Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Books written by vegans !!
And I have been studying . I found these guys..and learned about "speciesism " which is a thing every bit as bad as racism apparently .
Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?
- Thread starter Watermelon Man
- Start date
Books written by vegans !!
And I have been studying . I found these guys..and learned about "speciesism " which is a thing every bit as bad as racism apparently .
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Is dickheadism a thing CR?
It's amazing the amount of fruit loops that have no relevance to a debate you can find if you search long enough
It's amazing the amount of fruit loops that have no relevance to a debate you can find if you search long enough
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Are you volunteering to live like the Inuit on whale blubber ?
People used to live like that because they had no choice
This is a very comprehensive series debunking the paleo myths :-
Last edited:
veganomics
Active Member
Isn't it amazing the stuff you can find nowadays. Mr Red appears to be our very own home grown instant PHD Google scholar. Books? Who needs them.Is dickheadism a thing CR?
View attachment 111252
It's amazing the amount of fruit loops that have no relevance to a debate you can find if you search long enough
View attachment 111253
phillm
Trolling through Life (TM)
I bet that veggie loving mass murderer Hitler ate eggs and dairy products from time to time and he was certainly angry , nay livid for most of it. Thank god he lost....
An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling.[6]
An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling.[6]
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
No, but they certainly gathered tubers, nuts and berries. Hunter gatherers are a brilliant example of how adaptable humans can be.
phillm
Trolling through Life (TM)
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So, in summary:
The idea that having to cook something before eating it shows that we shouldn't be eating it is absurd, anti-scientific, ahistorical crap.
The idea that we are not 'natural meat eaters' is similarly absurd, anti-scientific, ahistorical crap.
Humans are flexible omnivores, able to thrive on a wide variety of diets, including a vegan one.
Eating meat in industrialised societies is a choice.
Producing meat generally takes a lot more energy than producing the same amount of nutrition from plants, so potentially we can feed more people with less if none of us ate meat.
Lots of meat in our diets generally isn't good for us, although there are exceptions (Inuit, for example) and you can't meaningfully separate diet from wider lifestyle issues such as exercise levels. Meat can form part of a perfectly healthy diet.
Many of the animals involved in industrialised farming live horrific lives, unable to express their natural behaviours. They suffer.
Probably most of us agree with most of the above. But then we encounter the sharp point of division:
Is eating meat in and of itself, where there is an option not to, morally wrong?
And at that point, we start talking past one another.
The idea that having to cook something before eating it shows that we shouldn't be eating it is absurd, anti-scientific, ahistorical crap.
The idea that we are not 'natural meat eaters' is similarly absurd, anti-scientific, ahistorical crap.
Humans are flexible omnivores, able to thrive on a wide variety of diets, including a vegan one.
Eating meat in industrialised societies is a choice.
Producing meat generally takes a lot more energy than producing the same amount of nutrition from plants, so potentially we can feed more people with less if none of us ate meat.
Lots of meat in our diets generally isn't good for us, although there are exceptions (Inuit, for example) and you can't meaningfully separate diet from wider lifestyle issues such as exercise levels. Meat can form part of a perfectly healthy diet.
Many of the animals involved in industrialised farming live horrific lives, unable to express their natural behaviours. They suffer.
Probably most of us agree with most of the above. But then we encounter the sharp point of division:
Is eating meat in and of itself, where there is an option not to, morally wrong?
And at that point, we start talking past one another.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
disproved a long time ago - though eating the meat raw probably helped - and they got stored glycogen from the meat as carbs.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can't find it at the moment, but I linked on here before to a study comparing meat as a percentage of diet across different cultures. Inuit were off the scale compared to others, to an extent that conventional wisdom would say that they should be dropping dead from it, where in fact they were not at all, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'disproved'.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
So you're saying they're not quite as short-lived as would be expected.
It's not a good reason to use it as justification for eating more than the minimum amount of meat to supply whatever nutrients that are deemed beneficial.
What they also suffered from was hellish constipation.
Matshishkapeu - Wikipedia
It's not a good reason to use it as justification for eating more than the minimum amount of meat to supply whatever nutrients that are deemed beneficial.
What they also suffered from was hellish constipation.
Matshishkapeu - Wikipedia
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree that it's not a justification for eating meat. I didn't present it as a justification for eating meat, merely an illustration of the flexibility of the human diet.
Generally speaking, humans need to have vegetables in our diets but we don't need meat.
Generally speaking, humans need to have vegetables in our diets but we don't need meat.
That's far from the worst approach.
Books are invariably vastly out of date, and unless you're buying extortionately priced academic texts, are unlikely to have been peer reviewed.
Google scholar gives you an instant citation count (giving some measure of an article's impact / credibility), can be filtered for recent sources, and indexes most of the peer reviewed journals I need for my field.
Yeah, I might head towards a proper systematic search on databases that academics like to rub our thighs at the mere mention of, but - tbf - rarely.
veganomics
Active Member
Wow, check out that tone. ...and to think that one of the main (and imo rather petty) objections coming from the anti-vegans on this thread was to the use of the word "carnism".
Anyway, I DISAGREE.
Milton Mills covered this very well imo, and with plenty of science. Of course the closed minded "I ain't gonna watch your vegan crap, laa laa laaa I can't hear you" folks won't have seen any of it and are not the type that are prepared to entertain the possibility that there may be some merit in another viewpoint. Their loss.
Partially AGREE. Humans can indeed eat a wide variety of "foods", HOWEVER it also depends on ones interpretation of the word "omnivore". Humans have demonstrated adaptability and have been able to use the tools and techniques developed over time in order to be able to eat stuff that they wouldn't have been able to before or would not be pleasant to eat. Does that really make humans omnivores? imo it's NOT a straightfoward, clear cut yes/no. Here's an article that I have in my favourites discussing some of the key points in the "omnivore" debate...
Humans are natural plant-eaters -- in-depth article
AGREE. We do not have to eat meat to live healthily in industrial societies, but many choose to do so.
AGREE, ...and also there is a heavy negative environmental and ecological impact resulting from our collective choice to eat meat when we don't really have to.
AGREE...(sort of). Too much of anything is by definition too much. It is possible to live a healthy life with meat as part of the diet. It is also possible to live a healthy life without meat as well for most of us, and that is my preference when taking into account all the other negatives of meat eating.
AGREE...however, you appear to be ignoring what I consider to be the big elephant in the room, you know, that small thing called DEATH, which is the ultimate aim. I include the killing bit as part of the suffering. Of course no animal would choose to be poorly treated and crammed into industrialized farm factories, however even the ones that are "free" to roam and have their tummies tickled, would also not want or choose to be killed. Although there are some who would disagree with that...
I don't think it's just that there is a difference of opinion, it is the tone in which the differences are expressed. Vegans are often accused of trying to force their beliefs on others, however this has not been my experience (of course I might be biased), and in this thread it has been the folks objecting to the idea of veganism who have been the ones on the whole getting upset when people don't agree with their point of view. "How dare you not agree with me, what are you some kind of fucking deluded loon?".
I'll keep repeating this until the cows come home (hopefully not to be butchered), I'm fine with people who have a different opinion. I have no wish to try and convert or persuade anybody. If you disagree with me that is ok, I'm not going to berate you or have a hissy fit because you have a different perspective.
I do believe that killing animals for food when there is no need to do so is unethical. It is also my view that one of the things that allows us to do that more readily is to see animals as lesser beings and not worthy of the right to life as humans are. Even though some here are uncomfortable with these sorts of comparisons, In my opinion it is this type of attitude which also makes it easier to disregard the welfare of any group of people that we don't get on with. All you need to do is de-humanise them and lower their status to that of animals (or even lower). Slavery was possible because of the widespread belief that certain people were "lesser" beings, a view that was supported by the writings of prominent thinkers and scientists.
The persecution of the jews by the nazis was possible because they viewed jews as "lesser" beings and therefore not subject to the same sort of rules of compassion and humanity and so treating them badly and killing them was no big deal. In my opinion animals deserve the same right to life as we do. It's that simple. Many people disagree with that point of view, but there's not a lot I can do about that. I'm always willing to consider any other views, however so far I haven't found the view that it is ok to kill animals to be a compelling one.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Aside perhaps from Casually Red, I don't see any 'anti-vegans' on this thread at all, unless you define 'anti-vegan' as anyone who isn't vegan.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
Seriously veganomics don't waste your efforts on the righteous conceited fool LBJ
He does this on all kinds of topics and always about veganism
Just do a search of his posts on the subject
He does this on all kinds of topics and always about veganism
Just do a search of his posts on the subject
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
btw that article is wrong about chimps. Many chimps regularly eat meat, although the article is right that it doesn't form the majority of their diets and they can survive without it. Bit like us. Here's an article about how in one area, chimps are hunting certain monkeys to the verge of extinction.
It's also an odd distinction to say that insects somehow aren't meat. Insects have muscles made of similar proteins to the muscles of other animals. There's no good reason not to classify insects as meat.
It's also an odd distinction to say that insects somehow aren't meat. Insects have muscles made of similar proteins to the muscles of other animals. There's no good reason not to classify insects as meat.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The article's author has also clearly never eaten sashimi, which tastes better with dips, but is also lovely just on its own.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
veganomics
Active Member
Vastly out of date? It depends on the subject matter. There is plenty of useful information to be found in books, and there are plenty of very good books around for those who care to look for them. There is also plenty of good information available online, it's not an either/or.
That may be the case, however I was not referring to the actual Google Scholar. It was CR's rather low quality attempts at rebuttal by hasty googling and becoming an instant expert..."here look at what I found".
Last edited:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The whole "oh it's not nice on it's own" argument is spectacularly stupid. It ignores a) the fact it isn't true and b) the whole concept/point of recipes and cooking meals
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
As for not salivating at the prospect of a kill, I also don't salivate upon seeing a field of wheat. Doesn't stop me enjoying a slice of toast.
veganomics
Active Member
As Douglas Adams might have written, he's "mostly harmless". I'm quite happy to post when I have the time to do so and if I'm in the mood. He hasn't really come up with anything new that I haven't seen or heard before so far and seems more intent in trying to pick holes and focus on side issues than on the underlying principle, and I guess that can be a bit tedious at times, but I'm good thanks.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Somehow the fact that we've discovered ways to enhance flavours and ease the digestion of various food stuffs is an aberration, against nature, as veganomics would appear to have it, rather than an ability with which we have co-evolved (lifelong lactase production among many humans being a recent example of our co-evolution with our cultural inventions).
This would appear to be even more strict than the idea that we should all be vegan - presumably the against nature argument would also preclude eating grain-based food as well.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
As far as nature goes we're definitely hunters...
Similar threads
