Veganism

Also please give citations or proof that eating meet is bad for you. We all know excessive consumption is bad, as is excessive consumption of anything.
Your argument is only worth listening to if you can show a net benefit to humanity that is greater than the need to eat meet. So it is either health benefits that you need to show. Or environmental benefits that can't be changed by better farming practices.

You argue like a six-year-old. Once you slice a cow's throat, it can no longer be deemed to be conscious. I also don't know where you got your ideas about the workings of a modern day dairy. If I wanted to RAPE a cow, I would force something into its vagina. Milking it does not qualify as rape, and saying it does is an insult to rape victims everywhere. All it does is make you look like an insensitive asshole.

You can try to defend Wikipedia all you want. The fact remains that no self-respecting academic authority accepts it as an authority for any legitimate purpose. Your problem, not mine.

Trying to compare the diet of an elephant to that of a human is not logical. That would be like comparing us to lions, or even elephants to lions, or all three to each other. The fact is that all three are different species, with different dietary intake needs.

Elephants  are indeed herbivores. They wouldn't know what to do with a hunk of meat if you gave it to them. Their teeth can't chew it, they can't catch it, and their bodies can't get nutriment from it.

Lions are exactly the opposite, of course. THEY can catch an animal, eat it, and obtain nutriment thereby. A plant, on the other hand, would serve them no purpose.

Humans of course can obtain nutriment from both plant and and animal sources. As omnivores, our optimal diet includes a little of both.

As for the argument that there are large numbers of Jews, Christians, and Muslims that are vegans, citation needed. I am intimately acquainted with several churches, two synagogues, and one mosque in my city and don't know a single vegan in any of them.

Ultimately, your arguments are based on pure emotionalism and unbalanced whining. Your arguments for veganism do not rely on objective data, but on a subjective appeal to my emotional quotient. Unfortunately for you, my emotional quotient happens to be very low.

Asking me to feel sorry for the local goat, however cute it may be subjectively speaking, is simply illogical when said goat can give me nutriment that I would otherwise not be able to obtain.

In sum, it seems to me that you have an identity crisis. You are probably the only vegan you know, and you are likely feeling lonely in your chosen life-style. Well, sounds like a personal problem. I would prefer you keep it that way.

On a further note, you have discussed the idea of people not wanting pets to suffer. That also is very subjective. Although I value the life of my dog as a personal companion animal, in Asia, particularly in the northern regions of Korea and the parts of China just bordering it across the Yalu River, said animal would be regarded as a delicacy at supper.

What is regarded as suitable for domestication as food, as opposed to domestication as a pet, varies by culture. Some cultures do not routinely keep pets. In Central America, doing so is deemed quite unusual unless you are benefiting from said pet in some way (like having a hen and getting her eggs). Having lived there, I am well aware of this.

In Viet Nam, they often keep what we would consider livestock as an indoor pet, most commonly a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. In fact, in the various Little Saigons of California, in one of which I lived, new immigrants often have to be politely reminded that it is against State Law to maintain livestock in one's personal residence.

It should be noted that in Viet Nam, the pig MAY eventually be used as food source, but not always. And when it has occurred here, that has not been the intention.

Ultimately, the point I am making is that your pet may be my supper. Who are you to tell me that your culture, your way of life, your dining habits, are all superior to mine? And yet I suspect you would crticise the imperialism of the 19th Century British in say, India. Well, IF THAT ISN'T THE POT CALLING THE FUCKING KETTLE BLACK!!! YOU HYPOCRITICAL PRICK!!!

Ah, now I've got that out of my system... Do you have any more to say? By all means, please continue...

So, let me try to defend my other beliefs first: Most of you believe that the Earth is round precisely because Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great.

Incorrect.  Try asking a question before jumping to a conclusion.

As for the "SERIOUS problem", I have calculated it. First of all, cows and pigs and chickens are so numerous because we breed them. We rape them using machines! Second, look, you need to understand that five moths from now (that's the age at which chickens are slaughtered) no chicken that exists today will be alive. So, if we don't breed new chickens, that means there will be no more chickens five months from now.

This is a false dilemma that rests upon slaughtering all chickens to be the only option in the face of no longer breeding them.  Try to put together a coherent argument and you might get somewhere.

The same goes for cows and pigs (except that they live a bit longer).

In Tuscany, there is such a problem with wild boar, which are fucking delicious, that you are allowed to ignore all property laws in order to cull them.  Your assertion is just not accurate.

if we keep factory farms going then their children would be slaughtered, and their children, and their children, and so on… And an infinite number of animals being slaughtered is way worse than a finite number of animals starving to death, right?

If you have a problem with factory farms I get that, but not all meat producers are factory farms.  You need to learn about how the market for fresh meat is evolving.  I will reiterate, I only purchase meat from small, ethical, local meat producers.  I pay approximately 2-3 times the grocery store price, but it is a better choice for the environment and it tastes better.

I guess that some of you will scream: "Well, what about the butchers!?" Well, that's like saying: "I don't want to stop smoking because of tobacco farms!"

Uhhh, no it is not.  Unless you want to try and convince us smoking and meat eating are equal.

And you will always think of some stupid excuses for eating meat, just like I was making excuses for believing that the Earth is round.

You may think the excuses are stupid, but that don't make it so.

@ present I'm on my dumbphone so space limitations apply. To proceed, then, I think it IS only fair to consider the fact that our vegan interlocutor IS only 16. Most of us have the benefit of college & in some cases advanced degrees, as well as extensive life experience, under our belts. Our interlocutor is the product of the American public education system, 1 of the worst in the developed world. Having taught university, I know this. As a result of being in our schools, I don't expect our interlocutor to be able to make a cogent argument. If he gets to college he may develop that skill. But in high school it is highly unlikely. So in that sense, perhaps he should be shown a certain degree of tolerance. Then of course there is the matter of his immaturity, as one would expect from an adolescent whose balls have just dropped. He's a raging bag of pimply emotions & illogic. Again, a certain amount of tolerance may be in order.

So, let me try to debunk your arguments. I must say, I expected that some other vegans would help me, but, yeah, that's life!

AstronomyMaster:
You obviously haven't tried any vegan food.

Kali:
Babies aren't sapients, right? Do you claim that we should then treat them badly because of it? Look, a pig is way more intelligent than a human infant! Don't be a hypocrite. If you are, nobody will take you seriously.

tappet:
Look, as I have mentioned many times, your statement about humans being obligated to eat meat is not only not proven, it has been proven wrong. There are many body-builders that are vegan, there are many people older than 100 years that are vegan, just do some research online!
Your statement about fats doesn't make any sense because, look, there are saturated and unsaturated fats. And meat contains mostly unsaturated fats. And human body can't USE unsaturated fats. They just end up circling our blood stream causing heart diseases. Do some research online.
And I realize that you can't always abstain form hurting other sentient beings, but can you at least try not to hurt them?

MaNaeAsWolf:
Yes, nature doesn't care about morality. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't. And I think that you actually do. Do you think it is moral when humans die by being attacked by viruses and bacteria? I mean, that would also be a part of nature. And it's not like that I cry whenever I see a dead animal. My grandfather had chickens and turkeys. I was little, so I believed that was a good thing. I even helped him butcher those animals. And I enjoyed torturing small animals… But, hey, I've changed! I've realized that that's immoral. And I try to be a moral person. And, to me, it is a lot easier to be moral to unseen animals than to known people. I don't know about you, but I, when I get to know someone well, I start to hate him. And I know that he or she isn't the way he or she is because he or she chooses to be, but I really can't help myself. But I have no problem empathizing with food animals.
As for your questioning of the health benefits of a vegan diet, look, the benefits of eating meat have NEVER BEEN PROVEN. And the health benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets have been AGAIN AND AGAIN. Even FDA has been convinced:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
And now, I guess you will scream: "But there are some studies showing exactly the opposite!" Well, guess what, that appears in the newspapers exactly because, well, it's weird. For every one study favoring meat-eating, there are at least ten favoring vegetarianism. And that's exactly what the probability predicts. Let me explain: those studies cover only a small sample. And the health of a human is not based soley on a diet. There are other issues. For example, there are vegans who smoke, who drink alcohol, and so on. And to make a balance, they have to choose a large sample. Failing to do so, they choose small samples, but at random. And for the most part, it works. Except that sometimes that random sample really is biased. That doesn't happen often, but the probability suggests that with a lot studies, sometimes it will happen. And that's why a few percent of the studies seem to favor eating meat. But, of course, only those small percentage of the studies is shown in the newspapers, because, well, they are the weird ones!

Yaakov ben Avraham:
You know what, I am really tired of your stupidity! You repeat the same things again and again! Can't you look up have your arguments already been debunked, at least on this thread!
OK, let me respond to the new bullshit you came up with. First of all, you don't lose consciousness at the same time as your throat is sliced. There is still a blood flow to your brain! Even if they cut off your head (so, all the blood flow stops), you are still conscious for at least a few seconds. Do some research on Wikipedia if you don't believe me.
I am not claiming that milking is a rape, I am claiming that breeding is a rape. And yes, that machine is inserted right in the animals vagina without her consent.
As for your claim that Wikipedia isn't reliable, look, a person making a statement is irrelevant to the statement itself. There are the arguments, refute them if you can! And, again, if you think that people writing Wikipedia misrepresented something, you can see the references!
And again and again and again and again, it has never been proven that humans need to eat meat to be healthy, and the VAST MAJORITY OF EVIDENCE suggests exactly the opposite.
Yes, a vegan population tends to be relatively small for now, but that doesn't mean that you can use religion to justify eating meat! As for citation, here is what I am referring to (and if you don't think that it is reliable, again, show me your REASONING):
http://www.bmv.org.il/v/vegan.html
Again, the fact that I (whoever the hell you think I am) make the statements is irrelevant. You can see the arguments, explain to us why they are fallacious.
Again, claiming that animals shouldn't be treated nicely because they currently aren't is begging the question. It's a type of circular reasoning! Just like you can't apply it in mathematics, you also can't apply it here! If you apply it n mathematics, you will usually get a wrong result! If you do get a right result, it's a pure chance, and you don't get any points in the exam! Why would here be any different?!

Rama Set:
Again, don't just claim that something is absurd, show me where is the fallacy! Also, I think you are intentionally quote-mining me. I've explained my reasoning later in the same post!
How is that a false dilemma? What are the other possibilities?
I am talking generally about most of the world, so my assertion is probably accurate. Also, I must say I don't even understand the argument you are making. What does that have to do with veganism?!
I don't need to learn anything more about the farming practices. You don't have to have all the knowledge of the world to come to the right conclusion. And if I am wrong, explain to me why. Fine, maybe my wording was wrong, I meant all farms, not just factory ones. So, that doesn't disprove my point.
Don't just claim that smoking and eating meat aren't equal, explain to us what difference between the two is relevant for this discussion!
My statement that your excuses are stupid is not an Ad Hominem, it is a conclusion based on facts. I reasonably expect your future arguments to be stupid simply because they have been until now! I might be proven wrong in the future, but I still haven't been!

Yaakov ben Avraham:
Again, Ad hominem arguments don't count here. I've presented the arguments, and you, I guess, haven't even tried to think of a sensical response to them. Also, I live in Croatia, and I am an excellent student. There are fourteen subjects in our school and last year, I had an A in all subjects except the art. This year, I go on competitions in physics, mathematics, biology, Latin and ICT. In every single of them, I was the best in my school and had enough points to attain the next level! So, you can't claim that I am not well educated! And even if I were, again, it wouldn't matter. I've made the arguments, and you weren't able to refute them.

P. S. I must say that this topic has turned more to angry rating than to a philosophy discussion. Well, that's not my fault. I tried my best to not let this happen, but obviously you didn't!
Can you just try to stop talking about me (or Wikipedia, or Flat Earth Theory, or religion, or the foundations of the morality itself) and try to actually discuss veganism.

I'm on my dumbphone, so space limits apply. It is NOT ad hominem to remind people that you can't make a cogent argument argument, or that your balls only recently dropped (meaning you only recently went through puberty) & are thus a raging bag of emotional tomfoolery. None of this is abuse, but rather, simply facts of life. As for your education, anybody who thinks that ANY college or university in the world is going to accept Wikipedia as a source is clearly NOT well educated, whether from Croatia or anywhere else. Re: cows, I don't know HOW you do it in your admittedly backward Republic, but here, we don't rape them. Once they start producing milk they are kept in that state by continued milking, just like women who can breast feed as long as they wish (I knew of 1 case where she did for 5 yrs). As far as a cow staying technically conscious after having its throat cut, even assuming that to be the case, & I've no proof that that IS the fact, but if the animal is feeling no pain, then the question is, (cont)

who cares? & it has been proven that Kosher/Halal slaughter is the most humane way to kill an animal. & yes, it has ben proven that human nutrition is best obtained by a mix of plant & animal product. You have not refuted any arguments. You have simply claimed to have done so. Not good enough. Try again.

who cares? & it has been proven that Kosher/Halal slaughter is the most humane way to kill an animal. & yes, it has ben proven that human nutrition is best obtained by a mix of plant & animal product. You have not refuted any arguments. You have simply claimed to have done so. Not good enough. Try again.

Look, I don't even know are you trolling or what?! I am the only one who even tried to back up what he says with citations. You haven't even tried to! Your statements (and many other statements) are simply popular (?) misconceptions with no basis in science or common sense! And they will stay so unless you somehow argue for them! And I don't think you can, since they seem to be completely indefensible. Also, Wikipedia is way more reliable than you, a random person on TFES forum, are. And, again, I am referencing not only Wikipedia, I am referencing all the citations and links in references on that same Wikipedia page! And I referenced Wikipedia only once, because Wikipedia, just like it can't claim that the Earth is not flat, or that FGM has no health benefits, it can't claim that eating meat is unhealthy, but FDA, for example, can and will! When something is stated on WIkipedia, that usually means that every reasonable person informed about the field believes it! And if you are going to respond to my post, don't attack Wikipedia again, just try to properly address my arguments or to defend yours (either with citations or with common sense).

Rama Set:
Again, don't just claim that something is absurd, show me where is the fallacy! Also, I think you are intentionally quote-mining me. I've explained my reasoning later in the same post!
How is that a false dilemma? What are the other possibilities?

I thought that was obvious.  They could stop breeding and stop slaughtering chickens.

I am talking generally about most of the world, so my assertion is probably accurate. Also, I must say I don't even understand the argument you are making. What does that have to do with veganism?!

Your argument requires as a premise that the horrors of factory farming are the only way to get meat in to the marketplace.  It is not the only way.  In general, I find you use these types of polarizing views to try and get your argument across which I find to be utterly unconvincing.

don't need to learn anything more about the farming practices. You don't have to have all the knowledge of the world to come to the right conclusion.

Neither do you, yet you are the one claiming you do not need to learn anything more.

 

And if I am wrong, explain to me why. Fine, maybe my wording was wrong, I meant all farms, not just factory ones. So, that doesn't disprove my point.

Nice back-pedalling.  Ad Hoc reasoning actually renders your argument incoherent.  It is an informal fallacy, you should look it up.

Don't just claim that smoking and eating meat aren't equal, explain to us what difference between the two is relevant for this discussion!

Seriously?  Ok.  Tobacco is an addictive drug with no health benefit of any kind.  Meat is not.  How'd I do?

My statement that your excuses are stupid is not an Ad Hominem, it is a conclusion based on facts.

I never said it was an Ad Hominem. If it is a conclusion based on facts, what is your objective criteria for stupidity.

I reasonably expect your future arguments to be stupid simply because they have been until now! I might be proven wrong in the future, but I still haven't been!

That is an ad hominem and an insubstantial assertion all in one!  Congratulations!  The only thing I think you are wrong about is veganism objectively being the only viable way of life.  Some people value aesthetic quality of life over the purity, for lack of a better word, that you are espousing.  For you to preach that you know better belies a narrow world view with little room for an outside view point.  Talk to someone near the end of their life about how important all the stuff you believe in is to them, you might discover some wisdom along the way.

To be blunt, it is not my responsibility, as an advanced degree holder, to prove anything I say to a 16 yo hooligan who hasn't got a high school diploma. I teach university & write textbooks. If you think I'm wrong you must prove that. I have said that there is proof that kosher/halal killing is the most humane method, regardless of the consciousness or lack of it in the beast. If you think I'm wrong, O 10th Grader Most Wise, you must prove that. & Wikipedia is not acceptable. The same is true of human diet. Otherwise, you should probably STFU.

Kali:
Babies aren't sapients, right? Do you claim that we should then treat them badly because of it? Look, a pig is way more intelligent than a human infant! Don't be a hypocrite. If you are, nobody will take you seriously.

Treat them badly? No. Treat them the same way we treat animals, as property without rights? Yes. Infants are not people. They are, as you say, dumber than animals. They are lumps of flesh and bone that most have sentimental, evolutionary attachment to, but they are not people. Furthermore, just like animals, infants are incredibly destructive and wasteful on a number of different levels in ways that especially harm human civilization. Now of course the legal system will never recognize that because people are naturally protective of those lumps of flesh and bone, but that doesn't change the toxic nature of these creatures. A rational society is one that ends this absurd "right to procreate" and manages human population growth with sustainability and efficiency in mind.

With regard to animals, though, it's obviously clear that we should seek to end the primary production of meat and dairy - by killing off the existing populations of meat and dairy animals.

I teach university & write textbooks.

Where? What books have you been involved in writing?

If I answered that question, you would want to know my non-Hebrew name to prove it, and I don't blame you. Do note that with an MA I can only get part-time adjunct work anyway, so its not like I am well known here!

And if I DID give you my secular name and it got out that I posted to this board, that could have unfortunate repercussions for future employment!

As far as textbooks, I have contributed to some. Again, if I told you which, you'd want to know my name. I am currently writing one myself that will be very interesting when published, at least, I think.

As much as I understand your desire to have questions answered, I think you can understand my reticence.

And it should be noted by our 16yo interlocutor that I don't include Muslim methods of slaughter because I like Muslims. In fact, anyone who has observed my posts here probably can guess that I am NOT at all fond of Muslims generally or Arabs in particular. In fact I dislike both, particularly the latter, intensely. HOWEVER, that having been said, one must still be truthful. And it is true that Halal slaughter, like the Kosher method, is the most humane way to do it. I may not like them much, but I shan't tell lies about them.

To be blunt, it is not my responsibility, as an advanced degree holder, to prove anything I say to a 16 yo hooligan who hasn't got a high school diploma. I teach university & write textbooks. If you think I'm wrong you must prove that. I have said that there is proof that kosher/halal killing is the most humane method, regardless of the consciousness or lack of it in the beast. If you think I'm wrong, O 10th Grader Most Wise, you must prove that. & Wikipedia is not acceptable. The same is true of human diet. Otherwise, you should probably STFU.

Again, you are not even attempting to make a rational argument, you are just attacking.
Maybe I should've also claimed to be an expert in whatever.
How dare you call me a hooligan? What is more like hooliganism: trying to reason people out of eating other sentient beings, or arguing for eating sentient beings and actually doing that?
And again, a statement is irrelevant to a person making it. When experts disagree, one attempting to justify their position using a rational argument is far more likely to be correct than one who doesn't, irrelevant of an actual degree they have. You can have whatever degree you want, but if you don't think logically, you are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else is. History of science is full of such examples: Aristotle claimed that there are no atoms. Democritus claimed that there are and used all sorts of arguments to justify it. However, Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, so people thought he should be listened to, although he didn't make any argument to support his position. And guess what did John Dalton's experiments show centuries later. Aristotle also claimed the theory of spontaneous generation. That theory has always been indefensible, yet people listened to him. Anatomists had argued for millennia against it with completely rational arguments: that it has never been observed, and that every supposed spontaneous generation has been proven wrong. Yet people listened to Aristotle all until the 19th century, when it has been absolutely proven wrong, not with some weird philosophy, but with an experiment by Louis Pasteur. Ptolemy rejected Eratosthenes's calculation of circumference of the equator, not with explaining why it's wrong, but with a claim that it seems too much to him. Yet, people didn't reject his statement because, well, his teachings had an enormous influence on the medieval thought. And guess which turned out to be true. And I am sure there are many more examples of this. After all, if you are a FE-er, as I am, you probably think that this is exactly what's going on with RE theory.
Also, what's the last time you had a biology class? You being an expert in something unrelated to nutrition is completely irrelevant. Seriously, you are one arguing that bleeding out is painless (I have explained why that's wrong), that cows can produce milk without having a child (and I encourage to look up "prolactin"-It's a protein that, in ALL mammals, ENABLES the lactation, but it is produced by the pituitary ONLY during the pregnancy.), that carnivorous and omnivorous mammals would die if fed vegan (if you just look up on the internet, you will see that cats and dogs can be healthy on a vegan diet, and that makes sense considering the basics of how digestive system works: enzymes simply turn almost all the organic compounds to monomers)… Nothing of that makes any sense to someone who recently had a biology lecture!
And even if I weren't able to prove you wrong with the knowledge I happened to have, again, it would still be irrelevant. You've shown no evidence to support your statements, so they still wouldn't count.
Also, relating to the milking cows, I would encourage you to watch this:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
And if you think she is not trustworthy, look the links in the description (seriously, just do it)! If that doesn't change your mind, I don't know what could!
Here is a puzzle I came up with to make people stop being arrogant when talking about nutrition: We know that the large intestine absorbs water. However, it takes hours for food we eat to get there. So, how come do we stop being thirsty the moment we drink water? The majority of people I asked this question weren't able to give a sensical response.
So, try to solve it. And if Wikipedia doesn't count in arguments, than I guess you shouldn't be allowed to use it. :-)
And if you can't solve that, then ask yourself: if you are not able to explain the things about our body we observe every day, why do you assume you are able to predict what is the best diet?

Ah, ok. That was a whole lot of bullshit that I was just forced to read to no purpose. Again, you did not refute the statement that kosher/halal slaughter is humane, you just said it isn't. That  and 75 American cents will get me about half a cup of coffee at current prices. In other words, what you said has no value.

And notice, I haven't used wikipedia in this discussion. So your point is, other than the one on top of your head?

And no, a lion could not obtain sufficient nutriment from plant matter, irrespective of what a youtube video might say. If you are so stupid as to believe that, then I would hope that your nation does not allow you out in public.

I never said a cow could begin lactation without first being pregnant. But she can be kept lactating after that for lengthy periods of time. And getting her pregnant is not rape. Animals like sex as much as we do. THEY. LIKE. IT. Do not try to assign human moral values to a cow. They get a bull with her and there you go. Assigning a moral value to that simply makes you out to be an ass.

I mean look. I am not in to brutal treatment of any living thing. But benefitting from a cow is why G-d put them here. We are certainly not to abuse them. But to use them, yes. If you don't like it, fine. But go be a dipshit on your own time.

Rama Set:
Milk, apart from being the leading cause of allergies in the world, IS addictive. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958694608001945
Yaakov ben Avraham:
Again, you, a random person on a TFES forum, are not trustworthy at all. Vegan Youtubers try to defend their positions by linking to the studies and citations from the experts in the description. You don't. You, as far as I am concerned, just make stuff up.
OK, I can't be certain about lions, but I can be certain that dogs and cats can eat vegan, simply because there is vegan food for them. And did you know that hamsters are actually omnivores in nature? Yet we all feed them as if they were herbivores. And that video was debunking common myths about milk, nothing to do with what you've said.
http://www.vegan.com/dog-food/
http://vegancats.com
Also, you haven't even tried to solve the puzzle (to prove the knowledge of biology you claim to have)! :-)

tappet:

Your statement about fats doesn't make any sense because, look, there are saturated and unsaturated fats. And meat contains mostly unsaturated fats. And human body can't USE unsaturated fats. They just end up circling our blood stream causing heart diseases. Do some research online.

Your unsaturated fats are coming from plants in the form of grain/vegetable oil, unless you ate some filthy old fish oil. Do some research online.
 A vegan wont eat meat but will eat all plants with zero knowledge of what they are. A lot of plants are disgusting filth that should not be eaten but you believe they are all good because that's what you have been conditioned to believe.
Green is good, five a day, meat is bad, lots of fibre, polyphenols, meat is bad, fight cancer with vegies only organic of course, meat is bad, antioxidants in coloured veg, vitamins and minerals for health, meat is bad, eating plants will save the planet, and my favourite, eating meat destroys the planet through cows farting from eating grain, and the cow eats 5kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. What a cracker, dumb asses don't even know cows eat grass.

That's just just a stupid question. I, unlike you, have had high school and college biology. Please try not to make yourself out to be more of an ass than you already have.

To the extent that we deny the hamster its ordinary food, we are torturing said animal.

It should be noted that the best dog and cat foods have little plant matter in them. In fact,  they tend to be predominantly meat and bone meal with a small amount of vegetable matter added. But the best are grain free.

In the wild, a dog or other canine eats mostly meat and small amounts of vegetable. Forcing said animal to eat shit-tons of grains is cruelty at its sharpest, if you can afford better.

You still have not proven your contention about Jewish/Halal slaughterhouses being cruel. Slicing an animal's throat deprives it of feeling within moments. How does this constitute cruelty?

 It seems to me that you need to get out of your mother's basement and away from her computer, and go deal with the real world for a bit. You will learn much, young Padawan.

AstronomyMaster:
You obviously haven't tried any vegan food.

No, I haven't because it is too expensive. If I wanted to be vegan, I couldn't afford it.

Rama Set:
Milk, apart from being the leading cause of allergies in the world, IS addictive. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958694608001945

Citation required on the first part.  Nothing in your link says anything about levels of addiction, just that opioids are in cow's milk and there are levels we absorb them at.  It does not even say what that level is. 

Basically, your assertion needs more substance.  Even still, you would not have put milk and tobacco smoking on the same level, because tobacco has no health benefits, and milk does.

http://www.vegan.com/dog-food/
http://vegancats.com
Also, you haven't even tried to solve the puzzle (to prove the knowledge of biology you claim to have)! :-)

From what I understand from the vets I am in contact with, dog's could conceivably eat vegan with little trouble, but vegan cat food is terrible for cat health on the order of grocery store-ash packed-kibble.  It is against their natural diet; see here

That's just just a stupid question. I, unlike you, have had high school and college biology. Please try not to make yourself out to be more of an ass than you already have.

To the extent that we deny the hamster its ordinary food, we are torturing said animal.

It should be noted that the best dog and cat foods have little plant matter in them. In fact,  they tend to be predominantly meat and bone meal with a small amount of vegetable matter added. But the best are grain free.

In the wild, a dog or other canine eats mostly meat and small amounts of vegetable. Forcing said animal to eat shit-tons of grains is cruelty at its sharpest, if you can afford better.

You still have not proven your contention about Jewish/Halal slaughterhouses being cruel. Slicing an animal's throat deprives it of feeling within moments. How does this constitute cruelty?

 It seems to me that you need to get out of your mother's basement and away from her computer, and go deal with the real world for a bit. You will learn much, young Padawan.

Dogs actually do not eat lots of meat, they are omnivorous scavengers.  Wolves are a different story, and are carnivorous predators.  Cats are carnivorous, and depend on vitamins found in organ meat in large quantities for good health.

Dogs are indeed omniverous, but from what I have always been given to understand, have a preferance for meat, and when allowed to choose between meat and something else, will choose meat. And it is certainly a fact that the best dog foods for "man's best friend" are mostly meat and bone meal, with very little vegetable, and no grain additive.

You are certainly right about the wolf and virtually any kind of feline.

While veganism is clearly something motivated by some distorted ethics, the arguments for the cessation of large-scale animal agriculture, and especially the meat and dairy industries, are very strong.

Meat is incredibly expensive to produce, and there are a lot of negative externalities associated with its production. In addition, the opportunity costs of meat and dairy production are astronomically high, as we devote over half of our total land resources to these production chains. Around 1/3 of all arable land is devoted specifically to raising crops for animal consumption, for the purposes of providing meat and dairy products that (could feasibly, let alone in practice) feed less than a tenth of the people that crops grown for human consumption on the same land would feed.

World hunger is something we have a solution to, in the present. We just need to stop consuming such large quantities of meat, and in particular, beef. Of course, solving world hunger is hardly the only benefit of ending this destructive, unsustainable practice. The largest source of every kind of pollution - solid, air, and water - is animal agriculture. Human health would of course improve dramatically with the dietary reduction of meat, especially in some of the most costly areas for public health like obesity and diabetes.

The aforementioned land used for ranching and growing crops for animal consumption could be repurposed not only into farmland for human use, but also serve as a perfect place to deploy wind and solar energy collectors.

Whether you agree that climate change is anthropogenic or not, the fact is that most negative greenhouse gasses are produced by animal agriculture; and in places across sub-Saharan Africa and South America, ranching is by far the leading (to the point that it may as well be the only) cause of deforestation and desertification. Water resources that are essential to human habitation in these regions are being rapidly and primarily depleted by herds of cattle, sheep, and llamas, forcing people to abandon their communities and move to increasingly crowded urban centers. Disease and conflict spread from these crowded slums in the Third World to our major cities, and the problem will; in fact, is getting worse. In the next five years the UN expects millions of refugees, created by both the climate and conflicts (both primarily driven by animal agriculture), to flood across the Mediterranean and into (Western) Europe.

We can stop this today - spare ourselves the costs of this catastrophe, and benefit greatly in a wide variety of areas. All that's necessary is a reduction in our meat consumption. There are supplements for all of the nutrients, vitamins, and proteins provided by meat, and there are many different alternatives for its taste.

Of course I don't expect that anything will be done on a national level to address these issues, but you can personally benefit considerably on both a personal and societal level by removing the majority of meat and dairy from your diet.

As much as I understand your desire to have questions answered, I think you can understand my reticence.

If you are unwilling to provide any proof, don't make the claim. No one cares what you have to say about yourself unless your experiences are relevant and verifiable.

I see absolutely no evidence that not consuming meat would help feed the hungry. We have enough food NOW to feed everyone on Earth and to spare. We simply fail to distribute food properly.

Yes, one CAN get nutriment from a vegan diet, and take supplements for what one can't get. But this is not natural. Popping pills in place of wholesome food is not any more normal than feeding a dog corn meal.

As for global warming, in a word, excrement. In the history of the Earth, there have been four Ice Ages, the last one of which Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neandertalis were both present for.

My state in the USA has been going through one of the coldest, snowiest winters ever since records started being taken. Yesterday, as I waited for the bus to go to Shul, the temperature was 6* F with a wind chill of -9* F. Anyone who speaks about global warming at this point should be arrested for felony stupidity.

There is no doubt the climate does change, and is currently doing so in varying ways depending on where one is located. But these people that talk about the whole Earth heating up in some doomsday fashion are simply fucked in the head. And America's retarded President is at the top of that list.




 

MaNaeAsWolf:
1 Yes, nature doesn't care about morality. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't. And I think that you actually do. 2 Do you think it is moral when humans die by being attacked by viruses and bacteria? I mean, that would also be a part of nature. And it's not like that I cry whenever I see a dead animal. My grandfather had chickens and turkeys. I was little, so I believed that was a good thing. I even helped him butcher those animals. 3 And I enjoyed torturing small animals… But, hey, I've changed! I've realized that that's immoral. And I try to be a moral person. And, to me, it is a lot easier to be moral to unseen animals than to known people. 4 I don't know about you, but I, when I get to know someone well, I start to hate him. And I know that he or she isn't the way he or she is because he or she chooses to be, but I really can't help myself. 5 But I have no problem empathizing with food animals.
6 As for your questioning of the health benefits of a vegan diet, look, the benefits of eating meat have NEVER BEEN PROVEN. And the health benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets have been AGAIN AND AGAIN. Even FDA has been convinced:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
And now, I guess you will scream: "But there are some studies showing exactly the opposite!" Well, guess what, that appears in the newspapers exactly because, well, it's weird. For every one study favoring meat-eating, there are at least ten favoring vegetarianism. And that's exactly what the probability predicts. 7 Let me explain: those studies cover only a small sample. And the health of a human is not based soley on a diet. There are other issues. For example, there are vegans who smoke, who drink alcohol, and so on. And to make a balance, they have to choose a large sample. Failing to do so, they choose small samples, but at random. And for the most part, it works. Except that sometimes that random sample really is biased. That doesn't happen often, but the probability suggests that with a lot studies, sometimes it will happen. And that's why a few percent of the studies seem to favor eating meat. But, of course, only those small percentage of the studies is shown in the newspapers, because, well, they are the weird ones!

1 I do care about being moral. However, as I keep saying, eating meat does not go against my morals, nor does it go against 95% of earthlings morals. I come from a society that considers chicken as part of a vegetarian diet.
2 It is becoming clear you have no idea what morals mean. Do you think its moral when a cloud shapes itself like a penis? Should we destroy the cloud? Destroy all clouds now? There is no moral argument in your question.
3 I consider torturing animals immoral and am glad you realized that purposely putting animals through unnecessary pain is bad.
4 I actually think that hate itself is immoral, an act as bad as any profanity. So as far as I am concerned you are no more moral than a guy watching a strip show while torturing kittens to death
5 Okay, so the long and the short of it all is. You dont get along with people, and like animals more because they are less confusing. I can empathize with that. But you need to reflect on that and understand that is only your view.
6 I never said that eating meat was especially good for us opposed to other alternatives. I said it was not bad for us (T's&C's apply)
7 The 3 people I knew/know over 100 all eat/ate meat. The worlds oldest person today eats bacon and eggs every day. In terms of diet, I cant imagine anything is better than the paleo diet, ill let you google that. There is no proof that a vegan diet makes you healthier than a good balanced diet that includes meat.

Okay, what if I told you that you as a person only needs 80 square meters (860 sq feet to those still using stupid measurements) to live and work in. I am an architect, I can design a compact living apartment that will include a small gym, kitchen bedroom, bathrooms and office. This apartment will be stacked in a building with hundreds of others similar. This building is fully sustainable including its own vertical farms (something I am involved with). You will never leave this apartment because all your needs are met. All your food is delivered. There are no luxuries, because they are unnecessary. Your carbon foot print is kept to an absolute minimal, any electronics not directly involved in your work or keeping you alive is unnecessary. You can speak to other people in the building, but there are no lifts for people, so you have to take the stairs.
All of that can be built an it will be super efficient, low cost and low carbon impact long and short term. If the whole world lived like that we could solve climate change tomorrow.

This is vision is also the end of humanity. It is numb, and unpleasant. It takes something great out of being alive.
High density living is like a vegan diet, it is better for the environment, its cheaper, and there are lots of feel good reasons for doing it. But I enjoy life. I have experienced 4 continents (5 before the end of the year, yay Canada) around the world and always remember the food where I go (everywhere loves meat). It is something I want to do. I also want to travel, want to climb mountains, want to build buildings and want to experience different things. None of those things are as good to the world as sitting in one spot and eating grass.

But I am working on solving the problems I make along the way.

This is the human creed. Experience life, fix things as you go.

Meat is incredibly expensive to produce, and there are a lot of negative externalities associated with its production. In addition, the opportunity costs of meat and dairy production are astronomically high, as we devote over half of our total land resources to these production chains. Around 1/3 of all arable land is devoted specifically to raising crops for animal consumption, for the purposes of providing meat and dairy products that (could feasibly, let alone in practice) feed less than a tenth of the people that crops grown for human consumption on the same land would feed.

World hunger is something we have a solution to, in the present. We just need to stop consuming such large quantities of meat, and in particular, beef. Of course, solving world hunger is hardly the only benefit of ending this destructive, unsustainable practice. The largest source of every kind of pollution - solid, air, and water - is animal agriculture. Human health would of course improve dramatically with the dietary reduction of meat, especially in some of the most costly areas for public health like obesity and diabetes.

This is exactly the mental shit I am talking about.
1- Stop feeding cows grain, it makes them sick and marbles the meat with unsaturated oil which is inflammatory omega 6 which then in turn makes people sick. Feed the cows grass for fucks sake.
2- Explain to us how beef consumption is the largest source of every kind of pollution.
3-Explain how the fuck eating meat causes diabetes.
4- Either you are talking shit or you are copy/pasting shit you have not even read.
Pound for pound beef will out perform any other food. I could eat 100 grams of beef everyday and live you try that with some vegetable. Weigh a cow divide it into 100 gram portions right down to bone broth and figure how long you will live.
Then do the same with a sugar crop, millions of acres of that shit growing. I wonder if I just live on sugar if I would get obese or diabetes, Nah that's right they are caused by beef. You people are truly mental.

There is also another problem with veganism. As you say, animals eat about 50% of the plant food we produce. And if we all go vegan, we are not going to feed those animals any more. But, if we eliminate animals, plant food is going to be 2 times more expensive. I mean, the farmers will be able to sell only half of their products. How else could the farmers sustain the costs of production if not by doubling the price?