Looking for Anti-Vegan and Vegitarian links

[Invictus ChiKen]

I have searched high. An low but alas my google fu has failed me.

Where can I find some ammunition with which to debate this issue?

[The Grim Squeaker]

On what terms, nutritionally? Economically (Costs of vegetables compared to meat, despite the vast inneficiencies)? etc'

[Invictus ChiKen]

Mostly the nutritional, ethical (like all the rabbits and gophers killed in the harvest) with economics coming last.

[Erik von Nein]

What, specifically, are you debating? Any more details on this particular debate other than "impact costs"?

[Invictus ChiKen]

What, specifically, are you debating? Any more details on this particular debate other than "impact costs"?

Well as I said there is the ethics of it. Meat = murder...

My best counter is on animals killed in harvesting and from pesticides. Just because it's not cute and fuzzy with big sad eyes doesn't mean it doesn't count as a living being.

Then of course there's the health aspect. IS it healthier to be a vegetarian?

An also a counter to all that are bodies aren't mean to eat meat stuff.

[Erik von Nein]

Well as I said there is the ethics of it. Meat = murder...

My best counter is on animals killed in harvesting and from pesticides. Just because it's not cute and fuzzy with big sad eyes doesn't mean it doesn't count as a living being.

Well, you'd have to be a complete idiot (as I suspect anyone saying "meat is murder" to be) to think that animals aren't killed in farming. You don't even really need specific numbers, just the fact that one's killed is enough.

Then, again, to get a pound of meat kills more animals (depend on what way you're doing it, such as factory-farmed) because you have to farm the food to feed the cows, chickens and such.

Then of course there's the health aspect. IS it healthier to be a vegetarian?

No, it isn't, simply because there are vital nutrients, such as various B vitamins, that our bodies need that you can't get from plants. If they supplement then they're getting those nutrients from animals, anyway.

This is, of course an "all other things being equal" statement. If they're consuming the same amount of calories then the non-vegetarian would be healthier. You can be a vegetarian and be healthy, but that, like I said, requires your diet to be supplemented.

It's generally agreed upon that your diet consist mainly of vegetables, anyway, with a small amount of it being meat. That's usually the healthiest diet, with respect to watching your caloric intake.

An also a counter to all that are bodies aren't mean to eat meat stuff.

I assume this is about not being able to process raw meat, then? That's silly, since humans simply cannot function without eating some form of animal product, simply due to the nature of how we evolved. There's no way that I know of where you can get those vitamins from anything other than a animal source.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well as I said there is the ethics of it. Meat = murder...

My best counter is on animals killed in harvesting and from pesticides. Just because it's not cute and fuzzy with big sad eyes doesn't mean it doesn't count as a living being.

Then of course there's the health aspect. IS it healthier to be a vegetarian?

An also a counter to all that are bodies aren't mean to eat meat stuff.

Meat doesn't equal murder, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best ethical option either. Usually, those who make that argument are extreme vegans anyway.

The real ethical issue is whether or not eating from factory farms is ethically acceptable, not necessarily whether it's ethically acceptable to eat meat at all. If you are going to bring up the fact that farming kills animals, just like animal farms, that's a bit misleading. You need to show that they not only kill equal to or greater numbers, but also that the suffering of those numbers is equal to or greater.

That's doubtful due to the current state of factory farming with pigs, fish, chickens, etc. All are quite bad, in addition to having significant environmental issues with them. It has little to do with me, really, whether they are "cute and cuddly" or ugly. It's whether they can suffer and the capacity for suffering relative to other animals that matters.

I don't care if it's a cat or a chicken, it would be wrong to do some certain things to them unnecessarily.

The claim that our bodies aren't mean to eat meat is just bullshit. Plain and simple. Ask him if he knows what those canines are for. Point out that the human digestive system makes us omnivorous. We consume both to have a relatively balanced diet, which makes us healthy.

The real problem with health is that people tend to eat too much damn meat; you are only supposed to eat a very small amount.

As someone mentioned, there are supplements too, but I don't really know the ethics of that or how much suffering does or doesn't go into making them. If they do, at most it means that we ought not entirely eliminate meat, but merely cut down.

The objective is to cause the least amount of suffering, yet be healthy.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I found a resource for you, so sorry for the double post.


Vegetarian Society


According to the Vegetarian Society's information on B12:

Dietary Sources
The only reliable unfortified sources of vitamin B12 are meat, dairy products and eggs.

Good sources of vitamin B12 for vegetarians are dairy products or free-range eggs. ½ pint of milk (full fat or semi skimmed) contains 1.2 µg. A slice of vegetarian cheddar cheese (40g) contains 0.5 µg. A boiled egg contains 0.7 µg. Fermentation in the manufacture of yoghurt destroys much of the B12 present. Boiling milk can also destroy much of the B12.

The key is to try to find farming methods that do the least harm. There are some options, but you need to be careful, as product labeling isn't always honest. See United Egg Producers, who basically lied about their original label.

[Invictus ChiKen]

And these are ANTI-Vegetarian HOW?

I need stuff to show that meat eating is Health, and economically sound. BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING HEALTHY. Especally meat other than nuts, eggs, fish and dairy.

Also the link turned up this.

Document Not Found

The document you requested is no longer available.

Why not browse our MerseyWorld site if you're looking for something Merseyside-related?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The site I gave does list that meat is healthy and you ought to consume it. Apparently, the link I gave got messed up.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: They aren't anti, but wanting "anti" something is silly and betrays bias. You can get the same information from an actual vegetarian society and it says the same thing, which against that person, should be worth more.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Just like it's bias if I go to an Atheist (anti-religion) site for information on why Christianity or Islam. After all Focus on the family will certainly give me tones of information on how the Bible contradicts itself.

An of course ANY Islamic site will show that the claim there's always been one and only one Qu'ran is wrong and will have tons of information on where to find other versions in the original Arabic...

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You obviously didn't pay attention to what I said. I sent you a more detailed PM. I gave that site because it says WHAT YOU SAY AND WANT, YET HE CANNOT DISMISS IT AS BIASED!

[Cairber]

I had some good results talking about breastmilk. It's obviously not vegan but we, as mammals, need it (yes,yes, you could use formula, but those aren't vegan either)

Of course, that opened up a huge debate and flame war on whether BM is vegan, where the vegans argued it was vegan because it was "willingly given" instead of taken.

[Plekhanov]

What, specifically, are you debating? Any more details on this particular debate other than "impact costs"?

Well as I said there is the ethics of it. Meat = murder...

My best counter is on animals killed in harvesting and from pesticides. Just because it's not cute and fuzzy with big sad eyes doesn't mean it doesn't count as a living being.

That's basically a straw man attack when it comes to most vegetarians who generally make the argument that it's wrong to kill animals just to eat them, not that it's wrong for your existence to in any way negatively affect other animals, it's not as if they're Jains who go round brushing the floor before they tread on it to avoid crushing bugs.

You’re also trying to set up a false choice here between doing absolutely no harm to other animals and doing unnecessary harm, isn’t there a middle option of trying to minimise that harm whilst recognising that it’s impossible to eliminate it completely?

Are you going to address the environmental argument for vegetarianism? Raising animals to produce meat is very inefficient as we have to feed them far more calories than we can back in the form of meat. This also means that meat eaters are responsible for many more ‘animals killed in harvesting and from pesticides’ as so much land is farmed just to produce fodder for livestock.

Cows & Pigs also produce large quantities of methane which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas.

You will also need to address the cruelty of the meat industry, particularly the factory farming end of things.

No, it isn't, simply because there are vital nutrients, such as various B vitamins, that our bodies need that you can't get from plants. If they supplement then they're getting those nutrients from animals, anyway.

This is, of course an "all other things being equal" statement. If they're consuming the same amount of calories then the non-vegetarian would be healthier. You can be a vegetarian and be healthy, but that, like I said, requires your diet to be supplemented.

It's generally agreed upon that your diet consist mainly of vegetables, anyway, with a small amount of it being meat. That's usually the healthiest diet, with respect to watching your caloric intake.

'Various B vitamins'? The only one I'm aware of is B12 which is found in all kinds of commonly fortified foods (pretty much all lactose free milk substitutes for example) so deficiencies are only likely to affect really out there types like raw food vegans and fruitarians.

I had some good results talking about breastmilk. It's obviously not vegan but we, as mammals, need it (yes,yes, you could use formula, but those aren't vegan either)

Of course, that opened up a huge debate and flame war on whether BM is vegan, where the vegans argued it was vegan because it was "willingly given" instead of taken.

That’s a perfectly legitimate point, vegans generally take the stance that it’s wrong to use animals for food either by killing them and eating their flesh or by ‘stealing’ their milk, honey, eggs…

Consuming milk (or sperm) willingly given by a human producer able to consent to giving it however obviously doesn’t violate the typical vegan objection to eating other animals milk, eggs...

[Cairber]

I dunno, the whole time before I brought up that point they argued that vegan meant not eating any animal products (and they continued to argue against the "nature" arguments- such as the ones Erik von Nein brought up about B vitamins and needing animal products). Then as soon as they were faced with the breastmilk argument, they changed their argument to "not willfully given."

[Cairber]

Just to add to that- I meant that example as a specific example of how the human body evolved to need animal products, which they argued was not true. (as I said, they argued that way against all "its how we our bodies work" or "nature")

[Plekhanov]

In my experience they often try the ‘it’s not natural for adults to consume milk’ ‘just look how many people are lactose intolerant’ line but that just an emotive argument they’ve found is sometimes successful in convincing people.

Rather like anti-choice activists with their ‘abortion causes cancer/sterility…’ tactics vegans are quite prepared to try and bolster their position by arguing milk is unhealthy/unnatural… but as with anti-choice activists & their 'health' based objections to abortion that isn’t the real motivation for their position.

[Pablo Sanchez]

That’s a perfectly legitimate point, vegans generally take the stance that it’s wrong to use animals for food either by killing them and eating their flesh or by ‘stealing’ their milk, honey, eggs…

If you look at the question of "stealing" from the direction of natural selection, evolution in action, etc., it's clearly a symbiotic relationship in which we give at least as good as we get. Individual animals which are exceptionally successful viz. the conditions that the human dairy/egg/bee farmer has set are then bred and have their genetic information passed on, often to a scale that wild animals couldn't possibly achieve. On the level of the species entire, they benefit even more. Thanks entirely to human intervention, the common chicken is the world's most populous (that is to say, most successful) species of bird. Similarly for the varieties of honey bee or the venerable bos taurus.

[Plekhanov]

That’s a perfectly legitimate point, vegans generally take the stance that it’s wrong to use animals for food either by killing them and eating their flesh or by ‘stealing’ their milk, honey, eggs…

If you look at the question of "stealing" from the direction of natural selection, evolution in action, etc., it's clearly a symbiotic relationship in which we give at least as good as we get. Individual animals which are exceptionally successful viz. the conditions that the human dairy/egg/bee farmer has set are then bred and have their genetic information passed on, often to a scale that wild animals couldn't possibly achieve. On the level of the species entire, they benefit even more. Thanks entirely to human intervention, the common chicken is the world's most populous (that is to say, most successful) species of bird. Similarly for the varieties of honey bee or the venerable bos taurus.

Note I put quotation marks around 'stealing', from the vegan perspective chickens & bees may well benefit from people keeping them (the situation with cows is more dubious as they have their calves taken from them) but they don't consent to it so it's immoral.

I'm not defending that position (which isn't one I hold) just pointing out that it is internally consistent for mainstream vegans to oppose taking milk from animals whilst supporting breast feeding.

[Elfdart]

For me it comes down to one question:

If people weren't meant to eat meat, why does it taste so damn good?

[FSTargetDrone]

I had some good results talking about breastmilk. It's obviously not vegan but we, as mammals, need it (yes,yes, you could use formula, but those aren't vegan either)

Of course, that opened up a huge debate and flame war on whether BM is vegan, where the vegans argued it was vegan because it was "willingly given" instead of taken.

That’s a perfectly legitimate point, vegans generally take the stance that it’s wrong to use animals for food either by killing them and eating their flesh or by ‘stealing’ their milk, honey, eggs…

Consuming milk (or sperm) willingly given by a human producer able to consent to giving it however obviously doesn’t violate the typical vegan objection to eating other animals milk, eggs...

As an actual vegan, I concur that the idea that breastmilk is somehow "not vegan" is utterly absurd. Plekhanov gets it right: The issue is not that breast milk is coming from an animal, but that that human animal mother is essentially giving consent for her child to consume the milk.

And Cariber, you might also be amused to learn that *some* vegans consider consuming any bodily fluid is somehow "not vegan." This isn't ARSE, but I think you catch my drift. My girlfriend and I are both vegans and lets just say that in the course of our relationship we've exchanged various bodily fluids and it isn't exactly an issue for us.

I've been vegan since around 1997 and my doctor (who is not veg*n) says I am in excellent health. I take supplements on occasion, but my girlfriend and I like to cook so we vary our meals a lot.

Does this mean that I've gone without any animal-sourced food over the last 10 years? Not at all. Most of the time I "accidentally" eat something that has dairy or eggs in it, usually when someone who's prepared food says "yes, this is vegan" only for me to later learn that it had milk or honey or some such in it.

It's funny what not eating meat for so long has done to my taste preferences. A few years back I was on a long drive from Virginia back home to PA when I stopped at a Burger King or McDonald's or someplace. I hadn't eaten in over a day (long story) and was so hungry I ordered a burger and fries. I took one bite of the burger and it tasted vile, so I tossed it and just got several orders of fries.

I go out of my way to avoid killing any living thing as much as possible, but there are doubtless times when I've run over things while driving around. Last year I accidentally hit a squirrel that ran out in front of my car. I felt bad about it, but I also didn't exactly get despondent and beat myself up about it--it was an accident.

For me, being a vegan is all about intent and living as much as possible in a way that does the least harm. I will never achieve perfection, but I do what I can to "follow the rules" as much as possible. I rarely even think about it unless I'm in a situation eating something I don't know the ingredients of. I don't even normally talk about being a vegan. I certainly don't go around preaching or protesting or marching or whatever. Some "true" vegans don't like that, but I'm not out to impress or satisfy anyone else's requirements.

[FSTargetDrone]

I wanted to add that the issue of raising honeybees for honey is an interesting one, as well as keeping chickens for their eggs. Some people, myself included, would have no problem at all if they (or I) were raising the animals themselves. I would have no problem taking excess honey if I could provide an environment for the honey bees to do their work. Same goes for eggs, I suppose. But neither of those is a practical option right now, given that we live in an apartment.

[Cairber]

I'm not defending that position (which isn't one I hold) just pointing out that it is internally consistent for mainstream vegans to oppose taking milk from animals whilst supporting breast feeding.

But their argument was that the human body did not evolve to need animal products.

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm not defending that position (which isn't one I hold) just pointing out that it is internally consistent for mainstream vegans to oppose taking milk from animals whilst supporting breast feeding.

But their argument was that the human body did not evolve to need animal products.

Don't mind me stepping in here, but any veg*n who thinks this isn't paying attention. As has already been said about about humans possessing canines and such, this is a silly position.

I think a better argument for veganism/vegetarianism is that we can choose to eschew animal products, or at least as much as is practically possible. I see no problem with ethical objections to eating meat, but that is entirely different than this notion that humans never evolved to eat meat.