Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
insects don't really count as animals do they?
not proper ones like mammals or fish anyway
although i depend it's up to your own personal views etc. it's pretty much impossible to be a 100%, true vegan anyway.
that involves cutting off the sheep's skin as well, which obviously causes them pain etc.
"In a process called mulesing, strips of skin near the sheep's hind end are peeled off; the theory is that the scarred skin that will grow in its place will be more resistant to flies that want to lay eggs on the sheep. Shearing is often done roughly, leading to cuts and infections. It's not a cruelty-free industry and vegans do not support it."
that's illegal in the UK though.
Like at my barbers.
it's more to do with the fact that the sheep are being exploited for their wool than anything.
i presume there are some sheep that are used that aren't very well treated, so the fact that the process of shearing them isn't painful doesn't matter. it's their general treatment which would go against veganism. maybe.
i dunno, i'm not a vegan so i could be talking bollocks.
these sheep end up getting killed and by buying wool from these farmers you are supporting them and allowing them to raise and kill more sheep
theyre being kept as wool machines, so its not vegan
i can't quite get to grips with the moral handle on that argument.
not eating meat because of the harm/violence it does to other creatures, i totally get. to an extent [as far as i hate mass farming/slaughter methods] i agree [though don't practise it]. in an ideal and by now totally unrealistic world, we would kill what we needed to eat at the time and leave the rest well alone.
not eating a product because it was produced by an animal seems odd. without wishing to cause offence, it suggests a horror of other animals and our proximity to them. if you avoid processes that hurt or confine the animal [like the sheep shearing described below], all well and logical. but would a strict vegan avoid something that had been shed/happily produced by an uncaged animal? and if so, on what grounds?
these are genuine, not rhetorical questions.
on the matter of exploiting the 'producers' how do most vegans of this opinion feel about mass vegetative farming methods and the sources of their plant-based food? the exploitation of plants or land [vast stretches owned by well-off people/companies and inaccessible to people that could well do with living off them on a smaller scale]? and the exploitation, in some parts of the world, of the people that produced them? unless one eats totally from a kitchen-garden or known reputable and absolutely guilt-free sources, it's a flawed argument.
so it's OK
I've never thought about it before.
is the rather awkward topic of FAT VEGANS.
Yes, I've gone and said it!
nuts? vegetable oils?
how about vegans just not partaking in any exercise?
or maybe, just maybe, you could open your mind and consider that some people may have medical problems that prevent them from being thin?
left, is there?
How many rice cakes can you eat?!
I think we've found our fat vegan, folks.
And I would have thought that someone with a medical problem that prevented them from being thin would take steps to have the most balanced diet possible. But that's just me, with my ruthless application of logic and common sense...
I'm not trying to suggest that a vegan diet isn't balanced. I'm actually saying it; frankly and bluntly.
Balanced diets include meat and animal products.
Saying otherwise is nothing more than a smug, hippy insult to the countless millions who have died for want of a decent meal.
you can survive easily as a vegetarian, in fact diet-wise it's preferable. As a dedicated animal eater I have to face the fact that eating animals is unjustifiable, morally.
it says god gave man dominion over all the beasts, therefore theres nothing to say we can't eat them. and whats more morally sound than the bible, eh?
In what way is it unjustifiable? Y'know, given that we started eating animals before morals were even invented...
back in those simple, pure times when it was justifiable to club your neighbour to death so it was your family rather than his that got to eat the mammoth dung and thus stave off starvation for another week. Your argument is exactly the same as the one which allows one American to blow a hole in another American every minute.
My argument is sound. Yours is thus:
"We used to do A and B. A is now frowned upon, therefore B is also."
I'm not buying that.
There are laws against clubbing your neighbour to death.
Farming and slaughtering animals for their meat on the other hand is positively encouraged.
This would seem to suggest that there is no moral argument against eating meat and that it is in fact, right and proper to do so.
Also, there is the fact that our physiology says we should. As long as I have incisors, I'm going to use them to rend flesh. And why the hell not?
my argument is "We used to do A and B because we were forced to. We no longer do A because we now live in a world where it is no longer necessary, and because it was unpleasant. We continue to do B despite the fact that it is no longer necessary, perpetuates an unequal economic order which will cause serious problems down the line as desertification and over-farming continues, causes health problems in morons and sanctions the morally iffy ground of slaughtering millions of animals a day. Therefore, B is also wrong, but we keep doing it anyway because the final product is pleasant and because smug arseholes continue to argue that humans are meant to eat meat, which is true if you overlook the fact that as evolved from hunter-scavengers we were actually built to eat meat maybe once a week."
Where to begin?
- Murder and animal product consumption are not anything that people have ever been forced to do. They are simply things we do do, one of which always been seen as totally objectionable and the other one only recently by hippies. Trying to compare the two will only lead you down a a path strewn with fallacies.
- Putting aside the fact that laying desertification solely at the door of excessive grazing is factually incorrect historically and when you take into account all the places it's actually happening - not just the ones that have been in the news lately; saying we're not meant to eat meat because some people's farming habits have ruined their land is just another example of faulty logic. But I see your point. To conserve land it might be an option to try confining our farm animals into tiny little sheds until they're ready for slaughter. Think about it.
- At one point, we were only meant to eat meat once a week? Here it seems you come to this conclusion based on information that says we only used to eat meat once a week. This is arse about tit: We were built to eat whatever we could get our hands on - and we got our hands on meat about once a week. Then more often until the levels you see today, which for a lot of people is... a few times a week. Again - faulty logic.
I can't believe I've got involved in this argument again. I don't like debating about this because it forces me to face my own predelictions, but really sir, please stop throwing those "faulty logic" stones quite so hard at the glass.
- Murder has never been seen as morally reprehensible in every circumstance. The action is sanctioned by the highest authorities of the 21st century, as a means to an end. There's another strangled argument waiting to be born here that I'll skip over, but basically my opinion is that morals are not concrete, and it is dangerous to imagine they are.
- I actually agree with you on this front. If we're going to eat meat, we might as well be bare-faced about it. Sod organic, sod New Zealand. This country has got to be able to stand on its own feet by the time the oil runs out, because at the moment we're a fucking joke self-service wise.
- For Christ's sake. We evolved in conditions where our bodies expected to eat meat once a week, and the rest of the time "what we could get our hands on" was green shit. This is what our digestive tract expects, and is literally what it will cope with best. Our bodies are adaptable, but eating meat all the time results in health problems, including but not limited to heart disease, lethargy, constipation and obesity. It's pretty much besides the point anyway. Anyone can tell you that vegetarians generally live a better quality of life, and for longer.
I'm sorry, Stealthy. I've fought on your side for my whole life, but eating meat is not morally justifiable. It really isn't.
i reckon it's probably healthier for our systems to consume meat once, maybe twice a week, and get our protein, iron etc from other sources the rest of the time. eggs, nuts, iron-rich vegetables, are just as good for you as meat, with less of the fat. [well, dunno about eggs. but they suuuuuure are nice.]
i eat meat probably about 5 days a week, mainly because right now i am blase, without the accented e i can't be arsed searching for right now, and give little in the way of a good goddamn about my diet [to be accurate, enough to feel bad and make occasional changes, little enough to mostly stick with my habits. and i don't like greens.]
balanced diets involve protein, carbohydrates, fats, fruit and vegetables, and the necessary amounts of vitamins and minerals. all of these can be obtained successfully from non-animal products.
saying otherwise is nothing more than an ignorant, uninformed insult to the many numbers of people who do not eat animal products, and choose not to do so for whatever reasons, be they moral, ethical, or health-based.
Strange you don't see that many vegan athletes then, isn't it?
Also: Harvesting of crops - especially with large plant machinery will result in direct and indirect slaughter of sentient lifeforms.
So you can see, whatever you do or do not do, your ethics will struggle to find an application in the force of the real world.
they're not my ethics, because i'm not vegan. soz.
also, i'm not having that 'athletes are rarely vegans' argument. they might be able to run fast, or whatever, but this does not mean they are embodiments of health.
No, their constant and vigorous exercise regime, Stalinist dieting regime tailored to their exact needs by teams of health specialists and the fact that they can run really fast means that they are the literal embodiment of good health.
so, vegetarian? so, basically, not vegan?
your answer is invalid, and nonsense.
THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING.
'well done' on not being fat. your personal circumstances have fuck all to do with anyone else's, though.
impact on your character?
It's just that you always come over as a massive bitch.
You're just a stroppy cow!
because i think you're a bit of a wanker.
But, you truly are the most disagreeable twat who ever put finger to keyboard.
bit of an over-exaggeration though.
"y'know, to be considered a 'vegan' you have to actually avoid consuming animal products?"
you can't be 'half' a vegan. That's like saying "I'm only HALF gay".
it's like being a pacifist but occasionally taking pot shots at children from your bedroom window.
i deplore war, but like throwing bricks, full cans and sharpened pencils [javelin-style] at small boys as they run riot across our estate, burning, sacking, pillaging and setting off car alarms as they go.
is that so wrong?
[it's a bit more like throwing darts than a javelin, what with the size. my point still stands.]
When they come to the end of their lives and discovered that none of this shit ever mattered, they're gonna be so pissed...
I, in the meantime, am going to prepare myself some kind of meat in bread.
it matters during their lives
and if there is no afterlife then what happens in life matters all the more (well, negating the concept of eternal heaven/hell being caused by your behaviour on earth anyway).
I suppose Stealthy's idea is a bit like a nun saying "oooh, i've got to 80 and I wish I'd been more of a sket when I was younger".
And honey is off the cards. Fat Vegans are possible, we can still eat dark chocolate and chips and shit!
are a sick peoples.
I never knew they were vegans.
Well, I didn't feel like eating after I watched it, and that's half way to vegan, surely.
and you'll be suprised how much stuff has honey in:(
i texted aqa and asked.
vegans view the plant kingdom as non-life, or at least as not as 'important' as the animal kingdom. in very biological reality, plants are just as fucking alive as a pig, cow, or any animal. so vegetarianism (let alone its fanatical bastard child veganism) is fucking hypocritical.
and usually obnoxious as well to converse with......
you've gotta consider the impacts elsewhere. a plant may not be sentient, but it lives while growing, and dies when we uproot/pick it. communities, biological and botanical species are displaced/destroyed in the name of its mass cultivation, and humans exploited in its production. it's sent across the world and its surrounding people/animals might not benefit from it at all. other species are killed to protect it from their feeding on it. and in many cases, i expect the wastage involved, of 'inferior' products, would make for some super-guilt.
who only eat fruits that have fallen from the bush or tree, ie been discarded from the plant as not essential to its life.
of course, that is pretty ridiculous and you must be SUPER skinny to adhere to that.
horror of other things dying. things die, it's a fact of life. they're killed by other life forms, or they're killed by their own lifespan running out, or by external conditions unfriendly to their existence, or by us. this is the basis our planet operates on. things get their time, and then they're replaced, and with any luck they're useful to something else in the process. i respect other people's dietary choices, but some of the motives do puzzle me. i think problems lie in us tipping the balance, and taking what we don't really need. but if things didn't die or weren't killed by others in the food chain, everything'd choke.
if I gave them my consent?