down mountains.

Actually it is.
It's not 'going out of its way', as it's not conscious.
But gravity happens to be a pretty important part of nature.
Well, technically, nature is everything.
The universe is nature, and by extension, we are nature as much as any tree.
But I digress; let's pretend 'nature' is that greenish place with trees in it.[/quote]

Genocide is an active thing, allowing something to die naturally is passive and there for no blame.

[/quote]Inaction carries blame as well.
If you see someone drowning in a river, that in this scenario you can easily save, opting to not save that person is your decision.
Your decision is what killed that person; your role being passive or not is of little consequence.
If I decide to release my dogs in the middle of a forest, they'll die.
It being 'natural' doesn't detract from the fact that I'm responsible for it.[/quote]
Well according to your above point it would be natures fault. I guess this is where we disagree, I do think there is a collective responsibly but to me it would be that person (or animal) who ultimately decided their fate. Want to live, great, now fight for it.

Apart from that I half agree with you and I though I was the only one that noticed that pets where esentialy highly evolved parasites, (that's right felix! get a job!) but I do have to say that my quwarle is with the fact that they are being kept in the first place, if they are supposed to be dead at this point then we should let them bow out with not stick around because their useful.

This stance that 'nature' is some sort of higher power that we have to obey is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Physical laws of nature I can abide by, mystical tree spirits, or whatever, deciding what species shall live or die, not so much.[/quote]

I didn't mean that nature is some sort of spirit, I'm pretty sure that my first sentence is evident of that. What I meant is the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, don't take the bears pick-a-nick basket.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

Mmm. Both sides have their hooting blowhards. One just happens to have a larger base of subscribers, so it's harder to ignore the idiots, lol..

 

[JoJo]

Yeah, I hate vegans!!!

How dare they stand up for those who have no voice?
How dare they value thousands of innocent lives over their mere taste buds?
How dare they strive to make the world a better, more cruelty-free place for all?
How dare they challenge my blind, ignorant habits with logical thinking?
How dare they live a lifestyle of compassion and love?

Seriously guys, what a loads of idiots!!1!

And right on queue one of those ones that gives vegans a bad name.

Bravo!

Why? she's making a valid point, and I completely get the frustration, just look at this forum, the general consensus is that vegans are arrogant, snobby, hypocrites.

Sadly that's generally because they are, just look at Jessy Fran's post, she calls us meat-eaters "blind" and "ignorant" and implies we lack logical thinking, compassion and love. That sure she's like she think's above us to me.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

Yeah, I hate vegans!!!

How dare they stand up for those who have no voice?
How dare they value thousands of innocent lives over their mere taste buds?
How dare they strive to make the world a better, more cruelty-free place for all?
How dare they challenge my blind, ignorant habits with logical thinking?
How dare they live a lifestyle of compassion and love?

Seriously guys, what a loads of idiots!!1!

Whilie i respect the opinion and choices of vegetarians/vegans...

Spoiler

 

[Eamar]

This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

Agreed. Not wishing to generalise, since there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly reasonable, but there really is a tendency to judge other groups horribly. And the levels of generalisation that go on are ridiculous. It's particularly ironic given how we all feel about people doing the same to gamers as a group...

That said, there have been reasonable and unreasonable people on both sides of this particular argument. Don't let the vegans get off scot free.

Mmm. Both sides have their hooting blowhards. One just happens to have a larger base of subscribers, so it's harder to ignore the idiots, lol..

Oh that's definitely true, I was just pointing out that some of the vegans in this thread have been just as guilty of generalising and mocking people who don't agree with them as the meat-eaters.

It's an inherently human thing to dismiss people who don't agree with you, I guess. And to hate it when others do the same to you.

 

[Jammy2003]

(The quick and easy way to fix it is quote the person again, cut the new quote out of the reply box, click edit on your post then paste it over the damaged section. ^.^)

Exactly, thus people who say they use no animal products are hypocrites because they cannot help but do it. That is the problem with using absolutes, they tend to make an ass out of you.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/featcow

That article details how widespread the simple bovine has invaded every aspect of our lives.

According to the authors of the British inquiry, "it has been said, and not altogether facetiously, that the only industry in which some part of the cow is not used is concrete production." But if the concrete is loaded onto a truck with rubber tires and driven down a paved road, or if the production company's annual report is printed on glossy paper, or if the company office uses plywood in its construction, then cow parts are involved. The paper is probably coated with a gelatinous chemical ultimately derived from tallow. The tires and the pavement are manufactured, in part, with bovine fatty acids, and the plywood is bound together with adhesive made partly of cow blood.

That part particularly made me smile.

The point was, there have been things made within the last ten years that have been made to vegan standards, if you are dealing with things older than that (but not before WW2) then you are using animal products.

Though using animals for testing may set us back a bit, but a lot of procedures use drugs and medicines made from animal parts. Though sadly the CDC wont let people test straight away on human subjects, so the animals are the best we got. Could be an interesting use for some of the less useful members of society though! Imagine all those lifers in prisons put to good use! but I am getting off topic...

Ahh I see, no need to have that little ball of fury and anger come back, I will take your word for it!

EDIT: I is sad, no mention of the vegan xenomorph

I get that, but aren't you basically arguing semantics at that point? The industry is not going to just die overnight, and the products could be produced by other means if we had the will to find a way.

Besides, if we are to look at the use of absolutes then I would say the anti-vegan crowd on here is doing a far greater job of generalising things on the whole. (A generalisation in itself I know ) We can only argue in generals though, not on a completely case by case basis though, as there are just too many people nowadays to do so.

So while, personally, I believe we have far too many people on this planet and a good cull could solve most of the worlds problems, that's another point entirely. (Though I feel from the prisoners point you may share some of those sentiments...)

The point I'm trying to make is, while talking in absolutes isn't nessicarily correct, isn't making a positive impact with your actions and not being completely correct in your assertions better than doing nothing, or worse having a negative impact by arguing against it, and being precise and correct? I always aim to leave things in the same or better state than I found them, and if more people lived by that it would be a better thing I feel.

(Vegan Xenomorph was pretty awesome actually Aubergine head and peppers in the chest, it's interesting!)

 

[The White Hunter]

I'm sorry but that just doesn't work. Grazing animals are a secondary tier source of food, and by simple biology CAN'T be more efficient than growing crops. What do they eat? Whatever is growing in the field (grass we'll say). The cow can not get more energy from eating the plants than the plants have in the first place. The cow then uses energy before we eat them, and they aren't so much more efficient of stripping the nutrients from the plants that its better to use them as a middle man.

Besides, mass is not the issue, its volume of food per unit area that matters, and the concentrations of the nutrients inside such food.

The only way a field of cows could be more efficient than a field of crops is if you are feeding the cows crops from another field, which then means that they aren't just using up opne field, they are using up multiple ones.

I'm gonna start keeping a folder of articles for this kind of discussion so I can pull out the papers I need. I read it ages ago, yes cow gives more food than wheat because it eats the grass that we dont eat anyway. If you feed it on grains we could eat then yeah sure.

I'll also point out that conservation of energy is a matter of physics and you are correct, it can't get more energy out of the foodstuff than is in the foodstuff in the first place.

Feed the cow the grass not the crops, seems like a solution.

It may also vary by location, in my local area there's not the thing you have in the US where you have thousands of miles for your cows. You have a field.

But whatever. I'm not after an argument.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

It has come to my attention that I inadvertently insulted someone because they share a name with this this guy

I apologise for that, should have been more clear.