Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

Why do you personally concern yourself with the labels others attribute to themselves?

I haven't the foggiest.

Did you know I'm a Nobel Prize winner?

And a billionaire.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I haven't the foggiest.

Did you know I'm a Nobel Prize winner?

And a billionaire.

No, I didn't know that.

I'm sure you're ready to illuminate all of us with your wisdom, but I am going to enjoy my dinner.

 

[Johny2x4]

That I would agree with.

I can understand that. But like I said, I´m pretty comfortable with the human being that I am. I have my ethics and it´s not people on the Internet that are going to make me change my ways.

Do I care about animal slaughter? Not as much as I care about dogs or other animal that seem more worthy of attention to me. A cow to me is meat. A dog, my dog, is a family member (as I said before, I would out the lives of several people bellow my dog). That said, there´s no real reason to be extra d***** to the cow/chicken/whatever you are about to kill for food. Or the animals slain for their furr.

 

[epepke]

And I'll bet most all of those people draining those swamps weren't vegans.

You seem to overlook that meat-eaters create far more demand for vegetables, fruits, nuts and grains than vegans do.

According to wikipedia about 1% of Americans identified themselves as vegans. Those drained swamps are more a product of the 99% than they are of the one.

Just how many veggies do you imagine vegans eat each meal?

No; I'm quite aware of that. For one thing, vegans say this all the time. I'm quite capable of absorbing that information.

However, you don't seem capable of absorbing what I'm saying. The idea is that swamps produce more food per acre, in a way that can be managed sustainably, than farmland. That might be true, or it might be false, but I think it's worth thinking about.

If vegans can't even understand the concept, which seems to be the case, then it's a non-starter, really. It does make me wonder how much the rhetoric is related to the underlying motivations.

Case in point. Not too long ago, I walked into a Vegan restaurant called The Loving Hut. I walked back out again, because they were selling bumper stickers that said, in all caps, "I'M VEGAN. I'M SAVING THE PLANET." Funny thing is that these bumper stickers were so huge that they could not fit on the back of a subcompact. So I walked out the back, and sure enough, there sere several SUVs with the stickers. I found it reasonable to conclude that, whatever they were trying to convince people of, in actual fact, saving the planet was not all that high on the list.

 

[qayak]

This is a pet peeve of mine. You can't (or shouldn't) call yourself a vegetarian if you eat fish, bacon, pepperoni, or whatever meat product you still haven't managed to get over craving.

I might as well call myself a vegan even though I still eat eggs and cheese.

Poseurs.

Veganism went along with their youthful exuberance to do the right thing but I think there was just more work to it than they anticipated. Not only checking every label to make sure no animal product was ever used in production but also trying to make sure they were getting proper nutrition.

Nowadays they stick with the vegetarian menu but some of them partake of a little animal flesh now and again.

I have to admit that after being exposed to these young people my meat consumption dropped. Of course, I always loved vegetables so it wasn't anything major for me.

 

[Kid Eager]

Meh to all this posturing and holier than thou crap.

I had a vegetarian breakfast because I felt like having a vegetarian breakfast.

I just had a late lunch comprising a poached egg on a wholegrain english muffin with smoked salmon and aged cheddar.

Somebody On The Internet Is Always Wrong. I don't care that on this occasion, it might be me.

Bon appetit.

 

[RandFan]

I can understand that. But like I said, I´m pretty comfortable with the human being that I am. I have my ethics and it´s not people on the Internet that are going to make me change my ways.

Do I care about animal slaughter? Not as much as I care about dogs or other animal that seem more worthy of attention to me. A cow to me is meat. A dog, my dog, is a family member (as I said before, I would out the lives of several people bellow my dog). That said, there´s no real reason to be extra d***** to the cow/chicken/whatever you are about to kill for food. Or the animals slain for their furr.

I have no qualms with your position, only with the logic of the post I originally took issue with. So long as vegans are not a yardstick either.

 

[billydkid]

Sorry, we all can't be perfect, but please, don't let my vast sea of imperfections dissuade you from telling me just how much better you are than me.

Michael

Not to mention, the actual science points to carbohydrates as the source of much of our unhealth in the western world and not animal fat/protein. Here's another clue, smugness and self satisfaction are not virtues in and of themselves.

 

[RandFan]

Here's another clue, smugness and self satisfaction are not virtues in and of themselves.

Correct, however, these are the byproducts of virtue. One other byproduct is feces that doesn't smell and the ability to put one's pants on both legs at once. I wish I had that kind of virtue. Well, first I want X-ray vision to heighten my enjoyment of hanging out at the mall and watching all the pretty girls. Then I want that kind of virtue.

 

[Cain]

And with that, I leave you to your veganism and judgmentalism. Hope it serves you well.

I cannot say this non-reply is even interesting as you seem to misunderstand the comparison. When I rant about publick skool teachers people say I sound like a Republican. I guess that I do. You can't look over your words and honestly admit, "It does sound sort of post-modernist." While it's true people arbitrarily favor doggies, kitties and horsies over other sentient animals, we can, contrary to your "wherz concern 4 teh plantz!!" make a reasonable distinction, the clarity of which is seen in our own opinions on abuse. Interestingly, one only finds extreme (epistemological) skepticism in threads such as this -- "Maybe plants do feel pain." That's not any more unusual than moral nihilism -- posters will condemn X murderous policies as wicked and evil, then come to this thread and say there's no such thing as morality.

--- Qayak

By the way, [my step daughter and her friends'] veganism didn't last long although most of them are vegetarian now . . . well, if you can eat fish and still be vegetarian.

I've read that there are three times as many ex-vegetarians as there are vegetarians. Of course, how good are people when it generally comes to sticking to their diet. In two days gyms across the country will be filled to capacity. And your daughter and friends are pescetarians.

No. Our goal is to minimize suffering while still using them for food.

But of course... So, you're making inconsistent claims.

This is like the hostage taker who wants to make sure his victims receive the very best treatment.
"Well, one way you can help us is to let us go."
"Sorry, can't do that."

There's a difference between the propositions: minimizing suffering and minimizing suffering under the condition that we eat animals.

As I said, there is nothing cruel about killing animals for food so stopping wouldn't be eliminating any suffering.

Animals do not just suffer during slaughter; there are also vitally important concerns about how they are raised and transported. And while I suppose one could argue for the immaculate destruction of life, there's no reason to believe it's scalable to the billions and billions of animals killed each year.

This is instructive. Instead of people exercising self-discipline and restraint, people instead dream of perfecting the machinery of destruction. They would rather eat whatever they want, and then take pills for cholesterol or acid relief or whatever. And the chorus goes "duh!"

 

[Cain]

Many groups have done wrong for what they believe is the greater good; saying that doesn't bring anyone back to life. And ALF, ELF and SHAC have committed crimes against humans, not just property regardless of their "principles".

What you're saying is meaningless; blabber. Yes, many groups, including, I'm sure, Neo-Nazis, but that says nothing anything against the principles of (say) the ALF.

FTFY. This is a specious argument; all of these hypotheticals do not change the facts on the ground, which are animal testing is still being performed. Drug development is still using animal models and you, and your loved ones, are benefiting by using them.

You seem bent on demonstrating yourself incompetent at each turn. We have benefited from research tested on humans without informed consent. We have benefited from animal testing that would no longer be considered legal. You fail at escaping the sunk cost fallacy because you just want to chant hypocrite.

 

[The Big Dog]

100% correct. Its about equal consideration of interests. I'm really fond of Peter Singer, I think this view sums up my feelings in a nutshell:

100% correct. Its about equal consideration of interests. I'm really fond of Peter Singer, I think this view sums up my feelings in a nutshell:
Originally Posted by Peter Singer
If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being.

I'm fond of excruciatingly long posts, so here goes... snipped

Begging the question, the principle of equality is what you are supposed to be proving.

Further I reject your attempt to de-humanize mentally challenged people in the name of your Vegan beliefs, as would many of the people who love them.

Meh, I'm responding to an evangelical vegan in the middle of her sermons, I don't expect that she'll even notice.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Cain: You eat baby spinach leaves and bean sprouts. HOW DARE YOU! Let those prepubescent plants grow to maturity, have some fun in the sun, maybe do a little procreating - and then go ahead and take them down and stuff them in your mouth.

You are devouring plants that haven't even been given the chance to mature. You are immoral, then.

Think of the children!

 

[Unabogie]

Begging the question, the principle of equality is what you are supposed to be proving.

Further I reject your attempt to de-humanize mentally challenged people in the name of your Vegan beliefs, as would many of the people who love them.

Meh, I'm responding to an evangelical vegan in the middle of her sermons, I don't expect that she'll even notice.

I thought you two were trying to carry on a discussion. Hand waving away her arguments as a "sermon" doesn't reflect well on your arguing in good faith.

Do you really think she's trying to dehumanize the mentally retarded? I think she's trying to take some of the counter-arguments to their absurd conclusions and examining reasons why people reject them.

I'm not sure your ad hominem is useful.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Interestingly, one only finds extreme (epistemological) skepticism in threads such as this -- "Maybe plants do feel pain." That's not any more unusual than moral nihilism -- posters will condemn X murderous policies as wicked and evil, then come to this thread and say there's no such thing as morality.

Poppycock, Cain. You just made an assumption that I claim there's no such thing as morality - including the manner in which we feed our faces. You're wrong.

Morality is no absolute. We constantly redefine aspects of it. Cultures define it differently. I think India tends to frown upon raising cows for food or byproducts. We Yanks don't. We Yanks do frown upon eating dog meat. Some Chinese do not.

Extreme examples, but morality definition is variable within the same culture, within even a small group of family or friends. And it's often contradictory, paradoxical - rules added or discarded as convenience dictates.

Okay, let's use me as an example. I only fished the one time. My buddy talked me into catfish fishing, and so there we are with our reels and hooks with corn on them, dragging them along the bottom of the lake hoping for a bite. Drinking beer and talking good ole buddy talk. Well, I got a bite and out the catfish went, trying like the bejesus to get off that line. I brought it in - about a 12 or 15 pounder - and my buddy snapped a picture of me holding it out.

I didn't like it. All I could think of was getting that catfish back in the water so the thing wouldn't croak on me. Finally did, and then waited to see it swim away just to reassure myself that it was, hopefully, okay. Haven't fished since.

Yet, I eat fish. And, if I or a group of folks (family, friends, whatever) were in a tight spot, food-wise, and we needed to catch some fish to survive - okay, I'd pitch in. Wouldn't like it - but I'd do it. And maybe after I had done it for so long - I'd get a bit hardened to the whole affair and it would not bother me so much - that fish in pain, trying to escape with its life. I really don't know about that - but it is within the realm of possibility.

Maybe there is "morality" in there but man is it ever variable. Very conditional. A lot of morality is like that.

What we're quibbling about? The absoluteness that you use as the yardstick to measure morality, and the intolerance for those who don't measure up - in your view. Me? I think it's great that you've decided not to eat an insect, a slug, a bird, a rodent, a hoofed animal and stick only with veggies and, I'm projecting, fungi-type foods such as mushrooms and truffles. GREAT! I really hope you're happy with it. And if you find you're not happy with it and wish to alter your diet? GREAT!

 

[cyborg]

I really don't know about that - but it is within the realm of possibility.

Of course you would - to what extent we decide to empathise with other things is malleable. That is part of what being a social animal like a human is - striking a balance between what things you will use to aid your own survival and what things you will aid in order to assist theirs.

The problem with making the argument that reducing the suffering one causes to other things one empathises with is the conceit that you should for some reason even be in the equation - that you matter. It is hardly surprising then that people with moral causes don't always display consistency - because it's not about whether any action really "saves the planet" or not, just whether or not you think it does and the right brain cells are tickled in the right way.

Now understand I am not saying you should do one thing or another but it's not surprising that you can happily eat fish but prefer not to see the end of a fish's life before your eyes because you, like everyone else, has the ability to project the state of other living being's emotions (whether or not they have them or they are like ours) on to yourself. When you stop doing that it's easier because that's exactly how it's supposed to work - you crank down the empathy dial so you can do the necessary dirty work of killing something else to propagate your own existence without feeling bad about it. You can do it. I can do it. Anyone in the business of trying to survive can do it and almost certainly would do it. That is our nature even if we want to pretend otherwise.

Apparently when there is the luxury of choice self-denial certainly seems to do it for some people as a way of showing off social status - the use of dietary choices for this is not a new phenomenon and veganism is not the first and won't be the last. Food is also not the only thing used in this way but it's certainly a good one because eating and what you eat isn't something you can just ignore and be part of the debate for very long.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought you two were trying to carry on a discussion. Hand waving away her arguments as a "sermon" doesn't reflect well on your arguing in good faith.

Do you really think she's trying to dehumanize the mentally retarded? I think she's trying to take some of the counter-arguments to their absurd conclusions and examining reasons why people reject them.

I'm not sure your ad hominem is useful.

So then you agree then that she was begging the question, cool. Then we agree. And whether in fact she is "trying" to dehumanize the "mentally retarded" is quite beyond the point. The fact of the matter is that she is dehumanizing them by equating them to animals, and if you think HER own rationalization is absurd, then again we agree.

As far as her sermonizing well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[RandFan]

So then you agree then that she was begging the question, cool. Then we agree. And whether in fact she is "trying" to dehumanize the "mentally retarded" is quite beyond the point. The fact of the matter is that she is dehumanizing them by equating them to animals, and if you think HER own rationalization is absurd, then again we agree.

As far as her sermonizing well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I eat meat. I have zero problems with Dessi's argument. I actually agree with her on that point. I do not think she is either in effect or intentionally dehumanizing retarded people. But honestly I wouldn't care so long as it were simply in the abstract and for the sake of argument, which it is. I do not believe that Dessi is begging the question. I'm not going to go back through the thread to try to understand your assertion. So I apologize for that. If you would like to make the case again I would entertain that but understand if you don't. JMO.

 

[Westwall]

freind of mine was the President of teh Meiji College of Oriental medicine and also a regular alopathic MD. He and I had many conversations about life in general and he told me of a study that had been done on the records of the Buddhist monks in Japan over a several hundred year period.

The study found that those monks who ate a purely vegan diet had a average lifespan of 34 years. Those who ate a single chicken egg every day lived for an average of 50 years.

The only way you as a vegan can live a longer life then that is by taking massive quantities of supplements. Homo Sapiens is omnivorous and to deny that is simply dumb.

 

[RandFan]

freind of mine was the President of teh Meiji College of Oriental medicine and also a regular alopathic MD. He and I had many conversations about life in general and he told me of a study that had been done on the records of the Buddhist monks in Japan over a several hundred year period.

The study found that those monks who ate a purely vegan diet had a average lifespan of 34 years. Those who ate a single chicken egg every day lived for an average of 50 years.

The only way you as a vegan can live a longer life then that is by taking massive quantities of supplements. Homo Sapiens is omnivorous and to deny that is simply dumb.

My bias tempts me to accept the study at face value. The skeptic in me wants you to cite the source.