Vegetarians and Vegans

I don't think some are recognizing the difference between the veganism of some small segment of the population and mass veganism. Some even claim more animals would be killed in the latter. (Not more in mass, more in number.)

Edit:
Found a meme!

OldNewbie said:

I don't think some are recognizing the difference between the veganism of some small segment of the population and mass veganism. Some even claim more animals would be killed in the latter. (Not more in mass, more in number.)

Edit:
Found a meme!

Click to expand...

Completely false those are straight rumors. Makes zero sense. I’m talking for a Whole Foods plant based way of eating and lifestyle. That vegan junk food and many vegan branded items are complete trash. If we remember to grow and eat local or impact environmentallly would be so low. Most produce in the grocery depending on where you are is from Mexico or places 1000 miles away

Maninthemachine said:

Completely false those are straight rumors. Makes zero sense. I’m talking for a Whole Foods plant based way of eating and lifestyle. That vegan junk food and many vegan branded items are complete trash. If we remember to grow and eat local or impact environmentallly would be so low. Most produce in the grocery depending on where you are is from Mexico or places 1000 miles away

Click to expand...

Shall I provide multiple links?

OldNewbie said:

Shall I provide multiple links?

Click to expand...

All the links

@OldNewbie Sorry mate but this was really a clumsy attempt!

abracadaver said:

Incisors, we have them for chewing things other than vegetables.

Click to expand...

They could also be for fighting other apes, er, humans.

OldNewbie said:

I don't think some are recognizing the difference between the veganism of some small segment of the population and mass veganism. Some even claim more animals would be killed in the latter. (Not more in mass, more in number.)

Edit:
Found a meme!

Click to expand...

Nice!

So much juicy material for sowing discord among vegans! The welfarist/abolitionist split - some see incremental measures (like not chopping beaks) as positive, others as negative, charging they promote complacency in consumers.

There are many points on which vegans/animal rightists and environmentalists disagree. For example, most vegans are surprised to learn that environmentalists are the main hold-outs when it comes to animal testing. At this point, industry and regulators (at least in the US and Europe) are largely on board with the newer non-animal methods.

Like to see those claims about mass veganism. Read that chickens can be raised almost as efficiently as if we were to eat the cracked corn, etc. ourselves, but with other animals, the efficiency is much lower. What do you have in mind?

@Accept I think maninthemachine has already answered exhaustively, refuting this theory

You literally can not be an environmentalist if you are not vegan ...that is how great the damage of animal agriculture has surpassed now.

Maninthemachine said:

You literally can not be an environmentalist if you are not vegan

Click to expand...

....hunters are not environmentalist? I personally believe hunters care more for the environment than any other group because they want to preserve the land and animal populations so they can continue to source out food...


...and harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, and you cannot feed the world without agriculture in mass scale...

TiSteamo said:

@Accept I think maninthemachine has already answered exhaustively, refuting this theory

Click to expand...

Really, @OldNewbie - are you pranking us? If so, that's below the belt.

just_the_flu said:

....hunters are not environmentalist? I personally believe hunters care more for the environment than any other group because they want to preserve the land and animal populations so they can continue to source out food...

Click to expand...

Just like cannibals are humanists? Wrong thread. Move we try to keep vegetarian discussions here. (Honestly didn't think anyone would take that over-the-top anitnatalist BS seriously. From there, it was off to the races...)

Ahem... Believe hunting is far less problematic than animal agriculture, from an ethical standpoint. In many cases (with the exception of canned hunts, for example), no one claims ownership of the animals who are killed. No one has treated them as property their entire lives.

A hypothetical analogy might help untangle the whole can of ethical spaghetti. Imagine two populations of early humans don't recognize each other as "people". They each regard it as acceptable to attack or raid the other. In certain times and places, such populations might actually have been different species of people, each possessing language and culture. Propose hunters are no worse.

There are hunters who regard themselves as environmentalists and those who don't. In many cases, it depends on the occasion. IME, when we flushed birds from a farmer's harvested field and shot them down, no one thought of themselves as environmentalists.

Turning to agriculture, and returning to our analogy... When one population becomes dominant and enslaves the other, regarding them as property, breeding them for lives of servitude, their behavior fundamentally changes. Today, most would regard this as wrong. In classical times, it's what losing war meant, along with far worse horrors. (If you haven't read Herodotus' Histories, highly recommend.)

Believe what anti-animal agriculturalists are saying is that it's time we update our behavior with regard to animals as we've updated it with regard to other populations of people. Very specifically, what is the ethical basis for our claim that these animals are our property?

Much more can be said. Some find it to be a subject of considerable intellectual interest.

just_the_flu said:

...and harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, and you cannot feed the world without agriculture in mass scale...

Click to expand...

Yes, harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, in many ways, which is unfortunate and should be considered when harvesting crops. How does that justify animal agriculture killing all of those animals and many more?

Accept said:

Yes, harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, in many ways, which is unfortunate and should be considered when harvesting crops. How does that justify animal agriculture killing all of those animals and many more?

Click to expand...

...those in animal agriculture are bread and killed to feed the population and not innocent by standards left to rot...

...either way we need to feed the planet, no matter how you look at it... i've tried a vegetarian diet for a year and a half and for me i need meat... i source most of mine from friends who hunt or raise their own.. i need meat protein to survive, i know through trial and error...


...i like agriculture because i see the necessity of it.. the average person is not able to provide for them selves... especially those in citys..



...veganism or vegetarianism is not the answer for every solution... the human species are omnivorous so to say a plant based diet or a meat based diet is the right/only way is false... whatever diet makes the individual feel good is the right choice for them... everyones different and thats what makes us unique...

just_the_flu said:

...those in animal agriculture are bread and killed to feed the population and not innocent by standards left to rot...

Click to expand...

Sorry, just don't understand what you're saying. Would you please say it differently?

just_the_flu said:

whatever diet makes the individual feel good is the right choice for them...

Click to expand...

Fair enough. How many diets have you tried?

Once knew a man of Eastern European ancestry. Tall, very thin. Nervous and energetic. Ate and drank whatever the hell he wanted to into old age. He may well have been miserable on a vegan diet.

On the other hand, a young German colleague is of a similar disposition. He is vegan. He eats quite a lot, but is perfectly healthy and happy.

There are also many vegan athletes. Once knew a talented vegan triathlete. She, too, ate quite a lot.

Then there's the Farm Community, a 47-year-old (wanna say hippie-ish?) communal organization. They farm and specialize in soy dairy, also publishing early tofu cookbooks (Louise Hagler). Poor Mom making recipes from the linked-to book. Trying desperately to nourish her crazy son. (Also believe the Farm once got in trouble for growing cannabis.)

Finally, there's Mom and Dad. Obviously, a bit older, but otherwise we're all very much alike. Homogeneous Italian peasant genetics, for the most part - looked up family tree. Feel much better than either of them did at this age and hope to escape at least some of the health problems that plague them in old age. The vegan diet might not be for everyone, but it is for us. Is there anything wrong with promoting that?

After forty years of vegetarianism, now eat only fresh vegetables and tofu as pictured above. It's not that much. (Plus a dark chocolate bar on grocery day.) Gout onset was 16 years later than with Dad. Osteoarthritis also began recently. He's obese and (Type II) diabetic. As a vegan, shouldn't have to worry about those. Heart's still fine, but also a concern. (Gave up drinking, but need to give up e-cigs. And start exercising...)

Accept said:

Sorry, just don't understand what you're saying. Would you please say it differently?

Click to expand...

...livestock or animal agriculture is raised and slaughtered to feed the population, where those animals killed during crop harvest are innocent by standards and left to rot... they will most likely get eaten by scavengers...

Accept said:

Yes, harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, in many ways, which is unfortunate and should be considered when harvesting crops. How does that justify animal agriculture killing all of those animals and many more?

Click to expand...

just_the_flu said:

...livestock or animal agriculture is raised and slaughtered to feed the population, where those animals killed during crop harvest are innocent by standards and left to rot... they will most likely get eaten by scavengers...

Click to expand...

Sorry, again, what does "innocent by standards" mean? In what way are animals raised to feed the population not also innocent? Did they harm the population in some way?

And scavengers need to eat, too.

Accept said:

Sorry, again, what does "innocent by standards" mean? In what way are animals raised to feed the population not also innocent? Did they harm the population in some way?

Click to expand...

...an innocent by standard is more or less someone in the wrong place at the wrong time...


...the purpose is we raise animals for the purpose of food, its shitty to think of but they serve a purpose... they help the population by feeding us...


...we could completely deplete the natural animal population from over hunting, but i think raising animals for food is a better option.... no different than gardening...

just_the_flu said:

...an innocent by standard is more or less someone in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Click to expand...

Oh, "innocent bystander", just a spelling difference - thanks.

just_the_flu said:

...the purpose is we raise animals for the purpose of food, its shitty to think of but they serve a purpose... they help the population by feeding us...

Click to expand...

So the purpose (raising animals for food) justifies the practice. It may not be pleasant, or even right ("its shitty to think of"), but you believe it's necessary. In other words, the ends justify the means. Vegetarians are trying to show that it's not as necessary as you might think.

Still, a fair point. On training day for an advocacy gig was shown a video interview of a medical researcher who worked on chimpanzees. He knew it was wrong, and said as much. He spent time with chimps. He could see that they were just like us in every way that matters. He said that even if what he did wasn't right, it was necessary. He was a "Dark Knight", doing what needed to be done, even if he was hated for it by the very people he saved. Don't know if his statement was correct - that is, if his work saved human lives. It might have been.

Essentially, this is similar to Vice President Dick Cheney's argument for torturing "enemy combatants". Most Americans disagreed that it be could justified, but there might be very rare or hypothetical cases in which some would change their minds. For example, if a bomb was about to go off and torturing a captured perpetrator might provide information that could defuse it in time.

Even so, that can hardly justify the torture of people (or research on chimps) as a general practice. Many argue that it can never be justified, even if it might save others. Research on great apes like chimps is now in steep decline, banned in a number of jurisdictions (the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Germany). In the US, in 2013, Congress passed The Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act, which approved funding allowing for almost all of the apes owned by the federal government to live in a more natural group environment. The transfer is expected to take up to five years, at which point all but 50 chimpanzees will have been successfully "retired".

Getting back to animal agriculture, the practice might be similarly justified by some, at least in rare cases where a particular human population still needs it to survive. Believe most vegetarians wouldn't take issue with this, if only because there are still so many cases where this doesn't apply. It makes sense to concern ourselves with these cases - involving a far greater number of animals - first. Realistically, we'll probably never get to the more difficult cases. Like the other examples (torture of humans, research on chimps), even if animal agriculture can be justified in rare or hypothetical cases, it doesn't justify it universally, as a general practice.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_way_we_eat.html?id=hKQQAQAAMAAJ

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-a...an-meal-there-s-more-animal-blood-your-hands/

https://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/

https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and

http://www.playground.plus/food/veg...y-dont-kill-animals-but-they-do_22946291.html

just_the_flu said:

....hunters are not environmentalist? I personally believe hunters care more for the environment than any other group because they want to preserve the land and animal populations so they can continue to source out food...


...and harvesting of crops does kill a lot of animals, and you cannot feed the world without agriculture in mass scale...

Click to expand...

Are the hunters environmentalists?
And are pornstars virgin?

I believe there is a better way to take care of nature than to shoot unarmed animals in their habitat.

Accept said:

So the purpose (raising animals for food) justifies the practice. It may not be pleasant, or even right ("its shitty to think of"), but you believe it's necessary. In other words, the ends justify the means. Vegetarians are trying to show that it's not as necessary as you might think.

Click to expand...

...not all animals are raised in poor conditions... you only see the worse of the worse... and whats the difference of raising animals for food or growing plants for food? both are living organisms being grown in unnatural circumstances to feed humans...

just_the_flu said:

...not all animals are raised in poor conditions... you only see the worse of the worse... and whats the difference of raising animals for food or growing plants for food? both are living organisms being grown in unnatural circumstances to feed humans...

Click to expand...

Animals are sentient beings with a central nervous system. Plants no.
We must feed on life, but not on animals, which experience emotions exactly like us.

TiSteamo said:

We must feed on life, but not on animals, which experience emotions exactly like us.

Click to expand...

...thats your opinion, i've already stated i cannot survive on plant based diet...

You can do what you think is best for you but what I said is not an opinion, it's a fact!

TiSteamo said:

what I said is not an opinion, it's a fact!

Click to expand...

..."We must feed on life, but not on animals"... ok! LOL

OldNewbie said:

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails

Click to expand...

See, @OldNewbie wasn't holding out on us. Started with the reference above because of the title. It's quite good, IMO, basically agree. Encourage vegetarians to read it. That's why the argument in an above post focuses not on animals' alleged rights, but on ours. Specifically, what right do we have to claim animals are our property?

From the article:

Anti-exploitation: the only coherent basis for veganism?

Vegans kill animals and cause animal suffering, which makes it silly for them to criticize others for killing animals and causing animal suffering. But there is one thing that veganism doesn’t—or at least potentially doesn’t—do: exploit animals. If vegans were to single animal exploitation out as the motivation behind their cause, they just might be able to make a case that isn’t contradicted by their own actions. This would, however, change a few things.

By exploiting animals, I mean breeding, confining and raising them for your own ends. Having a rescue pet isn’t exploitation, but getting your cow pregnant so you can take her milk is. Because nonhuman animals cannot formally consent, it is not possible to prove that any demanding arrangement we have with them is mutually agreed upon, so any use we get out of them while they are alive could be considered exploitation. I cannot see how veganism could ever avoid killing animals or causing animal suffering, but vegans theoretically could avoid animal exploitation.

Click to expand...

Is there anything else in the above references on property/exploitation arguments?

I meant the first part of the post.

Everyone can do what they want.
Also thrusting themself a traffic light in the ass, if it is deemed appropriate.
And if this means freedom, that's why the world is getting worse...