Do Vegans and Vegetarians Pick and Choose Their Morals?

[Tealtop1]

I've been doing a lot of digging into vegetarians and vegans and their common arguments about the killing and pain we cause these poor poor animals, but do they only care about what fits their agenda? (V's are vegetarians and vegans lol)

1) Many V's act as if meat eaters are horrible people for actively participating in an action that promotes and aids to the death of animals, and that they are not in the same boat as them. That being said, most of these people still live in apartments, in cities, go to school/work in buildings that were only created once acres upon acres of animal habitat was mowed down. This not only murders many animals but displaces the ones that do survive, a displacement of which can lead to a lack of shelter/food/water. If you own any wooden/bamboo goods or live in most places you're a part of that cycle.

2) It's safe to say all V's eat grains like rice and the such but do most know that the machines used during harvest kill 52-77% of the small rodents and animals living in those fields?

3) V's will not eat living things because of the suffering caused to the creature yet most also refuse to eat lobsters, crabs, and crawfish because it's somehow immoral. While there are no definite answers in the scientific community there is still no solid proof that crustaceans (or even most fish) feel pain. V's usually counter this claim by saying that these grey conclusions aren't solid enough to make it okay to kill and eat these creatures. What about plants though? There have been more and more tests done that point towards plants not only knowing when they're in danger, but have memory, are aware of their existence, react to their environment and even release BRAIN chemicals like dopamine and serotonin. Plants are arguably just as alive as lobsters, crabs and fish, so why is it ethically okay to kill and eat them?

I'm honestly not trying to shit on V's but these are genuine questions and concerns I have that I'd like some input on, to me it seems that V's only care about life if it has a face and big innocent eyes.

* I'd also like to note that although I'm an omnivore I do feel like humans really need to cut back on their meat consumption but other than that, as long as the animal is raised and killed ethically I see no problem with eating animals.

[the_rake]

I'm not a vegan either... however, most of your arguments are very easy to refute:

"Do Vegans and Vegetarians Pick and Choose Their Morals?"

That's a silly question because everybody on this planet carefully picks and chooses their morals after listening to what other people/society say is or is not "moral". That's because morality is subjective.

HOWEVER, if you are smart and you are actually compassionate/care about other beings (i. e. you're NOT a complete psychopath) then hopefully you would also take the time to REVIEW your own moral choices, habits and philosophy of morality.

"most of these people still live in apartments, in cities, go to school/work in buildings that were only created once acres upon acres of animal habitat was mowed down."

There's a difference between killing an animal because you need to survive and killing an animal because you want to saturate your cravings for meat. Do you get the difference between killing a pig so you can stuff it with an apple for Christmas dinner versus killing a few rodents, insects and other smaller species so that you can create somewhere to live for you and your family?

If not, you are being extremely disingenuous.

"the machines used during harvest kill 52-77% of the small rodents and animals living in those fields"

It's a very indirect way of killing animals and like I said before, we NEED to kill SOME animals to survive - e. g. eat grains, have natural habitats, etc. This is NOT the same as killing animals to eat meat. Ethical veganism is NOT a lifestyle about being perfect, because the only way to eradicate ALL animal suffering is to take a shotgun and kill yourself. Instead, ethical veganism IS about minimising all suffering of other organisms to the greatest extent humanly possible.

If we didn't harvest crops, then probably a lot, lot MORE animals would die because we would have to increase our meat and dairy consumption instead which would be totally retarded. If we use the principle that we should MINIMISE animal suffering, then the correct thing for humans is to cut down on meat and dairy consumption and instead eat more crops, grains, pulses, fruits and vegetables, etc. This would also be very good for human poverty, because there is not enough meat and dairy to feed the world, but 10 times as much grains as we could possibly EVER need.

[the_rake]

"What about plants"

Again, is it NECESSARY to kill plants to survive? We can probably agree that YES it is. That's because we NEED to eat something. And it's probably better to eat something that most likely does NOT feel pain as much as animals (if at all), than it is to kill an innocent moving, breathing, feeling animal that shows evidence of
- sensory response to pain
- a central nervous system
- a brain
- compassion (e. g. towards offspring)
- being able to move, breathe, reproduce and show other autonomous bodily functions

Anyway, comparing the suffering of organisms like plants, insects and microscopic organisms to larger creatures that have been scientifically proven to have more nerve endings and show more signs of sentience/self-awareness/human like traits is an extremely pedantic and quite frankly imbecilic argument that is just being used to excuse some people's incredibly poor moral decisions and justify unnecessary cruelty to animals.

[the_rake]

"here have been more and more tests done that point towards plants not only knowing when they're in danger, but have memory, are aware of their existence, react to their environment"

WAAAAY more studies prove the opposite.

"as long as the animal is raised and killed ethically I see no problem with eating animals."

Because realistically that is often not the case, even with so-called organic free-range farming - e. g. google the controversy with the company "Happy Eggs". The truth is that, it's not realistic to have widespread organic farming like this because corporations NEED to contain animals in small spaces and kill them efficiently in order to the market demand for meat products which is HUGE. People need to cut down meat and dairy consumption drastically. What's more is baby chicks are often killed in dairy consumption because when there is not enough space to harvest their eggs and baby cows are often taken away from cows in the milk industry to be butchered for veal.

[the_rake]

[FINAL MESSAGE]
"these are genuine questions and concerns"

I'm sorry, but I don't think these are genuine at all and if you showed actual concern, you would not be focussing the debate on meat eaters. You would be focussing the debate on more ethical ways of treating livestock; ways to eliminate unnecessary scientific experimentation; and ways to reduce meat and dairy consumption / increase grain production, in order to:

- reduce CO2 impact
- minimalise UNNECESSARY animal suffering
- help alleviate human poverty in third world countries

Check out this take. I explain the reasons why I have sympathy for veganism even if my primary focus is on reducing animal suffering rather than eradicating it altogether.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a28673-this-pro-animal-rights-meat-eater-doesn-t-blame-vegans-vegetarians

No offense, but I seriously do think you have a lot to educate yourself on.

[Anonymous]

Vegans do not eat meat and do not consume animal-based products.
Vegetarians eat meat (eggs, milk). Eggs and milk are animal-based products, hence meat, but vegetarians and non-vegetarians usually don't consider them meat. What one considers meat is entirely subjective.
If it were me, then I'd classify any animal-based product (eggs, milk, bugs) meat.
Humans are by nature omnivores. Some populations of humans are primarily meat-eaters; some are primarily herbivores. Humans have survived on both kinds of diet in ancient and prehistoric times. Meat is not the problem. It's processed food.

[rsstanford]

meat is actually a problem, because of factory farms animals get more diseases that you eat. And you have it people in America who eat meat are unaware ( some) that meat has antibiotics so when they are sick they wonder why and how their body becomes resistant to antibiotics. We can end world hunger if they stop producing factory farm animals, they give all our wheat and grains and rice to these factory animals. Look up what beef does to the heart and eggs. Why do people get offended when people in other parts of the world eats cats and dogs? You couldn't tell the difference if you ate it why because flesh taste the same no matter where it comes from. There are people who eat other people and actually fed their family human flesh and they said it tasted like chicken, flesh taste like flesh. If we are designed to eat meat why do we die from eating meat?

[Opinion Owner]

@rsstanford That is source of meat today. It wasn't like this in prehistoric times.

[rsstanford]

Yea but I agree with what you said other places in the world have lived thousands of years and still do today and have been vegans and have only consumed meat ( fish) and have been fine no heart attacks or any other disease.

[Opinion Owner]

@rsstanford The treatment of farm animals is an environmental and animal rights issue. But veganism as a lifestyle is not the solution. You can be vegan and eat a totally unhealthy diet of vegan processed food, fruit juices, and candy.

[rsstanford]

by participating by eating " food animals" fresh water is at 10% because cows consume 660 gallons of water just one. Sea beds are destroyed because catching fish. If all the fishes and fresh water is gone from this with what happens to us?

[Opinion Owner]

@rsstanford We will be dead by our own self-destruction. That may be a good thing. It may allow life to begin elsewhere. The dinosaurs were wiped out, allowing small mammals to persist. If we were wiped out, then we may allow bacteria to persist and thrive. :)

[Kiwedin]

Veganism isn't about being perfect, it's about doing the best that you can to live a life that minimizes unnecessary harm to animals, the environment, your own health, and to help humanity as a whole. To expect vegans to live in a plastic bubble where they don't eat or touch anything, is completely illogical. Vegans are just trying to suck less, not be perfect.
1) Living in a home, driving a car, going to school, or going to work, are completely necessary in our society. We need these things (maybe not the car) to make a living. You do not NEED to kill animals by eating their body parts and excretions, that's a choice you make.
2) Yes, some farming practices may lead to the deaths of small animals. However, these deaths are not intentional. It is a fact of life that by being alive, means that other things have to die. For example, I stepped on a bug the other day, but I am not any less vegan because of it. Reducing the harm you cause in the world is possible and easy with a vegan lifestyle, taking it away altogether, is impossible without literally killing yourself.
3) Sea animals do feel pain, the only reason people believe otherwise is because some of them don't have vocal chords to express it. Fish feel fear, they swim away from danger, and they have some basic intelligence that is observable and varies from species to species. The only sea creatures that seemingly do not feel pain are bivalves, such as oysters and mussels. However, the science is shaky and there is no proof stating whether they feel pain or not. I'd rather play it safe and avoid them, just in case they do. Either way, modern day commercial fishing is extremely detrimental to our oceans. It's expected that by 2048, there will be no fish left in the ocean, due to commercial fishing and the toxic-run off from factory farms which are killing phytoplankton. If you know anything about ocean ecosystems, you know how dangerous that is.
4) Plants do not feel pain. In order for something to feel pain, they need a central nervous system, nerve endings, and nociceptors. Plants do not have any of these. They have the ability to respond to positive and negative stimuli, but this does not have anything to do with their consciousness or their sentience. There's a reason people take their children strawberry picking, but will not allow them to step foot into a slaughterhouse.

[SinghSong]

4) Actually, yes they do- or at the very least, directly analogous equivalents. ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/.../...lantTZ-Biologia.pdf
And not only that, but new research astonishingly appears to suggest that plants may not only be sentient, but psychic to boot: www.theepochtimes.com/.../ Quite intriguing...

[the_rake]

@Kiwedin

Excellent post. Some people need to learn basic logic.

[Kiwedin]

@SinghSong That's complete pseudoscience, but okay haha. To humour you though, in a world where plants did feel pain and were aware of their own existence, a vegan diet would still cause the least amount of suffering. Vegans consume plants directly, whereas omnivores feed plants to animals, fatten them up, allow them to grow into "slaughtering age", and then consume the animals. Omnivores end up consuming far more plants indirectly than vegans do, so if you genuinely care for the plants, you'd go vegan anyway. Not only that, but animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon rainforest deforestation for the purpose of holding livestock and growing food to feed to livestock and it's the leading cause of habitat destruction soo...

[SinghSong]

But at least we typically kill animals first, as painlessly as possible. As opposed to root vegetables, which are effectively the equivalent of the plants' brains and the processing centres of their neural systems, which we typically tend to cook alive in boiling water in the same manner that we do with lobsters. Isn't that just as inhumane?

[Kiwedin]

@SinghSong LOL they don't have neural systems, that would require having neurons... I can't even hahahah s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...2f077571b3.jpg

[SinghSong]

You didn't read the first link at all, did you? And you don't even know enough about plants to know that cucumbers are fruits, and not root vegetables. Hint hint- if it contains seeds, then it's a fruit. Sigh... Here's a diagram of an actual root vegetable, a carrot, with the relevant anatomy:
images.slideplayer.com/.../slide_25.jpg
And FYI, plant cells are fundamentally different to animal cells. In animal brains, the immobility of neuronal cell bodies necessitates production of numerous elongated processes, axons, which seek out partner cells and thereby organise neuronal synapses in the brain. Plant cells are basically tubular in shape, with rigid cell walls, and they typically contact each other at their end-poles, also known as cross-walls (plant synapses), to form lengthy cell files which compose the basic units of plant tissues. Unlike animal cells, plant cells don't need to extend long processes like axons- such structures would be redundant.

[Kiwedin]

@SinghSong and all of this is so important to you because?

[SinghSong]

Because I make it my business to know what I'm talking about? My debating club had a veganism vs meat-eaters debate almost a year ago, and I conducted extensive research to back up my argument. That's really all there is to it.

[the_rake]

@SinghSong seriously, out of all the arguments against ethical veganism, why pick the 'plants have feelings too' one? It's not something that can be taken seriously. Even if it were true,

[the_rake]

... That wouldn't be justification not to even try and reduce all round suffering of animals. " I stepped on a bug". Big deal. Probably doesn't give me reason to test shampoo on a rabbits eye balls until they get eroded from the back of it's skull. "plants feel pain too". Even if that were true - which it's not, studies have disproven such a hypothesis countless times, you're resulting in a very small sample of studies for - MORE plants get killed feeding them to livestock. So you are contributing MORE to plant suffering than a vegan. Seriously, your argument is beyond retarded.

[SinghSong]

@the_rake Because it was the most fun and enjoyable argument to pick, and all of the counterarguments against it can be picked apart if you know what you're talking about? Mind you, I also used the "you can't eat fungi and be a vegan" and "you can't have any form of sex and still be a vegan" arguments as well; the latter was admittedly a bit crude and vulgar, but it worked very well, and was extremely entertaining. After all, if you were to follow vegan ideals to the letter, then you couldn't possibly have oral sex, since factually you would be consuming animal proteins and by-products. And if you're a female, and you have sex without a condom or if a guy climaxes inside a woman, then her body breaks down the sperm and absorbs it, effectively consuming it in the same manner. So the only way that a female can be a true vegan (and indeed, avoid mild cannibalism) is by remaining celibate. Would that really be worth it?

[the_rake]

@SinghSong so, you are effectively admitting to being a troll? I see...

[SinghSong]

@the_rake I wouldn't say that I am. After all, I only pose arguments which can actually be backed up with scientific fact, which isn't what your typical troll does. And if people can manage to take apart my argument with a good enough counter-argument, I will redact my position and admit it. But I do enjoy challenging debates, and I enjoy winning arguments. Nothing trollish about that, is there?

[the_rake]

@SinghSong you just admitted, you only use arguments that enable you to nitpick like with the vegan one and now with the "you can't suck dick and be vegan". Yes, because dick is a meat product that's been made by killing an animal. And killing single-celled sperm cells that get recycled by the male body anyway is like butchering a cow or a pig.

That's not what I call science

[SinghSong]

@the_rake Oh, now you're just being pedantic. Yes, they may be technicalities, but that doesn't make them any less true. Of course there are different shades; of course it isn't exactly the same. But it still means that these people who do these things technically aren't vegans.

[SinghSong]

Please note, I have absolutely no issue with vegetarianism. But IMHO, veganism's just taking it to an extreme which makes no real sense, purely for ideological reasons. The most that one can possibly be without compromising their physical and mental health is a vegetarian; why go the extra mile and claim that you're morally superior as a vegan when it serves no logical purpose, and when it's all but impossible to actually be one?

[the_rake]

@SinghSong

"Now you're just being pedantic"

Wow you really are trolling. This is coming from the guy who says you can't be a true vegan if you are contributing to pain and suffering in plants and if the human body happens to kill a few sperm cells as part of a natural autonomous bodily function. I think we both know who is trolling.

" there are different shades; of course it isn't exactly the same"

This isn't even about "different shades". Extreme pain and suffering of cows, chickens and pigs versus the destruction of a single-celled organism. If you think this is good reasoning, you really do have know idea about what rational thinking is supposed to look like. You can't just take something to it's most absurd extreme continuation, draw conclusions and call that logic. You have to be consistent, reliable and judge things on a case by case basis. These arguments are extremely fallacious.
...

[the_rake]

...

" compromising their physical and mental health "

It's possible to have a healthy, balanced diet as a vegetarian, vegan or meat eater alike. The real questions are about ethics and environmental impact.

"why go the extra mile and claim that you're morally superior as a vegan when it serves no logical purpose"

because even if you kill a few single-celled organisms, you actually ARE morally superior to somebody that kills the same organisms and more because they're too lazy to try and think rationally.

Appeal to futility fallacy: it's impossible to do something 100% perfectly, so why even bother trying? Why wash the car when there's going to be a few specks of dirt underneath the tire I missed? Might as well let it turn into a rusty old carcass that kids write their names into because nothing can be done perfect. This is the same free market 'logic' libertarians use.

[Kiwedin]

@the_rake lmao You can use those arguments, but they're absolutely ridiculous. They're seriously laughable. You have yet to find a valid argument against veganism.

[the_rake]

@Kiwedin did you mean to direct that comment at the other guy?

[SinghSong]

You failed to refute any of my points. In a civilized debate, the onus is on you to present counter-arguments to my counter-arguments. You failed to do so, resorting to launching personal attacks, and as such, you ceded defeat in accordance with the rules of any debating society. I won the argument. Better luck next time though- you put up a good try.

As for the primary message of your initial answer to this Mytake, all of that's fair enough. You're just trying to suck less, not be perfect. But nonetheless, you can't possibly be a vegan, especially if you're a sexually active female- unless you're willing to swear a vow of celibacy, the most that you ever can be is a vegetarian. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a mere vegetarian, as opposed to a full-blown vegan. And unless you're and the_rake are totalitarians who believe that your veganism gives you moral supremacy, you shouldn't be even the slightest bit affected by this revelation.

[Kiwedin]

@the_rake oop, I meant the other guy.
@SinghSong Yes, and usually I do refute all arguments people make against me, but these ones are just a little too ridiculous. You're arguing that plants feel pain (laughable in the scientific community) and whether it's true or not, veganism would still be the best possible way to reduce suffering of plants and animals alike. Either way, you don't prove anything besides veganism is STILL the way to go.

[the_rake]

@SinghSong

Ad hominem? It's perfectably justifiable to want to know, without reasonable doubt, that the person I am engaging with is not a troll and therefore wasting my time. You yourself admitted that the arguments you used were deliberately designed to irritate myself and @Kiwedin and that you used them because it was fun to watch us respond after you were able to nitpick our arguments. Only a troll would argue that sexual interaction is not vegan because of the exchange of animalistic body parts. Ad hominem is not fallacious in this context: it is only fallacious when used to argue that the personal circumstances of an author disprove the logic of his argument. The "logic" behind your arguments already disproved itself, there is no need for myself or Kiwedin to provide further reasoning, but we did so anyway which you have proceeded to ignore (presumably because you have nothing else rational you are able to contribute). Effectively, you are the one conceding defeat.

[SinghSong]

How much do you know about the scientific community, beyond the school textbooks you read when you took the subjects at high school? Because I know an awful lot about cutting edge science. And in the scientific community, it isn't laughable at all- it's nearly universally acknowledged as scientific fact (with the exception of the "plants are psychic and can read your thoughts from the other side of the globe" guy, who is seen as a bit of a nutjob). There are several institutions on the list for that first scientific journal piece which I cited, and all of them are acclaimed universities which specialize in the field of biological sciences. The least you could do is read it.

[SinghSong]

And by the way, I'm not disputing that a vegetarian diet is still the most ethical diet to follow. But when it comes the best conceivable way which one could hypothetically go, to reduce the suffering of plants and animals alike- what about producing synthetic foods, or genetically modifying ourselves so that we no longer need to eat? Oriental hornets can photosynthesize using xanthopterin, a yellow pigment which our bodies also synthesize naturally (albeit primarily in our urine)- if you could be genetically modified to have yellow-pigmented skin, and gain most of your required caloric intake directly through photosynthesis in the same manner that Oriental Hornets do, would you?

[SinghSong]

@the_rake But oral sex isn't vegan, because it involves the consumption of, as you two put it, "excreted animal matter"; semen would have to be classified as an edible animal product, in the same category as eggs and milk, and as such, by choosing to have oral sex and eating it directly, one could no longer claim to be any more of a vegan than someone else who elected to drink milk and/or eat eggs. This isn't a trollish argument- it's basic common sense.

[the_rake]

@SinghSong
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/51279093.jpg

media1.fdncms.com/.../...ry_bro_ba91c2_3376394.jpg

[MapleFairy]

There are human issues related to the consumption of meat and dairy, such as the amounts of lost vegetable/grain acres, lost water, and manure ending up in freshwater rivers which negatively impact local tourist attractions and vacation spots. Therefore, being vegan for the cause of relieving the suffering of animals is often not the end-all-be-all of reasons for turning vegan or vegetarian.
For those who do choose to be vegan for the sole reason of relieving animal suffering, it is done with the intent of relieving as much pain as possible while within the economical means available. For example, i am a vegetarian living in the suburbs and consuming grain because economically that is the best option for me. If i had enough money to move to a green village, i would. And i have searched for ones in my area, and dream about doing such a thing quite often. You make a very good point about grains, which is something i had not considered before. I am sure that many vegans and vegetarians do not have access to all information, and therefore choose the kindest options available based on not only economics, but also what knowledge they have acquired so far. Crustaceans do feel pain, whether the scientists have figured out that they do or not- and thus, this is why "V"s choose to ommit them from the dinner table as well. Finally, many vegans and vegetarians are aware that plants do feel pain and happiness. The reason why no vegan will stop eating plants is because there is no way to live without eating plants. Plants are essential to our health and wellbeing, and until the day that i too can feed on minerals, water, and sunlight- plants i will be eating. Some will argue that if we can't get away from eating something that feels pain, then why not eat meat? The point of being vegan, vegetarian, is to limit and reduce suffering of sentient beings and not to get rid of suffering altogether, since such an act is so far impossible. Choosing a compassionate way to eat that limits suffering on sentient beings, is not picking and choosing morals- it is upholding the very morals we believe in.

[Tealtop1]

Good argument. I counter that with asking this. If you eat meat from a free range farm with no corn/hormone/antibiotics and it's killed quickly and humanely why is that wrong? Yes, you're inflicting pain for a short period of time but b/c of the same industry that killed that cow/pig/chicken, that animal was born and had a joyful life up until that last moment. All life involves suffering and that same life will end in suffering in one way or another (unless they die in their sleep). Is it morally unjust to push that end date up a bit and to kill the quickly and humanely rather then them slowly dying or being killed by another animal?

(example: a deer being killed with 1 shot by a hunter vs a deer being ripped open alive and it's organs being snacked on by a grizzly bear)

[vishna]

" That being said, most of these people still live in apartments, in cities, go to school/work in buildings that were only created once acres upon acres of animal habitat was mowed down." Choosing a zucchini over a steak is easier than building a tree house and living in the forest. Ok, so, I want to get an education-should I not go to campus? Not get an education because 190 years ago people I didn't know, tore down forest. Why do you live in your house if you care?

"It's safe to say all V's eat grains like rice and the such but do most know that the machines used during harvest kill 52-77% of the small rodents and animals living in those fields?" thank you, now I have another food to feel shitty over. I've thought of the baby animals in the nests that get killed when harvest happens. And it's terrible. But there's a chance for the mice to live if they are able to run away. And I think a life in the wild rice field is better than life in a gestation crate.

"I don't want to eat ANY animal. I don't want it to die for my meal when I can go without. Especially one that's been boiled alive. That's not a nice way to go.
Plants are not anywhere near as complicated as lobsters and other shellfish.

" that V's only care about life if it has a face and big innocent eyes." what the hell about a lobster or crab is cute? Yea, some people might call them cute-but really? I think 99% of vegans would say a puppy is cuter than a crab.

You're shitting on vegans and vegetarians, people who are trying to make changes within their own lives to better the quality of life of other beings. Do you care about the slave shrimp you eat, the slave clothing, anything like that?

We all have to compromise. But vegetarians and vegans are at least doing something about their convictions.

"as long as the animal is raised and killed ethically I see no problem with eating animals." Where do you buy your meat? How much do you pay for it? I can pretty guarantee any meat you buy in the store did not have a quality life and was killed in a crowded slaughterhouse that stuck of shit, organs, blood, and fear. Have you ever seen an animal get slaughtered? They can hear the sounds and smell the blood. Have you ever been inside a CAFO, a lot with 50,000 chickens in a house? A battery house? A room with sows in their gestation crates? None of that looks like an ok life. It looks pretty shitty.

the_rake did a wonderful job of explaining.

[Ratiocinative]

Studies show children raised vegetarian have smaller brain mass and volume.

Vegans, who dont even drink milk or eat eggs, average 10pts lower in IQ.

Study of 3088 breast cancer survivors over 10 years showed that eating 8-10 servings of vegetables a day showed no reduction in mortality or reoccurance rates.

An ongoing study since 1993 involving 520,000 people in 10 European countries found that vegetable consumption offered no health benefits over consumption of fresh meat (ie, not cooked in a factory before you buy it), but processed meat did show increased risk for cancer and heart disease (which I doubt anyone on either side finds surprising).

Man's digestive tract is 5x body length, stomach holds.5 gal.

Dog digestive tract is 7x body length, stomach hold.4 gal.

Sheep digestive tract is 27x body length, stomach holds 8-10 gal.

Cow digestive tract is 20x body length, stomach holds 50-60 gal.

I could go on and on with more proof humans are primarily meat eaters, but the above will suffice. Humans are healthiest on a diet of mostly or entirely fresh meat (though I'll admit that topping a steak with some peppers and onions makes it a lot tastier).

[Levin]

A diet mostly of fresh meat? Seems outlandish. Also, our teeth aren't carnivorous like well, carnivores. The most overt flesh eating teeth we have are canines 4/32 = 1/8. They look vestigial more than anything. The fact is, you could probably find credible statistics to justify any philosophy (which this seems to be, in the case of either side of the debate). No one is really being sensible about this, they're just cherry picking statistics to suit which ever preconception and philosophy they want to adhere to. What we can say though, is that it's best to avoid the extremes.

[Ratiocinative]

@Levin And who gets to decide what is an "extreme" diet lol? Just another logical fallacy, just like a "balanced" diet or eating a "variety" of foods. All just emotional terms with no scientific definition.

Not saying if you don't eat a big steak everyday you're gonna end up cripple and bed ridden by age 50, but all this garbage about multivitamins and superfoods and eating mass quantities of vegetables to become healthy has no basis in science. Just a marketing scam.

I'm a weighter and I bench 345 @ 170. Deadlift 480. Not a world record or anything, but more than 99.9% of guys my weight will ever lift. Do I take vitamins? Nope. Supplements? Nope. Protein powder? Nope.

[Ratiocinative]

I just eat steak and eggs and beer. Different sauves and marinades and some peppers and onions to spice it up, but thsts about it.

All this extra junk is nothing but a marketing scam. Everyone should do themselves a favor and just eat real food. They save money and be healthiet.

[Anonymous]

1. So according to this logic, we should not bother preventing murder, because people are going to murder anyways? We should go to more war, because wars are going to happen anyways? We should exploit more people in third world countries to make cheap products, because it's going to happen anyways?

Yes, vegans do still kill, but most of it is unintentional. It's hard to farm vegetables and avoid killing some mice, but mice aren't directly being killed. It's hard to drive a car and not kill insects, but insects are not intentionally being killed.
When a person eats an animal, they internationally kill it. Veganism is about reducing as much suffering as practically possible.
https://i.imgur.com/TuYnOQK.png

2. Veganism is about minimizing suffering. It kills more plants to feed animals, so eating plants directly kills less plants AND animals.

Plants may have "feelings" but they are not sentient. Nobody in their right mind would say that kicking a potato is as bad as kicking a dog.
But let's pretend they are sentient. Do 2 wrongs make a right? Does eating plants make it ok to eat animals? If someone where to rob a store, would that make it ok for someone else to steal a car?

And suggesting that it's ok to eat animals because "Plants have feelings too.", makes as much sense as suggesting that the Chinese eat people because "Dogs have feelings too."

If you go work 30 minutes in a slaughterhouse, I will go work 30 minutes picking strawberries and then we can sit down and discuss what we did.

https://i.imgur.com/SLj6WBc.png

[Tealtop1]

I never once said not to be a vegan. Just trying to open the eyes of hypocrites who believe they're free of all blame and guilt.

[crazy_eyes]

Wow, so much hate for vegans and vegetarians. Just let people eat whatever they want. I understand that some vegans can be obnoxious when trying to force their beliefs on someone else, but then again, so is any other person who's a bigot.
Not every person is the same, so not every vegan is the same.
And, yes, I'm a vegan.

[Tealtop1]

I agree, people waste too much time worrying what others are eating/doing/livings. Just be yourself and be happy

[Schrodingerscat]

Well I am vegetarian since birth, due to religious reasons. I seldom eat nonvegetarian food in really tiny amounts. The reason I prefer vegetarian food, is for two reasons-
1. It's something to which I'm more accustomed to.
2. The smell. Meat, eggs have peculiar smell which I don't like. So much so that eggs are kept in separate compartment in our refrigerator, away from other food items.
I find that the whole vegetarian vs meat eaters thing is futile and not worth our energy. It's just a food choice! I don't get why people make a huge deal out of it. Come on, there are people who die of hunger and here we are, discussing which food choice is better than the other
#firstworldproblemsmuch

[dogbert444]

On point 1, I think this includes 99.9% of the population, unless you live in a cave. Even then, you probably use implements made of wood. Also, I have no bad feelings against meat eaters. They simply have a different way of living.

On point 2, almost everyone in the world eats vegetables grown intensively. That's what farming is.

On point 3, and in general, we all have to eat. It doesn't matter what it is, we all need something. I prefer to go along the scale of preserving life as far as I practically can. That's why I'm veggie. Some creatures are pure herbivor, but so many others are carnivor. It's survival, and the food chain.

Your last picture is completely wrong. It should read:

Mankind and herbivor creatures: Mass murderers of 10's of thousands of innocent fruit and vegetables.

[oddwaffle]

Do not discuss luxury goods with privileged people. They have all sorts of reasons to enforce the thing even if it's diamonds.

Moral is a luxury goods. That means people want more of it when they have enough on all of the necessities as well as quality of life. You don't see 3rd world countries wanting anything to do with these vegans other than for religious purposes.

[Tealtop1]

Thats an amazing point! People (especially in our now overly sensitive radical liberal society) seem to be trying to collect morality like they're medals or something

[TheDevilInside]

Most of them are just dumbasses who have nothing going on in their lives so they create that entire "holier than thou" Drama. Fucking first world Problem. You don't See as much of them in third world countries cause in third word countries, you already have enough problems so you don't need to create an extra one just to be able to feel better than others.

[Tealtop1]

That's a great point, it's very first world that you're biggest worry is if someone is eating a burger.

[Josht13]

WTF does the first point even mean, sorry I can't go back in the past and stop shit wow.

I never got the plant argument I mean isn't it better to at least do a bit rather than absolutely nothing also plants don't feel pain and are not sentient
veganrabbit.com/.../

Fish don't feel pain the way humans do but they have various nerves and the ability to recognize pain and can at the very least feel it on a neurological level. Even if they couldn't feel pain the point is that they are a very sentient being with nerves and cognitive ability.

[The_flying_Frenchman]

It's ridiculous to treat the world as though all of nature can live in harmony. We organisms constantly consume each other and it is an unavoidable fact. What people are calling veganism these days I call radical Jainism. To satisfy some deluded sense of ethics, they would stand in a bog with outstretched arms if you told them the mosquitos were starving😒

[Tealtop1]

lmao love the mosquito analogy! And I agree, it's not only radical but insane to ever believe that we can live in full harmony or abolish suffering from the world. It's the circle of life and everything dies and feed off of one another, if anything it's beautiful and something we all share

(except factory farming, fuck that lol)

[Anpu23]

I am vegetarian, not vegan. And my reasons are more then just the ethical aspects, yes they do play a small part of my reasons but just a small part. The other reasons is that vegetarians have a tendency to be faster, recover from fatigue more quickly, and are less likely to get certain kinds of cancers. Also they have a tendency to live longer, and have a better quality of life in their older years.
There is a religious aspect as well, if you believe that taking into your body the pain and suffering from your meals, it deters you from eating meat.
Also there is the social/political aspects. It takes up to 9 pounds of grain to raise one pound of meat, the meat industry is one of the biggest producers of methane gass, and is one of the biggest users of water in the world. Meat is bred to meet consumption so this is hardly the natural state.
There is also a spiritual aspect as well, involving vibrational energy
And lastly it makes me feel good about myself.

[DiegoO]

I would like to see a vegan been vegan in the wild. The only concept of been vegan is BS, our bodies need meat also, however I do agree that the way many farms kill animals should be changed. Animals shouldn't be seen as a product, they are living being also and I believe that the way we kill them will have an impact in the quality of their meat that might affect us negatively or positively.

[Tealtop1]

100% agree. Factory farming is horrendous

[Relentless_Hippie]

If you're a vegan or vegetarian for health purposes then good for you.

If you're a vegan or vegetarian for "ethical" reasons I don't think anybody should take them seriously. They care more about the suffering and death of animals than the suffering and death of human children.

[KittieCat]

I feel like this is saying "omg vegans and vegitarians aren't perfect"
Annoying or not, Vs are doing a lot for the environment. Cutting down on deforestation and water consumption among other things. I would go vegan for these reasons (I don't mind killing for meat) but unfortunately I can't. Why don't we just say good on you for helping the environment? If they aren't in your face just leave them alone lol

[Tealtop1]

But you can just as easily help the environment and not be a vegan/vegetarian. You don't need one to be the other

[Anonymous]

Yep plants suffer as much as animals.

Its a sad fact of life that we, by merely existing, are polluting the environment and need to kill other life forms (either plants or animals) to feed from them, so as to sustain ourselves. We *need* to screw over other living beings to sustain ourselves.

As for vegetarian, and especially, vegan diet: I'm no nutritionist but I'm real sure those diets are severely protein-defficient. From my (limited, admitedly) knowledge, the only *decent* vegetal source of protein is soy.

[xobrowneyedbeauty]

have you heard of nuts, beans, and legumes? not to mention there are many vegetables that have protein such as broccoli. if you were to eat the same amount of calories in broccoli as in steak, the broccoli would provide more protein.

[Opinion Owner]

@xobrowneyedbeauty

Nuts and vegetables are a bad source of protein. The protein in those, doesn't have all the amino-acids the body requires: www.hsph.harvard.edu/.../

Legumes do seem to be a better source of protein, but still, they are said to posess anti-nutrients as well: authoritynutrition.com/legumes-good-or-bad/

(I love nuts, by the way, but it is their (good) fat content and fiber what makes them healthy)

[xobrowneyedbeauty]

well of course you'll be deficient in certain nutrients if you eat too much of the same thing. legumes should not be in every meal and multiple types of fruits and vegetables need to be eaten in order to get all the necessary amino acids. it's the same with eating meat - if you just eat chicken breasts all the time your protein intake will be too high and you're going to be missing a lot of other nutrients. the only nutrient vegans truly struggle with getting (vegans who eat a healthy diet that is) is vitamin b12.

[Tealtop1]

@xobrowneyedbeauty The argument is not eating vegetarian vs ONLY eating meat. If your diet is mostly veggies/fruits/beans/grains and a bit of meat, you're giving your body everything it needs to function properly. The same can't be said for a vegan/veg diet.

[xobrowneyedbeauty]

i was referring to his argument about not getting enough protein from vegetarian sources. if you only eat one type of vegetable for protein you don't get all the amino acids you need but you do if you get your protein from a variety of sources. like i said, the only thing vegans may be deficient in is b12 (which is not the case for vegetarians).

[JohnDoe3000]

I'm not a vegan but these arguments are crap: you're basically saying that if you can't be perfect you might as well go full assh*le on the world... that there's no point in trying to do even a little bit of good...

[Tealtop1]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying we need to look at both sides and not act as if one side is full of monsters and the other is full of saints.

[anonman32]

veganism's argument to end animal suffering comes from Buddhism that seeks to end all suffering. but do you ever see Buddhists on youtube channels tell people who eat meat that they are terrible murderers? no, they dont want to impose their ideology on other people.

[Schrodingerscat]

Amen!

[the_rake]

Humans have not evolved NOT to impose their ideology on each other.

For example, the principle that we should not rob, rape or murder other humans is a part of an IDEOLOGY. If we did not impose that on people, they would rob, rape and murder each other: civilisation would not get very far and humans would not have evolved as a species.

People who have actually considered their ethics and have more conscientious ways of thinking consider that animals deserve at least some of the same compassion that we give to other humans on the basis that both species can feel pain. No, we will never treat animals with the exact same fairness because that would be impossible. However, we can evolve our collective moral consciousness as a species and treat animals a lot better than we do currently.

As for "buddhists never imposes their ideology", I think you don't understand very much about the history, theory or spirituality behind buddhism but that's another discussion altogether.

[anonman32]

"we can evolve our collective moral consciousness as a species and treat animals a lot better than we do currently" i refuse. now what? your master plan for the entire species fails because i dont want to join your silly impractical fantasy of compassion. human beings will always distinct themselves from one another because herd mentality can cause entire species to go extinct if that becomes too extreme. i am OK with eating and killing animals because i will repay the price for their suffering with my own life sooner or later. i will feast upon the meat that ends up on my plate as sooner or later animals will feast upon mine when i die.

[the_rake]

"your master plan for the entire species fails because i dont want to join your silly impractical fantasy of compassion."

laws tend to change as people's perceptions about morality change.

"human beings will always distinct themselves from one another because herd mentality can cause entire species to go extinct if that becomes too extreme."

smart human beings tend to distinguish the beliefs that everybody holds for good reason versus the beliefs that everybody holds that are destructive. it's not a question of going with or against the herd: it's a question of being rational, empathetic and a better, smarter, overall human being.

"i am OK with eating and killing animals because i will repay the price for their suffering with my own life sooner or later."

natural death isn't exactly comparable to actually taking someone or something's life by force.

...

[the_rake]

...

"i will feast upon the meat that ends up on my plate as sooner or later animals will feast upon mine when i die."

killing animals for your own satisfaction (meat) versus making sure the produce of an organism that has already died does not go to waste (nature). you're going to have to explain to me how the latter is justice for the former, and what the animals that have already been killed for your pleasure have to do with your death that has not even happened yet.

[anonman32]

@the_rake you know that there are activists against making smoking illegal because it goes against their freedom of expression. if cigarettes which kill humans are not going to become illegal because of it goes against freedom of expression then meat, fish and chicken will never become illegal no matter how much animals suffer because it goes against my culinary freedom. and if it were illegal i can just buy a rifle and go kill deer in my backyard and the woods around it. no i take that back, if eating meat becomes illegal than i going to cannibalize vegans because they are so healthy right? they must make some good pork chops.

[anonman32]

@the_rake bruh you live in a city i assume? that place once was a habitat for many animals and now that you live there these animals have permanently lost their habitat because you want to live there. do you have wooden furniture? congratulations you are responsible for the destruction of the habitat of many animals that lived in the woods where the trees were cut. your vegan ideology is shit.

[the_rake]

"you know that there are activists against making smoking illegal because it goes against their freedom of expression."

well, hang on. we're talking about a lot of different laws and differences in ideological spectrum here. for example, a man smoking in his own room, in his own house with nobody around is probably only affecting his own health and maybe an extremely negligible impact on the environment which might lead to a 0.5% increase (don't quote me) in cancer rates if everyone's doing it. contrast this with a man that has a very small child next to him in a car stuck in traffic on the motorway with no open windows or ventillation and the man decides to light up a cigarette everyday on his child's journey to school. this is going to have a very direct impact on the kid.

similarly, there is a SPECTRUM of animal rights. this ranges from "oh no, don't kill the innocent little insects" to "actually, do you know what? we don't need to kill animals in such an inhumane manner" ...

[anonman32]

@the_rake what is inhumane according to you? all the farms where i went including the family farm did never kill animals in an inhumane way. my moms aunt hanged chickens by their legs so most of the blood would run out of their bodies before slaughtering them this process took 12 hours. thats the most inhumane think i have heard in the family.

[the_rake]

...

like I said, although there might be a SPECTRUM to people's ideological beliefs (because nobody can rigidly to conform to every belief or principle they have 100% of the time - THAT'S buddhism by the way), this doesn't mean we can't try to do things the right way, and it doesn't mean people are going to have ideological beliefs and not impose them. because that's wrong: people have ideological beliefs and they impose them all the time - LAWS.

"if cigarettes which kill humans are not going to become illegal"

actually, in UK, we had a compromise. this was a ban on public smoking. you can still smoke in private.

"meat, fish and chicken will never become illegal no matter how much animals suffer"

it's true that legislation regarding animal rights will probably not be reformed for a long time. but that's because of the lack of education we have in our society, nothing to do with some inherent right for you to stuff your guts with your favourite food.

[anonman32]

@the_rake what if i grow my own animals and eat them? the law can't stop me from doing that.

[the_rake]

"culinary freedom"

it's often said that one man's liberties begin where another's end. this is true at least in the case of "freedom to" as opposed to "freedom from". in the case of "culinary freedom", we can probably agree that "freedom from murder" is more important than "freedom to stuff one's guts" - at least when we see it in terms of one human killing another human. but when animals are involved, everything magically becomes different because... "fuck ethics bro, I want some tasty pork chops!"

"animals have permanently lost their habitat because you want to live there"

necessary suffering versus unnecessary suffering. killing animals "necessarily" would be e. g. if I need somewhere to live so I don't die. killing animals "unnecessarily" would be e. g. if I wanted to stuff my guts with some tasty pork chops.

[anonman32]

@the_rake if they are gonna force me to become a vegan then i become a terrorist. its that fucking simple. lets see what you care more about, animals or your family and friends that potentially be roasted by my bombs.

[the_rake]

"all the farms where i went including the family farm did never kill animals in an inhumane way."

you have to understand that the COMMERCIAL meat industry does not care about killing animals in a humane manner. they are just killing animals in the dirtiest, cheapest manner to meat the ginormous demand for meat in the market and make profit in the coldest, most calculating and expedient manner possible. that's why so many animals are rammed into small spaces and put through machines that slaughter them. you think we live in a culture of free-range organic farming? even so-called free-range practices are usually using loopholes in the definition of free-range - e. g. google controversy surrounding happy eggs. we just don't have enough land or pasture to meet the market demand for meet AND be free-range. if more people went vegan/vegetarian or just cut down on meat consumption, it would be a different story.

[anonman32]

@the_rake what about pesticides they harm animals. you eat commercial vegetables so you are responsible for harming animals.

[the_rake]

"the law can't stop me from doing that."

the law - determined by governments, given legitimacy to by the public - can stop you from doing whatever it pleases. you need to understand that this is not a moral argument. morality is the rationale behind law making for sure, but there are lots of laws that many people (myself included) would consider "unethical". but that's not the point. if there's humans, there will be laws, and if there are laws, human behaviour will always be restricted. that's just culture.

[anonman32]

@the_rake in my country muslims kill sheep in their bathroom every whatever holiday they have and they let all the blood flow in the bath, all down the drain. the sheep has to be killed according to religious rules so they slice its throat and let id bleed empty. nobody fucking cares about this inhumane treatment. do you think thats normal man? because i dont. that is illegal and not even the law can prevent these people from doing that to these sheep, so why would they be able to stop me from growing and eating my own animals?

[the_rake]

"if they are gonna force me to become a vegan then i become a terrorist."

terrorism is often used as an intimidation tactic against a whole host of laws. historically, there has been ISIS, propaganda of the deed, Guy Falkes and his gunpowder ploys and way too many other examples to even count. but terrorism is also ineffective. know why? that's because people know there will always be terrorists against laws they make. for every law that some terrorist disagrees with, there will be another law that some other terrorist feels even MORE vehemently against. if people live their lives in fear of terrorists, then terrorists have effectively won. so what do people do? the only thing they can do which is to ignore terrorists and do what they want anyway.

[the_rake]

"what about pesticides they harm animals. you eat commercial vegetables so you are responsible for harming animals."

again, we're talking about necessary versus unnecessary suffering. we've got to eat SOMETHING, so yes, vegans are probably going to eat vegetables and contribute in some indirect manner to the death of smaller animal species. but that's missing the whole point: VEGANISM IS NOT ABOUT BEING PERFECT. It's about making the best of the IMPERFECT solutions to animal cruelty you do have. And we can probably agree that a lot LESS animals die when we harvest crops than the ones that die specifically because we are killing livestock for meat and dairy. Vegans are doing the very best they can in light of a really sucky situation/ethical dilemna. Meat eaters, just see the ethical dilemna and think, well we're always going to do SOME tiny thing wrong, so why not go full hog, and do everything ten times as wrong so that we don't have to THINK about ethics and we can stuff our guts.

[anonman32]

@the_rake this is why vegans annoy me.

[the_rake]

"do you think thats normal man? "

if you think I'm would ever justify animal cruelty because somebody has religious convictions about killing animals in a certain way, then you can damn well bet that I do not. seriously, fuck halal and fuck religion too.

"not even the law can prevent these people from doing that to these sheep"

that's because there are no laws in place, because people don't believe there should be. if more people believed there should be, there would be more pressure on governments to put laws like that in place and if such a law was made, then yes: it would be much more difficult to produce halal meat.

"so why would they be able to stop me from growing and eating my own animals?"

I don't actually have that much of a problem with organic/free-range. I'm not saying it's RIGHT. I just don't think that's where the activists need to turn their anger, nor do I think that would be constructive. The problem, as I've said, is COMMERCIAL meat production.

I am not vegan.

[anonman32]

@the_rake in Belgium there is a law in place that says that you can fucking kill sheep in your bathtub because it fucks with the water company.

[the_rake]

I don't know what points you're replying to anymore

"this is why vegans annoy me"

why? because they know that it's impossible to be 100% perfect, but try to minimise animal suffering anyway? because they eat vegetables? or is it because I pointed out that terrorism is ineffective?

"in Belgium there is a law in place that says that you can fucking kill sheep in your bathtub because it fucks with the water company."

I don't get what the relevancy of that is. Just because there's a law in place does not mean that I automatically agree with it.

[anonman32]

@the_rake the law thing i said because Muslims can illegally kill sheep in their bathroom and there are laws against this you have to go to a slaughterhouse, but the law can't stop them from doing that. also you have no idea how terrorism works. go ahead and ignore terrorism when your family is blown to pieces. i know you are trolling me on purpose and its not even funny.

[the_rake]

if terrorism worked, then US and UK would have pulled out middle east years ago. if it's my family that get's blown apart, I don't think the government are going to give a shit, and I don't think they're going to change policy because of that. in fact, if you take away my family, I don't have much to live for, except killing the motherfuckers that did it, so you're probably not going to sway me either. I really don't get your point about sheep, baths and slaughterhouses. the point is not to justify every ridiculous law in existence, the point is that you can't talk about a society where people don't try to impose their morals on others and therefore you can't say vegans are wrong for wanting to force other people to act ethically.

[Blonde401]

I'm sorry but on the front page, that chicken looked like a foot and it freaked me out 😂 I can now see it's a chicken. But yeah vegans and veggies are hypocrites.