Why vegans are simply better people

[The Big Dog]

No, that's a straw man.

Well you of all people should know. lulz.

I did however enjoy your complete non sequitor in reply to qayak:

You: Dessi did not equate mentally challenged humans to animals.
qayak: Yes she did, right here. let me quote it for you.
You: I agree with her.

That is some god damn funny ass **** right there, bro!

laying the "vulgarity" on thick, just for the lulz.

 

[RandFan]

Well you of all people should know. lulz.

I did however enjoy your complete non sequitor in reply to qayak:

You: Dessi did not equated mentally challenged humans to animals.
qayak: Yes she did, right here. let me quote it for you.
You: I agree with her.

That is some god damn funny ass **** right there, bro!

laying the "vulgarity" on thick, just for the lulz.

Oh yeah, dude, you pwned me. Got me good.

 

[Furcifer]

Going veg greatly reduces suffering. It's a demonstrable fact.

Personally I agree, but I don't think you're going to get everyone on board with that. Especially if they are unwilling. If someone wishes to put the life of an ant on par with a cow game,set,match.

 

[RandFan]

You can say what you want, I am just going on what she said on so many occasions.

Well, let's stick with the quote as that is your basis for substantiating the claim.

Absolutely! This thread or another one? Is it a vegan vs meat eater debate or an animal rights debate? I prefer the animal rights one. I'm for them.

I'm a meat eater. I'm not interested in either of those discussions. Let's stick to your claim that Dessi equated humans to animals okay.

I wonder why we call them "human rights" then. Would make more sense to call them "smart people rights" or "Intelligent and aware animal rights."

Other than the Declaration of Independence (which isn't law or the stated basis of any law. Our rights follow from English Common law and legal and moral philosophy.) can you name me a codified right that is solely based on the state of being human?

It should look something like this.

Because of the state of being human, humans have "X" right?

Or:

Human, therefore "X".

 

[qayak]

Well, let's stick with the quote as that is your basis for substantiating the claim.

I'm a meat eater. I'm not interested in either of those discussions. Let's stick to your claim that Dessi equated humans to animals okay.

Other than the Declaration of Independence (which isn't law or the stated basis of any law. Our rights follow from English Common law and legal and moral philosophy.) can you name me a codified right that is solely based on the state of being human?

It should look something like this.

Because of the state of being human, humans have "X" right?

Or:

Human, therefore "X".

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

[Stout]

But I think that you and others misinterpret the motive behind many of the vegan arguments presented here. I believe it has less to do with trying to get you to change your diet than it does with coming to so consensus on what is reality.

I don't care if you eat meat or not. I'm married and do almost all of the cooking. If my wife wants a steak, salmon, chicken or turkey I'll happily prepare it for her. Each individual makes the choice of what they put in their mouth. I certainly don't want the responsibility of making that choice for anybody but myself.

But this issue is like Climate Change. There are some people who don't want to admit the quantifiable facts behind the issue because of personal or political bias. What are those facts? It takes more land, water, resources and energy to produce an equal amount of animal vs. vegetable protein, and that a diet without meat can be a healthy and sustainable diet for life. If we could just acknowledge the reality behind those points, it would go a long way to establishing a rational, meaningful dialog.

I fully agree, the OP not withstanding.

I don't have real Christmas trees simply because I don't like killing a tree just for the falala of it. Same thing with fur, don't need it, don't want it but I will wear leather since I've already eaten the cow I might as well make full use of the animal I had killed under contract.

 

[citizenzen]

PREAMBLE

It was probably hard enough to get them to agree with that!

 

[ConspiRaider]

But this issue is like Climate Change. There are some people who don't want to admit the quantifiable facts behind the issue because of personal or political bias. What are those facts? It takes more land, water, resources and energy to produce an equal amount of animal vs. vegetable protein, and that a diet without meat can be a healthy and sustainable diet for life. If we could just acknowledge the reality behind those points, it would go a long way to establishing a rational, meaningful dialog.

This issue is NOT like climate change. Not a bit of it.

On using more resources, animal versus plant: Fish? As mentioned, land not arable for planting, but adequate for grazing?

On the word 'protein': Not limited to that. Do you, as a vegan, take any type of supplements? Vitamins (like B-12)? Mineral tablets? Other manufactured items? The minute you, or any vegan, takes supplements - throw the entire idea of your living in harmony with Nature out the window. And admit a tremendous weakness: That humans have devolved to a point where adequate sustenance can no longer be obtained from the environment.

Please acknowledge that much is still unknown about the assimilation, the absorption, of nutrients for our healthy sustenance - the jury is still out on so many items. We've been at the game for what - 200 years, max? Assuming humans hit the planet in some form (such as australopithecus) around 4,000,000 years ago - it's quite a leap to suggest that omnivorous behavior was dialed into our evolutionary track as a bit of a side joke by Nature. Nature wastes little - mistakes are not very well tolerated. That we can easily subsist upon animal protein amongst other food items: Explain just exactly how Nature screwed up this 'durned-I-shoulda-made-em-herbivores-they'd-be-healthier' task. The Japanese eat lots of fish. They have the longest lifespans. How could that be?

 

[RandFan]

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Conceded.

So every human is entitled to all of the exact same rights as any other human simply because they are human? Babies have the same rights as adults because they are human?

 

[qayak]

Well, let's stick with the quote as that is your basis for substantiating the claim.

Well, I've already posted the quote so have at it. I'm looking forward to it although I will have to take a break soon to go pick up our vegetarian Thai dinner, mix a few gin and tonics, and then sit down for dinner with my wife, step daughter and grandson. But I will return to finish this.

 

[citizenzen]

I fully agree, the OP not withstanding.

Yeah, the OP was definitely looking to stir up the pot and piss people off.

I disagreed with his contentions about 600 posts ago.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I've already posted the quote so have at it. I'm looking forward to it although I will have to take a break soon to go pick up our vegetarian Thai dinner, mix a few gin and tonics, and then sit down for dinner with my wife, step daughter and grandson. But I will return to finish this.

Cool. Thanks for the tone.

 

[Unabogie]

Personally I agree, but I don't think you're going to get everyone on board with that. Especially if they are unwilling. If someone wishes to put the life of an ant on par with a cow game,set,match.

Who does that?

 

[Furcifer]

Let's stick to your claim that Dessi equated humans to animals okay.

She admitted to as much so what exactly are you talking about?

This seems to be a lame attempt at sophistry; if I'm going to say a sheet of drywall should be treated like a person it implies a sheet of drywall IS equal to a person. Backpedaling and saying "I didn't actually say that" is purely argumentative.

 

[citizenzen]

This issue is NOT like climate change. Not a bit of it.

You don't think people stake out political sides on this issue and refuse to look at evidenced based on those biases?

 

[RandFan]

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Conceded.

So every human is entitled to all of the exact same rights as any other human simply because they are human? Babies have the same rights as adults because they are human?

BTW: Just in case you missed it.

 

[Unabogie]

On the word 'protein': Not limited to that. Do you, as a vegan, take any type of supplements? Vitamins (like B-12)? Mineral tablets? Other manufactured items? The minute you, or any vegan, takes supplements - throw the entire idea of your living in harmony with Nature out the window. And admit a tremendous weakness: That humans have devolved to a point where adequate sustenance can no longer be obtained from the environment.

No, I do not. I eat a balanced diet of veggies, beans, nuts, fruits, etc. I probably eat more of that than most people (although I have a serious weakness for french fries and beer). For B-12, I cook with nutritional yeast which has a lot of it. For protein I like to mix up servings of tofu. tempeh, seitan, beans, and nuts. Seems to cover me just fine. I'm in really good health for 42.

But who said I was in harmony with nature? The whole point about environmentalism is that we're overusing resources. Therefore, re-use, recycle, etc. But look, I do not view veganism as a religion. There's no vegan hell for people who occasionally deviate from the concepts. But as in recycling or CO2 mitigation, the idea is to identify areas that are wasteful and reduce those where possible. Eating meat is far more wasteful than eating veggies, so reducing or eliminating consumption of meat is better for the planet.

 

[Estellea]

I'll disagree on this angle ... you're not a hypocrite for purchasing products that have been tested on animals, because reasonably available alternatives may not exist and there is (as far as i understand) no requirement to divulge this kind of information on product labels.

That is, at least an honest response and I would agree with you with the caveat that animal-rights consumers of products tested on animals who accept that there are nor viable alternatives don't contribute to or participate in activities that seek to destroy property and/or harm people involved with animal testing. However, this is not what Cain is arguing, rather that products purchased that have been animal tested is sunk costs and that is not the case.

I'd welcome a law that required products to list animal ingredients or testing. It would help me make more informed choices with my purchases. Would you support this too? I'd love to know that my beer wasn't clarified with animal products. Given a choice, I wouldn't buy one that was. But until that information is made available to consumers, how can they make an informed choice?

I would absolutely support this! And to expand upon this, I would also like to see the claim, "this product not tested on animals" or similar claim to be disallowed when the product, has in fact, been tested on animals.

A decade ago vegan products were far harder to come by. Today, they are more plentiful, more affordable and more available. Just as organic fruits products have become more popular, I believe vegan and animal-friendly products will increase in popularity and allow consumers to make choices that more closely coincide with their values.

To a degree, I believe you are right. However, there are simply certain products such as pharmaceuticals that will not fall under that auspice, hence the debate.

Este

 

[Furcifer]

Who does that?

Anyone wishing to shut up a preachy vegetarian.

It's a way of throwing the subjective nature of morality back in someone's face. You either respect "life" or you don't. There's no grey when it comes to "life", it's black and white.

I'm not saying it's "fair", I'm just saying that's the way it is.

 

[Unabogie]

Anyone wishing to shut up a preachy vegetarian.

It's a way of throwing the subjective nature of morality back in someone's face. You either respect "life" or you don't. There's no grey when it comes to "life", it's black and white.

I'm not saying it's "fair", I'm just saying that's the way it is.

I'm not following this at all. It sounded as if you were claiming vegans do this. Now you're saying that non-vegans do this as a way to shut down discussion? That does sound familiar. I have had people ask me about killing vegetables, etc. But it didn't shut me up because it's so silly.

Can you clarify?