Why people should go vegan

lukethethird · Jan 29, 2019

Eddi said:
Just saying there’s a more ethical way, that’s all

Oh brother.

Dan From Smithville · Jan 29, 2019

Eddi said:
A couple of days back I made a post about the nature of the soul. Eventually, someone stated that the concept of “the soul” is in fact an ancient error. This made me do some thinking and I have now discarded the concept.

If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).

But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.

I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.

If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.

On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.

Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.

Not to knock your personal choice, which I fully support, but many of the animals that you note have some level of consciousness, eat other animals that also may have some level of consciousness. They are often not very polite or kind in how they go about it either. I like the thought you have put into your choice. I even accept that you have every right to suggest that everyone should embrace vegan practices. I do not know that eating other animals is unethical. I monitor my intake for health reasons--not always very well--and I am not keen on some of the contemporary practices in meat animal agriculture, but I do not currently find that and some of your points to be reason enough to discard meat from my diet. I am unabashed in saying that I enjoy it.

TheresOnlyNow · Jan 29, 2019

I was vegan for many years. Then we moved and circumstances made it difficult to remain strict. However, the noticeable energy drop is inescapable when we started eating meat from time to time again.

One thing pre-menopausal (young) women vegan's want to be cautious of if assuming a vegetarian or vegan diet is eating too much tofu products. Meat replacers sold in stores, etc...
Tofu is derived from soybeans. And soybeans are high in estrogen.
Just a heads up.

Audie · Jan 29, 2019

Eddi said:
A couple of days back I made a post about the nature of the soul. Eventually, someone stated that the concept of “the soul” is in fact an ancient error. This made me do some thinking and I have now discarded the concept.

If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).

But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.

I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.

If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.

On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.

Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.

It is simple: Be kind to animals by not eating them.

wellwisher · Jan 30, 2019

Humans are omnivores. Vegan is sort of a cultural illusion, since good vegan nutrition is dependent on grocery stores stocking items from all over the world, so we have sufficient fresh veggies, even when they are out of season, locally.

If you went back 100 years and had to depend on just local produce, there are no fresh veggies during the winter, unless you live near the equator. Try a natural local vegan diet for a year, where you only can eat local plant matter and there is nothing fresh 6 months per year.

Meat on the other hand, opens up your fresh food options, year round, using local food stocks. This has selective advantage, if natural living is important.

One observation I noticed is humans eat primarily vegan animals, like cows, sheep, chicken, deer. We don't normally eat carnivore animals like dogs, cats, lions, wolves.

Pigs are omnivores, and since they deviate from the vegan animals they are taboo in some culture. We do eat fish, which can be either vegan or carnivore. We eat the primarily animals that are a natural food source for the carnivore animals of the earth. This is in harmony with the ways of nature.

Nous · Jan 30, 2019

It's so informative that those here trying to justify eating animals never address the arguments pertaining to cruelty or the harms to the environment or climate resulting from humans eating animals. It's like an abolitionist putting forth a series of arguments contrary to slavery, including the immorality of slavery, and slaveholders piling in, not to address the arguments, but to assert that owning slaves is their choice.

And, naturally, no one here has provided any evidence that humans need to eat animals or that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
Cite the evidence by which to draw that conclusion.

The very fact that most of the "blue zones" do eat meat. They're living longer than any of us, and except for 2 or 3 they don't entirely exclude meat from their diet.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
It's so informative that those here trying to justify eating animals never address the arguments pertaining to cruelty or the harms to the environment or climate resulting from humans eating animals.

I feel no shame or guilt for going out to fish, and taking the fish back for a fish fry.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
And, naturally, no one here has provided any evidence that humans need to eat animals or that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans.

Tell someone who hunts and fish to help feed their family they don't need to eat meat. Tell small farmers living off their own crop and livestock they don't need to eat meat. We have evolved, and factually so, to include meat in our diet.

Nous · Jan 30, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
The very fact that most of the "blue zones" do eat meat. They're living longer than any of us, and except for 2 or 3 they don't entirely exclude meat from their diet.

I don't have a clue as to what "the blue zones" are. Be sure to cite and link to all of the evidence you refer to by which to conclude that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans.

Nous · Jan 30, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
Tell someone who hunts and fish to help feed their family they don't need to eat meat. Tell small farmers living off their own crop and livestock they don't need to eat meat. We have evolved, and factually so, to include meat in our diet.

So are you trying to say here that you are unable to cite any evidence by which to conclude that humans need to eat animals?

Twilight Hue · Jan 30, 2019

Eddi said:
A couple of days back I made a post about the nature of the soul. Eventually, someone stated that the concept of “the soul” is in fact an ancient error. This made me do some thinking and I have now discarded the concept.

If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).

But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.

I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.

If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.

On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.

Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.

Impossible. You need to eat meat for proper brain health.

Audie · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
It's so informative that those here trying to justify eating animals never address the arguments pertaining to cruelty or the harms to the environment or climate resulting from humans eating animals. It's like an abolitionist putting forth a series of arguments contrary to slavery, including the immorality of slavery, and slaveholders piling in, not to address the arguments, but to assert that owning slaves is their choice.

And, naturally, no one here has provided any evidence that humans need to eat animals or that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans.

wellwisher said:
Humans are omnivores. Vegan is sort of a cultural illusion, since good vegan nutrition is dependent on grocery stores stocking items from all over the world, so we have sufficient fresh veggies, even when they are out of season, locally.

If you went back 100 years and had to depend on just local produce, there are no fresh veggies during the winter, unless you live near the equator. Try a natural local vegan diet for a year, where you only can eat local plant matter and there is nothing fresh 6 months per year.

Meat on the other hand, opens up your fresh food options, year round, using local food stocks. This has selective advantage, if natural living is important.

One observation I noticed is humans eat primarily vegan animals, like cows, sheep, chicken, deer. We don't normally eat carnivore animals like dogs, cats, lions, wolves.

Pigs are omnivores, and since they deviate from the vegan animals they are taboo in some culture. We do eat fish, which can be either vegan or carnivore. We eat the primarily animals that are a natural food source for the carnivore animals of the earth. This is in harmony with the ways of nature.

People are what we make of ourselves.
If one wants to go "paleo" about it, say we are
by nature "omnivores" then by all means
eat your meat raw.

And make sure you KILL IT YOURSELF!

None of this packaged stuff that so conceals
its source.
Yes, people can eat quite a variety of things.
We are omnivores in that sense.

In "paleo" days, kplaces people lived did not
necessarily supply a sufficient diet without
eating animals. Eskimos, for example would
eat everything in a caribou, including the
stomach contents, in the winter.

We can now get food from all over the world,
in all seasons, and are not dependent on what
we happen to have around us.

I eat a small amount of sustainable-harvest seafood.

I believe in the axiom be kind by not eating animals.

Pigs, for example are very intelligent animals,
with a lot of personality. More so, they say, than
dogs. None would tolerate dogs being raised in
the cruel conditions of a pig farm.

I hope some day everyone will look back at the
barbarity of the present, and wonder,"How could
they."

I hope the day comes soon.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
I don't have a clue as to what "the blue zones" are. Be sure to cite and link to all of the evidence you refer to by which to conclude that animal-eaters are healthier than vegans.

Blue Zone - Wikipedia
Their diets are still plant based, but most of them do eat meat.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
So are you trying to say here that you are unable to cite any evidence by which to conclude that humans need to eat animals?

If you don't see hunger as a reason then I have no idea what you'll accept as a valid answer.

Audie · Jan 30, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
I feel no shame or guilt for going out to fish, and taking the fish back for a fish fry.

No reason you should, provided there is no unnecessary
cruelty involved, and depending somewhat on the fish.

Common fast reproducing fish like carp, sunfish, bass,
etc etc, take all you want, they are kind of like a farm crop.

There are other fish too rare or special in other ways
for me to feel they should be killed and eaten.

youknowme · Jan 30, 2019

Nous said:
Cite the evidence by which to draw that conclusion.

Once again, I think the word you are looking for is please.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 30, 2019

Audie said:
Common fast reproducing fish like carp, sunfish, bass,

White mouth bass is one of my favorite fresh water fish that is in abundant supply (at least where I used to live). And it's so much better fresh it should be a crime to sell pre-cooked and frozen fish.

Audie · Jan 30, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
If you don't see hunger as a reason then I have no idea what you'll accept as a valid answer.

Sufficient need is sufficient reason to eat anything including
your neighbour.

There certainly are people out there who need to hunt /
fish, or die. Not so many any more, but they are there.

I think the issue is whether the human body as such
needs animal products to be well nourished.

I am inclined to think it does not.

Thief · Jan 30, 2019

Eddi said:
Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.

I have canine teeth

the fatted cow must die

Why people should go vegan

unknown member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Veteran Member

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Whatever you want me to be.

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Rogue Theologian