Veganism

[Mob Boss]

Some of you may not know terribly much about veganism, but I wanted to have an open dialogue for those that do know; and furthermore any counter argument you know of in opposition of veganism.
Veganism is not a diet, as so often mislabeled. It is a lifestyle, wholly encompassing a cruelty-free way of living. This includes abstaining from wearing furs, leather, wool; purchasing pillows with down; the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs and honey. It involves avoiding cosmetics, toiletries and various other products tested on animals.

Me, my sister and my fiance are all vegan and animal rights activists. So I've had quite a few people try to make a case for eating meat or consuming dairy, but there has never once been a valid point that could hold water. In fact a philosophy professor Gary Yourofsky once encountered at one of his many college lectures, said he became vegan purely because no one could stump him with justification for eating meat and dairy.

All you guys here seem intelligent. I know you're all coming into your own person and discovering yourself, detached from blind familial allegiances that instill certain ideologies we hold on to until we find ourselves. So I want you to read whatever becomes of this thread with an open mind.



For starters, every inch of our body physiologically screams herbivore. Not omnivore, as liked to believe. We are intrinsically herbivore. The manner in which we sweat through our pores and not our mouths, the fact our jaws move side to side as well as up and down in comparison to out meat-eating counterparts, with their mechanism of rip and swallow (void of any lateral movement), not chew. Our intestinal tract is incredibly long, as are all herbivores, which is so opposite of meat-eaters. This is so our body can digest the plants and fruits and so TRUE omnivores, and their short intestines, can push out rotting, highly acidic meat. As a matter of fact, meat-eaters have over 1000% times the amount of hydrochloric acid in their stomachs than us, herbivores. Why is that? It is for the digestion of meat. And ours? Why is our so miniscule? But also, if we're not supposed to eat meat, why any at all? Hydrochloric acid is a digester of protein, essentially. And as it so happens, protein comes in small, vegan-friendly forms, such as peanuts, broccoli, and lentils and beans. We are not designed for meat consumption.
Yet there is a holocaust going on we are blind to.

[phuckphace]

veganism is a surrogate for religion now that religion is largely uncool. people perhaps subconsciously desire the trappings of religion (i.e. the rituals, the group identity and the zealous sense of moral superiority) but without the negative stigma of actually believing in a sky-daddy like some backwards bigot. every vegan I've ever met with the exception of a couple Wiccans has been a hysterically angry anti-theist, so there's that.

what happens with vegans is pretty much the same process that gets us anti-abortion zealots - this is a good illustration of the horseshoe theory, where two otherwise highly divergent groups end up with a lot of striking similarities. in both camps, the devotees develop an oversized moral response to something that a) they can't actually change and b) provides a convenient pedestal to moralize from. anti-abortion activists have consistently failed to move the needle on abortion rates, and vegans have consistently failed to move the needle on meat consumption - but oddly enough, both groups behave as though having a really strong conviction about their respective pet issue is what's really most important.

it also doesn't help that vegans are quite fond of throwing out ye olde herbivore myth that is debunked in about two seconds with any knowledge of evolutionary processes, but as in most cases, emotion-laden convictions ("ANOTHER HOLOCAUST!!!!!") tend to trump facts.

[Mob Boss]

veganism is a surrogate for religion now that religion is largely uncool. people perhaps subconsciously desire the trappings of religion (i.e. the rituals, the group identity and the zealous sense of moral superiority) but without the negative stigma of actually believing in a sky-daddy like some backwards bigot. every vegan I've ever met with the exception of a couple Wiccans has been a hysterically angry anti-theist, so there's that.

what happens with vegans is pretty much the same process that gets us anti-abortion zealots - this is a good illustration of the horseshoe theory, where two otherwise highly divergent groups end up with a lot of striking similarities. in both camps, the devotees develop an oversized moral response to something that a) they can't actually change and b) provides a convenient pedestal to moralize from. anti-abortion activists have consistently failed to move the needle on abortion rates, and vegans have consistently failed to move the needle on meat consumption - but oddly enough, both groups behave as though having a really strong conviction about their respective pet issue is what's really most important.

it also doesn't help that vegans are quite fond of throwing out ye olde herbivore myth that is debunked in about two seconds with any knowledge of evolutionary processes, but as in most cases, emotion-laden convictions ("ANOTHER HOLOCAUST!!!!!") tend to trump facts.

Precisely where does religious convictions factor in anywhere in what I typed? Also, sorry to burst your little omniscient bubble (someone seems to think they're a "sky-daddy", eh?), but I'm incredibly spiritual and have my own religious beliefs. If I feel passionately towards something or a belief, I'm going to feel that way regardless of what my tumblr following would say. So this not being religious because it is "uncool" sounds grossly elementary, and I'm sorry you feel that way and can not establish a sense of self enough to feel something pure and simple regardless of who does or doesn't reach an agreement in it. :) It's apparent religion is a hole you worm into during debates as that's all you can pull from your arsenal. Please re-read what was wrote and come up with something worthwhile.

Secondly, where have I come across angry? Please, point out where. If this is a preconception conceived from encounters with others vegan, grow up and learn not to apply one characteristic of ONE member to every member of a community. Prejudice gets no one anywhere besides making them look an utter fool.

Thirdly, I do stand by my belief. Countless studies back my belief. Our bodies mirror my belief, no matter how you emphatically cover your ears and shake your head no. And for someone to give up their convictions because it appears unchanging in any way is pitifully spineless. Equality for women and blacks once seemed an unfathomable concept. Equality for gay rights once seemed an unfathomable concept.

And you can genuinely say our planet can sustain this lifestyle for years to come? Again, I hate to burst your bubble but this is not in any manner a sustainable way of life?
Over 51% of greenhouse gases are a result of the meat industry. These directly affect the climate and climate change is a consequence. Let's take into consideration the enormous amounts of land (over 80% of US agricultural land is for animals we beat into oblivion and put into pretty packages that don't resemble the animal at all so we can detach from the slaughter, the rape, the exploitation and abuse of said animals. And that land is used for crops to fatten the animals. For the animals, to fatten them; not for human consumption unless you consider secondhand, diluted inadequate nutrition, along with feces, bacteria and antibiotics, we get from the animals that consume them :) ) Oh, did we mention millions of humans are starving and starvation in the east is a result of animal ag in the west? Oh, yeah, huge rates of heart disease and cancer in the West is a result of....oh, right, animal ag in the west? :)


Let's now take into consideration the animals, that you, so typically, seem to be forgetting. :)
Eggs = chicken menstration. Periods? Yep. Mucousy periods. Male chick's born from the egg industry have incredibly long lives. Oh, crap, they dont, though. Because they're useless, right? Right. We need to exterminate them cheap. Let's throw them in a grinder alive, crush them or I'VE GOT IT! Let's put them in a trash bag, all the males together, and suffocate them alive. The females will follow in their mothers footsteps. Crap, forgot to mention they typically don't get to move. If battery cages are used, this beautiful creature spends it's entire life on the diameter of a sheet of paper! So much room to pop out chicken menstration.


Let's look at the dairy industry. You've always heard you needed calcium. Right? Bones and all that jazz. Dairy milk actually happens to be so acidic, to neutralize our body must pull in the only source available for that.... phosphate. Bones just so happen to contain phosphate and calcium. So we urinate the calcium and the phosphate is used to neutralize it. Naturally this leads to osteoporosis, the exact thing milk is supposedly made for US (not their babies) to avoid. Darn. What is in milk, though? Just....mammary secretions? Wrong. Somatic cells. Somatic cells sound so pleasant :) Unfortunately it's puss cells. Puss. Pussssss. The fda can't allow much though, right? No, just a couple hundreds of thousands per liter.

They're also raped. Did anyone tell you that? Cows, like women, produce milk after giving birth so of course they'd need to conceive for you a glass. :) So, yeah, they're raped. No other word for it as it is an act done to an animal that isn't willing to have it performed on them. Then their babies are drug from them immediately after being born. IMMEDIATELY. And these cows screech for days for their missing calf. Sometimes weeks for their baby. Let's ponder why people are so damn addicted to cheese. It's fucking everywhere. Surprised ice cream doesn't come with cheese so dairy can top dairy. Oh, crap fuckinnnnng opioids. Damn them drugs. Look up a thing called casomorphins. These are very real and a natural protein a mother's breast milk produces with a very similar makeup to Morphine :) It's to keep the baby near, relax the baby and the mother. I have a question. Why have the vast majority not been weaned off the teet....of another species?
I won't tell you what happens to male calves.

That's just a nice picture of the dairy and egg industry. If mention the meat but I'd need fake blood for a good demonstration.

Did you know methods were learned from the meat and dairy industry by Nazis to torture jews6? :o No holocaust? Not an animal genocide? No?


http://s21.postimg.org/gwq7nae07/b8dde08f1ff96a03a424036f8fbc7330.jpg

Wair.....what? :what: Shit just got real.

[Hudor]

I've always been on a vegetarian diet but I don't understand the point of adopting a Vegan lifestyle.
Veganism is not cruelty-free exactly. If the argument is that shearing the fur off sheep, lambs etc, taking the eggs of hen, ducks etc is bad and cruel. Then plucking leaves and fruits from plants is equally bad. No permanent damage is being done in either case and the products obtained are useful for our sustenance.
The only part I actually agree with is that killing animals for their skins and various parts is wrong and should be stopped because they mainly find luxury uses only and we can easily survive without them.

[Mob Boss]

I've always been on a vegetarian diet but I don't understand the point of adopting a Vegan lifestyle.
Veganism is not cruelty-free exactly. If the argument is that shearing the fur off sheep, lambs etc, taking the eggs of hen, ducks etc is bad and cruel. Then plucking leaves and fruits from plants is equally bad. No permanent damage is being done in either case and the products obtained are useful for our sustenance.
The only part I actually agree with is that killing animals for their skins and various parts is wrong and should be stopped because they mainly find luxury uses only and we can easily survive without them.

This point is moot. Plants do not have the mental faculties to register pain. They have no central nervous system. When a piece of broccoli jumps up and smacks you for eating it, get back to me.
Animals react. Go to a slaughterhouse, watch the animals getting of the truck and tell me if a single one gets off it willingly. They're often tasered or poked in the EYE . Then tell me if a single one of them smiles while they're bled out.Cut open a strawberry and show me exactly where the brain is that processes pain. Go to a dairy farm and watch them gracefully take to being hooked up to machines that cause infections, mastitis, on their udders.

[phuckphace]

that's a lot of disjointed words to convey how caremad you are about the topic. yes Tumblr, we know it means a lot to you. gold star. reblog this if you agree.

as are all "debates" on this topic, attempting to engage any points is a futile effort that will always be buried under an avalanche of breathless, spittle-flecked rhetoric, just like how it's impossible to engage a Creationist in a debate about evolution, or an anti-abortionist in an abortion debate. the devotee has already made their mind up what they want to believe because of extreme over-emotional investment in it.

notice how we began with assertions that human beings aren't "designed" to eat meat (no doubt based on the OP's innate knowledge of evolutionary dietary requirements and human dentition) and then followed up with a string of appeals to emotion as in every case. MURDER! RAPE! TORTURE! that this proves nothing about whether or not humans eat meat because we evolved to do so or because we just love to revel in gore isn't addressed - instead we get the usual gaspy moralizing and LET ME TELL YOU ALL ABOUT THE FARMS THAT KILL ANIMALS JUST LIKE HITLER

for anyone else who's following the thread I suppose I'll mention for the record that I find factory farming and other modern large-scale developments repugnant for several reasons, and moreover that a more sustainable approach to agriculture seems like a good idea from my perspective. this is where a sane person can differentiate between things like free-range poultry roaming the field vs. caged chickens wallowing in their own shit, instead of being one of two ridiculous extremes as the vegans see it. mass-scale factory farms aren't a historical norm, for one.

[Hudor]

This point is moot. Plants do not have the mental faculties to register pain. They have no central nervous system. When a piece of broccoli jumps up and smacks you for eating it, get back to me.
Animals react. Go to a slaughterhouse, watch the animals getting of the truck and tell me if a single one gets off it willingly. They're often tasered or poked in the EYE . Then tell me if a single one of them smiles while they're bled out.Cut open a strawberry and show me exactly where the brain is that processes pain. Go to a dairy farm and watch them gracefully take to being hooked up to machines that cause infections, mastitis, on their udders.

Clifford suggests that to feel pain a central nervous system is required. He is not the only one to reach such a conclusion and it would certainly seem to be reasonable.

RD points out that plants can react to touch. But is that pure reaction or a pain defence mechanism? If so, what triggers the mechanism?

On a similar vein to RD's Mimosa example, the Venus Fly Trap also reacts to touch. Tiny hairs within the modified leaves which form the trap will trigger the closing of the trap when touched.

Then there are the cases of plants using chemical signals when attacked. For example, when caterpillars begin to eat the leaves of corn, the corn releases a chemical signal which attracts wasps. The wasps will then eat the caterpillars. Lima Beans, when attacked by spider mites release a chemical which alters the flavour of the bean, making it less attractive to the spider mite. This chemical is also released into the air to warn surrounding plants of the attack, so they can release this defence system before the spider mite attacks.

An experiment carried out at Exeter University showed that the Arabidopsis (a brassica related to the cabbage) warn each other of impending attack. Three healthy plants were isolated and the leaves of one were cut to simulate an attack. Not only did this plant begin a chemical reaction to protect itself, but the two undamaged plants, once they had received the signal from the 'attacked' plant began to react to protect themselves against perceived imminent attack.

Now I'm not sure any of this could be said to suggest that plants actually 'feel pain', but the fact that they react to attack and/or damage seems to suggest that plants are perhaps somewhat more advanced than we think. Plants have been around a couple of thousand million years or so longer than animals. They have protected themselves with modified leaves to form thorns and spikes, sharp edge leaves, chemical toxins and communications. They even bleed to protect damaged parts. Some plants even benefit from grazing.

So, do plants feel pain? Well, perhaps not in the same way that animals do, but perhaps they feel pain in a different way, but for the same purpose.



Plant perception or biocommunication is the paranormal idea that plants are sentient, that they respond to humans in a manner that amounts to ESP, and that they experience pain and fear. The idea was not accepted, as plants lack a nervous system.[1][2] This idea is distinct from measured plant perception and chemical communication.



Early researchEdit

The notion that plants are capable of feeling emotions was first recorded in 1848, when Dr. Gustav Theodor Fechner, a German experimental psychologist, suggested that plants are capable of emotions and that one could promote healthy growth with talk, attention, attitude, and affection.[3]

Indian scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose, began to conduct experiments on plants in the year 1900. He found that every plant and every part of a plant appeared to have a sensitive nervous system and responded to shock by a spasm just as an animal muscle does. In addition Bose found that plants grew more quickly amidst pleasant music and more slowly amidst loud noise or harsh sounds. He also claimed that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc.," from the analysis of the nature of variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under different circumstances. According to him, a plant treated with care and affection gives out a different vibration compared to a plant subjected to torture.

One visitor to his laboratory, the vegetarian playwright George Bernard Shaw, was intensely disturbed upon witnessing a demonstration in which a cabbage had "convulsions" as it boiled to death.[4] Bose found that the effect of manures, drugs, and poisons could be determined within minutes, providing plant control with a new precision. He repeated his tests on metals, administering poisons to tin, zinc, and platinum, and obtained astonishing responses which, when plotted on a graph, appeared precisely like those of poisoned animals. In conclusion he said: "Do not these records tell us of some property of matter common and persistent? That there is no abrupt break, but a uniform and continuous march of law?"[5]


I'm basing my argument mainly on several experiments that suggest plants react to pain even though they don't have a central nervous system.

Also the procedures you mentioned highlight only the pain the animals go through and not their redundancy. If these procedures could be effectively made painless would they be acceptable?

[Mob Boss]

that's a lot of disjointed words to convey how caremad you are about the topic. yes Tumblr, we know it means a lot to you. gold star. reblog this if you agree.

as are all "debates" on this topic, attempting to engage any points is a futile effort that will always be buried under an avalanche of breathless, spittle-flecked rhetoric, just like how it's impossible to engage a Creationist in a debate about evolution, or an anti-abortionist in an abortion debate. the devotee has already made their mind up what they want to believe because of extreme over-emotional investment in it.

notice how we began with assertions that human beings aren't "designed" to eat meat (no doubt based on the OP's innate knowledge of evolutionary dietary requirements and human dentition) and then followed up with a string of appeals to emotion as in every case. MURDER! RAPE! TORTURE! that this proves nothing about whether or not humans eat meat because we evolved to do so or because we just love to revel in gore isn't addressed - instead we get the usual gaspy moralizing and LET ME TELL YOU ALL ABOUT THE FARMS THAT KILL ANIMALS JUST LIKE HITLER

for anyone else who's following the thread I suppose I'll mention for the record that I find factory farming and other modern large-scale developments repugnant for several reasons, and moreover that a more sustainable approach to agriculture seems like a good idea from my perspective. this is where a sane person can differentiate between things like free-range poultry roaming the field vs. caged chickens wallowing in their own shit, instead of being one of two ridiculous extremes as the vegans see it. mass-scale factory farms aren't a historical norm, for one.

:/ Again, another bubble to burst.... I don't even have a tumblr. I do have an animal rights instagram, though :) But that's mostly pictures of lives slaughtered and proof of what goes on, on the kill floors. :)



Futile effort = just got my ass handed to me because this bitch actually makes sense. :) Why so many words. That's all you had to say.
And you'll believe what you want to believe because you're comfortably numb :) Plenty of research. Go watch earthlings. No? Cowspiracy? It's on Netflix. Go read le China Study, my friend, with le indisputable facts about le plant-based diet reveraing, arresting and preventing chronic diseases meat causes. :)
Not enough proof of why you need to go vegan?
Fair enough, I forgot to add MORE to exactly what on our body represents a true herbivore. (P.S. detective, where's yours beyond "evolution"?)

Do you lap up water? I dont. My tongue doesn't protrude out to lap at it, like true meat-eaters'.
Our molars are wide and flat. Not sharp for ripping, like an omnivore. As a matter of fact, find a human on this chart.... choppers resemble um...frugivores and herbivores, no?
http://vegaprocity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/dietarydifferences.jpg
Dude, where are your claws? How come you have nimble, articulate fruit peeling fingers? Oh, right, because, again, we're herbivores. :)
Do one more test though... put a toddler in a crib with a Bunny and an apple and get back to me when he eat the bunny and plays with the apple. Is that not a fair test? If we were genuinely omnivore, we would be salivating at the sight. A baby would rip the bunny to shreds. Roadkill, we'd be calling lunch. Not cooked, no alteration for our body to digest it, no, raw and bloodied. Ready to go, right now :) Let's eat!!
More?
We can't really digest microbes. E.coli? Microbe we get sick from injesting. Botulism, deadly for humans, easy digested by a lion? Microbe. We cannot digest these. True omnivores and carnivores? No problem.

So I'm guessing you're a proponent of humane slaughter? I'm going to assume you're also a proponent of oxymoron because that doesn't make a lick of sense. If we practiced canniabalism, and your loved one was on a farm, would a nail gun known as a stunner shooting them between the eyes with a metal rod the length and size of a thick pencil constitute the usage of the word "humane"?

Sure not every farm does the beating for the fun of it, but they need th job done cheap and quick. Ethics go out the door when money goes in the pockets. I can guarantee you every major dairy farm does do what is mentioned. What you need to understand is these are the RULE, not the exception. I kid you not when I say that is the standard. Extra fun on the workers' lunch breaks aside, what I mentioned there is dairy and egg industry norm. No dramatization here.

Dude, free-range? Just.... I give up.

Oh, and here's free-range for you, phuckphace
Merciful. Feces-caked, urine-singed overcrowded mercy.
http://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Free-Range-Hens-Overcrowded.jpg
Another just to really nail the point home. ..
http://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/chickens-used-for-food/chickens2.jpg
I'm basing my argument mainly on several experiments that suggest plants react to pain even though they don't have a central nervous system.

Also the procedures you mentioned highlight only the pain the animals go through and not their redundancy. If these procedures could be effectively made painless would they be acceptable?


And yet the plants benefit from their consumption? They thrive as their seeds are dispersed. They grow even after their death once planted. Never seen an animal carcass pop up with a fresh cow. And also let's consider we are SHOWN to be herbivores. It's is KNOWN that our bodies are naturally vegan, and so I raise the question if a lion eats what he is meant to eat (i.e. other animals), what he was born to exist on, do we look down at him? No. So we can justify UNNECESSARY murder and rape of animals we literally do not need a single resource from by saying our true, blue diet Wed thrive on that might cause a plant a bit of pain regardless of the fact they do not react like one with a pain receptor would, because they might sense pain regardless of the cns? So that's basically saying "I scratched myself earlier by doing something I naturally do, say...clipping my toenails. If that's alright, even though it was somewhat unavoidable, I can definitely go kill my landlord because man, that rent is getting high". We are animals too. We thrive on a diet our body runs optimally on. What we can't do is murder, exploit and slaughter when it is LITERALLY not benefiting us.

And sorry, I don't consider murder acceptable. I don't consider stealing a calfs milk from its momma acceptable.

[Stronk Serb]

The herbivore myth has been debunked. If we are herbivoral, who do we have fang-like teeth? If you look at chimps, most of them have flat teeth, no fangs. I find it a tad bit hypocritical that you dictate about animal rights while bilions of plants are slaughteret in a similar, indistrial way like the animals. Isn't all life precious?

[Mob Boss]

The herbivore myth has been debunked. If we are herbivoral, who do we have fang-like teeth? If you look at chimps, most of them have flat teeth, no fangs. I find it a tad bit hypocritical that you dictate about animal rights while bilions of plants are slaughteret in a similar, indistrial way like the animals. Isn't all life precious?

Nuts. Those are not at all the same as what carnivores and omnivores have, which is illustrated in the chart I showed.
Also, read my reply right above you to Hudor.
Also read my second post.
Also read my first post that mentions jaw movement.
Also read my second post that explains more of our anatomica l herbivore characteristics.
Also, yeah, again, refer to my previous posts.
. It is our body designed to eat those things, to disobey that would essentially lead to death unless you mean sustaining off fallen fruit and plants which, given our overpopumation, is impossible to feed every hungry mouth off the amount of fruit fallen off a tree without being plucked. Again, we do not look down upon carnivores for eating what they eat when it is abiding by their diet. We do not look down on spiders for catching and consuming flies. AGAIN, you can not justify slaughter because abiding by our NATURAL diet, that our body desires due to the dense nutritional makeup to satiate our stores and to fill up our brain with glucose, by saying what we, ONCE AGAIN, are supposed to exist on harms vegetables and fruits based on minor chemical reactions. What my stance is is this utter atrocity is UTTERLY unnecessary. Have I stepped on bugs by accident? Absolutely. Have the single-celled anaerobic bacteria in my mouth died as a result of keeping my teeth clean so they stay strong and I can survive? Yes. Can you survive without meat and dairy and eggs? Uh, yep. Would your body be okay? It would prefer and thank you afterwards in an abundance of good health and vitality. Would I prefer veggies and fruit not have a chemical reaction that gives off the impression they feel something similar to pain? Yeah.
So you ask me how it's hypocritical and I say it's not. I'm not blind. I know I am an animal. I know I have a certain way my body functions and that way might be harming a plant. Do I want to, no. But I'm not going to be an idiot and say the masses can survive off already fallen fruit. I'm also not going to be a blind sheep and try and justify paying someone to murder animals by saying oh, but our natural diet might be hurting vegetables and fruit that react in no way, that actually grow from their seeds (unlike a fellow animal), might feel something?
Your blinders are on so tight they're affecting your cognitive processes.

[phuckphace]

once again we have another WACKY! ZANY! stream-of-consciousness ramble that OP (hilariously) believes is one sick burn after another. I doubt I'll ever recover from the sheer volume of facts lobbed at me in the form of unsourced image macros from vegan blogs.

for those who know literally nothing about evolution but feel inclined to comment anyway: humans evolved large brains and higher intelligence (not to mention a bipedal gait) which removed the necessity of fangs used by other predators that seize prey in their mouths. humans are prolific users of tools and weapons thanks to our intelligence - you don't need fangs when you have the smarts and physical ability to make and hurl a spear at the prey during a coordinated hunt instead. but don't let that stop you from reading your own false parallels with humans into other species that followed different evolutionary paths in different environments.

humans consume both meat and plants (omnivorous diet) because some of the essential nutrients we require aren't found in all sources, and some have poor bio-availability which means we have to consume them from as many sources as possible. vegan propaganda always portrays meat consumption as a horribly unhealthy diet of POISON that drains your vital energy and whatever, despite the fact that humans have consumed meat for millennia upon millennia stretching back into prehistory when our ancestors carved up a slaughtered mammoth. literally the same thing as slaughtering your family and eating them too! (vegans also like to project human qualities on to animals which is as creepy as it is bizarre). it's maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective to consume a diet that impedes your survival, hence it would make no sense for early humans to hunt for meat unless the benefits of doing so outweighed the considerable risk.

next up: another tl;dr ramble, another "argument" that is framed to a priori rule out any opposing views, more bizarre malaprops presented as "proof", more MEAT IS MURDER emotional appeals, and more image macros. it's like arguing with a pro-life nutcase except it's chopped up cows instead of chopped up fetuses.

[Stronk Serb]

Mob Boss

http://veganbiologist.com/2016/01/04/humans-are-not-herbivores/

Humans and what was to become humans have been cooking food for millenia. We have longer intestines in order to digest plant food effectivelly and we have longer intestines because our intestine acid is weaker than the carnivore one. Our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee sometimes eats meat. We don't need fangs anymore because we have evolved enough to know how to cook and to use a knife and a fork, making food digestion easier. We can also eat raw meat, but it's a lot harder to digest due to our weaker acids. Raw fish can be digested with relative ease. We don't hunt with fists because we used our brains to invent spears, bows, arrows, crossbows and firearms that aid us in hunting. We adapted to both meat and plant foods because sometimes meat was scarce and sometimes plants were scarce.

[dxcxdzv]

Things to never do when you are defending veganism/vegetarianism etc:
- Over-evaluate animals' pain.
- Use animals' pain as principal argumentation.
- Try to make meat eaters feel guilty.
- Remind every 2 minutes that you're vegan. Reinforce the idea of sectarianism.
- Mention famous people that one day have been vegan, it's not an argumentation.

Some tips from a vegan buddy.

And I'll personally add:
- Do not use a biological argumentation (meaning, evolution) on this point to try to define human's "true" nature, simply because it is not relevant.

(pain=suffering here, ya got me brah)

[Vlerchan]

concise (adj.) giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.

Let's go.

There's little counter to the fact that Humans are still geared to eat meat. Our bodies might be primed in a certain direction but meats role in out diet descends from a millenia of at-least cultural selection. Groups on lands with larger numbers of domesticable animals and better lactose tolerance (white Europeans) had a significant advantage.
I can think of a number of vegetarian animals with sharp front molars. OP needs to disentangle there role as threat devises from there role for use in eating. It's further worth nothing that a larger cranium might have made them infeasible additions - and also makes infeasible large mouth spaces which in-turn requires different mechanisms to eat our food.
That note about cranial size is important. The likelihood is that there was a preference in evolution for meat eaters because there's a high caloric return. Our brains are much larger than other animals and require much larger amounts of caloric input.
Furthermore OP fails to reject the view that our greater brain power as a species ensures that Humans remain different in qualitative terms. That is - Our diet is inferred from brain power and it's sustenance rather than anatomical specialisation. There's an interesting argument that in order to support increased brain size we sacrificed anatomical specialisation as it relates to eating.
It's the absorption capacities of our intestines that matter. Not their length. We middle there.
The PH of our saliva and urine is dependent on our diets.

To be concise: the size of the human cranium is the confounding factor that needs to be addressed here.

There's also a tonne I left out but I don't have the time to get to it now. I'll respond this evening.

---

People should also stop bashing OP. The argument she raises is worthwhile.

[sqishy]

Some of you may not know terribly much about veganism, but I wanted to have an open dialogue for those that do know; and furthermore any counter argument you know of in opposition of veganism.

Alright then.


Veganism is not a diet, as so often mislabeled. It is a lifestyle, wholly encompassing a cruelty-free way of living. This includes abstaining from wearing furs, leather, wool; purchasing pillows with down; the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs and honey. It involves avoiding cosmetics, toiletries and various other products tested on animals.

Sounds about right; the 'ism' makes it a practiced viewpoint and not a mere non-animal diet.



In fact a philosophy professor Gary Yourofsky once encountered at one of his many college lectures, said he became vegan purely because no one could stump him with justification for eating meat and dairy.

No good justification from the view that you can live without animal-based nutrients, yes.

It's not easier at all though; vegans (and non-vegan vegetarians alike) need to know what foods they are eating, if they are to avoid iron and protein deficiencies, for example. From my first impressions, Yourofsky has got an issue regarding ease of nutrition, if he says he has no reason to eat animal.



So I want you to read whatever becomes of this thread with an open mind.

I try my best to.



For starters, every inch of our body physiologically screams herbivore. Not omnivore, as liked to believe. We are intrinsically herbivore.

I really do not think so, but I will keep following as I point out things.


The manner in which we sweat through our pores and not our mouths, the fact our jaws move side to side as well as up and down in comparison to out meat-eating counterparts, with their mechanism of rip and swallow (void of any lateral movement), not chew. Our intestinal tract is incredibly long, as are all herbivores, which is so opposite of meat-eaters.

These are herbivore aspects from our past evolution, yes. However, the presence of them does not entail the absence of carnivore aspects. It just entails that we are omnivores physiologically.



This is so our body can digest the plants and fruits and so TRUE omnivores, and their short intestines, can push out rotting, highly acidic meat.

Do you mean omnivores of carnivores? What you say only makes sense with the latter.



As a matter of fact, meat-eaters have over 1000% times the amount of hydrochloric acid in their stomachs than us, herbivores. Why is that? It is for the digestion of meat. And ours? Why is our so miniscule?

Because we are not obligate carnivores. It seems that you're questioning our bodies' digesting ability when it comes to meat, even though it is clear that we do it fine. If it weren't then meat would be inedible, which is simply not the case.


But also, if we're not supposed to eat meat, why any at all?

Because it makes certain nutritional quantities and proportions far easier to consume, than with just plant nutrients.



Hydrochloric acid is a digester of protein, essentially. And as it so happens, protein comes in small, vegan-friendly forms, such as peanuts, broccoli, and lentils and beans.

(I'm pretending you have not said 'vegan-friendly' because that sounds like you are including your conclusion in an argument that is aiming to get at your conclusion (circular arguing), or at the least anticipating results too soon, so to speak.)

HCl is, yes. That animal protein is harder to digest inherently, does not mean we should be getting rid of it. There is more protein in meat than plant, the less quick digestion of the animal proteins is not such that you get less protein from them, than from plants.



Overall, the past couple of hundred of thousand years at the least says otherwise against your setting of veganism, for which I would like good references backing your angle. Yes, what you are saying makes sense, but not in relation to other stuff you do not mention.

If we are herbivores, then why can we eat animal and not harm ourselves?
As far as I know, herbivores cannot digest animal properly. We do it with ease. Also, we have a harder time nutritionally if we do not eat any animal. These in themselves are pretty big pointers you are denying.

From just a nutritional POV, I do not see ways to shut down arguments saying we can live without animal meats. I think we certainly can, but it will not be as easy, at the least (resource and task-based analyses may be relevant regarding an economy that is purely vegan, to compare it to one that is non-vegan). Arguing for not eating animal is okay in itself, but in this scenario the argument being there does not mean that it proves eating animal is wrong. It is showing an alternative, which means there are at least two ways to this (eating or not eating animal). If eating animal were 'properly wrong', then we probably would not be doing it from the outset in prehistory.

What I am not liking is that you're using this view to instantly jump to saying it is (categorically) morally wrong, and those who eat are bad people or something. You're using non-emotive biochemistry (and physiology in general) to justify pretty emotive views that we are conducting a form of half-ignorant mass pain-inflicting upon millions of life forms:

Yet there is a holocaust going on we are blind to.

I am also saying this even with ignoring that I see to be a circular argument; you have the same viewpoint before your argument as after it. It doesn't even metaphorically flinch (which arguments can/should have a tendency to do).


I'm putting this in bold as a sort of TL;DR shortcut for you and me; this whole thread is fundamentally down to seeing the eating/processing of animals for resources as cruel, because animals can feel pain/suffer (be conscious) in ways that plants/fungi/etc cannot, which is sufficient justification for you.
_______________


There's little counter to the fact that Humans are still geared to eat meat. Our bodies might be primed in a certain direction but meats role in out diet descends from a millenia of at-least cultural selection. Groups on lands with larger numbers of domesticable animals and better lactose tolerance (white Europeans) had a significant advantage.

I can think of a number of vegetarian animals with sharp front molars. OP needs to disentangle there role as threat devises from there role for use in eating. It's further worth nothing that a larger cranium might have made them infeasible additions - and also makes infeasible large mouth spaces which in-turn requires different mechanisms to eat our food

That note about cranial size is important. The likelihood is that there was a preference in evolution for meat eaters because there's a high caloric return. Our brains are much larger than other animals and require much larger amounts of caloric input.

Furthermore OP fails to reject the view that our greater brain power as a species ensures that Humans remain different in qualitative terms. That is - Our diet is inferred from brain power and it's sustenance rather than anatomical specialisation. There's an interesting argument that in order to support increased brain size we sacrificed anatomical specialisation as it relates to eating.


Cooking of food may be relevant with regards to our physiology, as previously chemically inaccessible higher-yield carbohydrates in plants can now be heated such that they break down. Cooking opened a large area of new nutrients in plants, and brought animal nutrients from a near-non-existent status, for our bodies.

I have heard from many areas that we would need to eat for hours to satisfy our huge energy (and lesser-so nutrient) demands of our brain, if we could not cook anything. Even if I did not hear of that, it would make sense logically.

With the above said, I'm not seeing it being directly relevant to the thread, so I'm fine with leaving it.



People should also stop bashing OP. The argument she raises is worthwhile.

Completely agree.

_______________

Interesting for myself that I seem to be taking a conservative (or at least neutral) position regarding all of this, but only because of the place I am finding myself to be after navigating relevant arguments - I don't want to be conservative for the sake of it ofc.

[Hudor]

And yet the plants benefit from their consumption? They thrive as their seeds are dispersed. They grow even after their death once planted. Never seen an animal carcass pop up with a fresh cow.
Plants do not benefit from their consumption. Seeds dispersed over various regions provide more probability of a new plant's birth. Dispersing seeds is beneficial but grinding them in a mixer isn't.
If you're talking about things like the nutrient cycle though, that's a completely different matter and not just plants but various microorganisms and eventually all organisms benefit from it.
Also, as far as i know plants do not regenerate after death. a plant's part that has been dissociated from the main body does not die immediately after being severed from the main body and can be regenerated in some cases but i don't know of any case where plants grow again when planted after death. If you have a source for this, kindly cite.


And also let's consider we are SHOWN to be herbivores. It's is KNOWN that our bodies are naturally vegan, and so I raise the question if a lion eats what he is meant to eat (i.e. other animals), what he was born to exist on, do we look down at him? No.

If you have a source stating humans are herbivores, kindly cite. I know humans to be omnivores.
We are no one to look down on a lion or any other animal for eating another. They have more sense and control than we do in these matters. They have been maintaining the ecological balance smoothly if not for our interference and only take as much as we need. You won't see a lion burning down an entire forest or going for leisure hunting trips for the sole purpose of obtaining skins to make a carpet.

So we can justify UNNECESSARY murder and rape of animals we literally do not need a single resource from by saying our true, blue diet Wed thrive on that might cause a plant a bit of pain regardless of the fact they do not react like one with a pain receptor would, because they might sense pain regardless of the cns? So that's basically saying "I scratched myself earlier by doing something I naturally do, say...clipping my toenails. If that's alright, even though it was somewhat unavoidable, I can definitely go kill my landlord because man, that rent is getting high". We are animals too.
I'm sorry. This was largely incoherent. If there was a typo, i couldn't figure out, let me know. Also i don't understand why rape even features here.

We thrive on a diet our body runs optimally on. What we can't do is murder, exploit and slaughter when it is LITERALLY not benefiting us.
It is benefiting us. Non vegetarian food provides various vitamins and minerals that cannot be supplemented by a vegan diet. Unnecessary slaughter is wrong, though, i agree. We should only take as much as we need.


And sorry, I don't consider murder acceptable. I don't consider stealing a calfs milk from its momma acceptable.
Is there any reason why? I don't see any harm in killing animals for meat and taking cows' milk if it's done in a controlled manner. Also if humans altogether stop eating other animals, eggs, etc, we would radically disturb the ecological balance. I don't support unnecessary slaughter and no slaughter at all. Both distort the balance in nature.

[sqishy]

I point out a slaughter method that involves asphyxiation by pure nitrogen at normal pressure. I have seen a documentary on searching for a 'perfect' method for a death penalty to utilise, a section in which showed pigs being tested on pure nitrogen gas asphyxiation at normal pressure (the pigs were not killed, only put out of consciousness at points).

The lack of oxygen, as well as the lack of carbon dioxide, is theorised (pretty solidly) to have the animals have a painless relatively quick death by being 'put under'. Similar conditions have been experienced by some humans, which say that it feels euphoric at the start, with no pain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#Animal_slaughter

Argon can also be used, but nitrogen is far cheaper due to its greater abundance. My point is that we can kill animals for consumption/etc painlessly and cheaply, and perhaps even with some having good feelings as they pass out.

[Porpoise101]

Mob Boss
Well I don't think veganism is harmful itself. But some of the things you have said are wrong I think. You say plants don't have nervous systems. That isn't true. More and more, we are discovering that plants use electrical impulses to transmit information. It's why sunflowers move, why Venus flytraps eat things, and how pinecones open and close. The other thing you said was that we are herbivores. That is wrong as well. The fact is that one of the defining traits of a herbivore vs a carnivore is that carnivores have a highly developed sense of sight or smell (we have sight) and that they have eyes on the front and not on the side. They also tend to have poor peripheral vision compared to herbivores. Yes, we aren't pure herbivores or pure carnivores. We are omnivores who have adapted to eat mostly fruits and then eat a bunch of meat on rare occasions. If there is one thing man wasn't meant to eat, it is dairy though.

That being said I do think we will move forward on at least minimising meat and dairy consumption. I think veganism is good for doing that, but I don't think most people will adopt it in the future. They will probably just eat plants + insects, fish, and poultry. And I think that is good enough. Maybe honey will be used too.

Edit: Oh also you said that milk is so acidic that it needs to pull out phosphate. That isn't true as milk has a pH of between 6.7 to 6.5. To compare, rainwater has a pH of 5.6 and oranges (a good thing to eat since it's plant based right?) have a pH of around 3.5. Anyways, something that is that close to neutral can even be neutralised by good ol water. Since water releases hydroxide ions, any excess acidity in the stomach solutions should go away stat.

[thatcountrykid]

I eat meat simply for this reason. I can and its good. I'm all for the humane slaughter of animals and will never disrespect one but people have fought through thousands upon thousands of years of survival and we made it to the top.

[Mob Boss]

I'm going to reply to all in one post, without quoting everyone, and attempt to hit every point made. If I miss something, let me know because I can assure you it wasn't an avoidance tactic.


So ethics has become a footnote to this whole thread. You can't debate people into being moved by something you are moved by, facts and research aside, environmental destruction aside. I cannot speak enough words that would force someone to care for the animals' excruciatingly painful and short lifespans. That's your prerogative, that's for you to experience and whether you do or not is not something I or anyone else could whittle you down to feel.

I am both biologically and emotionally driven. So there is absolutely an emotional tie to this for me. I have a protest at a Nashville Zoo at the end of the month, and its not because i desire standing outside of the gates of the zoo in the heat, to have others look at me like im the anti-christ because the truth of what goes on in zoos is being brought to life in front of their children. So absolutely there is a huge emotional aspect and I get the veins in my neck bloated and a quicken heartbeat when feeling like I'm up against a wall-of-a-person that feels there is an infallible, logical defense to the pain and enslavement of another species.

However, I will not bring up the animals (keystone in this whole lifestyle, yet one people are so tortured about when brought up and not even for the valid reason of the animals' suffering, but for their (non-vegans) morality to be salvaged. Because it is so blatant and black and white that the only counter argument is "well, I just don't care". If that's the case, good on you. I'd respect people a hell of a lot more if they fessed up to that apathy in lieu of digging up excuses unto your own exhaustion. So, animals', my love for them, and their treacherous lives -- as a result of the meat and dairy industry -- will, from here on out, be void from any case I make whatsoever. Care, don't care. That's your decision.


Also, I didn't say people are inherently bad for eating meat. If you know of the ongoings and shrug, and look at the health statistics and ever-increasing cancer and heart disease numbers and say "pfft", watch documentaries on deforestation* (largely in part due to meat and dairy) and say "oh well.", yeah, then I think you're bad. I think you're scum of the Earth, to be quite frank. I think that exudes sociopathic behavior and emphasizes the vast holier than thou, rampant speciesism.

However, those ill-informed, genuinely uneducated on what goes on, no, I don't consider them evil at all. I would consider them severely left in the dark, which somewhat results in them also being victims, for the majority of those that aren't sociopaths would reach a consensus that it's disturbing on every comprehensible level.


Evolution.
What is evolution? Do we evolve to our surroundings? No. Can our actions effect evolution? No. Evolution is genetic mutations that make us better at something or more likely to survive. (For example, some elephants are born without tusks, it's a mutation that means they don't grow. So because they don't grow, the elephant survives being poached for ivory, meaning it lives longer and can pass that gene down the generations. This will lead to more tuskless elephants. They haven't stopped growing them to survive, they survive because they don't grow).


Some mutations make us worse and more likely to die. It is not "I can hold a knife and fork now so my claws fell off". If that was the case, we would not have an appendix. We have stopped eating items such as tree bark long before we used cutlery so why do we still have that and not wolverine style claws? Physiologically we had something to help digest a non animal product which still remains. But the so called omnivore traits like claws and real canines (come on, ours aren't canines they are slightly pointier teeth who have taken on a name that helped differentiate them from others. Similar to how we have an anvil bone in our ear which isn't used by blacksmiths). Looking at the comparisons between us and herbivores and carnivores and omnivores we are herbivores. I don't understand the debate here. Physiologically we are herbivorous. The intestine length, the saliva, sweating through pores, no claws, lateral jaw movement, having to cook most meats, having shorter sleep cycles, not producing our own vitamin C etc etc.



Physiologically, we can digest animal products, of course we can. We prove that every day. But I could drink a glass or two or salt water every day. It's not good for me. This was never a debate on the word "could", it is overwhelmingly on the word "innate, inborn, natural". I can bet my ass a chimp exhibit next to a hotdog stand, hotdogs bding fed to the chimps hy ignorant passerbys, WOULDN'T die as a result.
Can they? Yes. Should they? Hell no.



If I have animal products and dairy, I will get calcium but due to the fact that dairy and animal products are acidic to the blood, the blood needs to be alkalised using phosphate. This is taken out of the bones. The bones are made of calcium phosphate. The phosphate will try to neutralise the blood and the calcium will be excreted by way of urine. So that leaves the bones weaker and deficient. Funnily enough, we will be told to drink more milk, creating more deficiencies. Hence why there are so many calcium supplements on the market.
And, oranges are acidic. Claps for looking up the pH OUTSIDE the body. What is the defining factor here is residue during digesyion. Oranges, Google this and tell me I'm mistaken, are alkaline upon digestion. Our bodies operate optimally when at a pH around 7.5, which happens to be more in the alkaline range. Milk -- again the big picture here is what the pH converts to inside the body -- Milk is an alkaline base, but it's actually acid-forming in your body. So... yeah, there's that nugget of info.


If you are referring to our brains grew real big and juicy due to animal tendons, blood cartilage and flesh, as is meat, I think you're quite off there. It has been known it was the discovery of fire that aided in our big brains, that we evidently don't actually utilize.* This cooking allowed starches (fruits, grains, vegs, who'd have thunk) to be broken down and our caloric intake to soar while we sat on our happy asses. Actually, scientists believe our early ancestors survived on about a 70% plant-based diet because they'd often come home without meat and yet this was great sustenance and the brain grew. Tell me how our neurons run on glucose (which, if we lived purely on meat we'd fall into a state of ketosis, also known as a starvation state where our body has to adjust the energy source we run on.) and our brains thrive on glucose and carb-free foods such as meat, such as eggs, doesn't provide us with these things because they hold no starches. And yet, our brain grew. So why is that? Obviously this was a result of the 70% plant-based deliciousness filling our melons with glucose to aid in* cognitive development.

"Neurons run on glucose, not meat

Neurons, which use twice the energy as any other cell type in the body, run almost exclusively on glucose. They don't run on protein and fat.* Moreover, because neurons aren't able to store glucose as glycogen as other cells in the body do, they must receive glucose in constant supply. That's glucose that must be received from the bloodstream 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even while you're asleep. That's glucose for some 86 billion neurons, more than any other primate; by comparison,*gorillas contain about 33 billion and chimpanzees only 28 billion neurons. That's glucose in amounts that could not possibly be supplied by any abundance of meat eating.*
A human brain is ~3x larger than a chimp's.

Even the staunchest meat advocates recognize that protein and fat cannot power the brain – and we lose much of our gluconeogenesis capabilities at weaning. The argument is that meat eating provided the calories needed to power other parts of the body, freeing available carbohydrates to focus on the brain… Even in that case, it’s carbs, not meat that powers the brain (even though meat facilitates the process).
"
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-you-can-all-stop-saying-meat-eating.html?m=1

For those actually open-minded: http://www.adaptt.org/veganism.html#
Ethical side, for those that have feelings: http://sentientist.org/2013/03/08/understanding-evolution-made-me-vegan/
Conflicting with human nature: http://nutritionstudies.org/vegan-diet-conflict-human-nature/

Already wrote a book so won't add much about disease but yeah, meat eaters are most likely to die of heart disease and or cancer, but let's find a sand pit and stick our heads real deep. :)


And those so suddenly concerned for plant wellbeing, If you care so much about the suffering of plants, stop the need for growing them in a ratio of 16:1 lbs for food.

http://s14.postimg.org/y5lqmpm1t/14d509a9_8ea2_4a74_ac89_e5d8aae471e4_1.jpg

[Porpoise101]

Physiologically we are herbivorous.

Milk's actually acid-forming in your body. So... yeah, there's that nugget of info.

we'd fall into a state of ketosis, also known as a starvation state where our body has to adjust the energy source we run on

Even the staunchest meat advocates recognize that protein and fat cannot power the brain
Ok so these are the main things I have to discuss. You also mentioned ethics above and well... many people on this forum aren't ethical. So that's a heads up.

About the physiologically herbivorous claim... It depends on how you define herbivorous. You can pretend that there are the three groupings, but it's not as simple as that. It's more of a spectrum and we aren't at either extreme. Bovines are at one end and cats are at the other. Bears, dogs, and primates are in the middle progressing towards herbivorous diets. The feature that makes us omnivorous is that we have the capacity to eat most food types. If you want more info you can see it here: https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

So about the milk being acid forming, it's untrue. Yes, lactic acid is a thing, but that's also produced from respiration. It's insignificant if it is real. Yet those oranges previously mentioned do in fact increase acidity and also damage teeth. Here is an abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22081694
To clarify I do not agree with dairy consumption. It's not necessary now. Consuming yogurt used to be before the introduction of bacterial supplements.

Something interesting, some people force themselves into ketosis and run on ketones on purpose so they can eat meat and cheese and stuff. Reportedly they get sick for two days and then they are normal again.

You keep mentioning that meat isn't meant to power the brain. You are correct but that doesn't mean that meats with minimal saturated fats and cholesterol aren't good. Meat is an option, but you make it seem like it's not meant to be.

Another qualm with veganism is that it isn't economical. Fresh food is expensive for many.

Lastly, are you opposed to eating insects?

[Mob Boss]

I actually don't make it seem like meat isn't an option. I actually stated this is not a matter of could we consume meat, but should we and is that our instinct to consume meat? It's not mine. People may wrongly believe it, but what they come up with is "well, we can. And so, yeah, there. I know what happens to the animals, I know the result of it. I know I could live without it and thrive but hmmpfh, yeah, we can."

And so I'm going to let others, passing by with an open mind who want to watch a life-changing video that will move you beyond words. The video is here: https://youtu.be/VlNXG1_gheI
Earthlings. I know a 40 year old man, Standard American Diet his whole life, say it moved him to tears who is now fully vegan. I know of others that were speechless and changed quote drastically afterwards, joined animal rights and liberation groups after, threw out newly unnecessary medication to medicate the shit meat and dairy did to them.
And so for those people, enjoy this and take away from it what you will because I guarantee you it will alter your opinion, obliterate warped nutritional ideologies, slide us humans back in our rightful place among the other animals, not the pedestal we wrongly believe we deserve

[Porpoise101]

And so I'm going to let others, passing by with an open mind who want to watch a life-changing video that will move you beyond words. The video is here: https://youtu.be/VlNXG1_gheI
Earthlings. I know a 40 year old man, Standard American Diet his whole life, say it moved him to tears who is now fully vegan. I know of others that were speechless and changed quote drastically afterwards, joined animal rights and liberation groups after, threw out newly unnecessary medication to medicate the shit meat and dairy did to them.
And so for those people, enjoy this and take away from it what you will because I guarantee you it will alter your opinion, obliterate warped nutritional ideologies, slide us humans back in our rightful place among the other animals, not the pedestal we wrongly believe we deserve
I'm a little embarrassed, but I'm too young to see this movie. It has an age gate.

Also I'm wondering if you are pro or anti insect eating.

[Mob Boss]

I'm a little embarrassed, but I'm too young to see this movie. It has an age gate.

Also I'm wondering if you are pro or anti insect eating.

You shouldn't be embarrassed. I'm just ancient. Just thought I'd use this as a platform for people to discuss it and perhaps mention some of the things that happen on a daily basis that people aren't informed of. I wasn't always this way. Definitely not. I also didn't think eating meat was me being cruel because I genuinely didn't know what making hamburger meat entails. That's where I also think the vast majority stands, and that's because that's how they want us to stand. I initially became vegan for my health, and then I was shown the unethical workings of the meat and dairy industry in, honestly, a harsh way. But the truth is harsh.
But, yeah, everyone that is even slightly interested, watch the video for 5 - 10 minutes. If you can't access earthlings, due to age restriction, try Cows piracy on Netflix. While not as brutal and powerful, it's equally moving.
I stand by my belief we are intrinsically herbivore. And though I know the few in this thread do believe otherwise, and are intelligent enough to know we can survive without, I'm just wanting you to open your mind for a second and realize it is just unnecessary pain and suffering. Utterly unnecessary, and that's what scares people so much is because regardless of what you want to eat, it is unnecessary in every sense.

Also, really quick:
http://vegnews.com/web/uploads/asset/7115/file/VegNews.BenandJerrys.Chunky.jpg
http://www.vegsource.com/2010/05/07/3DAllPizzas.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51n8lBJZLIL.jpghttp://cdn.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2014/04/burrito-bowl-1080x800.jpghttp://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/travel/876/493/Taco%20Bell%20healthy.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513LGJisOgL._SX425_.jpg

There's incredible food I eat that literally requires reading labels or asking for a certain dish minus the cheese. I'm not eating sticks and prunes, like the misconception of gross vegan food so often goes. I never eat gross shit. Of course there is some gross vegan brand just like there are some gross Chinese restaurants or chips you don't like.

As for bugs, I consider them sentient beings so I wouldn't eat them. I know certain candy coatings are from certain beetles and raspberry flavorings are sometimes the result of disharge from a Beaver anus (wtf), so if there is something I'm really unsure of I google. But for the most part a quick glance to the ingredients is all that's necessary.

[sqishy]

[...]threw out newly unnecessary medication to medicate the shit meat and dairy did to them.


What did this 'meat and dairy' do to them?

I initially became vegan for my health, and then I was shown the unethical workings of the meat and dairy industry in, honestly, a harsh way. But the truth is harsh.

I don't doubt the many possibly or probably painful methods of slaughtering animals sometimes, and/or the conditions they have beforehand.

If we were to completely go for nitrogen asphyxiation slaughter, and give animals reasonably long lives without discomfort and so on, would your stance on veganism change?


As for bugs, I consider them sentient beings so I wouldn't eat them.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I want to know what qualifies as being sentient for you. The level of sentience between ants, snails, cats and humans is huge, at least in the neurobiological sense.

I also want to suggest that being sentient in itself does not mean that the sentient being is aware of mortality/its own death. I make an educated guess that most animals there are, are not aware of their inevitable death, or just dying in general. The survival instinct can exist without this, as thinking about death requires a greater level of thinking than just running away from anticipated/known unpleasant situations does.

If we slaughter pigs, for example, using nitrogen, I'm confident that their POV is of a nice life, with no thinking of death whatsoever in it. They are not aware of the end of it all, so I do not see any suffering. They are oblivious of the possibility of oblivion.

_______________


I know certain candy coatings are from certain beetles[...]

I assume you mean E120 here, which comes from the Cochineal insect, yes.



[...]and raspberry flavorings are sometimes the result of disharge from a Beaver anus (wtf)[...]

This one I've just looked into, called castoreum. Being brutally specific, it's from 'glands' near the anus, not in it. Here's some info from Wikipedia:



In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration lists castoreum extract as a generally recognized as safe (GRAS) food additive.[10] In 1965, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association's GRAS program (FEMA 2261 and 2262) added castoreum extract and castoreum liquid.[11] Product ingredient lists often refer to it simply as a "natural flavoring." While it is mainly used in foods and beverages as part of a substitute vanilla flavor,[12] it is less commonly used as a part of a raspberry or strawberry flavoring.[13] The annual industry consumption is very low, around 300 pounds,[14] whereas vanillin is over 2.6 million pounds annually.[15]

Castoreum has been traditionally used in Sweden for flavoring schnapps commonly referred to as "Bäverhojt" (literally, beaver shout).[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum#Food_use
- - - - - - -

[10]: Burdock GA (2007). "Safety assessment of castoreum extract as a food ingredient". Int. J. Toxicol. 26 (1): 51–5. doi:10.1080/10915810601120145. PMID 17365147.

[11]: http://www.femaflavor.org/sites/default/files/3.%20GRAS%20Substances%282001-3124%29.pdf

[12]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 277.

[13]: Furia, Thomas E., Chemical Rubber Company, CRC Handbook of Food Additives, Volume 2. CRC Press, 1972. p. 253.

[14]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 276-8.

[15]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 639.

[16]: Baron Ambrosia (26 February 2015). "Tales from the Fringe: Beaver Gland Vodka". PunchDrink.com. Retrieved 11 December 2015.

_______________


But for the most part a quick glance to the ingredients is all that's necessary.

Product ingredient lists often refer to [castoreum] simply as a "natural flavoring."

I don't question the importance of ingredient lists at all, only pointing out that you won't find out the life story of what's inside the container, from just reading the list.

_______________

Yes, it sounds unpleasant from a purely non-thinking-about-it view at first hand. If we look more into things, it should not necessarily be that way. I could use your view of E120 and castoreum with, for example, lemons:

"Lemons are made of 5% pure acid, and their juice's pH is overall around 2, so it clearly is bad for us. That's only 1 away from stomach acid!"

That's not so much the case, though, really.

[phuckphace]

~ comfortably numb kru ~

we keep hearing about "muh factory farms" and "muh drugs and chemicals" without any acknowledgment that this is atypical from a historical perspective. we're living in unusual times where the invention of high technology and novel economic arrangements has led to an exponential population increase in a very short amount of time, and mass-scale farming is one of the consequences of that. vegans have homed in on a very small part of the much bigger picture, and insist that we "open our eyes" and start buying tofurky sausages for eight dollars a pack as a solution.

once again, the similarities with the pro-life kru are striking. instead of focusing on the root of the issue (mass-scale animal cruelty could be cut down drastically in step with dialing back globalism and grow-or-die economic policies) they rely on a campaign based on feels, misinformation and sign-waving. sign-waving didn't work for the pro-lifers and it's not going to work against animal cruelty either.

also ironic is that virtually all vegans are ring-around-the-rosie progressives, who are of course the biggest fans of globalism you'll find.

[Mob Boss]

What did this 'meat and dairy' do to them?



I don't doubt the many possibly or probably painful methods of slaughtering animals sometimes, and/or the conditions they have beforehand.

If we were to completely go for nitrogen asphyxiation slaughter, and give animals reasonably long lives without discomfort and so on, would your stance on veganism change?



I don't want to be pedantic, but I want to know what qualifies as being sentient for you. The level of sentience between ants, snails, cats and humans is huge, at least in the neurobiological sense.

I also want to suggest that being sentient in itself does not mean that the sentient being is aware of mortality/its own death. I make an educated guess that most animals there are, are not aware of their inevitable death, or just dying in general. The survival instinct can exist without this, as thinking about death requires a greater level of thinking than just running away from anticipated/known unpleasant situations does.

If we slaughter pigs, for example, using nitrogen, I'm confident that their POV is of a nice life, with no thinking of death whatsoever in it. They are not aware of the end of it all, so I do not see any suffering. They are oblivious of the possibility of oblivion.

_______________



I assume you mean E120 here, which comes from the Cochineal insect, yes.




This one I've just looked into, called castoreum. Being brutally specific, it's from 'glands' near the anus, not in it. Here's some info from Wikipedia:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castoreum#Food_use
- - - - - - -

[10]: Burdock GA (2007). "Safety assessment of castoreum extract as a food ingredient". Int. J. Toxicol. 26 (1): 51–5. doi:10.1080/10915810601120145. PMID 17365147.

[11]: http://www.femaflavor.org/sites/default/files/3.%20GRAS%20Substances%282001-3124%29.pdf

[12]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 277.

[13]: Furia, Thomas E., Chemical Rubber Company, CRC Handbook of Food Additives, Volume 2. CRC Press, 1972. p. 253.

[14]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 276-8.

[15]: Burdock, George A., Fenaroli's handbook of flavor ingredients. CRC Press, 2005. p. 639.

[16]: Baron Ambrosia (26 February 2015). "Tales from the Fringe: Beaver Gland Vodka". PunchDrink.com. Retrieved 11 December 2015.

_______________





I don't question the importance of ingredient lists at all, only pointing out that you won't find out the life story of what's inside the container, from just reading the list.

_______________

Yes, it sounds unpleasant from a purely non-thinking-about-it view at first hand. If we look more into things, it should not necessarily be that way. I could use your view of E120 and castoreum with, for example, lemons:

"Lemons are made of 5% pure acid, and their juice's pH is overall around 2, so it clearly is bad for us. That's only 1 away from stomach acid!"

That's not so much the case, though, really.

So now we're trying to excuse away whether or not they're senrient? Grasping, eh?
I'm extremely curious of your definition because I have quite a few that animals absolutely meet your qualifications to be labeled sentient.

*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

Full Definition of sentient
1:responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentientbeings>

So pigs trying all their might to avoid getting off the lorry because they can sense death at the slaughterhouse isn't them being sentient?
No.

So them dehydrated in the back of a trailer because they stopped watering them 2 days prior because they're useless now, as they're about to be slaughtered, and it resulting in them being stricken by heat stroke, foaming at the mouth and uncoordinated and wheezing isn't sentient? No.


*http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentience

sentience (ˈsɛnʃəns) or sentiency

n

1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness

2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling


So even if you view them like ignorant flesh bags (curious what they view you as), intelligence is not necessary to be sentient. However, that's not at all me saying they aren't incredibly intelligent.


*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3122303/Move-Lassie-IQ-tests-reveal-pigs-outsmart-dogs-chimpanzees.html

OH SHIT PIGS OUTSMART DOGS! Crap, I hope you don't have a dog and I hope you don't think that dog has any sort of feeling whatsoever, because a species of higher intellect doesn't so they must not. So now, I wonder why dogs aren't being slaughtered as well. Or is that different? Is a domesticated animal somehow more worthy of life than one more intelligent, with the ability to fathom every bit of pain, caked in their own bodily functions?
Pathetic.

Keep grasping. Ignorance usually knows no bounds. And I find it even more hilarious you're getting technical about anal secretions.


"The study's authors say while we tend to place pigs in a lower category to animals such as dogs and cats, they are in fact, just as smart and empathic – and should be treated as such."

Does a chicken being dipped in boiling oil alive for a defeathering process, writhing from the pain, are they not sentient?

I'm going to assume that includes dairy cows that mourn and screech at their baby being stolen from them for puss milk humans need.

Are male calves sentient when they're frightened in a dark room because some sadistic fuck thought dark, depressive rooms make their flesh better? No.
What about penguins in a zoo, the majority placed on antidepressants because they're so diatraught? No.

Let's also not forget all animals mourn loss of a loved one.

Humanity is the least sentient being evidently. If you enjoy blinders, keep them. If you enjoy denial, keep eating it along with assholes, bones, feces, menstration. :) If you enjoy torture, rape, enslavement, well you don't have to change a thing because you're currently perpetuating it.


Feel anything? No? I'm curious if your cognitive functions are somehow not working correctly:
http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/are-pigs-intelligent_n_7585582.html

*http://www.think-differently-about-sheep.com/Sentience-%20In-Farm-Animals-%20Pigs.html

*https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending



And also, hell no my stance wouldn't change. It's still taking lives that don't belong to us, regardless of the pain. Great example of speciesism at work here. Can we take them this way for our unnecessary diets? If we numb them is it okay to murder them though? No. It's not. Those are lives, people so often forget. Again meat is so grossly irrelevant to survive which is another thing. Let's do something unnecessary to a life to kill them unnecessarily to eat them for our unnecessary diets to make us feel good because morally we realize what we're doing is reprehensible.


~ comfortably numb kru ~

we keep hearing about "muh factory farms" and "muh drugs and chemicals" without any acknowledgment that this is atypical from a historical perspective. we're living in unusual times where the invention of high technology and novel economic arrangements has led to an exponential population increase in a very short amount of time, and mass-scale farming is one of the consequences of that. vegans have homed in on a very small part of the much bigger picture, and insist that we "open our eyes" and start buying tofurky sausages for eight dollars a pack as a solution.

once again, the similarities with the pro-life kru are striking. instead of focusing on the root of the issue (mass-scale animal cruelty could be cut down drastically in step with dialing back globalism and grow-or-die economic policies) they rely on a campaign based on feels, misinformation and sign-waving. sign-waving didn't work for the pro-lifers and it's not going to work against animal cruelty either.

also ironic is that virtually all vegans are ring-around-the-rosie progressives, who are of course the biggest fans of globalism you'll find.

Not even wasting my time of day with you because you're really good at merely spouting bullshit without any real contribution to this thread. Good for you for being able to have ideas about vegans. No one gives two fucks, unfortunately :) It wasn't a debate about how vegans are as people, so go stuff yourself full of death.

And also the fuck said anything about 8 dollar sausages? Can you remove your head from your hind end to know what a thing called rice is? No? Can buy a lb for roughly a buck. Beans? No? A dollar burrito from taco bell if you're on the run? Not cheap enougj? I can guarantee you can't buy rice, you can't buy meat.

[Porpoise101]

I make an educated guess that most animals there are, are not aware of their inevitable death, or just dying in general.
I think that if it can sense something trying to kill it and it runs away it has the potential for some sort of sentience. It's either that or instinctive. Since pigs have an actual brain I believe they do sense it if it's clear to them. So a gas chamber wouldn't scare them.

But ants and bees are different. Ants operate from a hive mind, so killing an ant to me would be the equivalence of scraping a skin cell off of a pig. They can't live on their own.

[SethfromMI]

lol this is meant more of a joke so don't get too offended

-S6ELeKjPco

[Mob Boss]

lol this is meant more of a joke so don't get too offended

-S6ELeKjPco

Not offended, freaking love Ron Swanson and Parks and Recreation :)

But, these vegans would be fucking frightening to be attacked by xD :
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8030628

[Living For Love]

What does "pillows with down" mean?

I have nothing against vegans, I just hate how they criticise people who choose not to be vegans. Just because someone eats meat it doesn't mean they condone animal cruelty. Same with wearing leather apparel or make-up. phuckphace also has a point when he says it's a "surrogate" for religion, as most religions consider humans superior to animals in the sense that a divine entity created animals (and plants and fungi) for humans to raise, kill and consume. There are obviously a lot of financial interests behind the vegan industry and the meat industry, so it gets to a point where the debate about these issues are more economical than moral or ethical.

[Porpoise101]

What does "pillows with down" mean?
Some pillows are stuffed with the soft inner feathers of birds. They are the small white ones and they are called down. Usually pillows are stuffed with synthetic fluff nowadays though.

[DriveAlive]

I'd like to jump in here as both a hunter and an animal lover. I do not have anything really against anyone who chooses to be a vegan, but I find hunting for meat to be incredibly natural and healthy, as well as being less cruel than a slaughterhouse.

[Syzygy]

there's no real reason to not to be vegan other than enjoying animal products tbh. I'm okay with animals dying (sometimes horrifically) for my enjoyment so I'm not vegan, though I think a lot of people should watch some slaughterhouse footage to at least know where their food comes from.

[Mob Boss]

there's no real reason to not to be vegan other than enjoying animal products tbh. I'm okay with animals dying (sometimes horrifically) for my enjoyment so I'm not vegan, though I think a lot of people should watch some slaughterhouse footage to at least know where their food comes from.

Now I can respect this stance, completely, as it's honest. What I always have an issue with is people trying to excuse it away or state meat is a requirement, or pretend they frolick in fields before dying gracefully in their sleep tucked away. If your stomach is good enough for the meat, your eyes are good enough to watch what precisely goes on to produce that bacon or steak or eggs. And I also EMPHATICALLY agree more need to watch slaughterhouse footage purely because I know I used to eat meat, and while I did initially change for health, the footage is what is forever ingrained in my memory. I feel it's what ultimately pushes those that are on the precipice into veganism, which is why Earthlings is so profound and known for its ability to change people that had been on a typical diet their whole lives.

[phuckphace]

An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself...I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp. --- Hermann Göring

Göring also banned commercial animal trapping, imposed severe restrictions on hunting, and prohibited the shoeing of horses. He prohibited boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to a concentration camp[13] for cutting up a bait frog.[11]

fucker deserved it for hurting poor Pepe, REEEEEEEEEEEEE

tbh fam I'd like vegans a lot more if they showed more appreciation for the world's foremost animal-rights advocates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany).

[Porpoise101]

the world's foremost animal-rights advocates[/URL].
Eh they were a tad lacking in giving rights to that one lowly specie. I think it's called Homo sapiens or something. Otherwise they seem kind.

[Vlerchan]

It's sort of hilarious that someone mentions veganism and the whole of ROTW blows up - but threads were arguments in favour of segregation or apartheid or hyperliberalisation of markets are trotted out and it's relatively quiet.

Oh, did we mention millions of humans are starving and starvation in the east is a result of animal ag in the west?
I would appreciate if you could expand on the process here. Thank you.

This was never a debate on the word "could", it is overwhelmingly on the word "innate, inborn, natural".
I would appreciate if you could further define the phrase "innate, inborn, natural". Thank you.

If you are referring to our brains grew real big and juicy due to animal tendons, blood cartilage and flesh, as is meat, I think you're quite off there.
I am referring to a period occurring before the popularisation of cooking. Zink and Lieberman (2016) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7595/full/nature16990.html) suggest that processing meat for easier consumption induced significant caloric return vis-á-vis the next best option. This facilitated greater brain development and the likelihood is the process would also have induced cranial morphing that opened up the scope for brain and speech development.

This cooking allowed starches (fruits, grains, vegs, who'd have thunk) to be broken down and our caloric intake to soar while we sat on our happy asses.
Our use of cooking succeeded the integration of meat into the human diet and - all-likelihood - was dependent on it.

There's pretty obvious endogeneity issues here.

(even though meat facilitates the process)
This qualifier is why the rest of the preceding text is irrelevant.

So now, I wonder why dogs aren't being slaughtered as well. Or is that different?
Yes. Specialisation of animal-labour occurred. Consider both as economic units of input. Dogs have comparative advantage in acting as favourable companions to humans - as well as in hunting and racing. Literally has nothing to do with them being empathetic I'd imagine.

It wasn't a debate about how vegans are as people, so go stuff yourself full of death.
phuckphace's point was that the horrific treatment of animals is the product of the capitalist system of production where firms chase profit and thus opt for the cheapest method of execution (factory-farming).

His problem with veganism seems to be that as a movement it's missing the wood for the trees. It's useless cleaved-from a broader anti-capitalist movement.

---

You also mentioned ethics above and well... many people on this forum aren't ethical. So that's a heads up.
:)

Though - for clarification - that's just me sticking to positive (non-normative) statements.

[sqishy]

Whoah hang on. After scanning your response to me (which I usually do in general), it looks like I've insulted you or something, because you seem pretty offended. How I did that would be helpful to point out, as I never thought of doing that.

To specifics:

- - - - - - - -

So now we're trying to excuse away whether or not they're senrient? Grasping, eh?

You read me wrong. I was wondering on what divides sentience from non-sentience, not questioning the sentience of all animals. Big difference.



I'm extremely curious of your definition because I have quite a few that animals absolutely meet your qualifications to be labeled sentient.


Being conscious, with ability to experience sensations, emotions, and/or thoughts.
Most animals are sentient, yeah. I'm not asking for a debate on the definition, I am wondering where you draw the line, and if it is drawn with all animals on the sentient side. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, sentience takes many degrees.



So pigs trying all their might to avoid getting off the lorry because they can sense death at the slaughterhouse isn't them being sentient?
No.


Pigs are sentient. I don't get how you think I think they're not.



So them dehydrated in the back of a trailer because they stopped watering them 2 days prior because they're useless now, as they're about to be slaughtered, and it resulting in them being stricken by heat stroke, foaming at the mouth and uncoordinated and wheezing isn't sentient? No.

We don't need to bring in horrendous living (and dying) conditions of some pigs/etc to justify the sentience thing. We've got that covered by this stage I hope.



*http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentience

sentience (ˈsɛnʃəns) or sentiency

n

1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness

2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

I know what sentience is. Dictionaries aren't needed for either of us.



So even if you view them like ignorant flesh bags (curious what they view you as), intelligence is not necessary to be sentient. However, that's not at all me saying they aren't incredibly intelligent.

What do you mean by curious as to what they view me as?



*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3122303/Move-Lassie-IQ-tests-reveal-pigs-outsmart-dogs-chimpanzees.html

OH SHIT PIGS OUTSMART DOGS! Crap, I hope you don't have a dog and I hope you don't think that dog has any sort of feeling whatsoever, because a species of higher intellect doesn't so they must not. So now, I wonder why dogs aren't being slaughtered as well. Or is that different? Is a domesticated animal somehow more worthy of life than one more intelligent, with the ability to fathom every bit of pain, caked in their own bodily functions?
Pathetic.

If pigs are or aren't smarter than dogs (I'll go with you here for ease of making a point), it's not making painful slaughtering of either justified. Just so you know, dogs are slaughtered in other regions, such as China.

What is pathetic about what?



Keep grasping. Ignorance usually knows no bounds.

So you think I am ignorant because I happen to not agree with your view overall, and you think I have greatly offended you. Right...

I thought we could talk this through on similar terms at least, without one of us shredding the other. Wouldn't that be nice? I wonder how your response would be if I did call you ignorant (which I do not intend on doing, so far), taking my basically technical reasoning angle being apparently an insult.



And I find it even more hilarious you're getting technical about anal secretions.

I guess that technical reference, and the point I was trying to make with it, realllly failed to get across.



"The study's authors say while we tend to place pigs in a lower category to animals such as dogs and cats, they are in fact, just as smart and empathic – and should be treated as such."

Does a chicken being dipped in boiling oil alive for a defeathering process, writhing from the pain, are they not sentient?

I'm going to assume that includes dairy cows that mourn and screech at their baby being stolen from them for puss milk humans need.

Are male calves sentient when they're frightened in a dark room because some sadistic fuck thought dark, depressive rooms make their flesh better? No.
What about penguins in a zoo, the majority placed on antidepressants because they're so diatraught? No.

All excessive physical/painful treatment of the 'greater sentient' animals (just an ad-hoc term) is unjustified, of course! That is bad, I do not want it to happen.

Have you actually read my part on the nitrogen asphyxiation?
Have you considered we can avoid unnecessary pain in general here?


Let's also not forget all animals mourn loss of a loved one.

I was wrong to generalise before - crows, as example, have been shown to do activities with dead relatives that have the best explanation being down to awareness of death. Many other situations exist across species, yes.
I still hold to my point.



Humanity is the least sentient being evidently. If you enjoy blinders, keep them. If you enjoy denial, keep eating it along with assholes, bones, feces, menstration. :) If you enjoy torture, rape, enslavement, well you don't have to change a thing because you're currently perpetuating it.

You're taking some extreme pessimistic "fuck it all!" turn here it feels.
What rape, may I ask?
Why are you being like this? I'm seriously not getting this at all. Have I blasted you with insults?
Do you enjoy blasting me with this? Seems so. I'm not enjoying it, I add.



Feel anything? No? I'm curious if your cognitive functions are somehow not working correctly:
http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/are-pigs-intelligent_n_7585582.html

*http://www.think-differently-about-sheep.com/Sentience-%20In-Farm-Animals-%20Pigs.html

*https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending

I may not be vegan but I'm not psychopathic or related stuff, if you think so. That may be a surprise at this point.

I am not denying sentience in most animals. I say no more on that.



And also, hell no my stance wouldn't change. It's still taking lives that don't belong to us, regardless of the pain.

Nature does this all the time. We can all go vegan, but the rest of relevant nature will not change.



Great example of speciesism at work here. Can we take them this way for our unnecessary diets? If we numb them is it okay to murder them though? No. It's not. Those are lives, people so often forget. Again meat is so grossly irrelevant to survive which is another thing. Let's do something unnecessary to a life to kill them unnecessarily to eat them for our unnecessary diets to make us feel good because morally we realize what we're doing is reprehensible.


We can all go vegan with diet, but it will not let me (and many others) understand what exactly is effectively sacrament to the presence of sentience that means we should not end any of it, whenever absolutely possible. This is a core thing I do not get.

Nature has sentience be created and destroyed all the time. Death happens, most of it not from age. We can choose to be an exception, but it is not justifying your view, not from as open an angle as I can take.

_______________


I have nothing against vegans, I just hate how they criticise people who choose not to be vegans. Just because someone eats meat it doesn't mean they condone animal cruelty.

[...]

There are obviously a lot of financial interests behind the vegan industry and the meat industry, so it gets to a point where the debate about these issues are more economical than moral or ethical.

I agree with this.

_______________

I think that if it can sense something trying to kill it and it runs away it has the potential for some sort of sentience. It's either that or instinctive. Since pigs have an actual brain I believe they do sense it if it's clear to them. So a gas chamber wouldn't scare them.

Yes.



But ants and bees are different. Ants operate from a hive mind, so killing an ant to me would be the equivalence of scraping a skin cell off of a pig. They can't live on their own.

A point I see relevant as well.

_______________

It's sort of hilarious that someone mentions veganism and the whole of ROTW blows up - but threads were arguments in favour of segregation or apartheid or hyperliberalisation of markets are trotted out and it's relatively quiet.


I suppose the metaphorical misplaced minefields got to exist somewhere on ROTW, though t'would be nice if there was consistency even.
_______________


All you guys here seem intelligent. I know you're all coming into your own person and discovering yourself, detached from blind familial allegiances that instill certain ideologies we hold on to until we find ourselves. So I want you to read whatever becomes of this thread with an open mind.


We can all keep to this, right?
Perhaps that would be too optimistic for me at this point, taking recent events.

[Edit: Happy Birthday.]

[Final Edit: You still have to tell me what the 'meat and dairy' did to the people you spoke of before.]

[phuckphace]

UMMM if meat is a thing then why muh tofurky and feels?? oooh yeah that's what I thought! HEH, looks like I win, FUCKER http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

if it wasn't obvious by now there's really little to be gained from engaging OP for reasons I touched on in my first and second posts ITT - this is an issue that is based 100% in emotion and nothing else. which is fine - people are emotional about lots of things - it's just not likely to go anywhere.

phuckphace's point was that the horrific treatment of animals is the product of the capitalist system of production where firms chase profit and thus opt for the cheapest method of execution (factory-farming).

His problem with veganism seems to be that as a movement it's missing the wood for the trees. It's useless cleaved-from a broader anti-capitalist movement.

yes.

a lot of movements approach issues this way, as I illustrated with the example of pro-lifers, to my extreme exasperation. vegans make it sound as though the chicken farms that were posted upthread have existed since the very day H. habilis climbed down from the tree branches and figured out how to tie a rock to a stick.

my reference to the NSDAP's animal-rights polices wasn't an attempt at guilt by association, by the way, as I'd actually hoped to open an intersectional dialogue on the unconventional environmentalism of Hitler (or more seriously, how rejection of laissez-faire capitalism is the prerequisite for reducing exploitation of animals). fundamental changes have to be made for there to be any improvement - just ask the pro-lifers who have spent every current year since 1973 standing outside abortion clinics and swatting pregnant girls over the head with ABORTION = MURDER placards, to no effect.

but I suppose that doesn't matter because the choked-up activists who miss the forest for the trees are only concerned with posturing rather than results.

[Porpoise101]

how rejection of laissez-faire capitalism is the prerequisite for reducing exploitation of animals
This seems true to me. As long as there is a choice to eat meat, someone will. So if you want a vegan society it must defended by laws and by force. Or you would have to tax it so that meat and dairy become the food of the rich (as it was historically in many regions of the world). Do we want that though?

[Arkansasguy]

Some of you may not know terribly much about veganism, but I wanted to have an open dialogue for those that do know; and furthermore any counter argument you know of in opposition of veganism.
Veganism is not a diet, as so often mislabeled. It is a lifestyle, wholly encompassing a cruelty-free way of living. This includes abstaining from wearing furs, leather, wool; purchasing pillows with down; the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs and honey. It involves avoiding cosmetics, toiletries and various other products tested on animals.

Me, my sister and my fiance are all vegan and animal rights activists. So I've had quite a few people try to make a case for eating meat or consuming dairy, but there has never once been a valid point that could hold water. In fact a philosophy professor Gary Yourofsky once encountered at one of his many college lectures, said he became vegan purely because no one could stump him with justification for eating meat and dairy.

All you guys here seem intelligent. I know you're all coming into your own person and discovering yourself, detached from blind familial allegiances that instill certain ideologies we hold on to until we find ourselves. So I want you to read whatever becomes of this thread with an open mind.



For starters, every inch of our body physiologically screams herbivore. Not omnivore, as liked to believe. We are intrinsically herbivore. The manner in which we sweat through our pores and not our mouths, the fact our jaws move side to side as well as up and down in comparison to out meat-eating counterparts, with their mechanism of rip and swallow (void of any lateral movement), not chew. Our intestinal tract is incredibly long, as are all herbivores, which is so opposite of meat-eaters. This is so our body can digest the plants and fruits and so TRUE omnivores, and their short intestines, can push out rotting, highly acidic meat. As a matter of fact, meat-eaters have over 1000% times the amount of hydrochloric acid in their stomachs than us, herbivores. Why is that? It is for the digestion of meat. And ours? Why is our so miniscule? But also, if we're not supposed to eat meat, why any at all? Hydrochloric acid is a digester of protein, essentially. And as it so happens, protein comes in small, vegan-friendly forms, such as peanuts, broccoli, and lentils and beans. We are not designed for meat consumption.
Yet there is a holocaust going on we are blind to.

Yeah the slaughter of animals is like, so totally bad (don't those factory farmers know it's The Current Year(tm)), but you're ignoring he bigger problem. Every year billions of innocent plants are slaughtered for no reason other than to feed a relatively small and unimportant number of humans. But that's not the worst of it, every day, billions of people around the world individuals commit mass murder against entire species of bacteria. This amounts to genocide.

[Microcosm]

Mob Boss,

My logic is this: Whether I eat meat or not, the killing will not stop. Yes, buying it does provide some monetary support to organizations that do the killing, but they will have money always in today's society. The killing won't stop just because I personally decide not to eat meat.

So why not indulge myself in it? I'm not the one doing the killings and there isn't any effective way to stop it. The market is just too big.

I don't think vegans are somehow morally superior either. I know you didn't say that you thought you were or anything, I'm just throwing that out there. Sometimes they can do that.

I think it's pretty honorable in some sense to be vegan, though, that is in the sense that they are so dedicated to abstaining from food that's acquired by what they consider to be immoral sources. I just don't think their fighting against it ever really produces much change.

Yeah the slaughter of animals is like, so totally bad (don't those factory farmers know it's The Current Year(tm)), but you're ignoring he bigger problem. Every year billions of innocent plants are slaughtered for no reason other than to feed a relatively small and unimportant number of humans. But that's not the worst of it, every day, billions of people around the world individuals commit mass murder against entire species of bacteria. This amounts to genocide.

I think there's a difference in how we ought to treat sentient beings and beings that aren't sentient.

Their lives do matter, for sure, but I think you could argue that it's perhaps the most humane way we could feed people at this point because animals are way more sentient than plants and they experience extreme pain. We can relate to that as human beings and the point touches on one reason that we ought to value the lives of other sentient animals even if we are able to wipe out their whole species: because they physically feel it, just like we do. We relate to them in that way. (Hope that made sense)

[Porpoise101]

So why not indulge myself in it?
Maybe better health, less environmental damage, or religion (if you are Buddhist or Jain).

[Microcosm]

Maybe better health, less environmental damage, or religion (if you are Buddhist or Jain).

That's true. I think I worded that a bit too bluntly perhaps. I intended to mean why ought we not eat meat at all(excluding those who believe in the moral absolutes and such which would dictate that they never eat it).

How does eating damage cause environmental damage?

[Porpoise101]

How does eating damage cause environmental damage?
The meat industry is extremely polluting and wasteful. It uses up lots of the country's (diminishing) water resources and also contributes to the spread of disease in animals and in humans. And I haven't even gotten into all of the chemicals, waste, and land waste issues caused by the meat industry.

As for fishing, overfishing is one of the leading cause of extinction. It has ruined the global fish supply. Trawling methods have destroyed many of the coral reefs and deep water habitats. Accidental bycatch has also reduced the numbers of other species including dolphins, sea turtles.

Even more distressing is the decline of the Porpoise species. In fact, the Vaquita Porpoise has been pushed to the brink of existence from shrimp fishing methods.

[Microcosm]

The meat industry is extremely polluting and wasteful. It uses up lots of the country's (diminishing) water resources and also contributes to the spread of disease in animals and in humans. And I haven't even gotten into all of the chemicals, waste, and land waste issues caused by the meat industry.

As for fishing, overfishing is one of the leading cause of extinction. It has ruined the global fish supply. Trawling methods have destroyed many of the coral reefs and deep water habitats. Accidental bycatch has also reduced the numbers of other species including dolphins, sea turtles.

Even more distressing is the decline of the Porpoise species. In fact, the Vaquita Porpoise has been pushed to the brink of existence from shrimp fishing methods.

All of these are definitely problems, but what I asked is why is the actual act of eating meat somehow wrong.

Whether we eat it or not, they will continue killing. That was my point, and I've already addressed how monetarily supporting these organizations by buying their products is also not wrong. They will have money whether you buy from them or not, and they will kill whether you buy from them or not.

[Porpoise101]

All of these are definitely problems, but what I asked is why is the actual act of eating meat somehow wrong.
Um maybe it generates more trash that doesn't compost as well? I'm not sure.

But as for your money point I think that if enough people adopt veganism or vegetarianism, then the meat industry will shrink in their power and influence. Already a decent community has formed in the US.

[Microcosm]

Um maybe it generates more trash that doesn't compost as well? I'm not sure.

But as for your money point I think that if enough people adopt veganism or vegetarianism, then the meat industry will shrink in their power and influence. Already a decent community has formed in the US.

Meat is ingrained into U.S. culture. Like take McDonald's for instance. There will never be enough people that quit eating McDonald's for the vegan cause to be worth fighting for.

Why bother with it? Being vegan really won't change anything even if you can convert 1,000 or 10,000 people. Corporations are still making their money and there's nothing we can do about it. It's unfortunate, but it makes the future of the vegan cause look very bleak. The best we can do is try to make the methods by which animals are slaughtered less brutal and painful to the animals themselves.

[Porpoise101]

Meat is ingrained into U.S. culture. Like take McDonald's for instance. There will never be enough people that quit eating McDonald's for the vegan cause to be worth fighting for.
Maybe McDonalds will get pressured to make vegan menu items. That will get the cause into the mainstream. Corporations cater to any money making operation. The vegan food industry is no exception.

[Microcosm]

Maybe McDonalds will get pressured to make vegan menu items. That will get the cause into the mainstream. Corporations cater to any money making operation. The vegan food industry is no exception.

I just don't see it catching on in America. There isn't a big enough demand for people to become vegan--especially in the South where I live. People love their hunting down here, and that makes them less accepting of people who are against killing animals.

I do suppose it's possible. Only time will tell I guess.

[StoppingTom]

Eh, if you're vegan, I don't care as long as you're getting all your necessary nutrients and you don't force me to follow that lifestyle.

Because meat tastesgoodman and aint no one gonna stop me

[Porpoise101]

People love their hunting down here, and that makes them less accepting of people who are against killing animals.
Hunting is big here too in the lakes region. But hunting and fishing often have a greater purpose. Up here, hunting helps out all of the wild animals because there are too many deer for example. And it also helps out the DNR and the small towns that rely on hunters. So I suppose if you are going to kill an animal, you might as well eat it. Stewed venison and fresh perch are also delicious and healthier than any farmed meat too so that's an extra plus.

To me, 'nomadic' styles of gathering food is less intensive and harmful compared to the agricultural/sedentary society we live in.

[Microcosm]

Hunting is big here too in the lakes region. But hunting and fishing often have a greater purpose. Up here, hunting helps out all of the wild animals because there are too many deer for example. And it also helps out the DNR and the small towns that rely on hunters. So I suppose if you are going to kill an animal, you might as well eat it. Stewed venison and fresh perch are also delicious and healthier than any farmed meat too so that's an extra plus.

To me, 'nomadic' styles of gathering food is less intensive and harmful compared to the agricultural/sedentary society we live in.

Either way you're killing animals. People who mass slaughter animals also do it so that people can eat, but that doesn't make it any less grotesque.

Man idk if I could hunt deer after watching Bambi. RIP

[Judean Zealot]

The problem that I have with the sort of veganism as expressed by the OP is that it is essentially dehumanising. To broadly lay out my point (I will expand upon this idea in response to feedback; right now I'm just writing the broad strokes), humanity ranks higher in the hierarchy set by nature (on account of man's capacity to abstract and form moral judgements), and as such serves a greater function in the world. So far as I'm concerned, the consumption of an animal by a (moral) human is in fact a step up for the animal - it goes from a mindless brute to becoming a partner in the great mission of humanity. Of course, this reasoning only applies to using animals as sustenance or protection, not as alligator skin purses or other luxuries, which I oppose. Veganism seems to reject this vital distinction between man and animal, and as such I see it, quite frankly, as an antisocial and harmful ideology.

I might add that the cruelty prevalent in industrial slaughterhouses is entirely unrelated to the question regarding the morality of animal consumption.

[Porpoise101]

humanity ranks higher in the hierarchy set by nature (on account of man's capacity to abstract and form moral judgements)
The natural sciences have gotten to the point that we can say (with scepticism of course) that humans have a similar or slightly greater capacity to many mammals at least. Animals like elephants, dolphins, pigs, and primates have shown the ability to understand the implications of death, learn from the environment and make tools accordingly, and create societal rules and morals.

[Judean Zealot]

The natural sciences have gotten to the point that we can say (with scepticism of course) that humans have a similar or slightly greater capacity to many mammals at least. Animals like elephants, dolphins, pigs, and primates have shown the ability to understand the implications of death, learn from the environment and make tools accordingly, and create societal rules and morals.

Again, I'm sorry to do this to you, but I'm going to answer with broad strokes, because in this response there are many distinct discussions that can take up an entire thread each. So I'll lay out the general form of my response, and you direct the dialogue to the aspect(s) you wish to focus on.


The first point I'd like to address is the correlation between language and ideas, specifically that language is a necessary condition to proper intellection. I would posit, as does (http://m.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/0199246297.001.0001/acprof-9780199246298-chapter-11) Donald Davidson, that to begin, we must distinguish between cognizance of stimuli or patterns and apprehension of the conceptual nature of something. To illustrate what we're going to argue out, a dog might see his owner and get excited, yet the dog's perception of the owner is only in terms of the stimuli associated with his owner's presence, be it food, shelter, or whatever other feeling the owner gives the dog. Thus the dog definitely can be said to think, in the sense that it can make associations between sensual stimuli. However, the dog cannot, in principle, conceptualise his owner in the sense of apprehending the owner's being, as not only the source of stimuli, but as a set of variable aspects and relations, such as 'the man who is the father of his children', or 'the man who is a banker during the day', or 'the man who bought me in the pet shop'. The dog sees the owner not as man, with all the qualities thereof, but as a two dimensional being which produces certain stimuli. This is what we are setting out to prove: that an animal cannot possibly apprehend the world in any meaningful way.


Now, the most fundamental element of thought is the capacity for belief, the consciousness of affairs being in state X as opposed to state Y or Z. Even thoughts of desire falls under this principle, for a being can't conceptually desire object A without first believing that A is in state {XYZ} as opposed to existing merely as a possibility, or not existing at all. Thus a conception of belief is necessary for thought.


Furthermore, this capacity of belief requires language to exist, for belief is essentially the consideration that affairs are in state X and not in state Y. The italicised converse is crucial to the belief in question if the thought is to have any sugnificance, because if the converse weren't explicit in the thought, the thought would not exist, for want of a contrast. Yet that which is being negated in the converse statement, being untrue, exists merely in the form of a linguistic proposition, that affairs are in state Y. Thus recognise the distinction between true and false propositions (belief), one must be capable of linguistically formulating the rejected proposition, which requires language.


The next step this leads to is the question of whether animals have language, in the sense that would allow them to meaningfully formulate alternatives to belief. We should begin by quickly mentioning the four Popperian functions of language, to avoid the confusion that so frequently arises from the various implications of the word. Note: as I am getting tired I have simply copy pasted an account of Popper from a blog I frequent. Source (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/buhler-buhler.html?m=1).


1. The expressive function, which involves the outward expression of an inner state. Here language operates in a way comparable to the sound an engine makes when it is revved up, or an animal’s cry when in pain.

2. The signaling function, which adds to the expressive function the generation of a reaction in others. Popper compares it to the danger signals an animal might send out in order to alert other animals, and to the way a traffic light signals the possible presence of cars even when there are none about.

3. The descriptive function, which involves the expression of a proposition, something that can be either true or false. The paradigm here would be the utterance of a declarative sentence, such as “Roses are red,” “Two and two make four,” or “There is a predator in the area.” Notice that the latter example differs from an animal’s cry of warning in having a conceptual structure. A bird’s squawk might cause another bird to feel fear and take flight. What it does not do is convey an abstract concept like eagle, predator, or danger, and thus it does not convey the sort of propositional content that presupposes such concepts.

4. The argumentative function, which involves the expression of an inference from one or more propositions to another in a manner than can be said to be either valid or invalid, as when we reason from All men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal.


Now, I don't think I have to explain that when Davidson requires language for thought, he refers specifically to the latter two functions of language. These functions are radically different than the first functions, and the ability of animals to marshal those functions is in no way an indicator of capability to employ the other functions. Indeed, our observations overwhelmingly point to the conclusion that animals are in fact incapable of functions 3 and 4. Noam Chomsky would agree (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2007----.htm).


To put Davidson's argument formally:
1) Thought requires a capacity for belief.
2) Belief requires linguistics.
3) Animals do not have language.
:. Animals cannot have thought.

-------

The fact that animals display grief at death in no way indicates that they understand the significance of death, only the deprivation of their source of positive stimuli. Similarly, the social norms displayed by chimps is not a reflection of morality so much as a simple inherited trait spurred on by survival of the fittest. Perhaps at some future point they will evolve into sentient creatures, but until then they occupy a lower rung as far as function is concerned.

[Porpoise101]

Fair enough I suppose. But I'll add that porpoises (and other Cetacea) have languages. Sure, the vocabulary is not nearly as complex as a human language, but they can at least tell how they feel (expressive), have others react (signaling), and can signal if there is something new or interesting around. Your fourth capability you have listed, I can't find in the animal kingdom.

According this source they can do these things:
• Refer to objects in their environment
• Refer to abstract concepts
• Combine small meaningful elements into larger meaningful elements
• Organize communicative elements into a systematic grammar that can produce an infinite combination of meanings*
• Refer to things in the past and the future
• Learn and store in memory the meanings of hundreds of thousands of concepts and map them onto specific combinations of vocal patterns
http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php/2014-10-21-00-13-26/dolphin-language

[Judean Zealot]

• Refer to abstract concepts
• Combine small meaningful elements into larger meaningful elements

You're going to have to do some homework on these two claims, and find out in what sense they refer to 'abstract concepts' and how 'meaningful' those 'elements' are.

I'm highly skeptical that they can abstract an idea from it's manifestations, so I'm guessing that these terms aren't being used in a rigorously defined manner.

--------

Does anybody wish to defend veganism from my complaint that it undermines the difference between human and animal and is harmful to society?

[Porpoise101]

It's difficult to study to what concepts they understand because we have only partially understood their communication.
But here is something important to put down I feel:
"The part of the brain dedicated to abstract thinking, the neocortex, in a dolphin brain is "more highly convoluted than our own," she said, and it is her opinion that dolphins are capable of complex, subtle thinking. You don't have a brain like that for no reason." - Lori Marino, Emory University

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/06/13/191286344/why-dolphins-make-us-nervous

[Judean Zealot]

It's difficult to study to what concepts they understand because we have only partially understood their communication.
But here is something important to put down I feel:
"The part of the brain dedicated to abstract thinking, the neocortex, in a dolphin brain is "more highly convoluted than our own," she said, and it is her opinion that dolphins are capable of complex, subtle thinking. You don't have a brain like that for no reason." - Lori Marino, Emory University

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/06/13/191286344/why-dolphins-make-us-nervous

Yet again, that cannot be the case without them holding the capacity of language, which they do not (except for expressive and communicative functions). There is nothing in their communication or behaviour that indicates the capacity to separate an idea from the phenomena that they are manifested in.

The makeup of the brain can mean any number of things, especially as our own brains are still insufficiently understood. As a matter of fact, Chomsky asserts that the dissonance between the properties of the grey stuff between our ears and the true complexity of our minds is a likely indicator of some sort of mind-body dualism.

[Porpoise101]

Yet again, that cannot be the case without them holding the capacity of language, which they do not (except for expressive and communicative functions). There is nothing in their communication or behaviour that indicates the capacity to separate an idea from the phenomena that they are manifested in.

The makeup of the brain can mean any number of things, especially as our own brains are still insufficiently understood. As a matter of fact, Chomsky asserts that the dissonance between the properties of the grey stuff between our ears and the true complexity of our minds is a likely indicator of some sort of mind-body dualism.
Yes, I agree that this isn't certain. But the current results seem to show that there is a possibility of real communication going on here. I expect that mankind will find out the answer in my lifetime.

[phuckphace]

Yes, I agree that this isn't certain. But the current results seem to show that there is a possibility of real communication going on here. I expect that mankind will find out the answer in my lifetime.

I expect it will be answered in the affirmative and that "cluck cluck cluck" will turn out to mean "veganism is a joke, son, a joke"