I would, but however i worded it it would look like an attack on you, and that's no really what i'd be wanting.
You're critical of vegan rescue workers becuase they arn't better prepared???? You'd rather they hadn't helped out in the aftermath of the hurricane because they ended up eating veggie food instead of vegan or, because they did, then they have no right to call themselves vegan?? Is that it?
G
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty!
This sounds a bit like the "what if you were on a desert island and the only thing to eat was a burger?" question.
Seriously, if I was in the situation you described snivelingchild then I just wouldn't eat - I realise you'd expend alot of energy doing that sort of volunteer work but the human body can go over a month without eating and I honestly don't believe that there was no vegan food available - there were no fruit or veg that hadn't been combined with animal products?
"I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
I said 6 months, and LIMITED fruit and veg...something that wouldn't be nutritionally stable for 6 months...and then you'd be useless to your cause. BUT, my point was not to analyze a situation, but to say that one CAN NEVER TRULY KNOW what will happen to someone else, and can never know all the reasons that made a person do something, therefore, I was simply urging to not make assumptions such as "they were never really vegan." It goes back to the no one is 100% vegan thing.
But for the sake of argument...here's another: a person with extreme sickness whose doctor STRONGLY recommends some animal product. Now, even if this diet change is not needed, the person believes them and does it temporarily until they are better. Were they not vegan simply because they didn't know? Does veganism hold an inherent need to be completely knowledgeable of everything nutritional beyond basic nutrition?
because they didnt know what? whetehr the animal product would make them better or not, is irrelevant, the person who is ill would be placing humans above animals, and that should be a no no in any vegans eyes.
a vegan needs to understand just what being vegan means, NO animal products.
youre not an abolitionist vegan, are you?
I know that no one needs to eat animal products and doctors talk a lot of rubbish when it comes to nutrition but imagine if it was true that someone needed eat some non-vegan food in order to not be very ill. Seitan would you condemn them for that? What would you do if you were in that position? If it came down to it I'd rather eat non-vegan food than die. I know that would never be a real case scenario though, I'm just speaking hypotheticaly, but as Snivelling Child pointed out, some people would believe that to be the case if their doctor said it.
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well
Last edited by Maisiepaisie; Jul 28th, 2008 at 07:22 PM. Reason: add more
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well
maybe we see "non-vegan food" differently, i see calves being murdered. iwould wnat any animal slaughtered for my family to feel ebtter.
if i have soem disease/illness and im going to die, then, thats it, im off.
i dont really see my being here helping animals. even as a vegan, animals die for me, theyd be better off without me (and millions of other humans).
My working definition of compassion includes:
trying to understand why something happens.
understanding weakness and selfishness.
suspecting that my perspective lacks certain relevant elements [additional to weakness or selfishness].
perhaps considering the 'offender' as myself viewed from a different angle [useful bit of selfish which some might call 'intelligent' or selectively advantageous].
NOT just letting it slide.
As Risker has pointed out, low sperm count related to soy consumption could easily be related to improved health, improved quality of life, and to solving overpopulation problems .... by having longer lives to enjoy the care of adopted refugees, with a wider gene pool to boot.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
I thought you'd mentioned before that you're involved in rescue. Thats why I said that. Maybe you do other stuff to help animals, raise awareness etc.
I'm not saying you're wrong. You obviously feel very strongly about veganism, which is admirable. I don't know that I'd be able to bring myself to eat animal flesh in even the worst case scenario but I'd probably overlook a little dairy/egg ingredient if there was absolutely nothing else and wasn't going to be anytime soon.
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well
"for me" That's the point. You are not anyone else. You cannot fathom another person's state-of-mind. Veganism goes as far as 'practical and possible.' You obviously have a different definition of practical. I wouldn't die just to be vegan. That paints a poor picture of veganism in my opinion. The whole point of veganism we try to get across is that you don't need to eat them to survive.
If it is okay for a vegan to accept medicine tested on animals to not die, then why not food in extreme cases? I would eat a granola bar with honey if I was starving and couldn't find any vegan food. I am extremely insulted that someone might say that I "was never vegan" because I ate that one bar. If you still think I'm not vegan, I really don't care. All I have to say to that is two choice words starting with 'f' and rhyming with "duck poo."
^I'm not saying that to any person, but to the idea that I can't call myself vegan
Fluck moo?
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty!
if a "vegan" feels that they need to eat meat or dairy (which is pathetic), then they have forgone being vegan. im not actually debating whether i think theyre an asshole for doing ( th o ithink its pretty obvious where i stand on that), im just sayign that they didnt seriously beleive in veganism in the first place.
thsoe two quotes totally contradict each other ,can you not see that?
you seem to have a very speciesist attitude, soemhtign that scares me on a vegan forum.
you obviosuly do care, or you wouldnt say "fuck you" to me. dont worry tho, i wont take that personal.
ive never said you are not vegan now. i say "if youre not NOW, you never were" do you not understand that quote?
see, i dont get this. meat and dairy, what is the diference? why would it be not so bad to eat dairy, but bad to eat flesh? the product itself isnt the problem, its how it got there ,what it was, and more importnatly what physical, mental suffering somehting had to go through.
id say dairy is worse (in an un-ethical way) than meat.
If I had to choose between eating flesh or dairy and they were both in equal quantities I'd eat the dairy simply because its a little less disgusting than eating something which once lived. If it was a choice between for example a quiche or something which had the tiniest bit of gelatin, then I'd choose the second option. Anything non-vegan food is disgusting to me but I'd eat it rather than die because my death would cause suffering for my children and 7 guinea pigs for whome its extremely unlikely would be cared for properly if I wasn't around.
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well
[QUOTE=seitan;490662]
How was her comment 'speciesist'? It was an option between starvation and eating honey. Now that's a fairly unrealistic scenario no vegan is likely to find themselves in anyway but I found it more preservationist than speciesist.you seem to have a very speciesist attitude, soemhtign that scares me on a vegan forum.
*SIGH* missing point anyone? Didn't everyone learn constructive reading in school?
Very well: "don't need" = in normal situation
"extreme situation" = something we don't know, since it's hypothetical
"If you're not NOW" = I was referring to 'now' as a possible future
I like how you say you will never get into a situation that might require a non-vegan action. I'm not omnipotent. I just can't believe that there exist no scenarios that are not practical to avoid that make veganism unpractical or possible for at least a brief period of time.
We all have different values, especially within veganism. There are some things I DO put above veganism. *gasp....WITCH!!! WITCH!!! BURN HER!!! I would rather save a human life that NOT eat a single non-vegan food (something along the lines of the volunteer scenario). If I had gone to NO after the flood like I almost did to rescue animals in boats, I probably would have eaten something non-vegan. YOU COULD NOT BRING 6 MONTHS WORTH OF FOOD INTO NOLA. And I can say with almost certainty that it would have been practically impossible to find 6 months worth of sustainable vegan food. You eat what the red cross has.
note: Yes, maybe you could find an endless supply of apples....then you would die of malnutrition. That was my point in the sustainable part.
AND for that matter, what about a NOLA person who couldn't afford to evacuate? No car, no money for bus ticket (like they were running anyway), no friends or relatives. You go to the superdome. Maybe you stacked up tons of vegan food before the hurricane, and brought it with you. Good luck living off a single napsack of food, because that's all you could have with you. After the storm, it took weeks before they got all those people out, and I'm sure the news covered well what hell the superdome was. Guess what? The supermarkets closed, and the Red Cross is the only source of food. I can guarantee that if ANY of that food was vegan, it was not enough to live off of, especially since food was rationed, and you'd probably be eating only 1/6 of each meal. Oh, but those people did choose to live in NO, didn't they?
sorry i didnt know, that to you, NOW can mean the future
ive been vegan for nearly 25 years, ive never been in a situation where i had to eat non-vegan food. ive not stayed at home, in this country for 25 years, ive travelled, and i have struggled to eat well, but i did it.
im not sure what nola is, i understand n.o to be new orleans, but not beign american, im unsure of the nola .
you would be putting yourself in that situation where you knew you could no longer be vegan, i would not do that. you obviosuly wouldnt have a problem with that ,and thats your deal, but you would have not been vegan, thats what we've been debating all along.
so what did the rec cross bring for food, do you know? thats a sincere question, its not loaded.
id still like to know what food was taken there by the red cross.
Sorry. Yes, NOLA is New Orleans, LouisiAna
I can't find anything on the food rations that Red Cross gives out. However, two of the refugees I know said they were given MREs (meals ready to eat) which are military meals. I THINK this is the standard food given. However, outside of NO, or in areas that people were still allowed in (basically, areas that weren't that bad) did have some hot meals served. These were mostly individuals cooking, not something organized, though. Besides, here it's guaranteed to be either jambalaya or rice & gravy.
As for the MREs, there are 24 main entrees that are made since 2004. Of these, only the pasta with vegetables is possibly vegan, but in the US, almost all mainstream pasta has egg in it. (I found it has egg and cheese in it)
Scratch that, I found the exact menu given out during Katrina:
Menu #10
* Chili and Macaroni
* Wheat snack bread
* Molasses cookie
* Cheese spread with jalapenos
* Tootsie rolls
* salt
* sugar
* ground coffee
* ground red pepper
* gum
* moist towelette
* paper napkin
* matchbook
* spoon
I happen to know, however, that they also contain a tiny bottle of Tabasco.
The only real thing that could be vegan is the bread (it's a cracker). It has 170 calories, and probably un-vegan ingredients such as mono and di-glycerides, sugar, B-vitamins, etc. Then there's the salt, red pepper, and coffee packets. You usually get 2 of these a day. That's 400 calories a day max.
Anyway, back to what Sandra said. I do mostly believe that someone who decided no to be vegan anymore probably wasn't vegan for the right reasons anyway. However, I do think there are circumstances that would make an otherwise vegan feel forced or pressured into being non-vegan. I dont think this makes them not vegan when they were. When I was Christian...I WAS Christian. Just because I'm not anymore doesn't mean I didn't believe everything my church taught with all my heart. People are fluid, hardly ever solid. We change all the time. It's not like we have one final 'setting,' and whatever the last one was before we died, that was who we are. That's really the part I don't believe with.
I eat between two and six portions of soya each day.
I wonder if sperm count increases when the subjects lay off the soya for a few months.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
Now I'm not at the point where I'm saying I agree 100% Seitan, but you know what, after trying to *defend* my omni friends and them stab me in the back, I feel a bit crud about getting worked up over something so silly. Of course I wasn't vegan before, but, this last 2.5 years has shown me than I can be vegan, I can make a difference. And, if I ever found myself in a situation where I couldn't 'find' anything to eat, you know what, it would do me some good not eating for a couple of weeks or so.
I'm sure a starving gazelle wouldn't suddenly look upon a wildebeest as 'fair game' so why would I see a cow/goat/sheep/chicken/egg/milk/honey in that way?
Ahh! There's nothing like an evening to pea you off to make you vow to be far more hardcore than you'd ever justify to yourself or others before. Now, pass me those frozen blocks of tofu and let's put some windows through... (Some kind of drunken impromptu musical moment tonight prompted those lyrics and I'll be damned if I can't use them tonight)
*Offers Seitan a peace offering of home made / grown pesto with some sort of evil Tesco capitalist pasta*
Last edited by philfox; Aug 5th, 2008 at 10:59 PM. Reason: spelling ;)
Vegan Forum: keeping me sane in the world of the ignorant.
Just to point out... the study itself was DEEPLY flawed. Thus, the conclusions in the news article are dubious at best, and dangerous lies at worst.
Since the study proved NOTHING, I'd still contend, rightly, that soy has no KNOWN impact on human male fertility.
Perhaps soy does the opposite. My wife and I had both out kids despite using two forms of simultaneous birth control while both of were on high soy vegan diets. We're just one couple, but from our experience, if you want to have kids, go vegan and eats lots of tofu.
context is everything
Ditto.
However, that faulty piece of journalism might have some folks less wary than they should be.
I'd say wear a double condom, use spermicide (is there vegan spemicide?), and (vegan) hormones, and an IUD and what ever else you can get your hands on if you want to have sex with a vegan. And get the tubes tied and cut.
SOY WILL MAKE EGGS SUPER EATERS AND SPERM SUPER SWIMMERS.
That statement is about as scientifically accurate as the potentially dangerous stuff written in that article. What some folks do to try and scare people of off soy.
context is everything
Double condom as in 2 condoms? Not a good idea.
"I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
I was kinda kidding with hyperbole.
I wish that soy simply made people either infertile or overly fertile.
My guess is that a well produced and executed scientific study would probably say that soy alone does neither (just like other foods in moderation).
I don't know why my wife and I were too damn fertile for our own good. Perhaps it was the soy. Perhaps it was the artichokes. I don't know. But if soy was really such a sperm killer it seems doubtful that I'd have two genetic kids too damn easily.
On that note, another vegan man I know, a good friend who eats plenty of soy, was actually trying to get his wife pregnant. All their friends (just like ours) had tried for years or months to get pregnant (in their 30's and beyond). Well, apparently they only had to try for month. We'd told them that vegans get pregnant too darn easily, but they didn't believe us.
And again, it happened.
context is everything
I get pregnant easily, although I was only veggie at the time. I got pregnant within a month when trying then I got pregnant again whilst using a diaphragm and spermicide.
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well
Bookmarks