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

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
true that.

I stated that vegans in general hit me like a fanatical group but thats mostly due to personal interactions I had so far in my social surroundings. Fanatical as in "my way is better then yours and you absolutely need to see it my way". Frankly thats not how many posters in this thread come across so its personal experience over fact but I think I stated that already. Trying to stay unbiased but I cant help it that repeating past encounters makes me view the whole thing pretty much like the Jehowas witnesses or any other group of fanatical behavior.

I do learn about vegans through this thread tho and even tried to gather information elsewhere (basic "must" if you want to participate in a discussion I think) so its already a win for me :) My posts about veganism were my own view and how I perceive it. I dont speak for others (maybe my wife who pretty much shares my view :D) and directed at the OP asking for peoples opinions. I didnt intend to attack anybody who decided to become a vegan. I still stand by what I said that for me veganism at its core is a very noble thing.

There already were some great posts in here that transcendented the topic by demonstrating how to handle human interaction. I also learned from those so all in all, its been a (mostly) good read so far :)
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Alien said:
Could you please take a personal disagreement, that isn't relevant to the thread, into PM's .... please?
Click to expand...
Sorry man, that whole scene caught me off guard. I'm going to keep my comments strictly nutritionally & morally based from this point forward!

It IS kind of interesting how the conversation stalled after I made the observation about vegan pet owners not living up to their own standards, though:)
 

Chris Simon

Chris Simon
jasonbarron said:
Sorry man, that whole scene caught me off guard. I'm going to keep my comments strictly nutritionally & morally based from this point forward!

It IS kind of interesting how the conversation stalled after I made the observation about vegan pet owners not living up to their own standards, though:)
Click to expand...
In gamer lingo that is called "weak spot" :LOL:
 

Mitchie23

Mitchie23
when most people become vegans, it means that everyone will try their best to provide supply of greeneries for human consumption, which is advantageous for Earth. I'm pro-environment so my argument goes to being vegan. :)
 

MTBFritz

MTBFritz
Mitchie23 said:
when most people become vegans, it means that everyone will try their best to provide supply of greeneries for human consumption, which is advantageous for Earth. I'm pro-environment so my argument goes to being vegan. :)
Click to expand...

With the increased demand of food due to the world population growing I m pretty sure that real meat will become a luxury eventually. Completely moving over to plants is unrealistic tho so I guess chemistry and science will save the day. In my country "cheap" products already were at best carried past the stuff they try to resemble but have actually none of the promised thihngs inside anymore.

Advanteous to earth would be finding a balance in our eco-system. Overpopulation blew that argument out of the water already so if your solution isnt to kill off 50% of humans overnight regardless what we do none of our decisions would be "good for earth". Humanity has caught on very late that "they" are the problem and a lot of people still ignore or deny this. When it comes to solution the fact that we have mostly no clue how our eco-system regulates itself becomes appearant...only that we have the power to influence and change it...often not to the better because humans and science often hits me like kids poking at stuff trying to figure out things that way.

Humanity has grown. Thats a fact and probably not reversable. This is posing a challenge to us and our planet but mostly to us because I have no dpoubt that once we evolved ourselves into extinction the planet will keep going....changed for sure....but very alive and just adapting...just without us. I often view humanity like a virus because we often act like one.

And every day you have overly agressive viruses killing off their hosts which kills themselves and the earth keeps going. If we change our host to a degree where it cannot sustain us anymore the history of earth will go on without us its that simple.
 
Last edited:

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
MTBFritz said:
Humanity has grown. Thats a fact and probably not reversable. This is posing a challenge to us and our planet but mostly to us because I have no dpoubt that once we evolved ourselves into extinction the planet will keep going....changed for sure....but very alive and just adapting...just without us. I often view humanity like a virus because we often act like one.

And every day you have overly agressive viruses killing off their hosts which kills themselves and the earth keeps going. If we change our host to a degree where it cannot sustain us anymore the history of earth will go on without us its that simple.
Click to expand...
Yes, as before our appearance on the planet. Our Earth will continue to revolve and regenerate itself after a few thousand years.
 

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
jasonbarron said:
Cows do not drink milk.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. :)

135486

135487

135488
 

Alien

Alien
jasonbarron said:
Cows do not drink milk.
Click to expand...
I'm interested as to why you think this.
If we got technical about it, "Cows" don't drink milk, "Calves" (plural of Calf, as in baby cow) drink milk, but cows as a species of animal most certainly do drink milk.
We humans have to process it to make it edible for us to drink (without potentially killing us) and even then it's still not designed for us to drink, it's designed for baby cows.

I'd also say that using milk as an argument for whether cows are vegan or not is irrelevant. It's like arguing if a baby is only fed powdered milk has it ever drunk milk? The discussion is pointless, in my opinion, but given the popularity of this thread, if you want to debate milk, go ahead :)
 

Morbad

Morbad
Essentially all mammals drink milk before they are weaned...it's actually part of the definition of mammal.

Alien said:
We humans have to process it to make it edible for us to drink (without potentially killing us) and even then it's still not designed for us to drink, it's designed for baby cows.
Click to expand...

The odds of raw milk from a healthy animal making me ill, let alone killing me, are near zero.

A significant minority of humanity (most with northern European ancestry) has adapted to be able to process lactose as adults and it's generally not human milk they were consuming in adulthood that made this advantageous. It was the milk of livestock.

On a semirelated tangent, ethnocentric ignorance has been responsible for some interesting humanitarian aid issues in the past when food aid containing milk products was sent to African and east Asian countries, where almost everyone is lactose intolerant.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Alien said:
I'm interested as to why you think this.
If we got technical about it, "Cows" don't drink milk, "Calves" (plural of Calf, as in baby cow) drink milk, but cows as a species of animal most certainly do drink milk.
We humans have to process it to make it edible for us to drink (without potentially killing us) and even then it's still not designed for us to drink, it's designed for baby cows.

I'd also say that using milk as an argument for whether cows are vegan or not is irrelevant. It's like arguing if a baby is only fed powdered milk has it ever drunk milk? The discussion is pointless, in my opinion, but given the popularity of this thread, if you want to debate milk, go ahead :)
Click to expand...
Like you said yourself calves drink milk, not "cows," which was my point. It's silly reasoning since it can be said that humans drink milk, too, which was why I responded to what Greg wrote.

You can consume animal byproducts for your entire life and become a vegan any time you like, whether you can or did drink milk at some point. But yeah, cows technically speaking don't drink milk.:)
 
Last edited:

Shinji Ikari

Shinji Ikari
jasonbarron said:
Like you said yourself calves drink milk, not "cows," which was my point. It's silly reasoning since it can be said that humans drink milk, too, which was why I responded to what Greg wrote.

You can consume animal byproducts for your entire life and become a vegan any time you like, whether you can or did drink milk at some point. But yeah, cows technically speaking don't drink milk.:)
Click to expand...

I presume it was obvious, and tecnically a calve is a cow unless you want us to use the latin name.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Gregg Rulz ok said:
I presume it was obvious, and tecnically a calve is a cow unless you want us to use the latin name.
Click to expand...
Yes Gregg, we're getting technical here since you don't seem to have a sense of humor; your point was nonsensical, seeing as how one can become a vegan the moment they stop consuming animal byproducts. Good day:)
 

Shinji Ikari

Shinji Ikari
jasonbarron said:
Yes Gregg, we're getting technical here since you don't seem to have a sense of humor; your point was nonsensical, seeing as how one can become a vegan the moment they stop consuming animal byproducts. Good day:)
Click to expand...

Nothing you wrote was new, the definition of vegan is broken just as it is broken for most other diets because there is no established time frame for them, it's like "X is in the past", well, by the time I see this same post it'll be in the "past" but in coloquial conversation it'll mostly treated as the present a couple of secs or milisecs after posting. Your "counterargument" doesn't dispute what I said, it only exposed the unprecise nature of language.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Gregg Rulz ok said:
Nothing you wrote was new, the definition of vegan is broken just as it is broken for most other diets because there is no established time frame for them, it's like "X is in the past", well, by the time I see this same post it'll be in the "past" but in coloquial conversation it'll mostly treated as the present a couple of secs or milisecs after posting. Your "counterargument" doesn't dispute what I said, it only exposed the unprecise nature of language.
Click to expand...
What a complicated way to admit that you were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom