Justify not being vegan.

Asa said:
Don't tell me what I know and don't know about veganism. Your posts still apply to what I said above about bias.
Click to expand...

  1. My "bias" is literally the actual dietary history of the human race.
  2. Veganism not as a part of the human story, but as THE answer, is a bias based on anecdotal experience.
  3. "Omni" is what you passively say about someone disagreeing with you, when you have to paint their argument as inherent to a type of person rather than actually dealing with challenge their argument poses.
 
Nautilidae said:
  • My "bias" is literally the actual dietary history of the human race.
  • Veganism not as a part of the human story, but as THE answer, is a bias based on anecdotal experience.
  • "Omni" is what you passively say about someone disagreeing with you, when you have to paint their argument as inherent to a type of person rather than actually dealing with challenge their argument poses.
Click to expand...


Again, you are arguing in support of your bias. The person who started this thread is banned now. They started this thread with the intention of causing discord on the forum.
 
Doesn't everyone argue from their own bias to some degree? (When arguing a point you actually believe in.)

Zetturn indeed started this thread to create conflict and chaos. Let's not give him the satisfaction of succeeding. ;)
 
Asa said:
Again, you are arguing in support of your bias. The person who started this thread is banned now. They started this thread with the intention of causing discord on the forum.
Click to expand...

Let's be very clear. The quotation marks around "bias" absolutely imply that it isn't a bias, but that different foods contain different qualities and that losing the ability to metabolize an entire massive category of them species-wide would cause serious harm. The idea that veganism would be good for the whole world to adopt is a more extreme position that would require proof through rigorous testing across many domains in order to be justified.

The above is an argument. It never leaves the topic. Literally nothing about it can legitimately be taken as sowing discord. I'm never interested in discord.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Sorry to nitpick, but this is a false dilemma fallacy.

It is perfectly possible to have a respectful philosophical discussion about veganism, the ethics of animal rights, etc. In fact, it's already been a topic of discussion for quite a while among philosophers.
 
@Ren - I know. There are loads of books about it. I could certainly have that kind of discussion with you, but not in this environment.
I've read through other threads on this forum on veganism where people say mean and hurtful (as well as inaccurate) shit about us, and considering the forum has already been there with other (more important) sensitive topics, which has resulted in some people being banned, other people leaving the forum, and arguments and hurt feelings, I'm not interested. It's sort of like me, an agnostic, starting threads on Christianity and using facts and philosophy to ridicule and insult those who practice Christianity. What would the point be? It would alienate the Christians of the forum, make them feel unwelcome in a space where they have the right to belong and feel accepted, cause animosity, hurt people's feelings, end friendships/acquaintanceships, and then my information would only be half correct and serve my biases, and I would conveniently omit any facts and information that didn't suit my case.... which is not very scientific. (As with food philosophies, I appreciate having friends of different faiths, and think it makes life better, anyway, so I wouldn't do that. It was just an example because I'm known to be agnostic.)
I don't want to be in a discussion with people whose purpose is to put vegans down. I've already stated my case. I've already "ignored" some people who seem hell-bent on being anti-vegan. I've spent most of my life being vegan, and I really seriously, wish people (both vegans and omnis) would be quiet and just eat food together in peace.

... But in general, a reasonable, philosophical discussion that doesn't present either side as right or wrong, is fun. There are some fantastic books on the topic. I always enjoy reading the discussions you, Deleted member 16771, Rowan, Skarecrow, etc bring to the forum, even if I don't participate. The forum has improved greatly and become much more peaceful, intellectual, creative, interesting, and supportive since all of you joined. It is a happier place.

For me, veganism is the only way I can live. It is an ethical decision. I've spend over thirty years reading philosophy, medical papers, speaking with doctors, learning nutrition, reading about human history and development, listening to ethicists, etc. I wish omnis could let their animosity go. Everyone in their 'first fervor' over whatever subject they love is annoying, including vegans, and I hope vegans will learn they create enemies by being so "in your face" about their passion, too.
 
I come from a family with mixed ideas about veganism. My father was a vegetarian, not from an ethical point of view but simply because he never ate meat or fish (!) In his entire life. His mother was a vegetarian by choice. That was 80 years ago by the way. My mother was anything but a vegetarian, so I grew up in a family where we always had a mix of vegetarian and non- vegetatian food.
Personally I was a non-vegetarian by choice. Because of my daughter, who wanted to be a flextarian, I eat a lot less meat these days. Better for my own health and better for the environment.

There are many personal reasons for being a vegetarian or non- vegetarian. Any philosophical discussion is, imho, impossible. I asked the question about the grasshoppers with a purpose. What is being a vegetarian? No fish? No grasshoppers? I agree with asa here for the most part.
 
@Nautilidae makes a good point about the ramifications of a vegan society not being clear.
I would assume a transition to a vegan society would include a slow progression towards it, applying scientific reasoning to counteract foreseeable problems that may arise from the transition.

Veganism is an intellectual inevitability, but it is not something we will see our society fully embrace in our lifetime.
There is no point being angered by omnis or vegans, we simply respond to the environment we are placed in with our best ability.
 
Just something, you don't need to justify it. Everyone should become vegan at this point, there's been a recent research 2-3 days ago. Based on that most of the animals are reducing in capacity, by 2050 they wont even exist if we don't become vegan or vegetarian. They've been working on eating plans for the whole world to maintain us for 30 years but that would mean we have to stop every slaughterhouse, factories and they wont that because we are greedy.

They want to eliminate the ingestion of meat all over the world, otherwise by 2050 onward, we will have to use other means to eat. Some replacements can be used for proteins but they're not as high as eating an animal. If we eat eachother it could be an alternative but are you up for it?.

Thats all Have a nice day.
 
Wyote said:
There is no point being angered by omnis or vegans, we simply respond to the environment we are placed in with our best ability.
Click to expand...

I would love to be omnipotent. I'd even be ready to go vegan for that. ;)
 
Lady Jolanda said:
"There's been recent research.."
"They say that.."

I hate to sound like an INTJ, but source please? :sweatsmile:
Click to expand...

But, but... what if xNxx = INTJ?

ygwtq.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top