Veganism: Is it morally wrong to eat/kill animals?

[squidmaster]

Hey squid, I actually have a legitimate comment/argument to make. Basic, simple, and to the point.

Does the amount of effort expended on your part to combat cruelty to animals dwarf your efforts expended to combat similar cruelty to humans? i.e. the crap going on in 3rd world countries, middle east, Africa, wherever people are oppressed, starving, suffering etc.

In short, humans who may be going through the same suffering that animals do. Do you care more for the animals?

Even shorter, shouldn't we be fighting for those humans as a priority over fighting for those animals?

There aren't mass concentration camps of humans still. Effort? There's no effort in being vegan, you just abstain from animal products. Its easy.

Are you fighting for those human rights? What about animal rights? Have you ever bought a diamond? What about anything made in a sweat shop in China? You can't abstain from everything but you can at least make a small difference.

Imbecile.

The onus is on you to prove that vegans are healthier and longer-living than the world's healthiest meat eaters. It's a well-known fact that diets higher in plant foods and lower in meat are healthiest. There is no reason to believe that a vegan diet is healthier than a well-balanced omnivorous diet.

It may very well be that meat is healthiest kept at 10% of your diet, but that doesn't mean meat is unhealthy. The fact that a diet comprised of 90% of rice, or 90% lettuce, or 90% almonds is unhealthy does not make those foods unhealthy; it means you're eating like an idiot.

The fact is, there is an extremely limited amount of information on the life expectancies of life-long vegans. So if you've just got some new information in, it's your job to share it with us and prove that vegans are the longest lived folks on Earth. For now, the reigning champions are a people that eat lots of vegetables and a little meat.

One of the most commonly cited reasons is that of health, based on findings that red meat is detrimental to health in many cases due to non-lean red meats containing high amounts of saturated fats.[2][3] Eating certain kinds of fish raises HDL levels,[4][5] and some fish are a convenient source of omega-3 fatty acids,[6] and have numerous health benefits in one food variety.[7] A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found that in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 34% lower in pescetarians, 34% lower in ovo-lacto vegetarians, 26% lower in vegans and 20% lower in occasional meat eaters.[8]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225

If there's not enough data on lifelong vegans and im not allowed to use anything with then in it, then you cannot use statistics using vegans either. And either way those statistics are based solely on one type of heart disease, and still shows you that vegans and vegetarians have a much lower rate of contracting that than the meat eaters. So I don't even know why you're posting that.

And where are you pulling all of these ideas about a 90% rice or lettuce diet? Is that all you think vegans eat? I'm confused.

And the make up was all vegan (no animal testing)

Like any of you have room to try and shame me. Lol

[s14pwd]

Honestly, my opinion is it is not wrong to eat animals, but the way we treat them is wrong and the ridiculous amount of meat that people eat is wrong. The animal is giving up its life so that you may continue to live, yet we just treat it as a serving, not thinking about it. That is wrong, anytime you eat meat you should always remember something that feels pain had to die and be respectful of that.

The second point is that meat should supplement a diet, not be composed of it. This results in "factories" to raise animals. All for what, taste? People should replace meat with substitutes like lentils and enjoy meat on a less regular basis. Its healthier for you, cheaper and better for the animals and environment.

My $0.02.

[nando]

Look at where 99.99999% of you get your meat from, too.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/

and, whoa, like taco bell totally has vegetables and rice and legumes like everywhere. grab literally anything on the menu without cheese, and you can substitute any of the meats for refried beans or black beans. so eating at taco bell =/= eating meat.

LOL. except all of that stuff is flavored with.. wait for it... Beef.

you're a douche. also, pretty sure most guys here could snap you in half like a twig. takes a pretty big man to be an ass behind a keyboard, huh? would you talk that way in person?

[streetwaves]

If there's not enough data on lifelong vegans and im not allowed to use anything with then in it, then you cannot use statistics using vegans either.

Jesus, no. You don't understand things. There is not enough data to suggest vegans live longer. I am saying that the longest-lived people we have data on are non-vegans. You're asserting vegans are longer-lived and yet there is no data to support this.

And either way those statistics are based solely on one type of heart disease, and still shows you that vegans and vegetarians have a much lower rate of contracting that than the meat eaters. So I don't even know why you're posting that.

Read quote again, use brain. Fish-eaters equal lacto-ovo vegetarians in their reduced risk. L-O vegetarians also best vegans' reduced risk. All three groups have reduced risk compared to likely "standard eaters", and all three groups have an inherent advantage in that they at more likely to be health-conscious than the general population. What the study also says is that I, as a pescatarian, am less likely to get heart disease than you, the vegan, are.

And where are you pulling all of these ideas about a 90% rice or lettuce diet? Is that all you think vegans eat? I'm confused.

Try eating some fish, those Omega 3s are good for cognition.
The point is eating too much or too little of any given food is unhealthy. Meat, rice, and lettuce are not inherently unhealthy foods. Eating them in the wrong amount is unhealthy.

And the make up was all vegan (no animal testing)

Like any of you have room to try and shame me. Lol

Huh?

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that every time you reply to me you're reduced to a much more passive, timid, and lazy version of yourself.

[iamsam]

There aren't mass concentration camps of humans still. Effort? There's no effort in being vegan, you just abstain from animal products. Its easy.

Are you fighting for those human rights? What about animal rights? Have you ever bought a diamond? What about anything made in a sweat shop in China? You can't abstain from everything but you can at least make a small difference.

That's my point. You chose animals over humans.

Also, by abstaining from all animal products, you are more likely as a consequence further supporting sweatshops in China, Chinese slavery, etc by concentrating on using all the things that don't contain animals.

[iamsam]

Like any of you have room to try and shame me. Lol

also, it would be easier to take you more seriously if you weren't such a overwhelmingly condescending prick to a point where it's just hilarious, and anything coming out of your mouth will be taken as such.

[cale]

There aren't mass concentration camps of humans still. Effort? There's no effort in being vegan, you just abstain from animal products. Its easy.

Are you fighting for those human rights? What about animal rights? Have you ever bought a diamond? What about anything made in a sweat shop in China? You can't abstain from everything but you can at least make a small difference.

You're right there aren't, because the rights of humans vastly outweigh those of animals. That's my opinion, and you're in no position to tell me that is morally incorrect. That is your issue, you think you're the moral standard and few others measure up.

You can quite easily quit buying items made in sweatshops and products which fuel conflict.

[10Toes]

Huh?

He/she is speaking about this picture saying that all the makeup is vegan.

[streetwaves]

He/she is speaking about this picture saying that all the makeup is vegan.

Haha, is that him?

[nando]

:p

[squidmaster]

You're right there aren't, because the rights of humans vastly outweigh those of animals. That's my opinion, and you're in no position to tell me that is morally incorrect. That is your issue, you think you're the moral standard and few others measure up.

You can quite easily quit buying items made in sweatshops and products which fuel conflict.

wouldn't you agree that it's morally wrong to cause needless suffering?

oh, and can you completely cut out all conflict items? what about transportation? do you use anything that has metal or rock in it? what about paper, wood, or rubber? all of these items have associations with conflict, and yet you're sitting here on your computer or phone that was probably at least half made by someone living on $1 a day and trying to tell me that you can completely abstain from conflict items?

also, it would be easier to take you more seriously if you weren't such a overwhelmingly condescending prick to a point where it's just hilarious, and anything coming out of your mouth will be taken as such.

Hey, I feel I'm only being at cockish as the rest of you are being.

Also, by abstaining from all animal products, you are more likely as a consequence further supporting sweatshops in China, Chinese slavery, etc by concentrating on using all the things that don't contain animals.

oh? how's that? here are the top six tanned leather producing countries:
China, Italy, India, Brazil, Korea, USSR. Do you have a leather wallet? Where's it from?

Jesus, no. You don't understand things. There is not enough data to suggest vegans live longer. I am saying that the longest-lived people we have data on are non-vegans. You're asserting vegans are longer-lived and yet there is no data to support this.

what I' saying is that your magical end-all test lasted over a period of only 10 years. if that's enough to settle your mind about everything, then why wasn't the 20 year report enough for you?


Read quote again, use brain. Fish-eaters equal lacto-ovo vegetarians in their reduced risk. L-O vegetarians also best vegans' reduced risk. All three groups have reduced risk compared to likely "standard eaters", and all three groups have an inherent advantage in that they at more likely to be health-conscious than the general population. What the study also says is that I, as a pescatarian, am less likely to get heart disease than you, the vegan, are.

Would you like me to post other disease studies where vegans are lower than semi-vegetarians and such? There are unhealthy aspects of being a pesc, though:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/399500-the-disadvantages-of-a-pescetarian-diet/

http://www.healthytheory.com/the-dangers-of-mercury-in-fish

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20/hm.fish.mercury/index.html

but really it comes down to: you're still being a dick to these animals for no reason. is killing all of those animals worth your extra 8% extra chance to not get ischemic heart disease?

http://www.fishwelfare.net/articles/2010/08/do-fish-feel-pain

to be honest, there aren't a whole lot of studies I could find comparing vegan and pescetarian habits, do you have any others?


Try eating some fish, those Omega 3s are good for cognition.
The point is eating too much or too little of any given food is unhealthy. Meat, rice, and lettuce are not inherently unhealthy foods. Eating them in the wrong amount is unhealthy.

Oh, no, I don't need any fish for omega 3; I'm vegan.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=84

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that every time you reply to me you're reduced to a much more passive, timid, and lazy version of yourself.

oh no no no, I've always been lazy.

LOL. except all of that stuff is flavored with.. wait for it... Beef.

you're a douche. also, pretty sure most guys here could snap you in half like a twig. takes a pretty big man to be an ass behind a keyboard, huh? would you talk that way in person?

uhh, except they're not.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/fast.htm

http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/ingredientstatement

lol

___


there's no reason to consume animals the way that we do. there's no reason to be dicks to them.

[Grand525]

I know this is a hotly debated subject, but it's one I'm interested in. What are your thoughts?

What is the difference morally between killing a person or an animal? Given that animals feel pain, does that make a difference?

For the record, I am not a vegan/vegetarian. But I think it's a difficult question to answer definitively to say the least.

You have to know how to alter human brain before birth.
Until then you will not have complete solution.

[cale]

wouldn't you agree that it's morally wrong to cause needless suffering?

Meat has been a part of the human diet since we became a species, so you'd first have to prove to me and the overwhelming majority of the world that it is needless. You seem to want to skip over this because it conflicts with your vegan beliefs, but you have to accept for most of us consuming animals isn't something we're giving up nor are we conceding it's immoral.

Needless suffering to me would be mistreatment while raising livestock and unnecessarily cruel methods of slaughter. I pay extra for local meat, both for health and ethical reasons. For you that's not good enough, any form of slaughter is inhumane. Well guess what, you don't decide what's humane...humanity does, and we've spoken.

oh, and can you completely cut out all conflict items? what about transportation? do you use anything that has metal or rock in it? what about paper, wood, or rubber? all of these items have associations with conflict, and yet you're sitting here on your computer or phone that was probably at least half made by someone living on $1 a day and trying to tell me that you can completely abstain from conflict items?

Are you obligated to own a car, computer or other items you can't be 100% as to where the materials come from? You're entirely capable of moving out into the woods and living a life entirely off the land, you're actively choosing not to do that. You're choosing to participate in the consumption of items which make life worse for other people. How the fuck do you get off on telling me I'm a bad person when you're just as culpable for adding to the suffering of others? Talk about arrogant and hypocritical, you're the epitome of both.

[squidmaster]

It's not necessary to eat meat. It's not necessary to cage and kill animals.

It's BAD for you to consume dairy, and it's even worse to rape the cows, force birth, and then sell the milk.

Skip over it? It's been covered like three times. You have a CHOICE to eat meat. Look at every study that's been posted and see how not eating meat makes you healthier.

I'm just going to leave you with a quotation from yourself,
"For you that's not good enough, any form of slaughter is inhumane. Well guess what, you don't decide what's humane...humanity does, and we've spoken."

[Farbin Kaiber]

It's not necessary to drive cars, quick, let's all get bicycles.