The Number 1 Reason to Become Vegan - Page 3

The Number 1 Reason to Become Vegan

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
Thank Tree39Thanks

This is a discussion on The Number 1 Reason to Become Vegan within the Science and Technology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet Being vegan has no impact . There's no overall purpose to being vegan, except for having ...

  1. #21

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Being vegan has no impact . There's no overall purpose to being vegan, except for having a clean conscience. Animals aren't going to stop being slaughtered. The production will just increase, because of the rapid population increase in LEDCS. Converting everyone to vegans against their own will is an option, but that's unethical as well.
    Many people go vegan as a boycott or ethical stance. I know I did. It's the same as choosing whether or not to participate in anything else. If you don't agree with something, then why participate in it? I choose not to eat animals because doing so hurts them (and I can be healthy without eating them). Simple as that. Whether or not it has an impact doesn't really matter all that much to me. Having said that, with restaurants and grocery stores starting to invest in plant-based options, we're definitely seeing some traction on the "vegan" front.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    I don't understand the concept of veganism. The whole reason people are alive right now is because of experimentation on animals. We wouldn't be able to create cures and advance as high in society without animal sacrifices. Basically if we stop, that's potentially ruining the lives of millions of people. All vegans have indirectly used animals, so are they even morally clean? That is, unless they haven't used any vaccinations and products made by animals.
    Vegans typically make exceptions for products that are necessary for human health like medicines and essential animal testing. However, vegans draw the line at what is unnecessary, like animal-derived foods and animal-tested cosmetics. It's also likely that if we did end up moving toward a more vegan world, we'd find ways to test medicines and the like without inflicting any/as much harm onto animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    We also need the nutrients derived from animals. Vegans can't drink milk and milk is an important. There are so many things we need of animals. It's not just meat. There are people, who need a high source of of these just to survive. Beans and pulses don't cut it.
    You need nutrients, yes, but whether or not they're derived from animals doesn't matter to the body. The body just requires nutrients. There's nothing specific to nutrients in animals that can't also be met through plant-based sources (and/or supplementation for select vitamins like b12). There are a few nutrients that can't be found in plants, but those nutrients (like carnosine) are already satisfactorily produced by the body. So basically, as long as you take a b12 supplement and eat a well-balanced diet, your health will likely be in great shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Hypothetically, if the whole world was vegan, then what would happen? The whole natural balance would be put off. Animal reproduce rapidly. This would overall increase the carbon footprint, because of the methane gas. 14 percent of the earth's greenhouse gases are made from agriculture. That's with the rapid killing.
    Domesticated animal populations are only as high as they are because of the incessant demand for animal products. Once the demand lessens, so will the supply.

    You're also not taking into account that the world will not go vegan overnight. If the world does head in that direction, it'll continue to be an incremental process, so the planet and economy will have time to adjust to any demands (or lack thereof). Additionally, people would have much less of an overall carbon footprint, because going vegan reduces your individual demand on the environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    A lot of biology tests on life spans are cherry picked. Just like how they say Ribena is full of vitamin c. They pick a sample that's in high vitamin c and advertise it. I'm sure that being vegan does not increase your life expectancy. It should actually decrease it.
    People who advertise being vegan as the healthiest way to live are either misinformed or dishonest. With veganism being a relatively new phenomenon, we just haven't seen enough research on the topic to conclude or dismiss that. Having said that, most dietetic associations agree that a well-balanced vegan diet can absolutely be healthy, and that's really what matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    The best thing to do would be ethical killing.
    "Ethical killing" is an oxymoron. Unless you're in a self-defense situation or euthanizing someone in a terminal state, there's nothing ethical about taking someone else's life without their consent.

  2. #22

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardielley View Post
    Many people go vegan as a boycott or ethical stance. I know I did. It's the same as choosing whether or not to participate in anything else. If you don't agree with something, then why participate in it? I choose not to eat animals because doing so hurts them (and I can be healthy without eating them). Simple as that. Whether or not it has an impact doesn't really matter all that much to me. Having said that, with restaurants and grocery stores starting to invest in plant-based options, we're definitely seeing some traction on the "vegan" front.



    Vegans typically make exceptions for products that are necessary for human health like medicines and essential animal testing. However, vegans draw the line at what is unnecessary, like animal-derived foods and animal-tested cosmetics. It's also likely that if we did end up moving toward a more vegan world, we'd find ways to test medicines and the like without inflicting any/as much harm onto animals.



    You need nutrients, yes, but whether or not they're derived from animals doesn't matter to the body. The body just requires nutrients. There's nothing specific to nutrients in animals that can't also be met through plant-based sources (and/or supplementation for select vitamins like b12). There are a few nutrients that can't be found in plants, but those nutrients (like carnosine) are already satisfactorily produced by the body. So basically, as long as you take a b12 supplement and eat a well-balanced diet, your health will likely be in great shape.



    Domesticated animal populations are only as high as they are because of the incessant demand for animal products. Once the demand lessens, so will the supply.

    You're also not taking into account that the world will not go vegan overnight. If the world does head in that direction, it'll continue to be an incremental process, so the planet and economy will have time to adjust to any demands (or lack thereof). Additionally, people would have much less of an overall carbon footprint, because going vegan reduces your individual demand on the environment.



    People who advertise being vegan as the healthiest way to live are either misinformed or dishonest. With veganism being a relatively new phenomenon, we just haven't seen enough research on the topic to conclude or dismiss that. Having said that, most dietetic associations agree that a well-balanced vegan diet can absolutely be healthy, and that's really what matters.



    "Ethical killing" is an oxymoron. Unless you're in a self-defense situation or euthanizing someone in a terminal state, there's nothing ethical about taking someone else's life without their consent.

    Nope.

    You can't get all the crap you get from vegan diets from animal based diets. Vitamin A and Vitamin D are particularly essential for immune regulation, digestion, fertility and hormone balance. You get very small amounts of these from vegetables. Carotene only converts very slight amounts. This is also stands with some other people in the thread. You don't get vitamin K2 from any vegetables. This is what makes bones strong. Even if you have plenty of calcium, with out vitamin K2 it's useless. If you workout or growing, it's much healthier to eat meat and not be vegan.

    You literally cannot stop killing. To gain you must kill. If you gain crops, you are killing pests like rabbits and mice. You are also killing birds, by this process. You may not be doing this directly, but farmers use 1080 and various chemicals to kill these animals. Animals die a slow and painful death from 1080. They throw up, choke and their lungs burn to death. So then what? Stop producing food and letting animals eat the crops? Then where do we get the sufficient nutrients? It's much less humane than killing and eating animals when they have lived a relatively comfortable and ending their life quickly. Sure, it's not more humane. Killing can never be humane. It's ethical killing. They make sure its quick and painless. At least that's how I get my meat.

    The way animals are used for experiments is often extremely messed up. I don't think letting a rat's DNA melt apart and live a painful life is very ethical. The experiments can be basically torture. So things in the name of science is even less ethical than eating meat. You aren't vegan, technically. How do you know where vegans draw the line typically? How would you find a way to advance in science without animals in a vegan world? That's an assumption. You can't just say that it will happen. It's a possibility, but it's incredibly difficult to mimic an animals body or humans body. That would require complete understanding of how our body works. We are nowhere near that level of science.

    How does being vegan improve carbon footprint? Animals make huge amounts of methane. By not keeping population control, the animals will reproduce more and more methane will be given off. There will also be a higher demand for vegetables, which convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. It might reduce your overall footprint, but it will still increase the overall carbon footprint.

    Honestly, I don't mind if you want to be vegan. I'm referring to vegans who try to convert others and that look down on others.

    Choosing not to eat animals doesn't stop the animal killing. It's makes zero difference and is illogical. They are already dead. By eating meat, you are actually giving the animal's life purpose. There is usually an excess of meat in supermarkets and that makes them expire. If no one eats them, their life goes away for nothing. There's no benefit to anyone. The only way being vegan would make sense is if a majority of the world stopped eating meat.

  3. #23

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Nope.

    You can't get all the crap you get from vegan diets from animal based diets. Vitamin A and Vitamin D are particularly essential for immune regulation, digestion, fertility and hormone balance. You get very small amounts of these from vegetables. Carotene only converts very slight amounts. This is also stands with some other people in the thread. You don't get vitamin K2 from any vegetables. This is what makes bones strong. Even if you have plenty of calcium, with out vitamin K2 it's useless. If you workout or growing, it's much healthier to eat meat and not be vegan.
    Again, this ties into what I was saying before. Our bodies are very efficient. Given the right foods and enough planning (which becomes second nature after not too long), our bodies can synthesize the nutrients we need from these foods. This is true of all of the vitamins you mentioned. Of course, if it's something you're worried about, you could take a simple supplement or multivitamin, but it most likely wouldn't be necessary. Here are a few links. Perhaps you'd question the sources, but all of the information on these pages is factually accurate and largely unbiased.

    https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-a/#plant-foods

    https://oldwayspt.org/blog/vitamin-d...nd-vegetarians

    https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts...nt-based-diet/

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    You literally cannot stop killing. To gain you must kill. If you gain crops, you are killing pests like rabbits and mice. You are also killing birds, by this process. You may not be doing this directly, but farmers use 1080 and various chemicals to kill these animals. Animals die a slow and painful death from 1080. They throw up, choke and their lungs burn to death. So then what? Stop producing food and letting animals eat the crops? Then where do we get the sufficient nutrients? It's much less humane than killing and eating animals when they have lived a relatively comfortable and ending their life quickly. Sure, it's not more humane. Killing can never be humane. It's ethical killing. They make sure its quick and painless. At least that's how I get my meat.
    You completely miss the point about what veganism is about. It's not a lifestyle where your choices are 100% perfect and do no harm. It's a lifestyle where you actively choose to limit your harm and boycott harmful industries.

    Ideally, crop farmers would do things in a completely ethical manner, but to meet demand, that can't really be the case. Sure, vegans could choose to starve to death, but what would that solve? What vegans are doing instead is spreading awareness, creating more demand for plant-based alternatives, and increasing their accessibility. Without this push by vegans and flexitarians, nothing would change.

    Tell me, where are you finding these animals that have died "ethically" and lived "relatively comfortable lives?" Everyone and their mother says that these are the animals they eat, but the numbers say otherwise, with 99% of livestock animals being raised on factory farms in the United States. And even if you're choosing to eat mainly non factory-farmed animals, I sincerely doubt you never make exceptions. That would mean a boycott of fast food and pretty much every chain restaurant in existence.

    And again, "ethical killing" is an oxymoron. If I shot someone in the head, even if it was a painless death, it still wouldn't be ethical since I robbed them of their life.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    The way animals are used for experiments is often extremely messed up. I don't think letting a rat's DNA melt apart and live a painful life is very ethical. The experiments can be basically torture. So things in the name of science is even less ethical than eating meat. You aren't vegan, technically. How do you know where vegans draw the line typically? How would you find a way to advance in science without animals in a vegan world? That's an assumption. You can't just say that it will happen. It's a possibility, but it's incredibly difficult to mimic an animals body or humans body. That would require complete understanding of how our body works. We are nowhere near that level of science.
    How do I know where vegans typically draw the line? From experience. I've interacted with enough vegans online to know their general outlooks on veganism. Reddit is definitely a thing.

    Sure, I'm assuming that if we move towards a more vegan world, we'll research more into less cruel ways of conducting experiments and research. That's a perfectly natural assumption to make. However, even if we don't, the developed world cutting down on animal-based food alone would make a huge difference. It's certainly better than what we're doing now. As much as I'd love a world where we hurt no animals, we're a long way off from that world, but any steps towards that world are better than where we are right now.

    Having said all that, I have little doubt that one day, we'll be scientifically advanced enough to not need to use animals at all. As for now, I don't engage in any unnecessary animal testing, and I ultimately believe the first step to eliminate all animal testing is to eliminate unnecessary animal testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    How does being vegan improve carbon footprint? Animals make huge amounts of methane. By not keeping population control, the animals will reproduce more and more methane will be given off. There will also be a higher demand for vegetables, which convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. It might reduce your overall footprint, but it will still increase the overall carbon footprint.
    What makes you think animal populations wouldn't be controlled? Very few vegans would advocate releasing domesticated animals into the wild, because doing so would cause them to either starve/be mauled to death or become feral. Doing so would be cruel to them and catastrophic to the ecosystem.

    Once again, since a vegan world is never going to happen overnight, any shifts towards a more vegan world would reduce domesticated animal populations gradually. The supply would lower in response to the demand.

    Vegans have much lower carbon footprints because their demand on the environment is overall much less. To eat meat, you not only have to kill an animal, but you also have to raise the animal. This requires significant amounts of water and plant matter. If you're familiar with trophic levels, the same rule very much applies here; eating at a lower level is much more energy-efficient. Fewer resources go into feeding you, so your environmental impact is less.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Honestly, I don't mind if you want to be vegan. I'm referring to vegans who try to convert others and that look down on others.

    Choosing not to eat animals doesn't stop the animal killing. It's makes zero difference and is illogical. They are already dead. By eating meat, you are actually giving the animal's life purpose. There is usually an excess of meat in supermarkets and that makes them expire. If no one eats them, their life goes away for nothing. There's no benefit to anyone. The only way being vegan would make sense is if a majority of the world stopped eating meat.
    Again, supply and demand, baby. If fewer people buy meat, more of it might be thrown out in the short term. However, in the long term, grocery stores will notice the lack of demand and reduce the supply accordingly.

    What you do with an animal's body once you kill it is irrelevant to the animal. They didn't choose to die. Sure, throwing out meat is "a waste" if you believe that they inherently have no greater purpose than to die and become bacon (for example). However, I believe their lives are inherently worth more than that. Pigs and dogs aren't really that different in any meaningful way. On the contrary, pigs are actually more intelligent.

    To be clear, I also think throwing out meat is a waste... but so is killing animals for said meat.

    What both companion and livestock animals have in common is sentience, or the ability to perceive the world around them and feel pain. This is why we see dog abuse as cruel; because they can feel pain, and abusing them hurts them for no justifiable reason. The same thing happens to pigs, the only differences being that it happens behind closed doors and they become food that we really don't need.
    Last edited by Ardielley; 06-28-2019 at 06:15 AM.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardielley View Post
    Again, this ties into what I was saying before. Our bodies are very efficient. Given the right foods and enough planning (which becomes second nature after not too long), our bodies can synthesize the nutrients we need from these foods. This is true of all of the vitamins you mentioned. Of course, if it's something you're worried about, you could take a simple supplement or multivitamin, but it most likely wouldn't be necessary. Here are a few links. Perhaps you'd question the sources, but all of the information on these pages is factually accurate and largely unbiased.

    https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-a/#plant-foods

    https://oldwayspt.org/blog/vitamin-d...nd-vegetarians

    https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts...nt-based-diet/



    You completely miss the point about what veganism is about. It's not a lifestyle where your choices are 100% perfect and do no harm. It's a lifestyle where you actively choose to limit your harm and boycott harmful industries.

    Ideally, crop farmers would do things in a completely ethical manner, but to meet demand, that can't really be the case. Sure, vegans could choose to starve to death, but what would that solve? What vegans are doing instead is spreading awareness, creating more demand for plant-based alternatives, and increasing their accessibility. Without this push by vegans and flexitarians, nothing would change.

    Tell me, where are you finding these animals that have died "ethically" and lived "relatively comfortable lives?" Everyone and their mother says that these are the animals they eat, but the numbers say otherwise, with 99% of livestock animals being raised on factory farms in the United States. And even if you're choosing to eat mainly non factory-farmed animals, I sincerely doubt you never make exceptions. That would mean a boycott of fast food and pretty much every chain restaurant in existence.

    And again, "ethical killing" is an oxymoron. If I shot someone in the head, even if it was a painless death, it still wouldn't be ethical since I robbed them of their life.



    How do I know where vegans typically draw the line? From experience. I've interacted with enough vegans online to know their general outlooks on veganism. Reddit is definitely a thing.

    Sure, I'm assuming that if we move towards a more vegan world, we'll research more into less cruel ways of conducting experiments and research. That's a perfectly natural assumption to make. However, even if we don't, the developed world cutting down on animal-based food alone would make a huge difference. It's certainly better than what we're doing now. As much as I'd love a world where we hurt no animals, we're a long way off from that world, but any steps towards that world are better than where we are right now.

    Having said all that, I have little doubt that one day, we'll be scientifically advanced enough to not need to use animals at all. As for now, I don't engage in any unnecessary animal testing, and I ultimately believe the first step to eliminate all animal testing is to eliminate unnecessary animal testing.



    What makes you think animal populations wouldn't be controlled? Very few vegans would advocate releasing domesticated animals into the wild, because doing so would cause them to either starve/be mauled to death or become feral. Doing so would be cruel to them and catastrophic to the ecosystem.

    Once again, since a vegan world is never going to happen overnight, any shifts towards a more vegan world would reduce domesticated animal populations gradually. The supply would lower in response to the demand.

    Vegans have much lower carbon footprints because their demand on the environment is overall much less. To eat meat, you not only have to kill an animal, but you also have to raise the animal. This requires significant amounts of water and plant matter. If you're familiar with trophic levels, the same rule very much applies here; eating at a lower level is much more energy-efficient. Fewer resources go into feeding you, so your environmental impact is less.



    Again, supply and demand, baby. If fewer people buy meat, more of it might be thrown out in the short term. However, in the long term, grocery stores will notice the lack of demand and reduce the supply accordingly.

    What you do with an animal's body once you kill it is irrelevant to the animal. They didn't choose to die. Sure, throwing out meat is "a waste" if you believe that they inherently have no greater purpose than to die and become bacon (for example). However, I believe their lives are inherently worth more than that. Pigs and dogs aren't really that different in any meaningful way. On the contrary, pigs are actually more intelligent.

    To be clear, I also think throwing out meat is a waste... but so is killing animals for said meat.

    What both companion and livestock animals have in common is sentience, or the ability to perceive the world around them and feel pain. This is why we see dog abuse as cruel; because they can feel pain, and abusing them hurts them for no justifiable reason. The same thing happens to pigs, the only differences being that it happens behind closed doors and they become food that we really don't need.
    Not all vitamins are vegan.

    How are you limiting your harm? You aren't limiting your harm. By not eating meat, you aren't doing anything, unless it's forced on a largely wide scale. You are probably just letting meat go to waste. You need to influence multiple people. Most people don't even care if animals are hurt, so that's not going to happen. The population is also radically going to increase and the demand for meat. Vitamins and these options are expensive. There are billions living in poverty. Saving animals isn't their priority. It's survival.

    If you are boycotting harmful industries, why not just boycott factory farms? You can do protests and such things. There are things such as free range meat. You still use factory farmed materials probably as well. They are in shoes and multiple materials. So you'll admit there is no way to be ethical. Then what's the point of being vegan? Eating meat is unethical and so is vegetables. Animals always die in the process. In my opinion painless deaths are better than puking and struggling to breathe for hours by 1080. That 99 percent figure, includes fish. That significantly changes the perspective.

    Animals aren't someone. You even admitted that they don't have the same value as human life. You said animals should be used for science, but living humans shouldn't. The same rules don't apply.

    Yeah, if the whole world turns vegan turns vegan then there would be less harmful experiments to animals. That will severely limit studies. The main things we are lacking in science require physically going into the body. We can't make accurate computer version with all the different functions of the body of an animal neither human. Also expensive again. This will prevent cures to things like cancer in the future. That's potentially risking millions of lives.

    About the vegan releasing thing into the wild. Then what would happen to all those animals. Spend millions of funds looking after them and making sure they live happy lives? That's not even happening for humans. If we are allowing those animals to live happily, they are going to reproduce and survive longer right? That'll make more methane in total. You have to kill off the animals or neuter the animals to do that. Neutering is expensive. I could argue the main reasons for animals living is to reproduce. It's the same as humans. It won't work.

    The supply and demand thing will never work, because of population increase in LEDC'S. It's pointless unless poverty is destroyed in your city and all major issues. Not unless you force, that is. Maybe in 100's of years, but there's no way that's possible now, so it's pointless. There are too many important issues to solve rather than this.

    Killing animals for meat isn't a waste if it's being used.

    One of the main reasons we don't kill dogs is because they have low meat levels. They are more bone and other things. A pig in other words is rich in meat. Therefore, we kill pigs. If dogs had high meat levels, there would be no doubt we would kill them. I didn't say the only purpose of animals was meat. I said the only purpose of the animals being killed is meat and you may as well let their death have purpose.

    So basically you are arguing that it's moral to not eat meat. I've debunked that with it being just as bad as non-meat products, since it's killing animals through poison to protect crops. Synthesis idea - pricier and not all vitamins are veg. So that won't work, because most people aren't that well off. Scientific animal thing doesn't work, because there are no actual solutions. Veganism is extremely unlikely to be established world-wide or country wide in your life time. Still more methane produced. Grass doesn't produce much oxygen.

    You keep denying the questions and saying we will adapt in the future with no real solutions or hypothetical. You probably don't have problems with poverty and are well off. A lot of people don't have choices like this. The supply and demand only works with influence. The only way to influence is with actual solutions and not "we will adapt." People aren't going to switch sides with that.
    Aridela thanked this post.

  6. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Not all vitamins are vegan.
    There's no such thing as a "non-vegan" vitamin. Vitamins are simply molecular structures that can be derived from different sources. Not every source is vegan, but luckily for us, we live in a world where we can derive necessary vitamins from both natural and synthetic vegan sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    How are you limiting your harm? You aren't limiting your harm. By not eating meat, you aren't doing anything, unless it's forced on a largely wide scale. You are probably just letting meat go to waste. You need to influence multiple people. Most people don't even care if animals are hurt, so that's not going to happen. The population is also radically going to increase and the demand for meat. Vitamins and these options are expensive. There are billions living in poverty. Saving animals isn't their priority. It's survival.
    The point of me being vegan isn't to make a huge difference on my own. Again, it's a boycott on my end. Hopefully through my boycott, I can encourage others to make changes in their own lives, but even if I don't, I'm still living the way I believe is right.

    The only supplement I take is a b12 spray. It costs about $12 and lasts me at least a year. Hardly breaking the bank.

    When survival is your priority, of course you have to do what you need to do to survive. But are you personally in a situation where you're fighting to survive, or are you just using these people as scapegoats for your own choices?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    If you are boycotting harmful industries, why not just boycott factory farms? You can do protests and such things. There are things such as free range meat. You still use factory farmed materials probably as well. They are in shoes and multiple materials. So you'll admit there is no way to be ethical. Then what's the point of being vegan? Eating meat is unethical and so is vegetables. Animals always die in the process. In my opinion painless deaths are better than puking and struggling to breathe for hours by 1080. That 99 percent figure, includes fish. That significantly changes the perspective.
    I don't use factory-farmed materials. I make sure everything I buy is vegan and cruelty free (not animal-tested). Veganism is about more than just food choices.

    This ties into your next point, too, about free range farms. Free range is a deceptive marketing term and almost never actually means what it's advertised to mean (most of these animals still live in cramped sheds by the thousands, for instance). But even if every animal was treated kindly before slaughter, vegans are against making animals a commodity. These animals are individual beings who are sentient and have their own interests, so using them for our own ends is exploitative and typically cruel.

    As far as your point about 1080 goes, it's not relevant to the discussion. 1080 was outlawed in America in the 1970s on a mass scale and is only used in six countries worldwide, and nothing I'm consuming is coming from these countries. 1080 is occasionally used in America to protect livestock from coyotes and the like (it's embedded into protection collars), but it's estimated that only 0.05 lbs. of it are released yearly. Regardless, as a vegan, I don't consume livestock, so I have no part in any 1080 usage.

    Needless to say, though, I'm against the widespread use of it, too, in places where it is widespread. Why wouldn't I be?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Animals aren't someone. You even admitted that they don't have the same value as human life. You said animals should be used for science, but living humans shouldn't. The same rules don't apply.
    Animals are definitely "someone." If you've ever lived with a dog or cat, this is obvious. Apart from being sentient, each animal has their own individual quirks and ways of responding to you. An animal is not a "something."

    While you're right that I don't believe animal life may be as valuable, that doesn't mean that animal lives don't have value. This is true in the same way that you'd call someone who is 6'6 "tall" just like you'd call someone who is 7'0 "tall." Both people are tall. Just because one is shorter than the other doesn't mean they're not still tall. The same sentiment is true here.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Yeah, if the whole world turns vegan turns vegan then there would be less harmful experiments to animals. That will severely limit studies. The main things we are lacking in science require physically going into the body. We can't make accurate computer version with all the different functions of the body of an animal neither human. Also expensive again. This will prevent cures to things like cancer in the future. That's potentially risking millions of lives.
    True, we haven't found ways to do these things... yet. But if the world ever does go vegan, it's most likely going to take centuries, at least. I have no doubt that during that time, we'll manage to make huge leaps scientifically. Just think about how far science has come in the last 100 years alone.

    And I'll make this point again: even if we don't advance as far as we want to scientifically and continue to resort to necessary animal testing, we can still make other changes as a society where our cruelty to animals is significantly reduced. If we all cut down on or eliminate meat from our diets, that'll make a huge difference. If we eliminate unnecessary animal testing, that'll also make a huge difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    About the vegan releasing thing into the wild. Then what would happen to all those animals. Spend millions of funds looking after them and making sure they live happy lives? That's not even happening for humans. If we are allowing those animals to live happily, they are going to reproduce and survive longer right? That'll make more methane in total. You have to kill off the animals or neuter the animals to do that. Neutering is expensive. I could argue the main reasons for animals living is to reproduce. It's the same as humans. It won't work.
    Again, this isn't going to happen. A reduce in demand overtime means a lower supply of animals. While the world still consumes meat, animals will still sadly be slaughtered. But we'll be artificially breeding fewer of them. Our artificial breeding is the only reason why we have so many.

    If the world ever does go vegan, hypothetically, there'd be so few animals left by that point where regardless of what we do with them, there wouldn't really be any issues. Animal sanctuaries would likely take some of them in, for example. We wouldn't have billions of farm animals roaming around. That's pretty ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    The supply and demand thing will never work, because of population increase in LEDC'S. It's pointless unless poverty is destroyed in your city and all major issues. Not unless you force, that is. Maybe in 100's of years, but there's no way that's possible now, so it's pointless. There are too many important issues to solve rather than this.
    First off, saying "there are other issues" is a terrible argument. You could really say that about any issue apart from the ~#1 worst issue~ in order to minimize all the rest... but minimizing them isn't right because they're still issues. We can focus on more than one issue at a time, believe it or not.

    Supply and demand has worked and will continue to work. For example, plant-based options are popping up all over the place now because of the demand. Eventually, this huge increase in demand will lead to a huge increase in accessibility, which will make it easier for more and more people to give these options a go every now and then.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    Killing animals for meat isn't a waste if it's being used.
    It is a waste in the same way that killing a random person for meat is a waste. I'd still be using their flesh, so by your logic, that wouldn't be a waste. But the main idea here is that unnecessarily robbing someone of their life is the waste. That's the entire point.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    One of the main reasons we don't kill dogs is because they have low meat levels. They are more bone and other things. A pig in other words is rich in meat. Therefore, we kill pigs. If dogs had high meat levels, there would be no doubt we would kill them. I didn't say the only purpose of animals was meat. I said the only purpose of the animals being killed is meat and you may as well let their death have purpose.
    But this is what I'm challenging. I'm challenging the purpose of them being killed. Most of us can thrive on plant-based diets, meaning that killing animals for sustenance is entirely unnecessary for us. If it's unnecessary, then why on earth are we justified in continuing to do it? Especially when it's causing so much harm to animals and the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    So basically you are arguing that it's moral to not eat meat. I've debunked that with it being just as bad as non-meat products, since it's killing animals through poison to protect crops. Synthesis idea - pricier and not all vitamins are veg. So that won't work, because most people aren't that well off. Scientific animal thing doesn't work, because there are no actual solutions. Veganism is extremely unlikely to be established world-wide or country wide in your life time. Still more methane produced. Grass doesn't produce much oxygen.
    I've already debunked most of these points above.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomDudeOnTheInternet View Post
    You keep denying the questions and saying we will adapt in the future with no real solutions or hypothetical. You probably don't have problems with poverty and are well off. A lot of people don't have choices like this. The supply and demand only works with influence. The only way to influence is with actual solutions and not "we will adapt." People aren't going to switch sides with that.
    I'm actually a broke 23 year-old with only a few thousand dollars in the bank, but nice try, lol.

    But tell me, what solutions am I supposed to have? I'm not a scientist. Me saying that science will adapt is me placing full faith in those who do enter those fields to continue to find answers... like they always have. I don't really see what's fallacious about that.

  7. #26

    Well, eating meat as pleasure - we do lots of things for pleasure that we don't need to do, but that doesn't mean that we should stop doing all of those things. In terms of meat, most of the vegans I know wear clothes or buy things for their houses made by children or slave labor in Asia or Latin America, and there seems to be much less care about people than animals, which is funny (because people are animals). In terms of "feelings", plants do have feelings, or senses. I mean, this plant had memory and even freaked out because it thought it would be dropped. Other studies show similar things over the past 10 years. So you are just prioritizing one type of sensing being over another, the same way some people (let's say Americans) are cool with eating cows while others (let's say Chinese) are cool with eating dogs, but the Americans are not cool with the dog eating. Emotional triage.

    You can do meat sustainably - the New Zealanders (and many Americans and Canadians - have been doing rotational grazing with cattle and sheep for decades, longer actually. The animals graze freely, and the land doesn't suffer. And in terms of the damage that products like soy and corn and almonds do (mono-culture and high water use) - don't say the impact isn't huge. All that water that is gone means animals have no watering holes left. No springs to wallow in. You care about animals, right? Mono-culture is hugely responsible for the endangerment of many North American species - take the prairie chicken for example. The rise of huge amounts of crops (not animals - crops) has led to an increase in pesticide use, but even more than that, a destruction of habitats where animals once lived, leading to their endangerment. People always want to save whales and pandas, but what about the native species that are about to buy the farm due to agriculture?

    And when you shoot a deer and eat it, it is suddenly lights out and you use all the parts and it didn't suffer. If you don't shoot it? Well, I hate to tell you, but the animal slowly ages, sickens, and then when it can't keep up with its friends it stumbles one day and is torn apart living and eaten by something like a cougar. There is no nestling into a nice bush with the rest of the deer family while they hear its swan song of existence. Nature is harsh and beautiful but also cruel and uses every last bit. That is the reality. Every time you put an animal out of the food chain, you are just taking it out of the jaws of some other animal, or disease and a slow and painful death.

    People should do whatever they want. I am an ENTP so I'm not here to tell anyone how to live. But I do think people should go about their lives honestly, and not bathe in the hot springs of hypocrisy.
    Aridela thanked this post.

  8. #27

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    Well, eating meat as pleasure - we do lots of things for pleasure that we don't need to do, but that doesn't mean that we should stop doing all of those things.
    There's nothing wrong with pursuing pleasure if there's no victim. The issue vegans have is that when people purchase meat, there definitely is a victim, which is the distinction here. I don't see it as right that other beings should suffer just because I feel like eating steak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    In terms of meat, most of the vegans I know wear clothes or buy things for their houses made by children or slave labor in Asia or Latin America, and there seems to be much less care about people than animals, which is funny (because people are animals).
    These definitely are issues, and I think you'll find that on average, because the average vegan is more conscientious about ethics than the average meat eater, vegans will typically make more conscientious decisions in kind.

    I'm well-aware that this isn't always the case, and I'm also aware there are areas where I could be doing better and making more ethical choices. At the same time, deflection shouldn't be used as a way to excuse the things that you yourself could be doing better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    In terms of "feelings", plants do have feelings, or senses. I mean, this plant had memory and even freaked out because it thought it would be dropped. Other studies show similar things over the past 10 years. So you are just prioritizing one type of sensing being over another, the same way some people (let's say Americans) are cool with eating cows while others (let's say Chinese) are cool with eating dogs, but the Americans are not cool with the dog eating. Emotional triage.
    That was an interesting article. However, I wouldn't say it necessarily proves plant sentience.

    But let's grant that you're right and that plants are in fact sentient. Vegans on the whole still kill fewer plants because of trophic levels and energy conversion. Raising animals for food is incredibly energy-intensive, because to raise one animal involves large amounts of crops. Eating plant-based bypasses this process since you'd be consuming food at the lowest trophic level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    You can do meat sustainably - the New Zealanders (and many Americans and Canadians - have been doing rotational grazing with cattle and sheep for decades, longer actually. The animals graze freely, and the land doesn't suffer. And in terms of the damage that products like soy and corn and almonds do (mono-culture and high water use) - don't say the impact isn't huge. All that water that is gone means animals have no watering holes left. No springs to wallow in. You care about animals, right? Mono-culture is hugely responsible for the endangerment of many North American species - take the prairie chicken for example. The rise of huge amounts of crops (not animals - crops) has led to an increase in pesticide use, but even more than that, a destruction of habitats where animals once lived, leading to their endangerment. People always want to save whales and pandas, but what about the native species that are about to buy the farm due to agriculture?
    It's interesting that you bring up soy and corn, because the vast majority of it is produced for livestock rather than human beings. Soy and corn are two of the most prominent crops used for animal feed.

    The type of farming you mention might be a better way to eat meat, but it's not sustainable on a large scale. We just don't have the room or the resources to raise animals in that way. That's why factory farms exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    And when you shoot a deer and eat it, it is suddenly lights out and you use all the parts and it didn't suffer. If you don't shoot it? Well, I hate to tell you, but the animal slowly ages, sickens, and then when it can't keep up with its friends it stumbles one day and is torn apart living and eaten by something like a cougar. There is no nestling into a nice bush with the rest of the deer family while they hear its swan song of existence. Nature is harsh and beautiful but also cruel and uses every last bit. That is the reality. Every time you put an animal out of the food chain, you are just taking it out of the jaws of some other animal, or disease and a slow and painful death.
    This is a point that I actually think is (more or less) valid. Of course, you can't know for sure that a deer will definitely get torn apart by predators or die a terrible death, so that does bring your point into question a bit.

    Nonetheless, hunting is definitely the least wasteful and most conscientious way to consume meat. I wouldn't do it myself, but at least those who choose to do it aren't pretending to be doing something they're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Senah View Post
    People should do whatever they want. I am an ENTP so I'm not here to tell anyone how to live. But I do think people should go about their lives honestly, and not bathe in the hot springs of hypocrisy.
    I agree with this as well, at least most of the time. I just give animals more moral consideration and don't see killing them for unnecessary meat as a "personal choice."
    Senah thanked this post.

  9. #28

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardielley View Post
    Vegans typically make exceptions for products that are necessary for human health like medicines and essential animal testing. However, vegans draw the line at what is unnecessary, like animal-derived foods and animal-tested cosmetics. It's also likely that if we did end up moving toward a more vegan world, we'd find ways to test medicines and the like without inflicting any/as much harm onto animals.
    I really don't want to rain on your parade but since I might know a thing or two about pharmacology I'll just offer my opinion on the subject.

    At the moment the only way a drug will get approved by the FDA or equivalent national bodies is after rigorous testing on animals AND humans.

    Even if our technology advances vastly, each human's make up is slightly different from one another. There's simply no safe way to forego animal/human testing or you'll have random people dropping dead from drug side effects. I'm not sure how this would be more ethical in the long run. Actually, it would be quite irresponsible.

    You could forego the animal testing altogether and only allow humans to be tested, when they have given their consent. But who are the people more likely to participate in such trials? I'd guess the lower classes/third world countries' citizens.

    You need nutrients, yes, but whether or not they're derived from animals doesn't matter to the body. The body just requires nutrients. There's nothing specific to nutrients in animals that can't also be met through plant-based sources (and/or supplementation for select vitamins like b12). There are a few nutrients that can't be found in plants, but those nutrients (like carnosine) are already satisfactorily produced by the body. So basically, as long as you take a b12 supplement and eat a well-balanced diet, your health will likely be in great shape.
    This is simply not the case. Several nutrients are better metabolised when they come from animal sources. A good example is iron. It's great that you take B12 supplements; several people are deficient, even heavy meat eaters.

    As long as you make sure you have a good, balanced diet being vegan is not inherently dangerous. But you have to realise it's not a diet everyone can follow. Many of us have specific dietary needs and foregoing animal products altogether is simply not an option.

    I have no problem with vegans, several of my friends are veggies or vegans and we get along just fine - unless they get preachy about it.

    Beliefs are like d*cks - It's ok to have one, but don't try to shove it down my throat. (<- take it as a general statement, not directed to anyone in particular).

  10. #29

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardielley View Post
    There's no such thing as a "non-vegan" vitamin. Vitamins are simply molecular structures that can be derived from different sources. Not every source is vegan, but luckily for us, we live in a world where we can derive necessary vitamins from both natural and synthetic vegan sources.



    The point of me being vegan isn't to make a huge difference on my own. Again, it's a boycott on my end. Hopefully through my boycott, I can encourage others to make changes in their own lives, but even if I don't, I'm still living the way I believe is right.

    The only supplement I take is a b12 spray. It costs about $12 and lasts me at least a year. Hardly breaking the bank.

    When survival is your priority, of course you have to do what you need to do to survive. But are you personally in a situation where you're fighting to survive, or are you just using these people as scapegoats for your own choices?



    I don't use factory-farmed materials. I make sure everything I buy is vegan and cruelty free (not animal-tested). Veganism is about more than just food choices.

    This ties into your next point, too, about free range farms. Free range is a deceptive marketing term and almost never actually means what it's advertised to mean (most of these animals still live in cramped sheds by the thousands, for instance). But even if every animal was treated kindly before slaughter, vegans are against making animals a commodity. These animals are individual beings who are sentient and have their own interests, so using them for our own ends is exploitative and typically cruel.

    As far as your point about 1080 goes, it's not relevant to the discussion. 1080 was outlawed in America in the 1970s on a mass scale and is only used in six countries worldwide, and nothing I'm consuming is coming from these countries. 1080 is occasionally used in America to protect livestock from coyotes and the like (it's embedded into protection collars), but it's estimated that only 0.05 lbs. of it are released yearly. Regardless, as a vegan, I don't consume livestock, so I have no part in any 1080 usage.

    Needless to say, though, I'm against the widespread use of it, too, in places where it is widespread. Why wouldn't I be?



    Animals are definitely "someone." If you've ever lived with a dog or cat, this is obvious. Apart from being sentient, each animal has their own individual quirks and ways of responding to you. An animal is not a "something."

    While you're right that I don't believe animal life may be as valuable, that doesn't mean that animal lives don't have value. This is true in the same way that you'd call someone who is 6'6 "tall" just like you'd call someone who is 7'0 "tall." Both people are tall. Just because one is shorter than the other doesn't mean they're not still tall. The same sentiment is true here.



    True, we haven't found ways to do these things... yet. But if the world ever does go vegan, it's most likely going to take centuries, at least. I have no doubt that during that time, we'll manage to make huge leaps scientifically. Just think about how far science has come in the last 100 years alone.

    And I'll make this point again: even if we don't advance as far as we want to scientifically and continue to resort to necessary animal testing, we can still make other changes as a society where our cruelty to animals is significantly reduced. If we all cut down on or eliminate meat from our diets, that'll make a huge difference. If we eliminate unnecessary animal testing, that'll also make a huge difference.



    Again, this isn't going to happen. A reduce in demand overtime means a lower supply of animals. While the world still consumes meat, animals will still sadly be slaughtered. But we'll be artificially breeding fewer of them. Our artificial breeding is the only reason why we have so many.

    If the world ever does go vegan, hypothetically, there'd be so few animals left by that point where regardless of what we do with them, there wouldn't really be any issues. Animal sanctuaries would likely take some of them in, for example. We wouldn't have billions of farm animals roaming around. That's pretty ludicrous.



    First off, saying "there are other issues" is a terrible argument. You could really say that about any issue apart from the ~#1 worst issue~ in order to minimize all the rest... but minimizing them isn't right because they're still issues. We can focus on more than one issue at a time, believe it or not.

    Supply and demand has worked and will continue to work. For example, plant-based options are popping up all over the place now because of the demand. Eventually, this huge increase in demand will lead to a huge increase in accessibility, which will make it easier for more and more people to give these options a go every now and then.



    It is a waste in the same way that killing a random person for meat is a waste. I'd still be using their flesh, so by your logic, that wouldn't be a waste. But the main idea here is that unnecessarily robbing someone of their life is the waste. That's the entire point.



    But this is what I'm challenging. I'm challenging the purpose of them being killed. Most of us can thrive on plant-based diets, meaning that killing animals for sustenance is entirely unnecessary for us. If it's unnecessary, then why on earth are we justified in continuing to do it? Especially when it's causing so much harm to animals and the planet.



    I've already debunked most of these points above.



    I'm actually a broke 23 year-old with only a few thousand dollars in the bank, but nice try, lol.

    But tell me, what solutions am I supposed to have? I'm not a scientist. Me saying that science will adapt is me placing full faith in those who do enter those fields to continue to find answers... like they always have. I don't really see what's fallacious about that.

    You being fine could be due to your age. Even if it's not, it doesn't mean everyone will be healthy under a vegan diet. If you are an active person, B12 won't cut it. Are we just going to completely stop professional sports?

    I've never been poor or close to it. I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about others.

    So you check for every single product you use? Everything? That's highly unlikely, but sure I'll take your word for it.

    How are free range farms deceptive? "Free range denotes a method of farming husbandry where the animals, for at least part of the day." The animals have to live somewhere. They can't stay outside forever. Not even pets spend all their time outside. Free range farms do exactly as they say. They let the animals go out and be "individuals".

    Oh the 1080 point doesn't apply to you. 1080 isn't only used to protect livestock. It's used to protect crops from pests as well. Alright. It's still the same theory. Pesticides kill animals. Birds, rabbits, etc.

    According to that statement, cockroaches are also individuals and so are ants. Do you let all of em roam around as well in your house? Not are animals are cats and dogs.

    If we go vegan, biological advancements will not happen or very little. That's a fact. You admitted that it will happen in centuries. Exactly. So no matter what you do, there's no point. Now the overtime thing. Hypothetically that's true, but it's not going to happen. That's because the amount of people eating meat is going to increase. I explained before with MEDC'S. So why now? Also, what do you mean? What will happen to the animals overtime as the world hypothetically goes vegan? Are we just going to not let the animals reproduce? Animals like cows will reproduce. They often reproduce more than themselves. Isn't not allowing them to reproduce cruelty? They are individuals after all according to you. If there are so little animals that they will be in sanctuaries, then that means they will be close to extinction. That's really not a good idea. Sanctuaries and these things are for rare animals and if we do in the future, that's extremely expensive.

    Also the plant increase isn't because of people actually caring about being vegan. It's more to do with religion. India is the second most populated country in the world. They also have high amounts of immigrants. Therefore, companies have to adapt.

    Saying there are worse issues is not a bad argument. We have hundreds of issues in the world right now. They are dealing with human life. As you said, humans take more priority than animals. I didn't say it's not an issue. Well I don't think it's an issue, because I straight up don't really care. As do most people, because vegans are a minority.

    Dude. People are not cows. People take more priority than cows. Killing a random person is not the same thing as killing a random cow.

    You are contradicting yourself now. You said a vegan lifestyle isn't the healthiest. Therefore there's no thriving on a vegan diet. It's not unnecessary as said before. There are so many uses of animals.

    You haven't debunked all my points, though.

    Alright, but that's just you. There are still people worse off than you.

    Eh, I'm bored of debating, but you should kind of get my point.

    OH and how do you quote things in a structured way like that?

  11. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardielley View Post
    Many people go vegan as a boycott or ethical stance. I know I did. It's the same as choosing whether or not to participate in anything else. If you don't agree with something, then why participate in it?
    What can I become if I don't want to participate in humanity anymore? I don't agree with it.


     
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Laki ~ The Road To Vegan
    By Lakigigar in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-30-2018, 04:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0