Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

madurobob said:
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?
Click to expand...

"'Food' is anything that is weaker than you are."

Humans are adapted to eat an omnivorous diet. In fact, humans are obligate omnivores, due to our inability to synthesize vitamin B12, and the lack of availability of B12 from vegetable sources in nature. It's only our ability to breed a strain of yeast that produces adequate B12 to form an effective supplement that has enabled humans to create a diet completely free of any animal products.

We evolved to kill animals for food. There are certain health drawbacks to doing so; but there are drawbacks to almost any food source. The trick is to balancing the benefits and drawbacks. Anything beyond that is religion or personal preference.
 
AWPrime said:
We already know its possible for the average western person to replace the diverse content of meat.
Click to expand...
Well, I knew that all along. You're the one who's been arguing that eating meat is somehow essential for good health. You're dropping that one now?
So now you're admitting that that argument is false?

But I have stated over and over again that your position isn't globally true. Some people lack the money while other lack the food types to replace meat. So for them meat eating is vital. Making any statement that give a std moral value over just meat eating completely useless.
Click to expand...

I think in more impoverished places, meat is the luxury. It sounds like you're describing the opposite of reality.

I don't know what you mean by my position not being "globally true". My position is that I choose not to eat meat based on my personal moral principles.

You're ignoring the fact that I've said several times I'm not trying to convert all humans or even any humans to vegetarianism. It's my personal choice.

Even if there are people in a different situation who can't make the same choice I make (and I'm not sure that's true), it doesn't matter. I'm making the choice for myself in the situation that I'm in. I'm not making a choice for anyone else. I've described my position several times on this thread, yet you continue to mischaracterize it.


Even if it was safe, and wasn't harmful for the community, then I would be left with my disgust for it. Reducing it to a mere choice. Just like you.
Click to expand...
A choice yes--but I still don't acknowledge the "merely" (if you mean that "merely a choice" is not the same thing as a choice based on moral principles.)

It's a choice base on moral principles for me. Are you saying that your decision not to eat human flesh is NOT a choice based on moral principles?
 
AWPrime said:
Go eat your veal and post a better analogy when you get back.
Click to expand...


No point. I wound up ordering the shrimp so my credibility is shot already.
redface.gif
 
luchog said:
"'Food' is anything that is weaker than you are."
Click to expand...
Says who? As a moral argument, that sounds like it's all right to do anything that you have the power to do.

Humans are adapted to eat an omnivorous diet. In fact, humans are obligate omnivores, due to our inability to synthesize vitamin B12, and the lack of availability of B12 from vegetable sources in nature. It's only our ability to breed a strain of yeast that produces adequate B12 to form an effective supplement that has enabled humans to create a diet completely free of any animal products.

We evolved to kill animals for food. There are certain health drawbacks to doing so; but there are drawbacks to almost any food source. The trick is to balancing the benefits and drawbacks. Anything beyond that is religion or personal preference.
Click to expand...

This is the naturalistic fallacy again. Evolution doesn't prescribe anything. Evolution doesn't have any intention. The fact that my ancestors had success as hunter gatherers doesn't mean I have to do the same. (By that argument, we shouldn't farm or live in cities because "we evolved to be hunter gatherers".)

Also, B12 is synthesized by bacteria. It's usually found in meat, eggs and dairy. I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. It's not essential to eat meat to get B12.

Even so, a typical multivitamin supplement has something like 18mcg of B12 giving 300% of the RDA for that particular nutrient. Vegans can get these supplements that are made from the microbial fermentation of brown rice. Also, the soymilk called Silk is made without any animal products, and 1 cup of it contains 50% of the RDA for B12. (I guess it's made from fermented soy or something like that.)

Seriously, does evolution shackle our behavior? Are you similarly opposed to wearing synthetic fibers as clothing? Does it bother you that so many of our useful products are made out of synthetic materials? What difference does it make if my B12 comes from a fermentation vat or "natural vegetable sources in nature"?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think in more impoverished places, meat is the luxury. It sounds like you're describing the opposite of reality.
Click to expand...
Red meat is expensive. The poor often use chickens, insects, pork, bushmeat and fish.


A choice yes--but I still don't acknowledge the "merely" (if you mean that "merely a choice" is not the same thing as a choice based on moral principles.)
It's a choice base on moral principles for me.
Click to expand...
On your description, it is based upon a preference (disgust with the bio-industry) and no influential action was added to the situation.


Are you saying that your decision not to eat human flesh is NOT a choice based on moral principles?
Click to expand...
If you remember correctly: harmful for the community, dangerous for ones health, I find the concept to be revolting. My disgust with cannibalism is the preference part the others are the possible moral parts. The morality only truly comes in if you make an influence.

For example if someone offered me a piece of human flesh for consumption, then I have influence. Possible options:
1. If I ignore the guy, I throw my influence away and I would have made a morally neutral choice. in other words, merely a choice.
2. I call the police and have that guy arrested. I just made a moral choice.
3. I accept the offer, an immoral choice, I just did harm to the community.
 
RandFan said:
The link is bad.
Click to expand...


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms

MELBOURNE: Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]diet[/COLOR][/COLOR] six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.

Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.
 
applecorped said:
Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.
Click to expand...

That's not an argument to not be veggie. That's an argument to eat more Marmite.
 
Here, allow me (an omnivore) to try to put this B12 argument to rest.

Meat does indeed have one of the highest sources of B12 (among other nutrients). Its high quantities of such nutrients are what made it a staple in a regular diet for mankind throughout the last few million years (at least). B12 is definitely necessary for a healthy body, and the human body doesn't produce it naturally.

However...

Meat also has B12 in such large amounts has the risk of increasing the levels of homocysteine (an amino acid) in the body. Homocysteine is actually a good thing and along with helping to break down other nutrients to amino acids, but the problem is that it is linked to the hardening of the arteries (and heart disease). The weird thing is that the omega fatty acids (like B12 and B6) normally help to reduce the levels of homocysteine, but taken in large quantities those two omega fatty acids seem to produce the opposite effect in some people-- this is actually why it's strongly recommended to only take the recommended doses of things that have B12 and B6 in them (like fish oil or flaxseed oil).

This is not a problem with meat. It's a problem with too much of what otherwise is a good thing. The B12 thing really isn't as big a deal since it can be had through other sources. Also, if B12 was such a big deal then seafood would be more important than beef considering its much higher levels of B12. I'm not saying there aren't concerns with getting enough B12 in a vegetarian or vegan diet [example], what I'm instead saying is that diversity of diet is enough to get the nutrient and focusing on the deficiency of B12 in land-based vegetation is really missing numerous sources of B12 available to the human diet.
 
Policenaut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've been away for a few days - trying to catch up.

What you said was (bolding mine)
Policenaut said:
Sure you can get protein in other ways but meat (and fish also) is the most efficient.
Click to expand...
My query for evidence was to your claim of efficiency and how you calculated it. Is it more efficient to raise grains, feed them to animals, grow the animals to appropriate size then slaughter them for human consumption? Or is it more efficient to grow a variety of grains & legumes and process them for human consumption - providing the same general nutrition?

I honestly don't know, but assumed from your post that you thought you did.

Does your calculation of efficiency include only digesting the food and ignoring its provenance?

FWIW, my gut feeling is that our current animal farming techniques are inefficient protein growth & storage operations compared to using the same productive capacity of the land to grow food directly for human consumption. I have no evidence to support this "gut feeling" (yet). My brief googling yielding a lot of PETA-style propaganda heavy on opinion and light on fact.
 
AWPrime said:
Red meat is expensive. The poor often use chickens, insects, pork, bushmeat and fish.
Click to expand...
From the link Lonewulf provided:
In a world where an estimated one in every six people goes hungry each day, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly heated, since meat production is an inefficient use of grain-the grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat eaters and the world's poor.

Global meat consumption is highly concentrated, dominated by only a few nations.
Click to expand...

So. . . the poor can't afford not to eat meat? You're sticking by that?
 
Every single vegan I know owns a pet, yet pet owning is "animal enslavement" since the single definition of "slavery" is ownership of one by another.
 
gumboot said:
Every single vegan I know owns a pet, yet pet owning is "animal enslavement" since the single definition of "slavery" is ownership of one by another.
Click to expand...

I know. But, how do you differentiate ownership from partnership here? Is "partnership" impossible because the animal's lack of intelligence?

I'm no vegan, but I do live in a house with a cat. I feed it when it whines, I open the door when it meows. It spends about 12 hours inside and 12 outside each day so it could easily leave if it wanted. It doesn't, and I attribute this to its lack of intelligence ;)

And yes, I'm pretty sure I'm going to regret this line of thought... But, its been an excellent MNF and I'm in a good mood.
 
madurobob said:
I know. But, how do you differentiate ownership from partnership here? Is "partnership" impossible because the animal's lack of intelligence?
Click to expand...

I think an owner can be in partnership with their property in theory. An owner could be in mutual partnership with their slave.



madurobob said:
I'm no vegan, but I do live in a house with a cat. I feed it when it whines, I open the door when it meows. It spends about 12 hours inside and 12 outside each day so it could easily leave if it wanted. It doesn't, and I attribute this to its lack of intelligence ;)
Click to expand...

Yes but you still own the cat. It is your property. Therefore it is enslaved, by definition.
 
gumboot said:
Yes but you still own the cat. It is your property. Therefore it is enslaved, by definition.
Click to expand...

First, I don't consider the mistreatment of animals in factory farms and what not to be slavery. I consider it mistreatment of animals.

Second, I think it depends on the definition. Merriam-Webster defines slavery as:
1: drudgery , toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3 a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding
Click to expand...

1. My pets don't toil or work for me at all--unless you consider being affectionate drudgery.
2. I'm not sure on that one. I do get to control a couple of important doors, but they're the ones who give me the order to open them. Also, I'm the one who cleans THEIR litter box.
3. Maybe this is the issue--if you consider a pet to be a slave, does that mean you consider a pet to be a "person"?

Besides, I'm pretty sure my cats consider me to be their property. Actually each of the two seems to be sole proprietor--but that's the feline outlook for you. :)

ETA:
gumboot said:
Every single vegan I know owns a pet, yet pet owning is "animal enslavement" since the single definition of "slavery" is ownership of one by another.
Click to expand...
M-W gives 3 definitions. Only one involves ownership, and it specifies "person".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom