Why vegans are simply better people

[SusanB-M1]

I'm not aware of any data that says "what you once ate will sustain you for the rest of your life". If so, I'd love to see some data on this ...

I do not have data for this. It just seems fairly common sense to me!

...But if anecdotes are now data, I know lots of vegans who are raising kids as vegans and some of those vegan kids are now grown up.

Sounds as if they would be good subjects for a study on whether a broadly-based, omnivorous diet during childhood, or a vegan diet is better for general health.

Again, since anecdotes are not very useful, perhaps someone can explain what nutrients can only be found in animal parts and what happens to people who don't get them?

Red meat for necessary iron, which is best for red blood cells? I do not know this, but heard a medical phone-in about it a while ago.


ETA to sort out quote tags

 

[Marduk]

hey you Vegans listen up, I don't know where you're from but Susan is better than you, I would be the expert witness here as I've met both Susan and Vegans before, if you don't like it, you can go back to your own planet

 

[citizenzen]

Red meat for necessary iron, which is best for red blood cells? I do not know this, but heard a medical phone-in about it a while ago.

Here's are excerpts from a brief but informative article on the subject. At the the end of the article are tables displaying amounts of iron found in various foods ...

Iron in the Vegan Diet
by Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D.

Summary

Dried beans and dark green leafy vegetables are especially good sources of iron, even better on a per calorie basis than meat. Iron absorption is increased markedly by eating foods containing vitamin C along with foods containing iron. Vegetarians do not have a higher incidence of iron deficiency than do meat eaters.

Heme vs. Non-heme Iron

Iron is found in food in two forms, heme and non-heme iron. Heme iron, which makes up 40 percent of the iron in meat, poultry, and fish, is well absorbed. Non-heme iron, 60 percent of the iron in animal tissue and all the iron in plants (fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts) is less well absorbed. Vegan diets only contain non-heme iron. Because of this, iron recommendations are higher for vegetarians (including vegans) than for non-vegetarians.

Iron Status in Vegans

Some might expect that since the vegan diet contains a form of iron that is not that well absorbed, vegans might be prone to developing iron deficiency anemia. However, surveys of vegans have found that iron deficiency anemia is no more common among vegetarians than among the general population although vegans tend to have lower iron stores.

The reason for the satisfactory iron status of many vegans may be that commonly eaten foods are high in iron. In fact, if the amount of iron in these foods is expressed as milligrams of iron per 100 calories, many foods eaten by vegans are superior to animal-derived foods. For example, you would have to eat more than 1700 calories of sirloin steak to get the same amount of iron as found in 100 calories of spinach.

Another reason for the satisfactory iron status of vegans is that vegan diets are high in vitamin C. Vitamin C acts to markedly increase absorption of non-heme iron. Adding a vitamin C source to a meal increases non-heme iron absorption up to six-fold which makes the absorption of non-heme iron as good or better than that of heme iron.​

 

[citizenzen]

I'm not aware of any data that says "what you once ate will sustain you for the rest of your life".

I do not have data for this. It just seems fairly common sense to me!

The effects of malnutrition in children is well known and can lead to life-long effects on their bodies. So I can understand the point I think you're trying to make. It's every parents obligation to deliver to adulthood the healthiest child they can. If a vegan diet is insufficient for growing children [and I haven't seen that substantiated yet], then parents shouldn't handicap their children over their dietary philosophies.


Edit: from wikipedia ...

Pregnancy, babies and children

The American Dietetic Association considers well-planned vegan diets "appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation," but recommends that vegan mothers supplement for iron, vitamin D, and vitamin B12. The Vegan Society recommend that vegan mothers breastfeed to enhance their child's immune system and reduce the risk of allergies. Vitamin B12 deficiency in lactating vegetarian mothers has been linked to deficiencies and neurological disorders in their children. Some research suggests that the essential omega-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid and its derivatives should also be supplemented in pregnant and lactating vegan mothers, since they are very low in most vegan diets, and the metabolically related docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is essential to the developing visual and central nervous system. Pregnant vegans may need to supplement choline.

A maternal vegan diet has been associated with low birth weight, and a five times lower likelihood of having twins than those that eat animal products, though the article cited concludes that it is the consumption of dairy products by non-vegans that increases the likelihood of conceiving twins, especially in areas where growth hormone is fed to dairy cattle. Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories. Dr. Amy Lanou, nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and an expert witness for the prosecution in one case, wrote that vegan diets are "not only safe for babies; they're healthier than ones based on animal products." She wrote that "the real problem was that [the child] was not given enough food of any sort."​

 

[The Big Dog]

If I quoted the numerous example of each of those arguments from this thread alone, would you change your tune? I take it you already agree they are silly non-arguments.

I haven't seen much here. Most posts are about challenges to vegans, not to omnivores.

Would I change my tune? You mean would I stop calling ridiculously over the top straw man arguments ridiculously over the top straw man arguments if you re-posted ridiculously over the top straw man arguments?

Probably not, I mean that doesn't even make sense.

 

[citizenzen]

By the way, one thing I've noticed is that people who label themselves with flattering descriptions tend to be grossly deluded.

In this case "creative" is not merely a flattering label, it's part of my profession. I'm a graphic designer in a university marketing department. Part of my job involves brainstorming sessions where we come up with concepts for campaigns, designs, etc. We constantly search for the hooks that are appealing, attention-grabbing and informative. It requires us to use our imagination to find and make connections with ideas that are unexpected, surprising and compelling.

When you do this for a living it becomes second nature. Many of my posts are purposefully "stretched" in this way , because one: I hate to write dry and boring posts, and two: I believe finding connections between seemingly disparate ideas can often be illuminating. What I sometimes find, just as in Tsukasa Buddha's case, is that when people encounter these creative connections they call them straw men. While they may sometimes be straw men, I think that other times they're simply beyond the normal dialogue or concepts that some people are used to.

My recommendation would be to first ask the person to rephrase or clarify their post, which enhances dialogue, instead of abruptly declaring it a straw man, which tends to shut that dialogue down. There's ample time in a discussion to determine that an argument truly is a straw man. I just think we all need to take time to make sure we've given the person chance to clarify their points before leaping to that conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

When people claim there is a moral distinction between rational humans and animals, she uses this argument to show there is no distinction. That's what she says, right there in black and white. No distinction = equivalent.

"Moral distinction", please note the word "moral". She is equating morals We could equate eating, sleeping, processing of food, circulation, respiration, deification, etc., etc., etc. To say that humans and animals both defecate isn't to equate humans and animals. It is to equate human defecation and animal defecation. Humans and animals both defecate, right?

Beats me why you are hung up on this.

Because of the dishonest use of an equivocation (and make no mistake about it, without clarification it is an equivocation) was used to accuse her of dehumanizing handicapped people.

I was willing to allow for the word and said so IF it was understood that Dessi didn't didn't use in a way that dehumanized humans.

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

Okay, I should have said handicapped.

Look, my point was quite clear. Had you stepped up to the plate and said, "well yeah, of course she wasn't dehumanizing handicapped people", you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But you were the one hung up on the word not me. You challenged me on it and pedantically demanded that she had. You would give me no out. So the question is, honestly, why are you so hung up over it? Why the hell did you even care? If you didn't think she was dehumanizing humans by comparing one aspect, why bother with all of this?

*It meaning to equate humans and animals.

 

[RandFan]

Not only did I give you two answers to the ambiguous question you asked, I gave you reasons for both answers. What more do you want?

Oh, you want an answer that I don't agree with but that you can use to make an argument! I get it . . . so what answer is it you are looking for?

No! Just kidding.

How about you just deal with the answers as given. You claim to have a sound argument, I look forward to hearing it.

qayak, I would prefer not to lose your friendship. I've no idea what you mean by answers. I'm willing to chalk this all up to a misunderstanding, if you will agree that equating human and animal respiration doesn't dehumanize handicapped people and neither does equating human and animal morals. Fair enough?

I should add, you of course can disagree with her as to equating morals. I've no problem with that at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

In this case "creative" is not merely a flattering label, it's part of my profession. I'm a graphic designer in a university marketing department. Part of my job involves brainstorming sessions where we come up with concepts for campaigns, designs, etc. We constantly search for the hooks that are appealing, attention-grabbing and informative. It requires us to use our imagination to find and make connections with ideas that are unexpected, surprising and compelling.

When you do this for a living it becomes second nature. Many of my posts are purposefully "stretched" in this way , because one: I hate to write dry and boring posts, and two: I believe finding connections between seemingly disparate ideas can often be illuminating. What I sometimes find, just as in Tsukasa Buddha's case, is that when people encounter these creative connections they call them straw men. While they may sometimes be straw men, I think that other times they're simply beyond the normal dialogue or concepts that some people are used to.

My recommendation would be to first ask the person to rephrase or clarify their post, which enhances dialogue, instead of abruptly declaring it a straw man, which tends to shut that dialogue down. There's ample time in a discussion to determine that an argument truly is a straw man. I just think we all need to take time to make sure we've given the person chance to clarify their points before leaping to that conclusion.

Well that is interesting, because my profession is a physical therapist, and I create approaches to dealing with people who throw their arms out of the socket patting themselves on the back.

But perhaps I am all wet here, maybe your act of shutting down my comments that his arguments were ridiculous straw men was the correct one. I mean you are the type to think we all need to take time to make sure we've given the person chance to clarify their points before leaping to that conclusion. So I mean you probably didn't start bragging about how creative you are, and what a dullard I am. I mean, pepper spraying old women and rape, those are two of the go to arguments in the debaters playbook! Now I know!

Thanks for alerting me to the rock solid advantages of using blatantly obvious logical fallacies, and my duty to gently coax the true measure of the argument out of the chaff.

 

[citizenzen]

But perhaps I am all wet here, maybe your act of shutting down my comments that his arguments were ridiculous straw men was the correct one.

It would seem hard to argue that I'm shutting you down as I'm engaging you in discussion.

Well that is interesting, because my profession is a physical therapist ...

I can only hope that you're more patient with your clients than your are with other posters.

 

[qayak]

"Moral distinction", please note the word "moral". She is equating morals.{/QUOTE]

No, she is not. The moral distinction is what the other people are trying to make which allows them to give "marginal humans" rights but not animals. She won't allow that distinction and as a result equates humans to animals.

I was willing to allow for the word and said so IF it was understood that Dessi didn't didn't use in a way that dehumanized humans.

You are arguing with the wrong person again. I only said Dessi equated animals and humans not that there was anything dehumanizing about it. In fact, I stated flat out that I myself used this in my own argument as to why certain animals deserve certain rights.

Had you stepped up to the plate and said, "well yeah, of course she wasn't dehumanizing handicapped people", you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But you were the one hung up on the word not me. You challenged me on it and pedantically demanded that she had. You would give me no out. So the question is, honestly, why are you so hung up over it? Why the hell did you even care? If you didn't think she was dehumanizing humans by comparing one aspect, why bother with all of this?

This discussion is quite bizarre and I would have bowed out long ago if it weren't for the entertainment value.

I never once made a moral judgement about Dessi's equating humans and animals. That was someone else, go check. I challenge you to find anywhere that I used the word "dehumanize/ing."

I simply stated that Dessi had in fact equated humans to animals. You immediately denied it and then stated that you could prove it. I knew you couldn't and took up your challenge.

So here we are, many posts later with you still not having proved that she didn't write what she wrote and are attempting to argue against things that I never said.

The out you look for is simple. Just say "Yeah, she equated humans to animals."

No need to apologize, it just isn't that big of a deal. Hell, I'll even help you argue against the people who feel it is dehumanizing.

 

[RandFan]

The out you look for is simple. Just say "Yeah, she equated humans to animals."

She didn't. Had you added the clarification that you did with the human and rat example we could have ended.

No, I don't need an out. To say she equated human's and animals is a dishonest equivocation. Of that there is no doubt and you know that or you wouldn't have made the clarification in the rat example.

So there it is. I had held out some hope but I guess not. So, let me be clear, hell no she didn't equate humans and animals.

Facts:

1. To equate humans and animals is to say that humans and animals are the same.
2. To equate a shared aspect (to compare) isn't to equate humans and animals.
3. For me to say Dessi equated humans and animals would require dishonesty on my part. Wont happen.

So, qayak, I will live with my disappointment in you but that is the price I pay for being honest.

 

[RandFan]

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.

Qayak, in what sense do you mean when you say "equate" do you mean to say that Dessi meant that humans and animals are EXACTLY the same in most or all aspects? Or do you mean to say that Dessi was equating one aspect?

If it is not clear and you don't make it clear then you are engaging in fallacy. End of story.

 

[Furcifer]

She didn't. Had you added the clarification that you did with the human and rat example we could have ended.

No, I don't need an out. To say she equated human's and animals is a dishonest equivocation. Of that there is no doubt and you know that or you wouldn't have made the clarification in the rat example.

So there it is. I had held out some hope but I guess not. So, let me be clear, hell no she didn't equate humans and animals.

Facts:

1. To equate humans and animals is to say that humans and animals are the same.
2. To equate a shared aspect (to compare) isn't to equate humans and animals.
3. For me to say Dessi equated humans and animals would require dishonesty on my part. Wont happen.

So, qayak, I will live with my disappointment in you but that is the price I pay for being honest.

Lol, to "equate" something doesn't mean "to make them exactly equal". This is just more sophistry.

This thread is about animals and treating animals to reduce their suffering. Dessi made it quite clear that humans should treat animals like they would other humans, that they should be treated "equal". She made references to slavery and the "similarity" to the farming of animals, she "equated" the two.

Saying that humans walk upright and animals don't, therefore they are different and can never be "equated", which is what Randfan is saying, is sheer nonsense.

 

[mortimer]

I haven't read the entire thread, but couldn't an argument be made that, with today's more humane slaughtering techniques, that these animals are treated more humanely and with less suffering than they would in the wild?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Would I change my tune? You mean would I stop calling ridiculously over the top straw man arguments ridiculously over the top straw man arguments if you re-posted ridiculously over the top straw man arguments?

Probably not, I mean that doesn't even make sense.

... Right. So I guess I used my subversive PETA powerz to go back in time and make people post these arguments I made up?

It is pretty hard to make an argument that eating animal flesh is wrong/immoral when nature made us omnivores.

Um, as long as we're talking about destroying life forms and then eating them: Plants are life forms. I'm sure that ear of corn on the barbie can't feel very good about first having been severed from its life-giving sustenance - and then roasted.

I suppose it is okay to eat plants, since, although they live out their lives (kinda be nice to have the lifespan of a bristlecone pine) - we really don't understand them. CHOMP!!!!

Fact is - we are not herbivores. We're omnivores, and however we got to that point is out of the hands of you and me.

Humans are omnivores and need to eat meat as well

There's really no way for a vegan to resolve these inconsistencies without admitting to the subjective manner in which we all evaluate "life". We all set the bar(s) at different levels. Ultimately veganism is about setting the bar much higher than everyone else, but only when it comes to certain things.

We need animal proteins to survive and be healthy.

Telling a human he is somehow immoral for eating meat is JUST AS FALLACIOUS an argument as telling it to a fox. Fox gotta eat.

Vegans are not shy about making judgments on species worth. I say, go for it if that suits you. Yet it's all subjective, correct?

The fact you have chosen to ignore your natural design doesn't dismiss the FACT that you are designed to consume animal proteins.

Ethics? All depends upon one's point of view - and how far back one wishes to step during the viewing. You'd

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.

Good luck with that. You are assuming that people don't have conflicting principles, and that they can act consistently with all of them. I am still not convinced any morality can be made internally consistent, let alone that you have a morality consistent enough to be able to guide others toward greater consistency.

I added a few moral subjectivism/post-modernism examples for fun.

 

[RandFan]

I haven't read the entire thread, but couldn't an argument be made that, with today's more humane slaughtering techniques, that these animals are treated more humanely and with less suffering than they would in the wild?

With the advent of factory farming it is arguably much worse in many ways.

 

[citizenzen]

I haven't read the entire thread, but couldn't an argument be made that, with today's more humane slaughtering techniques, that these animals are treated more humanely and with less suffering than they would in the wild?

Well, I do think it's a pretty rare (if it occurs at all) for animals to provide a constant supply of food to their intended prey and to spend time fattening them up before eating them.

So in that way, I'd side with you in saying it's a more "humane" treatment than they'd experience in the wild.

 

[citizenzen]

With the advent of factory farming it is arguably much worse in many ways.

For instance, which is more humane?

The animal that quickly kills it's prey?

Or the spider that wraps it up to kill and eat later?

I think in some ways, we all prefer the idea of being killed quickly instead of held captive before being dispatched.

 

[BTMO]

With the advent of factory farming it is arguably much worse in many ways.

The worst thing about chickens in putting in the new batteries....