Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicskid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Philosophy
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the ethical implications of eating meat versus vegetarianism, highlighting concerns about animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Participants argue that killing animals for food, whether cows or sharks, raises similar moral questions, emphasizing that all life forms deserve consideration. Some advocate for vegetarianism, citing health benefits and the potential for increased animal populations, while others defend meat consumption, arguing it is necessary for nutrition and questioning the practicality of a meat-free diet for a growing global population. The conversation also touches on the impact of dietary choices on health and the food chain, suggesting moderation rather than complete abstinence from meat may be a more balanced approach. Ultimately, the debate reflects a complex interplay of ethics, health, and environmental concerns regarding dietary practices.

Should we eat meat?

  • Yes

    Votes: 233 68.5%
  • No

    Votes: 107 31.5%

  • Total voters
    340
  • #91
Originally posted by FZ+
Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

Descartes believed that animals were mere automatons and this thinking justified all sorts of horrendous experimentation. Animals were nailed to a cross and cut open while they screamed and writhed in pain. But followers of Descartes thought that these reactions were just automatic, as a machine would react to an external stimuli.

But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/ )

Animals value their lives, they run from pain, they love their young, and have even showed capacity for compassion beyond species…yet they are born into a world where they are seen as objects by many for human use and therefore exploited with disregard for their interests and well-being.

How we treat these sentient beings, who have been denigrated to become our modern day slaves, will once again be the test of our morality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions.
You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal. But in human society, anthrocentrism is exceedingly strong. Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness. Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by physicskid
Should we eat meat?

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:
  • Freedom for all farm animals!
  • Eating less unhealthy food
  • No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
  • Eating more healthy food!
  • No more interference with the animals' life and death.
  • Increase in animal population!
  • More animals to conduct researches on.
  • No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
  • and many more!

Freedom for all farm animals eh? Freedom is just a constructed word that we like to think we have and really we have no freedom at all on earth.

Eating less unhealthy food eh? Probably since meats contain tons of fats and of course a supply of other things our bodies need.

No more interference with the animals' life and death? Who says that? I mean seriously humans are part of the natural order and we are taking steps to be the survival of the fittest in this world, the death of something is going to happen no matter what you do to stop us eating them. Mb you shouldn't be driving a car as well and increasing CO2 levels or the fact that your house is probably in a habitat that once was dominant to animals. No the fact is that Earth is a close system and for one animal to survive another must be moved or destroyed.

More animals to conduct researches on? What! So you are exchanging the curlily that you state about farm animals and rather have them researched on. Woah.

Increase in animal population, personally I would like some proof on this and from my view infact there would be less animals in those domesticated animals that we use for food. Unless you are going to clear cut the rest of the rain forest and give the remaining population of say cows free rain so we don't interfere with their life and death cycles. Tho you just destroyed most the of the animals on Earth if you did that.

Ok to the meat of the question, should we or should we not eat meat at all? Probably not since yes it is pretty unhealthy but, but meat is also the best source of most of the natural things we need to keep living. The only reason that we are questioning this source is that the evolutionary way our science works is allowing us to figure out other ways of sustaining life without meat. I personally thing that a cut down on meat products is needed but not a total conversion of a race that has for thousands of years survived on both, plus how would you suggest we implement this? I think that this is really a decadent dream of first worlds and not of all the people of the world. Also I disagree with your meat is the cause or will cause massive population growth, I think it is the growth of agriculture/irrigation of the Mesopotamia region (~8000BC) and that farming itself is the cause of massive growth in population not of meat.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by FZ+
You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal.

Hi!
I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?

Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness

Actually at the heart of most religions (not always in the practice of them) compassion to animals is of utmost imporatance...

"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you."
--The Koran, sacred scripture of Islam

"Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear"
--Hosea 2:18

"O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful."
--Buddha

Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.

What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
I was born and raised as a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. I have had meat before. When I was in boot camp I basically needed to eat it, very little alternative. I can't think of anything truly more discusting. The smell of meat makes me sick. I believe eating meat makes one intellectually and spiritually dull. That is not to say that you can't be very bright and eat meat, it means that if you gave it up you might be even more bright. A greater precentage of geniuses were vegetarian than in the general population.

Anyways, meat does compromise health. Everyone is thinking "protien, protien," (because the meat industry is huge and has been spoon feeling society propaganda for decades into believing giving it up is bad for health) I did a survey once. There are individuals out there who believe that it is impossible to survive without meat. Protien is very much overrated, infact, most Americans consume so much that it damages their kidneys. I heard this. According to most people, I can't exist. ! Meat has an acidic PH. The body requires an alcaline o0ne, avout 7.4 I think. Otherwise it dies. Therefore, the body must counteract the acids in meat by releasing bases form the bones. The result is a loss of calcius, so while meat contains calcium, calcium is lost. Eskimoes, whose diet consists of blubber pretty much, have the word's highest instances of osteoperosis. It is proven that vegans have stronger bones than meat eaters. I heard.

Also, I think your ideal diet depends on your bloodtype. I am A positive, perfectly suited for vegetarianism.

"What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people."

Can life be determined biologically? Life is expressed very differently between a plant or an animal. Why should we expenct consciousness or "sentience" to be expressed or exhibited in exactly the same way? The mammal has a hesrt, its life depends on its function. A plant has not heart. It is alive nonetheless. Thereofre, the presence of a heart is not the presence of life. The mammal has a brain, by which it has mind. The plant does not. What argument is there that the plant has no mind?

Most vegan fundamentalists I've known refuse to believe that plants are sentient-- obviously, because they think they are so "compassionate." The vegans I've known believed plants are just automations-- like a growing sugar crystal I guess. I believe plants are sentient, I know they are. I once did experiments that proved (to me) that they are.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
A friend told me about this thread on this forum and I had to check it out. It has sparked in me a wide range of feelings, from glee to indignance to utter disbelief. My apologies in advance for a long post, but I want to respond to a number of points I have read here:

1. The fallacy of plant pain

Plants do not feel pain. Pain is a subjective negative response that is the interpretation of a stimulus as "uncomfortable." Plants have no brains or nervous systems and are therefore not capable of interpreting anything as bad, uncomfortable, or painful. Pain is, in fact, an evolutionary factor. Those animals whose bodies are in imminent danger of damage feel a sensation that the brain interprets as painful, and the animal will move quickly away from the stimulus. The being is thus able to live longer. Plants are not mobile. The ability to feel pain would therefore serve no purpose from an evolutionary point of view. it would, in fact, be detrimental. The ability to react to a stimulus is by no means the same as feeling pain or suffering.

2. Hypothetical situations

"What would you do if it were proven that plants could feel pain?" The question is so ludicrous as to defy answering. We're talking about ethics in our world, not in some imaginary other world where plants feel pain (in which case they wouldn't be plants anyway.) Hypothetical questions such as this have no place in a discussion about ethics.

3. Switching to a vegetarian diet causes: a) Increase in animal population, b) More animals to conduct researches on, and c) No more artificially caused extinction of any animals.

a) Let's assume that any significant conversion of the population to vegetarianism would take a number of years to occur. In this time the animal population would DECREASE, not increase, because demand for farmed animals would decrease. Human consumption of wild animals is insignificant compared to consumption of farmed animals.

b) It's not often we hear about medical research being performed on cows, chickens, and pigs (although it does occur.) Most research is done on animals that are not used for food, and therefore the two sets of animals would not affect each other in terms of supply and demand.

c) There are hundreds of different ways that humans contribute to extinction of species, but eating is not one of them. If anything, eating animals perpetuates the species because they are bred for consumption.

4. Quotes from the Bible are reasonable evidence that something is true.

Give me a break!

5. Computers can suffer

Are you kidding me? Computers do exactly what they're told to do and nothing more. A computer does not spontaneously take steps to avoid its own destruction except when directly instructed to do so. A computer cannot sense fear or pain. A computer can be rebuilt or replaced by another computer that is identical in every measurable respect. Conscious beings instinctively protect their own lives, and (with the possible exception of newborn identical twins) are all unique in form and character.

6. The nature of the question

There are several questions implied when one asks, "should we eat meat?" There is an evoluntionary question as to whether humans are "designed" to eat meat. This is not an ethical question, but an historical one. Humans started eating meat in small amounts as much as 4 million years ago, and in larger amounts about 2 million years ago. Obviously there has been plenty of time for our bodies to evolve certain mechanisms for digesting meat. One study showed that diets consisting of small amunts of meat are healthier than those with no meat at all. (In my opinion all studies are suspect, and are generally biased by whomever is paying for them.) There is no doubt, however, that a person does not require meat to live a long and healthy life. About 80% of the population of India is Hindu and most of them don't eat meat. If we take a conservative estimate and say that half of the population of India doesn't eat meat, that means that about 500 million Indians are vegetarian, almost twice the population of the United States.

There are two ethical questions, and one pure philosophical question involved as well. The philosophical question is whether humans are more valuable than other animals. Is it ok to eat meat simply because we are "more important?" I would say that there is a significant probabiliy that humans are no more important than any other animal. does the fact that we have more developed brains and technology intrinsically give us the right to plunder other species? I don't see why it should, considering that most of what we've done with our brains and technology has lead to the continuing destruction of our planet. With the recent resurgence of Islaamic fundamentalism it seems that even our great human societies are at risk of disitegrating. Thus far I have not seen any evidence that our intellect makes us intrinsically any more important than other species. Humans will be gone long before life is extinguished from this planet.

The ethical questions being discussed are, I believe, more important than all of the other issues combined. The two ethical questions at hand are a) whether animals are capable of suffering, and b) whether it is ethical to subject a being who is capable of suffering to an environment that is likely to cause pain and trauma.

It is obvious to me and to anyone who owns a dog that animals are not only capable of feeling pain, but a wide range of feelings. There are also a number of research papers on the subject, but I don't see why these are even necessary as the answer is so immediately apparent in the actions and reactions of any labrador retriever.

As for question b, it seems to me that the answer is plainly "no." Even if there is only a 10% chance that animals might be able to suffer, it is not worth the damage to my moral well being to take that risk. I know that I do not need to use animals in any part of my life to live happily and healthily, so for me there is no ethical justification for intentionally causing animals to suffer.

Another important issue involving the eating of meat is the environment. Animal agriculture is one of the top 3 polluters in the world. A single pig farm can produce as much waste material as a medium sized city, but they have no waste treatment facilities. It goes directly into the groundwater. Most of the clearing of rainforests is for the creation of grazing land. The air quality in central California is as bad as in the city of Los Angeles now, due to the animal agriculture. It takes about 2,500 gallons of water and 10 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Farmed fish eat more than half of fish caught from the ocean. The current trend of animal agriculture is untenable. It will completely destroy the global ecosystem if it continues in its current direction.

It follows then that given that animal farming in a global free market economy intrinsically causes ecological destruction, poor health (apparently), and animal suffering (and it does), the use of animals for food or any other purpose is morally and rationally unjustifiable.
 
  • #97
With regard to sentience, let's dismiss sentimentality and conjecture and work only with documented and observable scientific facts. Animals are sentient. Their sentience can be defined in terms of biological, chemical, and otherwise physiological traits. Animals, or specifically those animals one would argue are sentient, share the same biological components with us that maintain our own sentience, e.g. nociceptors and complex brains capable of self-awareness. All of this can be explained, in great length- which I doubt is necessary, in purely biological terms. Consciousness and sentience are not subjective or metaphysical concepts, not insofar as they relate to this discussion anyway; they are observable characteristics of animal life. EEG scans can prove conclusively, if common sense were not enough, that animals feel pain- both physical and psychological. This much is documented and unquestionable.

The question, "should we eat meat?", is a matter of ethical subjectivity, as all morality is, and is therefore worth discussing at length. Debating animals' sentience is a defensive rationalization, and it defies basic scientific knowledge: that animals are sentient creatures.

So we're left with ethics. If we are to decide that unnecessarily killing (innocent) humans is wrong- something I'm certain we all agree on, then let's analyze why this is so. We can identify with the human capacity to feel pain or fear. We're familiar with our own species' reaction to noxious stimuli. We can then reasonably project our own reactions onto others of our own species. I know that I dislike pain and I know that other humans dislike pain. I have then decided that to cause pain unnecessarily is immoral. This judgement is subjective, but it is logical.

Studies conducted by animal behavioralists and data derived from the brain scans of animals can prove conclusively that animals have that same capacity to feel pain and fear, and they similarly make an effort to avoid it. They value their lives just as jealously as you or I. There is nothing more basic and universal than the animal (and this includes we dear homosapiens) want to be free of pain.

If any of us decide we want to be compassionate people and we want to ascribe moral qualities to actions and perceptions then we have already decided against pure, "logical" materialism. Science shows us precisely how similar we are to other animals; ethics then allows us to make the choice to extend them our compassion. By refusing to extend our compassion to animals we are negating the validity of our unique ability to compose complex ethical systems. We are instead choosing to revel in a "might makes right" philosophy, which one can hardly debate is ethically sound.

Once you understand that animals share with us all the properties that we hold dear (the want to be free of pain, etc) then I see no reason why extending them our compassion should even be questioned. They want to be free just as we do. If mercy trumps tyranny, then there is only one solution:

Veganism.
 
  • #98
My reasons for being a vegetarian at least have nothing to do with ethics.

Yeah, the vegans I've encountered usually do not believe that plants are sentient, obviously. They cite a lack of "scientific proof" but common sense tells you that if they were to believe plats as sentient beings, it would destroy their views of themself as a totally non-violent, compassionate entity. I'm glad to see you're not one. Instead of "sentimentally" believing plants to be consious, their basis for not believing it is ultimately sentimental. There is evidence that plants are sentient, can remember and such, althouigh no everyone regards it as "scientific" there is no scientific evidence to support that plants are purely mechanisms. Not that I know of.

In answer to the other guy, I agree with you. Plants do not feel pain, certainly not as an animal does. They have no nervous system, but of course they also don't have many of the organs that an animal does and also don't survive on oxygen- but they still have metabolism, immue system (I am sure), etc. It is uninportant whether a being feels pain. A truly compassionate peson does not protect life because it feels pain, it does it because it is alive. In this sense, consciousness or self awareness don't even matter. On the otherhand, if plants do not "feel pain," then why or how have they developed so many mechanisms from keeping them from being eaten: poison, thorns, cactus stickers... The thorns on cactus are apparently intended to cause an animal pain if it tries to eat it. How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

It should not affect a vegitarian to know that plants are sentient beings. Many plants survive BY being partially eaten. That is why they produce fruits, so that animals will eat the fruits and spred the seeds through their excrement (also prodicing fertilizer. Nature is beautiful, planned) Evolution and reductionism are solipsistic.


Most of the scientists I have met do not believe animals are sentient (except for higher primates). In psychology, I was taught that humans below the age of three or so are no self aware and have no capacity for remembering. This is false. It is a theory you know.

I do not view "self-awareness" as differnet form consciousness.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

I think you need to read a little Darwin. The process of evolution is not a conscious one. It is simply a matter of those plant species that acquired fewer genetic mutations such as thorns, poison, efficient seed spreading mechanisms etc. did not survive. Often, being eaten is part of the survival mechanism, as it is with fruit trees. Not only is the existence of plants with survival mechanisms not proof; it isn't even evidence that plants can feel pain.
 
  • #100
living forms

My sister once meditated that vegans very frequently eat living beings, or kill by themselves when cooking. Meat, at the end, is already dead beyond any possibility of recovering. Not the same with fungus, seeds, grains etc.
 
  • #101
What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel. I have posed questions, why do you refuse to wonder? Philosophy is not persuasion, nor it is even knowing, it is wondering.

Regardless,as I have said, my vegetarianism has nothing to do with ethics, killing or compassion. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to eat. Infact, I believe it is wrong to kill for sport. The meat has been dead for some time, and it has begun to decompose at the cellular level. That is why it is acidic.
 
  • #102
FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system. Netiher computers nor plants have either of these.

Animals certainly do. Any legitimate reason you have to believe that humans do, you also have to believe that other animal species do. Any doubts that people are raising as to animals' sentience is an epistemological argument--the classic "How can we be sure/know??" Reducing the argument to this shows the absurdity of the position. These same people operate on the belief that they can know about the world by treating other humans respect and even just by taking the effort to post on this message board.

Through observation of behavior, degree of similarity in structure, and evolutionary reasoning, we can see that other animal species are sentient, as are humans, and that plants and computers are not.

The anti-anti-meat arguments are all borne out fo a combination of desire to continue the unethical practice of eating meat and fear that one is incorrect. It is a rationalization technique that one employs in order to avoid the feelings associated with being incorrect.


Being alive is not the basis for ethics applying to an object, it is being sentient. Bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. all are alive, which only means that they grow and reproduce--nothing significant ethically, while most animal species have sentience (I do not conjecture that sponges are sentient).

The reasoning is really very simple, and I know that most people here on both sides of the argument can understand it, it's just that many people aren't being intellectually honest with themselves and are rationalizing their prejudices.

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel.

Just because we don't know the entire history of evolution does not mean that it is not true. For the sake of argument, I will give in the the idea that there is a chance that no form of evolutionary theory is true. Well, it's still the best thing that we have to go by. Using a small chance of incorrectness is no reason to go against the odds. For over a century, science has upheld evolution. It's best to assume that it's true because that's the way the evidence points.

Also, not eating meat is giving animals the benefit of the doubt, which is the correct option, for the suffering that they endure if sentient is far greater than any of us can imagine, while any disadvantage you incur for not eating meat is incredibly slim and is counter-acted by health and environmental benefits.

We know that plants are not sentient not only through evolutionary reasoning, but through the facts that they do not respond as one would expect sentient beings to do, and more importantly, they lack brains.

Every time someone tries to argue against animal sentience, they try to argue against evolution or our very ability to have knoweldge, and ask us to deny our strongest evidence. The evidence is humongously in favor of non-human animal sentience-as much in favor of non-human animal sentience as in favor of human animal sentience.
 
  • #103
Well, I do not deny that non-human animals are not sentient. I believe, in fact, that consciousness and "self-awareness" are exactly the same. But the persence of a complext neurological system, or any at all, is not the CAUSE for consciousness. Infact, this cannot be proven empiracally, scientifically, so there is no "scientific" reasoning that plants or even inanimate object do not have minds. The only reasoning for or against anything is based on postulates. In this case the postulate is that a brain is required to have a mind. But that is not the axiom that I am working from. You are also using different definitions for life than I am. I mentioned, animals require hearts to live and in the anarobic entity, there is no heart, but it is alive. So why should the absence of a brain imply no mind? In the plant structure, I am sure, following a very in-depth study, we could find some principle which performs basically the same principal of a heart in animals. The Chlorophyll provides the same function as stomache and intestines. Yet the Chlorophyll is very different from the asnimal digestive system. So too is a plant's reseratory system very different, and it is hard to recognize that all of these things serve the same functions. If it were "proven" that plants are sentient, a lot of religions would probably go down the toilet. No, I take that back because the discovery of the helioconcentric solar system didn't impact Christianity. Anyways, are we not conditioned since childhood to not believe that plants are just "there"? How many children, with no knowledge, would deny thgat plants "think"? Okay, how many adults who deny the same thing are merely those children who have carried over and adapted their convicion to fit inside a new system of "proving it"? There is emotional security in this. Vegans almost must be against plant sentience.

In his book, written in the early 20th century, Willian J Sidis, Undoubtedly one of the most intelligent humans to walk the earth, "the Animate and the inanimate," about thermodynamics, wrote that life didn't originate. It simply always existed, even before the formation of the solar system, in the nebulae, and before that. In different forms that would be almost impossible for us to even regognize. He was a rabid athiest. Now, we are indeed observing, scientifically, that life does not materialize from inanimate matter. This has not been observed happening in labs, as much as we try to make it happen. Thus we just keep modifying the theory of evolution, the security blanket of science. "It must be very very rare" The only thing evolving in the threory is the theory itself. In his day, nothing was known about genes. Darwin could only look at tow very different birds in the Galapagos and say they are different species. But they aren't. All the breeds of dogs, from the tiniest to the ST bernard, are the same species. They can all impregnate each other. Their difference is due to selective breeding, but no new spiecies ever devolops. This is a scientific observation. Maybe it will change one day, I don't know. It takes imagination to go anywhere in thought. Darwin had imagination, he was a good scientist... He was such a good scientist that given the knowledge we have today, I doubt he would believe in his own threoy anymore. Scientists who cling to their world views as their life and blood, lack the imagination that progress demands. As for science holding the theory up, it was my impression that it depends on which scientist you talk to. On paper, Science may appear cohesive, but in real life, I think that scientists are very diverse in what they consider sceince.

Look up Clive Baxter. You will probably deride it all, but here is evidence in plant sentience. He even helped win a court trial by enabling a plant to testify through his polygraph.

There are also my own experiments. I postulated that A seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sencing gravity. That alone proves plant sentience. In animals, senses do not work without neuological systems. Plants have many senses. It is not a biological principle that the root, and nto the stem, grows down, or that it follows light. Anyways, my experiment proves otherwise.
So I planted some Mung beans and places a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up) . I cheated though, I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. I hope you will overlook this bit of unprofessionalism. The results were supprising. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third seed was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. Even more supprising, I thin planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity, It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.

If you were offered a million dollars to provide a convincing explanation that plants are sentient, even if you disbelieve it, what would you say? If you can do this and not believe it, you are a very good logician.

As a side-note, Since you believe that animals are sentient, yet that that sentience is due to certian physical mechanisms, then where does sentience stop or begin? At the insect level? Also, are protozoa sentient?
 
Last edited:
  • #104
I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?
I agree. But most people don't. That is the point.
What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.
And I think many people disagree with this too. Just ask Chalmers.

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system.
Heh, yes, I was just trying to do a devil's advocate. But the rub is that animals have varying degrees of complexity in their nervous systems. And at the lower level, they do resemble a computer. So at what stage do we label it as pain, and at what stage do we not?
 
  • #105
An article on memory in plants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ist_uids=14535888&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

I don't understand any of the scientific jargon, but you can clearly see that there is more to a plant that what we see: cellulose and water.

Back when I used to join high iq societies, I encountered a lot of people who do believe that humans ARE automations. They don't consider consciousness as anything more than a boichemical sensation, and feelings as also simple biochemical states in the brain, none of it meaning anything and that there is no purpose to existence of life at all-- it is just an absurdly and chaotic thing. Existentialists who believe as such are almost always "chemically imbalanced," suffer depression and basically survive off of prozack and other drugs.

To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this. But I am not a scientist. The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.
 
  • #106
The same argument that is used to suggest that plants may be sentient can as easily be applied to a rock. People like to use the wonder-word "life" when talking about sentience, as if being alive somehow implies that an object is sentient. Like I said, all that alive means is that an object grows (or has a metabolism) and reproduces--Nothing more.

We are getting off topic, though. This thread is titled, "Should we eat meat?" Regardless of whether plants feel, which they do not, it is unethical to eat meat, because of the intense suffering that it inflicts upon animals. If plants were conscious, eating animals would just cause more of them to be killed than if they were eaten directly, because of the huge inefficiencies involved in producing animals for food.

That brings me to the point that animal agriculture is tearing apart the environment, by using up so much water and land (I think that over half of all water used in the USA goes to agriculture, and a substantial majority or that goes to animal agriculture, directly or indirectly), and polluting like you wouldn't believe - big fecal spills covering the countryside, bacteria-laden substances (such as feces) creeping into groundwater, and so on.
 
  • #107
Originally posted by elwestrand
To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this...The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.

my feeling is that while you may have some excellent and thought-provoking ideas in much of this, it is important to deal with the animal issue here. certainly, the former could be pursued in a separate thread.

my understanding of this thread is that it deals with the consumption of the carcasses of dead creatures (and presumably certain by-products as well). personally, i thought that the posts by Dissident Dan, LAacoustics, XcuddleXcoreX and Be Happy! have been remarkably well-reasoned, thorough, logically sound and enlightening.

the issue seems to hinge around 3 primary areas health, environment and ethics. to that effect, i would like to contribute this excellent summary i found (on a chess site of all places!) while surfing the web that deals concisely (and not without some humor) with all three. what was most encouraging was that the author tells "readers to do their own research and thinking, for it is the only way to be truly convinced"

in friendship,
prad


-----------
goVeg! for Health

A vegetarian diet is recognized as not contributing to heart attack, high blood pressure, cancer, osteoporosis as well as a myriad of other diseases including diabetes, asthma and arthritis. Becoming vegetarian often reverses these conditions (a not-so-surprising fact when you consider that even diehard practioners of 'modern medicine' tell patients to avoid certain foods like red meat, unfortunately after the damage has been already done).

Why this is so, is very simple. Species homo sapiens is not designed to consume animal proteins. Our basic biology forbids it.

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs), nor do we possesses the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

"But where will I get my protein?" is a concern that often arises. The human body's protein requirements are easily met through a vegetarian diet - there is no need to 'carefully combine' vegetable proteins as is sometimes incorrectly thought. The non-vegetarian's body, on the other hand, is overloaded with many times the proper protein amount and becomes acidic (proteins are chains of amino acids) resulting in conditions such as gout and osteoporosis. The idea that milk will provide required calcium to prevent osteoporosis is udder nonsense since the high protein content of milk also leaches calcium from the bones. North Americans, who consume the most dairy, have the second highest osteoporosis rate in the world (outstripped only by the Eskimos who live on a very high protein fish diet). If you thought from all that advertising that bovine milk is the perfect food (which it is for a calf), take a look at all the chemicals, steroids and hormones that wind up in it causing allergies, acne, premature pubescence (and we haven't even told you about the cow pus!).

Speaking of health, a vegetarian diet is very healthy for your pocketbook too. Vegetarian meals are comparatively inexpensive since production costs raise the price of animal-based foods to ridiculous proportions.

So save your wallet, save yourself and save your family - goVeg!


goVeg! for Environment

Do you have any idea the kind of mess 10,000 cattle make? And we're not just talking excrement here. Okay, the excrement is a significant problem for sure - there is no denying it. A hog farm with 5,000 animals produces as much fecal waste as a city with 50,000 people. Factory farms produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. This stuff stays. It contributes massively to air and water pollution and is linked to various diseases caused by E. coli, listeria, and cryptosporidium.

Since cattle consume huge quantities of water, factory farming has a serious impact on the water table. Underground aquifers are being depleted. The largest one in the United States, the Ogallala, stretching from the Midwest to the mountain states, is being depleted by 13 trillion gallons a year and will run out. Northwest Texas is already dry: they can't get any water from their wells.

People are often concerned about the cutting down of forests - the destruction of the 'lungs' of the earth. What many don't recognize is that this isn't so much for the timber industry, but for creating land to grow feed for cattle. Farming methods are designed to produce high quantity through use of potent fertilizers and pesticides destroying the soil's eco-systems.

Consumption of 'wildlife' also leads to severe though not immediately apparent problems. Over-fishing, for instance, creates breakages in the links of the food chain that affect hundreds of species as in the devastation of the Sea of Cortez described in December 1995 in the Sacramento Bee newspaper.

These and many related problems are not just going to go away. While we may not have the power to change things directly and immediately, we certainly do have the power to change our lifestyle to one that doesn't contribute to the destruction of the earth.

So save your planet - goVeg!


goVeg! for Ethics

This is a topic many people don't like to deal with sometimes because they think that talking about ethics is preaching and sometimes because they do have an idea about the horrors in the animal agriculture industry.

Factory farming is intended to produce the most meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, and other animals are kept in small cages or stalls so that all of their bodies' energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk. They are fed drugs and are genetically altered to make them grow larger or produce more milk or eggs. Cramped and unclean conditions promote disease and so they are fed large amounts of antibiotics and sprayed with pesticides.

Cattle are castrated, dehorned and branded without anesthetic. Milk cows are forced through artificial insemination and drugs to produce at many times any natural rate leading to mastitis and vastly shortened lifespans while their offspring male calves are chained in stalls only 22 inches wide with slatted floors that cause severe leg and joint pain, deprived of their mother's milk all in preparation for the veal industry. Chickens go mad in their crowded cages and have their beaks seared off with hot blades so they don't 'damage' each other.

These are just a few of the atrocities that billions of our planet's beings endure. Indeed, the only escape is through an even more horrific death. It is irrelevant whether they have as high an intelligence as humans or have a soul as humans apparently are supposed to. What is important is that these beings can and undeniably do suffer and in this capacity, they are our kindred.

We must not forget that 'human' is the start of the word 'humane'. What do we as a species value most? Is it wealth, power, technology? Our literature, philosophies, religions all emphatically stress we strive for other qualities like courage, empathy, humility and kindness. When we stop another being's pain, we free ourselves from fear; when we acknowledge the being's intrinsic value, we gain wisdom; when we embrace the being in compassion, agape touches us. Only in this way will we evolve to what has always been our destiny.

So move your species up a rung on the evolutionary ladder - goVeg!


Conclusion (but perhaps your introduction)

Someone once said to me she found it very difficult to think about going vegetarian. I suggested she contemplate the drugs, the growth hormones, the mercury poisoning, the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella, the cow pus ... so what's so difficult?

We have given you a brief introduction as to why you should go vegetarian. Here's what it now boils down to: either you believe what you have read (in which case, goVeg for it!) or you don't. If you don't, at least make the effort to find out for yourself by consulting not only the mainstream propaganda, but also the health food nuts, the wacky environmentalists and the in-your-face animal rights activists. Each group has its own version of the same story and it is up to you to figure out what makes sense. For us, it was the most important thing we did!
-----------
 
Last edited:
  • #108
this thread is massive, i vote no, i will cur if it were ever proven it would benefit worldwide harmony...

i mean, i guess if it ever came down to it i would rather have a world that didnt eat meat...

i would be down wit that.

so u know though: i eat meat like crazy...
 
Last edited:
  • #109
harmony

Veganism benefits worldwide harmony more so than any other lifestyle choice you could make. No single choice has more positive reprocussions than opting for veganism.

Foremost, veganism offers innocent and exploited creatures the compassion and mercy they are deprived of. 400 animals are murdered for food every second in the United States; every person who chooses veganism decreases that number- to the estimated annual sum of 94 land animals. There can be no harmony where there is slaughter.

Veganism also benefits humanity. Animal-based agriculture is the single most destructive force on our Earth. Animal agriculture produces more pollution than all other industries combined. Animal agriculture kills the rain forest more rapidly than any other industry.

Animal agriculture is the single most prevalent reason for human suffering: it inefficiently funnels edible and nutritious plantfoods through animals whose deaths yield only a minute portion of the nutritional potential of those fruits, vegetables and grains. In the United States, over 80% of domestically grown corn and 90% of domestically grown grains are fed to farmed animals. In Ethiopia and Somolia, while thousands of people were starving to death and dying of nutrition, millions of dollars worth of edible plantfoods were sold to the U.S. to be used as animal feed. Animal agriculture takes food from the poor and wastefully funnels it through animals so that the priviledged can revel in their gluttony.

The consumption of cholesterol, saturated fats, and animal proteins are linked to the top three causes of death in the United States: cancer, heart disease, and stroke. A person with "normal" and "acceptable" cholesterol levels has a 50% chance of dying from heart disease, whereas vegans have a roughly 2% chance.

Veganism causes less suffering to animals. Veganism causes less damage to our Earth. Veganism increases the quantity and decreases the cost of food in poor countries. Veganism improves your personal health.

If that isn't benefiting worldwide harmony, what is?
 
  • #110
Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...i am not saying that i have a fat steak everynight for dinner, but i do consume meat at least every other day, mostly fish and chicken...cows, chicken, pigs and fish are not about to be extinct one bit...the farms that specially raise these animals for consumption are horrid, but last i checked, americans have the choice to pick at the grocery store what meat they want to consume...

Kerrie,

While I have great empathy for your condition eating meat is in no way the only or the best way to combat your anemic state. So many non meat foods are fortified with iron these days and iron suppliments are also widely available. If you are concerned for your health (as you seem to be) it would make great sense for you to not eat meat. I don't feel the level of scarcity of the animal has much of anything to do with making the choice or not to consume flesh. The choice to consume flesh should be based on firstly meat consumption is in no way in the best interest of your body or health. Secondly, the animals are kept in factory farms treated horribly then systematically killed in unsanitary conditions (yet another health concern). Finally, meat consumption supports not only mistreatment of animals but it supports the widespread deforestation to make room for factory farms, It supports the continued pollution of water supplies from factory farm runoff, it supports the continued build up of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it supports a gross misappropriation of resources (the amount of water used in any standard factory cattle farm is OBSCENE considering that the beef producing states tend to also be draught prone). If you have any questions about a potential alternative to eating meat that will also effectively deal with your anemic condition please don't hesitate to ask me. I'd be more than willing to help out. Thanks for reading what I have to say.
 
  • #111
damn b's... this thread is outta control ! ;D
 
  • #112
Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...

About 10 years ago I discovered I was anemic. My doctor recommended a blended greens soup which consisted of romaine lettuce, green beens, green pepper, cucumber, any other green vegetable I wished, and seasonings all pureed together in a blender. He told me that a concentration of greens would help provide the necessary building blocks of haemoglobin the essential oxygen binding substance in red blood cells. I tried this and after a short while I found my energy returning. I made a full and happy recovery without consuming the flesh of murdered animals. A friend who visited today used a phrase which is appropriate here. She said “It’s a mind set, isn’t it?” about people who consume meat. It’s hard to see a way without it. But once another “mind set” is adopted, the way becomes clear. My doctor was not bound to the meat mindset and so suggested something different.

Ranjana
 
  • #113
Originally posted by XcuddleXcoreX
Veganism improves your personal health.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html

The child - fed on an odd menu that included ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil - was suffering from rickets and broken bones and could not even lift her head, cops said.
A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.



Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.

1. Plastic
Several fatty acids from animals are key ingredients in plastic. Think of all the things that are made of plastic!

2. New heart valves (most vegans probably won't need these)
Since 1971, tens of thousands of pig heart valves have been used to replace weak or diseased human heart valves.

3. Anything with gelatin
Gelatin, a protein in animal bones and skin, is used in ice cream to keep its shape and texture. You'll also find it in some yogurt, chewing gum and marshmallows.

4. Many different drugs
-insulin (treatment for diabetes)
-Heparin (used in treatment of allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, and respiratory diseases)
-Thyrotropin (stimulates the thyroid gland)
-Parathyroid Hormone (used to treat parathyroid deficiencies)
-Thrombin (promotes coagulation during surgery)
-Glucagon (treats hypoglycaemia)
-Sodium Levathyroxine (thyroid replacement therapy)
-Trypsin & Chymotripsin (cleansing wounds and ulcers)
-Deoxyribonuclease (acts against devitalized tissue in purulent (discharging pus) states)
-Fibrinolysin (treatment of blood clots within the cardiovascular system)
-Pancreatin (treatment of infants with celiac disease (gluten intolerance ) and related pancreatic deficiences)
-Thyroid (treats myxedema (metabolic disease caused by deficient action of the thyroid gland) in adults and cretinism (deformity and mental retardation caused by thyroid deficency) in children)

5. Various household stuff
-candles
-deodorants
-soaps
-textiles
-insecticides
-photograhic film
-shaving cream
-fabric softeners
-glue
-violin strings
-paints
-cosmetics
-detergents
-toothpaste



Now I'm a bit curious as to how a vegan can reply to this message without using a plastic keyboard or plastic mouse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means I eat dairy and eggs.
Dairy is the most "ethical" food in existence-- it EXISTS to provide sutinence. Am, Vegans don't eat honey either. But actually, most foods that seem vegan have some sort of animal product in them. Small children cannot absorb everything from their food than adults can.. . So they need extra nutrition. If you will not feed your infant your own milk (the milk that comes from the mother), it is very insane and you should not be considered a human being. (the definition of mammal is that the mothers feed milk to the babies-- so if you do not, then you are not worthy of the title mammal and hence human being.) This is my logic. My mother was vegetarian the whole time she was pregnant with me and I was breast fed for two years. Breast feeding is very important for brain development. Am, B12 vitamin is in soul. It is lacking from processed foods due to poor topsoil and stuff, so I heard. Just grow a garden. Don't even wash the carrots, just eat them with the dirt and everything. You will have plenty of B12. You should anyways. I have strong bones. Never broke one of them. Of course to be a healthy vegitarian, it is more than avoiding certain foods. And remember I am vegetarian not because of any religious/moral reasons or sentimentality. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to sustain the body-- but I do believe it is wrong to kill and not eat what you have killed-- sport.
 
  • #115
As a matter of fact, Leonardo Da Vinci said that humans will once consider consumption of animals as cannibalism, and this guy was a real visionary hot-shot.

But then again...plants are alive as well aren't they? The trees scream when they're cut down in their own dull way.

The plants are also "alive" and in every way behave like all other beings.

Should I cry when I trample grass?

Should a herd of buffalos be punished for eating out an entire pasture?

A very interesting thing is that a few thousant years ago, at the dawn of civilisation in the indian sub-continent, there were kingdoms where it was FORBIDDEN to eat meat. ANY meat.

EVERYONE was a vegetarian. This lasted for a few hundred years until Arians from around Afghanistan and Iran conquered these kingdoms and as de facto conquerors radically changed their culture.

I really don't know what to think about this issue...

And don't worry, cows get their due. We don't slaughter only cows, we also slaughter each other.
 
  • #116
and something else...

you must realize that human culture is a culture of excesses in it's environment. It is not in-balance with the nature as we know it.

Thus it is not logical to expect a city like New York or Mexico city, with enough population to fill an ant-hill, will live off a few farms where cows are well cared for, like in them olden days.
 
  • #117
Originally posted by ShawnD
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html


A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.



Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.


shawn,

from your avatar, it appears you are an advocate of freebsd! this is a good thing. unfortunately, i cannot follow the logic in your post which does not appear to contain the same structural strength of your operating system.

rather it seems to be a puzzling attack on vegans, using rather dubious and somewhat sensationalistic arguments.

for instance, you seem to be shocked that the baby couldn't lift her head and admit that the diet was 'odd'. your insinuation is that the diet which included "ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil" is somehow related to veganism - which it obviously isn't. admittedly, this attempt is not all your fault, since the paper itself makes the same mistake when they say the parents were " using a vegan diet to nearly starve to death their 15-month-old daughter". it is fortunate that the prosecutors wisely didn't use the term vegan, because the case has nothing to do with being vegan. it is unfortunate that the newspaper used that term in an attempt to disparge what has been proven over centuries (veganism is hardly a new fad) to be a very healthly diet, purely for the sake of sensationalism.

so I'm really not sure what your point was. the child was malnourished because the parents permitted a vitamin deficiency - this has nothing to do with a vegan diet.


then you go on to say that milk is a great source of calcium (which admittedly it is - the advertisements say so too), however the reality seems to be that there is a serious osteroporosis problem in north america ( eg more than 1 million Americans suffer from fractures due to osteoporosis every year - info not from a vegan site http://www.lifescript.com/www/HealthResources/Spotlight/HealthConditions/Osteoporosis/index.asp ). if your implication is that drinking milk is a good idea because you get lots of calcium (a necessary preventative to osteoporosis), then it is reasonable to conclude that

a) the people who get the condition are always vegan (or at least don't consume milk).
b) milk is not a particularly good preventative for osteoporosis

since a) is completely false, there may be a very good possibility that b) is true. this leads to an interesting and apparent paradox - how is it that something that is touted as such an excellent source of calcium and is so strongly recommended and used as a deterent to osteoporosis (go check the internet for osteoporosis + milk) still leaves the disease rampant? it's fine to go along with the ads and make claims like "Milk is a great source of calcium", but given the high incidence of osteoporosis, the idea may be pragmatically meaningless.

then again you link the not drinking milk to veganism. are you suggesting that vegans are somehow deficient in calcium because they don't drink milk, or that they are deficient in milk because they don't drink milk?

and again, "Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat". the implication is i presume that vegans are deficient in protein, because they don't eat meat.

and then there is the very perplexing B12 comment " it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants)" with a flourishing warning about B12 deficiencies. so are you suggesting that vegans somehow remove the B12 organisms before munching on the plant and so are also B12 deficient (along with all the others deficiencies you have given them)?

somehow you try to tie all this to "Growing kids" who need all these things and are in trouble if they are vegan. if this is your intention, then you should at the very least provide some statistical evidence to that effect other than the single Swinton child who wasn't even vegan. can you do that? because if you don't, it seems to me that you are just throwing anti-vegan propaganda around with a similar lack of integrity as scott shifrel.

the rest of your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion for it seems to be nothing more than a cheap and self-admitted attempt to make vegans feel bad about using certain products. i have no idea why you introduce this here other than to possibly settle some personal vendetta. whereas, the first part of your post had some interesting points worth considering and pursuing (if you wish to), this latter effort seems bizarre by comparison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about. Vegans say how wonderful their lifestyle is but then I see them buy the same hand soap and toothpaste that I use.
Another weird thing is that whenever I see somebody pickup things like soyburgers, the burgers are always wrapped in plastic. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?

About the milk thing, I was not implying that most non-vegans have healthy bones. I was saying that vegans make it very difficult to get recommended amounts of calcium. In 1 day, you can have drink 3 cups of milk, 6oz. of beans, 5 cups of spinach, 50 slices of bread, or 12oz of almonds.
I can drink 3 cups of milk in 2 minutes, no problem. 6oz. of beans takes a while to make and beans are very filling. 5 cups of spinach? 50 slices of bread? 12oz. of almonds?
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/milk/whycal/sources.cfm

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products. People should feel bad when they say they don't use animal byproducts then turn around and accept medicines and use things like drywall and plastics when they know those items are made with animal byproducts. Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about...

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products... Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.

Your post showed no such thing. It only showed your personal animosity towards vegans which is not a very convincing argument for your cause. Have you conducted a survey or have any statistical information regarding your claims that "most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about"?

Vegans are opposed to murder of people and animals. And as such do what they can to not support this. Since the slaughter of animals for food is the main reason for murdering them it makes complete sense to stop eating meat first. As people learn about other byproducts and find alternatives, these too can be incorporated into a vegan's lifestyle. The ethics are clear and the intention good. Can the same be said of yours based on your post?

Ranjana
 
Last edited:
  • #120
Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about.

well i don't have a clue how your post shows that most vegans "do not have a clue what they are talking about". all your postings do is demonstrate clearly that

a) you make wild connections based on cheap tabloid style media writing
b) you attack the vegan platform through blatant accusations of 'vegan lack of knowledge'
c) you have a personal problem with vegans, with their lifestyles, or their statements or all of these

the vegans (i presume they are vegans at any rate) on this thread for the most part have presented their case with clarity and cohesiveness. they provide detailed rationale (eg see LAacoustics post) to justify the arguments which are well-constructed (eg dissident dan's stuff) and come to a decisive conclusion (eg see XcuddleXcoreX initial post) and even pose the ethical issue effectively (eg be happy).

and your effort? i am going to make these clueless vegans feel really bad by pointing out that they are typing on a plastic keyboard! (geewiz, i am tempted to dump freebsd and go to windoze)

as for your calcium argument, you can get into serious trouble on that one when the vegan knowledgebase point out that

a) milk's high protein content (acidic) leaches out the calcium (the oxalic acid in spinach apparently does something similar) so getting it doesn't mean you are going to be keep'n it
b) the rda or dri (whatever!) are deliberately inflated for legal reasons and have little bearing on what the body needs (of course, this has nothing to do with veganism but it proves interesting to investigate)

using the convenience argument that you can drink 3 cups of milk faster than the poor vegan who has to gobble down a loaf of bread is not confidence inspiring.

these vegans seem anything but clueless and if one is going to take the opposing side, there are plenty of resources still out there that will enable the formation of a reasonable basis for attack - so by all means use them.

personally, i don't see what the problem is. veganism seems to me from what I've read here and elsewhere a very efficient and intelligent way to live (eg see the goVeg stuff i pulled from the web). i think, given the overwhelming nutritional and environmental evidence, it has become increasingly difficult to argue against.

so the only course left seems to be to rant and rave along the lines of who is really more holier-than-thou. people may not like to have their ethics challenged, but if that challenge cannot be met in a rational fashion, perhaps those ethics should be re-examined.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
28K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K