Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[Policenaut]

I haven't read this thread but I'd just like to say that it's painfully obvious that humans are designed to be omnivores. Sure you can get protein in other ways but meat (and fish also) is the most efficient. People can choose to eat whatever they want but just don't try convincing me that I'm doing the "wrong" thing by eating meat and I'm fine with vegans/vegetarians/etc.

 

[AWPrime]

Have there been tests to determine this or is this personal observation?

Its a culinary fact. The meat isn't damaged through stress and its had to opportunity to develop naturally.

 

[politas]

I think Veganism is silly because I don't see any particular importance in the differentiation between animals and plants. It's all just life. We have to eat life to live.

We draw an entirely arbitrary boundary between "us" and "food". Vegans just choose a different boundary, ultimately.

 

[madurobob]

That you do not think animals should be killed for food is a religious stance, and as such is not really going to go anywhere as an argument. You believe it because you believe it and your attempts to rationalize it are about as valid as any religious advocates arguments.

Good luck with your beliefs, you and the fundies should get together sometime.

Hmmm.. so the idea that animals should not be killed for food is a religious stance but the idea that animals should be killed for food is not? How so?

 

[madurobob]

Sure you can get protein in other ways but meat (and fish also) is the most efficient.

You of course knew someone was going to ask:

Evidence?

 

[madurobob]

Have there been tests to determine this or is this personal observation?

"Tastier" is subjective, but most deer hunters know that a buck killed during mating season tastes quite different than one killed a couple of weeks earlier. The explanation I've always heard is the level of hormones in the blood. I suspect this is why calves raised for beef are typically castrated at an early age.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm just saying that eating meat had a big impact on our evolution into what we are.

Which has nothing to do with moral decisions of modern humans now.

Or are you asserting some form of the naturalistic fallacy--that our evolutionary history indicates that Mother Nature wants us to behave a certain way?

You do know that most diseases are species specific?

Some common food borne pathogens: Bacillus cereus, Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, Cryptosporidium parvum, Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Giardia lamblia, Hepatitis A, Listeria monocytogenes, Norwalk (Norwalk-like or norovirus), Salmonellosis, Staphylococcus, Shigella, Toxoplasma gondii, Vibrio, Yersiniosis.

If you leave off eating the flesh of people who died of infectious illness (which you should also do concerning the meat from sick animals), there is no reason to think that human flesh is more dangerous than animal flesh. I don't believe the taboo is related to health.

In most of human history animals were only fed with food that wasn't fit for human consumption and in many parts of the world this is still the norm. Citing an exception as the norm doesn't make any argument against meat eating.

That is not the case today. The factory farms have to be considered the norm and not the exception.

At any rate the same efficiency argument holds for grazing. If the land were used to grow crops for human consumption, there would be higher efficiency.

Remember, you were claiming that meat eating is easier. I only have to prove that it is certainly no more efficient than not eating meat.

Guess what you are an omnivore, your body wants some meat. Even if your mind can't bring yourself to eat meat.

I still think you're playing with the naturalistic fallacy. (And you're definitely using the pathetic fallacy.) Nutrition is grouped in protein, carbohydrates and fats. My body might crave those, but it doesn't "care" one way or the other whether those come from animal or vegetable sources.

However as a vegetarian you would need to take far more attention to what you are eating to make sure you get what you need. A meat eater that eats the proper amount and variation of meat is likely to be healthier.

Not true. I don't have to pay much of any attention to what I am eating--at least no more than anyone else. I eat a wide variety of foods--I'm a bit of a junk food junkie, though.

ETA: About 15 or 20 years ago, I rarely dined out, and it was somewhat difficult to find meat-free entrees in restaurants. (Didn't matter much to me, because I couldn't afford to dine out so often anyway.) Now, I dine out frequently, and it's become one of my favorite things to do. At least around here, I don't even have to consider what restaurant I'm going to. (While a steakhouse isn't my favorite place to eat, even they have a veggie/pasta plate available--plus plenty of sides that I like.)

Why is it that in a vegetarian's case it requires "far more attention" but you just assume an idealized meat-eater "that eats the proper amount and variation of meat"? Doesn't it take attention to eat "the proper amount and variation of meat"?

Well that is odd. Dying is a fact of life but how that life was lived is what truly matters.

Strawman argument. I'm talking about killing not dying.

The current demand is excessive, for many people are eating too much meat. The blame for that can be pointed at the bizarre methods that make meat so cheap. Its a self reinforcing circle, that can only be broken by law and culture. Meat eating itself will never go away, however animals don't have to be treated cruelly to provide meat. Also stress free animals provide tastier meat.

As I'm sure I've said here before, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to become vegetarian. I just take exception to fast and loose arguments used by those who somehow think that my choice threatens them.

You admit that most meat eaters eat too much meat. You also admit that that is both a cause and an effect of the factory farm system which does cause the mistreatment of animals (again--that isn't the basis of my vegetarianism, but it's still an important consideration). Yet, you keep wanting to compare some idealized meat-eating diet against the realities of vegetarianism. That hardly seems fair.

 

[madurobob]

Not true. I don't have to pay much of any attention to what I am eating--at least no more than anyone else. I eat a wide variety of foods--I'm a bit of a junk food junkie, though.

I don't know about "far more attention", but I certainly stop and ask questions and read labels more that my non-veggie friends.

"Do you make that soup with chicken stock, or vegetable stock"

Or, worse, the realization that Hostess HoHos are made with lard. But, Little Debbie Swiss Rolls are not!

I consider this slightly heightened awareness to be a benefit - I think more people should ask questions about whats in their food and read the labels of what they eat, if only to avoid partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know about "far more attention", but I certainly stop and ask questions and read labels more that my non-veggie friends.

"Do you make that soup with chicken stock, or vegetable stock"

Or, worse, the realization that Hostess HoHos are made with lard. But, Little Debbie Swiss Rolls are not!

I consider this slightly heightened awareness to be a benefit - I think more people should ask questions about whats in their food and read the labels of what they eat, if only to avoid partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.

I agree, asking questions and reading labels isn't a bad thing. I don't do that so much these days. (I guess I learned about lard in HoHos and Ding Dongs about 15 years ago, and I just assumed it's never changed. I don't care much for cake type of snacks much anyway.)

To me, being healthy is much more about the exercise I do (lots and lots!) and eating a variety of different food. I do just go with whatever I seem to crave. Never had a weight problem (or blood pressure or cholesterol).

I'm also not a vegan. I agree someone who wants to keep all animal products out of their diet probably knows it'll take more attention.

My contention is that this idealized very healthy meat-eater has to read labels and pay attention too (at least to the same or a greater extent than I do). He's got to worry about fat and cholesterol intake and so on.

(Also, I was addressing the "it's easier to eat meat than not" in terms of the big picture--factory farms and inefficient use of energy.)

The restaurants around here mostly mark their vegetarian entrees with a symbol right on the menu. There's also even an all-vegetarian diner not far from here. (They mark the vegan items on the menu!)

 

[AWPrime]

If you leave off eating the flesh of people who died of infectious illness (which you should also do concerning the meat from sick animals), there is no reason to think that human flesh is more dangerous than animal flesh. I don't believe the taboo is related to health.

You seem to be stuck in belief. There is a species barrier and most diseases can't cross it (there are millions of them). While eating from healthy individuals and proper preparation reduce the risks, they don't eliminate it. Diseases are constantly present in flesh only held back by the immune system and after the animal dies the immune system is no more.

That is not the case today. The factory farms have to be considered the norm and not the exception.

You have yet to provide any argument for this. And even if you manage to do it, it still doesn't make meat eating wrong, you only eliminated one way of getting meat.

At any rate the same efficiency argument holds for grazing. If the land were used to grow crops for human consumption, there would be higher efficiency.

A lot of land isn't fit for growing crops. And not all animals graze.

Remember, you were claiming that meat eating is easier.

It sure is, meat provides: a lot of protein, essential amino acids, trace elements, vitamins, etc. And all of that is provided in one little package, can you say the same for any replacement?

Not true. I don't have to pay much of any attention to what I am eating--at least no more than anyone else. I eat a wide variety of foods--I'm a bit of a junk food junkie, though.

My sister is a vegetarian since she was 7yo. The family had to take a lot of care to replace all that came in meat.

I'm talking about killing not dying.

Their both the end of life. Considering how little importance you seem to give to the welfare (quality of life), it makes you look like you don't care about the animals at all, only in being in a so called higher moral position. Guess what that position has no foundation if one doesn't care about welfare.

You admit that most meat eaters eat too much meat. You also admit that that is both a cause and an effect of the factory farm system which does cause the mistreatment of animals (again--that isn't the basis of my vegetarianism, but it's still an important consideration). Yet, you keep wanting to compare some idealized meat-eating diet against the realities of vegetarianism. That hardly seems fair.

And using a stereotype of the bio industry is any better? I have shown that there is a modern problem in certain countries and that it can be better and how the people might make it better.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You seem to be stuck in belief. There is a species barrier and most diseases can't cross it (there are millions of them). While eating from healthy individuals and proper preparation reduce the risks, they don't eliminate it. Diseases are constantly present in flesh only held back by the immune system and after the animal dies the immune system is no more.

I suggest you read up on food borne pathogens. I contend that the risk you're talking about is far less important the risk of improperly cooked meat and unsanitary butchering facilities.

A lot of land isn't fit for growing crops. And not all animals graze.

And a lot of land that is used for grazing is fit for crops. Most food animals that don't graze are raised in factory farms and feed lots.

I don't think you can supply the meat demand (as it actually is, not in some idealized meat-eater's diet) without the mass production practices that do cause suffering.

It sure is, meat provides: a lot of protein, essential amino acids, trace elements, vitamins, etc. And all of that is provided in one little package, can you say the same for any replacement?

Meat is not necessary to provide all the nutrition one needs, therefore there is no need to replace it. As I've said several times before, I get all the nutrition I need by eating a variety of food. I have no interest in finding one food that I can eat all the time and guarantee me to get all the nutrition I need (Bachelor Chow?).

By the way, you seem to be arguing that I'm not healthy. I'll be happy to take you on in virtually any athletic contest you choose. I'll also be happy to compare indicators of risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol and so on).

I do appreciate your concern for my well being, but I think you're trying to make the argument, as I've pointed out before, that Mother Nature intends me to eat a certain way. It's not a good argument.

Their both the end of life.

Wait a second--are you saying that killing and dying are morally equivalent since "Their [sic] both the end of life"? Really? If someone were to murder you in cold blood, it would be no crime because you were going to die anyway eventually?

Considering how little importance you seem to give to the welfare (quality of life), it makes you look like you don't care about the animals at all, only in being in a so called higher moral position. Guess what that position has no foundation if one doesn't care about welfare.

Also, I've said at least once before on this thread (probably more than that) that the condition of animals suffering on factory farms and feed lots is a serious concern to me. It's just not the basis of my decision to be vegetarian (some 20 years ago).

You still want to mischaracterize me as someone who doesn't care about animals at all?

Why does the fact that I don't eat meat bother you so much? It doesn't bother me in the least that you or anyone else eats meat. People who know me in "real life" rarely hear me say anything about being a vegetarian. Why do you think I'm trying to pass myself off as morally superior?

 

[Cain]

Please excuse the snipping - done because this is the one point I wished to address.

There are alternatives THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. Not to me.

That you do not think animals should be killed for food is a religious stance, and as such is not really going to go anywhere as an argument. You believe it because you believe it and your attempts to rationalize it are about as valid as any religious advocates arguments.

Good luck with your beliefs, you and the fundies should get together sometime.

You're not very good at generating arguments, are you? I am afraid mere accusations are not enough; you must offer some kind of evidence. How is my stance "religious"? It's also interesting that I should be accused of rationalizing. I view my veganism as an extension of my skepticism -- that is, challenging dominant unexamined in our society. People are socialized into consuming animals even more so than accepting religion or a belief in a god.

Your own argument for consuming animals, from what I have gleaned, is not remotely compelling. It seems to be a hodge-podge of succumbing to our passions and laziness*, beliefs piggy-backed on the (so-called) naturalistic fallacy (we evolved to eat animals). While I would not characterize this as a religious argument -- though appeals to evolution do sometimes seem to appeal to an all-knowing designer -- they are not nearly as robust as the arguments in favor of laying off eating animals, largely because you probably already agree that animals merit moral consideration.

*DeM: "I choose to eat what I wish in order to make my life more pleasant and easier."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Veganism is silly because I don't see any particular importance in the differentiation between animals and plants. It's all just life. We have to eat life to live.

There are very fundamental differences between plants and animals--especially that "higher" animals (the ones in question really) have nervous systems and are capable of sensing pain and suffering. Plants do not.

Also, we share a MUCH nearer common ancestor with animals than we do with plants.

These difference might not make you reach the conclusion that it's wrong to kill animals for food--and that's perfectly fine--but the differences between plants and animals are quite apparent and significant to the discussion.

We draw an entirely arbitrary boundary between "us" and "food". Vegans just choose a different boundary, ultimately.

I agree with this in part. The fact that we draw different boundaries doesn't mean the boundaries are "entirely arbitrary".

I guess you'd call me a pro-choice vegetarian. (I would definitely NOT be in favor of any legislation forcing my moral choices vis a vis meat-eating on anyone else.)

 

[applecorped]

Its a culinary fact. The meat isn't damaged through stress and its had to opportunity to develop naturally.

Not to everyone.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...n+blind+taste-test,+say+scientists/article.do

"Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at the university's school of veterinary science, said: 'In general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system.'


He added: 'The common perception is that organic chickens will be much tastier, but this was not the case."

 

[AWPrime]

I suggest you read up on food borne pathogens. I contend that the risk you're talking about is far less important the risk of improperly cooked meat and unsanitary butchering facilities.

Do you think that the species barrier doesn't exist?

I don't think you can supply the meat demand (as it actually is, not in some idealized meat-eater's diet) without the mass production practices that do cause suffering.

You just put yourself into a self defeating scenario. You assume the worst and make it permanent. If people ate a healthy amount of meat then the demand can be met.

Meat is not necessary to provide all the nutrition one needs, therefore there is no need to replace it.

Actually the content of meat is quite vital for our omnivore bodies. If you aren't going to eat meat you will need to find other sources. There isn't a single replacement for meat, and dietary supplements are often required. Poorly planned Veganism can lead to malnutrition and death.

Also most of humanity doesn't have access to adequate amount of replacements, dulling any arguments.

Wait a second--are you saying that killing and dying are morally equivalent since "Their [sic] both the end of life"? Really? If someone were to murder you in cold blood, it would be no crime because you were going to die anyway eventually?

In our discussion it doesn't matter. The importance of a good life is several orders greater then the need of a good death. Even a good death is relative.

Vegetarianism in itself doesn't promote better lives for animals, in fact it has no use for animals at all. For a radical vegan it would be better to kill of all the animals that aren't necessary to keep the crops growing.

Why do you think I'm trying to pass myself off as morally superior?

"I think most meat eaters don't have that moral axiom that I do"

 

[AWPrime]

Not to everyone.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...n+blind+taste-test,+say+scientists/article.do

"Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at the university's school of veterinary science, said: 'In general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system.'

He added: 'The common perception is that organic chickens will be much tastier, but this was not the case."

Well that one is flawed. Most of the symptoms seem to originate with poor diet for the organic chickens, which is a big no-no for stress free meat. The other minus points seems to originate with this:
"This may be to do with the fact that intensively farmed birds are eaten at a much younger age, so they will be less tough than older birds.'"

Here is a better link about Meat Quality and Animal Welfare:
http://www.grandin.com/meat/meat.html

 

[Princess]

If that above example is acceptable, then doesn’t it seem as if the real problem vegans have with meat-eating humans isn’t WHAT they eat, but the way in which it is grown / harvested?

At least among ethical vegans, that's accurate.

I actually got interested in animal rights by an Aussie woman who was a vegan, but happened to own a few hens. She commented that every once a while, the hens lay an egg, so she collects and eats the eggs. The hens don't seem to mind, and the woman treats her hens very well. Although this falls under "eating animal products", I think its compatible with veganism and the principles of AR as a whole.

Technically, theres no real moral objection to eating dead animals you find in the forest or on the road, although there might be some good health reasons to avoid it.

 

[yodaluver28]

I don't eat meat or wear leather/suede/fur for one simple reason: I don't have it in me to kill an animal and it would be hypocritical to pay someone to do it for me. That's it.

I'm a huge believer in live and let live but I have to say that having been a vegetarian for 15 years here in the mid-west, I have never encountered a "militant" vegetarian trying to push their lifestyle on anyone but I am routinely questioned about my personal choices even though I never speak about it, especially when dining out. I never bring it up but others notice and make a big deal out of it. I don't know why.

 

[Policenaut]

You of course knew someone was going to ask:

Evidence?

Meat, fish, chicken/turkey, eggs are all complete proteins containing all essential amino acids. Like I said you can get a lot of protein from other things like nuts and beans and some vegetables but they are incomplete proteins and have to be combined in a diet to get complete proteins. This doesn't make a huge difference to most people though I concede.

 

[GreNME]

I don't eat meat or wear leather/suede/fur for one simple reason: I don't have it in me to kill an animal and it would be hypocritical to pay someone to do it for me. That's it.

You know, I think that is a very reasonable and valid reason for you to give. I just wanted to highlight it because I thought this explanation from you is one of the better posts in this thread. Short, simple, to the point, and logical. I also wanted to say I think that it's not reasonable to be on your case over it.