4 ms·

>It's really amazing how much effort the religion of vegetarianism flows in a lot of sources and research that follows. It's totally unclear to me what that se

>It's really amazing how much effort the religion of vegetarianism flows in a lot of sources and research that follows. It's totally unclear to me what that sentence is supposed to mean. >I'm not opposed to a mostly vegetable sourced diet. A lot of people do it for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been. (That sounds to me (an 'ethical vegan') akin to "I'm not opposed to a mostly non-slave workforce. A lot of people have renounced slavery for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been.") Maybe the "it" of the "hard science it isn't" half of the sentence refers the 'mostly vegetable sourced diet' of people who are vegetarian for reasons of their own health, which the rest of your comment seems to talk about exclusively , but you didn't make that clear. It seems probable that you meant to claim that "there's no scientific consensus that a vegetarian diet is healthier" (i.e. for humans). I won't comment on whether that's true or not, but just note that what you actually said was rather different. I think. It was confusing.

porpoisely 8y ago
There is no such thing as an "ethical vegan". Veganism is unethical by definition. A vegan eats more animals than a carnivore because every vegan meal is full of insect, rodent, small mammal, worm, etc parts. A vegan diet causes far more environmental destruction as it requires exotic plants, fruits, etc from the most lush jungles around the world. Look at the human, societal and environmental devastation that just avocados and bananas cause. And a vegan diet is unnatural because humans cannot naturally survive on it. And no human vegan society has ever existed because a human cannot survive in nature on a vegan diet. If someone took you to a middle of any jungle, prairie, etc, you couldn't survive on your vegan diet. And a vegan diet cannot be sourced locally anywhere unlike an omnivore ( or even a carnivore ) diet. An omnivore can survive on local sources. A vegan cannot. And of course vegans require unnatural lab processed supplements to stay alive. A vegan diet kills the more animals, destroy more of the environment, is the most non-locally sourced and is the most unnatural diet. Not to mention it harms humans who are vegans because they are deprived of nutrients. If some evil person wanted to create the most unethical diet, they'd create veganism. The most ethical and humane diet is the omnivore diet. It's the most optimally good for humans, animals, environment, society.
- gotocake 8y ago
  I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, but your posts on this topic range from persecutorial to bizarre. I can’t believe that you expect anyone reading your posts to be convinced by lists of accusations of evil, equivocation between cockroach bits and cows, or what diet leads to survival stuck “in the middle of any jungle, prairie etc.” there are better ways to make a point that seem less like self-gratification to the exclusion of making a real point.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    I used to be a vegan so I see their angles. It's easy to spot. All I did was just refute the supposed "ethics" of veganism. It's not an accusation, it's a refutation. Not sure why you are so upset about it? The "equivocation between cockroach bits and cows" is simply a response to the vegan claim of being "animal lovers". Considering infinitely more animals ( granted smaller animals ) are killed for the vegan diet, it's hard to take the claim seriously. Not to mention how offensive veganism would be to plant lovers or horticulturalists. But that's another discussion. The "jungle, prairie, etc" is simply a refutation of the vegan claim that the vegan diet is the most "natural". I don't know what better way to refute veganism than by giving a point by point refutation of its major claims. Also, I'm not accusing you of this, but as a former vegan, I know we used to pretend "not to be vegan" to attack people who attacked veganism. I'm not saying you are doing this, but that I used to do this. And the easiest tells of self proclaimed non vegans ( like I used to be ) was minimizing "insect, rodent, small mammal, worm" to "cockroach bits". Another easy tell to spot "self pro-claimed non-vegans" is that they get upset and take the refutation of vegans personally. I used to do that way back when I was a vegan. Say I'm not vegan and then go off on a rant on any attacks on veganism. But it's the same old cult tactics. If you can't defend your cult, you lash out or try to minimize and marginalize the criticism. So keep an eye out for that while you comb through this thread.
    - selimthegrim 8y ago
      The B12 argument I have to admit is not what it used to be if they're supplementing the animals eaten for meat in their feed too.
tracker1 8y ago
The first mentioned sentence is really stating that a lot of people (specifically vegetarians/vegans) have a bias much like religion in which they seek out to prove themselves right instead of finding out what really is, and when presented with evidence they are wrong, will further assert their being "correct" all the same. "IT" is vegetarian/vegan diet as being healthier. It started off as a religious PoV and mostly still is. There's never been a closed clinical trial that showed that a vegetarian diet is any better than an omnivore or carnivore diet. Most studies already have a lot of factors and bias. The "ethical vegan" is one who chooses to do so, because they don't want to be involved in the taking of animal life. This is generally a personal and moral reason. I don't have anything bad to say about someone that chooses this so long as they aren't trying to sway others out of a religious-like zealotry.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  OK, thank you!

porpoisely 8y ago

There is no such thing as an "ethical vegan". Veganism is unethical by definition. A vegan eats more animals than a carnivore because every vegan meal is full of insect, rodent, small mammal, worm, etc parts. A vegan diet causes far more environmental destruction as it requires exotic plants, fruits, etc from the most lush jungles around the world. Look at the human, societal and environmental devastation that just avocados and bananas cause. And a vegan diet is unnatural because humans cannot naturally survive on it. And no human vegan society has ever existed because a human cannot survive in nature on a vegan diet. If someone took you to a middle of any jungle, prairie, etc, you couldn't survive on your vegan diet. And a vegan diet cannot be sourced locally anywhere unlike an omnivore ( or even a carnivore ) diet. An omnivore can survive on local sources. A vegan cannot. And of course vegans require unnatural lab processed supplements to stay alive. A vegan diet kills the more animals, destroy more of the environment, is the most non-locally sourced and is the most unnatural diet. Not to mention it harms humans who are vegans because they are deprived of nutrients. If some evil person wanted to create the most unethical diet, they'd create veganism. The most ethical and humane diet is the omnivore diet. It's the most optimally good for humans, animals, environment, society.

gotocake 8y ago
I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, but your posts on this topic range from persecutorial to bizarre. I can’t believe that you expect anyone reading your posts to be convinced by lists of accusations of evil, equivocation between cockroach bits and cows, or what diet leads to survival stuck “in the middle of any jungle, prairie etc.” there are better ways to make a point that seem less like self-gratification to the exclusion of making a real point.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  I used to be a vegan so I see their angles. It's easy to spot. All I did was just refute the supposed "ethics" of veganism. It's not an accusation, it's a refutation. Not sure why you are so upset about it? The "equivocation between cockroach bits and cows" is simply a response to the vegan claim of being "animal lovers". Considering infinitely more animals ( granted smaller animals ) are killed for the vegan diet, it's hard to take the claim seriously. Not to mention how offensive veganism would be to plant lovers or horticulturalists. But that's another discussion. The "jungle, prairie, etc" is simply a refutation of the vegan claim that the vegan diet is the most "natural". I don't know what better way to refute veganism than by giving a point by point refutation of its major claims. Also, I'm not accusing you of this, but as a former vegan, I know we used to pretend "not to be vegan" to attack people who attacked veganism. I'm not saying you are doing this, but that I used to do this. And the easiest tells of self proclaimed non vegans ( like I used to be ) was minimizing "insect, rodent, small mammal, worm" to "cockroach bits". Another easy tell to spot "self pro-claimed non-vegans" is that they get upset and take the refutation of vegans personally. I used to do that way back when I was a vegan. Say I'm not vegan and then go off on a rant on any attacks on veganism. But it's the same old cult tactics. If you can't defend your cult, you lash out or try to minimize and marginalize the criticism. So keep an eye out for that while you comb through this thread.
  - selimthegrim 8y ago
    The B12 argument I have to admit is not what it used to be if they're supplementing the animals eaten for meat in their feed too.

tracker1 8y ago

The first mentioned sentence is really stating that a lot of people (specifically vegetarians/vegans) have a bias much like religion in which they seek out to prove themselves right instead of finding out what really is, and when presented with evidence they are wrong, will further assert their being "correct" all the same. "IT" is vegetarian/vegan diet as being healthier. It started off as a religious PoV and mostly still is. There's never been a closed clinical trial that showed that a vegetarian diet is any better than an omnivore or carnivore diet. Most studies already have a lot of factors and bias. The "ethical vegan" is one who chooses to do so, because they don't want to be involved in the taking of animal life. This is generally a personal and moral reason. I don't have anything bad to say about someone that chooses this so long as they aren't trying to sway others out of a religious-like zealotry.

yesenadam 8y ago
OK, thank you!