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

Environmentally I agree being vegan is a great choice.
Healthwise it is a tie. Sure it is slightly harder to get all your vitamins etc from being vegan, but lets be honest, most omnivores could probably benefit from having more balance vitamins as well..... Carnivores, vegies, vegans, all can be healthy if they are sensible.
Morally, of course i would rather not hurt animals.

So all of the above I am a vegan right? well.... no....... I am selfish, and the thought of never having a sausage or bacon buttie again fills me with dread almost as much as the thought of never having beer again.

I do eat a lot of vegitarian food.... but also eat meat.

TLDR I am an omnivore, it is in my nature to eat meat but I respect anyone who chooses not to. ***

*** that said "Vegetarians" who are all moralistic about the evilness of killing animals for food but are ok with eating fish and seafood grind my gears a bit (Pescatarian). Sure if you want to live that way that is fine and all, but dont judge me about the morality of eating animals whilst tucking into your prawn salad or cod and chips. (and yes i have worked with a couple of those)
 
To make everyone agree, a cow drink milk, but also, a cow drinks his own milk. ;)
The problem is cows dont naturally produce milk all the time, for them to make milk you need to let them have young... they give birth around once a year so are practically pregnant all the time (the young are then either slaughtered or go into the farming machinery). Again as my last post. I dont mind a bit of soya milk (and i would give up milk far easier than meat if i had to) but I do still drink milk too.

PS I aint drinking milk from a cow who either drinks or produces "his" own milk :D

have not read all this thread but there are some interesting comments regarding the pet industry, potential double standards of vegans keeping pets is something I have never considered before. Not sure I agree or not but it is definitely a valid point. I wish I had, there are a few "heated debates" I have had in the past where I was on the defensive where i could have slipped that one in. ;)
 
Last edited:
The problem is cows dont naturally produce milk all the time, for them to make milk you need to let them have young... they give birth around once a year so are practically pregnant all the time (the young are then either slaughtered or go into the farming machinery). Again as my last post. I dont mind a bit of soya milk (and i would give up milk far easier than meat if i had to) but I do still drink milk too.

PS I aint drinking milk from a cow who either drinks or produces "his" own milk :D

have not read all this thread but there are some interesting comments regarding the pet industry, potential double standards of vegans keeping pets is something I have never considered before. Not sure I agree or not but it is definitely a valid point. I wish I had, there are a few "heated debates" I have had in the past where I was on the defensive where i could have slipped that one in. ;)
I hate the milk.

But I love yogurt, cheese, custard etc ...

A paradox ? I don't know.

:)
 
Sure if you want to live that way that is fine and all, but dont judge me about the morality of eating animals whilst tucking into your prawn salad or cod and chips.
Neither cod nor prawn are neurologically as aware, or as capable of suffering to the same degree, as most higher animals.
 
Neither cod nor prawn are neurologically as aware, or as capable of suffering to the same degree, as most higher animals.
Whilst this may be true to me that is a weak sauce argument (IF you are judging meat eaters... If it is what you tell yourself whilst you eat fish but not meat then fine).. IF eating animals is bad it is bad, if it is fine it is fine.. otherwise the same argument could be used for chicken compared to pork for instance.

Fish CAN feel pain btw. (I don't know enough about seafood to definitely comment either way)

Indeed I could counter in some ways it is more defensible to eat chicken or any farmed meat than it is to eat non farmable animals like cod for instance who's numbers have plummeted and can't be easily repopulated.
 
For me, ultimately there's two arguements for vegetarianism.

One is the environmental impact, which is indisputable.

The other is animalism, e.g. a moral choice on equating animal suffering and pain with that of a human. As a moral choice science can't help you, therefore it's something you've got to decide for yourself.

Personally I couldn't give a rat's rear for the life of any animal Vs that of a human, so can justify eating meat easily, however the environmental impact cannot be ignored and as my wife strongly believes in equating animal suffering to that of humanities, I am vegetarian 80% of the time.

Veganism, to me, seems to be a moral choice and for me at least can be ignored.
 
The main thing for me is this...animals eat animals, what is the difference between a human eating meat and a lion eating meat? If it's the mass production of animal meat for human consumption then I agree, but human overpopulation is the problem there not the fact that humans eat meat. If it's the fact that humans have a choice and lions do not, that is equally valid as long as Vegans/vegetarians RESPECT choice, and RESPECT those who choose to eat meat. If they don't they are bigots.
 
Whilst this may be true to me that is a weak sauce argument (IF you are judging meat eaters... If it is what you tell yourself whilst you eat fish but not meat then fine).. IF eating animals is bad it is bad, if it is fine it is fine.. otherwise the same argument could be used for chicken compared to pork for instance.

Fish CAN feel pain btw. (I don't know enough about seafood to definitely comment either way)

Indeed I could counter in some ways it is more defensible to eat chicken or any farmed meat than it is to eat non farmable animals like cod for instance who's numbers have plummeted and can't be easily repopulated.
I agree with your point. Fish clearly want to live and not be caught and eaten. I consider the relativism required to make eating them permissable whilst eating other animals "cruel" to be hypocritical in the extreme.
 
Whilst this may be true to me that is a weak sauce argument (IF you are judging meat eaters... If it is what you tell yourself whilst you eat fish but not meat then fine).. IF eating animals is bad it is bad, if it is fine it is fine.. otherwise the same argument could be used for chicken compared to pork for instance.

Fish CAN feel pain btw. (I don't know enough about seafood to definitely comment either way)

Indeed I could counter in some ways it is more defensible to eat chicken or any farmed meat than it is to eat non farmable animals like cod for instance who's numbers have plummeted and can't be easily repopulated.
For a long time it was assumed (?!) that lobsters cant feel pain, so boiling them alive is fine. Believe it or not, but that turns out to be horsecrap.

Neither cod nor prawn are neurologically as aware, or as capable of suffering to the same degree, as most higher animals.
Does that mean I get to eat severely neurologically handicapped humans?
 
Top Bottom