Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[8ball]

[QUOTE="PaoloSanchez, post: 15454181, member: 73461”]
lol @ "their wikipedia entry". Well hopefully you'd do a bit more than quick glance at notoriously unreliable wikipedia entries before drawing conclusions. I've been familiar with them and their work for a nearly 20 years and I'm still learning new stuff regularly from them. I have a high regard for Dr Greger, Dr McDougall and Dr Barnard. In particular, Dr Gregers' Nutritionfacts.org is a great resource imo. I've also referred to Dr Garth Davis' book "Proteinaholic", a doctor who used to recommend high protein/low carb diets to his patients, but now no longer does so.

It does take time to properly research this sort of stuff, and most people cba and would rather go for quick easy to digest little soundbites.”[/QUOTE]

I notice no particular objections to anything in that entry.

I was admittedly just looking up the first entry I found and looking for “scare terms” that tend to signal certain things, nothing more. Of course, Wikipedia is far from infallible on many subjects. You can get a sense of who has written who has written something and their agendas pretty quickly, though.

So, this Dr Barnard, who makes great claims about the use of his particular vegan diets in terms of their effect on diabetes. What would his area of training be? I expect he is a particularly eminent endocrinologist?

Obviously, it does take time to properly research this stuff.

Edit: something wonky with the quoting there

 

[mojo pixy]

[QUOTE="PaoloSanchez, post: 15455186, member: 73461"]If a carnivorous species reached our level of sentience it would also have the moral obligation to develop food which does not require murder. [/QUOTE]

Why? What moral obligation is it exactly, that makes killing another animal for food so essentially bad? What is our level of sentience? Do you mean once they've invented gods or something? Because gods aside, why does any species have a moral obligation not to kill other animals for any reason they see fit?

I get that your opinions are strong and that's fair enough but universalizing like that is in my opinion a sort of religious pomposity. BTW, FYI, it's that what gets people's backs up. Even people who agree with a lot of what you post.

EtA, that quote code is right, so I reckon our @PabloSanchez just isn't keen on being quoted any more. Or tagged. Oh well.

 

[NoXion]

Weird, the quote tags work when I do it.

If a carnivorous species reached our level of sentience it would also have the moral obligation to develop food which does not require murder.

No, they wouldn't. You think that they should have that obligation. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of an objective morality that applies universally to intelligent beings. Can you?

 

[Spymaster]

This is where Sanchez and the vegheads (that's the name of a band) stick their fingers in their ears. Perceived morality varies hugely from culture to culture and individually. There are some universal perceptions of morality but not killing animals is most definitely not one of them.

He’s just making stuff up.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I notice no particular objections to anything in that entry.

I was admittedly just looking up the first entry I found and looking for “scare terms” that tend to signal certain things, nothing more. Of course, Wikipedia is far from infallible on many subjects. You can get a sense of who has written who has written something and their agendas pretty quickly, though.

Well tbh, I don't know what the basis of your initial scepticism was because you didn't say, it was a bit vague and appeared to be based solely on a cursory glance. If you have anything a bit more substantial to base your scepticism on, it would be interesting to hear what it is.

So, this Dr Barnard, who makes great claims about the use of his particular vegan diets in terms of their effect on diabetes. What would his area of training be? I expect he is a particularly eminent endocrinologist?

Again, if you're interested, you can do the legwork and check up on his credentials for yourself and not just take my word for it.

Obviously, it does take time to properly research this stuff.

...yes indeed, it doesn't have to be a full blown Phd research study, but imo should be a bit more than a quick wiki glance and dismissal.

Edit: something wonky with the quoting there

Well I've managed to do it ok so not sure what your problem was.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So we're back to Meat is Murder? It's a death for no reason, and a death for no reason is murder.

Thing is, it's not a death for no reason, is it? It's a death for food.

And as covered before, focusing on the death bit obscures other parts of the process to do with creating and managing the lives of livestock. To go back to the cows released by a farmer mentioned further back in the thread, is it better that 10 cows should live out their full lifespans of 14 years in a field that can sustain 10 cows, or that 70 cows should live in that field over the course of those 14 years, but living for just 2 years each? I don't see an absolute moral imperative towards one or the other.

 

[Spymaster]

So we're back to Meat is Murder? It's a death for no reason, and a death for no reason is murder.

They all do it. Hyperbole is the cornerstone of vegheadism (see also rotting flesh, cow-juice, torture, etc). Obviously it's completely impossible to murder an animal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They all do it. Hyperbole is the cornerstone of vegheadism (see also rotting flesh, cow-juice, torture, etc). Obviously it's completely impossible to murder an animal.

Depends how it's done, imo. For example, ddraig coming round my house and slitting my cat or dog's throat for no reason other than to piss me off, or perhaps just to please himself, would be something along the same kind of moral line as murder. Serial killers often start their careers with killing people's pets for fun. It's a transgression.

 

[Spymaster]

Depends how it's done, imo. For example, ddraig coming round my house and slitting my cat or dog's throat for no reason other than to piss me off, or perhaps just to please himself, would be something along the same kind of moral line as murder. Serial killers often start their careers with killing people's pets for fun. It's a transgression.

Ddraig's psychotic fantasies aside, "murder" is a legal term. It requires a HUMAN to be killed by another HUMAN. I'd disagree there's even a moral equivalence.

 

[editor]

So we're back to Meat is Murder? It's a death for no reason, and a death for no reason is murder.

Thing is, it's not a death for no reason, is it? It's a death for food.

Well, sort of. For many people it's a decision to have a dead thing to eat over a non dead thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, sort of. For many people it's a decision to have a dead thing to eat over a non dead thing.

Most people, perhaps with the exception of the cat-killer ddraig, think that killing animals to control the spread of disease is killing with a good reason. Killing for food where you have few other options is also considered a good reason by most people, I think.

So the position is at the very least weakened by these considerations. Should you ever kill another human in anything other than self-defence? There is a strong argument that you shouldn't. Should you ever kill another animal in anything other than self-defence? Yes, we need to when those animals' interests conflict with human interests. Even in a 100% vegan world, this would still need to happen. Is the human interest of eating meat a 'good reason' here or not? Clearly opinions vary.

 

[editor]

Most people, perhaps with the exception of the cat-killer ddraig, think that killing animals to control the spread of disease is killing with a good reason. Killing for food where you have few other options is also considered a good reason by most people, I think.

But we have plenty of options so, again, slaughtering millions of animals could well be seen as a death for no reason for people living in relative comfort with plenty of alternatives readily available.

 

[andysays]

Well, sort of. For many people it's a decision to have a dead thing to eat over a non dead thing.

No it's not. It's a decision to have a combination of animal-and-vegetable-based dead things rather than just vegetable-based dead things.

All livings things consume once-living-but-now-dead things to some extent. Even plants get nutrients from organic matter which was once alive but has now been broken down/decomposed by other living things.

Everything vegans eat is dead and was once alive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But we have plenty of options so, again, slaughtering millions of animals could well be seen as a death for no reason for people living in relative comfort with plenty of alternatives readily available.

If you're focusing on the killing bit, yes. There are something like 20-50 billion chickens in the world - estimates seem to vary wildly, but they all agree that the chicken is the most numerous bird on the planet by some distance. Most of them, of course, lead short, miserable lives, but they wouldn't be alive in the first place if they weren't destined to be killed. So there is another way of looking at the same issue, which is to focus on the quality of the life, however short it may be.

 

[editor]

If you're focusing on the killing bit, yes. There are something like 20-50 billion chickens in the world - estimates seem to vary wildly, but they all agree that the chicken is the most numerous bird on the planet by some distance. Most of them, of course, lead short, miserable lives, but they wouldn't be alive in the first place if they weren't destined to be killed. So there is another way of looking at the same issue, which is to focus on the quality of the life, however short it may be.

With chicken wings priced at around four for £1.50 or whatever, any dreams of poor hormone-stuffed, daylight starved freakshow birds getting a huge improvement in the quality of their lives is up there with the fairies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

With chicken wings priced at around four for £1.50 or whatever, any dreams of poor hormone-stuffed, daylight starved freakshow birds getting a huge improvement in the quality of their lives is up there with the fairies.

As I've posted before, there are groups that campaign for just that, such as CiWF. They have achieved some small things wrt factory farming, much of it working to make EU-wide changes. You may say nowhere near enough - I would say nowhere near enough, as would CiWF themselves - but it's not an entirely futile quest. For example, free range eggs have become almost the norm now - we're on our way in the EU at least towards eliminating caged-hen egg production. That's a significant change.

I think you might overestimate the 'comfort' that many people who buy cheap, low-welfare meat live in - people for whom forking out a tenner or more on a free-range chicken for a family dinner is a pretty big decision when there's one the same size right next to it for four quid. Which is why, as I've posted before, I think focusing on the individual morality of consumers is nowhere near enough. We need decisions taken at the level of society.

 

[Spymaster]

Any campaigning to improve the quality of life of food animals is nowhere near as futile as campaigns to get everyone to stop eating them completely.

 

[ddraig]

lots of wriggling still
littlebabyjesus as posted previously, if you're going to have a dig tag me, coward
I am not a cat killer it was making a point and you know it, you just won't accept it so keep on hammering your point that killing animals for food is necessary, which it isn't (caveats to stop the pile on applied)

 

[ddraig]

Any campaigning to improve the quality of life of food animals is nowhere near as futile as campaigns to get everyone to stop eating them completely.

who is trying to get EVERYONE to stop eating them COMPLETELY?
and the vegans get accused of absolutism

 

[ddraig]

No it's not. It's a decision to have a combination of animal-and-vegetable-based dead things rather than just vegetable-based dead things.

All livings things consume once-living-but-now-dead things to some extent. Even plants get nutrients from organic matter which was once alive but has now been broken down/decomposed by other living things.

Everything vegans eat is dead and was once alive.

straight of the anti vegan bingo crap argument card and more twisting
the decision to have animal based dead things to eat is for your pleasure only, the animal didn't need to be reared and die prematurely if you didn't fancy it for tea

 

[andysays]

straight of the anti vegan bingo crap argument card and more twisting
the decision to have animal based dead things to eat is for your pleasure only, the animal didn't need to be reared and die prematurely if you didn't fancy it for tea

I'm not the one arguing that there is something wrong (although no one seems to be able to explain exactly what) about some living things dying so that other living things can continue to live. I recognise that this is not only natural but also an essential part of life.

How many animals do you think died directly as a result of the farming of the food you've eaten in the last week?

All the anger in the world can't hide the fact that you have no argument to offer, and are apparently as ignorant about the consequences of the farming of the food you eat as you accuse meat-eaters of being.

 

[Spymaster]

who is trying to get EVERYONE to stop eating them COMPLETELY?
and the vegans get accused of absolutism

This shows a misunderstanding of what's being said.

 

[ddraig]

I'm not the one arguing that there is something wrong (although no one seems to be able to explain exactly what) about some living things dying so that other living things can continue to live. I recognise that this is not only natural but also an essential part of life.

How many animals do you think died directly as a result of the farming of the food you've eaten in the last week?

All the anger in the world can't hide the fact that you have no argument to offer, and are apparently as ignorant about the consequences of the farming of the food you eat as you accuse meat-eaters of being.

right so we're going back to basics are we? not read the thread then?
If you can live without killing a pig for your plate why wouldn't you? because you choose not to. I and others believe it is unnecessary and cruel to kill a pig and other animals for your plate, you don't that's up to you but it is not needed for you to "continue to live" do you agree on that?
the argument of "How many animals do you think died directly as a result of the farming of the food you've eaten in the last week?" is bollocks because how would i survive otherwise and those animals die for you too, so it's about less animals dying and not directly paying for animals to be slaughtered for my plate.
Why do you think you can say I have no argument to offer?
It's really straightforward, where possible with all the caveats, there is no need to eat dead animals to survive and it is a personal choice, all the wriggling, high level philosophising and low level bacon comments will not change that

If your still confused by it all, look up the definitions, we're not talking about fruitarianism here, just veganism

 

[SpookyFrank]

So we're back to Meat is Murder? It's a death for no reason, and a death for no reason is murder.

Murder isn't death with no reason. Could be the victim slept with a spouse that did not belong to them, or talked too loud at the cinema, or blocked someone's driveway with their stupid fucking BMW.

Even in completely random murder sprees there's still a reason. Even if it's only, that guy's fucking crazy and it's too easy to get hold of guns around here.

 

[NoXion]

It's really straightforward, where possible with all the caveats, there is no need to eat dead animals to survive and it is a personal choice, all the wriggling, high level philosophising and low level bacon comments will not change that

There's a lot of shit I don't need to have in order to live, but I enjoy them anyway. I don't need to drink tea, or eat crisps. Animals die as a result of the production of both items, as well as any number of things one doesn't need but are nice to have. Basing one's actions purely on necessity is fundamentally absurd. We're not Vulcans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Murder isn't death with no reason. Could be the victim slept with a spouse that did not belong to them, or talked too loud at the cinema, or blocked someone's driveway with their stupid fucking BMW.

Even in completely random murder sprees there's still a reason. Even if it's only, that guy's fucking crazy and it's too easy to get hold of guns around here.

True enough, although at the risk of sounding like kabbes, that doesn't logically preclude the idea that a death for no reason is murder.

The 'Morrissey Doctrine' has arisen on this thread more often than I thought it would. Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised - he was pretty influential on many people my age.

 

[ddraig]

There's a lot of shit I don't need to have in order to live, but I enjoy them anyway. I don't need to drink tea, or eat crisps. Animals die as a result of the production of both items, as well as any number of things one doesn't need but are nice to have. Basing one's actions purely on necessity is fundamentally absurd. We're not Vulcans.

yes you enjoy them so carry on
why then do you have a problem with vegans who decide not to have these things even though they may have once enjoyed them?
and why if you can live with less/very little cruelty would you choose not to? because you enjoy the taste of meat, not because you need it

to lbj, of course meat is murder, meat comes from animals that have been killed for your plate
or would 'meat is a portion of killed animal reared and slaughtered for my needs' suit your sensitivities better?
an it's not the "morrissey doctrine" ffs, it was around before that as it's really fucking obvious
Morrissey is a cunt and your attempts to tie veganism to him saying that is disingenuous

 

[Spymaster]

why then do you have a problem with vegans who decide not to have these things even though they may have once enjoyed them?

Nobody has a problem with vegans per se. It's judgemental cunts who insist on moralising and telling us that meat is murder (clearly massive bollocks) and that our lifestyle is wrong/immoral/incorrect/whatever. That just happens to be most vegans.

to lbj, of course meat is murder, meat comes from animals that have been killed for your plate

If that's your definition of murder you seriously need to do some more reading.

... would 'meat is a portion of killed animal reared and slaughtered for my needs' suit your sensitivities better?

It's nothing to do with sensitivities and everything to do with accuracy. The above is at least, accurate.

 

[ddraig]

who here has told you your lifestyle is wrong/immoral/incorrect/whatever?
vegans may think that eating animals and their products is but if you don't why do you care?
meat is murder, animals that once alive were killed/murdered to make meat, that's how I and others see it, many don't of course but no picking over the words and official definitions will change that for me, you carry on thinking what you like, obviously

 

[Gromit]

Are zoos animal prisons for creatures caught by the nature police for the crime of meat is murder?