Eating Vegan to prevent animal cruelty? Maybe not...

Recommended Posts

I will elaborate on my last comment. I agree with your previous comment that there are no set of rules, but I am not the one trying to point to them and judge others based on them. The, 'meat is murder,' crowd are the ones doing this, and I disagree with the double standard that they are using to this end. That is the crux of the issue for me. People can be 'ethical vegans' all they like - I truly do not care how they justify their choices to themselves - but they have no moral basis that isn't wrought with hypocrisy from which to judge others.

As a matter of personal opinion, I don't have a problem with the slaughter of livestock for food if it is done with respect and as humanely as possible. I absolutely think those in industrial contexts could and should be treated better, but I do not think that slaughtering a cow for food is wrong.

All this is doing is supporting my point that the line is arbitrary.

I agree with your statements and in particular your reference to how certain Vegan...Meat is Murder groups judging by this slogans argument.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

If it were not a fact that the African Jungles turned into grassy savannas...which caused the forced evolution by natural selection of Tree Climbing Human Ancestors to walk upright as to be able to see predator and prey over distances of these savannas...which allowed us to hunt more efficiently and by taking in large amounts of animal protein Humans were able to develop a large complex brain...we would still be eating plants swinging out of trees.

Now it is NATURAL for Human Beings to eat Animal Flesh as well as eat a wide variety of Plant Matter. Our bodies are evolved to eat these things and since IT IS A NECESSITY for developing children to consume Animal Fats and Proteins as well that such Fats and Proteins are a necessity for developing bones and muscles...for anyone to say Humans don't need to eat animal based proteins and fats is ridiculous.

An adult can be on a Vegan diet that allows at the very least either dairy, eggs or fish as a true all plant matter Vegan diet without any of these three within it is not healthy as there are some aspects of animal based Fatty Acids which are readily available from consumption of fish.

Supplements can be taken as well as many needed proteins and fats can be gotten by consuming specific plants...but studies have shown this does not have the same benefits as getting them from animal sources.

Split Infinity

There is a discussion of the nutritional value of meat in this link. The link should take you directly to a specific post.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73532-taking-choice-away/?p=734263

Even if lentils don't have B12 naturally, we probably could genetically engineer plants to produce B12.

Protein isn't the big issue for vegans. That view isn't just outdated, it's plainly wrong to anyone that has tried to eat a protein-filled vegan diet. Unless you're a committed athlete, it's not that hard. Yet there are even vegan body-builders. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/sports/vegans-muscle-their-way-into-bodybuilding.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You are right about the protein from meat contributing to brain growth in our ancestors, but our ancestors didn't have the same dietary options and knowledge of nutrition that we have. They probably didn't even know beans were edible until agriculture developed 20,000 years ago. Beans are filled with toxins that are removed through soaking and boiling.

I will elaborate on my last comment. I agree with your previous comment that there are no set of rules, but I am not the one trying to point to them and judge others based on them. The, 'meat is murder,' crowd are the ones doing this, and I disagree with the double standard that they are using to this end. That is the crux of the issue for me. People can be 'ethical vegans' all they like - I truly do not care how they justify their choices to themselves - but they have no moral basis that isn't wrought with hypocrisy from which to judge others.

As a matter of personal opinion, I don't have a problem with the slaughter of livestock for food if it is done with respect and as humanely as possible. I absolutely think those in industrial contexts could and should be treated better, but I do not think that slaughtering a cow for food is wrong.

I am not here to vindicate the vegan movement, I am here to determine what is the most ethical course of action. Even if veganism isn't the most ethical path (being one that relies on double standards), that does not excuse us from our ethical duties as consumers.

All this is doing is supporting my point that the line is arbitrary.

The line is blurry, but not necessarily arbitrary.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Share on other sites

I am not here to vindicate the vegan movement, I am here to determine what is the most ethical course of action. Even if veganism isn't the most ethical path (being one that relies on double standards), that does not excuse us from our ethical duties as consumers.

Then we have been talking past each other, as I suspected. This thread is about the vegan movement, not so much the more general ethical quandaries, and that is what I was addressing. I do don't deny what you are saying and have even agreed with it in a few posts (including the one you quoted).

Share on other sites

Then we have been talking past each other, as I suspected. This thread is about the vegan movement, not so much the more general ethical quandaries, and that is what I was addressing. I do don't deny what you are saying and have even agreed with it in a few posts (including the one you quoted).

You are right in that the topic is specific to Eating Vegan...as a way to prevent animal cruelty...or maybe not? LOL!

So the topic is specific to Vegan ideals being followed to perhaps stop animal cruelty.

That argument would be impossible to prove.

Since there is ZERO CHANCE that even if several Billion Dollars was spent upon advocating the benefits of eating a Vegan Diet...that people would stop eating Beef, Chicken, Fish, Pork, Lamb...etc.

Also the term Vegan...has not been defined as some who profess to be Vegan still eat Eggs, Fish and Dairy. I have also been a part of a ridiculous argument with a person on a Vegan Diet where they ate Eggs and Dairy trying to tell me that eating Eggs is not considered eating Meat.

Now whether a person would make the argument that Meat is Animal Flesh and since a chicken egg has not yet developed into an actual chicken...that this is not meat...the egg is still an animal embryo and thus is comprised of ANIMAL.

Although eating Dairy is not killing an animal for food...cheese, milk, cream...etc...is still comes from an animals body and has the same DNA.

Some will also eat Fish and I cannot see how Fish are any less of an animal as we are.

So the word VEGAN has to be defined first in order to understand what we are dealing with. But let's say for Ha, Ha's...we are talking about a strict Vegan Diet...all plant matter nothing that is either an animal or comes from an animal.

If people...in the completely unrealistic possibility...stopped eating animal flesh and products...there would have to be planted a massive amount of crops for which the main fertilizer for is created by ground Fish such as Menhaden...which are caught by the Millions in commercial fishing nets.

So by replacing plants for animals for food...such crops are still going to need fertilizer thus causing the deaths of untold multiple millions of fish.

This Fringe Vegan concept is not only without merit it has ZERO chance of ever happening as well the supposed MORALITY upon which such ideals are based upon is flawed.

I have no issue with passing laws which would prevent cruelty to Livestock and as a Hunter believe that Food Animals should be raised in sanitary and open ranges or areas which will prevent disease and trauma to the animals that would be kept in Factory Box Fashion. Kills should be clean and quick and made painless...and this is possible.

Vegans could do much more good if they stopped alienating themselves with the vast majority of people who eat Meat and it is only by RESPECT of each sides position and rights that the Cruelty to Animals issue will be resolved. Splattering people and their cars coming out of a Slaughter House will do nothing other than entrench those peoples ideals and how groups such as PETA can think that doing such things will help their chosen cause is beyond me as well is not close to being understood by those people who have a lot less reverence for animal life than I do.

I would think that the issue...Stopping Cruelty to Animals...is a lot more important...and should be viewed as such by PETA and other Vegan Groups...to a much greater extent than preserving such groups pride.

Ask yourself this...What would generate more benefit to the Stop Cruelty to Animals cause?

Vegans throwing Red Pain Bombs at John Smith...a 40 year old worker at a Cut's of Beef Boxing and Distribution Plant....OR...

...Members of PETA in a MEDIA COVERED EVENT...standing side by side with 40 year old Beef Steak Boxer...JOHN SMITH and hundreds more like John...at a FUND RAISER for raising money for research into DISEASE AND ANTIBIOTIC, GROWTH HORMONE AND STEROID FREE LIVESTOCK being raised Free Range and Healthy...where the animals choice flesh/food body areas are well developed thus money making....as well as such research being specific to keeping Slaughter House Workers SAFE from dangerous bacteria and other possible transmitted diseases.

If Vegans and or PETA was to swallow their PRIDE and hold a single one of these events...the attitude of most people toward them as well as their reputations would SOAR. They would then be considered a voice of reason and an group interested in doing what CAN BE DONE...rather then a group doing what it's EGO tells it to do.

Split Infinity

Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...

According to io9's "4 Biggest Myths About THe Human Brain" article, the encephalization quotient (which compares brain sizes across orders) isn't even a good estimate because it ignores the fact that different orders of animalia have different sclaing rules. These "scaling rules" ultimately govern the number of neurons that will be present in a brain, and they don't necessarily result in more neurons when the brain is "scaled up".

Using a new piece of equipment called an isotropic fractionator, researchers are able to take any portion of the brain and definitively determine (not estimate) the total number of glial and neuronal cells in it. I'm doing other things at the moment, so I'm putting a delay on neurobiology studying that could allow me to have a more comprehensive understanding of these studies. However, I am going to provide links for you all to look at. These are the two isotropic fractionator studies that I was able to find.

#1, an early study, discusses how the isotropic fractionator works.

#1 Full (PDF): http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/10/2518.full.pdf

In #2, they talk about rodent brains, so it might give us some idea of the brain power of mice. However, I don't know if they discuss rodents more in another study, or if this is the one to look at.

#2 Summary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226510

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Share on other sites

It seems off topic to discuss brain vs body size.

However, I'll add 2 cents worth of trivia. The tiniest wasps have anucleate neurons and very low neuron counts compared to larger insects. Since their neurons do not have a nucleus yet the insects have similar capabilities to their larger cousins, one must wonder how they do it. Presumably, the function of the neural nucleus is distributed throughout the remainder of the cell, and because of fewer cells ($\leq$10%), one cell does the work of many.

Of course, these wasps are not typical food for us.

Edited by EdEarl
Share on other sites

It's not off topic. The article linked in the OP brings up the issue of which animals to prioritize. Since the goal is to prevent "cruelty", we must estimate each animal's capacity for suffering, which is a capacity of its brain.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Share on other sites

It's not off topic. The article linked in the OP brings up the issue of which animals to prioritize. Since the goal is to prevent "cruelty", we must estimate each animal's capacity for suffering, which is a capacity of its brain.

I'm biased by my Buddhist philosophy point of view, which says killing anything is not the best thing to do. On the other hand, my childhood teaching allowed killing for food, and I don't have any qualms about it. Consider me confused or full of ...it.

Create an account

Register a new account