Is Veganism better? Is Balance better?

[Lovelife090994]

Do you think being a vegetarian is better? Or do you think having a balanced diet of vegan and non-vegan foods is better? Some argue that veganism is the only way to go. Fine, in some scenarios that has been true since meat can be a luxury, but one hitch. Not everyone is a vegetarian nor would want to make the switch.

What do you think?
Personally I think both can be great if done properly. However, I just think we should let others follow whatever diet they please and not advocate one over the other. Care but don't be a food police.

[Karkat]

Do you think being a vegetarian is better? Or do you think having a balanced diet of vegan and non-vegan foods is better? Some argue that veganism is the only way to go. Fine, in some scenarios that has been true since meat can be a luxury, but one hitch. Not everyone is a vegetarian nor would want to make the switch.

What do you think?
Personally I think both can be great if done properly. However, I just think we should let others follow whatever diet they please and not advocate one over the other. Care but don't be a food police.

Agree entirely.

I mean, unless you have pica, in which case you need medical help.

[Lovelife090994]

Agree entirely.

I mean, unless you have pica, in which case you need medical help.

Ooh. Pica? As in for some even veganism is not a safe alternative? Hmm, shockingly riveting.

[ksdnfkfr]

A vegan diet is really strict. They wont even eat honey because it comes from bees.
A vegetarian diet of all natural foods I think is a lot healthier.
Not that I think a diet with lean meats is unhealthy.

[Miserabilia]

Well we don't have to eat meat but it's not particulary bad for us.


Our digestive system is not very strong so we have to prepare out meat in order to eat it without getting sick (Not in all cases but mostly).
So a raw vegan diet seems more natural, but I think we evolved to the point of being able to eat what we want because we can process it outside of our digesting system with cooking/baking.

[AgentHomo]

Do you think being a vegetarian is better? Or do you think having a balanced diet of vegan and non-vegan foods is better? Some argue that veganism is the only way to go. Fine, in some scenarios that has been true since meat can be a luxury, but one hitch. Not everyone is a vegetarian nor would want to make the switch.

What do you think?
Personally I think both can be great if done properly. However, I just think we should let others follow whatever diet they please and not advocate one over the other. Care but don't be a food police.

You stated vegan in the thread title but you are talking about vegetarianism. There is a huge difference. I am a vegan, not a vegetarian. I refuse to eat any animal products whether it's meat, fish, cheese, eggs, milk, etc. A vegetarian will not eat meat but they will eat cheese, eggs, milk, and all that. I'm a vegan because I believe animals are being mistreated and those who eat meat are supporting the unethical murder of animals. Humans have gained enough consciousness to understand empathy with animals at the moment of death. Obviously you don't want a lion eating someone you love, so how do you think a cow feels when we gather her and all the other cows and mass slaughter them all just for human consumption? So I put down full vegetarian because vegan wasn't an option despite the deceiving thread title. I hope I brought some animal rights awareness to you.

[ImAurora]

Animal products are the best.

[Vlerchan]

Yeah.

Animal products are great.

[Karkat]

Ooh. Pica? As in for some even veganism is not a safe alternative? Hmm, shockingly riveting.

...Pica is a mental disorder in which one eats nonfood items. Please look up words you don't know before jumping to conclusions.

[Lovelife090994]

You stated vegan in the thread title but you are talking about vegetarianism. There is a huge difference. I am a vegan, not a vegetarian. I refuse to eat any animal products whether it's meat, fish, cheese, eggs, milk, etc. A vegetarian will not eat meat but they will eat cheese, eggs, milk, and all that. I'm a vegan because I believe animals are being mistreated and those who eat meat are supporting the unethical murder of animals. Humans have gained enough consciousness to understand empathy with animals at the moment of death. Obviously you don't want a lion eating someone you love, so how do you think a cow feels when we gather her and all the other cows and mass slaughter them all just for human consumption? So I put down full vegetarian because vegan wasn't an option despite the deceiving thread title. I hope I brought some animal rights awareness to you.

Well, thanks for that. I don't see a person who eats meat or animal products as primitive or murdeous considering the culture of food and the many cuisines of the world, but okay. I am more vegetarian then. I basically eat all but meat unless I eat fish one day. Usually I eat what is before me since my mother is not vegetarian, was raised on whatever was affordable, and likes meat. But, difference in cultures and times. I actually support animal rights, I'm just not radical with it.

...Pica is a mental disorder in which one eats nonfood items. Please look up words you don't know before jumping to conclusions.

You do know I am on a phone right? Sadly I cannot go page to page very quickly. I never jumped, I was asking. Thanks anyway for the reply.

[Kacey]

Human beings evolved to be omnivores for a reason. There are nutrients in meat that we can't get elsewhere. I'm not saying eat nothing but meat, but balance is good. That is all I must say, have a nice day.

[Karkat]

You do know I am on a phone right? Sadly I cannot go page to page very quickly. I never jumped, I was asking. Thanks anyway for the reply.

No, actually I did not. I mean, I understand the difficulty, but you could've phrased it more like a question?

[Miserabilia]

Human beings evolved to be omnivores for a reason. There are nutrients in meat that we can't get elsewhere. I'm not saying eat nothing but meat, but balance is good. That is all I must say, have a nice day.

We didn't evolve to be omnivores because we really need the nurtients in meat.
We evolved to be very adjustable, so we can digest lots of things as long as we cook them.
Btw we can get nurtients from meats from other places too.

[Stronk Serb]

When I get older, I am thinking about hunting or raising my food. Essentially owning a small farm and going to hunt or raise cattle for milk and meat, fruits, vegetables and grain.

[Love.Hate]

I know you can have a balanced diet as a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and meat eater. However as a vegan it is a lot harder and you have to carefully control your diet or take supplement vitamins.

It is entirely a personal preference for whatever reasons, as a vegetarian you have to be careful with your Iron intake and make sure you're getting enough and the only vitamin you're deficient in is b12 but you can buy supplements and its not truely essential because all your other b's make up for it. But you can say the same the other way as a meat eater and make sure you arent eating too much of certain minerals and vitamins and ignoring the essentials. Its all about balance. Any diet can be unhealthy if that individual chooses it to be, regardless of whether they eat meat, fish or dairy products.

[Lovelife090994]

I know you can have a balanced diet as a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and meat eater. However as a vegan it is a lot harder and you have to carefully control your diet or take supplement vitamins.

It is entirely a personal preference for whatever reasons, as a vegetarian you have to be careful with your Iron intake and make sure you're getting enough and the only vitamin you're deficient in is b12 but you can buy supplements and its not truely essential because all your other b's make up for it. But you can say the same the other way as a meat eater and make sure you arent eating too much of certain minerals and vitamins and ignoring the essentials. Its all about balance. Any diet can be unhealthy if that individual chooses it to be, regardless of whether they eat meat, fish or dairy products.

I agree. Diet should have a balance somewhere.

[Gamma Male]

I am a vegan because I find the mass murder of sentient, thinking, feeling beings for our own selfish consumption to be unethical. If canabalism is wrong, why isn't eating cows or pigs? They feel pain, and fear, and love, and joy, and misery just as vividly as humans and have every right to a happy pain free life, just like us.

Human beings evolved to be omnivores for a reason. There are nutrients in meat that we can't get elsewhere. I'm not saying eat nothing but meat, but balance is good. That is all I must say, have a nice day.

Such as? B12 is produced by bacteria that is normally only found in meat, but that can be produced artificially. But every other nutrient can be found naturally in plants. Veganism can be safe and healthy for all stages of life, including nursing mothers and babies. The Mayo Clinic supports this claim.

[Miserabilia]

I am a vegan because I find the mass murder of sentient, thinking, feeling beings for our own selfish consumption to be unethical. If canabalism is wrong, why isn't eating cows or pigs? They feel pain, and fear, and love, and joy, and misery just as vividly as humans and have every right to a happy pain free life, just like us.



Such as? B12 is produced by bacteria that is normally only found in meat, but that can be produced artificially. But every other nutrient can be found naturally in plants. Veganism can be safe and healthy for all stages of life, including nursing mothers and babies. The Mayo Clinic supports this claim.

I've always had a bit of a mental dillema with this.
I mean I don't love meat, and I'm not that much of a meat eater anyways.

But, in nature, animals get eaten to, including animals that are innocent and sentient; they get brutaly hunted down and eaten.

I mean, I'm not trying to justify it; but it happens.
Plus the bio industry allows for new types of animals to slowl emerge; like broilers,
broilers have been used for the inudstry for so long, I doubt they still have much desire to even be a normal chicken; they wouldn't survive in the outisde world, they can hardly walk.

It's not very ethical, but by now it's actualy better for those chickens to keep using them with the life they are given now, because they have adjusted to the point of being used to it.

On the other hand,
most vertebrates, mammals in particular, are very intelligent and emotional, so it's really reallly wrong to eat them and slaughter them when we don't really need to.

I think it'll be really hard for humanity to take the turn to a non meat consuming world, espcialy with the ridiculous protection of the system by american but also western european governments.

[Gamma Male]

I've always had a bit of a mental dillema with this.
I mean I don't love meat, and I'm not that much of a meat eater anyways.

But, in nature, animals get eaten to, including animals that are innocent and sentient; they get brutaly hunted down and eaten.1

I mean, I'm not trying to justify it; but it happens.1
Plus the bio industry allows for new types of animals to slowl emerge; like broilers,
broilers have been used for the inudstry for so long, I doubt they still have much desire to even be a normal chicken; they wouldn't survive in the outisde world, they can hardly walk.2

It's not very ethical, but by now it's actualy better for those chickens to keep using them with the life they are given now, because they have adjusted to the point of being used to it.3

On the other hand,
most vertebrates, mammals in particular, are very intelligent and emotional, so it's really reallly wrong to eat them and slaughter them when we don't really need to.

I think it'll be really hard for humanity to take the turn to a non meat consuming world, espcialy with the ridiculous protection of the system by american but also western european governments.4

1Because animals don't know any better. They don't have any choice. They're animals. And most of the ones that do eat meat actually need to to survive, unlike humans who are perfectly capable of surviving, and thriving, without consuming other animals. The "it happens in nature so it must be okay" argument is weak, and you're better than that. Rape is also fairly common in nature. Unless you're advocating for full blown social Darwinism, you can't really use nature or animals as a basis for morality.

2 To be honest, I would prefer chickens die out all together rather than continue on with the bleak, hopeless, miserable lives we've given them. I think the chickens would prefer that too. After all we've done, it's impossible for them to live in the wild now. And it simply would not be profitable nor sustainable to give them the respect and the pain free lives they deserve.

3 No sentient being, no matter how genetically modified, can ever adjust to the horrible things that are done in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Forgive the Skyrim reference, but they kinda remind me of the Snow Elves/Falmer. Mutated freaks enslaved by a cold, apathetic race.
4 It'll be a long road agead, but I believe that eventually veganism, like all social liberation movements, will prevail.


I don't mean any offense or disrespect, I'm simply debating my viewpoints to the best of my ability. You're actually one of the few posters I agree with on most issues.
4

[Miserabilia]

1Because animals don't know any better. They don't have any choice. They're animals. And most of the ones that do eat meat actually need to to survive, unlike humans who are perfectly capable of surviving, and thriving, without consuming other animals. The "it happens in nature so it must be okay" argument is weak, and you're better than that. Rape is also fairly common in nature. Unless you're advocating for full blown social Darwinism, you can't really use nature or animals as a basis for morality.

2 To be honest, I would prefer chickens die out all together rather than continue on with the bleak, hopeless, miserable lives we've given them. I think the chickens would prefer that too. After all we've done, it's impossible for them to live in the wild now. And it simply would not be profitable nor sustainable to give them the respect and the pain free lives they deserve.

3 No sentient being, no matter how genetically modified, can ever adjust to the horrible things that are done in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Forgive the Skyrim reference, but they kinda remind me of the Snow Elves/Falmer. Mutated freaks enslaved by a cold, apathetic race.
4 It'll be a long road agead, but I believe that eventually veganism, like all social liberation movements, will prevail.


I don't mean any offense or disrespect, I'm simply debating my viewpoints to the best of my ability. You're actually one of the few posters I agree with on most issues.
4

1Because animals don't know any better. They don't have any choice. They're animals. And most of the ones that do eat meat actually need to to survive, unlike humans who are perfectly capable of surviving, and thriving, without consuming other animals. The "it happens in nature so it must be okay" argument is weak, and you're better than that. Rape is also fairly common in nature. Unless you're advocating for full blown social Darwinism, you can't really use nature or animals as a basis for morality.

100% true, can't argue with that.

2 To be honest, I would prefer chickens die out all together rather than continue on with the bleak, hopeless, miserable lives we've given them. I think the chickens would prefer that too. After all we've done, it's impossible for them to live in the wild now. And it simply would not be profitable nor sustainable to give them the respect and the pain free lives they deserve.

Yea I guess, still debateble though, as in what's the better option; let them continue the lives that they have adapted too or end it all and let the whole sub species die out.

3 No sentient being, no matter how genetically modified, can ever adjust to the horrible things that are done in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Forgive the Skyrim reference, but they kinda remind me of the Snow Elves/Falmer. Mutated freaks enslaved by a cold, apathetic race.
4 It'll be a long road agead, but I believe that eventually veganism, like all social liberation movements, will prevail.

No sentient being, no matter how genetically modified, can ever adjust to the horrible things that are done in factory farms and slaughterhouses.
Mmm, chicken have done it quite well, and it's not always that horrible; as for cows I aggree, because cows are not adapted to it and cows still have an urge to walk and live freely as it's more in their nature, and what they do to pigs is terrible too;
however chickens don't reaally have it that bad; I mean they can hardly move and basicly have no life, but it's the only life they know (and I know I sound like a cruel ahole right now but hear me out), they get fed and die a quick painless death.
I'm not 100% on that side, but i dunno I'm just kinda undecided about it.

It'll be a long road agead, but I believe that eventually veganism, like all social liberation movements, will prevail.

I do too! The mass meat bio industry is a result of the rather recent mega world population growth, as that is slowing down we can get rid of it and become more vegan and focused on the well being of other animals.

[Typhlosion]

I am very aware that vegetarianism, and the more extreme veganism, are deviations from our natural diet. The extra care is necessary for a good health and for that, I wouldn't advocate for either. Being lazy and vegetarian is normally ok, but lazy and vegan is a greater risk.

As for all the saving the animals thing... not for me. We, human, cows, sharks, chicken, worms, jellyfish, are all animals and bound to the cycle of life. We were made to predate, as with any other animal. To put another species' life in preference to our own is, for me, absurd.

[Melodic]

I really think it's just up to the person. It's their lifestyle and their choice to eat what they want. Will people stop eating meat for good? I really don't think so. Just like any other debate, people have their own opinions, likes, and dislikes.

My opinion is, I probably won't ever stop eating meat. But I will have a balanced diet.

[Gamma Male]

I am very aware that vegetarianism, and the more extreme veganism, are deviations from our natural diet. The extra care is necessary for a good health and for that, I wouldn't advocate for either. Being lazy and vegetarian is normally ok, but lazy and vegan is a greater risk.

As for all the saving the animals thing... not for me. We, human, cows, sharks, chicken, worms, jellyfish, are all animals and bound to the cycle of life. We were made to predate, as with any other animal. To put another species' life in preference to our own is, for me, absurd.

Most animals who kill for food could not survive if they did not do so. That is not case for us. We are better off not eating meat. Also, we do not look to other anim for standardsin other areas, so why should we in this case?

Predatory animals must killto eat. Humans,in contrast,havea choice; they need eat meat to survive.

Humansdifferfrom nonhuman animals in being capable of conceiving of, and ac in accordance with, a system of morals; therefore, we cannot seek moral guidan or precedent from nonhuman animals. It is just as wrong for a human to kill and a sentient nonhuman as it is to kill and eat a sentient human.

To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moralprecedents from nonhuman ani consider the following variants of the question:

"In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why should it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"In Nature, animals killand eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [t killand eat humans]?" --DG

I really think it's just up to the person. It's their lifestyle and their choice to eat what they want. Will people stop eating meat for good? I really don't think so. Just like any other debate, people have their own opinions, likes, and dislikes.

My opinion is, I probably won't ever stop eating meat. But I will have a balanced diet.

It ceases to become a personal choice when someone else is harmed. This is commonly accepted logic. Murder isn't a personal choice. Rape isn't a personal choice. Owning slaves isn't a personal choice. So why should supporting the mass murder of animals be a personal choice? Because the 100 billion animals that die in factory farms and slaughter houses each year are most certainly being harmed.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Lovelife090994]

It ceases to become a personal choice when someone else is harmed. This is commonly accepted logic. Murder isn't a personal choice. Rape isn't a personal choice. Owning slaves isn't a personal choice. So why should supporting the mass murder of animals be a personal choice? Because the 100 billion animals that die in factory farms and slaughter houses each year are most certainly being harmed.

Please tell me that you do not think all omnivores are murderers. You've just spat on many cultures if you hold any omnivore to that.

[Gamma Male]

Please tell me that you do not think all omnivores are murderers. You've just spat on many cultures if you hold any omnivore to that.

I try not to blame them for it or hold it against them but basically yes.

[Lovelife090994]

I try not to blame them for it or hold it against them but basically yes.

Okay. May I ask why in more detail? My mother and I eat meat with as part of a balanced diet and because the way our income and area are it makes more sense to eat balanced and meat can go a long way. My mother and I are proud pet owners with a loving dog. We care for animals in our hearts and we don't care if someone eats meat or not. Why do you care? Personally, I am asking out of plain curiosity. I mean, I get that humans have done injustice to animals, but I fail to see how anyone vegetarian or vegan is better than others or less murderous by judging others or by not eating meat. This just makes more social divides and the world has too many as it is.

[Gamma Male]

Okay. May I ask why in more detail? My mother and I eat meat with as part of a balanced diet and because the way our income and area are it makes more sense to eat balanced and meat can go a long way. My mother and I are proud pet owners with a loving dog. We care for animals in our hearts and we don't care if someone eats meat or not. Why do you care? Personally, I am asking out of plain curiosity. I mean, I get that humans have done injustice to animals, but I fail to see how anyone vegetarian or vegan is better than others or less murderous by judging others or by not eating meat. This just makes more social divides and the world has too many as it is.

I didn't say that vegans are better people. But people who eat meat contribute to the genocide of animals, and this is unethical. It doesn't make them bad people because it isn't their fault they're raised in a society that deems it acceptable, but the act of purchasing animal products is unethical. I try to keep emotion out of my debates, but since you asked I personally find it disgusting and don't see how so many people can be so apathetic about something this..... wrong. Seeing people joke(not you) about the slaughter of tens of billions of sentient beings makes me so angry, and at the same time incredibly depressed and sad.

But that's just how I feel, and irrelevant to the argument as a whole.

[Lovelife090994]

I didn't say that vegans are better people. But people who eat meat contribute to the genocide of animals, and this is unethical. It doesn't make them bad people because it isn't their fault they're raised in a society that deems it acceptable, but the act of purchasing animal products is unethical. I try to keep emotion out of my debates, but since you asked I personally find it disgusting and don't see how so many people can be so apathetic about something this..... wrong. Seeing people joke(not you) about the slaughter of tens of billions of sentient beings makes me so angry, and at the same time incredibly depressed and sad.

But that's just how I feel, and irrelevant to the argument as a whole.

I can understand your disdain to people who abuse and slaughter. But meat production is a business for billions and gives a lot of food. Animals slaughtered are bred to be slaughtered so that the population affected is in captivity versus the wild breeds. Now, I see why you deem it as unethical, the price should be. But, I still see it as unfair for you to hold this against others. That is what I fail to get. Is this why you are vegan versus vegetarian? To avoid the fact that what you're eating was once alive? Technically plants are alive too and depend on a lot of land which takes many bees for pollination as well as much of a nation's water. No matter your diet it all leaves a mark.

[Gamma Male]

I can understand your disdain to people who abuse and slaughter. 1 But meat production is a business for billions and gives a lot of food. Animals slaughtered are bred to be slaughtered so that the population affected is in captivity versus the wild breeds. Now, I see why you deem it as unethical, the price should be. But, I still see it as unfair for you to hold this against others. That is what I fail to get. Is this why you are vegan versus vegetarian? To avoid the fact that what you're eating was once alive? Technically plants are alive too and depend on a lot of land which takes many bees for pollination as well as much of a nation's water. No matter your diet it all leaves a mark.

The fact that currently meat is a major business and most people eat it is irrelevant to the ethics debate. And it is not okay to abuse and slaughter animals simply because that's what they were bread for. The same argument was used in support of slavery.

I don't hold it against anyone. I think it's unethical, but I don't hold it against anyone because they grew up in cultures where eating meat is deemed acceptable. That isn't their fault.

I don't avoid eating animal products because of an aversion to eating once living things, that's silly. I avoid eating animal products so I don't contribute to their pain and suffering by funding the industry. And it's okay to eat plants because they're not sentient. They don't feel.

[Lovelife090994]

The fact that currently meat is a major business and most people eat it is irrelevant to the ethics debate. And it is not okay to abuse and slaughter animals simply because that's what they were bread for. The same argument was used in support of slavery.

I don't hold it against anyone. I think it's unethical, but I don't hold it against anyone because they grew up in cultures where eating meat is deemed acceptable. That isn't their fault.

I don't avoid eating animal products because of an aversion to eating once living things, that's silly. I avoid eating animal products so I don't contribute to their pain and suffering by funding the industry. And it's okay to eat plants because they're not sentient. They don't feel.

Actually plants do feel. They are delicate. One touch can make a plant wilt. Again, okay I see your reasoning. I also see how most of the world has a unique diet that isn't either extreme.

[Gamma Male]

1Actually plants do feel. They are delicate. One touch can make a plant wilt. Again, okay I see your reasoning. 2 I also see how most of the world has a unique diet that isn't either extreme.

1Plants cannot feel pain. That's just stupid. They don't have brains. Can they react to sensory input? Sure. But they can't suffer, and they can't feel emotions.
2 What's your point?

[Capto]

Frankly ethics plays little to no role in how I view food. Consumption of animaline flesh is biologically natural, and as long as I as a human can physically and safely eat something, I see no reason not to.

[Lovelife090994]

1Plants cannot feel pain. That's just stupid. They don't have brains. Can they react to sensory input? Sure. But they can't suffer, and they can't feel emotions.
2 What's your point?

The point was, it is biological normal to eat meat and also biological normal for humans with a unique diet to not crave meat. To say that the hunting, fishing, breeding, meat trade is an unnatural way of killing is unnatural. In many parts of the world plants are scarce. There is a reason why in many societies vegetables weren't often eaten as well as at times meat. Meat is easy to come by. You need only breed animals to either work or be fattened up. Take a desert area along the sea. Parts of Israel that weren't Jewish ate from the sea. The fish were plentiful even when vegetation and agriculture may not have been. To me it depends on the area. In our modern world a person can access many foods and live a healthy lifestyle of plant products. But if a disaster were to strike then this may be a problem. It can be hard to preserve fruits and vegetables without drying them or properly canning them. Also, if stranded somewhere people tend to have this urge for meat when hungry. It is a natural urge that over the years humans have learned to either listen to or suppress.

[Gamma Male]

The point was, it is biological normal to eat meat and also biological normal for humans with a unique diet to not crave meat. To say that the hunting, fishing, breeding, meat trade is an unnatural way of killing is unnatural. In many parts of the world plants are scarce. There is a reason why in many societies vegetables weren't often eaten as well as at times meat. Meat is easy to come by. You need only breed animals to either work or be fattened up. Take a desert area along the sea. Parts of Israel that weren't Jewish ate from the sea. The fish were plentiful even when vegetation and agriculture may not have been. To me it depends on the area. In our modern world a person can access many foods and live a healthy lifestyle of plant products. But if a disaster were to strike then this may be a problem. It can be hard to preserve fruits and vegetables without drying them or properly canning them. Also, if stranded somewhere people tend to have this urge for meat when hungry. It is a natural urge that over the years humans have learned to either listen to or suppress.

If you're going to debate me, do not say I said things I never said. I don't care one way or the other whether or not eating meat is unatural or not. And I never said it was wrong because it's unatural or even that it is unatural at all. Eating meat could be the most natural thing in the world. I. Do. Not. Give. A. Shit.


Eating meat is unethical because of the massive amounts of undue pain and suffering it causes to animals, and the lives it takes.

And btw, eating meat is actually less ecological because of the plants required to feed the animals. Plants like grains and soy, that could be going toward human consumption and fighting world hunger.

[Capto]

Eating meat is unethical because of the massive amounts of undue pain and suffering it causes to animals, and the lives it takes.


You know, you shouldn't make blanket statements like that. It's incredibly unbecoming.

[Camazotz]

Eating meat is unethical because of the massive amounts of undue pain and suffering it causes to animals, and the lives it takes.

It's not unethical when other animals eat other animals, it's natural. We're humans, aka animals. There's no emotional ties between us and the food we eat (usually). Eating meat gives us important nutrients, and I know you said that you don't care that it's natural, but you're trying to make humans almost divine, as a step above other animal; in reality, we're just as equal as any other animals (which I think you believe, but that contradicts with your argument that we shouldn't kill animals for food).

This debate is a bit off topic since it's about the ethics of eating meat as opposed to the biophysical benefits of veganism/vegetarianism vs. an omnivorous diet. As for that, my only response is that our bodies adapted through processing nutrients in meat and plants. You can get proteins from non-meat methods (tofu), but that seems unnecessary to me since we have meat available to us.

[phuckphace]

I'm thinking about going on a pescetarian diet for health reasons. if salmon didn't cost a billion dollars per pound I'd eat that shit twice a day and never touch any other meat again.

anyway, I can see the benefits of a vegan diet from a health standpoint, but when the hypersensitive hippies start crying about the poor animals and their Holocaust at the hands of evul hoomans I tend to stop listening

[Lovelife090994]

I'm thinking about going on a pescetarian diet for health reasons. if salmon didn't cost a billion dollars per pound I'd eat that shit twice a day and never touch any other meat again.

anyway, I can see the benefits of a vegan diet from a health standpoint, but when the hypersensitive hippies start crying about the poor animals and their Holocaust at the hands of evul hoomans I tend to stop listening

I am like that too. I love fish and seafood more than classic meat.

[Gamma Male]

It's not unethical when other animals eat other animals, it's natural. We're humans, aka animals. There's no emotional ties between us and the food we eat (usually). Eating meat gives us important nutrients, and I know you said that you don't care that it's natural, but you're trying to make humans almost divine, as a step above other animal; in reality, we're just as equal as any other animals (which I think you believe, but that contradicts with your argument that we shouldn't kill animals for food).

This debate is a bit off topic since it's about the ethics of eating meat as opposed to the biophysical benefits of veganism/vegetarianism vs. an omnivorous diet. As for that, my only response is that our bodies adapted through processing nutrients in meat and plants. You can get proteins from non-meat methods (tofu), but that seems unnecessary to me since we have meat available to us.
Most animals who kill for food could not survive if they did not. This is not the case for us. We are better off not eating meat. Also we don't ook to other animals for standards in other areas, so why should we in this case?

Predatory animals must kill to eat. Humans, in contrast, need not eat meat to survive.

Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being capable of and acting in accordance with, a system of morals; therefore seeking moral guidance or precedent from nonhuman animals makes no sense. It is just as wrong for a human to kill a sentient nonhuman as it is to kill and eat a sentient human.

To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral precedents from nonhuman animals, consider the following variants of the questions.

"In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why shouldn't it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [to kill and eat humans]?" --DG

I'm thinking about going on a pescetarian diet for health reasons. if salmon didn't cost a billion dollars per pound I'd eat that shit twice a day and never touch any other meat again.

anyway, I can see the benefits of a vegan diet from a health standpoint, but when the hypersensitive hippies start crying about the poor animals and their Holocaust at the hands of evul hoomans I tend to stop listening

Why are sentient nonhuman animals less worthy of being treated fairly than human animals? Because you just don't care about them? That makes no sense. You don't have to be "hypersensitive hippy" to see that animals deserve better than what we give them.


merged posts, please use edit next time -TheVoiceWithin

[phuckphace]

Why are sentient nonhuman animals less worthy of being treated fairly than human animals? Because you just don't care about them? That makes no sense. You don't have to be "hypersensitive hippy" to see that animals deserve better than what we give them.

I recall you saying in another thread that some of the students who were hurt at that school stabbing "probably deserved it." ergo you have little if any room to dispense finger-wagging lessons to the rest of us on ethics. just saying.

[Gamma Male]

I recall you saying in another thread that some of the students who were hurt at that school stabbing "probably deserved it." ergo you have little if any room to dispense finger-wagging lessons to the rest of us on ethics. just saying.

I was very angry when I wrote that, so I joked that since the majority of highschool students are assholes one of they might've had it coming, but I don't honestly think like that 90% of the time. And no, I don't condone stabbing teenagers for being dicks.




Now, answer the question without employing any of the most frequently used fallacies. Appeal to nature, circular logic, the slippery slope argument, appeal to majority, avoiding the question by attacking me personally, etc.

[Camazotz]

Most animals who kill for food could not survive if they did not. This is not the case for us. We are better off not eating meat...Humans, in contrast, need not eat meat to survive.

There are health benefits to eating meat. It is important in a balanced, nutritional diet.

Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being capable of and acting in accordance with, a system of morals; therefore seeking moral guidance or precedent from nonhuman animals makes no sense. It is just as wrong for a human to kill a sentient nonhuman as it is to kill and eat a sentient human.

This is true according to your morals. Morality isn't a universal thing; it's abstract and subjective. Killing is ethically wrong to us now, but killing is natural and we've been doing it since the dawn of man. As history has shown, our standards and morals are constantly changing. The constant throughout man's time on Earth is that we have been omnivorous, and our bodies get the most nutritional value from plants and meat.

"In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why shouldn't it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [to kill and eat humans]?" --DG

It's wrong to do those things because society has collectively decided that those things are immoral. Objective morality is a philosophical belief. Philosophy, however, is purely abstract and unscientific. Certain philosophical beliefs are the result of evolutionary advantages; killing other humans creates conflict among communities and puts the population in danger, and it's therefore advantageous to be able to cooperate with others. This is how we've come to "universal truths," such as "don't steal" and "don't kill." Cultural adaptations are selectively advantageous, but that doesn't make us morally superior to other animals.

[phuckphace]

Now, answer the question without employing any of the most frequently used fallacies. Appeal to nature, circular logic, the slippery slope argument, appeal to majority, avoiding the question by attacking me personally, etc.

*tips fedora* "just let me scour a few more Wikipedia articles for some sophisticated words to throw around as I attempt to become the next Master Debator..." (seriously how would a slippery slope fallacy even fit in this context?)

anyway, I think Camazotz summed it up pretty well in his above post. animals "deserve" better treatment based on what, a universal set of morals or just your own subjective opinion? what are you basing this on?

in this thread: THERE EXISTS A UNIVERSAL MORAL OBLIGATION FOR US TO EAT TOFU BECAUSE CRUELTY (i.e. my own beliefs are objective)
in another thread: UGH IGNORANT CHRISTIANS TELLING ME WHO I CAN AND CAN'T MARRY UGH KEEP YOUR STOOPID BIGOT BELIEFS TO YOURSELVES UGH (i.e. the beliefs of others are arbitrary)

[rinikuma]

i personally find eating meat okay if we respect the animals. that means no forced breeding, no forced cannibalism (which, okay, doesn't happen ALL the time, but just because it isn't frequent, doesn't mean it doesn't happen) none of those cruel "farms" where creatures barely have room to stand, and we use ALL of the animal. bones, fat, skin, fur, eyes, you name it. i don't see anything wrong with eating meat as long as it is done right, i hate how wasteful and disrespectful we are.

the meat eating isn't the problem, it's the execution and abuse that's the problem imo

[Gamma Male]

*tips fedora* "just let me scour a few more Wikipedia articles for some sophisticated words to throw around as I attempt to become the next Master Debator..." (seriously how would a slippery slope fallacy even fit in this context?)

anyway, I think Camazotz summed it up pretty well in his above post. animals "deserve" better treatment based on what, a universal set of morals or just your own subjective opinion? what are you basing this on?

in this thread: THERE EXISTS A UNIVERSAL MORAL OBLIGATION FOR US TO EAT TOFU BECAUSE CRUELTY (i.e. my own beliefs are objective)
in another thread: UGH IGNORANT CHRISTIANS TELLING ME WHO I CAN AND CAN'T MARRY UGH KEEP YOUR STOOPID BIGOT BELIEFS TO YOURSELVES UGH (i.e. the beliefs of others are arbitrary)

Well, you did just start your argument by being a dick. So there's that. And I have actually seen slippery slope arguments used. ANIMAL RITES!? LOL WATS NEXT, PLANT RIGHTS? BUGS RIGHTS? LMAO YOLO LMAO ROFL!!!!!


And, you do realize the arguments you're using apply to all moral theories, not just veganism right? What you're basically saying is because we can't all agree debating ethics is stupid and we should all become nilhists.

Plus, it'd be nice if most meat eaters weren't such hypocrites. They cry when their pets die, and yet feel absolutely no sympathy for the billions of pigs, and cows, and chickens being slaughtered every year.


Let me ask you a question. If cannabalism had no negative side effects, would you object to people being raised in 4x6 cages, forcefully impregneted, had their babies taken away, strung up by the skin of their backs on meal hooks with no painkillers, and then kill, fully conscience, and ground into meat?

[SawyerSauce]

The carb load in veganism would kill me. I have PCOS and insulin resistance. It'd literally kill me.

[Emerald Dream]

I recall you saying in another thread that some of the students who were hurt at that school stabbing "probably deserved it." ergo you have little if any room to dispense finger-wagging lessons to the rest of us on ethics. just saying.

I was very angry when I wrote that, so I joked that since the majority of highschool students are assholes one of they might've had it coming, but I don't honestly think like that 90% of the time. And no, I don't condone stabbing teenagers for being dicks.


*tips fedora* "just let me scour a few more Wikipedia articles for some sophisticated words to throw around as I attempt to become the next Master Debator..." (seriously how would a slippery slope fallacy even fit in this context?)


in this thread: THERE EXISTS A UNIVERSAL MORAL OBLIGATION FOR US TO EAT TOFU BECAUSE CRUELTY (i.e. my own beliefs are objective)
in another thread: UGH IGNORANT CHRISTIANS TELLING ME WHO I CAN AND CAN'T MARRY UGH KEEP YOUR STOOPID BIGOT BELIEFS TO YOURSELVES UGH (i.e. the beliefs of others are arbitrary)

Well, you did just start your argument by being a dick. So there's that. And I have actually seen slippery slope arguments used. ANIMAL RITES!? LOL WATS NEXT, PLANT RIGHTS? BUGS RIGHTS? LMAO YOLO LMAO ROFL!!!!!


Could we leave the personal nonsense out of this please, and stay on-topic? This is absolutely ridiculous and has no place in a debate forum. Let's try to act a little more mature.

[Babiole]

I'm not a vegetarian, but one of my friends is. I respect his beliefs. I love eating meat, but I can understand vegetarians' reasons for not eating meat. I think you should eat what you're comfortable with. If you think it's wrong to eat meat, don't eat it. Just don't go around forcing people to be vegetarians or forcing vegetarians to eat meat.

[Vlerchan]

And, you do realize the arguments you're using apply to all moral theories, not just veganism right? What you're basically saying is because we can't all agree debating ethics is stupid and we should all become nilhists.
He's saying that trying to base your entire argument about the ethical values that you hold is completely pointless since you both do not share the same ethics and your attempts to convince him that your ethics are superior are quite clearly not working.

I'm also a nihilist if it helps in furthering the discussion.

Let me ask you a question. If cannabalism had no negative side effects, would you object to people being raised in 4x6 cages, forcefully impregneted, had their babies taken away, strung up by the skin of their backs on meal hooks with no painkillers, and then kill, fully conscience, and ground into meat?
Yes. There's so much better uses we could be putting such people to. Unlike chickens.

You accepted this when you stated earlier that you thought it would be better if we just allowed chickens die out.

[Gamma Male]

He's saying that trying to base your entire argument about the ethical values that you hold is completely pointless since you both do not share the same ethics and your attempts to convince him that your ethics are superior are quite clearly not working.

I'm also a nihilist if it helps in furthering the discussion.


Yes. There's so much better uses we could be putting such people to. Unlike chickens.

You accepted this when you stated earlier that you thought it would be better if we just allowed chickens die out.

My ethics are based on logic.

So, you're saying the only reason doing that to humans would be immoral is because they're useful in other ways, and that it's okay to treat chickens and pigs that way since they don't serve any better purpose? Sounds like social darwinism to me.


And that it is not what I said earlier. I suggested we let chickens die out out of mercy, and because at this point it is impossible to re-integrate them back into nature. Believe me, it's not easy suggesting we should let a species go extinct but there is no other option. It would not be sustainable to give chickens and pigs and cows comfortable, full lives and continuing to eat them. That can't happen on a large scale, and I'd rather not be born at all then be born into a bleak, hopeless, miserable life full of suffering and tortue.

[Vlerchan]

My ethics are based on logic.
What's logical about not putting something with a single identifiable use to that single identifiable use?

So, you're saying the only reason doing that to humans would be immoral is because they're useful in other ways, and that it's okay to treat chickens and pigs that way since they don't serve any better purpose? Sounds like social darwinism to me.
Label it how you want. You asked to differentiate the slaughter of humans from the slaughter of a farm-animal and I differentiated.

Do you disagree that the reason I provided doesn't elevate humans above farm-animals in this instance?

[CutYouDown]

I won't argue that Veganism isn't a good diet, and that most vegans are very healthy, but I don't like it. I think people should have meats and other non-vegan foods in their lives, both to remain healthy with the foods that your body requires, and to enjoy your meals more. This is just my opinion though, as some people do not enjoy meats.

[Gamma Male]

What's logical about not putting something with a single identifiable use to that single identifiable use?


Label it how you want. You asked to differentiate the slaughter of humans from the slaughter of a farm-animal and I differentiated.

Do you disagree that the reason I provided doesn't elevate humans above farm-animals in this instance?

Because, the most ethical decision is usually the one that serves the interests of the most people without causing any unnecessary harm. And animals have interests too. Interests like staying alive, not living their lives in 2x4 cages, and living relatively happy lives. So exploiting them and causing them undue harm for our own selfish reasons is unethical. Especially since eating meat is unnecessary, and it is possible to live and remain healthy without consuming meat. I'm not saying eating meat is unnatural or unhealthy, but it isn't necessary for any stage of life, including babies and pregnant women. The mayo clinic supports this claim on their website.

And whether or not human beings are "above" animals is irrelevant. Being smarter and stronger than someone doesn't make it okay to exploit them, as "natural" as survival of the fittest may be, humans are better than that.

[Vlerchan]

Because, the most ethical decision is usually the one that serves the interests of the most people without causing any unnecessary harm.
To apply the utilitarianism approach here is to presume that the interests of animals are at the same level or equivalent to those of a human-being. I'm not going to accept this to be true being the shameless anthropocentrist that I am.

And whether or not human beings are "above" animals is irrelevant.[1] Being smarter and stronger than someone doesn't make it okay to exploit them, as "natural" as survival of the fittest may be, humans are better than that.[2]
[1]: It's entirely relevant to your cannibalism-strawman.

[2]: Clearly not. Though your misplaced-faith is admirable.

[Gamma Male]

To apply the utilitarianism approach here is to presume that the interests of animals are at the same level or equivalent to those of a human-being. I'm not going to accept this to be true being the shameless anthropocentrist that I am.


[1]: It's entirely relevant to your cannibalism-strawman.

[2]: Clearly not. Though your misplaced-faith is admirable.

Why should the interests and well being of sentient nonhuman animals be placed below the interests of sentient human animals? Why do they deserve any less? They(most of the ones we eat at least) feel pain, and joy, and suffering, and love, and fear every bit as vividly as humans. So again, what do we have that they don't that entitles us to place our happiness so far above theirs?

What?

My point was, humans are capable of morality and animals aren't. Does that mean they deserve less than us? No, because they don't know any better. We do.

[Vlerchan]

Why should the interests and well being of sentient nonhuman animals be placed below the interests of sentient human animals?
'sentient human animals' have a much greater potential than 'nonsentient nonhuman animals' to live lives that enrich the society about them. The only contribution animals make to my life is when I consume them.

So again, what do we have that they don't that entitles us to place our happiness so far above theirs?
'sentient human animals' have a much greater potential than 'nonsentient nonhuman animals' to live lives that enrich the society about them. The only contribution animals make to my life is when I consume them.

What?
Your point about my point being irrelevant is invalid.

My point was, humans are capable of morality and animals aren't[1]. Does that mean they deserve less than us? No, because they don't know any better. We do.[2]
[1]: You don't know this for sure.

[2]: I don't adhere to your moral-beliefs: we don't share the same definitions of 'better' in the context of this discussion.

[Gamma Male]

'sentient human animals' have a much greater potential than 'nonsentient nonhuman animals' to live lives that enrich the society about them. The only contribution animals make to my life is when I consume them.


'sentient human animals' have a much greater potential than 'nonsentient nonhuman animals' to live lives that enrich the society about them. The only contribution animals make to my life is when I consume them.


Your point about my point being irrelevant is invalid.


[1]: You don't know this for sure.

[2]: I don't adhere to your moral-beliefs: we don't share the same definitions of 'better' in the context of this discussion.

This may suprise you, but animals don't HAVE to serve a purpose to you, anymore than we have to serve a purpose for them. You didn't actually answer the question. Why should our interests be above their interests? Because their interests don't serve ours? You're using circular logic, and missing the point entirely. You're saying that our interests are better than theirs because their interests don't serve ours.

[Vlerchan]

You didn't actually answer the question.
Yes, I did.

Why should our interests be above their interests?
Because our existence actively enriches the world about us.

Because their interests don't serve ours?
Because their existence doesn't actively enrich the world about them.

You're using circular logic, and missing the point entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I'd suggest you read into the logical fallacies before you start making accusations: there's nothing circular about holding our interests above those of animals because we possess the ability to enrich the world about us and animals don't.

You're saying that our interests are better than theirs because their interests don't serve ours.
No, I'm not.

I'm saying that we should place our interests above their because we as a species actively enrich the world about us, that we are capable of living "lives that enrich the society about them." I can't be any more equivocal here.

[Gamma Male]

Yes, I did.


Because our existence actively enriches the world about us.


Because their existence doesn't actively enrich the world about them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I'd suggest you read into the logical fallacies before you start making accusations: there's nothing circular about holding our interests above those of animals because we possess the ability to enrich the world about us and animals don't.


No, I'm not.

I'm saying that we should place our interests above their because we as a species actively enrich the world about us, that we are capable of living "lives that enrich the society about them." I can't be any more equivocal here.

What do you mean by "actively enrich the world around us"? Please specify. You can't mean human beings somehow improve the environment, because that's just not true.

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean by "actively enrich the world around us"? Please specify. You can't mean human beings somehow improve the environment, because that's just not true.
You are getting to talk to me and I'm getting to talk to you as a result of strives in technology as perpetrated by the human race. That is an example of humanity having enriched the world around them. I'm currently sitting in a house with a central-heating system to keep me warm as a result of advancements made in such areas by the human race. This is another example of humanity having enriched the world around him. And whilst I accept that humanity has managed to harm the world around them I personally feel - and I've always found this to be the general consensus - that we do a lot more harm than good.

[Lovelife090994]

What do you mean by "actively enrich the world around us"? Please specify. You can't mean human beings somehow improve the environment, because that's just not true.

Human invention is why you are in a home with interent. Everyday humans are fighting to save the planet by working together versus dividing us. Humans can improve the environment.

[Gamma Male]

You are getting to talk to me and I'm getting to talk to you as a result of strives in technology as perpetrated by the human race. That is an example of humanity having enriched the world around them. I'm currently sitting in a house with a central-heating system to keep me warm as a result of advancements made in such areas by the human race. This is another example of humanity having enriched the world around him. And whilst I accept that humanity has managed to harm the world around them I personally feel - and I've always found this to be the general consensus - that we do a lot more harm than good.

Circular logic.
You're saying that humans deserve to be treated fairly and animals don't because humans "actively improve the world around us" and animals don't actively improve the world around humans. But hy "actively improve the world around us" all you really mean is make stuff that serves our interests, like computers and hats and airplanes. So essentially you're just repeating the same argument over, animals don't deserve to have their interests respected because they don't serve our interests, and our interests our better because animal's interests don't do anything to serve ours.

Human invention is why you are in a home with interent. Everyday humans are fighting to save the planet by working together versus dividing us. Humans can improve the environment.

It is undeniable that human beings cause waaaaaayyy more harm to the earth than good overall.
The only good we do is for ourselves.


merged posts -TheVoiceWithin

[Lovelife090994]

Circular logic.
You're saying that humans deserve to be treated fairly and animals don't because humans "actively improve the world around us" and animals don't actively improve the world around humans. But hy "actively improve the world around us" all you really mean is make stuff that serves our interests, like computers and hats and airplanes. So essentially you're just repeating the same argument over, animals don't deserve to have their interests respected because they don't serve our interests, and our interests our better because animal's interests don't do anything to serve ours.

Stop! He never said animal life has less value than our own. But he is right, you enjoy the comforts of man. Stop this hatred to humans and realize you are one.

It is undeniable that human beings cause waaaaaayyy more harm to the earth than good overall.
The only good we do is for ourselves.

You are human. What does this say about you? Aside from pessimism and a possible negative thinking pattern I'd say it is a sense of above-humanity. No one is except God if you believe in him, and even He is aware of our flaws and forgives. Now before you turn this into the classic "but I'm atheist" lecture, hear me out. Regardless of what you think there are humans fighting to save lives everyday. Doctors, teachers, veterans, volunteers, priests, nuns, leaders, inventors, medical engineers, all doing some bit of good. If can see no good in humanity then you are blind and questionably insane.

[Vlerchan]

Circular logic.
I provided a link explaining what circular reasoning is.

Please read that link because even if the below misrepresentation of response was correct you'd still be applying fallacy wrong.

But hy "actively improve the world around us" all you really mean is make stuff that serves our interests, like computers and hats and airplanes.
No. I mean the sum of all human achievements as made over the course of all human history. I gave examples of achievements that disproportionally affected humans because they were the first examples to come into my head. If you want an example then 'medicine' is probably the most obvious cross-species example. Though, you'd be right to believe that most advancements disproportionally benefit human interests because human's have a much wider range of interests than animals.

So essentially you're just repeating the same argument over.
Yes.

Hopefully you won't misinterpret this time.

[Gamma Male]

1Stop! He never said animal life has less value than our own. But he is right, you enjoy the comforts of man. Stop this hatred to humans and realize you are one.



2You are human. What does this say about you? Aside from pessimism and a possible negative thinking pattern I'd say it is a sense of above-humanity. No one is except God if you believe in him, and even He is aware of our flaws and forgives. Now before you turn this into the classic "but I'm atheist" lecture, hear me out. Regardless of what you think there are humans fighting to save lives everyday. Doctors, teachers, veterans, volunteers, priests, nuns, leaders, inventors, medical engineers, all doing some bit of good. If can see no good in humanity then you are blind and questionably insane.

1No, but he did say that the interests of animals were less important than the interests of humans. Interests like not living their lives in cages and having their babies taken away and hung on metal hooks by the skin of their backs.
2 I don't hate humans, I just.think animals should be given equal consideration.

I provided a link explaining what circular reasoning is.

Please read that link because even if the below misrepresentation of response was correct you'd still be applying fallacy wrong.


No. I mean the sum of all human achievements as made over the course of all human history. I gave examples of achievements that disproportionally affected humans because they were the first examples to come into my head. If you want an example then 'medicine' is probably the most obvious cross-species example. Though, you'd be right to believe that most advancements disproportionally benefit human interests because human's have a much wider range of interests than animals.


Yes.

Hopefully you won't misinterpret this time.


Lets break down your argument.

1Humans have made many inventions that benefit humanity, and sometimes benefit animals.
Animals have not made any inventions to benefit themselves or us.
Therefore, it is okay to kill, tortue, and enslave animals but not humans, because humans have the ability to n

I provided a link explaining what circular reasoning is.

Please read that link because even if the below misrepresentation of response was correct you'd still be applying fallacy wrong.


No. I mean the sum of all human achievements as made over the course of all human history. I gave examples of achievements that disproportionally affected humans because they were the first examples to come into my head. If you want an example then 'medicine' is probably the most obvious cross-species example. Though, you'd be right to believe that most advancements disproportionally benefit human interests because human's have a much wider range of interests than animals.


Yes.

Hopefully you won't misinterpret this time.


Lets break down your argument.

1Humans have made many inventions that benefit humanity, and sometimes benefit animals.
Animals have not made any inventions to benefit themselves or us.
Therefore, it is okay to kill, tortue, and enslave animals but not humans, because humans have the ability to make inventions and killing them would be a waste.


Your entire argument is based on the premise that whether or not someone is useful to society determines whether or not they should be treated fairly(That's called social Darwinism, by the way). But how do you define "usefulness"? What exactly do you mean by "contribute to society"? If you mean mean having the potential to create inventions which improve the lives of humans, what you're essentially saying is that because animals aren't doing anything to help humanity, they have no rights. Because they're interests do not further our interests, our interests are better. And our interests are better because they're interests do not coincide with ours. Maybye you should be the one looking up the definition of circular logic.



merged posts, please use edit button next time -TheVoiceWithin

[Vlerchan]

Lets break down your argument.

1Humans have made many inventions that benefit humanity, and sometimes benefit animals.
Animals have not made any inventions to benefit themselves or us.
Therefore, it is okay to kill, tortue, and enslave animals but not humans, because humans have the ability to n

Lets break down my argument without putting words in my mouth:

Human's have enriched the world around them
Animals have not enriched the world around them.
Therefore, I value humans above animals.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that whether or not someone is useful to society determines whether or not they should be treated fairly(That's called social Darwinism, by the way).
No. It revolves around the premise that non-sentient animals collectively do not enrich the world around them and only function to be eaten by other animals.

But how do you define "usefulness"? What exactly do you mean by "contribute to society"? If you mean mean having the potential to create inventions which improve the lives of humans, what you're essentially saying is that because animals aren't doing anything to help humanity, they have no rights.
I've actually gone to the effort of outlining what I mean in my last two posts. If you read them you'd realise it is not this: I'm not only considering achievements that have benefited humans, but I accept that humanities achievements have disproportionally benefited humans because humans have a wider range of interests.

Maybye you should be the one looking up the definition of circular logic.
Maybe you shouldn't misrepresent my posts?

[Canadian Dream]

Although I agree with the first post, eating a balanced diet while still eating vegan is very difficult, since nutriment source options (especially protein) are hard to find. It is still a good option if you are conscious of what you are eating. Personally, my dad is eating a lot of vegan food and he finds it hard to maintain a balanced diet.

[Lovelife090994]

Although I agree with the first post, eating a balanced diet while still eating vegan is very difficult, since nutriment source options (especially protein) are hard to find. It is still a good option if you are conscious of what you are eating. Personally, my dad is eating a lot of vegan food and he finds it hard to maintain a balanced diet.

Vous avez raison! Balance is key, be it from veganism, vegetarianism or any other way. Protein is hard to come by as a vegetarian.

[Capto]

Protein is ridiculously easy to come by as a vegetarian.

[Miserabilia]

Protein is ridiculously easy to come by as a vegetarian.

This.

[Lovelife090994]

Protein is ridiculously easy to come by as a vegetarian.

With what for example? In my case I can't make the switch since my mother is one for meatvas is her boyfriend.

[Canadian Dream]

Vous avez raison! Balance is key, be it from veganism, vegetarianism or any other way. Protein is hard to come by as a vegetarian.

Actually protein is easier to get as a vegetarian, since you still have dairy products and eggs as an option.

[Lovelife090994]

Actually protein is easier to get as a vegetarian, since you still have dairy products and eggs as an option.

I will look into that. For one egg dish, I like quiche! But I am not sure if I can be a full vegetarian since I live with my mom still. Also, money is hard and I don't know any vegetarians or dishes.

[Capto]

With what for example? In my case I can't make the switch since my mother is one for meatvas is her boyfriend.

Legumes, Quinoa, Nuts, and the ever-ubiquitous Tofu.

[Gamma Male]

Although I agree with the first post, eating a balanced diet while still eating vegan is very difficult, since nutriment source options (especially protein) are hard to find. It is still a good option if you are conscious of what you are eating. Personally, my dad is eating a lot of vegan food and he finds it hard to maintain a balanced diet.

Yeah, no. It really isn't that hard. Even on a budget, it's easy. I would know.

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah, no. It really isn't that hard. Even on a budget, it's easy. I would know.

Vegan and budget are hardly the words fit to marry, but indulge me. What types of foods do you go to for your diet? Would you say non-omnivores are smaller, the same, or unique in terms of diet?

[Canadian Dream]

Yeah, no. It really isn't that hard. Even on a budget, it's easy. I would know.

Wouldn't you be tired of eating fish and nuts all the time? Trust me, my family follows a mostly vegan diet and I am freaking tired of eating fish instead of meat all the time. That's what I mean by it being hard to maintain a balanced diet, not that food itself is rarified but that diversity is lacking.

[Lovelife090994]

Wouldn't you be tired of eating fish and nuts all the time? Trust me, my family follows a mostly vegan diet and I am freaking tired of eating fish instead of meat all the time. That's what I mean by it being hard to maintain a balanced diet, not that food itself is rarified but that diversity is lacking.

That is expected. The body likes diversity but veganism, vegetarianism, and pescetarianism take discipline and are not for everybody. Change it up. For instance I had pinto beans and cornbread yesterday, and I had bean and cheese tacos today. I may have fish tomorrow and a vegetable pizza Wednesday. It is all in how you plan.

[Miserabilia]

That is expected. The body likes diversity but veganism, vegetarianism, and pescetarianism take discipline and are not for everybody. Change it up. For instance I had pinto beans and cornbread yesterday, and I had bean and cheese tacos today. I may have fish tomorrow and a vegetable pizza Wednesday. It is all in how you plan.

Lol being vegan or veganist doesn't mean that you'll have no variation in your diet, just that you're not eating animals/animal material.
You can get all the nutrients you need as long as you eat fruits and veggies that contain them,
and there are so many different veggies and fruits that your diet would be just as varied as it is now, and there are even replacements for meat.
It doens't take as much as it seems to make the switch, not from my personal experience but I know a few vegans.

[Lovelife090994]

Lol being vegan or veganist doesn't mean that you'll have no variation in your diet, just that you're not eating animals/animal material.
You can get all the nutrients you need as long as you eat fruits and veggies that contain them,
and there are so many different veggies and fruits that your diet would be just as varied as it is now, and there are even replacements for meat.
It doens't take as much as it seems to make the switch, not from my personal experience but I know a few vegans.

I was refering to his struggles. I'm still not convinced. Plant-based proteins don't get absorved as well and as a hard raw vegan or vegan which can be seen as extremes you can easily lack amino acids, proteins for healing and growth, essential vitamins, and the all important B12. Also you could lack vitamin D and calcium for your bones. For some reason every vegan I have met looks a bit sickly. I have no clue why, but maybe veganism isn't for everyone. I don't even think vegetarianism, pescetarian, or balance is best for everyone.

[Canadian Dream]

That is expected. The body likes diversity but veganism, vegetarianism, and pescetarianism take discipline and are not for everybody. Change it up. For instance I had pinto beans and cornbread yesterday, and I had bean and cheese tacos today. I may have fish tomorrow and a vegetable pizza Wednesday. It is all in how you plan.

Yeah, the challenge is for those that don't have good planning skills.

[Gamma Male]

Wouldn't you be tired of eating fish and nuts all the time? Trust me, my family follows a mostly vegan diet and I am freaking tired of eating fish instead of meat all the time. That's what I mean by it being hard to maintain a balanced diet, not that food itself is rarified but that diversity is lacking.

You are aware vegans don't eat fish right? Look, if you find a vegan diet to be boring and undiverse, you're doing it wrong. You know what I've had to eat today? Fruity pebbles with soy milk, some potato chips, a bean burrito, leftover vegan lasagna , and homemade spanish rice, as well as a few pieces of fruit and some Oreos.

I was refering to his struggles. I'm still not convinced. Plant-based proteins don't get absorved as well and as a hard raw vegan or vegan which can be seen as extremes you can easily lack amino acids, proteins for healing and growth, essential vitamins, and the all important B12. Also you could lack vitamin D and calcium for your bones. For some reason every vegan I have met looks a bit sickly. I have no clue why, but maybe veganism isn't for everyone. I don't even think vegetarianism, pescetarian, or balance is best for everyone.

Your claims about veganism bring unhealthy are completely unfounded. Vegans have longer average lifespans than nonvegans, and suffer from lower rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes as well as a variety of other illnesses. This is a statistical fact. Also, the Mayo Clinic(a world renowned medical organization) recognises that veganism is safe for all stages of life, including pregnant women and babies.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Lovelife090994]

You are aware vegans don't eat fish right? Look, if you find a vegan diet to be boring and undiverse, you're doing it wrong. You know what I've had to eat today? Fruity pebbles with soy milk, some potato chips, a bean burrito, leftover vegan lasagna , and homemade spanish rice, as well as a few pieces of fruit and some Oreos.

Your claims about veganism bring unhealthy are completely unfounded. Vegans have longer average lifespans than nonvegans, and suffer from lower rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes as well as a variety of other illnesses. This is a statistical fact. Also, the Mayo Clinic(a world renowned medical organization) recognises that veganism is safe for all stages of life, including pregnant women and babies.

Please note that veganism doesn't work for everyone. And why did you ignore what I wrote? What I said is true, and what you said was subjective and biased.

[Gamma Male]

Please note that veganism doesn't work for everyone. And why did you ignore what I wrote? What I said is true, and what you said was subjective and biased.

The problems you wrote about can occur, but only if you do it wrong and neglect your diet.


Also, NOTHING I said was subjective or biased.
Vegans have longer average lifespans. Fact.
Vegans have lower rates of preventable health related diseases. Fact.


I'm on a phone, so looking up a bunch of sources might be kind of a pain but if you really don't believe me I'll do it.

[Lovelife090994]

The problems you wrote about can occur, but only if you do it wrong and neglect your diet.


Also, NOTHING I said was subjective or biased.
Vegans have longer average lifespans. Fact.
Vegans have lower rates of preventable health related diseases. Fact.


I'm on a phone, so looking up a bunch of sources might be kind of a pain but if you really don't believe me I'll do it.

I half believe you. But I know that veganism is not for everyone. Also I know that you are not better than anyone for being vegan. A vegan could live shorter and have illnesses too.

[Gamma Male]

I half believe you. But I know that veganism is not for everyone. 1Also I know that you are not better than anyone for being vegan. 2 A vegan could live shorter and have illnesses too.

1I never said that.
2Yes, but statistics show what I said to be true.

[Lovelife090994]

1I never said that.
2Yes, but statistics show what I said to be true.

Fine, but veganism is not for everyone. Some can't stick to it or get what they need from it.

[Canadian Dream]

You are aware vegans don't eat fish right? Look, if you find a vegan diet to be boring and undiverse, you're doing it wrong. You know what I've had to eat today? Fruity pebbles with soy milk, some potato chips, a bean burrito, leftover vegan lasagna , and homemade spanish rice, as well as a few pieces of fruit and some Oreos.

Yeah, and that crappy tasting soy milk is like the only milk you can have! Look, I know you're trying really hard to make it look that it can be easy to have a diverse diet but not being vegan opens up so many options. Just look at it this way: You came here to debate why veganism is the best diet to be on and in your mind you succeeded but what are you going to do? Convince everyone on VT that they should eat vegan just because they'll live longer? You can still live well and not be vegan, and if there were to be a vegan revolution, it would take a lot of time for humanity to act.

[Gamma Male]

Yeah, and that crappy tasting soy milk is like the only milk you can have! Look, I know you're trying really hard to make it look that it can be easy to have a diverse diet but not being vegan opens up so many options.

There are thousands of vegan recipes online and dozens of blogs. It really isn't that hard, ans the long term health effects are worth it. Also, if you don't like soy milk there are like 6 different kinds of mock milks

[Lovelife090994]

Thanks for the replies!

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah, and that crappy tasting soy milk is like the only milk you can have! Look, I know you're trying really hard to make it look that it can be easy to have a diverse diet but not being vegan opens up so many options. Just look at it this way: You came here to debate why veganism is the best diet to be on and in your mind you succeeded but what are you going to do? Convince everyone on VT that they should eat vegan just because they'll live longer? You can still live well and not be vegan, and if there were to be a vegan revolution, it would take a lot of time for humanity to act.

I have to say it, because this is true. You're right.