Why are you not vegan....

[Pottsey]

Obviously im talking about if the lamb and plant is alive, they 100% do not suffer in the same way. And no I wouldn't be ok with it because animals still suffer when they are killed, there's no such thing as "humane slaughter", you can kill with LESS suffering but they still suffer to some degree and you're ultimately still taking their life. And You still eat plants though right?

But this is really besides the point, we can't survive on a "meat" only diet, wheres as we have to eat at least some plants.

People usually don't cut off the lambs leg while its alive. At the point the leg it cut off the animal is already dead getting no distress and is not aware. Unlike the plant which is getting distress signals and sending those distress signals. Of course I still eat plants because the plant is suffering the same as the animal as long as the animal is killed in the right way for example if it dies in its sleep there is zero distress. I see both as living things and killing both is the same, a plant life is still a lifeform. You are not better because you choose to kill one over the other. You are still killing. As per the biologist paper I read the plants still communicate distress with there own kind of nervous system with the same type of signals as animals use to relay distress.

I see you skipped over my question. What about when the animal doesnt have a brain or doesnt have a central nervous system is it ok to eat then? If not then just why is that not ok but a plant is? Like I said before there are lots of valid reasons to be a vegetarian but I don't see vegetarians as better from a moral point of view and in fact the vegetarians who act like they are better and try to force there ways onto other people are if anything less moral. Being vegetarian or following Veganism isn't automatically better for the planet and doesnt make a person better from a moral point of view. I have no problem with people wanting a Veganism life style or just want vegetarian meals but I don't like the high horse we are better then you attitude that some people with Veganism/vegetarian lifestyles have.



"You didn't look very hard then. And you seem confused, you keep mentioning vegetarianism, im not promoting that. And the environment aspect, again which im not promoting, it just so happens that being a vegan is also good for the planet.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose""

I did look hard and I was correct. There is no confusion as my posts makes sense in relation to the person I was quoting. I cannot see what you are confused about. Being vagen is not automatically good for the planet its massively worse in many areas like I showed with rice production which is worse for the planet then meat production. I am all for treating animals better but I don't see how following Veganism or being a vegetarian make someone better. You don't need to follow Veganism to be aginst those factories that treat animals badly.

 

[Pottsey]

What angle would you accept ? Any angle you take to guilt people into changing behaviour will be obnoxious when they refuse to change based on facts alone, you're either left with forcing them or guilting them

You haven't given any facts that I have seen. All you have done is come across as showing how you don't seem to care about the planet and choose to live your life style no matter the harm its doing and trying to justify and force that harmful life style onto other people. In the end you are being counter productive and are pushing people away from the results that you seem to want.

 

[Minusorange]

All you have done is come across as showing how you don't seem to care about the planet and choose to live your life style no matter the harm its doing and trying to justify and force that harmful life style onto other people

Except I haven't unless you're being obtuse in trying to suggest that giving up meat is a greater harm to the planet, I also haven't told anybody they should do anything, just if they're happy with their actions on their conscience knowing the facts Whether you like the truth or not it's still true that our current path is simply not sustainable

 

[moon man]

Why not just eat it for real?

I mean the scheme of things it sounds like you're already more than doing your part.

I agree and as I've said I regret it, at least 40 Years of non veganism,banana blossom and seaweed ,just been chatting with my neighbour,never too late to see the light

 

[Johno please?]

People usually don't cut off the lambs leg while its alive. At the point the leg it cut off the animal is already dead getting no distress and is not aware. Unlike the plant which is getting distress signals and sending those distress signals. Of course I still eat plants because the plant is suffering the same as the animal as long as the animal is killed in the right way for example if it dies in its sleep there is zero distress. I see both as living things and killing both is the same, a plant life is still a lifeform. You are not better because you choose to kill one over the other. You are still killing. As per the biologist paper I read the plants still communicate distress with there own kind of nervous system with the same type of signals as animals use to relay distress.

I see you skipped over my question. What about when the animal doesnt have a brain or doesnt have a central nervous system is it ok to eat then? If not then just why is that not ok but a plant is? Like I said before there are lots of valid reasons to be a vegetarian but I don't see vegetarians as better from a moral point of view and in fact the vegetarians who act like they are better and try to force there ways onto other people are if anything less moral. Being vegetarian or following Veganism isn't automatically better for the planet and doesnt make a person better from a moral point of view. I have no problem with people wanting a Veganism life style or just want vegetarian meals but I don't like the high horse we are better then you attitude that some people with Veganism/vegetarian lifestyles have.



"You didn't look very hard then. And you seem confused, you keep mentioning vegetarianism, im not promoting that. And the environment aspect, again which im not promoting, it just so happens that being a vegan is also good for the planet.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose""

I did look hard and I was correct. There is no confusion as my posts makes sense in relation to the person I was quoting. I cannot see what you are confused about. Being vagen is not automatically good for the planet its massively worse in many areas like I showed with rice production which is worse for the planet then meat production. I am all for treating animals better but I don't see how following Veganism or being a vegetarian make someone better. You don't need to follow Veganism to be aginst those factories that treat animals badly.

No, you eat plants because you have to, again its about necessity. This mental gymnastics you're playing to try to justify eating animals is really weird and not based in reality or facts, il say it again....Plants do not suffer in the same way, we, or other animals do. You think killing a sentient being like a cow is the same as pulling a carrot from the ground, you genuinely believe that?

If any animal doesn't have nervous system or are sentient like say an oyster and thus cant really suffer, then I wouldn't have a problem with people eating it.

Here's a basic hypothetical, you're driving down the road, in the road is a big potted plant and dog, you only have enough space to dodge one of them, which one will you dodge?

 

[Johno please?]

What a Piz!

Oof I know, I know.... /e pal

 

[Efour]

Here's a basic hypothetical, you're driving down the road, in the road is a big potted plant and dog, you only have enough space to dodge one of them, which one will you dodge?

Its stuff like this that just makes the vegan lifestyle advocates come across as really, really silly, to put it polite.

Stick to the environmental and economic aspect of the argument. No one cares about killing farmed animals.

Farm animals exist only to be "farmed" and be consumed/used. When there's a sufficiently economical and good alternative to animal products there will be a natural migration to them... Domesticated farm animals will simply cease to exist and that chapter of human history will be over.

Its a beautiful time to be alive were not only is food abundant but you can choose exactly what you want to eat based on whatever your belief is. Most people couldn't dream of that even 100 years ago.

I read somewhere that in a hypothetical future, this periods geological record/fossil record will contain such a thick layer of "chicken bones" that you could probably date the late 20th and 21st century specifically from them alone...

Anyway cool story.


and the car. Of course you wouldn't kill the dog, its a domesticated pet animal to most westerners its a symbol of a family home. China, maybe they would hit the dog, then eat it after. Free lunch?

 

[Philtor]

Why are you not vegan? Because I love the taste of chicken and as a 6ft 2” bloke, it would take way too many plant things to fill me up that said, I am partial to corn on the cob.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Its stuff like this that just makes the vegan lifestyle advocates come across as really, really silly, to put it polite.

Stick to the environmental and economic aspect of the argument. No one cares about killing farmed animals.

Farm animals exist only to be "farmed" and be consumed/used. When there's a sufficiently economical and good alternative to animal products there will be a natural migration to them... Domesticated farm animals will simply cease to exist and that chapter of human history will be over.

Its a beautiful time to be alive were not only is food abundant but you can choose exactly what you want to eat based on whatever your belief is. Most people couldn't dream of that even 100 years ago.

I read somewhere that in a hypothetical future, this periods geological record/fossil record will contain such a thick layer of "chicken bones" that you could probably date the late 20th and 21st century specifically from them alone...

Anyway cool story.


and the car. Of course you wouldn't kill the dog, its a domesticated pet animal to most westerners its a symbol of a family home. China, maybe they would hit the dog, then eat it after. Free lunch?

Basically a result of an affluent west. Veganism or any form of "diet" for moral or lifestyle choice is a recent development. Go to even places like the Philippines, we are not talking about some poor African nation, you will find people who would just eat what they can get their hands on. Hell, go to Hong Kong, a developed modern city, a lot of the working class would eat these rice noodles (it's rolled up) with soy and fishballs for less than a £1 and the fishballs on the top would be a luxury addition.

Poor people don't get to choose what diet they are on, their diet is forced upon them due to their economic status. When they have a bit of money, they would go a get a bit of meat in their meal as a treat. That's my background, that's what like to eat if I am in HK.

This holier-than-thou attitude that talks down to others, because they are not a vegan, is a terrible modern human trait and the worst part is that they don't even see it. They live in a bubble so much that they have no idea how privileged they are to be in that position in the first place to be able to make that choice. They have no idea what situation others are in and blindly judge them for their actions just because they had a ham sandwich at lunch-time.

Such arrogance.

Is that what being vegan does to people?

 

[Mysterae_]

Here's a basic hypothetical, you're driving down the road, in the road is a big potted plant and dog, you only have enough space to dodge one of them, which one will you dodge?

Sorry, the dog's getting it.

 

[Vidar]

Do I believe animal welfare could be better, yes ofcourse I do. But, let's be honest; you vegans kill far more animals than us carnivores. Yes, I'm a carnivore! No sugars, no plants and nothing artificial for 6 months and I feel great. You conveniently forget about the untold millions of small mamals, birds and insects that get killed for arable farming. Do they matter less?

Or are you going with the myth that cows are killing the ozone layer with methane? If that was true why is it that every study of pollution levels show that areas where cattle farming takes place there is considerably less pollution?

We have been eating meat throughout our evolution for millions of years, I won't be stopping any time soon!

That 42oz bad boy was my dinner, seared in butter. It was absolutely delicious!

 

[moon man]

Basically we all need to eat but we don't need to take a life to eat,deep down we all know this ,I have a weakness for alcohol,some of you like dead animal bits and use massively flawed arguments to try and support this

. As many omnivores love animals but still eat meat [84], dissonances may arise and lead to emotional discomfort. To reduce this so-called "meat paradox" [85][86][87][88][89][90][91], Rothgerber and Rosenfeld [92] distinguish between (1) mechanisms to prevent meat-related cognitive dissonance from occurring and (2) mechanisms to reduce such dissonance once it has occurred. According to Rothgerber and Rosenfeld [92], actively avoiding situations and information that might evoke an unpleasant emotional state belong to the category of mechanisms to prevent dissonance. ...
... To reduce this so-called "meat paradox" [85][86][87][88][89][90][91], Rothgerber and Rosenfeld [92] distinguish between (1) mechanisms to prevent meat-related cognitive dissonance from occurring and (2) mechanisms to reduce such dissonance once it has occurred. According to Rothgerber and Rosenfeld [92], actively avoiding situations and information that might evoke an unpleasant emotional state belong to the category of mechanisms to prevent dissonance. The avoidance of obtaining information on husbandry practices and the underestimation of animal suffering were also identified by Graça et al. [93] as a relevant mechanism to protect oneself from dissonances. ...
... By separating the act of eating meat from the underlying reality of its origin and production, consumers may simultaneously reduce their related psychological discomfort and absolve themselves of the guilt felt over the negative aspects of the meat industry. Mental and verbal separation of animal production and meat consumption, for example, by naming the animal cattle or pig and the food beef and pork, can reduce the emergence of dissonance in relation to meat consumption and animal welfare [92,94]. The relation between animals and meat products is even more dissolved on the level of products, e.g., ham, hamburger, bacon, or Sunday roast. ...

 

[cheesefest]

I don't do Veganary or Dry January as its my birthday.

 

[m4rmite]

Do I believe animal welfare could be better, yes ofcourse I do. But, let's be honest; you vegans kill far more animals than us carnivores. Yes, I'm a carnivore! No sugars, no plants and nothing artificial for 6 months and I feel great. You conveniently forget about the untold millions of small mamals, birds and insects that get killed for arable farming. Do they matter less?

Or are you going with the myth that cows are killing the ozone layer with methane? If that was true why is it that every study of pollution levels show that areas where cattle farming takes place there is considerably less pollution?

We have been eating meat throughout our evolution for millions of years, I won't be stopping any time soon!

That 42oz bad boy was my dinner, seared in butter. It was absolutely delicious!

What an idiotic picture to post


I'm bloody starving now

 

[One More Solo]

I have nothing against eating meat in principle, however the western lifestyle is unsustainable and essentially relied on the rest of the planet serving us. As living standards improve, we have to accept that elements of our lifestyle will have to change. One of those is meat eating. The natural resources given over to the meat industry are huge, and we will have to change our consumption levels if we want to survive long term.

 

[Freefaller]

Other than the extremist views typical of some vegans. I think a fair summary of people's thoughts are:

- We do probably need to eat less meat.
- Animal welfare is a top priority and needs to improve.
- Meat quality and meat in diets is related to affordability but perhaps shouldn't be.
- Vegetarianism is fairly easily achievable.
- Veganism seems to be more akin to virtue signalling by some people's behaviours. That said if done appropriately is perfectly understandable for its moral reasons.
- Veganism is trying to improve the environment and your lifestyle and is a laudable commitment.
- There's nothing wrong about eating meat.
- Eggs are an excellent energy dense, diverse and nutritious food.
- Leather might as well be used if the cows are going to die for food.
- Dairy isn't great.


I guess I should throw some more hostility in there....

 

[Devilman]

Basically we all need to eat but we don't need to take a life to eat,deep down we all know this ,I have a weakness for alcohol,some of you like dead animal bits and use massively flawed arguments to try and support this

Basically we all need to stop kidding ourselves than we can "over-rule" a couple million years of evolution because "feels". How do you plan on overcoming the B12 issue? - Unless you fancy eating 50g of Shitake mushrooms daily?

It seems you also have a weakness for using emotive comments to attempt to backup your flawed arguments to try and support your position. "dead animal bits" .. really? This is truly the level of "boogeyman under the bed" comments to try and create emotionally driven responses?

 

[Johno please?]

Its stuff like this that just makes the vegan lifestyle advocates come across as really, really silly, to put it polite.

Stick to the environmental and economic aspect of the argument. No one cares about killing farmed animals.

Farm animals exist only to be "farmed" and be consumed/used. When there's a sufficiently economical and good alternative to animal products there will be a natural migration to them... Domesticated farm animals will simply cease to exist and that chapter of human history will be over.

Its a beautiful time to be alive were not only is food abundant but you can choose exactly what you want to eat based on whatever your belief is. Most people couldn't dream of that even 100 years ago.

I read somewhere that in a hypothetical future, this periods geological record/fossil record will contain such a thick layer of "chicken bones" that you could probably date the late 20th and 21st century specifically from them alone...

Anyway cool story.


and the car. Of course you wouldn't kill the dog, its a domesticated pet animal to most westerners its a symbol of a family home. China, maybe they would hit the dog, then eat it after. Free lunch?

Strange thing to say, obviously some people do care that's why Veganism exists, You know how you probably care about a dog or cat you own? Well I now just extend that care to cows/pigs/chickens etc.

I think its a bit disingenuous to say there isn't good alternatives to eating meat, we know there is.

Basically a result of an affluent west. Veganism or any form of "diet" for moral or lifestyle choice is a recent development. Go to even places like the Philippines, we are not talking about some poor African nation, you will find people who would just eat what they can get their hands on. Hell, go to Hong Kong, a developed modern city, a lot of the working class would eat these rice noodles (it's rolled up) with soy and fishballs for less than a £1 and the fishballs on the top would be a luxury addition.

Poor people don't get to choose what diet they are on, their diet is forced upon them due to their economic status. When they have a bit of money, they would go a get a bit of meat in their meal as a treat. That's my background, that's what like to eat if I am in HK.

This holier-than-thou attitude that talks down to others, because they are not a vegan, is a terrible modern human trait and the worst part is that they don't even see it. They live in a bubble so much that they have no idea how privileged they are to be in that position in the first place to be able to make that choice. They have no idea what situation others are in and blindly judge them for their actions just because they had a ham sandwich at lunch-time.

Rice noodles, and soy? so replace the fish with a bit of veg and you've got a vegan meal, you've sort of disproved your own argument there about "veganism being one of western privilege"

But I guess il have to say it again because you're not getting it, veganism is about trying to exclude and reduce harm to animals, its not perfect and just by existing we all cause some amount of harm to something or someone.

Do I believe animal welfare could be better, yes ofcourse I do. But, let's be honest; you vegans kill far more animals than us carnivores. Yes, I'm a carnivore! No sugars, no plants and nothing artificial for 6 months and I feel great. You conveniently forget about the untold millions of small mamals, birds and insects that get killed for arable farming. Do they matter less?

Or are you going with the myth that cows are killing the ozone layer with methane? If that was true why is it that every study of pollution levels show that areas where cattle farming takes place there is considerably less pollution?

Thats just flat out incorrect im afraid, billions more animals are killed in the meat and dairy industry than any mice and birds from farming soy or plants.... youve been watching joe rogan havent you? Not got anything against Joe, but he has some right idiots on his show. But il stress this point again veganism is about trying to exclude harm to animals as much as possible, not eliminating it.

The myth? lol So you disagree with the science then? Its a well known fact that animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases.

We must change what we eat to solve the climate crisis, shows research

Even if fossil fuel emissions stopped immediately, emissions from the global food system alone could raise global temperatures by more than 1.5°C.

www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock - it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pottsey]

No, you eat plants because you have to, again its about necessity. This mental gymnastics you're playing to try to justify eating animals is really weird and not based in reality or facts, il say it again....Plants do not suffer in the same way, we, or other animals do. You think killing a sentient being like a cow is the same as pulling a carrot from the ground, you genuinely believe that?

If any animal doesn't have nervous system or are sentient like say an oyster and thus cant really suffer, then I wouldn't have a problem with people eating it.

Here's a basic hypothetical, you're driving down the road, in the road is a big potted plant and dog, you only have enough space to dodge one of them, which one will you dodge?

From my point of view your the one playing mental gymnastics to justify your lifestyle and act like its a better life style then it is. I don't need any mental gymnastics for my life style as I know my life style is healthy, normal and morally good.

Its not your life style that I have problems with, its the people (more the others then yourself) acting like its a morally superior lifestyle and they act like it makes them morally better then people who eat meat. Live the lifestyle you want but don't try to force it onto other people and pretend its morally better when its not.

It not that plants suffer in the same as they don't feel pain but some plants do suffer and send distress signals along with both being alive and both are being killed. Cutting the grass isn't the same as cutting off a lambs foot while its alive. With the dog example there are to many factors like how big is the potted plant, how much risk is it to me to hit it at what ever speed I am going, is it on my side of the road or the other side of the road. Do I by instinct attempt to break and beep the horn to make the dog move e.c.t either way which ever one I hit I would know both where live and both have been killed. As for the cow it depends how it died. If it died without suffering then using it for food is the same as using the carrot for food. In fact I would say its worse not to use the cow for food as that would be wasting a valuable resources which one could argue is morally wrong. Like I said I am against the big factories that don't treat animals in the right way as Animal welfare matters. But that doesnt make all meat eating wrong.

Before you respond a bit off background on how I think. When I die I don't care about my body being buried as I think that's a waste. I am perfectly happy to donate my body to science or medicine and let someone practice on the body would be my preference or in the worse case use my body for animal food that isn't going into the human food chain. Once the body is dead either my own or an animal make something good come of out. Make use of the resource instead of wasting it. There are exceptions to this like if you have emotional ties to a pet but if one does decided to make use of the body then what they are doing is morally right not morally wrong.

My hypothetical to you. If I have a pet pig that I looked after and treated the best I could then after years it dies of natural reasons. Due to emotional ties I wouldn't eat it myself but what would be wrong giving it to my local farmer to use for meat for his family who are on hard times and struggling to afford to eat. The animal didn't suffer, the body is not being wasted. Its a positive outcome from what is a negative event of a pet being dead. Why would this be wrong? What matters to me is where the meat comes from instead of saying all meat eating is bad. One does not have to follow veganism to reduce harm to animals. In this case one could still eat meat and still be following veganism from the point of view of trying to stop and reduce harm to animals. As the eating meat in this case is not causing any harm.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Strange thing to say, obviously some people do care that's why Veganism exists, You know how you probably care about a dog or cat you own? Well I now just extend that care to cows/pigs/chickens etc.

I think its a bit disingenuous to say there isn't good alternatives to eating meat, we know there is.



Rice noodles, and soy? so replace the fish with a bit of veg and you've got a vegan meal, you've sort of disproved your own argument there about "veganism being one of western privilege"

But I guess il have to say it again because you're not getting it, veganism is about trying to exclude and reduce harm to animals, its not perfect and just by existing we all cause some amount of harm to something or someone.



Thats just flat out incorrect im afraid, billions more animals are killed in the meat and dairy industry than any mice and birds from farming soy or plants.... youve been watching joe rogan havent you? Not got anything against Joe, but he has some right idiots on his show. But il stress this point again veganism is about trying to exclude harm to animals as much as possible, not eliminating it.

The myth? lol So you disagree with the science then? Its a well known fact that animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases.

We must change what we eat to solve the climate crisis, shows research

Even if fossil fuel emissions stopped immediately, emissions from the global food system alone could raise global temperatures by more than 1.5°C.

www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock - it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland

www.theguardian.com

Still sticking with the hillier than thou attitude I see.

You are NOT getting it, it's not about REPLACING something with another. People don't replace it because of their economic status, they CAN NOT replace it. The fact that you just say "replace it with that", shows your arrogance and ignorance.

It's not about what they eat, it's about what they can get.