Vegetarianism

[SuperBowser]

When someone asked if you would eat honey if it doesn't harm bees and you sidedodged the question, I think you proved my point anyway.

Please tell me, why wouldn't a vegan eat honey that harms no bees?

 

[freeman123]

and are there any fruititarians or even breathitarians among us?!!

I've never heard of "fruititarians" before, but shouldn't it be "fruitarians?"

As for breatharians, there's no such thing. There are only people who claim to be breatharians. It is not possible for a human being to survive without food and water.

The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can demonstrate that they are capable of surviving as a breatharian since 1996. So far, no one has claimed it.

 

[Skrlx]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
That is a logical fallacy.
You're comparing animals hunting for their survival to humans enslaving animals for their wants.
We do not need meat to live (in fact we'd have far more food without the meat industry, not to mention far less polution), and we do not get our meat in any way similar to that.

How is a bear tearing through their nests anymore different than a guy smoking the bees out cold? I think many bees die in the process of stinging the bear and being squashed by his paws. There is no way a bear can get the larvae/honey humanely without thrashing the place up.


Anyways, i'm done.

 

[Meneks]

How is a bear tearing through their nests anymore different than a guy smoking the bees out cold? I think many bees die in the process of stinging the bear and being squashed by his paws. There is no way a bear can get the larvae/honey humanely without thrashing the place up.


Anyways, i'm done.

Tomacawk specifically said that you can't compare between the two..
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason..
We could survive without killing or harming any type of animal...
It isn't like the bear is breeding the bees while feeding them special chemicals to make more honey..
Its a matter of an animal eating to survive and carry on with life..
Slaughter houses on the other hand dip cows in boiling hot water while castrating them when they are still very much alive..

We're smarter and dont NEED to eat meat necessarily....


Im not a vegan or vegetarian btw..

 

[Tomacawk]

The concept is irrelevant. We cannot obtain animal products in a peaceful manner so it is a moot point, but I will humor you can say no, out of the interest of my personal health and out of principle I would not partake in such "humanely garnished" products.

Perhaps you should read this again

 

[SuperBowser]

So you fail to refute my point

Anyways, I personally don't think the definition of veganism you are brandishing around is adequate. From your own source, there is a different definition offered.


''[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.''


The highlighted, bolded part is what is important to a vegan. Not simply the fact that the product was from an animal.

 

[Skrlx]

Tomacawk specifically said that you can't compare between the two..
We are at the top of the food chain for a reason..
We could survive without killing or harming any type of animal...
It isn't like the bear is breeding the bees while feeding them special chemicals to make more honey..
Its a matter of an animal eating to survive and carry on with life..
Slaughter houses on the other hand dip cows in boiling hot water while castrating them when they are still very much alive..

We're smarter and dont NEED to eat meat necessarily....


Im not a vegan or vegetarian btw..

I....keep...coming....back

Honey that is made from bees is not entirely used for eating. Honey is also used for medical and practical uses: http://1stholistic.com/reading/health/health-honey-and-cinnamon.htm (as you can tell it also includes cinnamon, but there is nothing inhumane about it). Check this site as well: http://www.reallyrawhoney.com/healthfacts.php

 

[Meneks]

I....keep...coming....back

Honey that is made from bees is not entirely used for eating. Honey is also used for medical and practical uses: http://1stholistic.com/reading/health/health-honey-and-cinnamon.htm (as you can tell it also includes cinnamon, but there is nothing inhumane about it). Check this site as well: http://www.reallyrawhoney.com/healthfacts.php

Okay?
I never said anything about not using it for medical uses..
You used bees as an example and I continued on with it..
I was comparing an animal eating another animal and a human torchering an animal..

Your introducing something that is pretty irrelevant concerning food consumption

 

[Tomacawk]

When someone asked if you would eat honey if it doesn't harm bees and you sidedodged the question, I think you proved my point anyway.

Please tell me, why wouldn't a vegan eat honey that harms no bees?

The concept is irrelevant. We cannot obtain animal products in a peaceful manner so it is a moot point, but I will humor you can say no, out of the interest of my personal health and out of principle I would not partake in such "humanely garnished" products.

Do you ever think why vegans don't use animal products?

If you don't, that is kind of the definition of being mindless...

I think you have completely misunderstood the point of being a vegan. It isn't because "eating meat is gross" (which it is. also very unhealthy), it's because of the disgusting enslavement of animals with absolutely no rights. We don't even have the decency to give them a kind enslavement, it's brutal with death, pain, hormones, and living the life of a product, not an animal.

So you fail to refute my point

Anyways, I personally don't think the definition of veganism you are brandishing around is adequate. From your own source, there is a different definition offered.


''[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.''


The highlighted, bolded part is what is important to a vegan. Not simply the fact that the product was from an animal.

10characters ROFL

 

[SuperBowser]

Dude, no need to be so rude. Especially when it's your comprehension that is the problem.

You are basically admitting that it is ok to use animal products as long as the animal is not harmed. Which is what I have said (and have only said) from the beginning.

edit: i love how you pretend that this was the definition you were using all along, when I have corrected you. Read your first reply:

Could you inform me as to how you managed to find out that most vegans are okay with using "humane" animal products? I didn't realize there was a means to communicate with so many vegans. And no, you are wrong. They are not vegans if they're using animal products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
"Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not to use or consume animal products of any kind."

I'm not replying to you anymore, since you can't seem to make a coherent statement without being rude.

 

[Tomacawk]

Which is what I have said (and have only said) from the beginning.

Anyways, I personally don't think the definition of veganism you are brandishing around is adequate. From your own source, there is a different definition offered.

what is important to a vegan. Not simply the fact that the product was from an animal.

Do you ever think why vegans don't use animal products?

If you don't, that is kind of the definition of being mindless...

Most vegans are quite happy to use animal products if they know where they are from. I know some vegans who own their own chickens and eat the eggs.

Veganism is a practical thing for most people rather than a mindless ideology. They will use animal products as long as they know the animals they came from were treated properly.

You have claimed that I am not an adequate vegan, by ideology. You have claimed to know what is important to being a vegan despite contending that you can be vegan and use animal products, which I have shown you multiple times is not the case. You have claimed I do not think why vegans abstain from animal products (contradicting your prior claim), despite being a vegan myself (what are the odds I became vegan without reason? like I woke up one day and said "I think I'm gunna try being vegan for the rest of my life despite knowing nothing about it and having no opinion"). You have claimed to be able to define me as a mindless person. You have claimed to know what most vegans want--I know and have met seven vegans, not including myself, none of which use any animal products at all. What about you? How many vegans does "most vegans are quite happy to use animal products if they know where they are from" entail? In my entire life included, the answer has been zero. You have once again claim that vegans use animal products if they "know where they came from and were treated properly". Yet another ridiculous claim with absolutely no evidence.

So now that we have clearly established that you contradict yourself and are either lying or have no ability to understand what you argue, let alone the concept you're arguing, let me for the last time attempt to reason with you.

You are basically admitting that it is ok to use animal products as long as the animal is not harmed.

In the interest of not making this wall of text any bigger, I will not quote myself again. Read what I have said; I have answered this already with my reasoning stated. I will now more formally answer it because you have been unable to comprehend anything I have said up to this point.
I believe that using an animal product is ethically and morally justifiable only when used in the context of survival, with the reasoning that it is impossible to use an animal without infringing on it's assumed inalienable rights to freedom proposed by multiple philosophical schools of thought and by some religions, such as Buddhism.
With that being said, this situation you present is impossible. How can you use animal products without causing harm in some way? Direct, indirect, or opportunity losses will occur with anything that you take--no matter how miniscule.
And again to humor you, if this ridiculous situation was occuring, I would abstain for the simple reason that I do not need it.

 

[Derkis]

I....keep...coming....back

Honey that is made from bees is not entirely used for eating. Honey is also used for medical and practical uses: http://1stholistic.com/reading/health/health-honey-and-cinnamon.htm (as you can tell it also includes cinnamon, but there is nothing inhumane about it). Check this site as well: http://www.reallyrawhoney.com/healthfacts.php

What exactly does the potential healthiness of honey-consumption have to do with veganism, the humanity of honey harvesting practices, or any other topic so far discussed?

Perhaps you were responding to the comment that we don't need meat (or animal by-products, like honey) to survive? Honey, in contrast with most holistic remedies, actually has a little bit of science to back it up...

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/165 -- a bit more objective than a site dedicated to promoting holistic treatments

...but it's far from complete. Also, its application will most likely always be regarded as complimentary to, and not a substitute for, modern medicine. Within a society which possesses advanced, scientific medical alternatives, honey isn't all that important.

Regardless, the simple fact that it may have some medical properties doesn't have any bearing on inhumane practices in actually harvesting the honey. There are health benefits to eating meat too (well, the factory-farmed meat that we eat in the U.S. and most of the industrialized world is in fact not healthy for a variety of reasons), but the point is that there are easy alternatives which aren't predicated on the unnecessary suffering of an animal. The benefits aren't exclusive to beef, or honey, and can be teased from alternative sources with no negative impact on our survival as a species.

Edit: @Tomacawk -- you seem to be taking SuperBowser's comments quite personally, but at most he has insinuated that you may be exhibiting the "definition of mindlessness" (which was perhaps not the most respectful choice of words) if you haven't engaged in thought about what it means to be a vegan. But it doesn't follow logically to extrapolate a suggestion that you aren't an adequate vegan from a contention over the definition.

And on the subject of that definition, it seems to contend with itself, which perhaps is partly the cause of confusion.

[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; ... In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.[1]

According to the bolded sections of this definition, theoretically, somebody who owned their own animals and treated them with respect could eat their by-products and maintain a vegan philosophy, but not a vegan diet. I think the problem is that the definition, at least the latter half, doesn't account for such extraordinary circumstances, and is operating under the assumption that food is being purchased from a store. And in that event, it's impossible to know if any animal product is truly "cruelty-free," save visiting the farm yourself.

 

[SuperBowser]

Half my family is vegetarian or vegan so it's not like I have no clue what I'm talking about.


Tomacawk, of course vegans will use animal products if they know the animal has not been harmed. My first post gave you the perfect example; a vegan who owns his own chickens and eats their eggs. Every vegan I know would eat these eggs. I don't understand why you keep ignoring my examples and saying ''Well that's impossible anyway! It's unhealthy so I wouldn't eat it anyway! None of my friends would eat it!'' That's simply sidedodging the question.

Now that you finally answered the question, I still have a problem! I asked why a vegan would not eat the honey. Not why you personally do not need it. You don't need to eat pasta either, so why don't you quit that too?

The definition of a vegan from your own source is compatible with the practice of my friends. Why do you get to decide what all vegans must and must not do and what is and is not harmful to an animal? (which is exactly what you did in your first response to me)


Also, I've quoted studies much earlier in this topic that support exactly what I've been saying so I don't even need to prove myself to you . Lots of people who call themselves vegetarians do in fact eat animal products through a similar line of reasoning as I've outlined here. The same is true of lots of vegans. Wikipedia states around 0.2%-1.3% identify themselves as vegan. The study I referenced earlier states only 0.1% of people in the US actually abstain from all animal products. The burden of proof is on you - why don't you use a study, instead of using anecdotal evidence?

 

[Tomacawk]

I have nothing more to say than you.
this is the last question I'm answering because this is the only thing I think you can take out of our discussion
I do not speak for all vegans on these questions, I can speak only for myself. All i can say is I would not eat it and just because your friends call themselves vegan doesn't mean they are, you are not a vegan if you are using animal products, bottom line--it defies the definition of a vegan.

 

[Derkis]

lol.

On one hand you say you cannot speak for all vegans, only yourself, and then proceed to adopt an exclusive definition of veganism (and are therefore speaking for a percentage of vegans and telling them they're not actually vegans). The other group of vegans you're "not speaking for" are those who are like-minded and have a similarly strict (but distorted) definition of the term, so you're essentially speaking for them as well.

And by withdrawing from the discussion (assuming you actually do), you only demonstrate that you're unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for your position, and in light of this the rational thing to do would be to reconsider that position as objectively as possible (which would require entertaining the ideas of others with an open mind, and continuing the discussion).

 

[Tomacawk]

I am not giving up on proving my point, I'm giving up talking to this guy because I don't see any point.
And i knew somebody would try to say that i was being inconsistent
here's the difference-he ASKED what I thought of that, and I specifically used "I" insinuating it is my opinion, and I reaffirmed that by saying I can't speak for all vegans.
However I am not speaking of my opinion I am speaking of FACT, by saying that vegans do not use animal products. I defined that from an online source. If I could claim to be a vegan and say that because I am a vegan I can define what a vegan is, then I could be whatever the **** I want and bend the definition to be what I want. That's why I brought in a source.

 

[PEEF!]

This vegan argument is as stupid as the "not a real Christian" argument.

Vegan was a defined term, meaning you are a vegan by a simple definition. Anything outside of that definition, or close to that definition, could both be a "vegan" of sorts, or not vegan, depending on your personal choice of semantics.

So wtf it the issue.

 

[Derkis]

And yet he also brought in sources, which you seem to have gone out of your way to ignore. Additionally, a definition is not a "fact," and if you look to the bottom of my first post I attempted to demonstrate to you (to the best of my ability) how that particular definition you posted ends up contradicting itself when taken as a whole (albeit in a particular situation).

It's precisely this "fact" that you are disagreeing over, and the mere notion that there is disagreement over it should give you a clue that it's not a fact at all, but a matter of interpretation (since facts are irrefutable). Furthermore, the hardline interpretation is ultimately an arbitrary line in the sand that you've (and no doubt others) have drawn, as you can do nothing to prevent the other branch of vegans from assuming their own interpretations of the term -- one which allows them to consume by-products of animals which haven't suffered any. You can claim they're not vegans, but in the end all you're doing is fracturing a group of people who are ultimately working towards a common goal, which is silly.

Also it's not a matter of inconsistency -- you've been very consistent. I think a little less consistency, and a little more pliability in terms of understanding the positions of others is not necessarily a bad thing.

@Rich Wheeler If the definition of vegan were "simple," there would be no argument.

 

[Tomacawk]

lmao, I've been linking sources the entire time when there was something which needed backing up
i'm gunna go ahead and unsub from this thread, I didn't realize it was argue for the sake of arguing with no attempt to understand veganism/vegetarianism at all

 

[Derkis]

No, we're arguing for the sake of establishing a mutual understanding of veganism. I understand perfectly well your absolutist interpretation of veganism, and I'm trying to engage you in a discussion about it. You're in fact the one who's refusing to understand the other side of the argument and actually participate in said discussion because you see it as one-sided. Now you're attempting an ungraceful exit so that you don't have to try. If you aren't willing to consider oppositional statements, and are just going to dismiss them, then you shouldn't bother participating because it defeats the purpose of argument -- to eventually reach consensus.

You're arguing with vegans and vegetarians (I'm a vegetarian by the way) and telling them how they interpret their ideologies is wrong. When they give you a counterargument, you don't respond to it and instead issue a tautology about the factual quality of Veganism's definition. Who's not trying to understand?

 

[xxFrohawkxx]

I really dont care about a stupid Vegan vs. Carnivore argument.
I would like to know about a vegans thoughts on useing products coming from animals
(wool, eggs, fur,and any other things that came from animails)

How do you guys feel about the use of oil and other fossil fuels , the by-product of dead animails
from millions of years ago?

What about manure, natuarl gas and leather?

 

[jugfingers]

I really dont care about a stupid Vegan vs. Carnivore argument.
I would like to know about a vegans thoughts on useing products coming from animals
(wool, eggs, fur,and any other things that came from animails)

How do you guys feel about the use of oil and other fossil fuels , the by-product of dead animails
from millions of years ago?

What about manure, natuarl gas and leather?

manure is awesome for growing plants....lol

also hemp oil would probably be the best oil for fuel

 

[SuperBowser]

You're arguing with vegans and vegetarians (I'm a vegetarian by the way) and telling them how they interpret their ideologies is wrong. When they give you a counterargument, you don't respond to it and instead issue a tautology about the factual quality of Veganism's definition. Who's not trying to understand?

Thank you. At least I'm not the only one who thinks so

However I am not speaking of my opinion I am speaking of FACT, by saying that vegans do not use animal products. I defined that from an online source.

Don't be dense on purpose. I used your own source to show you how you can use animal products and still be a vegan. You still don't answer my question because you know you can't. The only way to answer it is to admit you blindly follow the philosophy of ''no animal-products'' rather than examine why you avoid these said products.


So far I have:

-Shown there is more than one definition of veganism.
-Provided an argument for how one can be a vegan while still using animal products in select cases.
-Shown that half or, more likely, more than half of people who consider themselves to be a vegan also use animal products.

I'll let other people make up their own minds.

 

[Derkis]

I really dont care about a stupid Vegan vs. Carnivore argument.
I would like to know about a vegans thoughts on useing products coming from animals
(wool, eggs, fur,and any other things that came from animails)

Well, that's actually what people have been arguing about, not any sort of vegan vs. carnivore deal. So if you read some of the preceding posts, your first question will be answered from basically 2 different perspectives.

How do you guys feel about the use of oil and other fossil fuels , the by-product of dead animails
from millions of years ago?

Those fossils fuels, while in a roundabout way an animal by-product, were the result of natural death and decay rather than human-imposed suffering. As such, there wouldn't be any real moral issue -- at least as far as animal rights goes -- in using them.

 

[Today]

Hrm.. I don't know what the debate is about, but..

Humans were made to eat meat. Not that I'm against Vegetarianism. It's whatever floats your boat. But, like I said. We were made to eat meat. It's how we survive. Meat contains protein which you can usually get from nuts as well but having to consume a lot more. It'll be easier to eat meat. I have a Vegetarian friend and she just takes vitamins all the time. Fish also contains Omega 3 Oil which you are also missing in your diet. Think about how foxes hunt rabbits, or lions eating deers, or a cat grabbing a bird. That's because that's what they were made to eat in order to survive. So there is nothing wrong in eating meat at all. Nothing wrong in not eating meat. Also, from the first page. Yus, plants are living organisms, too. So why eat them? Because they lack what an animal can do? Not exactly fair.
Also, as for Vegans they don't eat anything animal product related. I knew another girl. I offered her chocolate and she turned it down because it was made out of milk. She claimed she was Vegan and don't eat/drink from other animal products. Of course I was surprised because it's chocolate. But I'm pretty sure as a girl myself and her and other girls are made out of milk. It's just natural. We humans, cows, etc were made to produce milk to drink. Otherwise, why have it? It's all about surviving! That's how humans and many other animals are. It's naturally. But, if you guys want to stay Vegetarian then go for it, just don't think that eating meat is wrong because it's not.

 

[Skrlx]

Hrm.. I don't know what the debate is about, but..

Humans were made to eat meat. Not that I'm against Vegetarianism. It's whatever floats your boat. But, like I said. We were made to eat meat. It's how we survive. Meat contains protein which you can usually get from nuts as well but having to consume a lot more. It'll be easier to eat meat. I have a Vegetarian friend and she just takes vitamins all the time. Fish also contains Omega 3 Oil which you are also missing in your diet. Think about how foxes hunt rabbits, or lions eating deers, or a cat grabbing a bird. That's because that's what they were made to eat in order to survive. So there is nothing wrong in eating meat at all. Nothing wrong in not eating meat. Also, from the first page. Yus, plants are living organisms, too. So why eat them? Because they lack what an animal can do? Not exactly fair.
Also, as for Vegans they don't eat anything animal product related. I knew another girl. I offered her chocolate and she turned it down because it was made out of milk. She claimed she was Vegan and don't eat/drink from other animal products. Of course I was surprised because it's chocolate. But I'm pretty sure as a girl myself and her and other girls are made out of milk. It's just natural. We humans, cows, etc were made to produce milk to drink. Otherwise, why have it? It's all about surviving! That's how humans and many other animals are. It's naturally. But, if you guys want to stay Vegetarian then go for it, just don't think that eating meat is wrong because it's not.

It's moreso of people slaughtering the animals in a cruel way rather than a humane way.

 

[BEHR]

Im kinda trying to stay away from Beef.

but cheeseburgers are sooooo gooood.

 

[jugfingers]

Hrm.. I don't know what the debate is about, but..

Humans were made to eat meat.

actually the dental/jaw structre/intestine length/stomach acidity/enzymes/facial structre etc of humans is much more similar to strict herbivores than omnivores.

 

[El Nino]

This thread is lulz. And reading it makes me hungry. But then, I'm always hungry.

I used your own source to show you how you can use animal products and still be a vegan.

I think you and Tomacawk are getting into disagreement over your definitions of "harm." You seem to mean "harm" as the physical abuse and mistreatment of animals. He seems to regard animal rights as the right to freedom and movement, which they would not have if raised in captivity.

But I'm not touching that topic with a ten inch vegan twinkie.

As for the definition of "vegan," well, there are different communities of vegans out there. Also, one ought to note that "vegan" is an English word, but other cultures have people with dietary restrictions, and they may call themselves "vegan" in English for lack of a better term.

 

[SuperBowser]

And that is kind of my point. Not everyone subscribes to his definition. Why does Tomacawk get to have a monopoly on the definition of a vegan, rather than another person who consider themselves vegan?

 

[Today]

It's moreso of people slaughtering the animals in a cruel way rather than a humane way.

Hrm.. Well, yus I disagree how people slaughter animals in a terrible way. Now that is saddening. TT__TTv;

@jug, That doesn't mean that we weren't meant to eat more. Just means we can consume plants easier.

 

[Dru2]

U can't take mah bacon! I personally don't understand why in the world someone would wanna become a vegetarian. Is it seriously because they feel bad when they eat an animal? C'mon people. The animals were put on earth so we could have dominion over them. We were made to take care of them, and since we are the dominant species, this means we have a perfectly fine right to kill some of the animals for our survival. Plus, meat is healthy! *eats chicken*

 

[IAmBlu3]

^^ lol i see this post leading to more argument.

 

[Dru2]

^^ lol i see this post leading to more argument.

I probably will get flamed soooo much for my post lol.

 

[El Nino]

U can't take mah bacon! I personally don't understand why in the world someone would wanna become a vegetarian. Is it seriously because they feel bad when they eat an animal? C'mon people. The animals were put on earth so we could have dominion over them. We were made to take care of them, and since we are the dominant species, this means we have a perfectly fine right to kill some of the animals for our survival. Plus, meat is healthy! *eats chicken*

Word. I love me some bipedal short-haired primate meat. It tastes like chicken.

we are the dominant species

If we are bacteria, then, yes, we are the dominant species.

Or cockroaches. Those things predate humanity by, like, a long f-ing time.

I probably will get flamed soooo much for my post lol.

No way. This thread is all lurve and warm fuzzies.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Mmmm...this is one tasty burger..

 

[Charmander]

I leik meat
I leik fish.
Humans are meant to eat meat.
I pledge to meatitarianism
Preying on helpless veggies, you sick people XD
You can eat your vegetables, but be warned.
In soviet russia, vegetables eat you
*awaits the flamers*