Veganuary
- Thread starter YowYan
- Start date
As I recall, that post was not directed towards me. You kept replying to my posts until you realized you were proven wrong and now you dodge the ball yet again?
Regarding your diet, suit yourself but atleast be honest when your posts are being corrected.
Perhaps your wording is rather unfortunate?
So why are you arguing over it?
I didn't reply your post number 10. You still tried to engage me in post number 23 and you were already rude there. I told you I am not interested in very first sentence when I replied. You ignored that. In next reply I again told you that you missed the point. That I was still not interested in your arguments.
You see I have been mostly responding to your abusive attitude not your arguments over veganism. Nothing against vegan diet if you want it, but I am not interested in following it nor I am interested in watching any video on it nor I care if you do not approve of my moral values. I do not feel like buying what you are selling.
What I fail to understand is that why do you think you must engage me on it continuously. What do you expect to achieve by antagonizing me pointlessly and repeated attempts to argue?
Oh, and see what we have here. Now I recall where I had seen that camel culling in Australia article.
10.000 camels to be killed for drinking too much water in australia, meanwhile 26.6 million cattle are being raised.
You're on my thread stating claims that were proven to be incorrect innumerous times and I just point out those mistakes.
Don't like it? Feel free to not post on this thread.
10.000 camels to be killed for drinking too much water in australia, meanwhile 26.6 million cattle are being raised.
You must be registered for see links
Post automatically merged:
You mentioned it so I give you the curtosy of addressing it..
You're on my thread stating claims that were proven to be incorrect innumerous times and I just point out those mistakes.
Don't like it? Feel free to not post on this thread.
So you addressed it and we were done. You went beyond pointing what in your opinion were mistakes. The moment you started making personal attack I lost any minor interest I might have had in paying attention to your campaign.
You remember that you posted the thread but you forget I moderate all the discussions here. Posting thread doesn't give you right to be abusive and hound people. It's my job to point when you cross lines.
salamander uchiha
Active member
Depends on your meaning.Should I have used to benefit
Can you explain what you meant by it? Like, do you mean to note the simple food chain? Or some degree of utility? Or something else? Like purpose, destiny, moral value or such thing?
salamander uchiha
Active member
You could say they fit into all of the above to varying degrees, heck many of them even benefit the environment around us. Many join the cycle of life to maintain the environment. Some act as food for other animals, or produce things that benefit other animals and the environment. Animals also breathe out carbon dioxide the trees take it and release oxygen which we take in, even that is to our benefit. Some animals are pleasing to the eye and we like to look at them or like to listen birds chirp etc. This is the shorthand version.
Yes, the livestock industry is responsible for roughly 18% of greenhouse gas emissions which is more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. Vegans literally have the smallest carbon footprint. Livestock is reponsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.
If everyone in the U.S. alone would go vegan, it'd be the equivalent of 60 million cars off the road. Its the livestock industry that is the leading cause behind dead zones, water pollution, water shortage, deforestation, species extinction, cardiovascular and heart diseases, etc. About one/third of the world's water consumption is for producing animal products.
More than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories.
Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of the Amazon's deforestation.
If the whole word would go vegan, it would open up a land mass the size of Africa. We would only need 20% of that land mass to feed 7 billion herbivores.
If only 10% of the livestock industry would vanish overnight, a land-mass the size of Germany would open up for restoring lost forests.
Here's a list of vegan pro-athletes
Barny du Plessis is the world’s first vegan bodybuilder and Mr Universe 2014, amongst other national and international titles.
Du Plessis went vegan after retiring from bodybuilding in 2013 due to an ever-growing list of health concerns which included hernias and acid reflux. After adopting a vegan lifestyle, the bodybuilder saw his fitness radically improve and he returned to the stage – winning the prestigious Mr Universe title in 2014.
“These days I train half as much, do half as much but get better results. Why? Only one answer, going vegan, GMO free, and organic. My body is running perfectly,” du Plessis
On getting back into competing after turning vegan with his partner, Josie – World’s Strongest Woman 2010 – du Plessis said: “We now have a point to prove and a massive incentive. We are representing the vegans of the world, all the animals and the environment. My crusade is to show the world that we can live a healthy, happy, and prosperous life without exploitation of innocent creatures.”
If everyone in the U.S. alone would go vegan, it'd be the equivalent of 60 million cars off the road. Its the livestock industry that is the leading cause behind dead zones, water pollution, water shortage, deforestation, species extinction, cardiovascular and heart diseases, etc. About one/third of the world's water consumption is for producing animal products.
More than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories.
Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of the Amazon's deforestation.
If the whole word would go vegan, it would open up a land mass the size of Africa. We would only need 20% of that land mass to feed 7 billion herbivores.
If only 10% of the livestock industry would vanish overnight, a land-mass the size of Germany would open up for restoring lost forests.
Post automatically merged:
Here's a list of vegan pro-athletes
You must be registered for see links
Barny du Plessis is the world’s first vegan bodybuilder and Mr Universe 2014, amongst other national and international titles.
Du Plessis went vegan after retiring from bodybuilding in 2013 due to an ever-growing list of health concerns which included hernias and acid reflux. After adopting a vegan lifestyle, the bodybuilder saw his fitness radically improve and he returned to the stage – winning the prestigious Mr Universe title in 2014.
“These days I train half as much, do half as much but get better results. Why? Only one answer, going vegan, GMO free, and organic. My body is running perfectly,” du Plessis
You must be registered for see links
On getting back into competing after turning vegan with his partner, Josie – World’s Strongest Woman 2010 – du Plessis said: “We now have a point to prove and a massive incentive. We are representing the vegans of the world, all the animals and the environment. My crusade is to show the world that we can live a healthy, happy, and prosperous life without exploitation of innocent creatures.”
You must be registered for see images
Last edited:
salamander uchiha
Active member
Pretty much, I just don't type essays, so I use words that can give a fuller picture since they don't have a solitary meaning and there's a broad scope to them.
Some of the arguments for veganism are meh:/ if you look at population placement, they've never had all the nutrients minerals or weather conditions to produce all the vitamins or minerals they need, so relied on meat based products, eggs, milk etc. Lets all eat vegetables, deplete the soil, cull the animals or not really a reasonable argument. People living deep in the North will eat meats to survive it is their staple diet.
Anyway, I've no interest in typing up essays.
Last edited:
Understandable, but we have to
See, broader meanings are less precise, so they allow for a big picture which is simultaneously blurry. So sometimes, we just have to type essays. Besides, basic meanings can be given without mega essays.
This applies in general, but especially when we are talking topics of importance, at least to others. Respect etc
I don't think utility is much of an arguement here. That is to say, the vegan arguement is one of overall values, not so much practicality for clearly extreme situations. So lets agree that Eskimo people don't have much choice.
From there, let's then move towards the issue of unnecessary usage of meat eating. Like, Mcdonalds, KFC and friends, not populations who are practically restricted from going veggie.
salamander uchiha
Active member
Who said they have unnecessary use of meats? Those businesses themselves self you a product, which you voluntarily buy. Although, I wouldn't eat a McDs, their products are not only questionable their content is also meh:/ You should compare it to somebody going and buying a chicken to cook for dinner or eggs for breakfast, if you want to make a comparison that is.
You've got a fellow telling me vegans should take supplements to make up for deficiencies of vitamins and possibly minerals. That's not a compelling argument in my book. It's clear to me that omnivore is the best method, and isn't at either extreme.
Last edited:
You brought up survival based examples such as Eskimos, so in that sense KFC is unnecessary for people.
It applies the same, we are talking about decisions made by people here.
Otherwise, im not sure how business is an excuse. Didn't Yowie already cover this? At a point in time, slavery was the best business practice, surely that doesn't justify it?
In any multi-sided problem, one side having a problem is not conclusive. You can't claim a win or dismiss because of some problems alone. You have to show that those problems are worse than the other side, or that they are not worth their own goals. So are supplements really such a big problem to justify animal cruelty (as per the moral arguement)?
Omnivore is too broad a grouping. Can you be more specific? Before that, actually, lets first settle the supplements vs suffering point.
salamander uchiha
Active member
KFC may be unnecessary for survival, but what has that got to do with survival itself
It's not the same not even remotely close, KFC is voluntary survival isn't.
Yowie's example of slavery is meh:/ it was voluntary and used by the rich to become richer. What's better than free labour, does it have a justification? Yes it does. Does that mean we agree with it? No we don't.
There is no moral argument for not eating other animals. It is observable in nature, animals eat animals, others eat vegetation, and some eat both. Does that make any of them immoral, I think not.
There is no point, suffering is a lame duck excuse, unless the animal writes to you and tells you it's suffering one can't gauge that. Even if it could, it's a mute point. On the point of supplementation, yes it's a problem, because it's not natural, and requires external sources to cover for short comings in a diet method being promoted to be "better." It seems more like an exercise in massaging the ego.
As for omnivores, simply balance leabing towards genetic disposition. Genetic factors do impact how one eats and processes foods.
I feel I'll end up typing essays, so I will give a short response or leave.
Post automatically merged:
Actually infant I'm out, I'm too busy.
Last edited:
Its proven unnecessary for it.KFC may be unnecessary for survival, but what has that got to do with survival itself
Our discussion was that veganism is accepted as unusable if one eats meat for survival purposes, so once KFC is proven unnecessary, it no longer is exempted from scrutiny.
Have you forgotten what the discussion is about?
We weren't just talking about pure survival. Or is there another reason you're asking this?
Again, what does this have to d with anything?
The point was on whether business interests are exempt from scrutiny, not on whether KFC is exactly the same as survival. If anything, you are the one who implied KFC and other businesses are exempt from scrutiny just like survival purposes are exempt.
Have you forgotten the discussion, lol.
That's the point - business is not an excuse for anything. It has to be scrutinized for its unique value against its drawbacks.
And just to be thorough, that's reasoning, not justification. Justification is basically 'sufficient' reasoning for the cause. Everything has reasoning, very few things have justification.
Declaring an absolute - that there is no arguement - is a common mistake. No one can make such declarations without possessing all relevant knowledge.
Its about the suffering, unnecessary suffering, incurred during the process. That's the moral factor in it.
Since when is observable pattern a justification in morality? Slavery used to be common, doesn't mean its justified or morally acceptable.
Genetic disposition at its most basic/extreme is prettybclose to survival reasons like the Eskimo, so i can accept that, but when it is about survival and not unnecessary targets of becoming just a few pounds lighter or stronger.
So you can't gauge suffering of others without them righting essays about it? That's disturbing man . . .
So even if suffering is confirmed, it doesn't matter? Well, I'm not sure what to make of that then.
Post automatically merged:
Well, we don't have to settle it now, we can continue whenever . . . its about the meaning and Truth, not speed.
Otherwise I'm.cool with it, justwanted to clear up the other side of it with the responses.
Check ya later
salamander uchiha
Active member
By too busy, I meant in too busy to entertain the discussion and type up walls of text. And that's not changing anytime soon, ai will give you a courtesy response.
You gave the example of KFC is response to Eskimos consuming meats as a staple for survival. And I said how is KFC a business which you have a choice of eating from or not related to it. Mind you they give you potatoes as well, so technically you're omnivorous.
I never said vegansism is unusable, where did you get that claim from. Your assumption about what the discussion was about, doesn't make it so.
They are exempt because a KFC isn't for survival, it is an excess. Excesses aren't necessary for survival, so irrelevant as a whole.
Who said it wasn't justified? It had sound reasoning behind it for those benefitting from it and provided them near free labour. Whether we agree with it or not is a seperate matter. The only thing better than that would be automation by today's standards.
It is an absolute, I will repeat it for you. Some animals live of vegetation (a fact), some live of meat (a fact), and others are omnivores (a fact). This is nature and how it works if we are to ignore the human example. Assuming suffering or unnecessary suffering isn't really an argument, unless the animal tells you it is suffering. It serves the cycle of life, therefore is it really suffering? I don't accept it to be as it serves the greater purpose.
It's not just Eskimos, it's equally true for other groups of people that have say gluten intolerance, lactose intolerance, nut allergies etc. Genetic factors and propagation play a part in what one can eat or not. That's why omnivore is best, but skating towards one's disposition. A few pounds lighter or heavier is down to insulin sensitivity and metabolism (another genetic factor).
That's not really an argument perse.
Suffering cannot be confirmed and if it is assumed it is flawed that it is legitimate suffering. A predator will eat meat, one could claim the animal (prey) suffered, but did it or did it serve it's purpose in the hierarchy? Is the latter, so the "suffering" argument is irrelevant and like I said an exercise at massaging the ego. There is no moral argument here, unless the animal writes to you to tell you it's suffering, or flat out states it. There are a few exceptions to that, which aren't really relevant here.
That's the last response on the issue from me, take care and have a good day.
Last edited:
Remember how i saidits ok to take your time?
I change my mind. Don't look at it as a choice, but as an enforcement. I won't reply to you (specifically) for at least a week, during which you may edit your last post all you want (or just leave it as is). Take a break!
I'm looking at not only your latest post but the conversation as a whole and i see worrying signs. See, i once took a common drug which totally messed with my brain. I could hardly put anything connecting together, in terms of thoughts. Literal thoughts. If i had posted at that time, my posts would've been quite similar to yours . . . extremely disconnected.
Please take a break, deal with whatever is distracting you as much as possible. (Or if you wanna talk to strangers, im pretty sure the lads here would make for good ears.)
I change my mind. Don't look at it as a choice, but as an enforcement. I won't reply to you (specifically) for at least a week, during which you may edit your last post all you want (or just leave it as is). Take a break!
I'm looking at not only your latest post but the conversation as a whole and i see worrying signs. See, i once took a common drug which totally messed with my brain. I could hardly put anything connecting together, in terms of thoughts. Literal thoughts. If i had posted at that time, my posts would've been quite similar to yours . . . extremely disconnected.
Please take a break, deal with whatever is distracting you as much as possible. (Or if you wanna talk to strangers, im pretty sure the lads here would make for good ears.)
Perhaps try hear out this indian lady doing a tedtalk on veganism. There are actually quite a few indians doing tedtalks on veganism and permacultureVegetarianism
Vegan= extreme
You must be registered for see medias