DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Animals, being vegan, etc.

359 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 09:49

..when certain practices are challenged consumers defend their entitlement to the use of animals as property.

I already explained that I'm not saying what you think I am. You're hearing the ghosts of a thousand arsehole vegans that you've met.

Pea shoot, I'm oot.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 09:58
Kureigo-San wrote:
..when certain practices are challenged consumers defend their entitlement to the use of animals as property.

I already explained that I'm not saying what you think I am. You're hearing the ghosts of a thousand arsehole vegans that you've met.

Pea shoot, I'm oot.

When I go buy a hamburger I'm not using an animal as my property it's a commodity produced for sale/profit in the market by a capitalist. You mean to say we see animals in general as an exploitable resource. Like trees, water, land and oil. I'm just nit picking with communist terminology here and it doesn't really matter in relation to the discussion what does matter is the fact you think squashing a bug is comparable to killing your grandmother.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 10:36

Seriously are we going to play that game Kur? Canine teeth, there you go.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 11:05

Vicent, so for example, I think fascist marches need to be opposed by force and I don't care if they or anyone else thinks that infringes on their right to free speech. Similarly, didn't a hacker group shut down the EDL site recently? That's awesome and again, I don't give a shit if the EDL thinks it hurts their 'right' to free expression on the internet.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Aug 14 2013 11:15

First off I think folk are driving each other into more and more extreme positions (or are at lease expressing them that way). On the balance of the argument I lean more toward the Mike S./Chilli Sauce take on things. I eat meat though have cut down considerably and feel the benefit. Perhaps I’m weak though I reckon whoever thought of putting eggs and bacon together was a bit of a genius.

Ultraviolet #1
I have a lot of sympathy with your position though I feel you do over state your case. Animals do have feelings though not ‘like humans’. I’ve been adopted by a small cat for the last three years and while lovable she appears to have little or no empathy with other creatures. I’ve several times curtailed her ‘happiness’ by stopping her playing (torturing) small animals she’s captured. A major pleasure in her life is mealtimes and she loves meat and fish. I think it would be perverse to attempt to ‘train’ her into vegetarianism.

As humans we have obligations to treat animals well, though we are not at all equal. The few folk I’ve met who argue like this are usually disillusioned idealists who despise humans and idealize everything else from Noah’s ark.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 11:56

A few points:

You can't separate the food and pharmaceutical industries from class politics.
They exist for the interests of capital. Mass produced, high meat content national diets are inefficient and decadent as well as being very unhealthy, especially for the lower paid working class. Poor health creates more opportunities for capital to pursue its interests.
If science is carried out on a smaller scale and not financed by government or corporation that doesn't mean it's pseudo science. Obviously it also doesn't mean that it's good science either but it shouldn't be discounted. When it comes to testing of new anti cancer drugs etc by the the pharmaceutical corps, how the fuck can we trust their science? I don't want to come over all David Icke here but come on, who knows what dark shit is going on behind those doors.
Some of the ranting on this thread against the points put in favour of veganism sound like the ravings of an axe grinder rather than someone interested in a sensible debate.
I am generally with KS on this one.

Standfield's picture
Standfield
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Aug 14 2013 14:58

I'm not really going to add much to this debate - it's already pretty cringe worthy on both sides. I can't stand vegan third-circling as much as I can't stand ill-informed attacks against non meat eaters.

I will say this though. I am vegan, and have been for about 7 months now. I don't think my choice is going to effect the way in which food production is made and capitalised upon. Avoiding meat isn't going to bring down the system. I also think that eating meat is pretty natural, just not in the amount, or in the process that we do now. Whilst it may not be "healthy", either is alcohol, fags, weed or the heart-attack inducing peanut butter and chocolate brownies I make, drink and smoke.

I'm vegan, because I looked into what I was eating, and basically just found it fucking disgusting. Vomit inducing. People have different thresholds with this kind of stuff, but when, for example, I found out what was inside a "chicken", I couldn't eat it any more. Same goes for the rest of it, and there's not much difference between "free-range", "organic", "cage-free", etc. to warrant the extra money spent on that stuff. It's the same shit, disguised in corporate semantics.

I won't go into what is in meat that makes me want to vomit, and the horrors that animals go through, but it is hard not to get all preacher-like when it is so shocking. I've caught myself doing it a few times, even though I said I wouldn't. Animals go through hell, just because the Capitalist likes to cut corners. And they have absolutely no say in it. Does that ring a bell? I may not consider animals my "comrades" as someone sarcastically put it earlier, but I do feel the need to stick up for them.

And from a selfish point of view, I feel great, as healthy as I've ever been (admittedly, not much). I do miss fish occasionally, but I can go without the rest.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 15:56
Quote:
Avoiding meat isn't going to bring down the system.

Obviously, but then nor is anything we do. Follow that line of reasoning and there is no point doing anything. As I've heard many times on Libcom, a small victory is still worth pursuing.
Animal lib activists can be pretty irritating but so can any type of activist. Their dismissal gets right up my fucking nose. I think the pro vegan arguments on this thread have been well expressed and given me a lot of food for thought. Standfield's explanation of his veganism is the perfect response to the anti vegan tub thumping posted earlier.
Finally, I thought posting the picture of a child cancer victim was really pretty poor. How about a picture of a thalidomide victim or maybe a type 2 diabetic amputee in response? Seriously man, that sucked.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Aug 14 2013 15:56

Pointless sadism is obviously nothing to be cheered on, but I really can't say that I care in the least that some cow died in the process of making my cheeseburger. Certainly this animal liberation business has nothing to do with communism, either conceptually or as a social movement. I'm a bit surprised to see people appealing to morality and rights, since both of these are imagined social constructs that serve no purpose other than to give some appearance of objectivity to the social practices one prefers (e.g. I want to live in a society where myself and others can speak freely so therefore there's some "right" to free speech, and I don't want to live in a society where people randomly attack each other so therefore doing so is morally "wrong"). It's very problematic, I think, to act as if asserting that something is moral or immoral or that it's a right or not a right is anything more than a subjective assertion.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 16:48

"Pointless sadism is obviously nothing to be cheered on, but I really can't say that I care in the least that some cow died in the process of making my cheeseburger."

If humans can sustain fantastic health from delicious plant foods that typically have large yields and require less resources than the feeding and watering of animals do, then we have to scrutinise the meaning of the word 'pointless' in this context. I contend that it's all pointless because we have superior means with which to sustain ourselves - rich tastes aside.

The overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can't treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Aug 14 2013 17:20

Christ.

Second rule of fight club: don't mention the animals.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Aug 14 2013 17:27
Tyrion wrote:
Pointless sadism is obviously nothing to be cheered on, but cheers on sadism

Though others have been guilty of this. I've no truck with animal rights and I eat meat, but this sort of at best, indifference and at worst, callousness always strikes me as contrary for the sake of it. No one is going to think you're soft for contemplating the fact an animal had to die so you could eat a burger, and that it isn't particularly pleasant. Call it what you want, but we have no reason not to ensure animals' welfare and minimise their suffering.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Aug 14 2013 17:34
Auld-bod wrote:
Animals do have feelings though not ‘like humans’. I’ve been adopted by a small cat for the last three years and while lovable she appears to have little or no empathy with other creatures. I’ve several times curtailed her ‘happiness’ by stopping her playing (torturing) small animals she’s captured. A major pleasure in her life is mealtimes and she loves meat and fish. I think it would be perverse to attempt to ‘train’ her into vegetarianism.

I don't think the reasonable vegetarians in this thread would promote training animals to be vegetarians. The argument is more along the lines of (and I'm reiterating ultraviolet and Mr. Jolly's posts): Animals, other than us, can eat other animals. Primarily, because we've evolved into a position in which we can reason. We require moral justifications for our actions and because we are the only ones who have the capacity to ask for and understand said justifications we need to justify to ourselves whether it is right to harm animals to satisfy our cravings.

It's true that humans and other animals differ in very important ways, but as Peter Singer writes in, All Animals are Equal...

Quote:
If it is justifiable to assume that other human beings feel pain as we do, is there any reason why a similar inference should be unjustifiable in the case of other animals?
Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...[in] the species of mammals and birds...behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems much like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain: an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure.

The nervous systems of animals evolved as our own did, and in fact the evolutionary history of human beings and other animals, especially mammals, did not diverge until the central features of our nervous systems were already in existence

*

From this he and other vegetarians (including myself) draw the conclusion that however much we may differ from other animals, the one place in which we don't differ that much, or at all, is where it makes all the difference and that if we don't grant animals any other interest, we have to grant them the interest of not suffering, or avoiding suffering (at our hands, again we are the moral ones, not them).

Not related to the argument above, I think Mr. Jolly is right on the money when it comes to vegetarianism vis a vis class struggle. I also agree with ultraviolet regarding gathering eggs and milk from cows. I think the fact that humans can provide longer and safer lives (as well as allowing the animals enjoyment) makes up for whatever distress a chicken may be under when you take some eggs. Also, I think Kuerigo-san is doing much more harm than good. Once someone starts arguing that humans didn't evolve to eat meat, or evolved to eat less meat (or any variation thereof) all you have to do is call them on their shitty appeal to nature.

-----------------------------
*As reprinted in, Writings on an Ethical Life, p.41

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Aug 14 2013 20:00

If we stop eating animals can we start eating vegans instead?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 18:52

Post removed due to me not wanting it widely known that I have unresolved grumpy, sanctimonious tosser issues.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Aug 14 2013 18:14
flaneur wrote:
Tyrion wrote:
Pointless sadism is obviously nothing to be cheered on, but cheers on sadism

Though others have been guilty of this. I've no truck with animal rights and I eat meat, but this sort of at best, indifference and at worst, callousness always strikes me as contrary for the sake of it. No one is going to think you're soft for contemplating the fact an animal had to die so you could eat a burger, and that it isn't particularly pleasant. Call it what you want, but we have no reason not to ensure animals' welfare and minimise their suffering.

My indifference isn't contrary for the sake of it, it's quite genuine. I eat meat on a daily basis and I've never found myself wracked with the least bit of guilt over it. I doubt I'm especially unusual in this regard, though it's possible that I've missed the subtle pained expressions of my friends when we're having burgers. I meant by the first sentence that, although I'm not bothered at all by the deaths themselves, there's obviously no reason to kill animals in an especially torturous way when more "humane" methods are available. I'm sure this makes me a terrible speciesist, but I'm fairly certain that no one actually consistently cares about this great sanctity of non-human life; who hasn't swatted an annoying fly over the years?

Parts of this discussion are rather abstract anyway. Individual eating habits have no impact on the treatment of animals and the notion of veganism becoming widespread to the point where it's the "norm" for humanity is empty utopianism.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Aug 14 2013 18:38
Ethos wrote:
Auld-bod wrote:
Animals do have feelings though not ‘like humans’. I’ve been adopted by a small cat for the last three years and while lovable she appears to have little or no empathy with other creatures. I’ve several times curtailed her ‘happiness’ by stopping her playing (torturing) small animals she’s captured. A major pleasure in her life is mealtimes and she loves meat and fish. I think it would be perverse to attempt to ‘train’ her into vegetarianism.

I don't think the reasonable vegetarians in this thread would promote training animals to be vegetarians. The argument is more along the lines of (and I'm reiterating ultraviolet and Mr. Jolly's posts): Animals, other than us, can eat other animals. Primarily, because we've evolved into a position in which we can reason. We require moral justifications for our actions and because we are the only ones who have the capacity to ask for and understand said justifications we need to justify to ourselves whether it is right to harm animals to satisfy our cravings.

So do you think it's morally justifiable for humans to keep obligate carnivores like cats as pets? Think about all the pain that could be prevented if we neutred all house cats and eradicated that species altogether.

Ethos wrote:
It's true that humans and other animals differ in very important ways, but as Peter Singer writes in, All Animals are Equal...

Quote:
If it is justifiable to assume that other human beings feel pain as we do, is there any reason why a similar inference should be unjustifiable in the case of other animals?
Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...[in] the species of mammals and birds...behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems much like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain: an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure.

The nervous systems of animals evolved as our own did, and in fact the evolutionary history of human beings and other animals, especially mammals, did not diverge until the central features of our nervous systems were already in existence

*

From this he and other vegetarians (including myself) draw the conclusion that however much we may differ from other animals, the one place in which we don't differ that much, or at all, is where it makes all the difference and that if we don't grant animals any other interest, we have to grant them the interest of not suffering, or avoiding suffering (at our hands, again we are the moral ones, not them).

This idea that we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain too has always seemed really odd to me. Humans are just another animal, so doesn't that idea imply it would be allright to kill people if only we anaesthetise them first? How about eating people with congenital insensitivity to pain, would that be immoral in some way? IMHO the moral prohibition of killing hasn't anything to do with pain and suffering. Neither do I think that the preventioun of pain is some absolute imperative - there's a reason that we have developed a sense of pain, i.e. it tells us quite important stuff about the world we live in, and the deepest and most important insights are usually derived from very painful experiences.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 14 2013 18:31

On a straightforward tactical level animals can't help us overthrow capitalism, so are irrelevant to that project. Any aid we render to the cause of animal rights is therefore done as an independent ethical decision which it's fine to advocate and argue for, but can't be exclusive of the section of the population which ain't interested or it simply becomes another divisive factor within the class.

That applies both ways mind - afaic anyone saying "you have to be an animal rights activist to be involved in anarchism" is fundamentally undermining our relevance as a movement, but it's also bloody stupid behaviour to go the opposite route and alienate vegans by dismissing their views.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 19:32
Webby wrote:
Quote:
Avoiding meat isn't going to bring down the system.

Obviously, but then nor is anything we do. Follow that line of reasoning and there is no point doing anything. As I've heard many times on Libcom, a small victory is still worth pursuing.

Animal lib activists can be pretty irritating but so can any type of activist. Their dismissal gets right up my fucking nose. I think the pro vegan arguments on this thread have been well expressed and given me a lot of food for thought. Standfield's explanation of his veganism is the perfect response to the anti vegan tub thumping posted earlier.

First off Webby, points for the pun in this post.

That said, I don't think the consensus on libcom is that nothing we do can bring down the system, only that the actions we take in the name of the class struggle should help us build the confidence, skills, and movement to eventually do that.

There's long-standing critique of activism and animal rights that's been fleshed out on libcom since the site was first started and it doesn't end in the idea that there's no point in doing anything, my friend.

Ethos, I f*cking hate Singer but that was a solid and well-reasoned post. That said, so was No1's response.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 19:55

Chilli - I meant in that in isolation nothing we do is going to bring down the system. I believe there is a class struggle connection with this issue as pointed out in my post #37. I do t think this point has been addressed unless I've missed it somehow?

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 20:06
Webby wrote:
Quote:
Avoiding meat isn't going to bring down the system.

Standfield's explanation of his veganism is the perfect response to the anti vegan tub thumping posted earlier.
Finally, I thought posting the picture of a child cancer victim was really pretty poor. How about a picture of a thalidomide victim or maybe a type 2 diabetic amputee in response? Seriously man, that sucked.

Webby, I was singled out by the poster I've been quoting and comparisons were made that bothered me. The whole comparing meat eating to human chattel slavery thing gets under my skin. It's extremely condescending to me and an insult to black people. I've also debated vegans since the early 1990's and appeals to emotion are made, appeals to idealist morality, comparisons to the NAZI holocaust are made, pseudoscience is employed etc. I already know how these discussions work out the majority of the time and fundamentally there is no middle ground with a vegan activist, perhaps with a vegan who's made a personal lifestyle choice who's not seeking to force that choice on the globe but the vegan activist in general and specifically veganarchists aren't that "personal lifestyle choice" vegan. I have no problem with a vegan who's an anarchist but when the "veganarchist" theory starts up, mixed with pseudo science, appeals to emotion, guilt tripping, militant direct action against other humans and equating a hamsters life to that of a humans I get annoyed. It's not always vegan activists who do this many times just plain old vegans employ the same in your face backwards guilt tripping based in the same opinion that an animal or insect holds the same value as a human. As I said in the post that "sparked" this thread I have nothing but scorn for that position/those tactics.

Posting the NAZI video where they place more value on a chickens life than that of a human and the subsequent picture of a kid suffering from cancer was me mirroring the arguments some vegans and veganarchist activists employ when they oppose meat eating, vivisection and civilization in general. Of course not all vegans are going to be evangelical but over the last 20 or so years most militant vegans I've come in contact with, as I said in the original post in the other thread, get nothing but scorn from me. This isn't to say I dislike vegans in general or will be rude or aggressive in any conversation concerning meat consumption it's just when certain tactics are employed my reaction is to be aggressive and I've only been half way aggressive with one person in this thread who I think kinda deserves a half way aggressive response.

It's a contentious topic in general and any "half way" middle ground with an animal liberationist and meat eater is basically impossible. I usually stay away from this debate and was happy to drop it in the other thread.

Operaista's picture
Operaista
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Aug 14 2013 20:10

Time to drop some actual science.

The China Study: Campbell's interpretation of the data has been exhaustively debunked. He cherry-picked data, ignored statistical significance, ignored obvious additional variables, and so forth. See here. Campbell's interpretation of the data is a classic example of intentionally cooking data to fit ideology. Of course no science is completely free from ideology, but Campbell's work is on a whole other level. And while ideology and pure economic factors influence what research is done, how, and how it's interpreted, what is actually occurring in terms of biochemistry and physiology doesn't bend itself to anyone's ideology.

The human digestive system and metabolism is characterized by a high degree of adaptability - it's amazing the crap people can grow up eating, successfully reproduce, and live long enough to raise their children. With the Standard American Diet (which has rapidly globalized), it's amazing that the burden of chronic non-infectious disease is not higher and hitting earlier.

80% carbohydrates, 10% protein, and 10% fat is a horrible idea - no matter how whole the foods are, that amount of carbohydrates is likely to elevate triglycerides and cause the development of insulin resistance. 10% protein is the absolute bottom end of the Institute of Medicine (a very mainstream source) recommended range (10-35%). 10% fat is half the lower end of the Institute of Medicine recommended range (20-35%). Infants and young children need more (brain and nervous system development). IOM recommendations here. I quibble with their having the low end of the carbohydrate range a little high (though I'm not an advocate of very low carb diets for the majority of people), being too soft on added sugars and dated information on cholesterol and saturated fats.

The idea that humans evolved as anything other than omnivores is laughable - our big evolutionary advantages are our dietary adaptability and our big brains (made possible by consuming more animal proteins and fats, the larger brains than enabled more complex social structures and aided in both hunting and gathering). I would be shocked if you found an evolutionary biologist or physical anthropologist who argued against the idea that meat eating supported increased brain development in evolutionary terms. Also see this study here on carnivory and weaning time, and its impact on human evolution, as one example.

That said, I think that most vegans have a healthier diet than the Standard Western Diet. However, looking at the biochemistry and the research, it seems likely that the healthiest diet is not a vegan one. Even vegan dietitians agree that vegan diets absolutely require supplementation. Most notably B-12. The article also misses the iodine content of seafood, and misses fatty fish, eggs, and organs for vitamin D (to be fair, most omnivores don't eat organs anymore). It also ignores that grains and legumes contain significant quantities of antinutrients (well substantiated) and the ongoing research on links between grains and legumes and systemic inflammation. It also ignores proportions of macronutrients, fatty acid balance, and so on.

So the ethical decision around the treatment of animals has to be weighed against impacts on human health - you'll get no argument from me that testing cosmetics on animals is horrible, as are CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). Necessary testing for important medical treatments and raising free-range animals eating their natural diets? I'll argue for, and I'll argue for those foods and medical treatments to be accessible to all, given that I'm horrible speciesist who values human life and health over that of other animals, which is not to say I don't value animal life or health - just that when it comes down to a cow or a human, I'll choose the human every time. If people want to be vegan for ethical reasons, that level of commitment (along with the health consequences of a vegan diet versus a more varied, healthful diet) is admirable, even if I disagree with the prioritization of ethical choices involved.

And there are plenty of actual class issues around diet and agriculture - the harmful effect of factory farming on the environment and communities around them, horrendous working conditions in industrial agriculture (including the hyperexploitation of undocumented immigrants in the US), government subsidies going to cheapen the production of unhealthy foods, the high cost of access to healthful foods and low cost to food that is horrible for you (high fructose corn syrup, heavily processed foods, etc), and so forth. Access to healthful food is a huge part of health disparities, and it's all about economics. I would certainly hope that, post-rev, everyone has access to a diversity of foods that aren't heavily processed and/or empty calories with little to no nutritional value. So, yes, issues around food are class issues, but not the way that animal liberationists would want them to be. And vegan diets - and animal liberation practice - do absolutely nothing to address those issues.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Aug 15 2013 11:55

I know some folks are saying the thread is full of bad attitudes and stuff but honestly, this is one of the better attempts at discussing this hot topic.

My thoughts;

I've never bought any of the moral arguments about veganism. One cannot purchase any commodity in this system without implicating oneself in a mile long list of the most abysmally dark injustices to humans, our animal neighbours and indeed, the whole planet. In line with this, I'm super critical of "consumer power" strategies as a way to make any sort of change. They don't work, don't build power and they reinforce capitalist ideology.

I've also never bought any of the natural imperative crap for veganism or meat-eating for that matter. A long list of biological features that point to some sort of "natural veganism" is absurd. "Lack of claws" means absolutely nothing when we have a brain capable of manufacturing items for more powerful then claws as well as cognitive abilities keen enough to plan and organize with large groups. Pointing out canine teeth as some sort of natural evidence that we are supposed to eat meat is also silly. Gorrilas have the scariest canines on the planet and eat only leaves and fruit. All of this is sort of useless if you consider that whatever the diet was in the original environment of our evolutionary adaptiveness has ZERO relevance to everyone posting on this forum because its been shown that humans survive just fine on a wide variety of diets and I'm quite certain that everyone posting on this forum is not a short, furry 3 million year old hominid with a plucky can-do attitude and a penchant for clanging rocks together. I love you great-great. . . .. . . grandparents

I think there are good arguments for veganism concerning health and resources. However, the later argument is deeply troublesome. Basically agriculture as it is now is immensely damaging and dangerous to the planet, so focusing on only meat production as harmful seems silly to me. Yea, obviously we need to overturn some shit before we can make some serious globalized changes to food production.

Soooooo. . . Bigger picture sci-fi type stuff tongue

I'm of the belief that humans as a species, are really an incredible phenomenon. I think we owe it all to planet Earth and its ecosystem. At the moment, we are mere infants, knowing not what we do, shitting and pissing all over the place. I think if we get the chance, we should reflect as a global population on how special this place is and the possibilities it still holds. Right now there are many species living with incredible "potential" to develop into our mental equals yet, as long as we are here, there is no room, no niche for them to fill and fully realize. I have lofty wishes that one day that my species will do the planet and its other inhabitants a "solid" and pick up and leave it completely fallow. Honestly, take our worst garbage and throw it at the sun or place it in subduction zones and then leave. Let some of these other creatures have some space to grow into the endless possibilities this earth offered to ourselves. I truly believe that it wouldn't be long before this planet produces yet another incredible sentient phenomenon. This is our best hope for finally finding another voice in the vast universe if you ask me, and this should be one our greatest priorities once we've got our own house in order. I know, I'm a loon, whatever, fuck off wink

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 20:42
Webby wrote:
A few points:

You can't separate the food and pharmaceutical industries from class politics.
They exist for the interests of capital. Mass produced, high meat content national diets are inefficient and decadent as well as being very unhealthy, especially for the lower paid working class. Poor health creates more opportunities for capital to pursue its interests.
If science is carried out on a smaller scale and not financed by government or corporation that doesn't mean it's pseudo science. Obviously it also doesn't mean that it's good science either but it shouldn't be discounted. When it comes to testing of new anti cancer drugs etc by the the pharmaceutical corps, how the fuck can we trust their science? I don't want to come over all David Icke here but come on, who knows what dark shit is going on behind those doors.
Some of the ranting on this thread against the points put in favour of veganism sound like the ravings of an axe grinder rather than someone interested in a sensible debate.
I am generally with KS on this one.

Go gather up hundreds of cancer patients who will be willing to take part in double blind studies where the only treatments they receive is a vegan diet. What would you choose if you had cancer? Chemo, radiation and hormone suppressing drugs or a diet of broccoli? On the other end of the "evil profit seeking capitalist" spectrum we have quacks that push all manner of snake oil on sick and dying people which largely depends on "free market" based conspiracy theories. To make the assertion that medical science is absolutely and totally corrupted by monopoly capital is the basis for much of the pseudoscience and medical quackery we see today.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 20:39

Ethos, the things I have said haven't been of the appeal to nature fallacy because the appeal to nature fallacy requires that the conclusion of the claimant's remarks logically leads to nothing - nor am I saying that one thing is good and another bad. A moral claim is required for the appeal to nature fallacy. What you have called my appeal to nature pertains to actual observable skyrocketing health improvements in real life people, when they eat sufficient quantities of plant foods. Every animal has its own optimal dietary nature and it doesn't change very radically depending on their metabolisms and blood types or any of that nonsense. It's commonly observable that the more animal foods a person consumes, the quicker they encounter serious health challenges and/or are very overweight. Though problems aren't only limited to animal foods.

I may well be 'making things worse' by pointing this out, but it's not my job to please people by framing what I have to say in ways that don't offend them - I would if I could but that appears to be impossible on this subject.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 14 2013 21:37

Yo guys, you know they made a burger in a lab the other day, once that becomes cheap, I'm going to eat all of those. Right now I am a vegetarian for health reasons and I also don't think mass slaughter of animals is so cool*. Largely agree with Mr. Jolly up there, vis-a-vis animal testing where computer models won't suffice and people will die. Certainly people should probably tone down their meat conception.

- As for the rest, sorry, tl;dr.

* Anybody who thinks this is a corner stone of anarchist politics, however, is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I BET BAKUNIN ATE BURGERS!

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 21:38
Quote:
Go gather up hundreds of cancer patients who will be willing to take part in double blind studies where the only treatments they receive is a vegan diet. What would you choose if you had cancer? Chemo, radiation and hormone suppressing drugs or a diet of broccoli?

Mike - I was drawing a comparison between the trustworthiness of 'mainstream' and non mainstream science, not saying one was better than the other.
According to the NHS there is no evidence that Traditional Chinese Medicine will help with Hep C induced advanced liver disease, yet for 7 years the advancement of my condition has been minimal and the liver transplant that I had been told would be required imminently has so far been avoided. Coincidence? Luck? Placebo effect? Maybe, but probably not. That said, I recently underwent the latest antiviral triple therapy with the NHS. It failed, but if they offered something else I would almost certainly give it a go. Nothing to do with veganism as such but I think it demonstrates that there are halfway points in this sort of discussion.
I've read your posts on many other threads and they always seem to be well reasoned and well constructed but I this thread you seem to have gone into overdrive and have at times sounded like a machine firing out tabloid headlines - the cancer struck child typified this.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 21:44

Operaista, that post was amazing. Seriously, just f*cking beautiful.

Boze, post 54 wasn't bad either.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 14 2013 21:46
Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 21:58
Webby wrote:
Quote:
Go gather up hundreds of cancer patients who will be willing to take part in double blind studies where the only treatments they receive is a vegan diet. What would you choose if you had cancer? Chemo, radiation and hormone suppressing drugs or a diet of broccoli?

Mike - I was drawing a comparison between the trustworthiness of 'mainstream' and non mainstream science, not saying one was better than the other.
According to the NHS there is no evidence that Traditional Chinese Medicine will help with Hep C induced advanced liver disease, yet for 7 years the advancement of my condition has been minimal and the liver transplant that I had been told would be required imminently has so far been avoided. Coincidence? Luck? Placebo effect? Maybe, but probably not. That said, I recently underwent the latest antiviral triple therapy with the NHS. It failed, but if they offered something else I would almost certainly give it a go. Nothing to do with veganism as such but I think it demonstrates that there are halfway points in this sort of discussion.
I've read your posts on many other threads and they always seem to be well reasoned and well constructed but I this thread you seem to have gone into overdrive and have at times sounded like a machine firing out tabloid headlines - the cancer struck child typified this.

Hep-C advances differently for different people. The medical quacks LOVE promoting cases where cancer just goes away when a person rejects mainstream medical treatment but strange things do happen with the human body that aren't applicable to the average scenario. Sometimes the body heals itself. The topic was cancer and the poster said cancer is reversed from a vegan diet. That's pseudoscience I'm sorry and the basis of it is capitalists suppress natural cures because they can't profit from it. A family member of mine was almost duped by that conspiracy theory and almost embraced "alternative" treatments for cancer as her sole treatment plan. She had stage 3 breast cancer and was going to reject the doctors plans for the double mastectomy, chemo, radiation and drug treatment which specifically lowered her amount of cancer feeding estrogen. Her alternative plan was just that, a specialized vegan diet and get this, coffee enemas. I'm 99% sure if she went through with the vegan diet and coffee enemas as the sole treatments for her cancer she'd be dead right now.

Posting the picture of the cancer struck child was in relation to vegans who are anti vivisection and use appeals to emotion to fight animal testing. I guess you simply don't understand the point I was trying to make. That's OK. I'm not offended.