Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

Kicky, i try to understand what you mean when you say that these avengers devastate the natural world.
It is well known that to produce a KG. of meat it need over 10 KG of veg. proteins that is why the natural world is today devastated by clearing the land in order to plant veg. proteins like soia to feed the cattle.
Please tell me where i am wrong.

The above depends on what meat you are talking about-beef is the most wastefull but yes. However don;t expect any of them to acknowledge this. They are in a religious like denial of any actual facts which is why they can come up with this nonsense about us ripping down forests. Arcturus will next claim he knows a farmer and therefore he is an expert.

I agree, the harm that meat eating does to the environment is awful. Usually meat eaters respond by saying things along the line of "well if you care about the environment why don't you live in a cave etc etc", which is a very depressing line of reasoning. The fact is if we used more public transport, live healthy lives with less meat, and limited our energy expenditure we could live very comfortable and sustainable lives.



Also here is a good quote from this study...

"We calculate that potential GHG[green house gas] savings of 22% and 26% can be made by changing from the current UK-average diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet, respectively. Taking the average GHG saving from six vegetarian or vegan dietary scenarios compared with the current UK-average diet gives a potential national GHG saving of 40 Mt CO2e y−1. This is equivalent to a 50% reduction in current exhaust pipe emissions from the entire UK passenger car fleet"

---

I dont think it is stupid to only apply ethics to those capable of ethical behavior. It's why very young children or the mentally disabled are not held criminally responsible for crimes, but for example merely put into care for their own and others protection, and not put in jail as a punishment.

Here's another way to think about it. If lighting were to kill a person, would you say that the lightening was wrong to kill them? Do you agree that a lightening strike could not be said to be unethical because it is not an entity to which ethics apply? We might say we should try to avoid it etc but it would not make sense it say the lightening was being unethical when it had no ability to make ethical choices or not. Its the same with animals.

The ethics you speak of are yours and not mine or for that matter most of the world's. You compare things that are absurd to be compared. Nothing you have said makes sense to me. I see the world different than you and find your arguments bizarre.

Most countries have legislation regarding mental capacity, for example when children become criminally responsible for their actions, or diminished responsibility due to mental health. I think most of the world would accept the principle that the actions of those who are unable make ethical choices is different to the actions of those who can.

[StoryBook]

However don;t expect any of them to acknowledge this. They are in a religious like denial of any actual facts which is why they can come up with this nonsense about us ripping down forests. Arcturus will next claim he knows a farmer and therefore he is an expert.

Do you know what irony is? After all you are the one believing the false info from PETA. You know I watch a horse slaughter of theirs once. The said they confirmed this horse as a certain x-race horse and showed it being killed in Japan. Well I looked up said horse an he was still alive here in the states.

Also I work on a farm. Cows are adorable. I also went to an agriculture college and now I'm studying to be a veterinary technician. I do love animals, i cried watching a horse I didn't know be euthanized but death is a part of life. Humans evolved off of eating meat. When are omnivores, not herbivores or even carnivore. Our body's are designed to eat BOTH meat and veggies. I'm not going to go against my body's cravings because you say so.

[James2014]

Our body's are designed to eat BOTH meat and veggies. I'm not going to go against my body's cravings because you say so.

1. Our bodies are not designed to be able to do anything. Design implies intention, we however evolved through a process of natural selection. By appealing to natural selection as a guide to ethics, one is claiming that natural selection is an inherently ethical process. However there was no intention driving it that could be directed by ethics, so it makes no sense to appeal to natural selection.

2. Yes, we have evolved to be omnivores. But all that means is that some point in our evolution eating meat gave us a selective advantage in passing on our genes to our offspring, such that we became physiologically capable of being able to survive on an diet of animals and plants. It does not mean that its best for our long term health, as evolution only really cares about selection up to when we pass on those genes, and it does not take into account the change in environment which now allows us to obtain all nutrients from vegan sources. This is best demonstrated with all the evidence I have posted showing that a vegan diet produces health benefits and reduces mortality.

[bennyboy]

Yet, these self same "avengers" of the rights of animals are quite happy to devastate the "natural world" by inflicting their desire to have whole forests raised and plant ecosystems annihilated to grow their food? Further, these self same "friends of the earth" are extatic over the promulgation of the petro-chemical industry (and the mess it makes) and big pharma (the 'health' pill industry) and then lay "claim" that what they are supporting is life on this planet?

Strawman of the century, dude.

Nobody ever said any of those things you just said.

Amazing is all I can say. How a sub-species can take itself so seriously as to think it is beyond the ecosystems of this planet is the height of arrogance and ignorance in my opinion.

. . . and now you are outraged by your own strawman.

Just because we don't understand how the plant kingdom thinks and feels, it is ok to murder rape and pillage that Kingdom to feed the self righteous but hey don't you dare lay a finger on the animalia kingdom especially that of the order mammalia for a food source.

. . . followed by an appeal to ignorance. We know that animals suffer; we do not know that plants suffer.

In any case, since all meat food is derived from plant foods, then the imaginary suffering you are strawmanning up for your rhetorical outrage is still unavoidable. At best, we choose between (plant suffering) and (plant + animal suffering), and the vegetarian diet still involves less suffering.

Back to ecosystems: your strawman is diametrically opposite to the actual opinions of almost every vegetarian. Most are firmly against "big-pharm," and will choose natural herbal supplements. Most are against petrochemicals, and will choose hemp or other natural fibers.

Your argument is as full of shit as the following: "I'm OUTRAGED, I tell you, by the attitudes of all you meat eaters, who insist that animals suffer as much as possible. You are ecstatic about the destruction of the rain forest. You deliberately let deer species survive, because you want to maximize suffering in the world."

---

Also I work on a farm. Cows are adorable. I also went to an agriculture college and now I'm studying to be a veterinary technician. I do love animals, i cried watching a horse I didn't know be euthanized but death is a part of life. Humans evolved off of eating meat. When are omnivores, not herbivores or even carnivore. Our body's are designed to eat BOTH meat and veggies. I'm not going to go against my body's cravings because you say so.

We evolved with male instincts to impregnate many females. However, we deny these instincts, because when we follow them it often brings harm. We evolved with instincts to fight-- for the most part, we are raised to deny these as well, often at the risk of punishment of law. We evolved the ability to grow very long head and face hair, but in most countries, both men and women shave.

We did not evolve with the need for giant buildings, cars, or computers. In all cases, human invention involves molding its environment to fulfill a vision of a world more perfect than the rest of nature. Your vision involves maximizing Big Mac availability. Mine involves minimizing suffering. Both are achievable, but I prefer my vision of the world to yours, since it's based on an ideal, rather than on the maximal fulfillment of the pleasure centers in the brain.

[StoryBook]

This is best demonstrated with all the evidence I have posted showing that a vegan diet produces health benefits and reduces mortality.

That same link again. Ok then
Meat better for bone heath
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1...003-031466
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1357.abstract

Blood pressure
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/4/780.short

Brain health of children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10966896

[James2014]

We evolved with male instincts to impregnate many females. However, we deny these instincts, because when we follow them it often brings harm.

This is a really good example of how we control our physiology even though it is "natural". For example women are able to have children at a very young age and have evolved to have as many children as possible. This however would significantly worsen overpopulation, and significantly decrease the quality of women's lives. It was the invention of the contraceptive pill that really gave women control of their lives, and was instrumental in supporting gender equality. Yet by the of the naturalistic argument the many meat eaters use, using the contraceptive pill would be wrong, our population would be out of control, and women's lives would be significantly worse.

[StoryBook]

I have already provided evidence that a vegan diet is healthier than vegetarianism. They are both however significantly healthier than an omnivorous diet. Eating lots of dairy instead of meat is certainly going to improve health, however veganism is healthier still.



Now, as I said before, let alone all the evidence I have quoted, why would the why would the biggest professional body of nutritionists (the American Dietetic Association, although now called the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) in the US, and indeed the world, agree that a vegan and vegetarian diet is healthy and protective against a number of diseases? The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is not just a few crazies, they are recognized by the United States Department of Education as the only professional body that can accredit professional dietetic education programs! Are they all lying too? If all the evidence I, and they, have quoted is outdated, then provide some links to this updated evidence.

Here's another link for ya

[LastPoet]

This has turned into a link battle

[KUSA]

The above depends on what meat you are talking about-beef is the most wastefull but yes. However don;t expect any of them to acknowledge this. They are in a religious like denial of any actual facts which is why they can come up with this nonsense about us ripping down forests. Arcturus will next claim he knows a farmer and therefore he is an expert.

I agree, the harm that meat eating does to the environment is awful. Usually meat eaters respond by saying things along the line of "well if you care about the environment why don't you live in a cave etc etc", which is a very depressing line of reasoning. The fact is if we used more public transport, live healthy lives with less meat, and limited our energy expenditure we could live very comfortable and sustainable lives.

:link:

Also here is a good quote from this study... :link:

"We calculate that potential GHG[green house gas] savings of 22% and 26% can be made by changing from the current UK-average diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet, respectively. Taking the average GHG saving from six vegetarian or vegan dietary scenarios compared with the current UK-average diet gives a potential national GHG saving of 40 Mt CO2e y−1. This is equivalent to a 50% reduction in current exhaust pipe emissions from the entire UK passenger car fleet"

---

The ethics you speak of are yours and not mine or for that matter most of the world's. You compare things that are absurd to be compared. Nothing you have said makes sense to me. I see the world different than you and find your arguments bizarre.

Most countries have legislation regarding mental capacity, for example when children become criminally responsible for their actions, or diminished responsibility due to mental health. I think most of the world would accept the principle that the actions of those who are unable make ethical choices is different to the actions of those who can.

Once again you make no sense. What does the mental capacity of human children have to do with eating animals?

[James2014]

That same link again. Ok then
Meat better for bone heath
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1...003-031466
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1357.abstract

Blood pressure
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/4/780.short

Brain health of children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10966896

Firstly, great to see some primary references. Secondly all those studies only look at specific diseases, and therefore do not analyse the effect of diet on all-cause mortality. There is no point improving bone health if one then dies of cancer or cardiovascular disease! That is why the study that I posted is so much more relevant. It looks at all causes of death, and veganism decreases mortality.

Now the individual studies... the first two studies look at effect of meat on bone health, but they make no comparisons on how consumption of high amounts of vegan protein could also improve bone health. As they make no comparison between vegan and meat eating diets, one cannot make the assumption that one is healthier than the other.

Next the blood pressure study, again there is no comparison to a vegan protein rich diet making comparison impossible. Additionally the trial only lasted 8 weeks and only looked at a marker of cardiovascular disease (ie blood pressure). Meat eating has been associated with cardiovascular disease, but no one thinks it only takes 8 weeks of a high meat diet to cause it. Therefore the study is too short to see how meat affects cardiovascular disease.

Brain health in children, that study looked at MACROBIOTIC vegans. That means they take no B12 supplements of fortified foods. This is not a well balanced diet. If I were to claim that scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) in meat eaters who happened to not eat enough fruit and veg was due to the fact they were omnivores I would be talking nonsense. It would be incidental to this. similarly, the people in the study had b12 deficiency incidentally to the fact they were vegan but because they were macrobiotic.

---

Once again you make no sense. What does the mental capacity of human children have to do with eating animals?

The point is that the actions of those without the ability to make ethical decisions cannot be said to be right or wrong. It is therefore not wrong for an animal to kill another amoral animal, whereas it would be wrong for a person because they have the ability to choose.

---

Here's another link for ya

In that firstly the comparison was not with a vegan diet, which has shown to also produce a significant benefit to diabetics.



Secondly the study also notes that the "Paleolithic diet was markedly lower in cereals and dairy products, and lower in potatoes, beans and bakery, and much higher in fruits, vegetables, meat and eggs"
As the study goes on to explain, many of the benefits were likely due to increased consumption of fruit and veg, decreased consumption of things like sugary sweets, increased protein intake and decreased calorie consumption overall. All these things can be better achieved with a vegan diet without the risks high meat consumption brings over time (ie longer than the 3 months looked at in the trial)