Millions of years of evolution have made humans omnivores. Any other diet is against nature.

As for the spiritual dimension, why is it OK to eat some animals and not others? Every time a vegan drinks a glass of water, microscopic beings are consumed.

And why is plant life OK to eat? Don't plants have lives? Don't they breathe and reach for the sun?

that’s being killed?

Try harder.

Not trying to do anything here, and certainly not “trying harder”.

What did you miss? Is it OK to kill something if it can't scream? Why should plant life be denied its existence?

I think that's kind of the point of the story.

I have no objection to letting people believe in what they want. It's a shame there are so many bad ideas.

You can eat a healthy diet and still be a vegan. The only nutrient you can't get from vegetables is B12, so you can take a supplement or eat food fortified with B12.

As for the moral dimension, vegetables don't feel pain or fear. That's what it's really about.

I've heard of fruitarians, who say that it's only moral to eat fruits because the trees actually want you to the fruits. But you can't get all your nutritional needs met just from fruits, so even vegans think that's extreme.

You are not a plant spokesperson.

What else do you believe has feelings without a nervous system?

Life is life. How convenient of some to discount some forms of life because they can't have human characteristics.

Not some straw dog who can't figure out the difference between a potato and a chimpanzee.

I feel that makes them hypocrites.

Plant life is life. A potato can't peel a banana, but it is still life.

but not living things that don't feel pain? Since you eat meat, are you okay with torturing dogs for fun?

I eat plants and animals. When someone gets on their high horse and says eating animals is wrong, I ask if they eat plants. If they say yes, then I consider them to be hypocrites.

Your last question is insulting. How about this one: "Do you enjoy raping kids for fun?"

It's just really disingenuous to equate a cow with a potato. That's 5-6th grade logic, maybe even younger.

Animals die during the production and processing of vegetables. Lots of them and often in particularly gruesome ways.

There's a fairly obvious distinction between plant life and animal life. If someone think it's wrong to eat animals because they feel pain but okay to eat plants because they don't why is that a hypocritical distinction to make?

The question about dogs was not intended to be insulting, but the fact that you are insulted is telling. People chop up live potatoes into little tiny pieces all the time. If you agree that you should not chop up a live dog, why are you not a hypocrite?

As I said, I'm an omnivore. I cut my steak and mash my potatoes. I respect nature's food chain. I don't make excuses like "they don't feel pain"

I'm not buying your charge of hypocrisy because of some abstract "nature's food chain." Might as well eat the Irish since Nature made them subject to the English. It's hypocritical not to.

Almost all food production results in animal suffering. Habitat is destroyed, pests are eradicated often in extremely painful ways, animals are chewed up by harvesting and processing machinery. Some animal consumption actually results in less suffering than some vegetable production, particularly with sources of high quality plant protein vegans can’t live without. Any vegan who tells you they don’t cause the suffering of animals should have thought beyond their self-righteousness, because they are simply wrong.

Your statement makes as much sense as asking a vegan if they are OK with feeding a rodent bait laced with cement that solidifies their intestines so they slowly starve to death while dealing with excruciating pain. All that really does is reduce the argument to an obvious appeal to emotion.

With appropriate apologies for the limitations of social science blah, blah

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201207/brain-scans-show-vegetarians-more-empathic-omnivores

If this is correct, it's not so much a well thought out philosophy but a morality based more strongly on empathy than other factors. (Disclaimer: I believe most people base their morality on feelings and intuitions, even if they claim they don't. The feelings are first, then people rationalize their feelings with moral philosophy). I can certainly come up with a moral philosophy fit for a vegan and defend it too, but I won't bother to do that here.

I haven't asked any vegans what they think about the incidental suffering you mention, so I don't know what they say. Mrs. Blue is a wannabe vegan who doesn't feel well without meat in her diet. She's definitely all about empathy and not at all about moral judgement. She does sometimes feel guilty about eating meat, but I tell her she has to take care of her own health. I'm not going to ask her about rodents eating cement because that would definitely freak her out. It does bug me, so I'd be in favor of maybe some less cruel poison methods. Some animal rights groups push that sort of thing and a lot of them are vegans or vegetarians, so they are not totally inconsistent. And some, I think, are consistent to a fault - they'd rather let the mice run around with all the problems that can cause than kill them at all.

As for feelings of moral superiority, I see that all over the place, especially on political boards like DU, where we talk about those cruel conservatives all the time. It's moral hazard, so to speak, of being passionate about moral issues. Maybe most of the vegans you've met are the outspoken ones that get in your face. Most vegans I've met don't push it on anyone who doesn't want to hear it.

Correlation does not imply causation. Vegans may have more empathy than average, but that doesn’t mean being a vegan makes one more empathetic.

I view sustainability in dietary choice as more ethical than simply choosing not to eat meat. Nor do I see any ethical dilemma with eating meat.

Obviously it's a correlation. But it's more likely nature or nurture made them empathetic and therefore they are drawn to veganism. Like any group, a few are going to be total jerks.

I agree with you on sustainable diet choices. I don't eat a lot of meat. Overall, cows are more damaging to the environment than plants.

But that's really a discussion for another forum. The bottom line is veganism might be a good path to more sustainability, but it's not the only one and perhaps not even the best one. Those vegans who think they are the only ones entitled to the moral high ground are really no better than religionists who think they are the only ones who can occupy that space. It may or may not be true that both of those types of folks are the minority in their respective groups, but regardless none of them do much good for their beloved cause.

They are very clear that they oppose the suffering of animals. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

I eat animals. Human beings are animals, but I oppose cannibalism. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, either.

I get the impression from vegans that their eating choices are a matter of ethics. Their lack of concern for plant life is hypocritical in my opinion.

That's an eating choice, and I consider it a matter of ethics.

I wouldn't do it myself, but I could see a ceremonial ritual after someone's death. I'd be opposed to farming humans for food, and against killing someone just for a meal. I've also never been in a situation like Donner's Pass, have you?

Have you read Swift's A Modest Proposal?

...but I oppose cannibalism" that made me smile for some reason


I think most people don't understand veganism and that there are many different reasons for what a person chooses eat

I never ask people what their eating habits are. I've made a lot of posts in this thread. I hope I don't sound like I'm preaching.

I don't feel as if you're preaching but... it is not fair to make blanket judgements

I try to respect all life and do my best to do the least harm possible... I border on veganism, I am an apiarist and eat honey, and I raise chickens and once in awhile I eat the eggs (mostly give them to neighbors and friends)
... my food choices center around concern for my health, the health of the environment, the well being of all other life around me and what I just enjoy eating

I also grow most of my vegetables and marvel at how they grow and act in their environment... on my growing shelves in the house these days, I watch as the tomato and pumpkin plants move back and forth under the grow lights throughout the day... I marvel at the seedlings and sprouts as they rise above the soil in the flats... I know all too well life is a series of choices, sometimes difficult and sometimes not...

I don't eat meat but I will kill a mouse or predator that is harming my home or charges, if I must (I do try to trap and relocate when I can) sometimes, no easy choices... so I try hard not to judge others too much

"vegetables don't feel pain or fear."

That's not entirely correct. It's complicated, and made more so because these discussions always anthropomorphize plants. No, they don't feel the way that humans do, or mammals in general. But they do have responses to pain like stimuli.

It's the dangerous space of mixing science with morality. It never ends up in morality's favor. Just look at the recent train wreck of the whole XY topic.

By that measure, you should be either be okay with torturing animals or have moral qualms about your own immune system.

When you start mixing morality with science it gets really muddy. I do reject the extremes you present, it's a fair leap from acknowledging that plants have some sort of feeling to torture.

Plants are still living organisms, and they are distantly related to us, which is really cool actually. To just discard that because it makes things complicated is a cop-out. I have no problems with people's food choices, I like to practice a policy of no food shaming, but I will question the philosophy behind it.

There's a variety of nutrients that may need supplementation.

One example is vitamin A. Some people are genetically unable to synthesize the vitamin directly from carotenoids. That means they have to consume animal products so they can get the vitamin directly.

Biology doesn't care about philosophy. Some people just don't do well as vegans.

You probably don’t.

The 7th day Adventist cohort study sort of blows up the trope that vegetarian and vegan diets are somehow unhealthy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

Yeah, just the opposite.

We ALL need more plants. I agree on that.

But there are certain nutrients we simply can't get from plants. Getting those nutrients can be a challenge with a vegan diet, and that is what I was pointing out.

If you look at the Blue Zone studies, most of the Adventists in Loma Linda are actually vegetarian, not vegan. They get some animal protein (about 5%) through things like dairy. The vegetarians in those studies actually have slightly longer lifespans than the vegans. Those who eat a bit of fish have the longest life expectancy.

The vegans are healthier than the vegetarians who are healthier than the other diet groups they categorized.

And your statement that “Some people just don't do well as vegans. ” is the standard trope that there is some health risk. There is, it’s that burger that is the risk factor. Not eating meat is a healthier choice.

Someone who follows such a strict diet is more likely to be mindful of other things that contribute to a healthy lifestyle. There’s also studies which show vegan diets aren’t the most healthy ones available.

Most people eat too much shit and aren’t active enough, so comparing people who are at least diet conscious with those who aren’t isn’t going to produce much meaningful data. There’s also a pretty comprehensive study in the UK that shows no significant difference in mortality between vegans, vegetarians, and everyone else. Given those first two groups tend to be more health conscious, that doesn’t say much for a non-meat diet.

does that mean they can refuse to handle any animal food products? Does the employer need to accommodate that?

Or the pharmacists who claim a right to not fill certain prescriptions?

Always nice to let the record officially show he's not discussing in good faith. Serves as a warning to others that he's not to be taken seriously.

If so yes, if not then no.

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2019, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

A lifestyle choice? sure. A moral belief? Why not but it is far from a philosophy when based on real world choices and fact based evidence.

Either the law exists in a state already to deal with offensive and threatening comments or not, of the examples above I would say the latter is certainly a better case for threatening violence and may have real world consequences.

This sort of behaviour is far worse than either of the issues presented in the OP. Unless butchery is a philosophy too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/vegan-activists-local-butcher-shop-berkeley-california-window-sign-killing-animals-violent-unjust-a7878371.html

All of the above frankly is unacceptable behaviour and people should know better.

Would being an omnivore qualify one for the same rights too and if not then why not?

You've missed it.

Especially when they harangue me about their personal preferences. I turn and walk away or explain my own preferences, depending on the personality of the individual involved.

I think that's legal, so far.

I am a religious oversleeper myself, so I believe very strongly that I should have the right to skip work when I am engaged in my protected practice.

In that case......

Thanks largely to organized religion.

There's all sorts of other things that need to change in the US before my give a shit meter is going to start registering on this one.

Like Casper the Friendly Ghost debating his right to existence and legal protections with Mickey Mouse.

in the sense that a person should be allowed to pursue and live a life of meaning for themselves, but not to the extent of interfering in the lives and beliefs of another...

as it is, we give too much deference to people's religion and not enough to people's other choices and philosophies

it is just as rude to "joke that vegans should be force-fed meat" (I take great offense at that) as it is to make fun of someone's religious symbolism...

I am disgusted at the behavior of some activists (PETA et al) and believe behavior and laws based on respect are the only ones that work

Both are positively obnoxious about what they believe and feel that you are desperately wanting to hear all about it.

Guess the difference is that I've never had a preacher tell me that the meat I'm eating was raised an "Animal Auschwitz".

veganism on the street. Not saying it never happens, but I can’t count the number of street preachers I’ve encountered.

My experience with vegan upset usually runs a different direction. The vegan or vegetarian is interrogated about their dietary choices, typically in some social setting, and when they volunteer that they are vegetarian as an ethical choice, some people take offense. As with revealing that one is an atheist, some people find the mere presence of such a person some sort of threat.

And generally the preaching is in the other direction, claims of its unhealthy, what about carrots, etc. for example this thread.

They will tell you unsolicited all about it. That's not unique to veganism. Anything that someone becomes obsessed over will work it's way into the conversation inevitably.

of anyone with whom I have no relationship? Neither are relevant to me. If you are not someone I know, telling me about either is a waste of both my time and yours.