Why vegans are simply better people

[Aepervius]

I am in my mid 30's. who gives a *****. Athlerosclerosis starts occuring in our children for Christ sake. You just don't get it man. The Big macs and James Coney Island's you feed your kids are painlessly, slowly killing them. I guarantee, you in your mid 30's. You have athleroscloris, a painless killer you would not otherwise have without your oil and meat diet. I gurantee you have it.

Somebody stops me if I am wrong, but it also depends on the amount of calory you need to live and what amount of expanse you have in calory. You can eat 4000 calory of meat+potatoes and live in perfect health if you spend ~4000 of them in activities, and die horribly of heart attack as a vegan if you eat 4000 calory but only spend 1000...

 

[Aepervius]

I will make this last statment about animals raised for food.

1. I assume you know that a pig, a cow, sheep etc... are highly evolved species. If you don't, then your stupid basically.

2. We bring billions of these highly evolved consciousness into this world to feed us.

3. The conditions in which these consciousness are kept is appalling. Filthy, cramped, disease ridden. No prison on earth could be more horrible than the average facility used to raise food animals.

Edited. Please read your membership agreement, especially with regard to civility and politeness.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Rat

Counter argument : if they were not to be eaten, pig, cows, sheep, and chicken would *mostly* never be born , and only a few would live a short brutish live in the wild (and probably be eaten by , you know, CARNIVORE prey animals) or a few in zoo.

So your argument is that it would be better to never be born, rather than live a few year and die ?

 

[Aepervius]

What an overweight meat-eater might look like:

All taken in 2011.

Look damn good. Did you eat it or did you gift it ?

I have eaten doe/deer this christmas.

 

[citizenzen]

So your argument is that it would be better to never be born, rather than live a few year and die ?

What is the state of not being born?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Look damn good. Did you eat it or did you gift it ?

I have eaten doe/deer this christmas.

I have slightly less than 5 deer in my freezer and we will be eating it for a while. Our grocery bills have shrunk significantly since we aren't buying red meat. January 1st is the last day of deer season in SC so I have a few more chances to get another one.

 

[Aepervius]

What is the state of not being born?

Inexistance. Because plainly we would not grow and elevate so many animals if not for their food or leather. My question still stand. Would you rather have all those animal NON existing, rather than be born and live a few year then die to be our food? I don't see as more moral to have entire animal specie going limited in number or even go extinct , under the pretense that we do not exploit them so. The sole reason some specie exists *is* for our exploitation and are unable to live without our intervention (or at least I was said that for example for the milk cow). Without our desire to exploit them they would almost certainly land in history books as a footnote, and in zoo.

 

[citizenzen]

My question still stand. Would you rather have all those animal NON existing ...

I don't spend time thinking about life that doesn't exist, or hoping that some day it might exist.

Nor do I spend time contemplating what the state of non-existence may be and try to compare it to existence.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't spend time thinking about life that doesn't exist, or hoping that some day it might exist.

Nor do I spend time contemplating what the state of non-existence may be and try to compare it to existence.

In other word you would rather avoid answering the question.

I will tell you why I think some vegan in general avoid that. Because some keep harping on how much we make animal suffer, it would be the higher moral ground to not use them for food etc... What is never mentionned is that the moral choice is not between us letting the animal live to their natural end of life and eating them prematuraly, but rather the choice is between those animal not existing at all and us eating them, which don't make the moral choice all that clear suddenly. Because after all we give the chance the animal to live, eat, be content at least up to a certain period of time, at least for a minimum number of well cared for food animals, then we eat them.

*shrug* I don't think anybody will convince any vegan anyway. I would settle to have them do their propaganda and smug congratulation between each other, and let us omnivore eat in peace.

 

[Rat]

*shrug* I don't think anybody will convince any vegan anyway. I would settle to have them do their propaganda and smug congratulation between each other, and let us omnivore eat in peace.

And it's similarly unlikely that any vegan would "convince" you, either. Most of them have no propaganda, as you put it, and are probably somewhat tired of the depiction of smugness. Generally, in my experience (which is probably about as limited as yours), they would equally like to be left to eat in peace.

 

[citizenzen]

In other word you would rather avoid answering the question.

How CAN I answer the question?!

Oh here ... let me consult the undead souls of creatures yet to be born and see if they'd prefer to live a few short years in crowded confinement before being slaughtered, or if they'd prefer to "exist" in cow heaven, hell, limbo or whatever realm their souls find themselves.

 

[mikeyx]

Strict vegan here, active in the animal rights movement for the past several years. Some thoughts....


I'm not a vegan for my health, so much for animals' health.

I've often recommended a low-fat, vegan diet as a way to lose weight. But in all seriousness, the argument from health benefits is not a knock-out argument for veganism:

1) People have a right to eat themselves to death. Its none of your business how people conduct their health.

2) People can be healthy on a non-vegan diet, live unremarkably healthy into old age. You undermine the argument for veganism (that is, prescribing it as an alternative to non-vegan diets) by advancing it as a health argument.


I'm not a vegan for my looks.

I really really really dislike this view as well. Its judgement in the EXTREME. I was the ugly kid in high school, I know what its like to be bullied for it. I know what its like to see very attractive young women being surrounded by friends and having all manner of nice things handed to them, and for me to be essentially friendless.

Not everyone is beautiful according to your standards. Its a fact of life, but is not a factor in whether someone is "better" than another. Please keep your judgemental attitude to yourself.


The argument from animal welfare is essentially strongest argument for veganism there is. There are lots of us on the forum who take this view, you might be interested in my perspective on the subject.

I can be a bitch sometimes in these discussions, its bad habit because this is such a touchy topic for me, but I try to keep a level head. People like calm, cool rational argument, even if its for a really microminority view like ethical veganism. Peter Singer and Tom Regan, two of the nicest people on the planet with a powerful capacity for lucid and rational argument, have inspired more people to jump on the vegan train than any invective personalities ever will.

At the moment, I find your style confrontational, off-putting, and judgemental. Its not helpful. Please stop.

You're in PETA, arent you?

 

[mikeyx]

My experience has been:

people who use the word "vegan" to describe themselves = pretentious, condescending douchebags who try to talk down to you with a smug smile.

people who call themselves "vegetarians" mostly = are usually alright.


This thread certainly doesn't help to dissuade me. In its honor I will have a "triple kill + torture" sandwich. Ham, chicken and roast beef with cheese and egg.

What he said.

 

[mikeyx]

I've only just found this thread, so ifd the point has already been made, my apologies.

Preamble - those in the UK can skip this and go to the main point below, but it doesn't appear known in wide areas outside.

For those not aware of the world outside [fill in your own predjudice], here in the UK we have the National Health Service. This provides health care where at the point of use/need we don't pay. Moreover, we have access to the finest health care in the world - the USA notwithstanding. To illustrate, I give two personal examples.

A few years ago, my wife suddenly suffered severe chest pains. I didn't have to worry about if we could pay: I called 999 - Emergency - and an ambulance arrived within minutes - before, in fact, I had completed the call. The upshot was that she was eventually diagnosed with gall stones, surgery was organised, full recovery.

Last year I suffered what turned out to be a seisure. My wife called 999, I was carted into A&E, and over a period of a couple of months went through the whole gamut of medical investigations - CAT, MRI, EEG etc - all at no cost to me at the point of need.

HOWEVER, I (and my wife) have been paying taxes over the whole of our working lives just so that this happens. Socialist Medicine. How awful.

Main point

Lets apply this to smokers.

A while ago one of the major tobacco companies - Phillip Morris, I think - carried out a study which compared the health costs which smokers incurred because of their habit, with the tax they had paid on the tobacco they had consumed during their smoking lives.

It turned out that they had paid more tax on the tobacco than the cost to the health service of their habit, leaving a surplus which subsidised the health care of non-smokers . Hmm

Perhaps smokers should be commended on their public service attitude whereby they sacrificed their longevity for the public good.

PS. I don't smoke - now.

Dont make me start another Ban smoking rant...

 

[Rat]

What he said.

And as I've said constantly in these threads, I guess vegans in the US must be very different to those here. Either that or both Travis and MikeyX are incapable of recognizing confirmation bias.

 

[Dessi]

You're in PETA, arent you?

Yes I am. Since 2007. Sorry.

*noms popcorn, this thread takes "don't feed the trolls" to a whole new level*

 

[Johny2x4]

Yes I am. Since 2007. Sorry.

*noms popcorn, this thread takes "don't feed the trolls" to a whole new level*

I´m so sorry.

 

[joolz]

And as I've said constantly in these threads, I guess vegans in the US must be very different to those here. Either that or both Travis and MikeyX are incapable of recognizing confirmation bias.

Think you're right there. Quite a few veggies/vegans have posted here saying we disagree with the tone of the OP and know plenty of veggies/vegans who are nothing like that, but I guess confirmation bias means people don't see the evidence and tar us all with the same brush.

Saying all veggie/vegan folk force their views on everyone else because a noisy minority do is a bit like stating that all 'Merikans are bigoted bible bashers trying to foist their opinions onto everyone else just because a noisy minority ..... hmmmmm bad analogy, most 'Merickans I've met are like that ....




Just kidding folks!

 

[bookitty]

Yes I am. Since 2007. Sorry.

*noms popcorn, this thread takes "don't feed the trolls" to a whole new level*

I have a few friends who are involved in PETA - lovely intelligent people, all of them. They are also involved to some degree with Greenpeace, WWF (the panda one, not the costume one), the ASPCA and/or other animal welfare groups. I always wonder why they lead with PETA. PETA is a terrific resource for newbie vegans & veggies, but the stunts tend to distract from this.

 

[BaaBaa]

The OP reminds me of why some Straight Edge kids get on my nerves.

 

[Estellea]

I have a few friends who are involved in PETA - lovely intelligent people, all of them. They are also involved to some degree with Greenpeace, WWF (the panda one, not the costume one), the ASPCA and/or other animal welfare groups. I always wonder why they lead with PETA. PETA is a terrific resource for newbie vegans & veggies, but the stunts tend to distract from this.

"Stunts" is a bit of an understatement when referring to PETA's activities, which includes allying themselves with terrorist organisations in the name of 'animal rights'.

Este