Justify not being vegan.

It is possible to eat a nutritionally adequate plant based diet without harming animals, so why would you instead choose to harm animals? You can choose between causing more suffering or not causing more suffering.

Animals like cows and pigs have an intelligence and awareness equivalent to dogs and cats. They experience a full range of emotions and are almost certainly sentient. That is billions of dogs or cats per year dying to wind up on your plate. It is just weird we empathize with some animals but not others.
 
Been a vegetarian for the last month or so, almost two; and I’m pretty content with how everything has been going. In a few more months, I will integrate more into the vegan lifestyle. Just been slowly immersing myself into that particular diet.

Honestly I feel much more healthier, focused, in-tune with spirituality and my roots, and just feel more satisfied than when I was fully eating meat, drinking, etc. I probably sound like those typical tree-hugger hippies, but I honestly don’t really care haha.

I feel better knowing that I am bettering my own health and not causing the suffering and pain among other sentient beings on this planet.

Although I wish some of my friends and family ate a more vegetarian diet, I’m not going to force them or judge them, but making small changes like adding more vegetables or supplementing other nutritious foods that aren’t meat based is a good step. Unfortunately, not everyone can integrate into a vegan/vegetarian diet because sometimes they get ill or it doesn’t accommodate to their body; and that’s completely understandable and okay.
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Justify not being vegan?

Bacon.

There, justified.
Click to expand...

saint-thomas-sees-your-logic-and-he-is-not-impressed.jpg
 
"Justify"

It takes a human mind to ethicize survival concerns in such a manner that the worst of both abstraction and reductionism come together to sow the seeds of a species ending clusterfuck. Universal human adoption of veganism (or almost anything) is just as stupid as it poised to be increasingly seductive.

First point (why it's stupid):
  • Organisms that maintain more dietary options than not avoid pitfalls associated with blights and mass extinction of elements among their food sources.
  • When species lose the ability to metabolize certain things, the capacity to regain the ability doesn't magically occur in times of need. When the genetic processes that enable the enzymes in our guts to break down meat (or literally any other thing we can eat) are lost, that is it.
  • Every human genetic group has added options to the total human dietary repertoire based on conditions inherent to their locale. Though this wasn't purposefully done, it is a net strength of the human race because of the genetic diversity it generated. As a result of diet and other factors, different sub-groups awarded the human race with genetic answers to problems others might have. And due to the natural world's complexity, it can not be known in advance which gene or condition will be needed. There may be a gene or trigger inherent to Down Syndrome that holds the key to a future disease that threatens all human life. Different humans doing different things everywhere distributes chances and increases the odds of human survival.
  • People think in terms of capital letter components of cellular stucture. Whe you hear normal people talk about "Protein", you can assume they think it is a term which is vastly more universally applicable than it is. The protein in the whites of eggs, for instance, is completely different than that in the yolk. And by different I mean is affects the animal that metabolozes them in completely different ways. Biochemistry isn't simple. Small changes produce massive effects.
  • Reductionism here is a form of arrogance in that we would have to assume we know everything about the future. We do not.
  • It actually isn't isn't ethical at all. It is actually just an outgrowth of the human tendancy to exhalt "knowledge" as a source or form of morality. How can I say this? Would we even be having this discussion if we hadn't come to know that animals have feelings? No. We wouldn't. Are there cases when killing other human beings can be ethical? Of course. A parent who cannot exact deadly violence upon someone attacking their offspring, for instance, would be a worthless excuse for a natural being. This is why non-violence as a blanket statement is a rationalization of intellect and not an "ethical" stance.
Second point (why it will become increasingly seductive):

  • Modernity separates human beings from life processes. Those processes, over time, become abstractions exclusively. Distance is then created between the act of eating and the process of cultivating and dealing with food sources. Then, people become idiots trapped in natural bodies and perverted concepts drive bad policy that doubles down on the idiocy.
  • Control breeds ascetic thinking. Why do modern societies have high rates of bulimia and anorexia while primitive cultures have practically none? The former is marked by distancing control and the latter is not. Dietary asceticism is a feature of societies that exercise control over all processes involved.
  • It's been largely proven that food related disorders do not share a profile with either mood or personality, rather it is one of perspective through experience.No experience (because control), no perspective, plenty of perverse ideology that is completely lacking in logic.
  • It isn't just about food. It's about our relationship with death & suffering. The more people are alienated from these, the more both become "bad" rather than facts about organic life in the universe.
 
Last edited:
Nautilidae said:
It actually isn't isn't ethical at all. It is actually just an outgrowth of the human tendancy to exhalt "knowledge" as a source or form of morality. How can I say this? Would we even be having this discussion if we hadn't come to know that animals have feelings? No. We wouldn't. Are there cases when killing other human beings can be ethical? Of course. A parent who cannot exact deadly violence upon someone attacking their offspring, for instance, would be a worthless excuse for a natural being. This is why non-violence as a blanket statement is a rationalization of intellect and not an "ethical" stance.
Click to expand...

Your argument here is extremely fallacious. You play on multiple senses of the word knowledge (fallacy of equivocation), and falsely equate the legitimate act of self-defense with the killing of animals (false equivalence fallacy). And this is only a tiny sample of what the rest of your post features in terms of logical trickery. Another quick example:

Nautilidae said:
Reductionism here is a form of arrogance in that we would have to assume we know everything about the future. We do not.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance (another fallacy) mixed with a nice dose of ipse dixit.

I am sorry, but the logic of your post is not sound enough to allow for any genuine debate. I have no choice but to summarily reject its content.
 
Ren said:
Your argument here is extremely fallacious. You play on multiple senses of the word knowledge (fallacy of equivocation), and falsely equate the legitimate act of self-defense with the killing of animals (false equivalence fallacy). And this is only a tiny sample of what the rest of your post features in terms of logical trickery. Another quick example:



Argument from ignorance (another fallacy) mixed with a nice dose of ipse dixit.

I am sorry, but the logic of your post is not sound enough to allow for any genuine debate. I have no choice but to summarily reject its content.
Click to expand...

Not only is there no precedent for the entire population of Earth adopting a vegan diet, the fact is that human diets are not and have never been close to it. It's not a matter of opinion that, if we were able to flip a switch that enforces a 100% vegan diet for all humans, the change would be considerable and contain many serious negatives. You're not dealing with the details of something this foundational at scale. It is inherently reductionist nonsense that has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with ideology. Genes are not just monadic nomenclature for objects we stack to make a human or a human's diet. Context is important.

Killing to eat is an act of self-defense for the human race if not being vegan is something that would require an excuse. We clearly have a history of predation. Lions also have a history of predation. Why, as time passess and modernity alienates us from these facts, are we considering no longer being predators? Because we think and abstract in ways lions do not. This isn't a special category. Most of our best work relies on our abstractions. And all ethical concerns are inherently rationalizations (not a bad thing, but a thing). Show me the objective source of morality and I'll bend the knee. Since there is none, we must be more judicious about our decisions. There is no hyper-detailed predictive model that convincingly shows that eliminating diversity in the diet of humans as a species would be anything other than what it has been to other animals with limited food options, deadly.

There is a difference between portions of a species adopting divergent habits and universal dietary asceticism. Human beings should be doing different things all over the place, including veganism. It's not an opinion, it is literally the story of human life. The burden of proof rests on those suggesting the most extreme course of action. Universal veganism is an extreme course of action that would have to be understood beyond the generation that would adopt it. When that exists, we can proceed.
 
As someone who has been vegetarian/vegan for over 30 years, I really just want to eat my food, and let you eat your food, in peace.


I mean, seriously, everyone just shut up and let people live their lives. It's so stupid to keep arguing. Omnis are just as annoying to vegans as vegans are to omnis. Please keep this in mind next time you mouth off about another person's lifestyle.
Vegans: the only way to convince people to accept your food is by sharing your food. Don't lecture, don't show photos of dead animals on social media, and unless you want everyone to hate you, don't talk about how dogs shouldn't be pets.
Omnis: Whining about vegans and spouting off uninformed and ill-informed biases is just you being prejudice against a lifestyle you ultimately know nothing about.

Those curious about veganism: I will always answer questions to those kindly asking me for information.
 
Ren said:
saint-thomas-sees-your-logic-and-he-is-not-impressed.jpg
Click to expand...
I think I'm losing my mind. When did Thomas of Aquinas grow hair? Where is his signature birdnest look? XD

Serious answer though: I don't eat a lot of meat. I prefer vegetables and fruits. I can easily go 5 out of 7 days without eating meat. However, some dishes just aren't complete without chicken, beef or pork.
I don't want to give up eating those dishes and adequate alternatives are not yet available.
There isn't much logic involved, really. ;)

I do think Faye makes a good point regarding having empathy for certain species of animals (i.e. pets) but not others; that seems culturally ingrained. Personally I have no objection to eating cats or dogs any more or less than cows or chickens.
 
Asa said:
As someone who has been vegetarian/vegan for over 30 years, I really just want to eat my food, and let you eat your food, in peace.

I mean, seriously, everyone just shut up and let people live their lives. It's so stupid to keep arguing. Omnis are just as annoying to vegans as vegans are to omnis. Please keep this in mind next time you mouth off about another person's lifestyle.
Vegans: the only way to convince people to accept your food is by sharing your food. Don't lecture, don't show photos of dead animals on social media, and unless you want everyone to hate you, don't talk about how dogs shouldn't be pets.
Omnis: Whining about vegans and spouting off uninformed and ill-informed biases is just you being prejudice against a lifestyle you ultimately know nothing about.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Asa.

A respectful philosophical debate should be possible though, right?
 
Lady Jolanda said:
I think I'm losing my mind. When did Thomas of Aquinas grow hair? Where is his signature birdnest look? XD
Click to expand...

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy: The birdnest meme is the best ever!

Lady Jolanda said:
Serious answer though: I don't eat a lot of meat. I prefer vegetables and fruits. I can easily go 5 out of 7 days without eating meat. However, some dishes just aren't complete without chicken, beef or pork.
I don't want to give up eating those dishes and adequate alternatives are not yet available.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much the same, really. I don't often eat meat, but sometimes there's chicken in my Chicken Caesar salad. I can't help it, it's my favorite salad :m187:
 
We simplified bee species.
We simplified crop species (the market decided).
We simplified competition with other top level predators leading to higher rates of growth at the bottom of the chain (including bacteria).
We then simplified treatment of baterial infection.

Can you smell the entropy?
 
Ren said:
A respectful philosophical debate should be possible though, right?
Click to expand...

About what? Omnis trying to back up their biases against veganism while vegans insist it is the right path, which omnis don't want to hear?

The only way I've ever witnessed people accepting veganism is by giving them the space to arrive at the decision by themselves, feeding them good food (which shows them they aren't sacrificing food-related joy), and answering questions when asked.
 
Asa said:
About what? Omnis trying to back up their biases against veganism while vegans insist it is the right path, which omnis don't want to hear?

The only way I've ever witnessed people accepting veganism is by giving them the space to arrive at the decision by themselves, feeding them good food (which shows them they aren't sacrificing food-related joy), and answering questions when asked.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of taste or that it works on an individual basis. Your subjective experience isn't the same as macro scale enforcement. You're not facing biological details about the qualitative differences in biochemical make-up across the entire spectrum of things humans eat. It's flowchart thinking.
 
Nautilidae said:
It isn't a matter of taste or that it works on an individual basis. Your subjective experience isn't the same as macro scale enforcement. You're not facing biological details about the qualitative differences in biochemical make-up across the entire spectrum of things humans eat. It's flowchart thinking.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me what I know and don't know about veganism. Your posts still apply to what I said above about bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top