Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seanie · 10-09-2002, 02:56 AM

I'm no scientist either but I'm sceptical about the article, in part because of the source. The summary strikes me as a farily crude bit of propagandising.

However I'm pretty sure we're not ideally suited for the diet we're currently on.

For the last few hundred thousand years we've probably been hunter/gatherers eating what's available. Fruit, nuts, roots, a few insects, the occassional grub, maybe a fish now and then, a bit of monkey on special occasions.

I think we should have a more balanced diet.

More larvae.

brighid · 10-09-2002, 04:18 AM

Ooooh - sweeping generalizations .... please, let's not make them in this forum. Vegan does not = bad, immoral and militant. SOME people, who also happen to choose a vegan lifestyle either for subjective, ethical reasons, dietary issues or a combination thereof may also choose to be proselytizing, fundamentalist vegans.

I think a scientific argument can be made that children and especially infants should not be subjected to a strictly vegan lifestyle, but aside from that if my neighbor wants to eliminate all animal products from his/her diet - SO BE IT! I don't want anyone coming into my home and telling me I can't eat meat and I don't think I should impose similar restrictions on another free, adult, human being.

I disagree with a strict vegan lifestyle, but I also realize that some people are able to maintain their personal health because of their unique, physical characteristics. I am not one of those people. If anything should be considered immoral it is prosyletizing anything, or forcing others to conform to another's view of what people should be.

So, if you would like to present an argument about why veganism is harmful to children and in this sense immoral, please do. But leave the ad homs and other fallacies out of that discussion. We have had some seriously heated discussions about vegetarianism/veganism in the past and I encourage you to look through the archives before rehashing this yet again.

Brighid

shinobi909 · 10-09-2002, 06:20 AM

"Vegans, on the other hand, are extremists who seek to impose their militant vegetarian ways on the rest of humanity, as part of some mad moral crusade."

Unreasonalbe generalisation, and ad hominem attack. I'd like to know what evidence you have that this is an accurate discription for a ideologiclaly diverse group of people.

1) How is it known that eating meat is instictual? Common practice does not equal instinct. Meat eating is dependant on culture, with some cultures eating large amounts, some only a little, and some none at all.

2) It is not necesarry to eat 7 bowls of beans to obtain one's daily protein requirement. Furthuremore, do you have any evidence that such a practice is widespread amongs vegan families?

3) Vegan diets are as diverse as meat based ones. Meat: there is only pig, chicken, lamb, cow and fish. That's five things. Now how many different vegetables are there? then count grains, fruits, nuts.

Regarding good things: Sounds like some of the arguments used by pro-tobacco advocates. Something maybe plesureable but overall, have detrimental effects of one's health, the enviorment and economy.

4) Again, evidence that this is common practive is needed to justify statements like this. Asking why it is justified to kill an animal for food is a valid ethical question. Boo-hoo, it's natural ect. are not reasonable responses, but intellectual dodges. Could someone not use these same arguments to defend killing people?

Most vegans are not in favour of forcing people to not eat meat. Most favour educative means to reduce societies consumption of animal foods.
If you can provide evidence that such a thing is true then please use it.

One thing to note, vegans are seen as a threat to the profits of powerful corporations that own dairy and meat industries, and as such get smeared by the media. Please be sure that you are not falling for smear and slander before making judgements about people.

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-09-2002, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
The difference between vegans and non-vegans is purely a matter of taste, or rather, a matter of differing degrees of empathy.

No. The difference is self-righeous indignation. Vegans are fundies of a different skin. Many vegetarians are fundies in their own way as well.

DC

brighid · 10-09-2002, 06:36 AM

Digital Chicken -

Quote:

The difference is self-righeous indignation. Vegans are fundies of a different skin.

Surely, some vegans and vegetarians fit that description (just as any other person in any other group can be classified as such) but one is neither self-righteoulsy indignant or a fundamentalist of a different skin by the mere fact of being a vegan or vegetarian. Just as atheists aren't Christian hating, Satan worshippers by default.

------------------------------------------

Please people, no ad homs, no sweeping generalizations, etc.

Brighid

seanie · 10-09-2002, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shinobi909:
3) Vegan diets are as diverse as meat based ones. Meat: there is only pig, chicken, lamb, cow and fish. That's five things. Now how many different vegetables are there? then count grains, fruits, nuts.

Well I've had rabbit, deer and horse. And next door's dog better watch if it doesn't shut up.

You see I'm willing to eat the vast array of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts as well as meat.

That's why my diet is potentially more diverse than a vegan's (albeit that in reality my diet consists mainly of crisps and alcohol).

I'm not saying a vegan diet can't be varied, interesting and healthy. But you can't exclude a specific food group and still claim to have as diverse a diet as someone who doesn't.

(Unless of course that someone lives on crisps and alcohol.)

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-09-2002, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
Surely, some vegans and vegetarians fit that description (just as any other person in any other group can be classified as such) but one is neither self-righteoulsy indignant or a fundamentalist of a different skin by the mere fact of being a vegan or vegetarian. Just as atheists aren't Christian hating, Satan worshippers by default.
Please people, no ad homs, no sweeping generalizations, etc.

Brighid

Who was it that said "I've never met a person I didn't like?"

Well "I've never met a vegan I liked."

That's not a sweping generalization or an ad hominem. Its merely a fact. Perhaps one day the evidence will change, but inductive reasoning is still in effect.

And before you get off on "You haven't met enough," I shall inform you I've met quite a few thank you. I find the experience not much different than interacting with Baptists. I didn't make the "fundie" comment on a whim.

DC

Wyz_sub10 · 10-09-2002, 06:55 AM

Meat? I love it. If roaches has more meat on them I'd buy a tiny barbecue.

But my wife knows a vegan couple that has decided not to *breastfeed* becasue they don't want the baby drinking *any* milk.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]

seanie · 10-09-2002, 07:09 AM

There was a couple in the UK last year, found guilty of the manslaughter of their baby. They had gone from veganism to fruitarianism and had the baby on the same diet. Doctors had warned them when the babies health suffered but they took off abroad believing all that was required was a bit of sunshine.

She died at 9 months weighing 11 lbs.

Now that's an extreme case but I think veganism does have a streak of fundamentalism that's dangerous.

Lord Asriel · 10-09-2002, 07:17 AM

I think the problem in that case is not veganism itself, but rigid adherence to beliefs. I shouldn't think anyone posting on this board is going to dispute that inflexible thinking is not a good thing.

10-09-2002, 06:55 AM	#28
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Meat? I love it. If roaches has more meat on them I'd buy a tiny barbecue. But my wife knows a vegan couple that has decided not to breastfeed becasue they don't want the baby drinking any milk. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2002, 02:56 AM	#21
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	I'm no scientist either but I'm sceptical about the article, in part because of the source. The summary strikes me as a farily crude bit of propagandising. However I'm pretty sure we're not ideally suited for the diet we're currently on. For the last few hundred thousand years we've probably been hunter/gatherers eating what's available. Fruit, nuts, roots, a few insects, the occassional grub, maybe a fish now and then, a bit of monkey on special occasions. I think we should have a more balanced diet. More larvae.

10-09-2002, 04:18 AM	#22
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Ooooh - sweeping generalizations .... please, let's not make them in this forum. Vegan does not = bad, immoral and militant. SOME people, who also happen to choose a vegan lifestyle either for subjective, ethical reasons, dietary issues or a combination thereof may also choose to be proselytizing, fundamentalist vegans. I think a scientific argument can be made that children and especially infants should not be subjected to a strictly vegan lifestyle, but aside from that if my neighbor wants to eliminate all animal products from his/her diet - SO BE IT! I don't want anyone coming into my home and telling me I can't eat meat and I don't think I should impose similar restrictions on another free, adult, human being. I disagree with a strict vegan lifestyle, but I also realize that some people are able to maintain their personal health because of their unique, physical characteristics. I am not one of those people. If anything should be considered immoral it is prosyletizing anything, or forcing others to conform to another's view of what people should be. So, if you would like to present an argument about why veganism is harmful to children and in this sense immoral, please do. But leave the ad homs and other fallacies out of that discussion. We have had some seriously heated discussions about vegetarianism/veganism in the past and I encourage you to look through the archives before rehashing this yet again. Brighid

10-09-2002, 06:20 AM	#23
shinobi909 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 93	"Vegans, on the other hand, are extremists who seek to impose their militant vegetarian ways on the rest of humanity, as part of some mad moral crusade." Unreasonalbe generalisation, and ad hominem attack. I'd like to know what evidence you have that this is an accurate discription for a ideologiclaly diverse group of people. 1) How is it known that eating meat is instictual? Common practice does not equal instinct. Meat eating is dependant on culture, with some cultures eating large amounts, some only a little, and some none at all. 2) It is not necesarry to eat 7 bowls of beans to obtain one's daily protein requirement. Furthuremore, do you have any evidence that such a practice is widespread amongs vegan families? 3) Vegan diets are as diverse as meat based ones. Meat: there is only pig, chicken, lamb, cow and fish. That's five things. Now how many different vegetables are there? then count grains, fruits, nuts. Regarding good things: Sounds like some of the arguments used by pro-tobacco advocates. Something maybe plesureable but overall, have detrimental effects of one's health, the enviorment and economy. 4) Again, evidence that this is common practive is needed to justify statements like this. Asking why it is justified to kill an animal for food is a valid ethical question. Boo-hoo, it's natural ect. are not reasonable responses, but intellectual dodges. Could someone not use these same arguments to defend killing people? Most vegans are not in favour of forcing people to not eat meat. Most favour educative means to reduce societies consumption of animal foods. If you can provide evidence that such a thing is true then please use it. One thing to note, vegans are seen as a threat to the profits of powerful corporations that own dairy and meat industries, and as such get smeared by the media. Please be sure that you are not falling for smear and slander before making judgements about people.

10-09-2002, 07:09 AM	#29
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	There was a couple in the UK last year, found guilty of the manslaughter of their baby. They had gone from veganism to fruitarianism and had the baby on the same diet. Doctors had warned them when the babies health suffered but they took off abroad believing all that was required was a bit of sunshine. She died at 9 months weighing 11 lbs. Now that's an extreme case but I think veganism does have a streak of fundamentalism that's dangerous.

10-09-2002, 07:17 AM	#30
Lord Asriel Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Essex, UK Posts: 467	I think the problem in that case is not veganism itself, but rigid adherence to beliefs. I shouldn't think anyone posting on this board is going to dispute that inflexible thinking is not a good thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.