judashearts
Jan 11th, 2010, 11:48 AM
so i was perusing some dating website that i'm currently addicted to (cause it has some fun quizzes)... anyway, i found this forum post about veganism and it really upset me, which i know i should never let anti-vegan things do but i just can't help myself sometimes. it's really very long, but if you have the time or will please read it and rip it apart so i feel better. i put the link to the original post at the bottom. <3
Well I found myself getting into a verbal tit for tat at my work against a vegan because I find the entire lifestyle to be fake and pretentious. The fact that it was at work was a lapse in professionalism however I do believe some of my reasoning and my complete disdain for arrogant hypocrites does give me justification my disdain for that life style.
My first Gripe against Vegans is the fact they maintain that they live a cruelty free life style. This couldn't be father from the truth. For example if a vegan orders a vegi sandwich, depending on what ingredients are used, most if not all of that sandwich has hurt or killed or displaced an animal.
First let's examine simple bread. Now one may believe that bread doesn't harm anything, which is true bread and the act of eating it does not directly kill an animal unlike eating meat. But in the process of making bread that single piece of bread could be stained with the guilt of taking an animals life. This is due to the extraction methods involved in the making of bread. Let's start with wheat.
Now as many of you know wheat doesn't rain down from the heavens out of Santa's sleigh. It is grown in the ground. In order to extract it one must use a wheat thresher I'm pretty sure many vegans have heard this argument. Essential what it boils down to is this thresher kills animals in the process now many run away but some end up dying anyways and vegans know this. However they contend that accidental deaths are not the same as intentional deaths but fail to recognize that once that it is a known fact that eating bread accidentally kills animals then the act of eating bread is still an intentional murder. Thus eliminating they idea that vegans, who claim to live a cruelty free lifestyle, actually practice that. That is just with the thresher alone.
On top of that the environmental impact of having a wheat field must be considered as well. As well as the pesticide impact used on said wheat field and other methods at which to protect the field from unwanted consumption.
Now let us move to the lettuce. Pesticides are leading cause in many "accidental" deaths in animals when it comes to lettuce. I would bet that Environmental impact such as land use would be a close second. Now for those of you who don't know about bio-magnification I'll give a summary. Essential pesticides just don't affect small animals. Certain toxins have long lasting if not permanent effects on the body. When small animals eat these toxin they begin to concentrate these toxin into their forms. Then the next animal in the food chain eats a bunch of these animals that have concentrated the toxin thus concentrating it further. Biomag tends to affect apex predators the most cause them to develop defects and disorders as well as genetic mutations. Billions of animals suffer because of this. This, despite being a side effect, is a fact that is well known but ignored by vegans. However in knowing this without taking action or refusing to eliminate it entirely from their lifestyle still makes them murders and cruel people. They are apathetic even to their own cause when they claim to live a cruel free life style.
I could go on and on about the ingredients in this vegetarian sandwich but I believe people get the picture. To summarize: nature is a competitive environment, so unless you can find a food that is specifically for humans, no matter what, the act of eating any food will still reflect a cruelty to some sort of animal. The degree of which depends on extraction method and farming method of such food.
Essentially to be a Cruel Free Vegan one must starve to death.
However to further drive the point home of how hypocritical and nauseating the claim of "cruel free" Vegan one must look at the lifestyle of the Vegan. If the Vegan eats he or she is a hypocrite, if they wear cloths, drive cars, live in a home that had recently been built, read books, use the internet, use electricity, live in an American lifestyle in general they are already a hypocrite. All these things required some sort of cruelty to animals to obtain. We as a society are so far removed on the impact we have on the environment that even vegans despite heading in the right direction, still make a bunch of logical fallacies on the statement of a cruel free lifestyle through willful ignorance or stupidity.
HOWEVER, to change the subject and give vegans credit where credit is due, the goal of the Vegan lifestyle that to substantial reduce our cruelty foot print is something these people have got right on the nose. The claims that our farming methods are completely unnecessary is in fact quite true. The level at which we farm animals is so excessive that we use up more resources which could be allocated to more greens, fruits, nuts, and essential less cruel forms of food. The level in which we eat meat is also excessive in the American diet which I believe on average is up to five times the amount of protein we need to live comfortably and healthy.
First I would like the mention that the figures that vegans use in terms of the economical efficiency of eating meat is most likely true. I can't source the exact figures but it takes substantially more to resources to raise cattle and pigs then it does to make other forms of food for human consumption. It is also true that there are substantial risks to EXCESSIVE meat eating. One only has to look at the price of chicken compared to the price of vegetables and look at the actually resource cost to see that there is something wrong about meat costing less then vegetables. Though the suggestion that not eating meat and getting all your nutrients from other sources is healthier is complete bull. It would be like suggesting that eating nothing but meat is healthy which is entirely counter intuitive.
For example it is well documented that live a lifestyle of sustenance where one is only eating the food that gets them by is more unhealthy. Scientific research is starting to show that people who eat towards a vegetarian life style often suffer from arthritic conditions and tooth decay. They even have lower life expectancy. Studies of population from India show that a vegetarian lifestyle comes with health risks. Vegans love to point out that it's probably because they are not doing it right or eating the right amounts of foods. Conversely native American bones hbave reveal that despite the fact they had a diet rich in wild meat they live longer lives with relatively fewer health issues including heart attack. Ignoring the millions of years of human evolution in which we have eaten meat and it's widely accepted theory that our own brain and the ability to even discuss this topic would not have evolved without the consumption of meat, we are then left with an efficiency question. Exactly how much of non meat substitute do we need to make up for the lack of meat in order to live as well as we would with meat?
This question is important because it would then force us to confront with the amount greens we would need to farm and how much more animals we would need to displace and affect and even kill depending on the extraction method.
To get an idea of how tricky this is we must look at the fact that Humans are not as good at digesting greens and other non meat material then an actual animal evolved for that purpose would. Saying the goal is to live healthy and happy with as little suffer as possible it is possible that the amount of food necessary per ca pita for humans then it would be for cows. Now then with that in mind ecologically speaking the impact from the amount we would need to farm to substitute meat may actaully harm more animals in the long run based on the environmental impact then if we were to simply eat like we should. I must remind people that we probably only need 1 or 2 intakes of meat PER WEEK in order to live the healthiest we can live.
For proof of this, one of the healthiest people in the world Jack Lalanne is NOT a Vegan. He is 95 and works out 2 hours every day and I am certain that he would not be here if he had a vegan diet. HOWEVER he does have a substantially reduced amount of meat in his diet and focus on fruits and vegetables with some dairy.
Going back to the point however it is true based on scientific studies that meat is necessary and in fact proven to help achieve longer living and quality of life. Veganism is questionable and sketchy and their claim so far has been based on the excesses of our currently average lifestyle. There is a point because other animals can extract more nutrients out of the food they eat then we can and that we can extract more nutrients out of meat then they can then the matter of economical energy exchange is clear. We must eat meat to live good lives.
It is also possible and I believe very likely that if we eat the way we should in terms of meat we will actually have less of a cruelty foot print then if we continue our lifestyle or live the ways of the vegan using current farming methods.
What does this all mean?
That the only cruel Free Vegan is a starving one. They need to change their claims of Cruelty life style since it IS hypocritical and a bold face lie, by perhaps changing it to some statement that actually accepts reality such as cruelty reduced lifestyle.
That Vegans in general operate on a bunch of logical fallacies or ignorance in terms of most their claims
That Vegans are VERY correct that the way we eat meat and farm it is totally UNNECESSARY especially when speaking of it economically.
That Veganism is a good albeit very annoying attempt to reduce our unethical treatment of animals.
Now I know i left out the question of animal testing however in all fairness and disclosure I'm generally not against animal testing for scientific purposes. I am against cosmetic testing. I'm against fur. I against game hunting unless eating is involved and still is unnecessary. I'm against not eating meat for many reason. One of which is that certain animals quality of life would diminish greatly without human intervention although their life would certainly be longer in most cases. I'm for eating more cheese and eggs and dairy as a substitute for direct meat. I'm for changing the conditions at which we farm animals to reduce or even eliminate the suffering that they endure because of farming techniques. I believe that animals should live comfortable before they are struck down for food. I believe in responsible stewardship of animals and that my definition of that depends on long term economical factors and less on short sighted ethical decision making. And furthermore I believe in Moderation.
original post: http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=4663620488813103702
Well I found myself getting into a verbal tit for tat at my work against a vegan because I find the entire lifestyle to be fake and pretentious. The fact that it was at work was a lapse in professionalism however I do believe some of my reasoning and my complete disdain for arrogant hypocrites does give me justification my disdain for that life style.
My first Gripe against Vegans is the fact they maintain that they live a cruelty free life style. This couldn't be father from the truth. For example if a vegan orders a vegi sandwich, depending on what ingredients are used, most if not all of that sandwich has hurt or killed or displaced an animal.
First let's examine simple bread. Now one may believe that bread doesn't harm anything, which is true bread and the act of eating it does not directly kill an animal unlike eating meat. But in the process of making bread that single piece of bread could be stained with the guilt of taking an animals life. This is due to the extraction methods involved in the making of bread. Let's start with wheat.
Now as many of you know wheat doesn't rain down from the heavens out of Santa's sleigh. It is grown in the ground. In order to extract it one must use a wheat thresher I'm pretty sure many vegans have heard this argument. Essential what it boils down to is this thresher kills animals in the process now many run away but some end up dying anyways and vegans know this. However they contend that accidental deaths are not the same as intentional deaths but fail to recognize that once that it is a known fact that eating bread accidentally kills animals then the act of eating bread is still an intentional murder. Thus eliminating they idea that vegans, who claim to live a cruelty free lifestyle, actually practice that. That is just with the thresher alone.
On top of that the environmental impact of having a wheat field must be considered as well. As well as the pesticide impact used on said wheat field and other methods at which to protect the field from unwanted consumption.
Now let us move to the lettuce. Pesticides are leading cause in many "accidental" deaths in animals when it comes to lettuce. I would bet that Environmental impact such as land use would be a close second. Now for those of you who don't know about bio-magnification I'll give a summary. Essential pesticides just don't affect small animals. Certain toxins have long lasting if not permanent effects on the body. When small animals eat these toxin they begin to concentrate these toxin into their forms. Then the next animal in the food chain eats a bunch of these animals that have concentrated the toxin thus concentrating it further. Biomag tends to affect apex predators the most cause them to develop defects and disorders as well as genetic mutations. Billions of animals suffer because of this. This, despite being a side effect, is a fact that is well known but ignored by vegans. However in knowing this without taking action or refusing to eliminate it entirely from their lifestyle still makes them murders and cruel people. They are apathetic even to their own cause when they claim to live a cruel free life style.
I could go on and on about the ingredients in this vegetarian sandwich but I believe people get the picture. To summarize: nature is a competitive environment, so unless you can find a food that is specifically for humans, no matter what, the act of eating any food will still reflect a cruelty to some sort of animal. The degree of which depends on extraction method and farming method of such food.
Essentially to be a Cruel Free Vegan one must starve to death.
However to further drive the point home of how hypocritical and nauseating the claim of "cruel free" Vegan one must look at the lifestyle of the Vegan. If the Vegan eats he or she is a hypocrite, if they wear cloths, drive cars, live in a home that had recently been built, read books, use the internet, use electricity, live in an American lifestyle in general they are already a hypocrite. All these things required some sort of cruelty to animals to obtain. We as a society are so far removed on the impact we have on the environment that even vegans despite heading in the right direction, still make a bunch of logical fallacies on the statement of a cruel free lifestyle through willful ignorance or stupidity.
HOWEVER, to change the subject and give vegans credit where credit is due, the goal of the Vegan lifestyle that to substantial reduce our cruelty foot print is something these people have got right on the nose. The claims that our farming methods are completely unnecessary is in fact quite true. The level at which we farm animals is so excessive that we use up more resources which could be allocated to more greens, fruits, nuts, and essential less cruel forms of food. The level in which we eat meat is also excessive in the American diet which I believe on average is up to five times the amount of protein we need to live comfortably and healthy.
First I would like the mention that the figures that vegans use in terms of the economical efficiency of eating meat is most likely true. I can't source the exact figures but it takes substantially more to resources to raise cattle and pigs then it does to make other forms of food for human consumption. It is also true that there are substantial risks to EXCESSIVE meat eating. One only has to look at the price of chicken compared to the price of vegetables and look at the actually resource cost to see that there is something wrong about meat costing less then vegetables. Though the suggestion that not eating meat and getting all your nutrients from other sources is healthier is complete bull. It would be like suggesting that eating nothing but meat is healthy which is entirely counter intuitive.
For example it is well documented that live a lifestyle of sustenance where one is only eating the food that gets them by is more unhealthy. Scientific research is starting to show that people who eat towards a vegetarian life style often suffer from arthritic conditions and tooth decay. They even have lower life expectancy. Studies of population from India show that a vegetarian lifestyle comes with health risks. Vegans love to point out that it's probably because they are not doing it right or eating the right amounts of foods. Conversely native American bones hbave reveal that despite the fact they had a diet rich in wild meat they live longer lives with relatively fewer health issues including heart attack. Ignoring the millions of years of human evolution in which we have eaten meat and it's widely accepted theory that our own brain and the ability to even discuss this topic would not have evolved without the consumption of meat, we are then left with an efficiency question. Exactly how much of non meat substitute do we need to make up for the lack of meat in order to live as well as we would with meat?
This question is important because it would then force us to confront with the amount greens we would need to farm and how much more animals we would need to displace and affect and even kill depending on the extraction method.
To get an idea of how tricky this is we must look at the fact that Humans are not as good at digesting greens and other non meat material then an actual animal evolved for that purpose would. Saying the goal is to live healthy and happy with as little suffer as possible it is possible that the amount of food necessary per ca pita for humans then it would be for cows. Now then with that in mind ecologically speaking the impact from the amount we would need to farm to substitute meat may actaully harm more animals in the long run based on the environmental impact then if we were to simply eat like we should. I must remind people that we probably only need 1 or 2 intakes of meat PER WEEK in order to live the healthiest we can live.
For proof of this, one of the healthiest people in the world Jack Lalanne is NOT a Vegan. He is 95 and works out 2 hours every day and I am certain that he would not be here if he had a vegan diet. HOWEVER he does have a substantially reduced amount of meat in his diet and focus on fruits and vegetables with some dairy.
Going back to the point however it is true based on scientific studies that meat is necessary and in fact proven to help achieve longer living and quality of life. Veganism is questionable and sketchy and their claim so far has been based on the excesses of our currently average lifestyle. There is a point because other animals can extract more nutrients out of the food they eat then we can and that we can extract more nutrients out of meat then they can then the matter of economical energy exchange is clear. We must eat meat to live good lives.
It is also possible and I believe very likely that if we eat the way we should in terms of meat we will actually have less of a cruelty foot print then if we continue our lifestyle or live the ways of the vegan using current farming methods.
What does this all mean?
That the only cruel Free Vegan is a starving one. They need to change their claims of Cruelty life style since it IS hypocritical and a bold face lie, by perhaps changing it to some statement that actually accepts reality such as cruelty reduced lifestyle.
That Vegans in general operate on a bunch of logical fallacies or ignorance in terms of most their claims
That Vegans are VERY correct that the way we eat meat and farm it is totally UNNECESSARY especially when speaking of it economically.
That Veganism is a good albeit very annoying attempt to reduce our unethical treatment of animals.
Now I know i left out the question of animal testing however in all fairness and disclosure I'm generally not against animal testing for scientific purposes. I am against cosmetic testing. I'm against fur. I against game hunting unless eating is involved and still is unnecessary. I'm against not eating meat for many reason. One of which is that certain animals quality of life would diminish greatly without human intervention although their life would certainly be longer in most cases. I'm for eating more cheese and eggs and dairy as a substitute for direct meat. I'm for changing the conditions at which we farm animals to reduce or even eliminate the suffering that they endure because of farming techniques. I believe that animals should live comfortable before they are struck down for food. I believe in responsible stewardship of animals and that my definition of that depends on long term economical factors and less on short sighted ethical decision making. And furthermore I believe in Moderation.
original post: http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=4663620488813103702