Why are you not vegan....

Status
Not open for further replies.
We aren’t allowed to post our opinion, based on our own spheres nowadays? Everything we say must be cited and peer reviewed?
I said I doubt the studies had been done, so in the absence of these I was discussing my own personal experience as others had also been doing. I wasn’t complaining, I was pointing out a fact.

Also, if you bothered to read the thread, I’m not a vegan and I’m not trying to convert or belittle anyone. Try again.

Another strawman being constructed.. are your arms not tired by now?
At no point did I say people cannot post their opinion. At no point did I say everything must be cited or peer reviewed, that is entirely fabricated by you.

What I did do, was point out your hypocrisy for saying "everyone is posting opinions with no facts of evidence" and then you followed it up with a statement that was entirely your opinion with no facts or evidence.

So you're not a vegan, good job. So what was it then, you just decided to be a hypocrite complaining about people posting opinions with no facts, then turning around and doing exactly the same and using childish names like "super pro meat bros" to be argumentative and annoying? - Why the need for the repeated attempts at strawman arguments if you're not attempting to argue from the "vegan position" ?
 
I think the point may be that science doesn't care about your opinions... ;)

I think if we rationalise and calm down, what everyone can agree (at least those basing on science not hysteria or anecdotes)

1) Vegan diet is not how we're 'naturally adapted' - therefore you need to artificially augment with supplements, fortifications and vitamins to remain healthy
2) There are issues with vegan diets, but with focus and careful adaptation almost all can be minimised - ie it's not 'natural' for us to be on the moon, but we can adapt... ;)
3) It's an 'easy' way to fix animal treatment concerns from poor farming practices - that said, so is stopping buying 'cheap' meat, which I've done.


As an aside as everyone's talking about sources without sharing sources - few examples from previous notes:

I find it fascinating how much cognitive impact the vegan diet risks - it casts an intriguing shadow on how the human brain evolved and what caused it, but maybe that's just my inner nerd emerging... ;)



Vegetarians had lower riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B-12, zinc, and sodium intakes and higher folate, vitamin C, and copper intakes.” (Janelle & Barr, 1995).

One such change relates to homocysteine levels, caused by deficiencies in various B vitamins. This excessive elevation can result in cardiovascular disease, blood clotting, dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, cognitive impairment and loss of bone mineral density.

“The plasma homocysteine level was measured in alternative nutrition groups of adults…” including vegans and omnivores (Krajčovičová-Kudláčková, et. al., 2000). The research found “…a deficit… in 78% of the vegans vs. 0% in omnivores.”

This was echoed by Majchrzak et. al. (2006), “Exclusion of animal products in vegetarian diets may affect the status of certain B-vitamins, and further cause the rise of plasma homocysteine concentration.”

The status of riboflavin is considered to be deficient in about 10% of omnivores and vegetarians and in over 30% of vegans.” This is most likely due to the nature of foods high in riboflavin, eggs, organ meats (kidneys and liver), lean meats, and milk. (Majchrzak et. al., 2006)

These findings were echoed by Larsson (2001). “The dietary intake was below the average requirements of riboflavin for 73% of the vegans, vitamin B12 for all vegans, vitamin D for 43% of the vegans, calcium for 77% of the vegans and selenium for all vegans and 43% of the omnivores. If intake of supplements was included the intake of e.g. calcium and selenium was still lower than the average requirements for 67% and 73% of the vegans respectively.”

“Assessment of fatty acid intakes in vegans and omnivores” (2019), the authors stated that “…vegan diets were devoid of arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids.” the “…bioavailability of zinc in vegetarian diets is generally lower than that of omnivores.”

“Comparative fracture risk in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in EPIC-Oxford” (Appleby, Roddam, Allen & Key, 2007). They found a 30% increased risk of fracture in a vegan diet when compared to ‘meat eaters’.

“…the protein contents of the vegan diets of women were significantly lower than those of the nonvegetarians, and 10 of the 25 vegan women failed to meet the recommended dietary allowance…” (Haddad et. al., 1999)

“Dietary intake and biochemical, hematologic, and immune status of vegans compared with nonvegetarians” study also went on to indicate that a vegan diet was often associated with lower levels of B-12, Iron (in females only) and zinc

“Growth of Vegetarian Children: The Farm Study” (“Growth of Vegetarian Children”, 2009) found that below ten years of age, there was a 0.2 to 2.1cm stunting of growth in vegetarian children when compared to the National average.

“Dieting influences the menstrual cycle: vegetarian versus nonvegetarian diet” (1986) examined the presence of ovulation, and the levels of luteinizing hormone, estradiol and progesterone.

“Seven of nine women in the vegetarian group became anovulatory” (ovulation does not occur). They went on to state that, “During the vegetarian diet the average luteinizing hormone (LH) values were significantly decreased during the midcycle and the luteal phase. Estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) values were significantly lower during the luteal phase. In contrast, the nonvegetarian group did not show significant reduction of LH, E2, and P values during any part of the menstrual cycle.”
 
Another strawman being constructed.. are your arms not tired by now?
At no point did I say people cannot post their opinion. At no point did I say everything must be cited or peer reviewed, that is entirely fabricated by you.

What I did do, was point out your hypocrisy for saying "everyone is posting opinions with no facts of evidence" and then you followed it up with a statement that was entirely your opinion with no facts or evidence.

So you're not a vegan, good job. So what was it then, you just decided to be a hypocrite complaining about people posting opinions with no facts, then turning around and doing exactly the same and using childish names like "super pro meat bros" to be argumentative and annoying? - Why the need for the repeated attempts at strawman arguments if you're not attempting to argue from the "vegan position" ?
You obviously haven’t read the thread if you are asking these questions.

My position has been made very clear. I believe vegans have the moral high ground and there’s not a justifiable excuse for most of us to eat meat. We shouldn’t be killing intelligent, sentiment animals for food where it’s not necessary to do so. I have accepted my hypocrisy on that point as I eat meat. But I eat substantially less than I used to. Indeed, all my dinners in the coming week are vegan.
Ray and I have discussed this already. You can go read the posts if you like.

The super meat bro thing was clearly a jokey comment and I explained that in posts following. Did it upset you?

There’s no hypocrisy by me saying people are posting their opinions and then I posted mine. If I said, “it’s wrong to post your opinion” and then posted mine, you’d be right. But I didn’t. I said “people are posting their opinion, not fact” (or words similar) and then posted my opinion. I didn’t moan, complain, etc.

What exactly is your intention here? I have shown that you are wrong and I have no idea what your point is.
 
You obviously haven’t read the thread if you are asking these questions.

My position has been made very clear. I believe vegans have the moral high ground and there’s not a justifiable excuse for most of us to eat meat. We shouldn’t be killing intelligent, sentiment animals for food where it’s not necessary to do so. I have accepted my hypocrisy on that point as I eat meat. But I eat substantially less than I used to. Indeed, all my dinners in the coming week are vegan.
Ray and I have discussed this already. You can go read the posts if you like.

The super meat bro thing was clearly a jokey comment and I explained that in posts following. Did it upset you?

There’s no hypocrisy by me saying people are posting their opinions and then I posted mine. If I said, “it’s wrong to post your opinion” and then posted mine, you’d be right. But I didn’t. I said “people are posting their opinion, not fact” (or words similar) and then posted my opinion. I didn’t moan, complain, etc.

What exactly is your intention here? I have shown that you are wrong and I have no idea what your point is.
The tone of your post was quite clear that it was a snide jab at people by claiming they were all posting opinions and not facts...
Funny how you can accept your own hypocrisy about eating meat, but you cannot admit it about your own posts. Why did you attempt to construct all those strawmen? Asking about my diet, as if a single person is in any way representative of "the average non-vegan diet" ?
Then fabricating the idea that I said people were not allowed to post opinion, it must only be facts and peer reviewed?

What exactly is your intention here? I have shown that you were (and still are) being a hypocrite and nobody has a clue what point you are attempting to make when you keep constructing false arguments and fabricating comments?
 
The tone of your post was quite clear that it was a snide jab at people by claiming they were all posting opinions and not facts...
Funny how you can accept your own hypocrisy about eating meat, but you cannot admit it about your own posts. Why did you attempt to construct all those strawmen? Asking about my diet, as if a single person is in any way representative of "the average non-vegan diet" ?
Then fabricating the idea that I said people were not allowed to post opinion, it must only be facts and peer reviewed?

What exactly is your intention here? I have shown that you were (and still are) being a hypocrite and nobody has a clue what point you are attempting to make when you keep constructing false arguments and fabricating comments?

I have no intention, beyond a nice conversation. I suggested that an average vegan diet is better than an average non-vegan only diet. Katie, Angilion and Ray agreed with me (albeit with caveats, such as this is only true when compared to a UK/USA diet). You are the one who seems to not accept this, and I'm not sure why. That's why I asked what your diet was. Perhaps you are super healthy, have no friends, and never go to an average supermarket so your idea is average is different to mine. That's why I asked what you ate. Because I was interested, not to create some strawman.
You clearly don't want to discuss this in good faith. I have conceded points to both Katie and Ray tonight, clearly showing that I'm happy to.

You have wrongly assumed I was vegan, despite saying numerous times in this thread that I eat meat. You have wrongly assumed that I was complaining about people posting their opinion. And now you are assuming my tone was a snide jab. Saying two of your three assumptions were wrong, I think it's safe to say the third is likely to also be wrong. I'll put you out your misery, and let you know that it is.
 
It's good when discussion leads to a reconsideration of views or even a mild recalibration or, and I'm grasping here, at least a semi-informal self-check on where you stand on important matt -

No? Carry on.
 
I have no intention, beyond a nice conversation. I suggested that an average vegan diet is better than an average non-vegan only diet. Katie, Angilion and Ray agreed with me (albeit with caveats, such as this is only true when compared to a UK/USA diet). You are the one who seems to not accept this, and I'm not sure why. That's why I asked what your diet was. Perhaps you are super healthy, have no friends, and never go to an average supermarket so your idea is average is different to mine. That's why I asked what you ate. Because I was interested, not to create some strawman.
You clearly don't want to discuss this in good faith. I have conceded points to both Katie and Ray tonight, clearly showing that I'm happy to.

You have wrongly assumed I was vegan, despite saying numerous times in this thread that I eat meat. You have wrongly assumed that I was complaining about people posting their opinion. And now you are assuming my tone was a snide jab. Saying two of your three assumptions were wrong, I think it's safe to say the third is likely to also be wrong. I'll put you out your misery, and let you know that it is.
Yet your suggestion was also opinions with no facts, anecdotal evidence based upon your tiny (relative to population) cluster of people close to you.

It is your opinion that vegans have the morale high ground.. OK, that's fine. but it is also no more or less valid (or correct / false) than another persons opinion that they do not have the morale high ground. It is akin to "feels" over "facts" .. something which western society has been painfully suffering from in recent years (Trump, Brexit, Boris, etc.. etc..)
To truly know / judge if something is better than something else, not only do you need a significantly large sample size (ref: the conversations regarding Japanese / Mediterranean diets), this kind of data simply does not exist for vegan diets on a large enough scale to make comparisons. It needs to be quantifiable, not subjective / anecdotal.

At that point it all just falls apart and comes down to what 1 person "feels" vs what other person "feels" and as such, become nothing more than an unquantifiable mess, you can make no valid assertion from it.

A significant point of note is the level of anthropomorphising which happens almost automatically, subconsciously, simply because we are by nature, empathic creatures (not actual sci-fi empath, more that we can often read / perceive the feelings / emotions of others by their body language etc..), prone to altruism (we would not have survived this long had this not been the case). The assumption that "lower levels of life" can interpret, perceive or even "feel" pain the way we do, the notion of "suffering" which is very much a mental construct. That they have a "will" or "desire" to live, vs pre-programmed pathways in the brain developed over millions of years of evolution which result in a response we think we recognize as something familiar to a human emotion.

The very notion of "sentience" and feeling pain vs nothing more than automated response to stimuli (nociception) triggering a certain behavioral response that was honed over generations through basic Darwinism is still a massive unknown to science in general and it is quite possible (warning:- opinion incoming) that we (as humans) may be the only creature on this planet that can truly "feel" pain and suffering the way we do and no other lifeform does, at which point it rather disrupts many (not all) of the pro-vegan arguments relating to the industrial farming of animals (Pain, suffering, brutal conditions etc..) - And don't misunderstand me, I am 100% for improving animal welfare in any way possible, I in no way advocate the mis-treatment of farm animals, nor inhumane methods of slaughter such as halal.

However I have to question the idea that people can come to an "informed opinion" (especially regarding the pain / suffering / sentience) when many of the things they are using as a foundation to their opinion are still entirely unknown, in some cases quite possibly unknowable (or at least untestable / unprovable), as such they end up constructing a "house of cards" with opinion formed based upon another opinion and another opinion. It ends up as nothing more than "feels" and only takes 1 of those "foundation" opinions to end up being incorrect and the whole house of cards collapses and you find you actually had formed a very uninformed opinion, but was actually deferring to "feels" over any serious, logical analysis
 
Last edited:
Have you read any of the literally thousands of journal entries by Oxford alone on this? (not sure why you're citing one university anyway, it's not Oxford's strongest discipline - plenty from Harvard, Cambridge and dozens of others) - to cite a few of the recent ones. Increased hormone disruption, lack of haemoglobin, reduction in omega 3, vitamin B12 deficiency, inhibited zinc absorption, carbohydrate over-concentration, increased risk of stroke, calcium deficiencies, high heavy metal intake. Vitamin D intake is usually 25% that of omnivores. It's also telling that in many of these studies the plant-based sources fail to have many of the health benefits (eg Omega 3 from plants doesn't have the impact that fish-based sources have). Most interesting from most of these studies is how centred they are on neurological impacts - given evolutionary theory posits that meat eating is what grew the pre-human brain - taking it away causes permanent neurological damage (if B12 deficiencies persist), increased stroke risk (general vegan diet), EPA/DHA deficiencies damage eye and brain function etc.

Don't get me wrong, being a vegan has advantages too (although these largely vanish when we retrench the data against historical trends - ie we've stopped eating as many grains, fruit and veg rather than we've started eating meat) - but every health service on the planet suggests fortified food, vitamin supplements and multiple workaround solutions for a vegan diet to have long term balance, which results in far too much processed food for my liking and it certainly isn't a 'natural' diet.


I have no idea where you're drawing this from - neuroscience has spent decades seeking to understand the concept of pain and still can't define, but it's great that you've solved it... ;) At no point have I or any neuroscientist claimed animals don't feel pain - we've said the concept of pain is complex. At a first year neuroscience level 'pain' is measured through:
- nociception
- stress neurobiology
- neurotag/pain memory
- beliefs/previous memory
- cortical plasticity
- descending modulation
- neuroimmunity
- central sensitisation
- peripheral sensitisation

Then all the above have to play through the various centres of the brain to create a concept of pain.
Even at a human level this is illogical - hence Nobel Prize winners have observed that colonoscopies were deemed less 'painful' when a smaller probe was inserted into the patient's rectum after the larger one > ie clearly more pain inflicted, but less pain observed. When humans eat hot chillis they trigger pain receptors, despite absolutely no actual pain being inflicted on us (it's an odd miswiring of mammals, hence birds can eat the hottest chillis without any pain). Why is it you can't feel pain when adrenaline is rushing - hence a lot of wartime deaths are actually pretty painless (countless accounts of people's legs being ripped off and genuinely not realising/feeling pain, yet when you calm down it becomes agony). I can go on and on with examples, but this is only humans - so when statements 'animals feel pain' are made, it's wildly different to your anthropomorphised assumption.


My point is improve farms, don't stop meat - much like someone saying 'stop driving' is the solution to car accidents, rather than 'improve cars'

Anyway, enjoy the veg - I like having data on my side, after all.... 84% of vegetarians/vegans start eating meat again... so odds are with me... ;)

Yes I have, have you? You cant make all those claims then provide no citations, but I do agree the evidence regarding nutrition does vary from source to source.


You're still dodging my question, if I derive pleasure from the sound a dog makes when I kick it, is that ok?

You're really over complicating this pain thing, do non human animals feel pain or not?

84%? heh, again citation needed. People that say this probably never actually went vegan in the first place they think its a "diet"

How to you 'improve' the unnecessary slaughter of sentient beings? Its not profitable that's why there's so much abuse, like pigs having their tails chopped off, castrated, then living inside for 5 months before being gassed with carbon dioxide.
 
Last edited:
Yet your suggestion was also opinions with no facts, anecdotal evidence based upon your tiny (relative to population) cluster of people close to you.

At that point it all just falls apart and comes down to what 1 person "feels" vs what other person "feels" and as such, become nothing more than an unquantifiable mess, you can make no valid assertion from it.

A significant point of note is the level of anthropomorphising which happens almost automatically, subconsciously, simply because we are by nature, empathic creatures (not actual sci-fi empath, more that we can often read / perceive the feelings / emotions of others by their body language etc..), prone to altruism (we would not have survived this long had this not been the case). The assumption that "lower levels of life" can interpret, perceive or even "feel" pain the way we do, the notion of "suffering" which is very much a mental construct. That they have a "will" or "desire" to live, vs pre-programmed pathways in the brain developed over millions of years of evolution which result in a response we think we recognize as something familiar to a human emotion.

The very notion of "sentience" and feeling pain vs nothing more than automated response to stimuli (nociception) triggering a certain behavioral response that was honed over generations through basic Darwinism is still a massive unknown to science in general and it is quite possible (warning:- opinion incoming) that we (as humans) may be the only creature on this planet that can truly "feel" pain and suffering the way we do and no other lifeform does, at which point it rather disrupts many (not all) of the pro-vegan arguments relating to the industrial farming of animals (Pain, suffering, brutal conditions etc..) - And don't misunderstand me, I am 100% for improving animal welfare in any way possible, I in no way advocate the mis-treatment of farm animals, nor inhumane methods of slaughter such as halal.

However I have to question the idea that people can come to an "informed opinion" (especially regarding the pain / suffering / sentience) when many of the things they are using as a foundation to their opinion are still entirely unknown, in some cases quite possibly unknowable (or at least untestable / unprovable), as such they end up constructing a "house of cards" with opinion formed based upon another opinion and another opinion. It ends up as nothing more than "feels" and only takes 1 of those "foundation" opinions to end up being incorrect and the whole house of cards collapses and you find you actually had formed a very uninformed opinion, but was actually deferring to "feels" over any serious, logical analysis

What youre saying is absurd, you only need to watch the documentary I posted, view slaughterhouse footage or pigs being "processed" as piglets.

We don't need some scientific paper to tell me that when I watch footage of pig having its tail chopped off and it squeals, or when a cow gets bolt gunned in the head a few times because it doesn't always work and it bellows, to know these animals obviously suffer and obviously feel pain.
 
Lawdy lawd,
What youre saying is absurd, you only need to watch the documentary I posted, view slaughterhouse footage or pigs being "processed" as piglets.

We don't need some scientific paper to tell me that when I watch footage of pig having its tail chopped off and it squeals, or when a cow gets bolt gunned in the head a few times because it doesn't always work and it bellows, to know these animals obviously suffer and obviously feel pain.

I'm having a Tomahawk steak for lunch, what are you having? A bowl of lettuce?
 
Lawdy lawd,


I'm having a Tomahawk steak for lunch, what are you having? A bowl of lettuce?

You post a lot in here for someone that says they "dont care"

Going to a vegan/veggie burger place for a treat, ive never been but food looks alright.

281944750_739928530536695_4194356041221574257_n.webpfull.jpg
 
Last edited:
You post a lot in here for someone that says they "dont care"

Going to a vegan burger place for a treat.

I thoroughly enjoy posting in here though and will continue to do so as long as you're playing the "ehrmahgehrd poor animals" card.

You seem to think that a) anyone cares about your opinion and b) you stand a modicum of a chance of converting someone to veganism.

Tell you what - you get one single person to say they're converting as a result of this thread and I'll buy you a lottery ticket.
 
I thoroughly enjoy posting in here though and will continue to do so as long as you're playing the "ehrmahgehrd poor animals" card.

You seem to think that a) anyone cares about your opinion and b) you stand a modicum of a chance of converting someone to veganism.

Tell you what - you get one single person to say they're converting as a result of this thread and I'll buy you a lottery ticket.

75 pages? People obviously care. Like someone else said, it was on page 2 and done with, then someone says dumb **** like "aNiMaLs dOnT feEl PaIn lIkE wE dO"

Not trying to convert, trying to make people think about their food choices and how it affects animals.
 
75 pages? People obviously care. Like someone else said, it was on page 2 and done with, then someone says dumb **** like "aNiMaLs dOnT feEl PaIn lIkE wE dO"

Not trying to convert, trying to make people think about their food choices and how it affects animals.

To what end? What are you hoping to achieve?


This thread and all your posts will accomplish absolutely nothing.
 
You post a lot in here for someone that says they "dont care"

Going to a vegan/veggie burger place for a treat, ive never been but food looks alright.

281944750_739928530536695_4194356041221574257_n.webpfull.jpg

Keeps going on about how healthy vegan food is, posts a massive pile of salt-loaded processed food...

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given how we got pages and pages of "vEganIsM iS goOd fOr tha enVironMent" oh but driving and going on transatlantic flights is fine even if it's 8 times worse for the environment
 
Keeps going on about how healthy vegan food is, posts a massive pile of salt-loaded processed food...

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given how we got pages and pages of "vEganIsM iS goOd fOr tha enVironMent" oh but driving and going on transatlantic flights is fine even if it's 8 times worse for the environment
And what are you having for lunch? What's wrong with a treat? At least, in this area, Johno Please is trying to do something that he thinks is right. That is, reduce animal suffering. What's wrong with that and why do you feel it necessary to criticise that? Do you agree with animal suffering?

Go and start a thread about air travel if you want to discuss that.
 
And what are you having for lunch? What's wrong with a treat? At least, in this area, Johno Please is trying to do something that he thinks is right. That is, reduce animal suffering. What's wrong with that and why do you feel it necessary to criticise that? Do you agree with animal suffering?

Go and start a thread about air travel if you want to discuss that.

Johno can probably defend himself, but he's the one telling other people what to do - people in glass houses. A quick look at his own lifestyle shows he doesn't actually care about his side of the argument, he just read something on the internet once and now uses it to try to belittle others. I'm not starting a thread telling people not to fly, because I don't mind if people fly, but if I did start a thread to do that I would not be surprised if people started questioning some of MY life choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom