A Challenge for Vegans

K

Khaddar7

Guest
#1
I’m often frustrated by the claims of vegans about meat and am further appalled by their bad logic. Often vegans fail to acknowledge multiple causes and solutions to the issues they present, simplifying their logic to eating meat makes you sick, and not eating meat solves the problems. Without attacking Veganism itself, I’ll point out some of gaps in logic below:

1) Eating meat is bad for you. This is a bad argument because it refuses to take into account American over-eating. Yes, if people stuff their faces with huge, frequent portions of meat, they will have horrible problems with their organ systems, including cholesterol increases and rising body fat percentages. If people eat modest portions of meat once every other day, there are no horrible health impacts and you have access to a fantastic source of raw materials necessary for your body. Except for fish. Fish is great for you. Eat lots of fish. Fish is still a form of meat.

2) The counterargument to this is claiming that eating meat dumps massive amounts of harmful chemicals, antibiotics, and even concentrated amounts of chemicals into your body. This is typically paired with slideshows of animals in horrible conditions, fifteen to a cage in a room full of five hundred cages, all full of chickens with two heads. Everyone seems to recognize this, but I'll give you a hint. The solution is not veganism. If you want to combat or even just avoid the mass farming of meat (including fish farms), buy free-range and organic meat. Animals raised by the standards of these two labels grow up in much better conditions and are not stuffed full of growth hormones and antibiotics. The price tag will help you keep in step with the portions suggested above. The meat tastes better, it's much healthier, and you are supporting a fight against polluted meat raised in miserable conditions. Better than depriving the growing industry from a source of income by not eating meat at all.

This is a huge issue, especially when it comes to fish, as fish farming programs typically do not address the dangerous buildup of chemicals in their stocks. Buying wild fish will help encourage the strength of those programs and their ability to ensure the continued protection of their territories. Clean waters, for example, are necessary for the raising of healthy fish. Supporting the budding wild fish industry will both encourage competitors to clean up their acts and may even begin the expansion of the industry into over fished areas. Wouldn’t it be great if a company decided to clean up an area like the Chesapeake Bay for the purpose of raising a healthy fish and shellfish population? Supporting the wild fish industry will ultimately help rejuvenate rich coastal areas, under the protection of companies with the health of the area in the interests of their consumers.

Oh, and by the way, if the chemical/antibiotics /hormone issue is the reason you switched to veganism, you'd better buy organic plants. Otherwise, you're still likely to have pesticides and antibiotics dumped into your system, as well as the issue of genetically modified organisms to confront.

3) The doozy. Eating meat is immoral and/or unnatural. What a terrible argument to put on a brochure. The argument from immorality is underplayed by vegans- it would certainly take up the entire brochure, and follows a long train of logic that most people would find conflict with. In short, most mainstream modern religions don’t support the argument from veganism.

The argument from unnaturalism has always bugged me. At eight, I would open my mouth and point frantically at my canine teeth in response. Humans are omnivores. Meat tastes particularly good to us because it helped us to keep our populations high, as it is a source of much sought after fats, proteins and certain vitamins. You just couldn’t get that from plants when we were evolving. We’re conditioned to eat meat by our very genetics. And you know what we ate most of the time? That’s right. Plants. We ate plants most of the time, supplemented by scavenged meat, at a rate above our ancestors, the chimpanzees. Probably in the proportions suggested in part one. And it kept us alive.

In short: The right types of meat, in the right proportions, are a fantastic asset to your health. Humans have been conditioned by the process of evolution to benefit from meat in these proportions. If you want to make a difference in the meat industry, don’t boycott it. Support the industries that address your concerns, and you’ll help them grow to confront the industries to which you are opposed.



I would really appreciate it if a Vegan would square with these issues.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#2
1) Eating meat is bad for you. This is a bad argument because it refuses to take into account American over-eating. Yes, if people stuff their faces with huge, frequent portions of meat, they will have horrible problems with their organ systems, including cholesterol increases and rising body fat percentages. If people eat modest portions of meat once every other day, there are no horrible health impacts and you have access to a fantastic source of raw materials necessary for your body. Except for fish. Fish is great for you. Eat lots of fish. Fish is still a form of meat.
I would agree that some vegan groups, just as some animal rights groups (e.g. PeTA, like to lie to promote their cause. You really are supposed only to have a very small portion of meat. What most people eat, even those whom we don't believe eat too much, actually eat too much meat. The problem is, as you said, most people consume too much meat, which makes them unhealthy. Honest vegans will point this out. Typicallyt, the problem stems from beef and "red" meats.

2) The counterargument to this is claiming that eating meat dumps massive amounts of harmful chemicals, antibiotics, and even concentrated amounts of chemicals into your body. This is typically paired with slideshows of animals in horrible conditions, fifteen to a cage in a room full of five hundred cages, all full of chickens with two heads. Everyone seems to recognize this, but I'll give you a hint. The solution is not veganism. If you want to combat or even just avoid the mass farming of meat (including fish farms), buy free-range and organic meat.[/quote]

It is true that free range is better, but you still have to be careful even with that, for sometimes, 'free range" isn't what you think it is. There was a controversy not too long ago wherein a manufacture plant for chickens said they had "free range" chickens. Do you know what that meant? THey let the chickens out for a few minutes a day THEN stuffed them back in their cage. I also am not a fan of organic produce, since that itself has many problems.

Organic produce and free range is hard to use anyway; a lot of companies find it too expensive and a lot more people are apathetic about chicken quality of life.





Oh, and by the way, if the chemical/antibiotics /hormone issue is the reason you switched to veganism, you'd better buy organic plants. Otherwise, you're still likely to have pesticides and antibiotics dumped into your system, as well as the issue of genetically modified organisms to confront. [//quote]

I actually prefer the GE products. Bigger, healthier, and in general, safer. I don't buy into the whole anti-GE hype. The problem is that GE is very useful. For instance, that's how they got frost-resistant fruit (they implanted anti-freeze fish genes into them).

3) The doozy. Eating meat is immoral and/or unnatural. What a terrible argument to put on a brochure. The argument from immorality is underplayed by vegans- it would certainly take up the entire brochure, and follows a long train of logic that most people would find conflict with. In short, most mainstream modern religions don’t support the argument from veganism.
Which argument is this. My basic argument is that you shouldn't cause unnecessary pain or suffering. If you can avoid it at little cost to yourself do so. This is largely why I am opposed to killing things so we can wear them (fashion) if we can simply use another substance that doesn't involve as much direct objective harm.

If I don't need to eat that much meat, I would prefer people cut down on the meat so we don't need to slaughter and kill them in the first place. It's not that they have equal value as Humans, but that people eat far too much, which creates a demand, which leads to unnecessary death. I do think that's wrong. This doesn't apply to people who need a balanced diet or have no other choice.

I am a Utilitarian. I do not support causing unnecessary pain and suffering, and in the first world nations, people tend to eat a lot of meat simply for taste, not because they need to for health. If they really had a necessity to kill something, they would need to do it for diet. Which is acceptable. Everything must eat. It's a basic necessity.

However, I have no problem with vegans and vegetarianism given that one day technology permits society to abandon intentional killing alltogether. This is one reason I support GE/modified (reinforced) foods and meat culture research. One day, perhaps we won't need to eat meat from animals. Perhaps we can simply substitute and grow it. If, I would like that. Once it becomes a non-necessity, I don't think people should eat for taste when you are sacrificing a significant interest of another.


I don't see eating meat as unnatural, but even if it were, it wouldn't much matter, because that something is natural doesn't mean it's ethical any more than something being unnatural means it's unethical. Twoply toiletpaper is "unnatural." That doesn't make it bad.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#3
The only really compelling ethical argument I've ever heard in favor of eating meat involved free range beef. The idea is that a degree of suffering is caused to field mice and other animals during the process of growing crops. They are often killed by farming equipment and whatnot. Given that, it seems as ethical to eat free range beef as it is to eat plants. Of course, we aren't all going to all take up eating free range beef anytime soon, but it's something to consider for anyone who considers becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#4
The only really compelling ethical argument I've ever heard in favor of eating meat involved free range beef. The idea is that a degree of suffering is caused to field mice and other animals during the process of growing crops. They are often killed by farming equipment and whatnot. Given that, it seems as ethical to eat free range beef as it is to eat plants. Of course, we aren't all going to all take up eating free range beef anytime soon, but it's something to consider for anyone who considers becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

True. No method we have today prevents all death, but I think the goal is to cause as little as you actively can. Mice and field animals certainly do die, which is unfortunate. Wikipedia has an article that claims more animals are killled in farming, but there were other studies thar criticized the study's methodology and the numbers used as being inflated.

Farming itself can harm the ecosystem if used carelessly. It's impossible to survive and prevent all deaths.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#5
Meat is ridiculously uneconomical to produce. Eating too much is bad for you, and you can get just as many nutrients, if not more, but being a smart vegetarian.
 
S

Spider Jerusalem

Guest
#6
I respect anybody's choice to be a vegan but there is nothing to gain from shameless propaganda.

Meat is bad for you.
Bullshit. Meat is wonderful for you. Meat has all the essential b vitamins that produce energy levels. Whilest you depend on that clunky carbohydrate string, Somebody else is efficietly using high-quality amino acids to charge my muscles and nerves and optimize my body.

There are even some meats with vitamic C (chodizohs), theoreticaly I could liveoff meat alone! And though it'd probably be healthier, it would be impractical.

Carbohydrates are like coal and oil to the body. Protien and fats are like nuculear fusion. Clean and nearly limitless in potential!


You will have a more fit body supplying your diet rich with meats then you will even the best of vegetables, because not all calories are created equaly.

Fat takes the least amount of energy to burn second to carbohydrates, however this amount is only minamly differant.

The differance in protien extraction to carbohydrate is significant. Therefore if you eat alot of meat, you will create a net-exhaust in calorie burning.

If protien is Xu
Carbohydrates X
and Fat Y.

If you restrict your carb intake, Xu will become a greater value to burn then X.
Y can be ignored because Y would be there no matter what you did. Even if you ate a low-fat diet, Xu+Y would still require more bodily energy to burn then X+X


Yes, I know alot of shit but don't follow it. I pretty much live off bread and diet soda. Bread isn't very nutricious (no matter what the propaganda commercials might tell you) but I'll be damned before I stop eating it.


Why do you think bread is so cheap? Infact why do you think all things a vegetarian could eat are so cheap?

Because they're not that great for you. Wheat is an easy commodity, and you get what you pay for.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#7
A vegetarian diet can be very healthy. So can a mixed diet. Meat, however, is not good for you if you consume too much, and 99% of society here consumes too much. The quantity of meat you are supposed to eat is actually very, very small as part of the human diet.

As for bread being bad for you, some types are yes, since they are high in sodium and other chemicals. It depends on the brand, the type, and how much you consume, obviously.

What the fuck is nuculear.


Fat consumption is good to an extent. Everyone needs to consume some fats.
 
S

Spider Jerusalem

Guest
#8
The same government that can't evenr egulate peanutbutter says meat is bad in excess.


Most animals that eat meat that's pretty much all they consume.
And apparently it's not hurting them.
 
K

Khaddar7

Guest
#9
Which argument is this. My basic argument is that you shouldn't cause unnecessary pain or suffering. If you can avoid it at little cost to yourself do so. This is largely why I am opposed to killing things so we can wear them (fashion) if we can simply use another substance that doesn't involve as much direct objective harm.

Well, even a basic argument such as this involves recognizing the equality of humans and animals and/or that animals suffer. Both of these concepts are highly contested, or flat out unrecognized, by mainstream religions.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#10
Vegans either argue on two grounds: health, and animal rights. Both of them have points.

Health- Our current diet is really fucking us over, and obesity is decreasing our life expectancy each year. However, this is due to excess rather than meat being inherently unhealthy.

Animal rights- We have some processes (foie gras comes to mind) that are obviously cruel to animals. however, we're the top of the food chain, so we logically will kill animals and consume them.

Neither of these are absolutely true or false, so of course they are argumented to death.

But, meat consumption is largely to be considered by your ethnicity. Asians try to consume an amount of meat that most Causacians do, and they all end up with diabetes and high blood pressure; this is because they are borderline vegetarians historically, and their bodies adapted to that. I'm Scottish, and I can eat quite a large quantity of meat and be perfectly healthy.