• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why vegans are simply better people

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.


And this is where reasonableness needs to come into play. As Unabogie stated just a post or two ago, veganism is not (or should not be) a religion. It should be practiced when it can reasonably be practiced by people who want to practice it.

If something that could sustain one's health has animal products and there is no alternatives, then take it. I'm a 20+ year vegetarian, but if someone told me that the casserole I just ate had meat in it I would run to the bathroom to stick my finger down my throat. Meat isn't poison. And anybody pretending that it is needs to take a pill ... hopefully one not made with animal products.
 
On the subject of getting the right nutrition, I don't want to turn this into a food blog, but here's what we're making for dinner:

Ginger peanut soup with fresh baked rolls. It's got ginger, onion, peanut butter, broccoli, tomatoes, and carrots. We had a big lunch so we're eating light for dinner.

For tomorrow, we're heading to a New Year's Day party. The host is making potato latkes, we're making a curried tempeh salad that has golden raisins, slivered toasted almonds, tempeh, pickle relish, parsley, veganaise, and sri racha chili sauce. Someone else is making mac and cheese and dessert. I think there may be bloody mary's in store too. Several of our friends write cookbooks so this is going to be really fun and really good.

And all of it will be vegan. Can anyone point out which nutrients I'll be missing?
 
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.
Very cool, Una, on not taking vitamin and mineral supplements. That's a pet peeve of mine, vegan or no. I AM in favor of folks taking these supplements in the spirit of them taking medicine - when they cannot obtain necessary elements from available food sources, or when a medical condition, an abnormality, applies a serious health stress. All cool with that. But the vast majority of vitamin and mineral supplement takers - well, let's just say the marketing strategy for said items has been an enormous success. It's marketing and nothing more.

Smart fishing is a nice hedge against gobbling up tracts of land (Herbert - she's got... HUGE... tracts of land!) for obtaining the complete protein and some of those lesser known items found, for example, in fish oil.

I wonder how much cow meat here in the USA is slaughtered for our beloved cats and doggies?

I sense that people here in the USA, however, are moving away from beef, very slowly. Keep hearing more and more how people are eating the dairy products, the eggs, the fish - and chicken.

I'm not a raging carnivore just as you're not a religio-vegan. :) Difficult not to feel a bit uneasy seeing those cow eyes and knowing what's in store for it. My grandmother, who DID live on a farm (but I'm city folk) told us how she'd cry and cry when they took a cow away for slaughtering. She said they're like big dogs and you could easily grow attached to one, emotionally. It might be one of the reasons I eat very little beef? Maybe. I'd really be much more comfy if we ratcheted down their slaughter and the same for piggies. Or let them live out their lives fully - and then when they croaked on their own - we could make usage of their carcasses? Who the hell knows. That's a possible course of action.

It's a carryover of human empathy. "Right" or not, we haven't the same type of connection to a chicken, a lizard, a fish, a rat, a squab, a bunch of ants over which we coat chocolate. It's a human bias, that we "connect" to these larger mammals. I think many feel that way.
 
BTW: Just in case you missed it.

I thought maybe you would want to take that statement back, not repeat it. :D

Yes, even babies have those rights and because babies are not able to make judgments for themselves, their parents/guardians are charged with doing it for them.
 
I thought maybe you would want to take that statement back, not repeat it. :D
I've been around this block many, many times. On both sides of the issue. I don't know that I'm right. I do however have confidence born of battle and studying moral philosophy. Buckle up. :) And hey, if I am wrong I will be no worse for the wear. Also, I was not expecting the UN charter. Must be like the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes, even babies have those rights and because babies are not able to make judgments for themselves, their parents/guardians are charged with doing it for them.
I'm not limiting the discussion to "those" rights but rather your statement about rights arising from the state of being human. Given more than 350 years of moral progress since Hume I would think that's a fairly easy one to knock down.

So babies (or children) have the right to refuse medical care? Or the right to vote? The right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?

BTW:

  1. Given that A.) the UN charter is recent. B.) codified rights in modern liberal democracies are based on nearly 1,000 years of common law, that B.) few if any rights were based solely on the state of being human?
  2. Also, given Hume, would you not agree that an interpretation of the UN charter as "X" from "Y" is in essence the "is-ought" fallacy? I understand that is the way it reads but I don't think any moral philosopher would claim that the UN charter is based on the idea the rights in the charter exist solely because of the state of being human. I think the charter is simply just an ought statement and not an "is" from an "ought" statement. I think the philosophical underpinnings are a bit more complex than that.
 
Last edited:
And this is where reasonableness needs to come into play. As Unabogie stated just a post or two ago, veganism is not (or should not be) a religion. It should be practiced when it can reasonably be practiced by people who want to practice it.

If something that could sustain one's health has animal products and there is no alternatives, then take it. I'm a 20+ year vegetarian, but if someone told me that the casserole I just ate had meat in it I would run to the bathroom to stick my finger down my throat. Meat isn't poison. And anybody pretending that it is needs to take a pill ... hopefully one not made with animal products.
I couldn't agree more. Have a safe and happy New Year!

Este
 
On the subject of getting the right nutrition, I don't want to turn this into a food blog, but here's what we're making for dinner:

Ginger peanut soup with fresh baked rolls. It's got ginger, onion, peanut butter, broccoli, tomatoes, and carrots. We had a big lunch so we're eating light for dinner.

For tomorrow, we're heading to a New Year's Day party. The host is making potato latkes, we're making a curried tempeh salad that has golden raisins, slivered toasted almonds, tempeh, pickle relish, parsley, veganaise, and sri racha chili sauce. Someone else is making mac and cheese and dessert. I think there may be bloody mary's in store too. Several of our friends write cookbooks so this is going to be really fun and really good.

And all of it will be vegan. Can anyone point out which nutrients I'll be missing?
I would be willing to try those. I love latkes so that's easy. The soup sounds quirky, not obnoxious but a definite possibility.
 
It was probably hard enough to get them to agree with that!

Actually, the entire charter took less than two years (1947-48) to write, ratify and adopt with only a few states abstaining from the vote and none dissenting. Quite a feat at any time or place.
 
Oh yeah, dude, you pwned me. Got me good.

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.

Yup sport, you did get "pwned."

Happy white knight new year! lulz
 
Yup sport, you did get "pwned."
Because:

  • Things are always as they appear.
  • Bravado is better than logic.
  • Talking smack like a school kid is the language of an intellectual.
I'm curious, did you wonder for even a moment why an unapologetic meat eater would go from arguing against Dessi to supporting her on this issue?

In any event, it's usually considered good form to actually hear an opposing argument before you declare yourself the victor.
 
Last edited:
You are going to have to show your work on this one. We do not need animal proteins to survive or to be healthy. You're talking to a group of healthy people who are not eating animals and still somehow manage to have the energy to type on this forum, even in our emaciated state. Doesn't that call into question your facts?

BTW, Google "vegan athletes" and you'll find several professional athletes who don't eat animals or animal products.
From your birth until the time you became a vegan (or vegetarian - I'm afraid I've missed out a few pages on this thread), your diet included meat etc I presume? If so, I venture to suggest that this gave you good basic health so that the body could cope with lack of such foods?
Just curious.

It's a dark and gloomy day here, so reading through this thread has been an interesting occupation.
 
Last edited:
But I'll concede the point and reiterate: it's the unnecessary suffering that ended when I went veg.

Your existence is necessary?

If not then the unnecessary suffering you cause didn't end when you changed your diet did it?
 
From your birth until the time you became a vegan (or vegetarian - I'm afraid I've missed out a few pages on this thread), your diet included meat etc I presume? If so, I venture to suggest that this gave you good basic health so that the body could cope with lack of such foods?
Just curious.


I think you bring up an interesting point, as mother's milk is an animal product and the healthiest (as far as I know) food for babies. And the question of how best to address a developing child's nutritional needs is an important question. I didn't become fully vegetarian until about the age of 30 and never had an children (phew!) so I never had to deal with these issues. It may be that the choice of veganism is best left to adults. I'm sure other folks here have looked into it and I hope they'll help inform us with their thoughts and experiences.

My only quibble is in the notion that the body "copes' with the lack of meat. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that vegan or vegetarian diets, have the potential to sustain a normal person over their (adult) life. If your theory is correct, one could expect to see a greater degree of deterioration in the bodies of vegans vs. meat-eaters as they aged. If you or anyone else could provide evidence that backs this up, it would be (I'm going to say it) food for thought.
 
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?
It is what we want it to be - nothing more, nothing less. If we wanted as a society to classify some people as subhuman and given them less rights we could do that - as we have done in the past and probably will do in the future.

Is it nice? No - but whoever said we always want to be nice when it's clear we don't?

The complications of existence can't be defined away I'm afraid.
 
I think you bring up an interesting point, as mother's milk is an animal product and the healthiest (as far as I know) food for babies. And the question of how best to address a developing child's nutritional needs is an important question. I didn't become fully vegetarian until about the age of 30 and never had an children (phew!) so I never had to deal with these issues. It may be that the choice of veganism is best left to adults. I'm sure other folks here have looked into it and I hope they'll help inform us with their thoughts and experiences.

My only quibble is in the notion that the body "copes' with the lack of meat. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that vegan or vegetarian diets, have the potential to sustain a normal person over their (adult) life. If your theory is correct, one could expect to see a greater degree of deterioration in the bodies of vegans vs. meat-eaters as they aged. If you or anyone else could provide evidence that backs this up, it would be (I'm going to say it) food for thought.

When I looked at the Vegan Athletes link, it does seem to show that a proper vegan diet is sustainable without needing to take suppliments. It seems to require a lot of effort to maintain a balanced diet, not necessarily in food preparation but rather a lot of small snacking throughout the day. I don't pretend to be well read on nutrition but it seems that we are really not meant to sit for large meals, the way it's become common practice.
 
Because:

  • Things are always as they appear.
  • Bravado is better than logic.
  • Talking smack like a school kid is the language of an intellectual.
I'm curious, did you wonder for even a moment why an unapologetic meat eater would go from arguing against Dessi to supporting her on this issue?

In any event, it's usually considered good form to actually hear an opposing argument before you declare yourself the victor.

I'm curious, do you really think that repeatedly restating your beliefs is some sort of argument? I think Dessi is right, therefore Dessi is right! I read Singer and Randfan and Dawkins and the Colonel before he went tits up all agree with Singer so I am right! You don't argue, you pontificate.

Still waiting for a substantive response to qayak. Although "things are not always as they seem" was hilariously lulzy.

/j/k, you won't substantively respond.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious, do you really think that repeatedly restating your beliefs is some sort of argument?

...

/j/k, you won't substantively respond.
Do you honestly think you have made any contribution whatsoever? Other than mischaracterize my posts and act like a child I can't find anything substantive that you have said.

Do you have anything substantive to offer? I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you. I'm just not interested in an immature pissing contest. I'm not here to win arguments or stroke my ego. So, either get involved and put down your ego or good bye. If your next post isn't sincere and substantive then I won't be reading anymore of your posts.
 
Last edited:
It is what we want it to be - nothing more, nothing less. If we wanted as a society to classify some people as subhuman and given them less rights we could do that - as we have done in the past and probably will do in the future.

Is it nice? No - but whoever said we always want to be nice when it's clear we don't?

The complications of existence can't be defined away I'm afraid.
Thanks cyborg. I think you have vastly oversimplified thousands of years of social and moral progress. No one said we can't as a society do whatever we want. I never tried to define away existence. I apologize but I don't find that your post advances the discussion or offers any insight.

If morals were entirely arbitrary from society to society then I could find your post somewhat contributory. But the truth is that the Jews were not the only ones who had rules regarding killing others, stealing, and being honest. The golden rule (or something similar) has been fairly popular. Thing is, there are actually reasons why. Now while hardly absolute and homogenous, anthropology reveals that there are near universals in all cultures. This idea that allowance of something like torturing and then slow roasting babies over a fire is just as likely as protecting babies is nonsense. Given advances in cognitive neruoscience and psychology and the understanding of social species we have a very good idea as to why. Isn't science cool?

So yeah, we could decide that slavery would be cool or genital mutilation would be a fun thing to do. However, there are very good reasons why that is not likely to happen. (Please note that I didn't say "won't" happen. Therein lies the crux.)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom