If you want to debate the reasons for or against vegetarianism, discuss that here. Otherwise let's stick to the topic.

Why did you stop eating animals?

Views: 616

Replies to This Discussion

Seems there's a limit to the reply depth, so I guess I'll reply to your messages below as a reply to myself.

If you think that dairy and egg production are void of murder you are factually incorrect. What do you think happens to a hen when it becomes a non efficient layer or a non layer. It is then promptly executed and fed to the pet industry in most instances or low quality food products if regulations permit.[...]

As for the bovine lactate industry, the cows are murdered after they are no longer efficient producers and the bobby calves are sent off for veal. This is clearly murder and also very cruel to the mother of the calf.

I think we have a difference in definition of "industry."  I don't consider every ancillary effect of one industry to be part of that same industry.  It's not the dairies or the rookeries doing these things.  It's simply the connections and cooperative agreements that cross boundaries between industries.  I mean, if a car is sold to a junkyard as a result of it being no longer useful, does that make the manufacturer of the vehicle a participant in the scrap metal industry?  They are functional in the flow of these markets, but that's not the same thing at all as saying that eggs = dog food.  Egg production and what happens when eggs aren't produced are hardly the same thing.

Moreover, I have to ask...  at least in the case of useless hens being sold for meat to be used in pet food...  why is that bad?  The pets that eat it absolutely require it far more seriously than we do.  Would you prefer that our house cats suffer so that old hens aren't killed?  That could spell the end of the Internet (no more lolcats!  ;-)!!!!!!

You're colluding things together on account of industries working together.  Moreover, I've brought up countless cases and ways in which none of this has to be the case...  but you have not on even isolated incidence paid any mind to that.  I mentioned India because that's one place where there is no beef or veal industry AT ALL...  sure enough, there are no veal calves.  And before you pretend this is not a big deal, let me remind you that the population of the subcontinent alone consumes nearly as much dairy as all other nations in the world combined.  Are these people morally complicit just because other dairies in other parts of the world slaughter veal calves? 

Also where is this argument for say...  goat's milk or sheep's milk?  The main reason it's not as serious for them is because they're smaller markets that deal in smaller volume per farm, so it's generally in their own best interest to see their animals thrive because they're working on smaller economies of scale (and thus it's more expensive not to worry about the welfare of their livestock).  Beef, veal, and chicken are huge industries that have fed excessive appetites and that's why the dark price of large-scale efficiency has come into notice.

Moreover, would you be able to make arguments like that for say, honey production?  There, you not only have people who benefit when their bees thrive, but it's actually all but essential to the survival of their business.

However I do not use evolution as a justification for Veganism, Well only in the sense of ethical evolution.

Again, I have to ask...  by what mechanism have you determined in such absolute terms as you present that ethical evolution is not in any way applicable to the meat industry?  That there could never be any form of ethical development on that end?  That there could never be any movements or regulations of any kind to raise the ethical standards of the industry?

As a side effect most people can expect better lifespans if forced to eat Vegan than the choices they would otherwise make.

Again, most all clinical studies would universally refute this.  There is a definitive advantage of veganism over excessive meat consumption (like that seen in America) and especially over consumption of very high-fat meat sources.  If you're comparing tofu and tempeh to bacon and brie, then of course there's an advantage.  However, nearly all clinical studies show a small disadvantage for vegans relative to lacto-ovo-vegetarians and non-vegetarians who tend to veer more in the direction of fish/seafood and leaner meats like wild game (and more importantly, maintain a well-balanced diet rather than eating meat in excess).  Those studies that don't show a disadvantage show no advantage, either...  which largely suggests that the argument specifically for veganism on the basis of health as compared to say piscatarianism is weak at best.

I would also mention that the huge percentage of lactose intolerance in african americans does little to bolster the claim of any bovine dependency in recent history anyway.

I'm puzzled...  why would African-Americans be the focus here?  Again, lactose intolerance is actually the normal condition for all adult mammals.  Our evolutionary history as mammals implied us naturally losing the ability to process lactose after a certain developmental stage.  The development of lactose tolerance and the ability to process lactose all the way through your adult lifespan did indeed happen relatively recently, and unsurprisingly, it happened in regions of the world where dairy consumption is very high.

The earliest cultures to see this, AFAIK, actually were Neolithic hunter-gatherer tribes in Eastern Europe, and that is still the area to this day which has the lowest rate of lactose intolerance.  The Indian subcontinent originally probably domesticated and consumed the milk of water buffalos, and cows probably came later with the Aryan invasion.  The main reason for dairy consumption being very high there is because arable land was harder to come by, so it was economically more feasible for the majority of the population to be vegetarian.  And back then, your only complete protein source would have been dairy.  That's also why the cow became sacred in Hinduism.  It was a mighty beast of burden...  it's milk was used in countless products which bolstered the health and lifespans of the populace... their dung was a very useful and slow-burning fuel...  ultimately, they just swapped out the word "useful" for the word "sacred."

I have my problems with that, of course, as an anti-theist, but that's a separate matter.

When I say 12 dollars for 3 vials that is unsubsidised as well. So what the hell is going on with your pharmaceuticals over there?

Yeesh...  that's quite the Pandora's box there.

The short version of it is that all the politicians are bought by lobbyists to put laws into effect that limit selections available, and ensure that we're not allowed to get things even across state lines.  However, this has also caused the cost of a lot of things to rise greatly.  Many pharmaceuticals also paid to get these regulations in place in order to help protect their patent rights for drugs, as the time cycle of clinical trials can often be so long that their patents expire and they fail to make any money off of them before foreign pharmaceuticals can sell you cheaper versions of the same drugs (which they can do because they didn't have to spend the money on the R&D).  Unfortunately, this has yielded a lot of related problems, and it also means that a lot of companies are more rushed to get their products out onto the market and simply get by by notifying of dozens more potential side effects which haven't even been verified as statistically significant.  That has in turn made the legal liability and malpractice insurance of doctors more expensive, which in turn has made medical care more expensive, which in turn has produced more opportunities for insurance companies to change the restrictions on health care coverage...  and it's been a vicious cycle of rising costs.

I buy about  13 dollars for 100 b12 sublingual 1mg b12 tabs by thompsons (and would gladly purchase any of these things on your behalf if that ever helps)

Yeah.  Tablets are cheap here, too.  I'd pay about $10 for the same 100 tablets.  The funny thing is that vitamin tablets (because they're not sold as "medicine") fall under fewer regulations, and most of them are regulated by the USDA rather than the FDA.  However, when they're injections, now you have something which requires controlled distribution of vials and syringes, all of which must be properly sterilized and sealed, and ensured as disposable, and the disposing of them is also controlled, so the prices go way up.

Either way, it's also not legal to get any of them from foreign countries unless through a sanctioned and registered importer.  Though if you do buy me something of that sort and send it here, we can both get free health care for a good 20 years... in prison.

There's actually a relatively famous story that happened recently where a man couldn't afford some life-saving procedures he needed, so he got the government to pay for it by robbing a bank...  of $1.  Thus, he gets arrested, pleads guilty, thrown in jail for a relatively short sentence...  and then as a prisoner, the state was required to administer the medical care he needed.

I would also mention that the huge percentage of lactose intolerance in african americans does little to bolster the claim of any bovine dependency in recent history anyway.

I'm puzzled...  why would African-Americans be the focus here?  Again, lactose intolerance is actually the normal condition for all adult mammals.  Our evolutionary history as mammals implied us naturally losing the ability to process lactose after a certain developmental stage.  The development of lactose tolerance and the ability to process lactose all the way through your adult lifespan did indeed happen relatively recently, and unsurprisingly, it happened in regions of the world where dairy consumption is very high.

 I mention it because they are one of the ethnic groups with one of the highest percentage of lactose intolerance. But as you agree that lactose intolerance is far from uncommon, the point is now redundant. It is on this Basis that I would claim the entire dairy industry is a luxury not a nutritional staple. Therefore Why not eradicate such an obviously exploitative practice and not have our bovine friends suffer needlessly.

The point is that you can not produce milk without keeping the cow pregnant, hence even if every one was vegetarian you would still be creating bobby calves that would be slaughtered. If you are vegetarian for ethical reasons then you are diluded to not become vegan on this basis. The same applies for the egg industry, As for cats, people should not own pets if a non cruel way of feeding them is not found, My rats are Vegan. I think you have not looked very var into the side effects of being veg over Vegan. I was the same as you for a long time, I found in the end through direct evidence that I was just seeing things the way I wanted to see them because I liked cheese. There is no need for eggs and dairy, If anything they are more baseless than the meat industry. 

  I would consider that as first world people we should make the sacrifice of becoming vegan as a role model to the second and third world. They may struggle to be able to achieve a Vegan life as easily as we can, but that is only more reason for us to make the sacrifice. As we gain greater ability we should use it for good not war, We have the ability to be Vegan in the first world and we should use that ability. I give blood quarterly for the same reason, And to prove to my family that not only is my diet nutritious enough to support myself but it saves the lives of tens of other people each year.

PS have you seen "meat the truth"...I recommend it. It is on my page

The point is that you can not produce milk without keeping the cow pregnant

Actually, that's not true at all.  You can actually get milk from a cow so long as the cow has produced at least 1 calf, and then chemically maintain its hormone levels.  I know there are people who are worried about the hormone contents dosed to cows, but there's not a single whit of scientific evidence to suggest that it's a valid concern either on the side of the cows or on humans.  In fact, as long as you're dealing either with processed goods (e.g. cheese, yogurt) or any typical supermarket milk (i.e. one which has been pasteurized), there shouldn't even be any remnants beyond insignificant trace amounts.  Raw milk and raw young cheeses (aged less than 1 month) will have slightly more, but still not enough to make a difference, and there are much worse things to worry about with those products (not that they're a very major part of the industry).

In India, we do get a lot of raw milk and raw young unprocessed cheeses, but none of these are taken raw.  The milk is always boiled at home, and the cheeses are usually cooked in some liquid base or possibly baked or even fried.

hence even if every one was vegetarian you would still be creating bobby calves that would be slaughtered

How do you figure?  If everyone was vegetarian, there would be no market for such a thing.  No company does anything that they can't sell.  The only reason slaughter of calves occurs now is because people buy veal.  There has never been any other reason, and there never could be.  In regions where no such demand exists, no such practice exists (as I've pointed out quite a few times already and you've willfully ignored).  Demand drives everything.

If you are vegetarian for ethical reasons...

...  which you know, I'm not.  I'm merely vegetarian as a food preference.  And I generally don't buy into the idea that diet should be a field for politics.  That's partly why I find it very difficult to view veganism in particular to have anything to do with food, when it's really all about ideology.  And I find all the arguments to be horribly weak, mainly because they make huge oversights and omissions.  Advocates always have blinders on, because perspective proves to be too much of a bitch.

As for cats, people should not own pets if a non cruel way of feeding them is not found, My rats are Vegan.

That's...  not at all the response I was expecting.  So you'd rather that people let cats and dogs which would otherwise be rescued from poor living conditions and mistreatment to be killed because those animals happen to need meat?  You'd rather that people let animals which have demonstrably valuable indirect impact on their psychological and physical health (most strongly demonstrated with dogs) because those animals aren't ethically superior enough for your tastes?  Your rats are vegan just the same as someone's pet bunny is vegan -- it's possible for them.  Such a thing will never happen for dogs and cats : those are dead animals.  I won't say it's impossible in the long run (as there is work being done on synthetic meats), but I guess, until then, it's okay to trade one potentially avoidable cruelty for another because you have decided that they're not avoidable cruelties.

I think you have not looked very var into the side effects of being veg over Vegan.

By "side effects", do you mean on the individual consuming them?  Because I know that's total bullcrap.  Any and all examples of those are either due to necessarily unhealthy practices (which is achievable regardless of your personal dietary classifications), pre-existing sensitivities/allergies, or interactions with various drugs.

If you mean "side effects" as in side effects of the industries themselves...  then I hate to break this to you, but the shallow survey of the facts is on you.  Because not only did I look into those effects, but I also looked into the various ways in which people have actually addressed them and turned them (at least on a small scale) into complete and utter non-issues.  You, otoh, without exception have dismissed and/or ignored every such mention of those methods out of hand and decided ahead of time that innovation is a dead end in the object of your disdain.

There is no need for eggs and dairy, If anything they are more baseless than the meat industry.

Tell that to any serious hardcore athlete.  I admit that the superiority of eggs and dairy to other foods in this particular context has more to do with individual subcomponents (e.g. whey, albumin, and casein proteins, along with certain phospholipids which have highly specific benefits for athletes) rather than the food itself, but it's a bit funny is that we know all this because of the same modern science which you like to claim makes everything non-vegan unacceptable.

PS have you seen "meat the truth"...I recommend it.

I've seen it.  And it ranks pretty high on the hypocrisy meter.  Yes, it addresses, for instance, a particular point of greenhouse gas emissions which is often ignored by the public...  and the value of bringing that to notice is indeed correct.  The hypocrisy of it is that it ignores even more serious sources of greenhouse gases.

First of all, quantitatively cattle do not actually produce more greenhouse gases than cars do, but because they produce mainly methane as a result of their decomposing feces, they yield a far more potent greenhouse effect, so it becomes a qualitatively greater issue.  There is a bit of misleading statistics in there, though, because it includes some one-time costs as if they were on-going sources of environmental impact (for instance, the clearing of trees to actually found a ranch in the first place).

There are two things left out of this, though -- #1 is the fact that there are innovations which are actively used in the field to recapture this methane and use it in a functional way.  Many small dairies are able to collect enough methane to be completely self-sufficient for all their electrical and heating/cooling needs, never having to draw power off the grid.  The end result is almost flawlessly carbon-neutral.

#2 is the fact that the amount of methane output from decomposing animal feces is significantly less than that of decomposing plant matter.  This makes sense when you think about it because the feces only contains whatever matter couldn't be effectively digested, while the pure plant waste, you're basically decomposing every last gram of it.  Before you think this is a slight against veganism, that's not actually where I was going with this.  The real source here comes from the tremendous amount of waste that occurs in agriculture.  There is a huge percentage of the crop that simply goes to waste either because it's substandard quality for the public, or because it simply spoiled before it could be used either due to delays in delivery or diseases/drought/infestations.  There is actually a pretty massive amount of waste there, and each little bit counts for a hell of a lot more per unit area/mass.  The amount of feed that a single cow eats in a year amounts to a certain amount of methane produced as a result of feeding the cow...  the same amount of plant matter, had it simply gone to waste, would yield some 20x as much atmospheric methane, albeit delivered to the atmosphere at a slower rate depending on the type of matter.  A cow, feeding on 1 hectare's worth of grass will only produce about 500-600 liters of methane gas...  while the same area of grass, just being mowed and having the clippings left as mulch, will produce over 3,500 liters of methane as the stray clippings decay.  If all that grass is simply cut down completely and thrown into a compost pile, it will yield over 11,000 liters of methane.

Plant waste in general tends to be that serious in its footprint, and even amortized across all vegetable agriculture it proves to be an even more serious issue than animal agriculture simply because of the sheer amount of waste and how much that actually counts for.  The net carbon impact of a hamburger patty is actually less than that of the lettuce, tomato, onions, and pickle slices on the same burger.  In fact, a full serving of fresh tomatoes has more than 16x the carbon footprint of a hamburger patty...  That said, the figures are not so severe if you're comparing against canned tomato products for various reasons.

In practice, factory farming whether you're talking plants or animals, is a lot more efficient because of the scale at which it operates.

I went vegan after doing a 30 day raw cleanse.   I never went back to meat or dairy.  I had been vegan for about 2 months when I was driving on I20 through South Carolina.   I came upon an accident where a livestock trailer of pigs had overturned.  Several pigs were dead, others injured and squealing from pain and fright.  A front end loader was scraping pigs off the road, some of them barely but still alive.  It was dumping the still breathing, convulsing pigs into a dump truck.  That vision has haunted me ever since, but I was so glad that I had made a decision to not support the meat industry, and I no longer did anything to support that awful carnage of a nightmare. I can't justify supporting such a cruel heartless industry.

That is the type of torture our livestock industry perpetrates daily, Why peole still stand behind stupid comments like " trees are living things to " in the face of such obvious suffering is beyond all rational reason or defence. People who eat meat support the torture of our fellow mammals and avian friends. The fact that we still need to consume some lower less complex and no neurologicaly aware organisms like plants or single celled probiotics is no justification to ignore the obvious suffering of complex sentient life.

I am an advocate for expansion into space. A meat based diet is extremely resource intensive and inefficient. It is simply not intelligent to try and recreate the biospheres for meat production necessary simply to satiate a craving for meat which isn't necessary for our diet.

I am vegan for moral reasons as well as health and the future of Earth

 I hate the idea of eating animals and the cruel ways that animals are killed to meet people's needs.

For me; the basic notion that I can live a happy and fulfilled life without involving myself in the exploitation of animals. In the society I find myself living it is unnecessary. I don't judge others; its simply my choice and opinion.

I see eating animal products as a personal choice, not a necessity. My choice not to eat animal products saves energy and water, land, food, and prevents exploitation and cruelty. My choice to eat a plant-based diet is better for my health, easier on my digestion, and softer on my pocketbook. And the clean-up in the kitchen after plant based cooking versus cooking flesh? Now, that saves time and no more need to buy de-greasing dish soap. Such a win-win choice for me. 


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service