Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The purpose of this post is to help those who are unfamiliar with veganism or those who are interested in the ideology.

This post is in the "Serious Discussions" forum because I would love to have an open discussion about veganism.

Also, I will be editing this post with responses to any question you guys ask.

 

Tagging people who I think would appreciate the read: @Travesty @Ordinarygamer96 @MistaChang

 

What is veganism?

According to The Vegan Society, veganism is "... is a 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."

In other words, someone who considers themselves a vegan is a person who refrains from using any animal product/services (even if it does not cause harm to the animal), unless dire circumstances arise. The most common things a vegan will avoid are: 

  • Meats/Poultry/Seafood
  • Dairy (milk, butter, cheese, etc.) and eggs
  • Honey
  • Clothing made from fur, silk, wool, etc.
  • Cosmetics or medicines tested on animals
  • Visiting zoos and circuses

Why go vegan?

The reason people go vegan varies from person to person, however, most people who go vegan do so for ethical, environmental, or health reasons.

 

In this post, I will primarily be addressing the ethical beliefs behind veganism, but I will gladly answer any non-troll question regarding veganism.

 

Ethical concerns

A vegan who follows the ideology for ethical reasons is most likely aware of the fact that all animals are sentient; they are capable of perceiving and feeling things, such as emotion and pain. Therefore, because an animal (primarily cows, pigs, and chicken) can feel pain, they should not be subjected to systematic torture, exploitation, and ultimately slaughter for relatively inconsequential appetite. Simply put, a vegan does not believe our taste buds are worth more than the life of an animal, and that animals should be able to live a life as free of unnecessary pain and suffering as possible. 

 

Common fallacies and arguments made against veganism (arguments and responses mainly provided by "Your Vegan Fallacy Is")

"Animals are not intelligent enough to matter and humans are at the top of the food chain"

 

My Response: This argument is based on the idea of speciesism, which is defined as a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. By following this train of thought, it would seem reasonable that any non-human animals are subject to our will, including dogs, cats, and other animals that we adore and call family. However, I believe a majority of Americans would be appalled at the thought of people harming and killing a dog, in fact, it is seen as a crime and the offender can serve jail time depending on the state. By picking and choosing which animals are allowed to live a relatively happy life, you are displaying speciesism. The matter of the fact is, ALL animals are smart enough to be able to feel pain and to feel a sense of suffering. While the degree of which they suffer is arguably lesser than what a human would go through, it is suffering nonetheless. 

 

YVFI Response: All animals are intellectually and emotionally sophisticated relative to their own species, and many have thoughts and emotions more complex than those of young human children or the mentally disabled. Even so, it is not logical or equitable to withhold ethical considerations from individuals whom we imagine think or feel differently than we do. We uphold the basic rights of humans who do not reach certain intellectual and emotional benchmarks, so it is only logical that we should uphold these rights for all sentient beings. Denying them to non-human animals is base speciesism and, therefore, ethically indefensible. Further, it is problematic to assert that intelligence and emotional capacity exist on a linear scale where insects occupy one end and humans occupy the other. For example, bees are experts in the language of dance and communicate all sorts of things with it. Should humans who cannot communicate through interpretive dance be considered less intelligent than bees? Finally, even if an intellectual or emotional benchmark were justification for killing a sentient being, there is no scientific support for the claim that a capacity for intelligence or emotion equals a capacity for suffering. In fact, there is a great deal of scientific support for just the opposite; that because non-human animals do not possess the ability to contextualize their suffering as humans do, that suffering is much greater.

 

Cont': The terms 'food chain' and 'food web' refer to a natural ecological system whereby producers in a specific habitat are eaten by consumers in that same habitat. The term 'circle of life' has no scientific meaning at all. In neither case do the terms refer to the human consumption of animals, since humans do not exist as consumers in a natural ecological system where cows, pigs, cats, dogs, fish and other food animals are producers. The only use of the terms 'food chain' or 'circle of life' in the context of human food choices is to legitimize the slaughter of sentient individuals by calling that slaughter a necessary and natural part of human life, which means the apex predator justification for eating animals is a failure on two fronts. First, the terms themselves either do not apply to the ecological relationship we have with animals or they have no meaning at all. Second, we do not need to eat animals in order to survive, so the underlying moral imperative of 'might makes right' is not ethically defensible. By analogy, a bank robber might claim to be at the top of the corporate ladder since he had the ability to take what belonged to others and chose to do so.

 

TLDR: Animals are intelligent enough to feel pain and suffer, therefore it is immoral to depend on them for food when we can live and thrive on a plant-based diet

 

The life of a pig in a U.K. slaughterhouse (NSFW): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o67mK42zgOU

 

"I have canines, therefore I should eat meat"

 

YVFI Response: Using dentition as an indicator of diet is a hard case to make. Domestic cats and dogs have similar dental structures, but cats are obligate carnivores and dogs can be vegan. Gorillas are herbivores with long canines. Our own teeth are closer to those of herbivores than carnivores, but we are capable of digesting the flesh and secretions of other species, which means that we can choose to eat plants, animals or both. So it's clear that a species' teeth are not a reliable determinant of its dietary requirements.

 

My add-on: We have pathetic ass canine teeth, meanwhile hippos are running around with their gigantic canines eating mostly plants.

 

"Animals eat other animals, therefore it's okay if I do it"

 

YVFI Response: Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities that do not and should not provide a logical foundation for our behavior. This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of stoats, alligators and other predators when making decisions about our own behavior.

 

My response: I have found a great video that I think I would more or less just copy in text, so I'd rather just share the short video for you to watch (See below).

 

 

"Plants can feel pain, so it's immoral and hypocritical for you to eat them"

 

My response: Plants lack a brain, nerves, and a central nervous system altogether, so scientifically they cannot feel pain. Plants do in fact react to their environment, however, this is not a conscious decision made by the plants (they cannot make conscious decisions). 

 

YFVI add-on: Regardless, each pound of animal flesh requires between four and thirteen pounds of plant matter to produce, depending upon species and conditions. Given that amount of plant death, a belief in the sentience of plants makes a strong pro-vegan argument.

 

"A vegan diet isn't healthy"

Quick video by Earthling Ed explaining the benefits of a vegan diet.

 

 

TLDW: The American Dietetic Association and British Dietetic Association have stated that a vegan diet is healthy and adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy. All nutrients that we need to survive are available in plant-based forms, and can also be found in supplements if you have trouble reaching the needed daily amounts. Furthermore, some of the largest animals, such as gorillas and elephants, are purely herbivorous and manage to get enough protein in them to keep their strong physique through plants. Also, there are many athletes and bodybuilders who thrive on plant-based diets. Things like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, certain cancers, and more are preventable/reduced by eliminating animals products that are high in saturated fat (red meats, whole milk, certain cheese, etc.)

 

"My religion says it's okay to eat animals"

 

YVFI Response: There are many religions with many diverse teachings on the topic of eating meat. In some, there are prohibitions against eating certain animals. In others, it is permissible to both sacrifice animals and eat them. However, it is important to remember that religious permission is not the same as religious imperative. In other words, simply because your religion permits you to eat meat, that does not mean it requires you to do so.

 

My response: As with any of these arguments, there is a lot to cover, and with religion, I feel it is best to discuss it on a case-by-case basis. However, my response would follow the response given above. Most, if not all major religions call for the compassion of their believers, and while it may have been necessary for people to survive on animals hundreds and thousands of years ago, it is not necessary now. Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that an all-loving God, who created these animals to feel emotions and potentially suffering, would prefer his followers to choose a plant-based diet because it is now clearly shown that humans can thrive on the diet. Again, I believe that if two plates of food were put in front of you, one plant-based, then other made with animals, your God would be happier with you choosing the meal where no animals had to die.

 

This is the end of the original post, there are many areas and arguments I did not cover for the sake of my personal time. However, I am more than happy to answer any serious questions you bring up. I will post my response as a comment and add it to this post below as an edit! Also, I'll share some great videos/documentaries that I highly suggest everybody watches!:)

 

Earthlings (2005 documentary): http://www.nationearth.com/

Speech given by Earthling Ed (HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3u7hXpOm58

 

More by Earthling Ed: 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, waffles said:

I would agree that the conditions for 'animal farms' are pretty atrocious across the board including the living conditions of the animals, the generated waste, and all of the antibiotics/hormones used in their production. A plant based diet produces less waste, but there are some concerns with larger scale agricultural production such as fertilizer use.  I have several friends who are vegan and/or vegetarian and I admire their dedication.  However I have some arguments against veganism and the points you made.

 

1.  Scientific research/safety is dependent on testing the effects of drugs, chemicals etc. on animals in order to determine effectiveness, toxicity and lethal doses.  Obviously these animals are suffering but it is for the purpose of furthering our scientific understanding and preventing human suffering.  Is this worthwhile?

 

2.  Humans are what we are today because of diets consisting of meat.  It was not until the development of modern day agriculture and transportation that a vegan diet became possible.  Many early civilizations were hunter and gatherer base societies which allowed for population growth and movement as meat is more calorie dense.  There are some evolutionary traits that point to an omnivore diet.  Humans don't have multiple stomachs or bacteria that can break down cellulose like cows or gorillas do.  As for the point about teeth, canines in herbivores can be used for other purposes such as defense, mating, and breaking up plant matter.  Human evolutionary brain development could also be very well linked to the omnivore diet our early ancestors relied on.  

 

3.  I might not be are but to my knowledge there are no comprehensive/long term studies that argue that a vegan diet is any better than an omnivore diet.  I know vegans require a vitamin B12 supplement and need to eat certain foods to obtain essential amino acids.  Could a switch to a strictly plant based diet have other long term and/or developmental effects that we are not aware of? Maybe, maybe not.  On the flip-side the meat we eat today is genetically modified and treated with antibiotics which could be just as detrimental as our early ancestors were dependent on wild game which are much different from modern day farm animals.

 

4.  Speciesm is a weak argument in my opinion.  As humans we make collective decisions within society to decide what is moral and immoral.  I can only laugh at the idea of the declaration of independence stating "All species are created equal".  Dogs and cats are valued in society whereas pests like cockroaches, termites, and mosquitoes we exterminate if we find them in our homes.   If our dog has a tick we remove it. Should we bring all natural carnivores to trial for their serial killer like tendencies?  

 

Does the fly Obama brutally executed on national TV not have feelings and a family? First drone strikes now this?!?!  Has the power of the president gone too far?!?! /s

 

Sure the way animals in industrial meat production have little quality of life, but the idea that all animals should and can be treated equally is preposterous.  There is a natural hierarchy in the food chain.

 

Just presenting some counterpoints and playing devil's advocate.

 

I would recommend anyone reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book that dives into the modern day food industry.  It does not advocate for veganism but talks about the industrialization of food including meat and produce.

15

1. I am not well-based on animal testing, so I cannot give a great answer. However, I think the important thing to note is that we should always seek alternatives if they are available. I will definitely look more into this and comment back if I find anything.

 

2. I think most vegans are in agreement that a vegan diet was incredibly difficult to follow through about 30 years back, and I would agree that humans might not be where we are today if we didn't rely on it. However, that is not a justification to eat meat NOW. Before, it could have been argued that animal consumption was necessary, but we have advanced so much where we don't need to eat animal flesh or any products they produce. No rational vegan would say that we are herbivores, we are indeed carnivores; we have the capability to consume (albeit pretty poorly in some cases) animal products like meat and milk. But the idea behind veganism in today's society is that we have a choice to choose between a purely plant-based diet and a nonplant-based diet. Because we have that choice, it means there is not a necessity for animal consumption, so what becomes the moral justification for eating the animals? 

 

3. Vegan diets have recently received more attention and is being studied more now. There is no definite proof on long-term benefits of a purely plant-based diet, however, it is shown that diets high in saturated fats are associated with heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer's, high cholesterol, etc. Vegan diets are typically very low in saturated fats, while a typical omnivore diet has to watch out because of the saturated fats in dairy and certain meats. It is true that B12 is not naturally found in plant-based foods, but there are a plethora of B12 fortified cereals, plant-based milk, and more. Personally, I take an iron supplement and a B12 supplement just because I know I won't be able to meet my requirements everyday (It should be noted that non-vegan also have a high rate of B12 deficiency, it is not only a "vegan issue"). Overall though, studies have shown that vegans have lower BMIs compared to humans who eat meat and also to vegetarians. 

 

4. Vegan sometime are split on the issue of insects, I personally still kill spiders in my apartment (I have caught and released a few), because I am terrified of them. I know I shouldn't kill them, and it's something I work on, but no one can be perfect. Regardless. I think its safe to say that vegans generally agrees killing mosquitos are okay, they present a threat to you (they can carry diseases). Also, it's not that species are created equal or have to be treated equally to humans. It's that we believe that they deserve the basic right that we humans get to enjoy, the freedom of life and the choices that come with it. In regards to natural carnivores, I suggest you watch the 3-minute video I posted about animals eating other animals. It talks about something called moral agency, and why we cannot really blame wild animals for their actions.

 

 

15 hours ago, Bear-Man-Thing said:

I don't care for being vegan, cause I like to consume animal products. But this is the first I've heard of avoiding zoos and aquariums because you're vegan.

I work at an aquarium in a husbandry department. The animals eat better than me. If the zoo or aquarium you're going to visit isn't AZA accredited, I'd highly recommend not going. Most zoos and aquariums in western society do their absolute best to ensure the animals are cared for both nutritionally and mentally. Enrichments are made on a regular basis and they are provided with vitamins and supplements that ensure they are well cared for and have a diet that simulates their natural environment.

Please, just because you care about animal well-being, don't not go to zoos and aquariums. I'd love to tell you about the work that most AZA accredited institutions help to ensure wild populations are in balance with their natural environment. Research and care goes into exhibiting and protection of both the exhibited animal and their counter parts in the wild. We do a lot to conserve our friends out in the wild through research and education.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 

6

Because you like the taste of their flesh, eggs, or milk is not a moral justification to increase the demand for their products. Something I brought up in the original post was that vegans believe that our taste buds and those 15 minutes where we enjoy the taste of an animal's carcass is not worth their only life being taken away from them. 

 

Do you think your taste buds are worth more than their life? 

If not, then what is your moral justification for doing that?

 

In regards to zoos and aquariums, vegans attempt to not contribute to the exploitation of animals. While it may be cool for a class to see whales, fish, zebras, etc. it is not okay to keep them captive in an exhibit for what I assume to be the rest of their life. I know of few cases where the animals are rescues and they would not be able to survive alone in the wild, and that I believe can be argued to be a valid exception. However, as far as I know, most animals in zoos and aquariums do not fall into that category. As with animal testing, I am not the most well-versed so I would love to hear more about AZA institution via PM or here.

 

Thanks for the response!


 

Quote

 

 I honestly can get behind the thought of going vegetarian (even though I would never do it), but this is something I can not get behind. And quite honestly I do not understand it.

 

 

In the end everything I am going to say about these things is that if you buy these things locally from a farmer or a friend or whatever it should be okay, shouldn't it be?

 

1. Chickens will lay eggs no matter what, it doesn`t hurt them and it is something they will have to do. Just be sure to buy those eggs locally from a farmer or a friend or get your own chickens, we have had chickens for decades. As long as the egg isn't "pregnant" (no clue how to call that sorry) it should be fair game to vegans shouldn't it be?

2. Same basically goes for milk.

3. We have many beekeepers here where I live, they protect the bees take care of them and to their best to keep them alive and well. We need bees to survive and I am pretty sure that we actually do not have natuaral beehives here anymore, they are all from the beekeepers and they support them selfes by seelling honey. Without the money from selling it they wouldn't be able to keep them alive. It doesn't hurt the to make honey and you will keep the alive if you buy the honey.

4. I honestly don't see a problem with wool, sheep need to be shorn.

5. Basically what @Bear-Man-Thing said about zoos.

 

 

 

8

 

 

1. Chicken's do lay eggs naturally, however, they are kept in awful conditions, even when labeled "free-range". Free-range eggs are more or less a marketing ploy used to make consumers feel better about where their eggs are coming from. The hens still are debeaked without anesthesia and like I said, the conditions are still shit. Furthermore, male chicks are killed extremely young because they do not get as big as female chickens and they obviously cannot lay eggs themselves. By supporting (buying) eggs from even local farmers, you are supporting all the consequences of it. Unless you yourself have seen the conditions of the chickens, you cannot simply trust your local farmer, because chances are, they don't treat them well (especially the male chicks). 

 

2. Milk, in my opinion, is crueler than what happens to chickens. Female cows are artificially inseminated (a human fist is shoved into their reproductive tract, where they will put the sperm). A few hours after the birth the calf will be permanently (in most cases) separated from the mother. The female calves will grow up to live the same fate as their mother, whereas the male calves will generally be chained up and ultimately slaughtered at around 14 weeks old for veal. These calves never get to drink their mother's milk, we take it away from them. My numbers might be a bit off, but the average dairy cow is supposed to be able to live up to 12 years, but because of the constant stress put on the mother (constant milkings and births) they die around the age of 3 or 4. Again, by demanding milk, you require a farmer to forcefully impregnate a cow, separate the mother of their newborn, then deprive that newborn of its mother's milk. By supporting the dairy industry, you are supporting the consequences.

 

3. This is from YVFI: "In commercial honey operations, queens are purchased after having been artificially inseminated with crushed males. The wings of these queens are ripped off to prevent them from flying away, and while they would normally live to four years old, they are killed at age two to make room for younger queens. Further, commercial hives are often left to die by starvation and exposure or killed as a means of controlling stock. Even in smaller honey operations where bees are treated gently, some are crushed to death when their hives are disturbed. Beekeepers in these environments often replace honey with sugar or corn syrup to maximize profits, but these are not a bee’s natural food, and they are not sufficient to sustain an entire hive through the winter. Ultimately, wild hives create living conditions and food stores ideally suited to sustain themselves, but human intervention results in starvation, suffering and death for bees. So since humans do not need honey to survive, eating it is indeed unethical."

 

4. Sorry for not responding in my own words, but it's getting a bit late and this website does a great job of explaining things: "Essentially all wool comes from sheep sheared on industrial farms, which often involves very rough handling of the sheep and is a process which inflicts painful nicks and cuts on the sheep's skin. These injuries attract flies and promote "flystrike", especially around their tail where the skin bunches up. To combat this, so two strips of wool-bearing skin from around either side of the sheep's buttocks are removed, without using anesthetics, in order to create a scarred area of flesh that's less susceptible to infestations. This process is called "mulesing". It is also important to remember that there are no "old-animals" homes for animals that are no longer profitable to industry, and sheep are no exception. When they age and no longer produce as much wool they are shipped to the slaughter house, and this happens long before their natural lifespan. It's clear that sheep are very much hurt by all of this. Like any animal used by agribusiness, the abuses of sheep has many different facets. Sheep in the wool industry are selectively bred specifically to have more wrinkled skin so that they produce more wool, and this makes them more vulnerable to injuries during sheering and consequently causing more incidents of "flystrike". This creates greater profits for the industry while imposing negative consequences on the sheep themselves, which makes wool production a very typical example of how animal exploitation industries take advantage of the vulnerabilities of others in ethically indefensible ways. Put differently, in order to use wool for ourselves, we must decide that the satisfaction of our own desires is somehow more important than the rights and needs of others. By contrast, the philosophy of veganism denies the validity of any line of thinking which seeks to justify abusing others for our own gain."

 

5. Read my response about zoos, unless the animal was a rescue, I see no reason as to why it should be subjected to live its life in a cage as an exhibit for our entertainment. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

The vegetarian aspect of veganism was one of the topics that was an eye-opener for me in my Ethics course because it was the one idea where even though I realized logically that I'm in the wrong, I still continue and choose to be a sinner. Like Karma, a steak is *really* tasty. But I agree with Jodas, if Betsy the cow is livin the good life on old Macdonald's farm, I don't see how it's wrong if that family milks her for her milk. I get that there are some really shitty farms out there but shitty farm is the only reasoning I'm seeing against harvesting these by-products (milk,honey,etc) and as the sole argument, it's not strong enough to defend the premise. Even as a non-vegan, I agree that we need to crack down on how farms operate -- it's simply not a vegan issue but an animal cruelty one that we all can agree on. I don't see any arguments against us living in harmony with bees living the good life in good bee farms and cows chilling with farmers besides "it's not natural". Also, it's easy to release a sea lion into the ocean and think that it then lives a "normal" life but land animals? If the whole world suddenly went vegan overnight, we're gonna need a lot more nature reservations for all the current animals in captivity.

 

Veganism is about living your life while striving for less suffering(killing) in the world and the suffering part is what made me realize I was wrong -- it's crazy to me how that's overlooked in these points above and also in ignoring zoos and aquariums (which from what I've seen and heard care very deeply about their animals btw so this really shouldn't be advocated for). You could technically argue that they're suffering in these points but honestly that's reaching a bit. The suffering part is a strong enough argument and imo these simply weaken it. I dunno why people focus on the plant part and attack it as if it defends a non-vegetarian point. The idea is simple in that plants are just the lowest form of sentience (if you can even call it that) to consume -- the philosophy's key words being less suffering (least suffering for some vegans), not no suffering.

I loved veganism as an ethics topic because it lead to a ton of juicy topics. Ethics is all about logic and when you make a statement like "it's okay to repeatedly raise and kill something as long as it benefits people", that sets a precedent for future topics like stem cells, organ farms, and other controversies. It was interesting to see the backpedaling in a discussion I had and the attempts to change the arguments to be "human friendly".

10

While theoretically, you can get eggs from chickens without *you* causing them to suffer (the selectively breeding chickens and many other animals went through puts continuous stress on their body as they were not meant to produce so much produce), I truly believe you cannot ever get milk without their species to suffer. The milk is made for the newborn, just like any other mammal. By giving us humans milk, we are taking away not only the nutritional substance that will be used to help a cow become healthy, we take them away from bonding. Just like humans, cows have been observed to be maternal creatures. You put stress on the mother and the calf by separating them and not allowing her to feed her child. 

In regards to an animal living the good life, at the end of the day, they are on that farm to make money for the farmers. They are being exploited for financial gain against their will. Furthermore, having shitty conditions is how most farms are operated, local or not. The severity of the conditions obviously varies, however at the end of the day, in order to get milk you are depriving a mother and calf of bonding, and giving that newborn a dietary substitute, just because of our taste preference. To wrap it up - Most farms practice undeniably cruel practices and beyond awful conditions for their cows. There are some that can do a better job, like giving them big open fields to roam. But the matter of the fact is, a dairy farmer is going to send a male calf to the slaughterhouse for veal, and the female calf will have to go through the same hardships that her mother went through (artificial semination, constant milkings, being separated from her children). Like I said to Jodas, there are consequences that happen when we begin to consume milk, and we are responsible for those consequences as well.

 

On topic is bees, obviously the degree to which they suffer is lesser than that of cows and chickens, however, some bee farms are not cared for at all. Regardless, the reason I personally don't consume honey is that it's incredibly easy to avoid, and also that it always falls into the category of exploitation for me, even when done as humanely as possible. 

 

Lastly, I don't think any reasonable vegan wants everyone to become vegan overnight. I'd assume a majority understand changes need to be made step-by-step to ensure there is no dramatic shift that causes an economic crisis or something like that. While obviously, I don't know the perfect plan to prevent that, what I do know is that people can begin to reduce their dairy and meat consumption and begin to purchase alternatives. 

 

I 100% agree with you that it is in the vegan's interest to reduce suffering as much as possible, not necessarily completely, because no one can be a perfect vegan. 

 

 

10 hours ago, camelFun said:

This is why veganism is retarded. These bold, presumptuous statements follow the same logic Admiralty law people who don't want to pay for anything do. Let me throw another retarded one that follows the same logic at you:

 

Because some people in society chose to mutilate their bodies, or undergo hormone therapy, we know that gender and sex are choices. Because we have that choice, what is the moral justification for being a toxic male?

 

This virtuous facade is what throws away any good vegans want to do in the world. You shouldn't have to guilt people into doing good; it should be natural; because it's good.

 

Saying that we live in a time where we don't need to consume animals spits in the face of anyone who values nutrition. This sounds retarded, but hear me out. When we have people getting healthier by simply eating an egg or two, but choosing not to because, "well, this wasn't from a free range farm... I can't tell if it was from a factory chicken.. ughhhh." The real concern should be whether the cholesterol in that egg is good for you or not. There are people who still think eggs are unhealthy, plain and simple, because of a multitude of misinformation by forces who have their own agendas to push; Products have never sold better after a few fudged numbers in a nebulous research paper on the effects of chicken fat on a person's* body.

 

* The person happened to be a heavy smoker and gave himself cancer, who knew? Didn't seem relevant for this study xDDDD

 

I feel that is far more important than veganism, but ends up extremely overshadowed by it. People taking the vegan route is like, "You can't fire me because I quit" in every case I've seen it, where people end up not being genuine in their """morality""", ending up having to justify every action they do as part of some grand cause. And some of those justifications have come through in your posts.

 

You, Yunki, should not have to be represented by the loudest, most retarded voices in veganism, but it's just a product of every movement. Those little, dumb things that extreme people do or say end up being internalized by the entire movement, and you end up with the deaths of great people at their own hands. R.I.P. Steve Jobs.

6

I don't see how your comparison really fits into this whole idea of veganism. We know that animals have a central nervous system, we know that they can feel pain, we know that they can suffer, and depending on the species they can feel a wide range of emotions, similar to that of a human. We also know that we as humans can live our entire lives eating solely plant-based foods. So, because we can live a healthy life without animals being involved, and because animals suffer and feel pain when we slaughter them, debeak/dehorn them, etc. we would need to find a moral justification for their suffering. Maybe I didn't specify the premises enough in the original post, but I don't see how our lines of logic are similar.

 

Veganism is about denying any nutritious claims of non-vegan foods. I and any other reasonable vegan could agree with you that eggs are a great source of protein, B12, and GOOD cholesterol. While their mercury count is something to be wary of, some fish high in fat are also great for their omega 3s. It's not about denying that it has nutrition, because obviously it does, just look at the nutrition facts. But the point is, we can find our nutrients in other foods, so it goes back to the point I made in the last paragraph - when we can find the nutrients in other sources, and because animals feel pain and suffering, we would need to find a moral justification for choosing their nutrients, rather than a plant-based one. 

 

Side note, I didn't become vegan to be seen as a more ethical person to my peers and random strangers on the internet; The reason why I went vegan was so that I could be the voice for the voiceless. I realized that billions of animals every year are being used against their will and I realized I could do something about it. I hope what I'm about to say makes sense and I don't seem like an idiot, but -- I am vegan not because it makes me a more ethical person, but because following veganism is an ethical thing to do. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Howard Dean said:

If you want to try to get people to "convert" this is a more solemn video.

 

 

I can't say that I feel "good" about eating meat because I know the reality of the cruelty. It is not going to sway my eating of it though. I noticed that a large portion of your argument is with regards to animal farms and the cruelty behind it. What is your stance on hunting invasive species not native to the US such as feral hogs?  What about hunting other types of animals with "clean kills" like deer and utilizing every bit of said deer?

Thank you for sharing the video, it definitely helps show the cruelty of slaughterhouses.

 

Something I and probably most other vegans went through before adopting this lifestyle was something called cognitive dissonance, maybe you know what it is, so sorry if I seem like a jackass for explaining this. Your morals/beliefs (animals should not be treated like this) do not line up with your actions (eating animals/animal products). Because of the inconsistency, you being to feel "uncomfortable" whenever you think of the subject, so you either choose to change your morals/beliefs or your actions. In most cases when the situation (vegan and non-vegan topics alike) is not ambiguous and seen as more important, people choose to change their beliefs rather than their actions.  We (Me included) would come up with excuses to please our mind as to why we were okay with animals suffering, even if we knew that the beliefs weren't really true. Again, I am afraid I might come off as an ass for explaining this and that is not my intention, but I thought maybe this was something you were going through too.

 

To be honest with you, I am not that well-versed in regards to hunting, however, I can specify my beliefs and I'm sure your knowledge of hunting would be able to pinpoint where I would stand. I believe all animals, even dangerous ones such as bear, wolves, snakes, etc. have a right to live their life with as little unnecessary suffering as possible. If a potentially dangerous animal is wandering about your yard and chances are it will leave on its own after an hour or so, you should just let it be. If an animal is KNOWN to disrupt the natural ecosystem and cause the potential for endangerment and extinction, then I would leave it up to a non-bias organization to come up with a proper plan to handle the situation. It's still a bit early in the day and I know there is a word for what I'm about to describe, so help would be appreciated - As predator X hunts and kills prey Y, prey Y population decreases, when prey Y population decreases, predator X begins to die off from starvation, because of a lower population in predator X, prey Y population increases, so on so forth. In those cases, it is not okay to disrupt that cycle. Also, I strongly believe that ending any species life early, even if every single component of the body was used, is cruel. 

 

3 hours ago, Jodas said:

@Yunki If you had the possiblity of having your own farm, with chickens, cows, pigs and whatever else. Would you then consider eating meat and eggs, when you know that you are taking good care of them? 

You would obviously only eat animals that die a natural cause in this scenario.

1

If money permits, I plan on having a sanctuary for farm animals when I get older. I would provide them with the best care I could give them, including quality food and large fields to roam, as well as other animal friends to play with so they won't get bored. Like you brought up, I would never kill them early unless they were suffering from a chronic disease that was causing their everyday life to become a struggle. Would I eat the eggs? Maybe, I really don't know how I feel about it yet. Personally, if you yourself raised chickens, didn't kill them early, and didn't breed them, then I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. Also, I would NEVER sell the eggs and never let the eggs leave my property. I do not want to increase a demand outside of the sanctuary. In regards to meat, the same thing applies to eggs, I don't kow how I feel about it yet. But if you follow what I said above, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating their meat after they naturally run their course in life. But again, I think it becomes an issue when people begin to sell these eggs and meats even if they were treated as nicely as possible and were not prematurely killed. What I described was probably the most humane way to consume eggs and meat, but if you begin to increase the demand in your city, it becomes a problem.

 

 

1 hour ago, Rootbeer said:

Let's look at this logically. I believe your premise is "All farms are bad for animals," with the arguments that 1) farmers can be shitty and 2) we're enslaving these animals so we can gain from them.

1) Again, we all can agree on the need for shitty farms and farmers to go die. Going to the extremes and saying there are no good farms would be like saying we should stop all fostercare programs because some foster parents are really shitty.

2) I get that the last part is entirely against the philosophy and that's completely fair. The reasoning is a bit circular though: it's wrong because I think it's wrong and here's my philosophy to back me up. I think what we need to separate is your average farmer just livin his life versus a cattle farm of 1000+ cows standing in stalls. You immediately assumed here about cows:

I never said anything about removing calves from their mothers when I asked about Betsy above, nor that Mac is even profiting from the animals. Would you be okay with farms if old Mac bred his cows with a proper bull and let the calves chill with their mothers? You see the latter all the time if you ever drive past farms in the Midwest. I think it's entirely possible for a farmer to live in a non-suffering, harmonious way with his livestock without sending his cattle to the slaughterhouse. As for the industrial sized cattle farms, that's much easier to understand your concerns about. Logistically speaking, these farms currently make sense in a profitable way but it's also the lazier way that has more suffering. Imagine for a sec if Betsy's farmer increased the size of his farm 100 fold but doesn't change the way he caringly handles them, mabey even hired some farmhands to help take care of each cow and animal. Each cow livin the good life in pastures feeding its calves, getting its excess milk bottled, chickens being taken care of properly, etc of what you'd see in a good farm, except on a larger scale. It's pricer, less efficient, and requires more work than the current alternative but the suffering is much much less if not completely nullified. Would this larger industrial-sized farm be more idealized, suffering-wise? If this is how all largescale farms were, would you still have any qualms about farms in general?

Of course farms are going to look evil when you view them as enslaving the animals. I just think that besides killing the animal to be consumed and eating eggs, there can't be any logical arguments against a "good" farmer to be morally wrong when he lives harmoniously with his animals.

 

Also, sorta off-topic but

The yellow "crazy" ants are a species introduced an isolated island by people. They usually chill in their own territory which crosses paths with a pretty popular phenomenomnoms known as the March of the red crabs. Christmas Island red crabs migrate to the sea to breed and many enter the ants' territory. The ants are crazy OP: they piss acid and swarm anything that they think is attacking them and the crabs are completely defenseless against this. Would it be right to exterminate the ants and take their millions of lives, even though "we" put them there?

1. I really don't believe it's extreme to say most, if not all farms are bad. Farms are maintained and run by profit, and ultimately every animal there dies an early death. The standard practice for meat and dairy are abhorrent.  

2. I don't think it's circular. I think exploitation of animals is wrong because they gain little to nothing for pleasing our taste. They have no say in what to do and because of that, I find it wrong. Bees are no exception to this exploitation. Also, the average farmer just living his life gets to live his life while the cattle he raises gets ultimately shipped off to a slaughterhouse. The farmer itself can give the cow a great life, but once the cow stops producing milk, the farmer ships her off to be slaughtered. To add on, local farmers are just as susceptible to cruel treatment of animals.  

I posted his stuff a lot, but I find his videos great. It's a short video showing one of the dairy farms in the UK. 

 

In all, even if the farmer gives the dairy cow a great life, her calf will be taken away (This is what happens, the farmers don't want the calf to drink the milk made for them), if she gives birth to a male, he will be separated and killed at young age for veal, and if it is a female, the calf will be separated from its mother and eventually begin her life as a dairy cow. When the mother becomes unable to produce milk, she will then be slaughtered.

 

In your hypothetical, if the female was not forcefully inseminated, the calves never been separated, the males don't get slaughtered for veal, the calves get priority for the milk (I don't know how we would know what excess or not tbh), and the cows are never sent to a slaughterhouse. Then sure you can begin to make an argument that this is cruelty-free. Just let me know when you can find that. 

 

Also, I think we can both agree that a large majority (I would guess at least 75%) of dairy production is done in some of the worse ways legally possible. You can find ol' Mac, and kudos to him, but the majority of dairy farms are not that. There is no money in that process. At that point, I don't know why Mac just doesn't grow crops and non-dairy milk. 

 

On your off-topic scenario -- I don't think there's a right answer, but I would have to lean more towards eliminating the foreign species.

 

To address your anecdote about seeing cows with their calf. I am just speculating, but I would assume those cows have stopped producing milk so there is no financial risk for the mother and calf to be together.

 

10 minutes ago, BananaPeelz said:

Yo check out the Beyond Burger by the company Beyond Meat. It's pretty damn expensive but it's the best tasting beef substitute that I've found so far, and it's not made from soy like every other subsitute.

 

Another aspect of veganism that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is the environmentalism aspect. Raising animals for consumption is an incredibly resource-intensive process (animals need to be fed several pounds of plants to produce just one pound of meat) and is a leading cause of deforestation around the world. There's also the disruption to the various ecological cycles (carbon, nitrogen, etc.) that comes with clearing huge tracts of forest land for agricultural production and applying all the additional fertilizers and pesticides that are required by farmers to grow the crops that just end up being used as animal feed. Pollution from farms is also a pretty huge issue. Not only are there more pesticides and fertilizers ending up in our waterways, but animal waste can be a huge problem, especially in factory farms which can produce as much sewage waste as a small city. 

I've heard great things about the beyond burger, have yet to try it though. I'm only scared because I heard its incredibly unhealthy for you and I'm afraid I might feel sick afterward, but yolo I guess.

 

You bring up great environmental points, I talked about in discord and because of laziness, I didn't bring it up here. Thank you for sharing and saving me the time of doing it myself

 

Edited by Yunki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that the conditions for 'animal farms' are pretty atrocious across the board including the living conditions of the animals, the generated waste, and all of the antibiotics/hormones used in their production. A plant based diet produces less waste, but there are some concerns with larger scale agricultural production such as fertilizer use.  I have several friends who are vegan and/or vegetarian and I admire their dedication.  However I have some arguments against veganism and the points you made.

 

1.  Scientific research/safety is dependent on testing the effects of drugs, chemicals etc. on animals in order to determine effectiveness, toxicity and lethal doses.  Obviously these animals are suffering but it is for the purpose of furthering our scientific understanding and preventing human suffering.  Is this worthwhile?

 

2.  Humans are what we are today because of diets consisting of meat.  It was not until the development of modern day agriculture and transportation that a vegan diet became possible.  Many early civilizations were hunter and gatherer base societies which allowed for population growth and movement as meat is more calorie dense.  There are some evolutionary traits that point to an omnivore diet.  Humans don't have multiple stomachs or bacteria that can break down cellulose like cows or gorillas do.  As for the point about teeth, canines in herbivores can be used for other purposes such as defense, mating, and breaking up plant matter.  Human evolutionary brain development could also be very well linked to the omnivore diet our early ancestors relied on.  

 

3.  I might not be are but to my knowledge there are no comprehensive/long term studies that argue that a vegan diet is any better than an omnivore diet.  I know vegans require a vitamin B12 supplement and need to eat certain foods to obtain essential amino acids.  Could a switch to a strictly plant based diet have other long term and/or developmental effects that we are not aware of? Maybe, maybe not.  On the flip-side the meat we eat today is genetically modified and treated with antibiotics which could be just as detrimental as our early ancestors were dependent on wild game which are much different from modern day farm animals.

 

4.  Speciesm is a weak argument in my opinion.  As humans we make collective decisions within society to decide what is moral and immoral.  I can only laugh at the idea of the declaration of independence stating "All species are created equal".  Dogs and cats are valued in society whereas pests like cockroaches, termites, and mosquitoes we exterminate if we find them in our homes.   If our dog has a tick we remove it. Should we bring all natural carnivores to trial for their serial killer like tendencies?  

 

Does the fly Obama brutally executed on national TV not have feelings and a family? First drone strikes now this?!?!  Has the power of the president gone too far?!?! /s

 

Sure the way animals in industrial meat production have little quality of life, but the idea that all animals should and can be treated equally is preposterous.  There is a natural hierarchy in the food chain.

 

Just presenting some counterpoints and playing devil's advocate.

 

I would recommend anyone reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book that dives into the modern day food industry.  It does not advocate for veganism but talks about the industrialization of food including meat and produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care for being vegan, cause I like to consume animal products. But this is the first I've heard of avoiding zoos and aquariums because you're vegan.

I work at an aquarium in a husbandry department. The animals eat better than me. If the zoo or aquarium you're going to visit isn't AZA accredited, I'd highly recommend not going. Most zoos and aquariums in western society do their absolute best to ensure the animals are cared for both nutritionally and mentally. Enrichments are made on a regular basis and they are provided with vitamins and supplements that ensure they are well cared for and have a diet that simulates their natural environment.

Please, just because you care about animal well-being, don't not go to zoos and aquariums. I'd love to tell you about the work that most AZA accredited institutions help to ensure wild populations are in balance with their natural environment. Research and care goes into exhibiting and protection of both the exhibited animal and their counter parts in the wild. We do a lot to conserve our friends out in the wild through research and education.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, waffles said:

I would agree that the conditions for 'animal farms' are pretty atrocious across the board including the living conditions of the animals, the generated waste, and all of the antibiotics/hormones used in their production. A plant based diet produces less waste, but there are some concerns with larger scale agricultural production such as fertilizer use.  I have several friends who are vegan and/or vegetarian and I admire their dedication.  However I have some arguments against veganism and the points you made.

 

1.  Scientific research/safety is dependent on testing the effects of drugs, chemicals etc. on animals in order to determine effectiveness, toxicity and lethal doses.  Obviously these animals are suffering but it is for the purpose of furthering our scientific understanding and preventing human suffering.  Is this worthwhile?

 

2.  Humans are what we are today because of diets consisting of meat.  It was not until the development of modern day agriculture and transportation that a vegan diet became possible.  Many early civilizations were hunter and gatherer base societies which allowed for population growth and movement as meat is more calorie dense.  There are some evolutionary traits that point to an omnivore diet.  Humans don't have multiple stomachs or bacteria that can break down cellulose like cows or gorillas do.  As for the point about teeth, canines in herbivores can be used for other purposes such as defense, mating, and breaking up plant matter.  Human evolutionary brain development could also be very well linked to the omnivore diet our early ancestors relied on.  

 

3.  I might not be are but to my knowledge there are no comprehensive/long term studies that argue that a vegan diet is any better than an omnivore diet.  I know vegans require a vitamin B12 supplement and need to eat certain foods to obtain essential amino acids.  Could a switch to a strictly plant based diet have other long term and/or developmental effects that we are not aware of? Maybe, maybe not.  On the flip-side the meat we eat today is genetically modified and treated with antibiotics which could be just as detrimental as our early ancestors were dependent on wild game which are much different from modern day farm animals.

 

4.  Speciesm is a weak argument in my opinion.  As humans we make collective decisions within society to decide what is moral and immoral.  I can only laugh at the idea of the declaration of independence stating "All species are created equal".  Dogs and cats are valued in society whereas pests like cockroaches, termites, and mosquitoes we exterminate if we find them in our homes.   If our dog has a tick we remove it. Should we bring all natural carnivores to trial for their serial killer like tendencies?  

 

Does the fly Obama brutally executed on national TV not have feelings and a family? First drone strikes now this?!?!  Has the power of the president gone too far?!?! /s

 

Sure the way animals in industrial meat production have little quality of life, but the idea that all animals should and can be treated equally is preposterous.  There is a natural hierarchy in the food chain.

 

Just presenting some counterpoints and playing devil's advocate.

 

I would recommend anyone reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book that dives into the modern day food industry.  It does not advocate for veganism but talks about the industrialization of food including meat and produce.

15

1. I am not well-based on animal testing, so I cannot give a great answer. However, I think the important thing to note is that we should always seek alternatives if they are available. I will definitely look more into this and comment back if I find anything.

 

2. I think most vegans are in agreement that a vegan diet was incredibly difficult to follow through about 30 years back, and I would agree that humans might not be where we are today if we didn't rely on it. However, that is not a justification to eat meat NOW. Before, it could have been argued that animal consumption was necessary, but we have advanced so much where we don't need to eat animal flesh or any products they produce. No rational vegan would say that we are herbivores, we are indeed carnivores; we have the capability to consume (albeit pretty poorly in some cases) animal products like meat and milk. But the idea behind veganism in today's society is that we have a choice to choose between a purely plant-based diet and a nonplant-based diet. Because we have that choice, it means there is not a necessity for animal consumption, so what becomes the moral justification for eating the animals? 

 

3. Vegan diets have recently received more attention and is being studied more now. There is no definite proof on long-term benefits of a purely plant-based diet, however, it is shown that diets high in saturated fats are associated with heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer's, high cholesterol, etc. Vegan diets are typically very low in saturated fats, while a typical omnivore diet has to watch out because of the saturated fats in dairy and certain meats. It is true that B12 is not naturally found in plant-based foods, but there are a plethora of B12 fortified cereals, plant-based milk, and more. Personally, I take an iron supplement and a B12 supplement just because I know I won't be able to meet my requirements everyday (It should be noted that non-vegan also have a high rate of B12 deficiency, it is not only a "vegan issue"). Overall though, studies have shown that vegans have lower BMIs compared to humans who eat meat and also to vegetarians. 

 

4. Vegan sometime are split on the issue of insects, I personally still kill spiders in my apartment (I have caught and released a few), because I am terrified of them. I know I shouldn't kill them, and it's something I work on, but no one can be perfect. Regardless. I think its safe to say that vegans generally agrees killing mosquitos are okay, they present a threat to you (they can carry diseases). Also, it's not that species are created equal or have to be treated equally to humans. It's that we believe that they deserve the basic right that we humans get to enjoy, the freedom of life and the choices that come with it. In regards to natural carnivores, I suggest you watch the 3-minute video I posted about animals eating other animals. It talks about something called moral agency, and why we cannot really blame wild animals for their actions.

 

I appreciate the comment and I'll look into medicinal testing on animals :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bear-Man-Thing said:

I don't care for being vegan, cause I like to consume animal products. But this is the first I've heard of avoiding zoos and aquariums because you're vegan.

I work at an aquarium in a husbandry department. The animals eat better than me. If the zoo or aquarium you're going to visit isn't AZA accredited, I'd highly recommend not going. Most zoos and aquariums in western society do their absolute best to ensure the animals are cared for both nutritionally and mentally. Enrichments are made on a regular basis and they are provided with vitamins and supplements that ensure they are well cared for and have a diet that simulates their natural environment.

Please, just because you care about animal well-being, don't not go to zoos and aquariums. I'd love to tell you about the work that most AZA accredited institutions help to ensure wild populations are in balance with their natural environment. Research and care goes into exhibiting and protection of both the exhibited animal and their counter parts in the wild. We do a lot to conserve our friends out in the wild through research and education.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 

6

Because you like the taste of their flesh, eggs, or milk is not a moral justification to increase the demand for their products. Something I brought up in the original post was that vegans believe that our taste buds and those 15 minutes where we enjoy the taste of an animal's carcass is not worth their only life being taken away from them. 

 

Do you think your taste buds are worth more than their life? 

If not, then what is your moral justification for doing that?

 

In regards to zoos and aquariums, vegans attempt to not contribute to the exploitation of animals. While it may be cool for a class to see whales, fish, zebras, etc. it is not okay to keep them captive in an exhibit for what I assume to be the rest of their life. I know of few cases where the animals are rescues and they would not be able to survive alone in the wild, and that I believe can be argued to be a valid exception. However, as far as I know, most animals in zoos and aquariums do not fall under that category. As with animal testing, I am not the most well-versed so I would love to hear more about AZA institutation via PM or here.

 

Thanks for the response!

5 minutes ago, Karma said:

Thanks for the read Yunki. Though I agree with most of this, I am a terrible person and will continue being a terrible person so long as chicken stays delicious. 

I truly do appreciate you and anyone else who gives this a read. I don't expect people to transition overnight. I would debate against my vegan friend for months before one day something clicked. 

And don't get me wrong, the taste of chicken, steaks, and eggs tastes amazing, that's not why I went vegan. I just had to take a step back and think to myself if my indulgence could be justified, and when I realized it couldn't, I had to make the switch.  

 

Obviously, it's hard to replace an entire chicken, but I have found truly amazing substitutes for some of my favorite chicken snacks/meals. There's a brand called gardein that has amazing orange "chickin" and chipotle lime "chickin". I had my non-vegan GF try the orange chickin and she loves it. With that being said I DO NOT recommend buying their beef substitutes, have not found a good one yet.

 

But again, thank you for taking the time to read :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sponsored said:

The pig screams are creepy as hell in that video.

If you find yourself with time, I recommend you watch the documentary I posted (http://www.nationearth.com/)

It covers the many aspects of speciesism, but a big focus on slaughterhouses and fur/leather. It obviously has graphic material but I think it's important for everybody to understand the situations so many animals are placed in. It is an hour and a half, but I promise it's not a tedious watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yunki said:

If you find yourself with time, I recommend you watch the documentary I posted (http://www.nationearth.com/)

It covers the many aspects of speciesism, but a big focus on slaughterhouses and fur/leather. It obviously has graphic material but I think it's important for everybody to understand the situations so many animals are placed in. It is an hour and a half, but I promise it's not a tedious watch.

In my AP Human Geography class we watched Food Inc. and it covered how secretive those slaughterhouse companies can be and their conditions for workers and animals in the slaughterhouses. The documentary was an eye-opener and really made me and my class rethink what we eat and almost made me drop some foods altogether. I might check out this documentary too if I have the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sponsored said:

In my AP Human Geography class we watched Food Inc. and it covered how secretive those slaughterhouse companies can be and their conditions for workers and animals in the slaughterhouses. The documentary was an eye-opener and really made me and my class rethink what we eat and almost made me drop some foods altogether. I might check out this documentary too if I have the time.

Sounds good, be sure to let me know if you do! Would love to know your reaction and thoughts on it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yunki said:

What is veganism?

According to The Vegan Society, veganism is "... is a 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."

In other words, someone who considers themselves a vegan is a person who refrains from using any animal product/services (even if it does not cause harm to the animal), unless dire circumstances arise. The most common things a vegan will avoid are: 

  • Dairy (milk, butter, cheese, etc.) and eggs
  • Honey
  • wool
  • Zoos

I honestly can get behind the thought of going vegetarian (even though I would never do it), but this is something I can not get behind. And quite honestly I do not understand it.

 

 

In the end everything I am going to say about these things is that if you buy these things locally from a farmer or a friend or whatever it should be okay, shouldn't it be?

 

1. Chickens will lay eggs no matter what, it doesn`t hurt them and it is something they will have to do. Just be sure to buy those eggs locally from a farmer or a friend or get your own chickens, we have had chickens for decades. As long as the egg isn't "pregnant" (no clue how to call that sorry) it should be fair game to vegans shouldn't it be?

2. Same basically goes for milk.

3. We have many beekeepers here where I live, they protect the bees take care of them and to their best to keep them alive and well. We need bees to survive and I am pretty sure that we actually do not have natuaral beehives here anymore, they are all from the beekeepers and they support them selfes by seelling honey. Without the money from selling it they wouldn't be able to keep them alive. It doesn't hurt the to make honey and you will keep the alive if you buy the honey.

4. I honestly don't see a problem with wool, sheep need to be shorn.

5. Basically what @Bear-Man-Thing said about zoos.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jodas said:

I honestly can get behind the thought of going vegetarian (even though I would never do it), but this is something I can not get behind. And quite honestly I do not understand it.

 

 

In the end everything I am going to say about these things is that if you buy these things locally from a farmer or a friend or whatever it should be okay, shouldn't it be?

 

1. Chickens will lay eggs no matter what, it doesn`t hurt them and it is something they will have to do. Just be sure to buy those eggs locally from a farmer or a friend or get your own chickens, we have had chickens for decades. As long as the egg isn't "pregnant" (no clue how to call that sorry) it should be fair game to vegans shouldn't it be?

2. Same basically goes for milk.

3. We have many beekeepers here where I live, they protect the bees take care of them and to their best to keep them alive and well. We need bees to survive and I am pretty sure that we actually do not have natuaral beehives here anymore, they are all from the beekeepers and they support them selfes by seelling honey. Without the money from selling it they wouldn't be able to keep them alive. It doesn't hurt the to make honey and you will keep the alive if you buy the honey.

4. I honestly don't see a problem with wool, sheep need to be shorn.

5. Basically what @Bear-Man-Thing said about zoos.

 

 

 

1. Chicken's do lay eggs naturally, however, they are kept in awful conditions, even when labeled "free-range". Free-range eggs are more or less a marketing ploy used to make consumers feel better about where their eggs are coming from. The hens still are debeaked without anesthesia and like I said, the conditions are still shit. Furthermore, male chicks are killed extremely young because they do not get as big as female chickens and they obviously cannot lay eggs themselves. By supporting (buying) eggs from even local farmers, you are supporting all the consequences of it. Unless you yourself have seen the conditions of the chickens, you cannot simply trust your local farmer, because chances are, they don't treat them well (especially the male chicks). 

 

2. Milk, in my opinion, is crueler than what happens to chickens. Female cows are artificially inseminated (a human fist is shoved into their reproductive tract, where they will put the sperm). A few hours after the birth the calf will be permanently (in most cases) separated from the mother. The female calves will grow up to live the same fate as their mother, whereas the male calves will generally be chained up and ultimately slaughtered at around 14 weeks old for veal. These calves never get to drink their mother's milk, we take it away from them. My numbers might be a bit off, but the average dairy cow is supposed to be able to live up to 12 years, but because of the constant stress put on the mother (constant milkings and births) they die around the age of 3 or 4. Again, by demanding milk, you require a farmer to forcefully impregnate a cow, separate the mother of their newborn, then deprive that newborn of its mother's milk. By supporting the dairy industry, you are supporting the consequences.

 

3. This is from YVFI: "In commercial honey operations, queens are purchased after having been artificially inseminated with crushed males. The wings of these queens are ripped off to prevent them from flying away, and while they would normally live to four years old, they are killed at age two to make room for younger queens. Further, commercial hives are often left to die by starvation and exposure or killed as a means of controlling stock. Even in smaller honey operations where bees are treated gently, some are crushed to death when their hives are disturbed. Beekeepers in these environments often replace honey with sugar or corn syrup to maximize profits, but these are not a bee’s natural food, and they are not sufficient to sustain an entire hive through the winter. Ultimately, wild hives create living conditions and food stores ideally suited to sustain themselves, but human intervention results in starvation, suffering and death for bees. So since humans do not need honey to survive, eating it is indeed unethical."

 

4. Sorry for not responding in my own words, but it's getting a bit late and this website does a great job of explaining things: "Essentially all wool comes from sheep sheared on industrial farms, which often involves very rough handling of the sheep and is a process which inflicts painful nicks and cuts on the sheep's skin. These injuries attract flies and promote "flystrike", especially around their tail where the skin bunches up. To combat this, so two strips of wool-bearing skin from around either side of the sheep's buttocks are removed, without using anesthetics, in order to create a scarred area of flesh that's less susceptible to infestations. This process is called "mulesing". It is also important to remember that there are no "old-animals" homes for animals that are no longer profitable to industry, and sheep are no exception. When they age and no longer produce as much wool they are shipped to the slaughter house, and this happens long before their natural lifespan. It's clear that sheep are very much hurt by all of this. Like any animal used by agribusiness, the abuses of sheep has many different facets. Sheep in the wool industry are selectively bred specifically to have more wrinkled skin so that they produce more wool, and this makes them more vulnerable to injuries during sheering and consequently causing more incidents of "flystrike". This creates greater profits for the industry while imposing negative consequences on the sheep themselves, which makes wool production a very typical example of how animal exploitation industries take advantage of the vulnerabilities of others in ethically indefensible ways. Put differently, in order to use wool for ourselves, we must decide that the satisfaction of our own desires is somehow more important than the rights and needs of others. By contrast, the philosophy of veganism denies the validity of any line of thinking which seeks to justify abusing others for our own gain."

 

5. Read my response about zoos, unless the animal was a rescue, I see no reason as to why it should be subjected to live its life in a cage as an exhibit for our entertainment. 

 

EDIT: I highly recommend you watch the documentary I posted. It will help give a look into the standard practice of farming.

Edited by Yunki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vegetarian aspect of veganism was one of the topics that was an eye-opener for me in my Ethics course because it was the one idea where even though I realized logically that I'm in the wrong, I still continue and choose to be a sinner. Like Karma, a steak is *really* tasty. But I agree with Jodas, if Betsy the cow is livin the good life on old Macdonald's farm, I don't see how it's wrong if that family milks her for her milk. I get that there are some really shitty farms out there but shitty farm is the only reasoning I'm seeing against harvesting these by-products (milk,honey,etc) and as the sole argument, it's not strong enough to defend the premise. Even as a non-vegan, I agree that we need to crack down on how farms operate -- it's simply not a vegan issue but an animal cruelty one that we all can agree on. I don't see any arguments against us living in harmony with bees living the good life in good bee farms and cows chilling with farmers besides "it's not natural". Also, it's easy to release a sea lion into the ocean and think that it then lives a "normal" life but land animals? If the whole world suddenly went vegan overnight, we're gonna need a lot more nature reservations for all the current animals in captivity.

 

Veganism is about living your life while striving for less suffering(killing) in the world and the suffering part is what made me realize I was wrong -- it's crazy to me how that's overlooked in these points above and also in ignoring zoos and aquariums (which from what I've seen and heard care very deeply about their animals btw so this really shouldn't be advocated for). You could technically argue that they're suffering in these points but honestly that's reaching a bit. The suffering part is a strong enough argument and imo these simply weaken it. I dunno why people focus on the plant part and attack it as if it defends a non-vegetarian point. The idea is simple in that plants are just the lowest form of sentience (if you can even call it that) to consume -- the philosophy's key words being less suffering (least suffering for some vegans), not no suffering.

I loved veganism as an ethics topic because it lead to a ton of juicy topics. Ethics is all about logic and when you make a statement like "it's okay to repeatedly raise and kill something as long as it benefits people", that sets a precedent for future topics like stem cells, organ farms, and other controversies. It was interesting to see the backpedaling in a discussion I had and the attempts to change the arguments to be "human friendly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yunki said:

2. I think most vegans are in agreement that a vegan diet was incredibly difficult to follow through about 30 years back, and I would agree that humans might not be where we are today if we didn't rely on it. However, that is not a justification to eat meat NOW. Before, it could have been argued that animal consumption was necessary, but we have advanced so much where we don't need to eat animal flesh or any products they produce. No rational vegan would say that we are herbivores, we are indeed carnivores; we have the capability to consume (albeit pretty poorly in some cases) animal products like meat and milk. But the idea behind veganism in today's society is that we have a choice to choose between a purely plant-based diet and a nonplant-based diet. Because we have that choice, it means there is not a necessity for animal consumption, so what becomes the moral justification for eating the animals?

This is why veganism is retarded. These bold, presumptuous statements follow the same logic Admiralty law people who don't want to pay for anything do. Let me throw another retarded one that follows the same logic at you:

 

Because some people in society chose to mutilate their bodies, or undergo hormone therapy, we know that gender and sex are choices. Because we have that choice, what is the moral justification for being a toxic male?

 

This virtuous facade is what throws away any good vegans want to do in the world. You shouldn't have to guilt people into doing good; it should be natural; because it's good.

 

Saying that we live in a time where we don't need to consume animals spits in the face of anyone who values nutrition. This sounds retarded, but hear me out. When we have people getting healthier by simply eating an egg or two, but choosing not to because, "well, this wasn't from a free range farm... I can't tell if it was from a factory chicken.. ughhhh." The real concern should be whether the cholesterol in that egg is good for you or not. There are people who still think eggs are unhealthy, plain and simple, because of a multitude of misinformation by forces who have their own agendas to push; Products have never sold better after a few fudged numbers in a nebulous research paper on the effects of chicken fat on a person's* body.

 

* The person happened to be a heavy smoker and gave himself cancer, who knew? Didn't seem relevant for this study xDDDD

 

I feel that is far more important than veganism, but ends up extremely overshadowed by it. People taking the vegan route is like, "You can't fire me because I quit" in every case I've seen it, where people end up not being genuine in their """morality""", ending up having to justify every action they do as part of some grand cause. And some of those justifications have come through in your posts.

 

You, Yunki, should not have to be represented by the loudest, most retarded voices in veganism, but it's just a product of every movement. Those little, dumb things that extreme people do or say end up being internalized by the entire movement, and you end up with the deaths of great people at their own hands. R.I.P. Steve Jobs.

Edited by camelFun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to try to get people to "convert" this is a more solemn video.

 

 

I can't say that I feel "good" about eating meat because I know the reality of the cruelty. It is not going to sway my eating of it though. I noticed that a large portion of your argument is with regards to animal farms and the cruelty behind it. What is your stance on hunting invasive species not native to the US such as feral hogs?  What about hunting other types of animals with "clean kills" like deer and utilizing every bit of said deer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

The vegetarian aspect of veganism was one of the topics that was an eye-opener for me in my Ethics course because it was the one idea where even though I realized logically that I'm in the wrong, I still continue and choose to be a sinner. Like Karma, a steak is *really* tasty. But I agree with Jodas, if Betsy the cow is livin the good life on old Macdonald's farm, I don't see how it's wrong if that family milks her for her milk. I get that there are some really shitty farms out there but shitty farm is the only reasoning I'm seeing against harvesting these by-products (milk,honey,etc) and as the sole argument, it's not strong enough to defend the premise. Even as a non-vegan, I agree that we need to crack down on how farms operate -- it's simply not a vegan issue but an animal cruelty one that we all can agree on. I don't see any arguments against us living in harmony with bees living the good life in good bee farms and cows chilling with farmers besides "it's not natural". Also, it's easy to release a sea lion into the ocean and think that it then lives a "normal" life but land animals? If the whole world suddenly went vegan overnight, we're gonna need a lot more nature reservations for all the current animals in captivity.

 

Veganism is about living your life while striving for less suffering(killing) in the world and the suffering part is what made me realize I was wrong -- it's crazy to me how that's overlooked in these points above and also in ignoring zoos and aquariums (which from what I've seen and heard care very deeply about their animals btw so this really shouldn't be advocated for). You could technically argue that they're suffering in these points but honestly that's reaching a bit. The suffering part is a strong enough argument and imo these simply weaken it. I dunno why people focus on the plant part and attack it as if it defends a non-vegetarian point. The idea is simple in that plants are just the lowest form of sentience (if you can even call it that) to consume -- the philosophy's key words being less suffering (least suffering for some vegans), not no suffering.

I loved veganism as an ethics topic because it lead to a ton of juicy topics. Ethics is all about logic and when you make a statement like "it's okay to repeatedly raise and kill something as long as it benefits people", that sets a precedent for future topics like stem cells, organ farms, and other controversies. It was interesting to see the backpedaling in a discussion I had and the attempts to change the arguments to be "human friendly".

10

While theoretically, you can get eggs from chickens without *you* causing them to suffer (the selectively breeding chickens and many other animals went through puts continuous stress on their body as they were not meant to produce so much produce), I truly believe you cannot ever get milk without their species to suffer. The milk is made for the newborn, just like any other mammal. By giving us humans milk, we are taking away not only the nutritional substance that will be used to help a cow become healthy, we take them away from bonding. Just like humans, cows have been observed to be maternal creatures. You put stress on the mother and the calf by separating them and not allowing her to feed her child. 

In regards to an animal living the good life, at the end of the day, they are on that farm to make money for the farmers. They are being exploited for financial gain against their will. Furthermore, having shitty conditions is how most farms are operated, local or not. The severity of the conditions obviously varies, however at the end of the day, in order to get milk you are depriving a mother and calf of bonding, and giving that newborn a dietary substitute, just because of our taste preference. To wrap it up - Most farms practice undeniably cruel practices and beyond awful conditions for their cows. There are some that can do a better job, like giving them big open fields to roam. But the matter of the fact is, a dairy farmer is going to send a male calf to the slaughterhouse for veal, and the female calf will have to go through the same hardships that her mother went through (artificial semination, constant milkings, being separated from her children). Like I said to Jodas, there are consequences that happen when we begin to consume milk, and we are responsible for those consequences as well.

 

On topic is bees, obviously the degree to which they suffer is lesser than that of cows and chickens, however, some bee farms are not cared for at all. Regardless, the reason I personally don't consume honey is that it's incredibly easy to avoid, and also that it always falls into the category of exploitation for me, even when done as humanely as possible. 

 

Lastly, I don't think any reasonable vegan wants everyone to become vegan overnight. I'd assume a majority understand changes need to be made step-by-step to ensure there is no dramatic shift that causes an economic crisis or something like that. While obviously, I don't know the perfect plan to prevent that, what I do know is that people can begin to reduce their dairy and meat consumption and begin to purchase alternatives. 

 

I 100% agree with you that it is in the vegan's interest to reduce suffering as much as possible, not necessarily completely, because no one can be a perfect vegan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, camelFun said:

This is why veganism is retarded. These bold, presumptuous statements follow the same logic Admiralty law people who don't want to pay for anything do. Let me throw another retarded one that follows the same logic at you:

 

Because some people in society chose to mutilate their bodies, or undergo hormone therapy, we know that gender and sex are choices. Because we have that choice, what is the moral justification for being a toxic male?

 

This virtuous facade is what throws away any good vegans want to do in the world. You shouldn't have to guilt people into doing good; it should be natural; because it's good.

 

Saying that we live in a time where we don't need to consume animals spits in the face of anyone who values nutrition. This sounds retarded, but hear me out. When we have people getting healthier by simply eating an egg or two, but choosing not to because, "well, this wasn't from a free range farm... I can't tell if it was from a factory chicken.. ughhhh." The real concern should be whether the cholesterol in that egg is good for you or not. There are people who still think eggs are unhealthy, plain and simple, because of a multitude of misinformation by forces who have their own agendas to push; Products have never sold better after a few fudged numbers in a nebulous research paper on the effects of chicken fat on a person's* body.

 

* The person happened to be a heavy smoker and gave himself cancer, who knew? Didn't seem relevant for this study xDDDD

 

I feel that is far more important than veganism, but ends up extremely overshadowed by it. People taking the vegan route is like, "You can't fire me because I quit" in every case I've seen it, where people end up not being genuine in their """morality""", ending up having to justify every action they do as part of some grand cause. And some of those justifications have come through in your posts.

 

You, Yunki, should not have to be represented by the loudest, most retarded voices in veganism, but it's just a product of every movement. Those little, dumb things that extreme people do or say end up being internalized by the entire movement, and you end up with the deaths of great people at their own hands. R.I.P. Steve Jobs.

6

I don't see how your comparison really fits into this whole idea of veganism. We know that animals have a central nervous system, we know that they can feel pain, we know that they can suffer, and depending on the species they can feel a wide range of emotions, similar to that of a human. We also know that we as humans can live our entire lives eating solely plant-based foods. So, because we can live a healthy life without animals being involved, and because animals suffer and feel pain when we slaughter them, debeak/dehorn them, etc. we would need to find a moral justification for their suffering. Maybe I didn't specify the premises enough in the original post, but I don't see how our lines of logic are similar.

 

Veganism is about denying any nutritious claims of non-vegan foods. I and any other reasonable vegan could agree with you that eggs are a great source of protein, B12, and GOOD cholesterol. While their mercury count is something to be wary of, some fish high in fat are also great for their omega 3s. It's not about denying that it has nutrition, because obviously it does, just look at the nutrition facts. But the point is, we can find our nutrients in other foods, so it goes back to the point I made in the last paragraph - when we can find the nutrients in other sources, and because animals feel pain and suffering, we would need to find a moral justification for choosing their nutrients, rather than a plant-based one. 

 

Side note, I didn't become vegan to be seen as a more ethical person to my peers and random strangers on the internet; The reason why I went vegan was so that I could be the voice for the voiceless. I realized that billions of animals every year are being used against their will and I realized I could do something about it. I hope what I'm about to say makes sense and I don't seem like an idiot, but -- I am vegan not because it makes me a more ethical person, but because following veganism is an ethical thing to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yunki If you had the possiblity of having your own farm, with chickens, cows, pigs and whatever else. Would you then consider eating meat and eggs, when you know that you are taking good care of them? 

You would obviously only eat animals that die a natural cause in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Howard Dean said:

If you want to try to get people to "convert" this is a more solemn video.

 

 

I can't say that I feel "good" about eating meat because I know the reality of the cruelty. It is not going to sway my eating of it though. I noticed that a large portion of your argument is with regards to animal farms and the cruelty behind it. What is your stance on hunting invasive species not native to the US such as feral hogs?  What about hunting other types of animals with "clean kills" like deer and utilizing every bit of said deer?

Thank you for sharing the video, it definitely helps show the cruelty of slaughterhouses.

 

Something I and probably most other vegans went through before adopting this lifestyle was something called cognitive dissonance, maybe you know what it is, so sorry if I seem like a jackass for explaining this. Your morals/beliefs (animals should not be treated like this) do not line up with your actions (eating animals/animal products). Because of the inconsistency, you being to feel "uncomfortable" whenever you think of the subject, so you either choose to change your morals/beliefs or your actions. In most cases when the situation (vegan and non-vegan topics alike) is not ambiguous and seen as more important, people choose to change their beliefs rather than their actions.  We (Me included) would come up with excuses to please our mind as to why we were okay with animals suffering, even if we knew that the beliefs weren't really true. Again, I am afraid I might come off as an ass for explaining this and that is not my intention, but I thought maybe this was something you were going through too.

 

To be honest with you, I am not that well-versed in regards to hunting, however, I can specify my beliefs and I'm sure your knowledge of hunting would be able to pinpoint where I would stand. I believe all animals, even dangerous ones such as bear, wolves, snakes, etc. have a right to live their life with as little unnecessary suffering as possible. If a potentially dangerous animal is wandering about your yard and chances are it will leave on its own after an hour or so, you should just let it be. If an animal is KNOWN to disrupt the natural ecosystem and cause the potential for endangerment and extinction, then I would leave it up to a non-bias organization to come up with a proper plan to handle the situation. It's still a bit early in the day and I know there is a word for what I'm about to describe, so help would be appreciated - As predator X hunts and kills prey Y, prey Y population decreases, when prey Y population decreases, predator X begins to die off from starvation, because of a lower population in predator X, prey Y population increases, so on so forth. In those cases, it is not okay to disrupt that cycle. Also, I strongly believe that ending any species life early, even if every single component of the body was used, is cruel. 

37 minutes ago, Jodas said:

@Yunki If you had the possiblity of having your own farm, with chickens, cows, pigs and whatever else. Would you then consider eating meat and eggs, when you know that you are taking good care of them? 

You would obviously only eat animals that die a natural cause in this scenario.

If money permits, I plan on having a sanctuary for farm animals when I get older. I would provide them with the best care I could give them, including quality food and large fields to roam, as well as other animal friends to play with so they won't get bored. Like you brought up, I would never kill them early unless they were suffering from a chronic disease that was causing their everyday life to become a struggle. Would I eat the eggs? Maybe, I really don't know how I feel about it yet. Personally, if you yourself raised chickens, didn't kill them early, and didn't breed them, then I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. Also, I would NEVER sell the eggs and never let the eggs leave my property. I do not want to increase a demand outside of the sanctuary. In regards to meat, the same thing applies to eggs, I don't kow how I feel about it yet. But if you follow what I said above, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating their meat after they naturally run their course in life. But again, I think it becomes an issue when people begin to sell these eggs and meats even if they were treated as nicely as possible and were not prematurely killed. What I described was probably the most humane way to consume eggs and meat, but if you begin to increase the demand in your city, it becomes a problem.

Edited by Yunki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the animals don't suffer in death in fine with it. I try the best I can to go out of my way to support places that care for animals before the slaughter. I care more about myself than an certain animals lives. A cow being one of them, but that doesn't mean I want to cause unneeded suffering before their death or in life. 

 

Eat meat. It's fucking tasty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×