Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[Spymaster]

... if eating a steak doesn't count as lapsing, it's pretty hard to lapse!

 

[Saul Goodman]

I especially enjoyed this explanation for the difference in result:


You see, as PlantBasedNews explains, there are not just dietary vegans but also lifestyle vegans (those who eat meat). So it's not really vegans stopping their diet, that high 80% relapse rate is just dietary vegans becoming lifestyle vegans.

It's hard to work out what they're saying, but I believe this line gives it away.

It conflates veganism with diet
"It’s really 'plant-based eaters', not 'vegans' who are 'lapsing' in the research," says Dr. Matthew Cole, vegan researcher and Lecturer in Sociology at the Open University. "If we contend (as I do) that veganism is an ethical commitment to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals, then veganism is likely to be far more robust than this research might imply."

They're saying "Yeah, they may have lapsed but they weren't really vegans anyway, because a true vegan would never lapse".
So although the 85% figure may be correct, it will never be correct in their mind, because no true vegan would ever eat meat. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, no true Scotsman...

 

[Larry Noppius]

It's hard to work out what they're saying, but I believe this line gives it away.

It conflates veganism with diet
"It’s really 'plant-based eaters', not 'vegans' who are 'lapsing' in the research," says Dr. Matthew Cole, vegan researcher and Lecturer in Sociology at the Open University. "If we contend (as I do) that veganism is an ethical commitment to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals, then veganism is likely to be far more robust than this research might imply."

They're saying "Yeah, they may have lapsed but they weren't really vegans anyway, because a true vegan would never lapse".
So although the 85% figure may be correct, it will never be correct in their mind, because no true vegan would ever eat meat. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, no true Scotsman...

Yeah until we actually get to see that Oxford study it'll be a mystery as to what exactly it says and what PlantBasedNews tried to make of it. My money is on that the Oxford study will have sampled activist vegan organizations (they were specifically looking for vegans) and that this accounts for the result. The Faunalytics study did find, after all, that participation in active vegan groups was anti-correlated with lapsing.

 

[editor]

It's hard to work out what they're saying, but I believe this line gives it away.

It conflates veganism with diet
"It’s really 'plant-based eaters', not 'vegans' who are 'lapsing' in the research," says Dr. Matthew Cole, vegan researcher and Lecturer in Sociology at the Open University. "If we contend (as I do) that veganism is an ethical commitment to oppose the exploitation of nonhuman animals, then veganism is likely to be far more robust than this research might imply."

They're saying "Yeah, they may have lapsed but they weren't really vegans anyway, because a true vegan would never lapse".
So although the 85% figure may be correct, it will never be correct in their mind, because no true vegan would ever eat meat. Or, as someone mentioned earlier, no true Scotsman...

Oh look. Vegan bashing again! Those vegans, eh...?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh look. Vegan bashing again! Those vegans, eh...?

That isn't vegan-bashing. It is pointing out a classic example of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Here's a link explaining how it works.

Really, it could go on that wiki page as a textbook case.

 

[editor]

That isn't vegan-bashing. It is pointing out a classic example of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Here's a link explaining how it works.

Really, it could go on that wiki page as a textbook case.

Oh, I thought you were popping into add another of your archive vegan bashing stories. They're amazing. Still, I'm sure there'll be plenty more from other posters soon.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh, I thought you were popping into add another of your archive vegan bashing stories. They're amazing. Still, I'm sure there'll be plenty more from other posters soon.

You're really being an extraordinary bellend, you know. But carry on.

 

[Spymaster]

There's a delicious irony in a thread expressly started and designed to bash meat-eaters, ending with cries and accusations of vegan bashing!

 

[editor]

You're really being an extraordinary bellend, you know. But carry on.

Nice one.

 

[Spymaster]

Why did I just get a warning for that last post?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Oh look. Vegan bashing again! Those vegans, eh...?

Vegan bashing?
I was pointing out why,in their mind, the 84% figure couldn't be correct. They're saying that people who identified as vegan actually weren't vegan. According to the author, you have to be an activist, or you're not a real vegan. It's the most perfect example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy, and I'm surprised it's me you're venting at, rather than the author of such nonsense.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

What a fucking waste:

Allen Harim Foods, a Delaware-based chicken company, is reportedly being forced to kill up to 2 million chickens before they can be slaughtered and packaged for consumers.

In a letter received by the company’s livestock growers, Allen Harim said the chickens were being “depopulated” due to coronavirus-related staffing shortages at its processing plant, which is making it impossible to “harvest the amount of birds” they were previously able to handle.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/staffing-shortage-at-delaware-chicken-plant-forcing-growers-to-depopulate-dispose-of-millions-of-birds-report/ar-BB12FCs0

This shows how wasteful and obscene our current farming system is when it can't handle a few blips in the system.

 

[Spymaster]

This shows how wasteful and obscene our current farming system is when it can't handle a few blips in the system.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I did rather underplay that, didn't I?

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Seriously though. We have an outbreak here connected with a processing plant in Hastings. At last count, they had almost 350 infections. Its just behind the total number of infections in Omaha. Omaha has 10 times the population. Its an awful system where both workers and animals are treated as disposables. You don't have to be a Vegan to see the problems in it.

 

[Saul Goodman]

That isn't vegan-bashing. It is pointing out a classic example of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Here's a link explaining how it works.

Really, it could go on that wiki page as a textbook case.

This is the Vegan Society's definition of veganism.

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.
There are many ways to embrace vegan living. Yet one thing all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat (including fish, shellfish and insects), dairy, eggs and honey - as well as avoiding animal-derived materials, products tested on animals and places that use animals for entertainment.

And from VRG.org

What is a Vegan?
Vegetarians do not eat meat, fish, or poultry. Vegans, in addition to being vegetarian, do not use other animal products and by-products such as eggs, dairy products, honey, leather, fur, silk, wool, cosmetics, and soaps derived from animal products.

Why Veganism?
People choose to be vegan for health, environmental, and/or ethical reasons. For example, some vegans feel that one promotes the meat industry by consuming eggs and dairy products. That is, once dairy cows or egg-laying chickens are too old to be productive, they are often sold as meat; and since male calves do not produce milk, they usually are raised for veal or other products. Some people avoid these items because of conditions associated with their production.

Many vegans choose this lifestyle to promote a more humane and caring world. They know they are not perfect, but believe they have a responsibility to try to do their best, while not being judgmental of others.

The author of the article in question is disputing these definitions. They've taken it upon themself to become the unelected arbiter of all things vegan, being judge and jury over who has the right to even consider themselves vegan, which, aside from breaking the "while not being judgemental of others" rule, is effectively alienating those vegans who don't wish to invade farms, or scream in the faces of people enjoying a Big Mac. Most vegans would probably not get involved in that side of veganism, like the vast majority of Muslims don't want to join ISIS. I'm sure we wouldn't accept anything defining 'True Muslims', if the author was a member of ISIS, so why should we accept the views of a radical vegan, who thinks they have a right to define who is and who isn't vegan, based on how radical a vegan they are?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well looking it up, the word 'vegan' was coined by the founder of the Vegan Society in the 1940s. However, the way definitions of words work (the only way they can work) is by the words going out into general usage and a consensus forming about what they mean. Definitions exist at a collective, not individual, level - they have to, otherwise we're all Humpty Dumpty and confusion reigns. The word does not belong to the Vegan Society.

I would wager that, if you were to ask 100 random people what 'vegan' means, at least 95 of them would come back with a definition to do with not eating anything animal-based, contrasting it with vegetarians who eat eggs and/or milk-based things.

Here, we have the rather bizarre situation where people who don't eat any animal products are effectively being told they're not vegans if they don't also make an appropriate effort to avoid other animal products, or that they're not good vegans, could be better vegans, need to learn more about veganism. Otherwise, what they're doing is merely involving themselves in 'plant-based activity'.

Anyhow, dragging this back to the original study, the study was focused on diets. So the qualification for 'vegan' status was based on diet, not anything else. The phrase 'vegan diet' is meaningful, in the sense that everyone knows what you mean when you say it.

 

[Larry Noppius]

I was using vegan as a catch-all rather than some precise subset of no meat eating. What's the term for no meat eating in general? I've seen vegigan used.

 

[editor]

I've seen vegigan used.

Where, exactly?

 

[Spymaster]

What's the term for no meat eating in general?

Phytophagous.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Phytophagous.

Vegivores.

 

[Spymaster]

Vegischers

 

[Humberto]

Masons

 

[Humberto]

Threaten people

 

[Spymaster]

Masons

You mean Manson? He was a vegetarian.

 

[Humberto]

No physically threatening people. Promising to make their lives a misery. All that shit.

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah man

 

[Humberto]

Yeah man.

 

[Big Bertha]

Love the way that the meat eaters here - none of whom are particularly qualified, if at all, to dismiss the findings of multiple science-based studies.

Sorry I thought you were a DJ. What science/ statistical qualifications do you have?