No. You know what? The word "Vegan" is the problem. The word "Vegan" is why they are attention whores, why they always have been and always will be.

It's not a personal philosophy of benevolence, it's a cultural identity. The bloody term was invented when a bunch of vegetarians got their panties in a twist when some of their 'impure' kin started eating eggs and drinking milk. It wasn't enough to be called a vegetarian anymore, they needed something more. They needed a more important title to show how not eating meat is Serious Business.


You're supposed to wear your hair shirt on the inside.

Um, what's wrong with having a word to specify how vegetarian you are? I mean it's like saying calling yourself a Lutheran instead of a Christian is attention-whoring.

And Rob - I'm not sure why anyone would be morally opposed to breathing, but you have to do it to survive. You don't have to eat meat. And even though it may be super tasty or whatever, some people choose to abstain.

I don't understand why anyone would be moraly opposed to NATURAL BODY FUNCTIONS.

Then there's no point of debating this with you, since you can't comprehend someone else's viewpoint.

I'm not even vegetarian and I get it.

I think it's rather ironic that you invoked the term Lutheran, since Martin Luther was highly opposed to the use of his name in that manner.

Isn't it attention whoring? Outside of the realm of a theological debate the specific denomination of Christianity you follow isn't terribly relevant. Neither is the religion you follow. If you haven't noticed by now, my personal religious beliefs aren't a subject I enjoy talking about so maybe you should choose a better comparison if you want a positive response.

EDIT: I posit that Protestantism, as a name, is better than Veganism as a name because Protestantism was named for the protestant reformation while Veganism was named for far less noble reasons ("Take the first and last letters of 'vegetarianism' because it's the beginning and end of vegetarian. get it? Veganism is better :downs:" <- THIS IS NOT A JOKE THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, it would be like if the Lutherans called themselves the Calic Church)

I comprehend their viewpoint.

I just think it's retarded.

I like how many vegans will sit there and preach to you about how "a creature doesn't need to rely on another animal dying in order to survive" and then they'll rip open that bag of kibbles 'n' bits to give Mr. Fluffy their daily serving of giblets.

Dear spirits, it's a repeat of every other anti-vegetarian/vegan thread. I guess I'll have to scrounge up some time to point out the blatantly obvious again, this weekend, when I'm not on my way to work.

I wonder what a vegan would suggest you feed to an obligate carnivore. There are a ton of animals that literally cannot digest any form of plant matter. All they get out of eating a handful of carrots is a bowel obstruction.

But they're cute and fluffy! kekekekeke ^_^



If the 'blatantly obvious' involves more egregious overuse of the emoticon and another rambling, ineffective showcase of your persecution complex you can skip it.

Why does it bother you if people dislike what you're doing? If you really cared about anything other than attention you'd turn the other cheek. Suck it up, people are going to think what they want. If you want to change how people think about Vegans you're going to have to change the way you represent them.

Yall hate freedom.

Vinny clearly wins the thread.

End of debate.

What the hell does freedom have to do with this? It's the ideology of veganism that's being debated.

um, no, see, it's because we have freedom that we are all able to offer opinions on this topic. I am not forcing any Vegan to eat meat, I am expressing my opinion on the subject. It might shock you to learn this, but what I am saying is not anti-freedom just because it isn't what you want to hear.

People like you scare me.

I thought that it had been shown that the phytoestrogens in soy-based infant formula had little to no effect on a child's development? Any chance you could share your source?

...what?

No, no it sure as hell hasn't been shown that. Studies are still being conducted. We do know for sure that it causes abnormalities in the intestinal lining of infants. We also know that high intake can cause gynecomastia in adult men and may be linked to reduced testosterone levels . We are, after all, talking about a chemical that can bind to human estrogen receptors - and in baby formula it is in a high enough concentration to equal what little baby would get if he slammed back 5 birth control pills a day (13,000-22,000 times the normal serum estrogen - according to a study by Nestle, which makes soy baby formula and markets it to third world mothers). Mammals which are given phytoestrogens prior to puberty are also known to develop cancer, although as far as I know this hasn't been demonstrated in humans.

So no. The only thing you can say about soy is that the health risks haven't been definitively, 100% proven. I'll openly admit to exaggerating the risk (since we've been using soy baby formula for a long time), but there is absolutely no way you can argue it is a healthy alternative to human milk.

This is a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something IS doesn't mean something ought to be.

Not all vegans care about your diet. Some, perhaps.




I don't know which Vegan justification you're referring to. I don't really know any ecoholist objections to eating meat, but apparently you do.



Now you're starting to get somewhere, but you're still missing the mark.

You are confusing two senses of the word "injure." You can "injure" a plant in that you can alter its state from "healthy" to "unhealthy." But you can also injure a computer in this sense by throwing it out the window.

Injury in the other sense means causing an individual to experience pain. Some animals (pigs, cows, etc) can have their experential well-being altered from better to worse. They can have good and bad experiences.



This would be an argument in favor of abolishing meat eating all together rather than just opposing factory farms.



Ridiculous in what way? Is it illogical? Is it lacking factual basis? Is it impractical? Please be more precise.



But you just gave them a reason not to when you said all slaughter is painful.



Most meat on the market, however, comes from factory farming.






I don't feel like addressing this argument now. I will say that it's irrelevant to the morality of eating meat for those who feel that slaughtering animals and using them for the production of products is inherently wrong regardless of production method. It's especially irrelevant to those who abstain from eating meat for religious and health reasons. And it's also irrelevant to those who are vegans for environmental reasons (I know a vegan like this) who argue that meat production causes environmental problems.

You know, naturally speaking (as has been said), humans are supposed to eat meat and other animal related products. We had garnered essential-to-life nutrients that way for most of our natural history. One can see veganism as alien for a human.

The only reason people can be vegan nowadays is because we can supplement and fortify x, y, and z. It's funny that being vegan is a luxury. Sure as hell famine-stricken nations can't go pooh-pooh to animal products. And then, there are still questionable health risks. I can understand being a vegetarian who will still, you know, eat dairy and eggs, because slaughtering animals that can be used otherwise can be seen as a waste, but a vegan just seems very odd. Rob is right to an extent because by being vegan you're doing something almost as unnatural as not breathing.

They have their right to indulge in their lifestyle, I have my right to see it incredibly odd and silly, impractical and pretentious.

And this is unrealistic.

We DID evolve to eat mammoths, we DID eat mammoth meat for millions of years, we DO NOT get the ideal balance of fatty and amino acids (especially the omegas) from a diet that does not consist primarily of mammoth meat. These are facts. You cannot change a fact by wishing otherwise.


Some. Perhaps.

You're missing my point.

Agriculture is evolutionarily beneficial to organisms because it guarantees long-term survival. Agriculture essentially forces the individual biological needs of an individual (self-preservation) against the genetic drive of self-propagation. It's pretty clear which route our biology is in favor of, for what it's worth.


While I'm on the subject, I'd like to ask you (and all other vegans and vegetarians) a question: If we, collectively, gave up eating meat tomorrow... what would we do with the cows? Do we set them free? What will they eat after we turn their grazing land into soy crops? Please tell me because I'd really like to hear how a vegan would answer this question.


I'm not confusing two senses of the word "injure," you're redefining the word to suit your own outlook.

You can injure a plant. You can alter its state from "healthy" to "unhealthy." You can negatively affect the well-being of a plant. A plant can have good and bad experiences. So, too, can a computer or virtually any object.

The only difference between injuring a plant and injuring an animal is the fact that the animal is able to react to the injury in an immediate and visible manner. Why should something deserve your respect just because it moves and acts in the same way you do? Isn't this precisely the kind of self-centered ignorance Vegans are trying to fight against?


I will answer this when you actually read and respond to my comment about utilizing your market power to purchase meat from humane farmers instead of cutting profit margins and forcing more farmers to adopt inhumane methods.

There will always be a demand for meat. Vegans need to accept that. If they want more humane conditions for animals they should work with governments to improve standards for agriculture.

Avoiding meat will not accomplish anything, at all, ever. In the long run you might reduce the size of their market but the animals that will be slaughtered will still be kept in tiny, filthy cages and boiled alive and such. I mean, let's say I were pro-life. Am I really going to change anything by personally choosing not to get abortions? No, no I'm not. The invisible hand doesn't work that way.


I'm well aware of the manifold justifications Vegans adopt. Are you aware that I really don't care? I see a nobility in your sentiment but I have yet to meet a Vegan who actually aspired to live up to their own ideal. Other than not eating meat.

I'm suprised people don't ***** more about lobsters and crabs.

No wait, I'm not. They aren't fury or cute.

Shrimp don't have central nervous systems, did you know that?

Do lobsters? Cause, ya know, at least we kill cows before we cook them.

The reason I hate Vegans is because of the ones who rip buckets of chicken out of people's hands and throw them on the ground. That's just dumb. First, if the bucket cost more than $20, that's grand vandalism chicken! Second, if the person really wants chicken, they'll just go buy another bucket. The KFC might even give them a free one. Now they've consumed twice as much chicken! Plus, another person hates them, and isn't going to listen to a damn thing they say ever again. Stupid Vegans.

There was some PETA rally at my local KFC. A couple friends and I went up there and ate a bucket of chicken in front of them. A bucket each. We told them, loudly, that we were doing it just to piss them off. I was so stuffed. I probably gained like five pounds that day.

On a completely related note, I'm off to Ruby Tuesday to get a Collossal Burger with Bacon and cheese.

Mentat, you constantly ***** about anti-veganism when you start antagonizing people the begin with. You can't possibly think we're going to see logic in your lifestyle, or see logic in starving a baby.

Also, Veganism is so utterly excessive and luxurious that it's sickening. The white rich nations can afford to avoid an entire food group, and try to convince others to do the same.

lmao

I spent about an hour typing up a rather large response, and right before I began to spend another hour or so completing it, I realized that there was no need due to the fact that the entire opposing argument is based upon logical fallacies and all that I really needed to do to prove many, if not all of these opinions invalid was to post a simple link. Isn't it great how much time the internet can save us these days? I realize that most of you won't take the time to apply the contents of this link to your arguments, but it's enough for me just knowing that the contents do indeed apply.

JediKirby: The very title of the thread itself was antagonistic and as you may have noticed, the title preceded my post.

Kudos to Vincent and JediLegend for actually comprehending the subject at hand. Oh, and I'm not a Vegan, I'm a lacto ovo vegetarian. I simply don't like to see people who are ignorant on a particular subject, spouting their ignorance as if it were fact.

There are more than one kind of vegetarian now?

Vegans =\ vegetarians

Yeah.

Think about how emo has various "scenes."

It's like the same thing, only half the kids are wearing tight pants instead of all of them.

You know the best part. it doesn't matter what you say. Do you know why? None of the information will mean anything to me. It's the same as how I don't buy into anything that the Bush administration tells us in press releases and such. It's a completely biased source. You think you're right, and you simply get angry if anyone disagrees with you.

And you can post links to videos, health studies, etc... I don't care. You could tell me the next time I eat a steak I'll get hit by an asteroid later that day and I would still eat it. Because I know you're completely full of self indulgent ****.

Linking to a page which lists logical fallacies in an attempt to disprove the opposing argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

You fail.

Thanks for not contributing to the discussion at all but, once again, reminding us that you are a vegetarian.

MentatMM's reasoning:

Logical fallacies exist.
I think everyone else is wrong.
Conclusion, their arguments are logical fallacies.

HAY GUYS

Meat is tasty. Get over it.

Is there anyone else who can't stand chicken?

I used to be able to, but these days it's just unappetizing. I just can't stand the taste or texture of it. I tend to stick with fish and the occasional steak.

That actually happened to me with fish. Nowadays I can pretty much just tolerate some salmon.

Chicken's still good for me, tho'

People can survive without meat though. Example: vegans. The fact that we DID eat meat does not morally justify future meat.




If this argument is important, please explain further how it interacts with the vegan/vegetarian debate. I've only read about species survival in literature on the morality of zoos.




As I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, I can't tell you. But I can tell you that many will criticize your assumption that the average farm cow has "grazing room" and they might point you to the meatrix (http://www.themeatrix.com/).

Some might argue that farmland existence has already killed the cows, since they are almost certainly castrated, definitely separated from their herds, etc. So they might say it's too late for these cows anyway.

The main group of vegan-utilitarians, led mostly by Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics would argue that if we stopped using meat products tomorrow, it would not perfectly solve all pain caused to animals, but it would do incredible amounts of good for these and future cows. The cows now will be "sacrificed" for the end of the practice.

Kantian peeps would probably argue that we would be doing immediate good for human morality because they think the only reason animal cruelty is bad is that it corrupts human beings. Essentially, hurting cows causes us to become desensitized to more immoral forms of violence. Ending factories would immediately do it.

Health advocates would rejoice at the fact that there would be less likelyhood of food born illnesses and not care so much about cattle.





How can a plant have "experiences" without mental capability? You can't cause pain in a non-sentient being. How do we know? Well, aside from the scientific evidence---lack of parallel neurological structures that we know to be pain causing---plants don't react.

Here's a question for you. How do we know that human beings feel pain? How do I know that if I were to take a knife and stab it through someone's leg that they would be harmed by it. Well, they could tell me it hurts. Let's say they can't speak. Let's say it's a young child who can't talk. We know a young child feels pain by their reaction.

Keep in mind that we can't experience someone ELSE's pain. We can't even experience another person's mind. We assume that other people think because solipism is an untenable position (go ahead and defend solipism---if you're right, literally no one cares. If you're wrong, then, well, you're wrong.)



Actually, no. Vegans are probably trying to fight against speciesism in that we consider the interests of human species as greater than other species a priori. Recognizing that other species move and act similarly to the way we do is a big step in this process.

The short answer to this is that utilitarian vegans believe in the principle of equal consideration of interests. Equal consideration is just that, consideration. It does not mean all interests are equal. It means they are considered equally regardless of species, gender, sex.

Now, if necessary, I can try to present the case that plants don't have interests and pigs, cows, chickens do. The difference, in short, is that the latter category actually have experiences while the others do not (see: sentience). There are really good arguments out there against animals having interests. There really aren't a lot of good arguments about plants having interests. It may be in the interest of a plant not to be eaten, but a plant does not have an interest in not being eaten. See the difference? More on this as necessary.





Well, a vegan is probably still bothered by the traditional methods. Traditional methods still castrate, separate from herds, etc. The slaughter itself is still painful and it still takes away potential good experiences of living a cow-life or whatever.

You also have the fact that it's simply not the vegans burden to take action to bring the farms down. Maybe it would be a positively good thing for them to do, but it would not be a negatively bad thing for them to not eat traditional meat.

Many of vegans have moral objections, but they also have health and other objections to eating meat. If they don't like meat, then why should they have to buy it just to solve the problem.

Abstaining still helps them do their part. Your argument that factory farms will be even worse assumes that they can get worse. Factory farms want to make as much money as they can NOW. If they can make more money, they will do it. It's not like they get to a point where they've made "enough" money. Many would argue that farms can't get any worse. It's not like they can squeeze more cows in the already cramped spaces. They can't take off another beak from a beakless chicken. Abstaining from meat might very well be the only meaningful boycott a person can do.

If your argument is: they are hypocrites unless they take all possible action to stop factory farms, then consider what this argument leads to. A person who takes a vocal stand against abortion is a member of the pro-life movement. You might argue that they are hypocrites if they don't do everything they can to stop abortion. This includes funding alternatives, but it also includes bombing clinics....



And in the meantime, why should they eat meat? I still don't believe that being a vegan and being quiet are mutually exclusive. Why do you think all vegans are obnoxious? Sine Nomen was pretty cool.



So get an abortion? You haven't proven that abstaining is positively harmful. You've just proven that abstaining by itself doesn't lead to all the positive benefits.


I'm well aware of the manifold justifications Vegans adopt. Are you aware that I really don't care? I see a nobility in your sentiment but I have yet to meet a Vegan who actually aspired to live up to their own ideal. Other than not eating meat.[/QUOTE]

Care to back up the claim that abstaining from meat is more luxurious than buying meat? Considering that meat usually comes with non-meat products anyway.

It's actually interesting that meat-eating has historically been a privilege of the rich, white and male. This argument is advanced in Carol Adams' The Sexual Politics of of Meat Eating http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Critical/dp/0826411843

I haven't read all of it, just part of what I read for class. It's interesting. If you're open minded enough to read it, you should. If you are the sort of person who can't read anything he/she disagrees with, then you should not read it. Jedi Kirby, I do not recommend this book to you.

Maybe people who've never been west of Illinois before...

sheesh..

Don't mean to make up meanings of words again or anything...

But there are really two kinds of bias. There's self-interest bias. For example, I will make this argument because the oil company pays me to say that global warming is actually a good thing and prevents another ice age from coming. In that case, my argument is truly biased.

Then there's bias in that personal beliefs agree with the argument being advanced.

If someone is biased because of their opinion, then that isn't the same bias of President Bush trying to advance his political career. In fact, everyone is "biased" by their personal beliefs in some way. You should still respect their arguments.

I don't think he means just meat eating. I think he means abstaining from dairy and eggs, and other animal products.

We're talking about vegans here, so that applies. Which in that case, yeah, it IS a luxury to abstain from all animal products.

By the way, I eat meat. I just don't think many of you are treating vegans fairly. My purpose is to at least show that veganism is a philosophically tenable moral idea. If you look into some books like Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, you will realize that there are quite sophisticated arguments in favor of abstaining from eating meat. My goal has been to act as a sort of lawyer---not on my own behalf, but on the behalf of the people I think are poorly represented around here. I have some very good friends who are vegans, and I don't appreciate them being attacked. It's not all that dissimilar from gay-bashing that is unfortunately all too common.