General / Off-Topic Let's Have A Debate: To Be, Or Not To Be Vegan? That Is The Question ...

[-VR- Max Factor]

Is that feasable in a scale large enough to supply the current demand?

Nope. And that's the point. It will be expensive meaning that we will have to eat less.

 

[MTBFritz]

its just a means to put yourself above everything else which is a really bad view in my opinion. Of course we are all selfish and when it comes to survival I will think of myself first but thats nature...not because I am somehow "more worthy" for whatever reason.

There is only one species called human and its not so long ago that your view on things applied to others of our kind as well when people of different skin color were somehow perceived as "inferior" or "subconcious" thus justifying enslavement and other atrocities. Your categoration is just a means to do whatever you want without feeling regret or doubt. Dolphins are fully sentient...as are whales. Still that realization doesnt protect them from humans or their actions.

Dont get me wrong...I will also always chose myself or my family first over others but I dont justify it the way you do "oh they are just things and I dont have to feel regret for anihilating anything that is below me".

I dont know how much experience you have in life yet but I have witnessed fear and pain in other species before death and its pretty much the same as in humans. Dont kid yourself in thinking you are somehow "better". Humans success is just random chance in the greater scheme of things. When dinosaurs were roaming the world humans were living in the shadows feeding off scraps just the same as any kind of animal you consider "inferior" today. The deeper I delve into biology the more I understand how humans are the same as any other species on the planet. We are slaves to our hormones and instincts...free will is an illusion. I want to live as well but I am not willing to kill others or justify my actions with "I am better so I deserve life over them" to keep living.

 

[Morbad]

its just a means to put yourself above everything else which is a really bad view on my opinion.

Well, I disagree, on both points.

There is only one species called human and its not so long ago that your view on things applied to others of our kind as well when people of different skin color were somehow perceived as "inferior" or "subconcious" thus justifying enslavement and other atrocities.

Species, in and of itself, is irrelevant and your observation, while not incorrect, isn't a counter argument to anything I've stated.

Your categoration is just a means to do whatever you want without feeling regret or doubt.

I lived a regret free existence long before I really sat down and thought upon how to best categorize things.

The line at species, or life, or capacity for suffering, all seemed either too arbitrary, too vague, or too impractical. So, I chose sentience as the dividing line; it seems to be the most relevant, applicable, and future proof.

Dolphins are fully sentient...as are whales. Still that realization doesnt protect them from humans or their actions.

It protects them from me. I won't hunt them and I won't enslave them, nor will I patronize entities that do. I also go out of my way, within reason, to minimize my impact on their habitats.

I dont know how much experience you have in life yet but I have witnessed fear and pain in other species before death and its pretty much the same as in humans.

I'm all for minimizing suffering, even among those objects that are capable of it.

Dont kid yourself in thinking you are somehow "better". Humans success is just random chance in the greater scheme of things. When dinosaurs were roaming the world humans were living in the shadows feeding off scraps just the same as any kind of animal you consider "inferior" today. The deeper I delve into biolopgy the more I understand how humans are the same as any other species on the planet.

Humaness isn't the distinction I've been making here. It often implies certain things, but the property of being biologically human, is not in and of itself, where I'm drawing any lines.

I want to live as well but I am not willing to kill others or justify my actions with "I am better so I deserve life over them" to keep living.

I need exactly zero justification to protect my continued existence at any and all costs. Fortunately, I'm not that expensive.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You can have the taste without eating vegan stuff disguised as meat---people intentionally buy meat formed food as if they are "missing" meat and want the illusion of meat to overcome the urge....thats how I perceive it

Or we don't eat meat for reasons that allow us to to eat meat imitations, it's not rocket science pal.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Thats the thing....if you consider how much more space we need to grow plants there simply is not enough usable space to accomodate all the lifestock we require to provide the necessary nourishment. Tho bigger factors are the massively increased cost in keeping them in such conditions as well as the reduced yield (which is actually the number one reason why "bio" produce is so expensive)

I'm glad you understand that, now, does eating meat immitations contribute to that issue?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Those other labels and categorizations are mostly meaningless.

How so?

 

[Morbad]

How so?

Because they are either overly broad, overly ambiguous, or have serious potential to become so. If the value is placed on life itself...well we each kill trillions of living organisms every day and the exact definition of life itself is still a mater of debate. If it's the status of being human that's important, you then have to define human in a clear and simple manner that won't become outdated as the nature of humanity evolves; a speciest definition of 'human' has the potential to exclude beings that have all other typically human attributes on the basis of a technicality. If the ability to suffer is enough to imply the right to live, then this could justify all sorts of harmful meddling...most higher animals can and will suffer, and many will die entirely natural, entirely preventable deaths. Some of the arguments in this thread seem to suggest it would be morally wrong to allow a species to die off, or to cull it, even if it never had any natural ecological niche and no longer served any purpose for us.

If anything that is self-aware and capable of reason is a person (In hindsight I probably should have specified both sentience and sapience previously...appologies for the imprecision) most of the potential for vagueness goes away and anything that could otherwise be offended (and would have the power to retaliate) would be covered by it's very ability to take, and demonstrate, offense.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Because they are either overly broad, overly ambiguous, or have serious potential to become so. If the value is placed on life itself...well we each kill trillions of living organisms every day and the exact definition of life itself is still a mater of debate. If it's the status of being human that's important, you then have to define human in a clear and simple manner that won't become outdated as the nature of humanity evolves; a speciest definition of 'human' has the potential to exclude beings that have all other typically human attributes on the basis of a technicality. If the ability to suffer is enough to imply the right to live, then this could justify all sorts of harmful meddling...most higher animals can and will suffer, and many will die entirely natural, entirely preventable deaths. Some of the arguments in this thread seem to suggest it would be morally wrong to allow a species to die off, or to cull it, even if it never had any natural ecological niche and no longer served any purpose for us.

If anything that is self-aware and capable of reason is a person (In hindsight I probably should have specified both sentience and sapience previously...appologies for the imprecision) most of the potential for vagueness goes away and anything that could otherwise be offended (and would have the power to retaliate) would be covered by it's very ability to take, and demonstrate, offense.

Aha, I get it, however I consider just defining "human" as Homo Sapiens (Sapiens?) as not terribly precise either, on the topic of culling, I consider death itself to not be bad (please note, that doesn't mean it is good either) so I have no problem on that.

 

[Morbad]

Aha, I get it, however I consider just defining "human" as Homo Sapiens (Sapiens?) as not terribly precise either

Yes, that's part of my point and why I wouldn't use species itself as a defining factor in assigning personhood...though I'd be far more likely to give a homo sapien the benefit of any doubt than, say, a chicken or a watch, simply as a matter of statistical probability.

on the topic of culling, I consider death itself to not be bad (please note, that doesn't mean it is good either) so I have no problem on that.

Once the demand for cattle drops off precipitously, I certainly think culling the remainder would be the more merciful and humane way to deal with them, leaving them to fend for themselves, rather than trying to release them into what wild was left, or turning them into zoo exhibits. If they want to preserve some for posterity they can take DNA samples and freeze embryos...just in case we need them again.

 

[MTBFritz]

Or we don't eat meat for reasons that allow us to to eat meat imitations, it's not rocket science pal.

You dont need to get defensive about it pal. "Why" you do it I can comprehend, I just find it silly with the statement vegans chose to voice. Which supports my own view that veganism is mostly a trend pushed by companies for monetary reasons. I dont think "serious" vegans are more then a small core group in the sea of followers trying to be cool.

Another point. Why "you" do is might be completely different to the next vegan picking meat imitations. I wasnt aware you are a spokesperson for all vegans.

 

[Patrick_68000]

NEW £50 NOTES TO CONTAIN ANIMAL FAT DESPITE BACKLASH FROM VEGANS AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...animal-fat-tallow-vegans-hindus-a8945321.html

 

[WingardiumLevicoaster]

NEW £50 NOTES TO CONTAIN ANIMAL FAT DESPITE BACKLASH FROM VEGANS AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...animal-fat-tallow-vegans-hindus-a8945321.html

Interesting.. in the UK vegan circles I am in, there never was a backlash. A little annoyance perhaps but the majority of the us are aware that this applies to a lot of plastics. Most likely including our bank cards. It's one of those things reported by the media for a story rather than truth. We have bigger Tofu to fry. It's not something we have any control over.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Interesting.. in the UK vegan circles I am in, there never was a backlash. A little annoyance perhaps but the majority of the us are aware that this applies to a lot of plastics. Most likely including our bank cards. It's one of those things reported by the media for a story rather than truth. We have bigger Tofu to fry. It's not something we have any control over.

That is one of those clickbaity things I dislike. Find someone ranting on twitter, or post it yourself, and you have the "the internet explodes because of [whatever]!!!!" headline.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Interesting.. in the UK vegan circles I am in, there never was a backlash. A little annoyance perhaps but the majority of the us are aware that this applies to a lot of plastics. Most likely including our bank cards. It's one of those things reported by the media for a story rather than truth. We have bigger Tofu to fry. It's not something we have any control over.

Yes, Always to consider the press with hindsight.

 

[jasonbarron]

Interesting.. in the UK vegan circles I am in, there never was a backlash. A little annoyance perhaps but the majority of the us are aware that this applies to a lot of plastics. Most likely including our bank cards. It's one of those things reported by the media for a story rather than truth. We have bigger Tofu to fry. It's not something we have any control over.

That brings up an interesting point concerning the morally righteous vegan: hypocrisy. I've lost track of how many vegans I know who are more than willing to set their beliefs aside when it's time to take Fifi in to get that bag of dog chow loaded with animal byproducts. For that matter, think about all the damage to the environment the toys for their pets cause?

 

[WingardiumLevicoaster]

That brings up an interesting point concerning the morally righteous vegan: hypocrisy. I've lost track of how many vegans I know who are more than willing to set their beliefs aside when it's time to take Fifi in to get that bag of dog chow loaded with animal byproducts. For that matter, think about all the damage to the environment the toys for their pets cause?

My example isn't hypocrisy. Veganism as a definition is as far as practically possible. So necessary medication is exempt, as is things you cannot control, like currency, an non vegan electricity or fuel etc. Pets is difficult.. because it could also be considered not vegan to not feed an animal a meat diet, especially in the case of cats, because cats are carnivores. Vegan dogs are possible, but you could argue changing a dog from s meat diet to a vegan is cruel as it hasn't got a choice, therefore not a very vegan thing to do. So as it's a different being other than yourself, it's not hypocrisy at all. many will try and get the most ethical they can though. Not all vegans are vegan for the environment either... also vegans generally only have pets if they are rescue because supporting breeders is not vegan. However, this attitude you have is absolutionst and sets anyone up for failure. It's impossible to be perfect. I would much rather aim for 98 percent, because 1000 imperfect vegans make more of a difference than one perfect one.

 

[jasonbarron]

My example isn't hypocrisy. Veganism as a definition is as far as practically possible. So necessary medication is exempt, as is things you cannot control, like currency, an non vegan electricity or fuel etc. Pets is difficult.. because it could also be considered not vegan to not feed an animal a meat diet, especially in the case of cats, because cats are carnivores. Vegan dogs are possible, but you could argue changing a dog from s meat diet to a vegan is cruel as it hasn't got a choice, therefore not a very vegan thing to do. So as it's a different being other than yourself, it's not hypocrisy at all. many will try and get the most ethical they can though. Not all vegans are vegan for the environment either... also vegans generally only have pets if they are rescue because supporting breeders is not vegan. However, this attitude you have is absolutionst and sets anyone up for failure. It's impossible to be perfect. I would much rather aim for 98 percent, because 1000 imperfect vegans make more of a difference than one perfect one.

Those are just cheap rationales that essentially add up to nothing more than (much like the average environmentalist's attitude) "It's everyone else's fault!" I wouldn't bother saying that if they dropped the moralistic rhetoric, but since that's not ever happening, accusations of hypocrisy are fair game.

I picked dogs as an example for a very specific reason: dogs (and cats) are a luxury item that have no purpose in our society beyond human beings simple whim: without our insatiable desire to have pets, we would not need a multi billion dollar industry that provides food and toys for them, and further leaves many of them homeless and un-cared for which results in massive expenditures. I could go on, but the point should be pretty obvious and unassailable.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Those are just cheap rationales that essentially add up to nothing more than (much like the average environmentalist's attitude) "It's everyone else's fault!" I wouldn't bother saying that if they dropped the moralistic rhetoric, but since that's not ever happening, accusations of hypocrisy are fair game.

I picked dogs as an example for a very specific reason: dogs (and cats) are a luxury item that have no purpose in our society beyond human beings simple whim: without our insatiable desire to have pets, we would not need a multi billion dollar industry that provides food and toys for them, and further leaves many of them homeless and un-cared for which results in massive expenditures. I could go on, but the point should be pretty obvious and unassailable.

I am not sure if you should be accusing him of cheap rationales after you've just spend your time climbing Mt. Whataboutism.

I know 'hypocritical' vegans, ballet-dancers, libertarians, Christians, football hooligans and lumberjacks. Show me any group of people and I'll guarantee you there will be a bunch of hypocrits among them.

 

[WingardiumLevicoaster]

Those are just cheap rationales that essentially add up to nothing more than (much like the average environmentalist's attitude) "It's everyone else's fault!" I wouldn't bother saying that if they dropped the moralistic rhetoric, but since that's not ever happening, accusations of hypocrisy are fair game.

I picked dogs as an example for a very specific reason: dogs (and cats) are a luxury item that have no purpose in our society beyond human beings simple whim: without our insatiable desire to have pets, we would not need a multi billion dollar industry that provides food and toys for them, and further leaves many of them homeless and un-cared for which results in massive expenditures. I could go on, but the point should be pretty obvious and unassailable.

Hence why vegans don't support breeders.

 

[jasonbarron]

Hence why vegans don't support breeders.

They support them by having dogs and cats and buying food and toys for them