Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

Anything else on your mind that you would like to discuss with other like-minded people.

Moderators: Mini Forklift Ⓥ, C.O., Richard, robert, SyrLinus

Message
Author
User avatar
Fallen_Horse
Elephant
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Contact:

Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#1 Postby Fallen_Horse » Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:00 pm

Learning how to be compassionate, gain wisdom, and love life.

User avatar
Richard
Site Admin
Posts: 6064
Age: 34
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#2 Postby Richard » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:42 am

I don't know why people go to such lengths to defend the obviously indefensible
Image

User avatar
I'm Your Man
Elephant
Posts: 2874
Age: 35
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#3 Postby I'm Your Man » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:38 pm

From the 1st article:
"Pigs, in the meantime, have been forbidden in many parts of the rich world from doing what they do best: converting waste into meat".
Yeah right. Animals are there to live, that's what they do best. What do we do best? Killing, i guess...
They write from a strictly environmental and productivity level; they are completly deprived of any humane and ethical point of view: to use animals for food and to serve humans is unethical. Let animals live peacefully just like they let us live peacefully (but we are not peaceful anyway).
Last edited by I'm Your Man on Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do your best, don't worry, be happy" - Meher Baba
Image

User avatar
beforewisdom
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#4 Postby beforewisdom » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:04 pm

Richard wrote:I don't know why people go to such lengths to defend the obviously indefensible



Because they are wrong, feel guilty and they haven't gotten the right combination of things together yet to do something about it.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)

User avatar
beforewisdom
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#5 Postby beforewisdom » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:05 pm



Gary Francione and the Vegan Society have already made responses to the first.

I'm guessing in a few days you will have your pick of a number of articles.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)

MartinVegartin
Manatee
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:49 am

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#6 Postby MartinVegartin » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:30 pm

There's not enough land for everyone to have 'grass fed' beef. Trying to accomplish this would mean killing off predators in those areas where the cattle would be let loose. And local herbivores would be killed off so they couldn't compete for food.

I don't believe cattle can convert half of what they eat to meat. That means the other half must be adequate for the production of all the energy they need and all the parts of them that isn't meat.

It would be interesting to see what Francione and the Vegan Society have to say about the book.

I haven't read the second article yet.

User avatar
Fallen_Horse
Elephant
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#7 Postby Fallen_Horse » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:03 pm

The obvious argument to the first article is that even when cattle eat grass that humans couldn't, they are still drinking water that humans could, and there is no 'green' way around that....
Learning how to be compassionate, gain wisdom, and love life.

User avatar
beforewisdom
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#8 Postby beforewisdom » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:09 pm

Carnists don't care if not everyone can have grass fed beef or if local wild animals are killed off.

It is better to remind them of price. Population and biofuel pressures will make grass fed beef much more expensive then they are accustomed to paying for.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)

User avatar
New World Vegan
Rabbit
Posts: 124
Age: 48
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:17 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#9 Postby New World Vegan » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:39 pm

Yea, Beforewisdom is one of the few people to understand this:

The reason people defend the obviously indefensible is because they are wrong or feel guilty. I've noticed, people do this at every level of healthy eating: defending their level by putting down the next level up:

Meat-eaters put down vegetarianism
vegetarians put down veganism
vegans put down raw-foodism
raw-foodists put down low-fat raw-foodists
Youtube's Gary High-Fruit . . . http://www.youtube.com/user/Gary1111001

Won't stop - won't flip flop - rockin round the clock

User avatar
beforewisdom
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#10 Postby beforewisdom » Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:35 am

Fallen_Horse wrote:The obvious argument to the first article is that even when cattle eat grass that humans couldn't, they are still drinking water that humans could, and there is no 'green' way around that....


You wouldn't know it from the marketing of the book, but Jonathon Safron Foer in his book "Eating Animals" gives a stunning refutation of the whole "better raised beef" argument. In a nutshell, the marginal lands that can ONLY grow grass/feed cows is very, very small, not enough to feed a significant amount of people. To eat Pollanesque beef these people would still need to use land that could feed more people by growing something other than food for cattle.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)

User avatar
beforewisdom
Stegosaurus
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#11 Postby beforewisdom » Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:40 am

New World Vegan wrote:Yea, Beforewisdom is one of the few people to understand this:

The reason people defend the obviously indefensible is because they are wrong or feel guilty. I've noticed, people do this at every level of healthy eating: defending their level by putting down the next level up:

Meat-eaters put down vegetarianism
vegetarians put down veganism
vegans put down raw-foodism
raw-foodists put down low-fat raw-foodists


I agree with your first paragraph, though that wasn't the point I was making in my post.

I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. I don't think raw foodism is a step up from a vegan diet. I think much of what is written in books on raw foodism is not scientifically validated, contradicts basic biochemistry known for centuries and isn't necessary for the claimed health benefits.

If you are interested in raw foodism I would highly encourage you to read "Becoming Raw". The author is a "mostly" raw food eater. She is also a coauthor of the ADA Position Paper On Vegetarianism and is the author of many fact based on veg*n diets. Her book is probably the only one that will give you real reasons to be raw and it will tell you the facts about what you need to do to stay healthy.

No disrespect meant to you.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)

User avatar
Dallas
Rabbit
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Two new 'anti-vegan' articles....

#12 Postby Dallas » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:18 pm

The reason they do this is because meat is addictive.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest