Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

PaoloSanchez said:
Sigh. :rolleyes:
This has been done already.
I'll refer the (dis?)honourable gentleman to the current definition...

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

I'm assuming that you are not genuinely concerned for the plight of critters killed as a by product of human activity and that you are on another one of your whataboutery missions in search of the holy grail of "gotchas". It would appear that your approach to this subject is like that of a short attention span Sun reader, so it's probably not worth my while to attempt any kind of meaningful engagement until you switch from tabloid mode and actually put some smarts into your criticisms.

The highly intelligent Ask Yourself has already given sound rebuttals to nearly all of the silly anti-vegan arguments (eg. Vegans kill more animals – 45:31 - covering your pest control example) which I have previously posted. If you're feeling brave enough you can get a live rebuttal in the "debate crucible" voice channel on his Discord server, although with your weak arguments I don't think you'd last very long unless you somehow manage to up your game.
Click to expand...
His argument seems to be arbitrary. It's ok to kill animals regarded as pests, but not to kill animals for food.
 
Toast Rider said:
His argument seems to be arbitrary. It's ok to kill animals regarded as pests, but not to kill animals for food.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's arbitrary at all. He doesn't say that "it's ok to kill animals". He makes a clear distinction between "legitimate" reasons for killing animals, for example he mentions... "food contamination that can lead to sickness, destruction of wood and insulation in a house, etc". "Of course apply the least harm principle. If there is a way to do it less violently or without harm then do that". In my opinion that is a reasonable stance, and clearly not in the same league as the global mass breeding, imprisonment and slaughter of billions of land animals unnecessarily, for taste preference. Not even close, especially given the many well documented and widespread negative side effects of such actions.

Toast Rider said:
This is a pretty startling statistic: 84% vegans/vegetarians give up within a year

Most Vegetarians Lapse After Only a Year | Smart News | Smithsonian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what's so "startling" about that statistic, it's in line with many new endeavours that people start with seemingly good intentions and then give up, not something that is particularly unique to folks becoming vegan. (new years resolutions, gym memberships, cessation of the ghastly smoking habit, etc are just some examples)

The more relevant and useful statistics show a steady increase in people becoming vegan and as a result an increasing number of businesses chasing the vegan pound. So while there is a significant number who don't stay the course, it's still a growing movement and has become a lot more prominent than when I started 20 years ago, so I think there's plenty of room for optimism.
 
PaoloSanchez said:
I don't think it's arbitrary at all. He doesn't say that "it's ok to kill animals". He makes a clear distinction between "legitimate" reasons for killing animals, for example he mentions... "food contamination that can lead to sickness, destruction of wood and insulation in a house, etc". "Of course apply the least harm principle. If there is a way to do it less violently or without harm then do that". In my opinion that is a reasonable stance, and clearly not in the same league as the global mass breeding, imprisonment and slaughter of billions of land animals unnecessarily, for taste preference. Not even close, especially given the many well documented and widespread negative side effects of such actions.


I'm not sure what's so "startling" about that statistic, it's in line with many new endeavours that people start with seemingly good intentions and then give up, not something that is particularly unique to folks becoming vegan. (new years resolutions, gym memberships, cessation of the ghastly smoking habit, etc are just some examples)

The more relevant and useful statistics show a steady increase in people becoming vegan and as a result an increasing number of businesses chasing the vegan pound. So while there is a significant number who don't stay the course, it's still a growing movement and has become a lot more prominent than when I started 20 years ago, so I think there's plenty of room for optimism.
Click to expand...
His reasons are arbitrary.

I don't disagree with them, btw. Pests are pests for a reason. I don't want my food contaminated etc either.

I do think his argument is arbitrary because he's drawing his own arbitrary line between legitimate and otherwise killing. I happen to think killing animals for food is legitimate for instance.
 
PaoloSanchez said:
I don't think it's arbitrary at all. He doesn't say that "it's ok to kill animals". He makes a clear distinction between "legitimate" reasons for killing animals, for example he mentions... "food contamination that can lead to sickness, destruction of wood and insulation in a house, etc". "Of course apply the least harm principle. If there is a way to do it less violently or without harm then do that". In my opinion that is a reasonable stance, and clearly not in the same league as the global mass breeding, imprisonment and slaughter of billions of land animals unnecessarily, for taste preference. Not even close, especially given the many well documented and widespread negative side effects of such actions.


I'm not sure what's so "startling" about that statistic, it's in line with many new endeavours that people start with seemingly good intentions and then give up, not something that is particularly unique to folks becoming vegan. (new years resolutions, gym memberships, cessation of the ghastly smoking habit, etc are just some examples)

The more relevant and useful statistics show a steady increase in people becoming vegan and as a result an increasing number of businesses chasing the vegan pound. So while there is a significant number who don't stay the course, it's still a growing movement and has become a lot more prominent than when I started 20 years ago, so I think there's plenty of room for optimism.
Click to expand...
Oh, the dickhead is back. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
To clarify, the study actually says:

84 percent of vegetarians and vegans eventually go back to eating meat -- 53 percent of them within a year's time and more than 30 percent of them within three months.
Click to expand...

So i was inaccurate to say 84% give up in a year. 53% give up in a year. It's also a 2014 study so things may have changed.

Vegans are slightly less likely to concede; 70% instead of 84%
 
Toast Rider said:
I do think his argument is arbitrary because he's drawing his own arbitrary line between legitimate and otherwise killing. I happen to think killing animals for food is legitimate for instance.
Click to expand...
Yeah...who's arbitrary line is it anyway?

Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Based on that definition, I don't agree with your assertion that his argument is arbitrary at all. He has clearly given it plenty of thought and has drawn a distinct line between what he considers to be legitimate and non legitimate killing. I imagine that the majority of vegans would consider that killing animals for food (when not in a survival situation) is not a legitimate reason, clearly you believe otherwise, I get that.

In my opinion, there is a genuine "arbitrary line" drawn by those who believe killing that animals for food to be legit, ie why it's ok to eat some animals and not others. Eating cats, dogs and horses is frowned upon in this country but is ok in others.
#NameTheTrait
 
PaoloSanchez said:
Yeah...who's arbitrary line is it anyway?

Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Based on that definition, I don't agree with your assertion that his argument is arbitrary at all. He has clearly given it plenty of thought and has drawn a distinct line between what he considers to be legitimate and non legitimate killing. I imagine that the majority of vegans would consider that killing animals for food (when not in a survival situation) is not a legitimate reason, clearly you believe otherwise, I get that.

In my opinion, there is a genuine "arbitrary line" drawn by those who believe killing that animals for food to be legit, ie why it's ok to eat some animals and not others. Eating cats, dogs and horses is frowned upon in this country but is ok in others.
#NameTheTrait
Click to expand...

It’s okay to be a bit racist though yeah?
 
PaoloSanchez said:
In my opinion, there is a genuine "arbitrary line" drawn by those who believe killing that animals for food to be legit, ie why it's ok to eat some animals and not others. Eating cats, dogs and horses is frowned upon in this country but is ok in others.
#NameTheTrait
Click to expand...

Some cultures have a taboo around eating carnivorous or omnivorous animals. Some have taboos around specific animals for a variety of reasons. Pigs, who eats them and who doesn't? What we eat is all pretty arbitrary, not consuming sentient creatures under any circumstances (except eg by accident) has a certain consistency to it, but it's still a pretty arbitrary choice in universal terms, since this entire planet is full of creatures that survive by eating each other.
 
PaoloSanchez said:
Yeah...who's arbitrary line is it anyway?

Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Based on that definition, I don't agree with your assertion that his argument is arbitrary at all. He has clearly given it plenty of thought and has drawn a distinct line between what he considers to be legitimate and non legitimate killing. I imagine that the majority of vegans would consider that killing animals for food (when not in a survival situation) is not a legitimate reason, clearly you believe otherwise, I get that.

In my opinion, there is a genuine "arbitrary line" drawn by those who believe killing that animals for food to be legit, ie why it's ok to eat some animals and not others. Eating cats, dogs and horses is frowned upon in this country but is ok in others.
#NameTheTrait
Click to expand...
Personal whim. That seems to be the definition used. I'm sure he has given it plenty of thought, I haven't said otherwise. I simply find his argument to be arbitrary because he's drawn a line for himself based on subjective personal whim.

The reason we eat some animals and not others isn't deep seated; it's just how society has evolved. cats and dogs have evolved to be part of our social structure, cows and chickens and pigs haven't. Besides a cow could feed you for a year, a cat...notsomuch. We also don't need to eat every single species on the planet, only a few. Most of which we have bred for that purpose.

I'm not sure how name the trait is relevant.
 
They've had another item on vegan meat substitutes on You and Yours today. Every time they cover that, the presenter feels compelled to read out a response from some listener along the lines of "Why have something tasting like meat when vegans/veggies don't like meat". Haven't these people ever heard of people not eating meat for ethical reasons ?

I don't eat much meat these days, but occasionally I still tuck into some critter because I love the taste of it. I'd go full veggy if there was a meat substitute which actually tastes good.
 
I gave up red meat (which I loved) when I was 18 but then for some reason a few years ago when I was about 40 I decided to dabble again. Had a few steaks. I was so fucking underwhelmed. I'd honestly rather eat a veggie burger. And I think this is the truth of it, your palette demands more of what it's used to so if you eat a lot of meat you want meat, you stop for a long time it can become a bit of an alien texture / flavour. Eat enough quorn and you will probably grow to like it more.
 
lazythursday said:
I gave up red meat (which I loved) when I was 18 but then for some reason a few years ago when I was about 40 I decided to dabble again. Had a few steaks. I was so fucking underwhelmed. I'd honestly rather eat a veggie burger. And I think this is the truth of it, your palette demands more of what it's used to so if you eat a lot of meat you want meat, you stop for a long time it can become a bit of an alien texture / flavour. Eat enough quorn and you will probably grow to like it more.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm a lifelong vegetarian (well, ever since I stopped being conned by my mum into eating covert meat and bullied by the dinnerladies into eating blatant meat), and I'm nowhere nearer liking Quorn than I was the first time I encountered the vile slime.

Now, lentils...that's a completely different matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hash tag
Veganism going out of fashion
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
Mrs Miggins
Mrs Miggins
ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
44K
The39thStep
The39thStep
danny la rouge
Time is Up for The Times, which is going down the pan, and doesn’t rhyme with pie.
Replies
1
Views
168
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
WhyLikeThis
James Cleverly’s unpleasant turn of phrase
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
200
Views
16K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
savoloysam
  • Poll
The creeping roll out of facial recognition. Are you for or against?
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom