CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Hi, I'm new here, so if I perform an unintelligent deed let me know. Vegan is the best choice. Vegan avoids animal cruelty, has many health benefits, saves the environment, and mitigates world hunger.
II. Animal sentience
Animals are sentient beings. "Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.""[1].
"A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: Animal sentience is a well-established fact " [2].
Since animals are sentient it is immoral to cause them suffering. Therefore, non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
III. Suffering
Animals surely suffer. Free-range farming is not cruelty free. Egg-production and milk production are extremely cruel. ""Free-Range" Hen
• Debeaked with a hot bloody blade at one day old with no anesthetic.
• Force molted (intentionally starved to shock the body into another laying cycle).
• Violently packed into a semi and trucked hundreds of miles to an agonizing slaughter when considered “spent” (unable to keep laying eggs at a fast enough pace).
• Denied the opportunity to live a natural life in truly humane care.
• All of her brothers (roosters) are brutally killed as baby chicks simply because they can’t lay eggs." [3].
"After just 4 to 6 years, dairy cows are “spent” from being forced to continuously produce milk. Often weak and ill, they endure transport to auction and slaughter, both of which are traumatic for these gentle animals. If allowed to exist free of exploitation and slaughter, cows can live 25 years or more.
" [4].
Humans have not found a way to reliable kill each other yet, and human life is considered more valuable by many. "Lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. Since the first lethal injection on December 7, 1982, over 1,000 prisoners in the USA have been executed by this method and it has all but replaced other methods of execution."[5].
IV. Health
Plant foods contain antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Animal products have too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. Animal protein is detrimental to human healthy because of the increase in IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one. IGF-1 increase risk for cancer.
"For years we didn’t know why eating a plant-based diet appeared to so dramatically improve cancer defenses within just a matter of weeks. But researchers recently figured it out: eating healthy lowers the level of the cancer promoting growth hormone IGF-1. This saga was detailed in my last four blog posts:" [10].
V. Environment
"Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows." [6].
"The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [7].
VI. World Hunger
Animal products are less efficient. The extra food freed from these inefficient foods could fed hungry humans.
"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [8].
"The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. " [9].
VII. Summary
In summary, there is no valid reason to continue to eat animal products. Consuming vegan foods cause less animal suffering, are healthier, save the environment, and help mitigate world hunger. Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Exactly how does eliminating non vegan food mitigate world hunger? I am confused. Seems to me the profligacy of many food sources would be the deciding factor.
I think what he meant was that if there was a ban on non-vegan foods, and farmers continued to harvest the same amount of crops and food that they did to feed their harvested animals, we would be more then capable of putting an end to world hunger. This idea may not be entirely practical but that is just one of the many points for veganism.
The original poster didn't think this through all the way. He said animals suffering is cruel because they are sentient. Okay, I will buy that. So now we must ban hunting also, which can be considered cruel. What will happen when there is no hunting? The deer population will eventually explode beyond the supply of food that is available to them. We now must feed the deer with all that food that was going to go to the human population. If not, then many deer will starve to death, which is more cruel than hunting. If we don't feed them the excess food for human consumption, forests will die off and we have an even bigger problem. With an abundance of deer, they will turn to the farmers crops and eat the food that the vegans want to go to the poor people around the world.
This is not to mention the massive problems people will face when deer are all over the place in suburban areas. I know of some rich areas in my city that deer can be spotted every single day now. With 100 fold of deer, the consequences will be disastrous for the environment. Here are two articles.
Hunting game and banning food products are different issues. The way to solve deer overpopulation is natural predators including wolves.
"Thus the forest management personnel feared that overgrazing might lead to mass starvation. Since the area was too remote for hunters, the wildlife service decided to bring in natural predators to control the deer population. It was hoped that natural predation would keep the deer population from becoming too large and also increase the deer quality (or health), as predators often eliminate the weaker members of the herd. In 1971, ten wolves were flown into the island. " [1]
If you look at the graph, the wolves were very effective at controlling the deer population, without causing the deer to become extinct.
Do you know how many deer are harvested every year by hunters? Just over six million. There are nowhere near enough wolves in the wild to make even a miniscule dent in the deer population. Deer do not have hardly any natural predators other than wolves so that point is mute.
Do you support hunting? If you do, then what is the harm in shooting a cow and eating the meat like we do deer?
Lol foratag not sure if you agree or disagree with the resolution, Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
The problem of wolves and hunters is another problem, and is off-topic.
No I do not support hunting for sport. The harm in eating meat other than to prevent starvation it is unhealthy. Meat has too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. Eating meat displaces healthy fruits and vegetables that have antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients.
Too much fat accumulates as intramyocellular lipids which can increase insulin resistance.
Yes arteaga34 is correct. If everyone was vegan we could feed more people.
"If everyone in the world ate like people in the U.S. do, only 2.5 billion people could be sustained. The current world population is 6.3 billion and is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050. If everyone ate a Vegan diet, at least 20 billion people could be sustained. "
Where is this food going to come from? There is only so much land in the USA that is suitable for agriculture and most of that is being used for that purpose. Or do you propose cutting down all the forests to feed the rest of the world.
The food will come from the same land used for feeding livestock.
"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [1]
Let's use the example of beef. It takes about fifteen as much grain to feed a person on beef compared to grain. If a person ate purely beef, they are eating the grain of fifteen people. Instead, have the person eat purely grain, and 14 others could be fed.
No more land would be needed for agriculture. No additional forests would need to be cut down.
Now we get to the heart of your argument. You are a global warming alarmist. That article from the USA today seems more concerned about greenhouse gases than anything else. What about all the people in the world who will have to give up meat. How are we going to make up that food shortage?
The best way to solve world hunger is to stop having kids when you can't afford it. Minus that, the situation is only going to get worse as the worlds population increases. I guess you want the USA to solve all the worlds problems, don't you?
Your comment about 20 billion people could be fed is from a vegan website. Please show me some information from a non biased site that backs this up.
One more thing. If we all became vegans, all the meat that we gave up would have to be replenished by eating the food that you advocate going to feed the hungry people in the world. So it is a zero sum gain. I would argue that we would be eating much more food without meat so we may have a shortage of vegetables and fruits for all Americans.
Your references frequently conflate emotional process with conscious awareness of emotional process. That an animal experiences and responds to emotions does not mean they are aware doing so, and that awareness is a critical component to sentience. If we adopt the looser standard you introduce through your reference, then we must also conclude upon available evidence that plants are also sentient. [1] [2] [3] Certainly, then, veganism is no better. And what are we meant to eat?
Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature. Yet by your reasoning we must. I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?
Suffering
This is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether.
It is also subject to the same objections I raised against animal sentience.
Health
Your observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research.
Environment
Again, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. Even if we could not raise fish and cattle sustainably this does not mean we could not do so with other animals, particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste.
World Hunger
Again, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not.
Unacknowledged Harms
Banning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure. You would also incur the anger and wrath of the majority of the human population, polarizing them against your cause rather than inspiring them to favor it. There is also no global mechanism for imposing such a ban upon everyone, and doing so would therefore necessitate some use of force against the sovereignty of nations which would destabilize the entire geo-political system leading to conflict, death, famine, etc. It is imply impractical and counterproductive to ban non-vegan foods.
P.S. Instead of pasting links, which is what is causing everything to underline afterwards on the thread, use the hyperlink coding - [hyperlink text] (url), without the space between the two bracketed bits - which will turn whatever text you enter into a hyperlink.
You must certainly be aware that plants and animals are quite different. Even if plants have some level of intelligence, it must be vastly different from those of animals.
"“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”" [1].
That is what makes animals and plants distinct in a relevant way. Plants cannot suffer, yet animals can. Think of a pig compared to a sunflower plant.
Even if scientists suddenly discovered plants were sentient, it takes less grain to feed a person on grain alone, as compared to animals. As seen in my previous post.
"Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature." Jace
A wild animal killing prey is fine. No morals are broken.
"I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. " Jace
Your analogy is flawed. A wild lion killing prey is a swift and merciful compared to what factory farmed animals must endure. Ever see a feral house cat chase down a wild animal? The feral cat does not toy with its prey. Instead, the prey is devoured almost instantly.
" If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?" Jace
Humans are omnivores, in the sense that we can eat meat and non-meats. From a Darwin survival of the fittest point of view, it was to human advantage to eat meat over starvation. Yet, in modern times starvation is relatively rare. Especially in first world countries.
As for physiological evidence humans stomach ph, small intestine length, and saliva suggest herbivore. [2].
"then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us?" Jace
Evolution has not prepared humans to eat mass amounts of factory farmed meat. Even if evolution did prepare us, it would be immoral. Obligate carnivores with supplements can thrive on a vegan diet.
"Suffering
This is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether." Jace
Humans have abused animals long enough. Humans have proven they cannot be trusted to be kind to livestock. If more humane methods are developed, the profit motive will constantly tempt humans to put profit above animal welfare. Chickens are capable of feeling empathy. Chickens sense each others' pain.
"Health
Your observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research."
Michael Greger M.D. is a medical doctor who links to peer reviewed scholarly journals. You will notice this if you watch his videos.
"Again, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether." Jace
Do you understand trophic levels? That animal meat will never be as efficient as vegan foods.
"particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste." Jace
Insects, this is a new retort. This is a strange answer. Do you really think humans would start eating insects en masse?
"World Hunger
Again, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not." Jace
Again, you argue for insects. Yet, offer no proof that insects are healthy and that people will be willing to eat enough of them to make a difference. Over a million people eat vegan already.
"Unacknowledged Harms
Banning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure." Jace
Lots of products and traditions have been banned in the past. Human sacrifices, slavery, DDT, and incandescent light bulbs. The change doesn't have to be overnight. Instead, non-vegan foods could be phased out slowly like incandescent light bulbs. Ten to fifty years to change over seems reasonable.
And you must certainly be aware that animals and humans are quite different. Even if animals have some level of intelligence, it must be vastly different from that of humans. Think of a pig compared to a human. If the proposition that all animate life is equally intelligent and sentient seems absurd to you, that is hardly my fault. This is the natural conclusion one arrives at when following your highly diluted conception of sentience. Because all animate life processes suffering (and pleasure) in some way and also responds to it, as borne out by your evidence for animals and mine for plants (which you have completely ignored). You are being inconsistent in the application of your principle.
When you claim that it is immoral for humans to kill and consume something capable of suffering you are introducing an absolute principle. It should not matter how many are killed because in every case we are causing suffering that otherwise would not exist. It is not relevant that we would have to kill fewer plants than animals in order to live, because we would need to kill none if we instead killed ourselves through starvation. If it is permissible to value ourselves over plants then it must also be permissible to value ourselves over other animals, unless plant suffering can be somehow distinguished from animal suffering which would require you to accept that suffering is not the only attribute of concern; but that would repudiate your premise. You must either abandon your principle or endorse human starvation, because by your standard plants and animals are equal (however absurd that may seem).
There is also no fundamental moral difference between any other animal killing and consuming another animal and a human doing it. A lion or cat killing another animal may be less cruel than factory farming, but that does not mean that it is actually swift or merciful; the animal that dies still suffers. And because suffering is what makes the killing and consumption wrong, it necessarily follows that other animals killing other animals for food is immoral as well. This is absurd, and your attempt to deny the point indicates you agree that it is absurd.
Human ancestors were herbivores so it is no surprise at all that we retain many physiological attributes of herbivores, which is really all your reference suggests. Those origins do not alter the fact that we subsequently evolved, along with other primates, to be omnivores capable of digesting meat and reaping some of the unique benefits that conferred [1] [2]. How we came to be omnivores is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that we are indeed omnivores, vis a vis evolution, and so our act of killing and consuming meet is ultimately just as natural as when any other animal does the same out of its respective nature.
You are asserting without reason that because humans have created one flawed system of husbandry in recent history that we cannot be trusted to make a better one, even though the overwhelming history of human husbandry did not occur under this one model. That is not only ridiculous, but actually somewhat alarming; by that reasoning why should we ever try to improve upon ourselves individually or collectively? I mean we mucked it up that one time, so obviously we cannot be counted on to do better ever again.
I never claimed that animal products are as efficient as vegan products, because they only need to be efficient enough to address your environmental and world hunger concerns. Additionally, so long as majority production and consumption was focused away from inefficient animal production there is no reason that limited production and consumption could not continue since it would not pose any actual threat to environment or food access; therefore, a categorical ban is unwarranted from the basis of your argument.
Entomophagy (eating of insects) is actually quite preferable to veganism for numerous reasons. Not the least of which is that it actually already has vastly more popular support than veganism, with roughly two billion people eating insects worldwide (28% of world population) compared to one million vegans (0.0001%), and a much lengthier history of practice as well. There is also growing socio-political support for entomophagy, which cannot be said for veganism and certainly not for a non-vegan food ban (which, by the way, is entirely different from a gradual process of transition). [3] [4] [5]
Entomphagy is also more accessible, healthier, and efficient than veganism. A healthy vegan diet is reliant upon nutritional supplements which are produced in laboratories, whereas insects are commonly accessible to basically anyone and compliment the deficits of an otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet. Supplements are either produced naturally, in which case the process of refinement is very inefficient in terms of the amount of organic material required and the energy invested in extracting the nutrients, or they are synthetic in which case they use numerous chemical agents and also encounter issues about proper absorption and processing (there are of course natural-synthetic hybrids as well, but that just seems to capture the worst of both options). The efficiency of veganism is a myth, unless you propose to put the whole species on an unhealthy diet. [6] [7]
As for your argument on plant sentience. The key factor is that plants cannot feel pain. Yet, as I've proved above animals can.
"As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing."1
As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet. "Figure 1: A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed. Leaving chickens and eggs out of our diets will have the greatest effect on reducing the suffering and death caused by what we eat. " 2
Any informed vegan knows that some animal deaths are sadly unavoidable.
"There is also no fundamental moral difference between any other animal killing and consuming another animal and a human doing it. " Jace
Animals eat meat for survival, humans don't.
"Human ancestors were herbivores so it is no surprise at all that we retain many physiological attributes of herbivores, which is really all your reference suggests. " Jace
Humans not only have the physiological attributes of herbivores but fare better on a vegan diet. All those antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. While avoiding excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.
"with roughly two billion people eating insects worldwide (28% of world population) compared to one million vegans (0.0001%)," Jace
I skimmed your links couldn't find the two billion people number. This is a comparison between people eating a few bugs versus no animal products at all. I doubt those two billion people ate insects as their only source of animal products.
"Entomphagy is also more accessible, healthier, and efficient than veganism. A healthy vegan diet is reliant upon nutritional supplements which are produced in laboratories, whereas insects are commonly accessible to basically anyone and compliment the deficits of an otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet. " Jace
I saw a salad at a local restaurant and several other vegan dishes. There was no Entomphagy dishes.
As for insects being healthy, there seems to be a lack of scienfic research. I did find this though, and apparently subjects reported nausea. 3
As for supplements being inefficient, its pretty clear that methane from cows is a bigger environmental problem. As for vegan receiving enough nutrition b-12 seems to be the only concern.
"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives” 4.
“Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria” 5.
"B12 From Fruits And Vegetables
All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however.
Why?
Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in.” 6.
Vegan diets are healthier than the nauseating dishes of insects.
As for your argument on plant sentience. [...] but that is not the same thing."1
Your counter-reference is literally a comment chain on a news media page; it is comprised of unverified people lacking credentials (or even a full names), and a number of them also disagree with you.
The standard advanced by your reference is that suffering is constituted by an aversive response to negative stimuli; plants meet that criteria. Moroever, all we know is that plants do not expeience suffering the way animals do. This does not mean that they do not experience it at all, and to suggest otherwise is extremey anthropcentric. That is the very bias your own reference dismisses in order to build their claim for universal animal sentience. If you dismiss plant suffering because we do no yet understand how they process experiences, then it is equally valid to dismiss the universalized claim of animal suffering your reference makes without evidence. If you dismiss plant suffering because they process it somewhat differently than animals, then it is equally valid to dismiss animal suffering becuase they process it somewhat differently from humans. Your distinction is arbitrary, and represents an inconsistent application of your own principle.
Unless you can actually substantiate your seemingly arbitrary differentiation between plants and animals, your non-differentiation between other animals and humans does not stand. Simply reiterating that plants do not feel pain like animals do is utterly inadequate reasoning, in case you are inclinced to attempt that route again.
As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet.
I never said that the vegan diet does not lead to fewer animal deaths; I said that this is irrelevant because of the preceding rationale.
Animals eat meat for survival, humans don't.
You are assuming that necessity matters to morality withou explaining why it should. Rather as you have assumed that sentience should matter, actually. I wonder, can you actually defend either assertion?
There are other omnivores whose consumption of meat cannot plausibly be claimed to be always necessary, because they do not only eat meat when there is no other food. There are carnviores who will eat even when not eating would not mean they starve, and whose eating is also sometimes not necessary for survival. In any of those cases, these animals' consumption would be immoral; again, this seems absurd and your counteragumets indicates you agree. Notably, there are also other animals which kill for pleasure (e.g. dolphins); does that make them moral?
Given the nutritional shortcomings of veganism (discussed at greater length below), it is entirely defensible to claim that at least some animal consumption is necessary for human well-being. Quite simply, if we did not need to be omnivores to survive we should expect not to have evolved to be omnivores which is obviously not the case. Supplements are not a feasible new solution to the circumstances that produced this attribute, for reasons mentioned before and never addressed by yourself.
Humans not only have the physiological attributes of herbivores but fare better on a vegan diet. All those antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. While avoiding excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.
This is factually inaccurate (again, discussed at greater length below). Briefly, though, plants alone are indequate for human nutrition; this is why humans evolved to be omnivores (see my earlier references which you have ignored). Supplements do not alter this conditions, for reasons already explained and not refuted. All of your evidence and analysis falsely presumes a certain omnivore model, to the exclusion of all other possible models, and are therefore inconsequential. I have explained this at length already (see one case of husbandary not all cases points) and your failure to respond is tacit concession of the matter.
I skimmed your links couldn't find the two billion people number. This is a comparison between people eating a few bugs versus no animal products at all. I doubt those two billion people ate insects as their only source of animal products.
Your personal lack of application is not my problem; the information is htere. Perhaps you should actually read my references instead of skimming them, or at the very least do a text search for the relevant information.
I never claimed all two billion people ate no other meat products. You argued that people would not eat insects, and I raised this fact to demonstrate that they already do. That number of people open to eating insects - combined with an extensive human history of having done so, the non-generalizeability of the "ick factor" to the majority of the world population, and growing political support among governments and the UN - strongly suggests that a shift to entomophagy as a dominant omnivore model is plausible. (Certainly more plausible than veganism.) You must have skimmed my own arguments as well as my references, to have missed the holistic argument being made.
At any rate, 0.0001% of the population being vegan hardly makes a worldwide ban on non-vegan foods remotely plausible. You never did cite that statistic, by the way, not that it matters given how miniscule it is. Nor did you ever give any other reason to think it could become mainstream, let alone be imposed through governments. All in all, your claim remains wholly unsubstantiated.
I saw a salad at a local restaurant and several other vegan dishes. There was no Entomphagy dishes.
So what? I saw a burger at a local restaurant and several other omnivore dishes. There were no vegan dishes. Neither of us saying that proves anything at all, except that we each ate at restaurant with limited food options.
As for insects being healthy, there seems to be a lack of scientific research.
Again, this is where actually reading the references I provide would be helpful. I already provided you with a link that included nutritional information on a number of insects; it was summarized in a data table that would be hard to miss even for someone skimming.
As far as the "lack of scientific research", here is what a very quick and simple google scholar searhc turned upon the health value of insects (a value, which, by the way, your own reference 3 acknowledges): [1] [2] [3] [4] The only thing lacking seems to be your committment to looking for information that contradicts your vegan ethics; your confirmation bias even leads you to ignore the direct contradictions to your claims presented in the very sources you reference.
I did find this though, and apparently subjects reported nausea. 3
Your reference reports nausae from eating mites only, not all insects. It does not control for other variables, such as social priming, and therefore does not establish causation with entomophagy. Given that your own reference along with my own identify the "ick factor" as being culturally induced rather innate or even prevailing among the human population, it follows that a cultural re-education program would be successful (while also being a non-unique process when compared to veganism, unless you mean to suggest that veganism will just spread itself).
As for supplements being inefficient, its pretty clear that methane from cows is a bigger environmental problem.
This is entirely non-responsive and does nothing to disprove the inefficiencies of supplements, nor their issues of environmental and human chemical impacts, class-based inaccessibility, or absorbtion issues. These were all points I raised and substantiated with references. They are all points you are tacitly conceding by your digression into an unrrelated issue (using cows) which I have never advocated.
As for vegan receiving enough nutrition b-12 seems to be the only concern.
Your first two references substantiate B-12 deficiency in vegans. Your third suggests that organics have higher concentrations of B-12, but does not prove that this concentration is relatively adequate for humans needs or as well suited to human absorbtion (it also makes such wild claims as there being no such thing as actual B-12 deficiency which rather undermines its overall credibility). None of them actually identifies a scientificaly substantiated vegan diet which avoids deficiency without rellying upon supplements. More importantly, none of them prove your claim that B-12 is the only relevant dificiency.
In fact, vegans are at well-established, higher than average risk for deficiency in both B-12 and vitamin D. They are also at greater risk for additional deficiencies in protein, iodine, calcium, zinc, iron, and riboflavin (sometimes even with supplements). [5] [6] [7] The necessity of supplements to the vegan diet is inescapable, and it is one of many critical points you have failed to address.
It is also worth mentioning that one of the most commonly relied upon nutrient sources for protein among vegans, according to the aforementinoed reports, tends to be nuts or legumes which are highly inefficient when it comes to water consumption. Given how pressing an issue water itself is becoming globally, it seems imprudent to endorse a vegan diet which exacerbates the problem when there is a better alternative (e.g. & esp. entomophagy).
Vegan diets are healthier than the nauseating dishes of insects.
You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim, whereas I have provided numerous reasons with accompanying evidence to suggest otherwise. And your personal disgust has absolutely no relevance on the matter, despite your apparent belief that it should. Do you realize you sound just as small-minded as the people who dismiss veganism because it does not appeal to their pallet?
"Your counter-reference is literally a comment chain on a news media page; it is comprised of unverified people lacking credentials (or even a full names), and a number of them also disagree with you." Jace
Does that matter, if the information correct? Animals have brains and nervous systems.
"The standard advanced by your reference is that suffering is constituted by an aversive response to negative stimuli; plants meet that criteria." Jace
No, that's the words you are attempting to put into my mouth. Animals have sensory organs, variability of response, appetite, and locomotion. Plants do not have these traits and therefore are not sentient.
As for plant sentience, you are arguing on two contradictory fronts, this is called kettle logic. Front one, that animals aren't sentient and front two, that both plants and animals are sentient.
Meanwhile, my argument is based on one front, that plants are not sentient and animals are.
Even if plants were sentient, I've already showed it takes more grain to feed a cow and then eat the cow, as opposed to eating the grain.
"As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet.
I never said that the vegan diet does not lead to fewer animal deaths; I said that this is irrelevant because of the preceding rationale. " Jace
This seems like nonsense to me. I am talking about the principle of least harm. Less harm is caused by eating a plant diet. Furthermore there is a vast difference between accidentally killing a field mouse with farming equipment as opposed to raising field mice en masse and deliberately slaughtering them for meat.
"There are other omnivores whose consumption of meat cannot plausibly be claimed to be always necessary, because they do not only eat meat when there is no other food." Jace
You are talking about animals killing other animals. Humans cannot judge animals by the same standard as humans. An animal killing another animal in the wilderness does not excuse the deliberate and mass killing of animals. Nor does it excuse the random sadist who poisons dogs and cats.
"Notably, there are also other animals which kill for pleasure (e.g. dolphins); does that make them moral? " Jace
No, humans cannot judge dolphins by the same standards as humans.
"Given the nutritional shortcomings of veganism (discussed at greater length below), it is entirely defensible to claim that at least some animal consumption is necessary for human well-being." Jace
I've made it abundantly clear that humans do not need to consume animal products to live and thrive.
"Quite simply, if we did not need to be omnivores to survive we should expect not to have evolved to be omnivores which is obviously not the case. " Jace
Eating meat is preferable to starvation. Humans are omnivores that fare better on a vegan diet.
"for reasons mentioned before and never addressed by yourself. " Jace
I did address this issue, you just misunderstood what I was stating.
"So what? I saw a burger at a local restaurant and several other omnivore dishes. There were no vegan dishes. Neither of us saying that proves anything at all, except that we each ate at restaurant with limited food options." Jace
I've gone to many restaurants in my life and supermarkets and not once did I notice any insect dishes. Suffice to say, entomophagy dishes are not catching on in my country.
"They are all points you are tacitly conceding by your digression into an unrrelated issue (using cows) which I have never advocated." Jace
No, but you haven't stated cow meat should be banned worldwide neither. Your quick to state that I have conceded a point, when simply there is so many points we are arguing its difficult to even keep track of them all.
"Your first two references substantiate B-12 deficiency in vegans." Jace
No, they state that b-12 comes from neither plant nor animals but bacteria. That's why meat eaters can have b-12 deficiencies also.
"In fact, vegans are at well-established, higher than average risk for deficiency in both B-12 and vitamin D. They are also at greater risk for additional deficiencies in protein, iodine, calcium, zinc, iron, and riboflavin (sometimes even with supplements). [5] [6] [7] " Jace
Oooooo, scary higher than average risk for deficiency. First, your link [6] and [7] don't work when I click them. Second, there are idiot humans everywhere. You see them driving drunk, texting, and so forth. Just because there are vegans who are careless, doesn't mean all vegans are reckless.
In fact this is an argument to ban non-vegan foods. Why, because if everyone was vegan, people could share advice. Doctors would know which deficiencies to look for and advise people accordingly. Vitamin D can be gained from the sun.
As for insects being so healthy. Take a look at IGF-1 and animal protein. Consumption of animal protein increases IGF-1 production. Elevated IGF-1 levels increases risk for cancer.
You only have to glance at the rate of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity to see that our current system is failing. It seems Jace has conceded the part about eggs, dairy, and all meats except insect meat.
" Do you realize you sound just as small-minded" Jace
Ad hominem
For a change, I will go on the offensive. Jace has been controlling the debate by putting me on the defensive, turnabout is fair play.
Jace has attacked my idea of animal sentience. Yet, Jace has not committed to a view on whether or not animals are sentient and not made any statements about his morals.
I've made my idea clear that animals are sentient and plants aren't. That humans deliberately killing and eating animals is wrong but plants are alright. Jace has not done this.
I must ask you Jace, if it is alright for a human to kill an animal, then is it also okay to kill the severely mentally handicapped? Minorities? Woman? Where does the buck stop?
Since animals are sentient, I contend that there are no relevant differences between an animal and a severely mentally handicapped person. If Jace states that mass killing of animals are justified, then he must also explain why mass killing of mentally handicapped people is immoral.
I also propose that the best way to protect human rights is to protect animal rights. That by allowing ourselves to participate in the mass murder of sentient beings we pave the way for the mass murder of human beings.
The vast majority of your most recent response is begging the question. You are attempting to repudiate my rebuttals by reiterating the very claims my rebuttals discredit. I am disinclined to continue repeating those rebuttals when you have both evidenced and confessed your lack of application. You openly admitted that you skim rather than read references presented to you, and the regularity with which your own references fail to support your conclusions suggests you are just as superficial in reviewing your own materials. The regularity with which your skimming reinforces rather than challenges your pre-existing beliefs suggests a strong confirmation bias at work.
The only thing that makes it "difficult" to follow every argument being made is, again, your own lack of application. Everything is written down and easily available for repeated reference and review. Perhaps it would be permissible to omit a few of the smaller points, but you are consistently dropping major arguments. For instance, you addressed none of the environmentalism points in your last response even though that was one of your three major original points. Notably, you have also never warranted your assertion that equal sentience mandates human egalitarianism towards other animals despite that being the central premise of your first major original point. I doubt it is a coincidence that the major points you most regularly drop are the most heavily repudiated and/or most indefensible points.
You have also consistently misrepresented my statements, at best out of ignorance and at worst with deliberate intent. For instance, you claim that I argue that animals are not sentient and also that animals and plants are both sentient; in truth, I have argued neither. My sole argument has been that your argument is unfounded. Notably, I also never suggested that sentience should have any relevance in how we treat other beings so your implication that I must advocate for ableist eugenics if I advocate for omnivorism is patently unfounded. More importantly, your assertion that I must adopt and defend some stance does not follow. You are on the defensive because you advanced a claim which you are now attempting to defend. I advanced no claim, and am not obliged to do so simply because you did.
Finally, my criticisms of your intellectual application and abilities do not constitute ad hominem attacks because I never used them to suggest that your arguments themselves were wrong. My original observations in this regard were efforts to prompt you to apply yourself more critically and logically to our exchange. My more recent statements made in this response are by way of explaining why I have no intention of engaging further with you on this subject; I am not remotely interested in spending more time attempting to seriously debate with someone who is too attached to their beliefs to think critically about them.
P.S. Not that you are likely to actually read them, but here are the links to 6 and 7 that were broken in my last reply.
I propose that we take each point at a time, for both ease of view and simplicity. That we should debate sentience until we are finished and then move onto the next point. Both our time and energy are valuable, and I believe this will save on both.
"I have argued neither. My sole argument has been that your argument is unfounded." Jace
I contend that a flawed argument is better than no argument. Thus, by only making an argument against mine while not presenting any yourself, you are effectively conceding.
Btw, those two links, 6 and 7, aren't working for me, maybe you have access to them and I don't?
I have no interest in continuing this exchange with you, for reasons already clearly stated. Repeating the arguments I have already made does not save me time.
You do not understand how debate works. When someone advances a claim they have the burden of proof. There is no burden of proof created for the person who attempts to hold them to account for that burden of proof. I have thoroughly contested your claims to that end, so to assert that I have conceded them is disingenuous at best.
The links are not access limited, so I have no idea why they are not working except that the coding must be messed up somehow. It hardly matters; 5 was the major reference point anyways and you never bothered to respond to that.
"When someone advances a claim they have the burden of proof." Jace
I beg to differ. One side having the burden of proof is preferable only when an equal burden would be result in an unfair situation. For example, if the resolution was "unicorns exist." It would be unfair for the side against unicorns existing to have to prove that unicorns don't exist. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the side for unicorns existing. Since it is far easier to prove a positive, then to prove a negative.
In summary, burden of proof should be shared. You only makes a rebuttal without an argument. I can only defend my argument against Jace's rebuttal. Since an imperfect argument will almost always be better than no argument, you are conceding the debate.
Sentience
As for sentience. You only criticize the idea of sentience that I have presented, without committing to a view yourself. I stand by science stating that animals are sentient and plants aren't. I have provided proof.
Jace, you have the burden of proof to show that plants are sentient, since for me to show that plants aren't sentient would require me to prove a negative. I contend that Jace has shown inadequate evidence to show that plants are sentient. Only showing stimulus and response.
Even if plants were sentient, less plants would be killed on a vegan diet. Thus the entire plant sentience is a major red herring.
Environment
As for environmental concerns about b-12 production, Jace has made no argument that cows should be banned. Thus, this rebuttal is easily defended by stating that the environmental damage of b-12 production is far less than cow's.
Jace then tried to reassert his rebuttal by stating that I never advocated for cows. Yet, Jace is on the side of no, I reject the resolution. In other words, no change. Since cows are used now, Jace is making an argument for cows to be raised for meat.
Nutrient deficiencies on vegan diet
I contend that we have debated this issue enough. Jace is free to attack on this front again, but I am confident I have defended myself well on this front. I'll let the judges decide who make the better argument.
Eating of insects
Jace, never really explained if insects would fully replace all other non-vegan food. As for water usage, the feed fed to the insects would need water. Even if the insects themselves needed little water. Due to tropic levels eating of insects would require more water than eating the plants that fed the insects directly.
As for insects being able to eat food waste. This is true, but if insect farms really took off, there would only be so much food waste to go around. Insects contain high levels of animal protein, which I've shown to raise IGF-1 levels and increase risk for cancer.
Jace talks about feasibility of insect eating to vegan. Yet, I contend that replacing all non-vegan foods with insects is less feasible than switching to an all vegan diet. I showed this by stating how I've never seen any insect dishes in supermarkets nor restaurants in my country.
If Jace means only replacing a small amount of insects with cattle meat, then the difference would be small. Since Jace seems to be advocating including a small amount of insects into Western diets, the change would be negligible and unimportant.
In contrast, my change has the power to put a real dent in the world's problems. Including animal suffering, environment, health, world hunger, and water shortages. All in all I contend that I have successful defended my argument against Jace's rebuttal.
This is really quite rudimentary, but there is no shared burden of proof to your claim quite simply because you are the one who made it. The only obligation incurred by challenging your claim is the burden of repudiation, which may be done either through counterclaim or by attacking the underlying logic of your claim as both fulfill that burden. You are not entitled to one method over the other, no matter how unfair or difficult you find actually having to defend your claim to be. As I did challenge the basis of your claims it follows that I very obviously did not concede your claims.
Nor does rejecting your resolution mean that I also reject every other possible resolution. Your erroneous notion to the contrary has made you even more narrow-minded than your unchecked confirmation bias alone. Taken together, they have caused you to repeatedly misunderstand and dismiss numerous arguments and their referential support, most of which you never addressed. You feel confident that you have defended your beliefs only because you are so dogmatic about them that you overlook anything that challenges them or forces you to question them. For instance, your repeated aversion to actually answer why equal sentience should create a human moral obligation towards other animals. If you want to know what actual tacit concession looks like, this is a prime example. Your confidence is not only unfounded, but willfully ignorant.
I will not bother speaking directly to the issues any longer since I have standing arguments and evidence against literally every matter you raised in your most recent post. Most of your rebuttal is targeted at strawmen anyways. I only replied this time because I am bored and this presented a brief and shallow diversion.
Jace you said last time "I do not intend to respond further."
Anyways its obvious now that Jace and I both think we have successful refuted the other person's arguments. Both parties contend that they have the advantage and there is nothing more to be said. I'm ready for people to judge the debate between us. I will not reply further.
I did not say I would not respond, only that I did not intend to which was true at the time. Then I got bored, which I still am apparently.
I never claimed to have succeeded in winning the debate. I observed only that you have repeatedly failed to respond to numerous critical points, and that having a legitimate debate with you is practically impossible since you are too lazy and dogmatic to actually read and respond to the substance of any rebuttal.
By the way, no one is going to "judge" this debate in any formal or meaningful way; that is not a feature on this forum. The closest you will get is the up and down vote feature on our individual arguments, and that is practically meaningless.
"I observed only that you have repeatedly failed to respond to numerous critical points, and that having a legitimate debate with you is practically impossible since you are too lazy and dogmatic to actually read and respond to the substance of any rebuttal. " Jace
First I have responded, and to the best of my knowledge I have refuted your claims successfully. As for calling me lazy, this is an Ad Hominem. Again, I offer to re-dispute your claims one at a time.
You cannot legitimately claim to have responded to critical arguments when I have repeatedly and explicitly identified arguments to which you have provided no response. Nor can you legitimately claim to have refuted my claims successfully when you have openly admitted to not reading everything presented to you.
I have already thoroughly explained why my observations about your lack of application are not ad hominem attacks. As usual, you have failed to respond to that analysis and as before I am disinclined to repeat myself when you can read what has already been written.
I also already thoroughly explained why I am not interested in revisiting my counterarguments to your claims point by point. Incidentally, your consistent failure to address such analysis was one of numerous reasons provided; you would know that if you actually bothered to read what I wrote.
Not even boredom could compel me to respond further, and so I will not.
Let me explain my dilemma in with responding to your arguments. Half the words are new to me. I have to look them up in the dictionary. Then, I have to figure out which meaning of the word you are using. Next, I have to understand what you response is conveying. Finally, I have to create a response to your arguments.
I am capable of doing all this. Yet, it will require considerable amount of time and effort. So, you have two choices.
A. Restate your arguments in layman terms.
or
B. Wait at least two weeks for me to fully respond.
Scolding me for not being able to keep with your arguments is a proof by verbosity fallacy. I had somebody post this youtube and then yell at me for not understanding the content. I wonder how quickly you will understand the below youtube.
This response is made in my defense and meant for anyone other than vegan. Everything said against their abilities is based on things they admitted, and was never used as counterargument. They have had one excuse after another for not responding to my points; this is just the latest.
If they honestly struggled to understand me, then they should have said so from the start. Had they done so I would have reworded my points, as I have for others. Waiting until the thread becomes this long and then expecting me to reword every comment is unreasonable. I also have no intention of waiting for them to finally respond, since I have other reasons beyond their vocabulary to suspect any further comments from them to be just as non-responsive.
P.S. Vegan. I understood the link easily. Had I not, I would have admitted it upfront and then applied myself to understanding it, rather than pretending I got it until I got called out and then calling someone fallacious just for knowing more than I do.
I finally read the entire debate back and forth between Jace and I. Its evident that Jace is intelligent, but lacks knowledge and experience on the subject.
My first reaction was correct. Jace has provided no real counter-argument. This is easy to miss at first because of all the advanced words that are used. In fact, Jace only links to one article about nutrition and vegans. The other two links were broken.
After pouring over the material its evident that not all vegan diets are created equal. Suffice to say, a healthy vegan diet can be achieved. There is plenty of evidence of this all over the internet. Both scienfic and anecdotal.
As for eating just a little bit of meat. This doesn't make sense due to temptation and humans. That's why supplements are better. Think of somebody trying to resist a pie. The person decides to take one slice and ends up eating the whole pie.
For more information on a vegan diet watch these films.
If you only just now bothered to actually read the debate, then by your own admission you had no idea what you were even responding to in your earlier posts which necessarily makes them non-responsive.
I have already explained why your verbosity argument is not valid, as well as outright suspect. I will not repeat myself; your evasive character speaks for itself.
My working link on vegan nutrition was more than adequate on its own to discredit your claims. Given that you never responded to that or any other research and that you had already openly admitted to not actually reading references provided to you, there was no reason for me to waste time fixing the broken links just for you to ignore them. As has already been explained.
I presented numerous links about the nutritional and socio-political viability of an insect based diet to which you never responded. Your ignorance of entomophagy was clear from the start, and your resistance to learning about it speaks to your dogmatic brand of veganism.
Lol, Jace I read through all the links. I didn't respond line by line, but I did take some broad strokes against them. Just because you claim one of your links can discredit my claims, doesn't make it true.
Your persistence made me think that I missed something. I checked back, and my first guess was correct.
Its becoming increasingly clear you have almost no knowledge on the subject of veganism. I have learned a lot about entomophagy, and I've also learned enough about the eating of insects to know its limitations.
If all anyone cared about was the environment entomophagy makes sense. Yet, if the only concern was the environment, beef would be the first product to be phased out. People are emotionally attached to their food.
The position that you advocate for seem to be one where insects are added to the diet. This is more feasible for sure in the sense that it is easier for a human to add a new item to the menu than subtract. Yet, if people are eating grasshoppers next to a hamburger, the effect would be minimal.
Since people already eat lettuce, potatoes, and other vegan dishes. It makes more sense to encourage people to eat more of the healthier and environmentally friendly choices they are already eating.
I will now go line by line and tell you why your sole link on nutrition is inadequate to disprove my claims.
"Surveys of vegetarian populations indicate that vegetarians, particularly vegans, are at an increased risk for dietary deficiencies of protein, vitamin B-12 and vitamin D (10,17,18)."
This sounds true. Yet, its common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans are in the minority. That many are ethical vegetarians/vegans who don't know that much about nutrition.
Now look at the link 17. Vitamin D in the winter. In other words the vegans didn't go outdoors enough to receive enough sunlight and vitamin D in the winter.
"At northern latitudes, dietary intake of vitamin D in vegans was insufficient to maintain S-25(OH)D and S-iPTH concentrations within normal ranges in the winter, which seems to have negative effects on bone mineral density in the long run."
Now link 10 "Protein, saturated fat and vitamin D intake were significantly lower in the vegetarians, particularly in the vegans." [10]
This doesn't mean that they were undernourished. If the omnivores had too much of each, then the vegans would be in the normal range.
Now B12 is a problem "The vegans all had B12 intakes below the RNI; and 35% of the long-term vegetarians and vegans had serum vitamin B12 concentrations below the reference range."
This is why B12 supplements make sense. Also in the same article, the vegans had higher fiber intakes. Fiber is known for its health benefits.
Now link 18, again with B12.
" however the plasma vitamin B12 concentration decreased progressively from the high-meat-eating group to vegans (P<0.05). An inverse trend was observed with plasma homocysteine concentration, with vegans showing the highest levels and high meat eaters the lowest (P<0.05)." [18]
I could go through every link that your sole links references, but instead I will jump to the conclusion.
"In conclusion, we have designed a food guide pyramid specifically addressing the nutrient inadequacies and reduced mineral bioavailability of lactovegetarian and vegan diets. Three new food groups, green leafy vegetables, dried fruit, and nuts and seeds, have been added to the traditional food groups, increasing the protein, calcium, iron, and zinc contents of the meal plans by 15–20%." [1]
In other words Jace your link supports my claim. It proves everything I've been stating. That there are vegans who eat bad diets and are deficient. Yet, its entirely possible to a healthy vegan diet. Thanks for the link btw.
Lol, Jace I read through all the links. [...] effect would be minimal.
Evidently, you still have not read most of my references or arguments. If you had, you would know that my argument is not to just add insects to the menu alongside a hamburger. You would also know that I have advanced the entomophagy argument on multiple fronts - world hunger, health, politics, economy, etc. - and not just the environmental. You have reduced my actual arguments and their references to strawmen, rather than responding to them and their references; hardly surprising, since that is what you have done from the start. It is easy to dismiss an argument you have misrepresented, and easier still when you never bother to prove most of your own claims.
It is only after numerous posts challenging you to address my arguments that you have at last deigned to respond to one single reference out of context. Since I finally have something to respond to, I will.
This sounds true. Yet, its common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans are in the minority. That many are ethical vegetarians/vegans who don't know that much about nutrition.
Not only is there no reason to assume that the average omnivore is more informed about their nutrition than the average vegetarian/vegan, your own references and argumentation already suggest that they are less informed. Additionally, since most vegetarians/vegans also choose their diet deliberately due to ethics they are already being more intentional about what they eat than their average omnivore counterparts. Despite both of these factors, the average vegetarian/vegan still has nutritional deficiencies relative to their average omnivore counterparts which does indicate that the vegan diet is relatively deficient. This underscores what the research referenced by my link already shows to be true: a healthy vegan diet is considerably more difficult to obtain than a balanced omnivore diet, and impossible to obtain at all without supplements (which I have multiple standing arguments against).
Now look at the link 17. Vitamin D in the winter. In other words the vegans didn't go outdoors enough to receive enough sunlight and vitamin D in the winter.
This is really basic, but seasonal vitamin D deficiency has nothing to do with how much time one spends outdoors; if it did, the deficiency would not be seasonal. The reason there is vitamin D deficiency in winter is because there literally are not enough daylight hours to sustain healthy levels of absorption from the sun alone. We have to consume it, which is obviously a problem for vegans as evidenced by this research.
This doesn't mean that they were undernourished. If the omnivores had too much of each, then the vegans would be in the normal range.
While some nutrients are mentioned ambiguously in link 10, the reference also explicitly identifies multiple nutritional deficiencies relative to the RNI (recommended nutritional intake). Notably, B12 and iron with resultant haematological concerns.
Now B12 is a problem "The vegans all had B12 intakes below the RNI; and 35% of the long-term vegetarians and vegans had serum vitamin B12 concentrations below the reference range." This is why B12 supplements make sense.
Except that I have presented multiple arguments with references indicating that supplements are problematic, to which you have never responded. I refer you to my earlier analysis rather than repeating it (again).
Also in the same article, the vegans had higher fiber intakes. Fiber is known for its health benefits.
The article indicates that fiber intake was higher, not healthier; are you being deliberately inconsistent with your criticism of the reference or just stupid? This is also irrelevant insofar as you have not addressed my standing arguments about your over-generalization of all possible omnivore diets into one single model (esp. the erasure of entomophagy).
Now link 18, again with B12 [...]
All you did was quote the article indicating lower rates of B12 and higher rates of plasma homocysteine concentration. Did you intend to actually make an argument, or...
I could go through every link that your sole links references, but instead I will jump to the conclusion.
Yes, why be thorough and actually address arguments and references in their entirety. Such integrity to critical reasoning is inconvenient to dogmatic belief, after all. Much easier to engage the good old confirmation bias and jump to your conclusions, rather than actually prove them.
That was also not my sole reference; I provided others on entomophagy which are pertinent to vegan nutrition (as well as further references on other matters that you still have not responded to at all.)
In other words Jace your link supports my claim. It proves everything I've been stating. That there are vegans who eat bad diets and are deficient. Yet, its entirely possible to a healthy vegan diet. Thanks for the link btw.
Only if you take parts of it completely out of context. The second sentence following the one you quoted: "If fortified foods are absent from the diet, the use of specific supplements for these micronutrients is encouraged." I have multiple standing arguments against fortified foods and supplements, which this article identifies as necessary to a healthy vegan diet. Until you have addressed those points, this link does not support your claim at all.
fatsickandnearlydead
Apparently, your best counter-reference to the scientifically based summary of the literature i provided is a popular media documentary. Hardly compelling, particularly given that it commits the same generalized omnivorism fallacy I have already criticized you for repeatedly (to which you have, again, not responded).
Are you purposely avoiding the question. On the right side you said you disagree with the killing of animals, so then you must be opposed to killing deer for any reason. If so, then the consequences to the environment are huge, as the article I linked pointed out. Then can I deduce that you are in favor of letting millions of deer starve to death AND wreck havoc on the forests and farmers crops? That is incredibly cruel to allow millions of deer that horrendous ending.
However, you just stated that you are opposed to humans hunting for sport. It seems to me you are leaving yourself a way out in case you can't figure out a way to save the deer without killing them. Meaning, if necessary, you would approve of killing deer for humane reasons, but you didn't state that, now did you?
Foratag you seem to bent on taking this debate off topic and confusing the issue. Deer have to die eventually, as do all living creatures. I see it as completely different to have wolves hunt and kill deer in a natural way. As opposed to humans hunting for sport like pigeon shoots.
To clarify, I am against animal abuse and cruelty. Yet, there are extraordinary circumstances where it would be tolerable for a human to kill an animal. For example, a person trapped on a desert island with only animals for food. Self-defense would be another example.
I'm alright with wild animals killing other wild animals in their natural habitat.
okay, it is clear that you do not want to kill animals, fine. You talk about destruction of habitat in the original post. What do you propose we do when an invasive species threatens to disrupt and wipe out an entire ecosystem? We can't kill that invader, according to you, so do we allow nature to take its course and what happens happens. In some circumstances relocating that species is impossible, it is either kill it or allow it to multiply. That sounds like Darwin's survival of the fittest approach. If so, then why do you want to save starving people around the world?
Are humans more important to you than animals, and if so, then why not allow at least some consumption of meat when it is appropriate. But you are totally opposed to any meat consumption, so my belief is that you regard animals and humans as equals. Most rational people will disagree with that.
If the invasive species is a plant, trimming back the plant works great. Many vines are beautiful but invasive. If properly contained their beauty can be appreciated without the threat to the environment.
All invasive species are caused by humans that I know of. One example a human decides to bring a plant from his or her home town. Not only does the plant come, but a few animals are hiding within the soil. Since humans were the ones who introduced the invasive species, its up to humans to find an innovative way to minimize the harm.
In Australia rabbits were rampant and introducing new natural predators worked wonders. Its nearly impossible to get through life without killing an animal. Instead, the principle of least harm is the most reasonable solution.
Some people seem to think in black and white. That vegans kill no animals or factory farming is morally sound. Vegans killing no animals is a falsehood. Animals are killed during harvesting. Yet, this is no excuse for factory farming. We have to play the hand life gives us.
Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool? LOL. So much so you even use it for your UserName on CB.
News Flash: we don't give a rat's ass.
I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me.
I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore. (Not so proud I would use it as a UserName, though. LOL)
Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.
Most vegans don't get enough protein. I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.
So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely. Oh, my cardio abilities and endurance might have gone up a couple ticks but I noticed by pure weight-room strength always waned.
Why?
As an Evolutionary Biologist I can telly you that us homo sapiens evolved eating meats, fruits and veggies. Our optimal diets include meat. Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.
Pure herbivores don't have these.
NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.
So bottom line is...being a Veg Head is a personal choice. If it works for you fine. You're already on thin ice if you advocate it for others, but to propose non-vegan food should be banned is absurd. Ridiculous. Groundless.
It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.
Like I said....we evolved to be carnivorous..........
Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool?
Perhaps you forgot about the disproportionate amount of 'gym-rats' who boast their physical accomplishments and plaster pictures of themselves on any social medium with an 'insert photo' option.
I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me.
How you managed to reconcile these two mutually exclusive statements is anyone's guess. Anyway, your knowledge on 'superbly physical fit athletes' is highly partial, unfounded, and just plain irrelevant.
I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore.
Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.
So why not delete the latter statement since you manifestly erred in your former one?
Most vegans don't get enough protein.
Again, unfounded. Vegans who diet improperly do not consume enough protein.
Further, is getting all that wonderful protein helping anything? 68.8% of Americans are overweight or obese; 35%areobese; and 74 percent of men are overweight... America ranks #2 in meat consumption, by the way. You should be concerned for your pseudo-carnivorous counterparts as Vegans do not suffer half of the health consequences that non-vegans do.
I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.
And you failed miserably (and comically) since you could not maintain 'weight-room strength' due to alleged protein deficiency - and you have the temerity to blame it on the vegan lifestyle, as opposed to laziness, despite the great amount of successful bodybuilding vegans who, apparently, bring out your frailty.
So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely.
Again you admit to your incompetence; some just don't have the cognitive resources to adjust to a different, more complex lifestyle.
As an Evolutionary Biologist
Hahahaha. That humor is exacerbated by this next erroneous statement:
Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.
Do you know the animal with largest incisors? A Hippopotamus - classified as herbivore.
Few more herbivores incisors: Mountain Gorilla; Saber-Toothed Deer; The Gelada Baboon; Camels; certain pigs (e.g. the Javelina).
As a self-proclaimed evolutionary biologist you should know the reason certain herbivores, especially the hippo, evolved to have such sharp incisors despite having no meat on their list of favorite foods.
NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.
Must I really provide a potential litany of citations that state the contrary? Was this a serious non-exaggerated statement?
It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.
Yet, each of your claims were either unfounded, absurd, fallacious, or expressly erroneous...
The fact is, that the vast majority of people in the world are not vegans and therefore, the vast majority of the athletes you meet, along with the vast majority of morbidly obese people (which make up the majority of America by the way) are going to be non-vegans; it doesn't have so much to do with them being omnivorous rather than them working hard in terms of physical training.
Despite the obvious anecdotal claims of vegans getting plenty of protein (patrik baboumian, one of the strongest men in the world), there is plenty of scientific evidence claiming how vegans easily achieve a sustainable amount of protein in their diets If you would maybe look at some evidence rather than jumping to conclusions, you would be surprised. https://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php
Are you seriously an evolutionary biologist? I find that hard to believe as you're using one of the weakest arguments against veganism, our teeth. Look at gorillas who have much larger and stronger 'incisors' than humans, who are also herbivorous. but I guess to you that just means they are some biological anomaly?http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/gorilla/
I wont bother posting any but there have been plenty of scientific studies showing the correlation between vegan diets and lower rates of cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes that you can easily look up on pubmed or any where else really.
Yes I am really an Evolutionary Biologist. Well, I am currently working on my doctoral dissertation, that is, but right now only hold an MS in general Biology.
I used the dentition aspect of our physiological traits since it is a quickly identifiable one and is useful in a layman forum such as this, where time and space are constraints.
And also it seems you did not bother to read my linked article from live-science. Since it elaborated on how carnivorous habits greatly aided us homo sapiens.
But if you really want to delve deeper into some of the vestigial traits we have that allude to the fact that the genus homo was certainly evolved to be carnivorous, and that said carnivorous habits greatly aided our development, I can certainly elaborate.
Most anthropologists and Evo Biologists believe that the carnivorous diet, and specifically the protein we obtained from it, was a key factor in enabling our brains to evolve the way they did. That is, it helped us get smarter and fostered growth in the reasoning and strategy-making areas of the brain: our neo-cortical areas; pre-frontal lobes and cortex.
These are the areas of the brain we we were superior to our closest rivals, Neanderthal man, whom we narrowly edged out and surpassed when we met-up with them in Europe after leaving the African Savannah about 50,000 years ago.
And make no mistake, we had some good luck as well. Neanderthal was not the brutish ape-man many believe. Their brains overall were larger, But not in the important areas. Which were helped, for us, by good old meat.
What's for dinner?
LOL.
Check this out, a friend of mine I went to under-grad school with wrote it.........
Well congratulations on your career path, however, the argument about humans being carnivorous because of our incisors is still a weak argument.
I read the article you linked, and unsurprisingly, it supported a vegan diet. The fact that it is suggesting the idea that a high carb or high energy diet is what caused the human brain to grow and achieve its current mass and developments completely supports a vegan diet. Vegan diets consist mainly of high carb/energy foods such as fruits vegetables, legumes and rice. You and the article you suggested are both indirectly supporting a vegan diet for anyone who has goals of achieving a higher cognitive development. Thanks for the history lesson though.
Yeah. I only briefly mentioned the incisor thing, and it was by no means my main argument topic. It is simply a minor vestigial trait.
The main sticking point is that we have seen from fossils and DNA research that our brains greatly expanded right after we learned to use fire to cook meat about 150,000 years ago. This is not a mere coincidence. After a steady and slow increase in brain size and development, it all of a sudden took-off, especially in the frontal lobe and neo-cortical areas, that greatly enable us to plan, strategize and reason.
Well this is ironic because I, also, only briefly mentioned how the incisor thing was a flawed argument.
You seem to be missing the big picture here. Yeah meat helped us evolve and develop cognitively to our current state of mind. Does that mean that it was solely the fact that these foods were the products of animals that provided this benefit? Or could it be that the nutrients in those animal products are what did it?! Bingo! According to the livescience article that you,yourself linked in your previous post, it turns out that it very well is the energy providing nutrients in the animal products that is what caused our development. Now you must be thinking, what is it that might be more energy enriched than meat? Fruits and vegetables is the answer my friend. Your own articles seem to be proving a vegan diet to be superior than a meat eating one, yet, you only seem to be looking at the history of what meat has done for us.
Slapshot, I've already made clear why non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide. Animals, environment, health, and world hunger.
"News Flash: we don't give a rat's ass." SlapShot
Wow, you don't care. Did you know that animal abuse is a felony according to the FBI?
"FBI Makes Animal Cruelty A Top-Tier Felony To Help Track Abuse" [1]
"I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me." Slapshot
The vast majority of humans in the world are omnivores. This are plenty of healthy vegan athletes.
"Vegetarian diets are associated with several health benefits, but whether a vegetarian or vegan diet is beneficial for athletic performance has not yet been defined. Based on the evidence in the literature that diets high in unrefined plant foods are associated with beneficial effects on overall health, lifespan, immune function, and cardiovascular health, such diets likely would promote improved athletic performance as well." [2].
As you can see from above vegan athletes are at least as effective as non-vegan.
"Most vegans don't get enough protein. " SlapShot
Pure myth. You only need about 10% protein from calories. Plenty of vegan foods have more than enough protein like oats and legumes.
"You should get at least 10% of your daily calories, but not more than 35%, from protein, according to the Institute of Medicine." [3].
"So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely. Oh, my cardio abilities and endurance might have gone up a couple ticks but I noticed by pure weight-room strength always waned." SlapShot
There is testimonial evidence to the contrary. [4].
"Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.
Pure herbivores don't have these." SlapShot
Wrong. Look at a hippopotamus' teeth. They are herbivores and have fangs.
"The hippopotamus (to avoid the contentious plural) also has the largest canines of any land animal, with two sword-like teeth that reach a whopping sixteen inches (40cm) in length. " [5].
"Type:
Mammal
Diet:
Herbivore" [6].
"NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation." Slapshot
That's a falsehood. "Vegan Men: More Testosterone But Less Cancer" [7].
"It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology." SlapShot
Ad hominem. "For Evolving Brains, a ‘Paleo’ Diet of Carbs" [8].
Thank you for posting SlapShot, I look forward to your response.
Freedom is important. Yet, there is a reason why criminals are chased down by police officers. When your freedom infringes upon another person's freedom, then the law often steps in. How is it fair or just for a person to consume lots of meat damaging the environment, consuming more than his or her fair share, and causing suffering to animals?
If only people like you could see how it explicitly violates the freedom of the countless animals being brutally tortured and killed every day. But just because they are animals and not humans, that gives us the right to be able to dispose of them in any manner we'd like, is what you believe in I'm sure.
Arteaga, bacon is the best. And no we aren't torturing animals as you've suggested, and if you don't like to eat animals/meat then be my guest. It's still your choice on what to eat, i would say that it is rather impossible for "vegans" passing this law successfully, such nonsense. Their are "Humane" ways of preparing meat contrary to belief.
Stratos do you see the below video as humane treatment? [1]. Processed meats cause cancer, that includes bacon. "Breakfast lovers, beware. A new study found eating processed meats like bacon and sausage could increase your risk for deadly pancreatic cancer."[2].
Over 99% of American meat is factory farmed [3].
"“If you’ve ever shopped at Whole Foods, you may have seen signs posted in the meat department that say things like ‘enriched environment’ and ‘treated humanely,’” the organization wrote in a press release. “But what a PETA investigator documented at a Pennsylvania pig farm that supplies Whole Foods reveals that these signs are probably worth less than the recycled paper they’re printed on.”" [4].
"Lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. Since the first lethal injection on December 7, 1982, over 1,000 prisoners in the USA have been executed by this method and it has all but replaced other methods of execution." [5].
The idea of humanely killing a sentient being is a myth. A technique has not been developed yet. Humans are given the lethal injection sometimes suffer excruciating pain.
You do realize there are bacon flavored vegan foods and faux meats right?
It was the white man's choice to own slaves 200 years ago does what your saying suggest that we shouldn't have questioned slavery back then and it should still be an ongoing act?
Of course it is rather impossible to pass a law banning non-vegan foods in today's world, the general population shows an incapability of experiencing any significant sense of empathy for other human beings, what makes you think they would be capable of experiencing this for non-human beings? This doesn't suggest that we should not continue raising awareness for veganism with the hope that one day a law banning non-vegan foods will be prosecuted.
I beg to differ. You said meat tastes good in the previous post. Then, another person said, "I bet human meat tastes good." This is a valid point. A food tasting good is insufficient to morally justify consuming the food. Also, human meat is unhealthy for humans to eat, just as red meat is.
Consumption of meat increases cancer risk. Enjoy your heterocyclic amines.
"Meat-cooking mutagens, including heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are formed as a result of meat cooking, preparation, and level of doneness and may increase the risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." [1].
"Processed meat Processed meatwas classified as carcinogenic to humans(Group 1), based on sufficient evidencein humans that the consumption of processed meat causescolorectal cancer."[2].
"Meat Is Linked to Higher Cancer Risk, W.H.O. Report Finds" [3].
"Remember two weeks ago when the World Health Organization said bacon causes bowel cancer and red meat "probably" does? That was a pretty bad day. Well, science is really on a roll lately, because now there's news that doctors at the University of Texas's MD Anderson Cancer Center have tied all meat to another type of cancer, of the kidney this time."[4].
Conservatives are into banning dairy , eggs and meat worldwide ? I would like to see where the information is that they Conservatives want to ban these products worldwide !
Yes, animal freedom is important too. There was a time when there was much greater gender inequality. I wonder if the same people who suggest human freedom is much more important than animal freedom think the same way about men and woman.
Naw....God gave us dominion over the four-legged beasts and the fish of the seas and the fowl of the air, remember? Way back in Genesis.
Another reason to be carnivorous. Or, rather, Omnivorous! Better yet.
People who really think that the animals we eats are sentient, that is, possess self-awareness and experience emotions need to study a bit more on the topic. Their brains have not developed, evolved to the point where this is possible. Now, this does not mean of course that we should be cruel to them. No, not at all. But when it comes to us or them, us getting that good lean and nutritious meat we need, the non-existent "feelings" of these beasts is gonna be put way back on that burner, amigos.
And now a few words from our resident tree huggers......................
I eat meat because I don't like the vegan diet. I don't like any diet. I prefer meat and meat alone is what I prefer. Dairy also has alot of calcium. Meat has iron and protein.
No, you eat meat for pleasure. If meat was not pleasurable, you would not choose to eat it, given that there are an abundance of other foods capable of sustaining your survival. Typical, as in, a typical thing for a meat eater to say: you eat meat because you enjoy it, yet you don't think of all the negative consequences you're attributing to.
No, I eat meat for the Protein and Iron, not for pleasure. I don't give a flying fuck if something is 'pleasurable'. How would you know what I would and wouldn't choose to eat, It's not like your the non-existent god...or a mind-reader..or a witch.
Oh so you eat meat for the protein and iron even though you can easily get a sustainable amount of protein and iron from a plant-based diet and you can do so without all the harmful effects that meat not only does for the environment but to your body as well! You say you eat meat purely for survival yet meat shows increased risks in all cause mortality rates compared to a plant based diet. Yeah real good argument you have going on here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
As for conservatives wanting to ban non-vegan foods, there are plenty of religious people who want to.[1]. George H. Malkmus for starters.
There are also plenty of conservatives who are vegetarian. 7th day Adventists. "A well-balanced vegetarian diet that avoids the consumption of meat coupled with intake of legumes, whole grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables, along with a source of vitamin B12, will promote vigorous health. "[2].
Then they are not really conservatives if they want to tell the whole country what they can and cannot eat. Conservatives simply don't believe in that.
Conservatives believe that abortion is murder. If they hold true to that belief, then they should try to get it banned as it goes against their moral values. If a person thinks it is wrong to kill, then why would they not tell someone to not have an abortion. But this is not an abortion debate, so lets drop this part, okay.
Yes, in the same way that the world should see my view in that slavery is wrong and should be abolished. I'm continuing to use this human slavery analogy to give you a better understanding of where your "red meat" comes from, by the way.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, please don't waste my time. I have not suggested that things which I don't like should be opposed to everyone, I simply suggested that things which unnecessarily remove freedom from beings should be opposed by everyone. Now, would you agree with that statement?
Did you see my large argument with several links? There is many reasons for meat to be banned. Health, environment, world hunger, and animal suffering. Not only that but I supplied proof backing up my claims.
I am not disputing this for animal rights. This is not a dispute of our evolutionary needs. Then why am I disputing this? Because if we drop The Ban Hammer on non-vegan foods the whole world WILL go down the flusher.
Think of all the farmers around the world that rely on dairy and meat markets to put bread on the table. think of all the people who have no choice but to eat meat. If we ban non-vegan foods global starvation will ensue. This will evolve in riots and even wars.
Also, what government is powerful enough to induct this rule? Most governments today can't even sneeze without every other guy with a gun and a flag threatening war, let alone coming together and blanket ban one of the most plentiful (and profitable) food source.
And what of the people? how will the everyday person react to something so viciously taken from them, a right they have had since before the we (as a race) could even speak! Not to mention, what do we do with the people who break this rule?
throw them all in Gaol? they will overflow in a matter of weeks.
And last but not least, the animals. What will we do with the billions of livestock? We could not keep them on farms. It would be way to expensive to even consider doing this.
Pets as well. Where will we get the meat to feed them? And we certainly cannot release these animals to the wild. This will destroy the ecosystem. And all the animals that cannot
survive in the wild. Unadapted, docile animals that have no idea how to survive in the wilds, it will be a worse death than a trip to the abattoir.
In conclusion, this decision is expensive, cruel to both humans and animals and an all-around unstable and unpredictable future.
Being vegan only works because it is done by a small group of people. Since vegans can't get any pleasure from the food they eat they are forced to derive pleasure from telling everyone else that they are vegan. If everyone were vegan you couldn't get any pleasure from telling others you are vegan, and you are already getting no pleasure from your food. So, much of the population would go crazy from being so unhappy and many people would get hurt.
Plenty of people get pleasure from vegan foods. There are many testimonies here [1]. The palate can change. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa? "[2].
No one wants to admit that the food that they eat gives them no pleasure. If you got pleasure from what you ate, why do you still feel the need to announce you are vegan to the world?
Let's go ahead and assume you are correct in saying that no vegan foods can give pleasure to someone, which is obviously incorrect, but let's assume it's true. If that were the case, in what world do you live in where the only other pleasurable thing besides food is telling someone about your food choice diet? How about dancing, singing, hanging out with friends, going for a night swim, watching a good movie, a good conversation, the smell of an ocean breeze, watching a sunset, and one of the biggest, having sex. Are vegans incapable of experiencing all these pleasures? No. Now if your life is excluded from all these pleasures, and the only pleasurable thing you are capable of having besides food is telling people what food you eat, I feel sorry for you man.
Are vegans incapable of experiencing all these pleasures?
Apparently. They have to tell every person they meet that they are a vegan. If they were able to get pleasure from those activities why do they need to tell everyone that they are vegan?
Now if your life is excluded from all these pleasures, and the only pleasurable thing you are capable of having besides food is telling people what food you eat, I feel sorry for you man.
Don't tell me, tell every vegan anyone has ever met.
Telling people that they are vegan is a good thing in the way that it raises awareness and hope for the cause that one day all humans will be vegan, it has nothing to do with them getting pleasure out of it.
Why dip you guys do it in the most obnoxious way possible? Every time a normal person hears you guys talking about being vegan they want to try it even less.
What i said was obnoxious?? If vegans do sound obnoxious when talking to other non-vegans, maybe it's because their so used to these non-vegans making retarded insults like "vegans only get pleasure from telling other people that their vegan because they get no pleasure from food or anything else hehehe".
Okay so you're saying that a vegan saying to someone that he/she doesn't eat meat is the most obnoxious way possible to go about spreading the idea of veganism??
I get plenty of pleasure from eating vegan foods. Vegetables have more taste than meat to me. I get immense pleasure from eating vegan, without a side of guilt.
So, yes I do get pleasure from what I eat, and I feel the need to announce to the world that I am vegan.
We are not suicidal and careless about Earth's commodities and essentials necessary for survival as you non-vegans are.
You do not care about you, nor your family since you unabashedly contribute to global desolation with your callous pollutant lifestyle. Problem is, your lack of care affects the entire global infrastructure - which makes you immensely wicked for intentionally being the source in global destruction.
I don't think this is necessary because you would cut off half of the work for farmers who help the animals and kill them for food. We need the non-vegan foods to have other extra food to a food supply otherwise we would spend the whole entire time eating foods that either are not sweet, no taste, not sour, or not salty. (depends on how you modified the food)
While the vegan foods may be healthy, we would only have those type of vegetables and that's all. Meat and vegetables comes in a different way of being modified as a mix with meats while vegetables will not mix with each other and often just be separated
The ranchers are supporting and killing mass numbers of sentient beings intentionally. This is unjust and immoral. What makes it okay for a farmer to kill a pig, but not a human child or mentally handicapped people? Where do you draw the line? How about minorities? Is it morally sound to kill minorities WeeklyManner?
I would hope after 2,500 studies people would accept animal's sentience. Think of a cow, she has ears to hear, eyes to see, a spinal cord to feel, a tongue to taste, and a nose to smell. A plant has none of these.
Cognition, a plant will always grow towards the sun. In opposition a cow can learn to take different paths. A memory to remember which path to take. A plant is stuck with its innate genetic code always growing towards the sun.
Animals have the ability to move and to eat. A cow can find one type of grass sweeter than the others and move towards the stimuli. Pain can teach the cow to avoid other stimuli and move away from it. A plant is stationary thus there is no reason for a plant to feel pain.
Even a bee has a brain "The head houses the brain, a collection of about 950,000 neurons." 2
The old saying, no brain, no pain. Well bees have brains and so do other farm animals. Bees have antenna and eyes.
If one goes with the definition of sentience "the ability to perceive or feel", then it does not matter which types of sensory organs an organism has; they can still feel. This means that plans, by nature of having sensory organs, are somewhat sentient. As are "lesser" organisms, such as some forms of molds and bacteria.
Its harder to prove a negative, yet I'm pretty sure plants don't have sensory organs. I contend that plants are not sentient and animals are sentient.
If you look at the studies done on plant sentience, it basically comes down to plants respond to stimulus and have genetic material that is passed on from generation to generation. I find this insufficient to prove plant sentience.
They certainly do have sensory organs, but you don't find them sufficient to be referred to as creating sentience. So I am asking where you draw the line in terms of sensory organs.
Animals are sentient, plants are not. Even if plants were sentient this is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Furthermore, vegan diets kill less plants. It takes more grain to feed a cow and then to eat the cow as opposed to eating the grain directly. Finally, you arguing that animals don't have sentience at the same time arguing that both plants and animals have sentience. This is kettle logic.
You have repeated that without proven it. I have provided you an argument that you have clearly dismissed.
Even if plants were sentient this is a Tu Quoque fallacy.
Not really. If your argument is against one diet because it kills sentient life, then pointing out your diet kills sentient life isn't tu quoque.
Furthermore, vegan diets kill less plants. It takes more grain to feed a cow and then to eat the cow as opposed to eating the grain directly.
That's actually your best point thus far. Meat truly is very inefficient.
Finally, you arguing that animals don't have sentience at the same time arguing that both plants and animals have sentience. This is kettle logic.
Except I haven't done that. I have called into question whether or not animals have sentience, while pointing out that by your standards plants are sentient.
Yet we need to resort to anything to eat for a food supply for the earth. If we use vegetables, we would have too much ground about the plants. This also goes for animals, if we let them repopulate themselves fast, they will go everywhere and take too much ground, too. And vegan food does taste fine for CERTAIN people. This goes for meat too. So if you want to remove some of the food supply for the earth, then might as well take up more ground. And if you mean minorities as young animals getting killed, it only happens if it's a needed situation on low food supply. So do you want ground often being used as food or perhaps be an omnivore like everyone else would be if they needed to be.
Certain foods are more detrimental to the environment than others. Cows for instances should be the first animal to be banned from being slaughtered, since they are incredibly inefficient.
Animals AND vegetables can harm the environment still. And of course animals will get harmed, but I don't imagine them getting harmed "all the way" dead. Despite the fact you can't eat some of the same foods over and over and over, so let me bring this up again: omnivores.
"Animals AND vegetables can harm the environment still. And of course animals will get harmed, but I don't imagine them getting harmed "all the way" dead." WeeklyManner
What are you talking about? If you eat a hamburger, of course a cow had to die for that burger.
My opposition to animal products are the methods used to obtain them. If worldwide bans were a thing, I would support one on factory farming, but not on animal products in general.
Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope, so it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope
I disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.
it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.
I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.
The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me, even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.
"As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.
Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond." Stryker
On the contrary. What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.
By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.
The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me,
And? An action that isn't immoral can be seen as appalling.
even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.
Humane? That isn't what I'm talking about, not sure why you keep bringing it up?
What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.
By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.
This is a poorly structured argument. Both "abolition" and "animal welfare" would be laws, and some people will put profit above legal retribution, so they both fail for the same reason. You talk about the welfare of animals like it's something most people care about, they don't and legislation won't change that. This is a question of Profit vs. Law.
Your food is your choice and my choice is mine. As long as we agree to work together to stand up 4 what is right like hating homosexuality, we can all be friends.
