Veganism

Post Reply New Topic

The obvious question here, if you consider using a computer "cruel" then why are you doing it?

Nothing I wrote was personal. I was talking about the general tendencies in this debate about people who get involved in it actively-to both sides obv.

While it's a very nice way of saying and I see that meat-eaters have this perspective a lot, it is not random moral claim and I am puzzled as to why people see it that way. It is well defined and based moral perspective which has also a lot to do with our environmental issues also. It seems to me that many people choose to remain ignorant for the sake of convenience and the others choose to adopt this filosophy so that they could feel morally superior.
As said before - I doubt rational discussion is even possible. No one from the opposite camp will make an effort in understanding the other.

Well then we don't have any commond ground to talk further. Unfortunately it seems that you didn't even read my post so I don't see any reasonable discussion here other than you trying to destroy my arguments by ignoring them. Seems to me that you just played the card saying.

What can I say. Sorry to have started this conv. Have a nice day.

No, actually it is not. Speaking with my biologist hat on, a CAFO is one of the biggest environmental disasters on the planet. Industrial farming of vegetables - GMOs and genetic pollution, superweeds, fertilizer, etc - is definitely bad, but it cannot hold a candle to a CAFO.

Again, I'm speaking as an omnivore here; as I biologist who's dissected plenty of animals, including humans, I accept that humans are omnivores based on our biology. However, we can (and biologically should) reduce our meat intake from the American standard and we can ensure that the animals we eat were well taken care of and humanely slaughtered.
We do not need to distort reality to make all of this true.

Well-said LKL.

I wouldn't mind going vegan, but my body needs the extra carnitine from meat. And L-carnitine doesn't do it for me, synthetic molecules are often not well absorbed.

I think Veganism is a red herring and an inefficient exterior solution to a problem that has an interior Maximum.
People eat too much meat !imply we should reject all animal products.

Also it makes vegetarians who are perfectly reasonable people (especially those that eat butter)
into a class of the impure.

Veganism also can lead to raw foodism which is shear cretinism.

It is also an affectation of the Affluent classes (there are poor pre-industrial vegetarians but no vegans)
it is quest for personal purity that barely touches shared reality and can only be practiced in a post-capitalism world.

Veganism is world rejecting. Valuing perfection over passion and thus cold and dehumanizing.
Vegans live in a system where grandma's chicken soup is a vile and sickening thing rather than
an expression of love.

I grew-up in a mostly vegetarian family that went vegan after I left (they were much the worse for it.)
-they are better now-

Kill the Krill!

What can I say. All I see in this thread is just unbased, under-researched opinion who claims truth and mouths full of attitude.
Do people have to eat meat/dairy to remain healthy? No, most likely not - as far as todays science knows. Are there any ilnesses specifically related to meat/dairy consumption? Yes, there is a lot written about it. Do some people should eat meat for some reasons? Most likely yes. Anyhow aggressive cynicism is very popular these days - you might dislike this moralizing - and why if you think you are right - but you do exactly the same by attacking vegans for cosmic reasons. Veganism might come across as this or that and surely there are many people who go there with -odd- intentions. It depends on one's worldview and as I see in this forum is not one which I would like to put an effort in understanding. I see no humility, no open-mindness. Most of our views are socially-relative.

Bottom line - meat (and dairy) consumption must be reduced in numbers and it starts with each and every one of us. It most likely will not be so I will have my laugh when america drowns in manure (and it already does). It's up to us - everyone can do what they like. That does not make us wrong or right as such - there are reasons for choices unfortunately sometimes people choose to remain ignorant over those they don't like for self-centered, short-sighted reasons. As history teaches us - it takes a global catastrophe to change people's ways and certainly not reason.

And your solution is to contribute to the thread with more of that,



You don't decide what science says.

You reduce it if you want. You are a bigot if you think that you can claim that it must be reduced by other people.

And Christians will have the last laugh the day of the final judgment.


I admit that's a slippery slope but it is amazing how veganism seems correlated with insanity (Insanity is the only logical explanation for raw foodism, and so many vegans end up failing for that, it is not even funny).

My opinion on raw foodism is that there is a puritanism war on flavor. Anything that increases your flavor possibilities is deemed as evil and there are people out there who are eagerly waiting for the next magazine article to order them to stop eating it - be it meat or cooked food.

But of course if its all BS let it be from both sides. I tried reasoning but instead I was called names.


And nor do you. Jesus Christ, go read some research. Don't believe me go read something. You tell me science this science that so do I. What's the difference? We both don't provide links. But I am suddenly the one which is being called out on this. What a two facedness.

I don't eat meat. You are ignorant if you think that america can go eating meat as they do know. I dont f*** care there is a ton of proofs for that go close your eyes while gorging on your Big Mac. You insult me - I shall do the same. You are merely a zealot if you dare to call me a bigot.

Relevance - not found. Intention to insult? You read selectively not only you missed my point that I was politely to my abilities to put it forward.

That just reveals how amazingly ignorant you are. It is your insanity that could qualify as a subject of study.

F* this SH***. All soaked in your cynicism to the bones oblivious to the world problems. Just to bite, degrade and humiliate. That's all you do.

As much as I loathe to admit it, I'm in agreement with JakobVirgil and Vexcalibur here. I don't know when exactly humanity evolved to the point where cooking was necessary, though it may have to do with the fact we don't live in tree's anymore. I suppose I could eat bugs, but I've been conditioned to think that's repulsive, not so true in other parts of the world however. Stinkbugs are on the menu in Mexico, and they're quite a healthy source of animal proteins and amino acids.

I can not find where anyone called you a name.
I reduce animal consumption, but even the Buddha would not qualify as "pure" under modern veganism.
(Sid's last meal was dried pork)
even Krishna and Jesus ate Honey.
Gandhi drank goats milk.
I think a belief system that equates Siddartha, Krishna, Josh, Mohandas and my grandmother with Slavers and Murderers
does not pass the smirk test.
It is just self-congratulatory nonsense.

There's also an element of anti-fat loathing in there, and possibly some immortalism. Raw food is difficult to digest (not in the sense that it causes harm, but in the sense that our bodies can't extract as many calories out of the same food raw as the can when it is cooked), so a raw foodist can stuff themselves at every sitting and stil remain quite thin. Also, the best evidence for consistently increased lifespan across several species is a near-starvation diet, which raw foodism helps with as well.

This is true. Krishna ate butter, too, and was called the Butter Thief.

Though, at that time and place cows were treated with compassion. It's difficult to find a place now which this can be said about.

Buddha's last meal was an important instruction. We can learn so much from considering his decision to eat that meal. I am still decoding it. It addresses self perceptions, idealism, personal choice and free will, attachment to one's karma vs civility, and even anthropocentrism. I'm not certain I agree with his choice, and I think he'd be okay with my saying that. I'm not being judgemental of the Buddha ... but it does spin a bit of anthropocentrism, am I right?

Or maybe the lesson is, when we cling too tightly to things, rigidity overwhelms us ... and then brings anger and bad feelings, as rigidity does.

Hmmm....

Well Sid's greatest realization was strict rigidity to an extreme was unhealthy. I think he made a good choice in that regard.

I once read that certain Buddhist monastics are instructed to go into town and eat meat and even go to brothels periodically (once a year?) for that reason... that attachment sneaks in, and self righteousness, and all that.

The only thing I wrestle with on it is that animals will suffer, so it places human spiritual evolution above animals? I don't know. Maybe they are dumpster diving freegans that day.