Corwin

On the contrary. Without animal products (or inferior substitutes) in your diet you die. And death from lack of B-12 is NOT pleasant.

There is a form of yeast which also produces B-12, but it doesn't work as well... ever wonder why vegans are generally skinny and tend toward being somewhat frail? Not enough protein. (Soy just doesn't absorb as well... PETA propaganda to the contrary.) Notice how they are frequently somewhat... unstable? Lack of B-12.

Viti

This thread was not meant to start the whole thing over again! It was a specific challenge for a formal debate.

Spin and Corwin, your bestiality argument probably has some merit for discussion, but cool it with the insults please.

edited for redundant redundancy

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

Corwin

*shuffles his feet in front of lady....*
He started it...
*looks down at his feet*



Trying to avoid starting the whole thing over... there is a moral/ethical survival issue here. The two basic, universal moral laws are very simple. 'Survive' is the first... and can be superceded by 'Women and Children First.' (Males are unfortunately expendable. Offspring and breeding females are more important from the species perspective.) So... I'd suggest that Spin, defending the moral position of vegetarianism/veganism should provide us with a moral imperative that can supercede the survival aspect.

Bokonon

<strong>On the contrary. Without animal products (or inferior substitutes) in your diet you die. And death from lack of B-12 is NOT pleasant.

There is a form of yeast which also produces B-12, but it doesn't work as well...</strong>

B-12 is the one substance not found in abundance plant kingdom. However, as you point out, it IS found in a form of yeast (and if memory serves, certain species of seaweed, though I'm not positive on that). The soy milk I drink contains 50% B-12 per serving. That is the one and only point I will concede on on this issue. Inferior to the B-12 found in meat? I'm not sure if that's at all true. I'd welcome you to point out specific studies that state that. And I'm sure I could find an equal or greater number that state the opposite.

<strong>ever wonder why vegans are generally skinny and tend toward being somewhat frail? Not enough protein. (Soy just doesn't absorb as well... PETA propaganda to the contrary.)</strong>

Bollocks. Most vegans I have ever met tend to be far more healthy. Vegans and vegetarians have less of a risk for most cancers, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. etc. The ADA has stated quite conclusively that vegetarian and vegan diets are healthy and possess benefits. The complex protein theory was rejected in the early 80s my friend. I get more protein than I possibly need. I've been a vegan for 2 years (and vegetarian 2 years before that). I'm in fact overweight though I lost 40 pounds in the transfer from vegetarian to vegan. I am 6"1' and I weight 240 pounds. Its not the diet that keeps me overweight but rather my lack of exercise. I plan on going on an exercise routine during the summer to trim down some. Vegans do tend to weigh loss, this is true, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing. And frail? Please show some evidence for this.

<strong>Notice how they are frequently somewhat... unstable? Lack of B-12.</strong>

Excuse me? I think I should be offended by this. You are clearly ignorant to make such generalizations.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Corwin

No.... I've just known a lot of militant vegetarians and vegans.

I think the reason this whole discussion got started is that those of us who follow our biological imperative, (eat the diet we developed around, and not trying to fight three million years of evolutionary development) want you to put up or shut up. Discussions with vegans especially always degenerate into the vegan getting up on some moral high horse. We want you to justify your superior attitude.

----

Oh, and Bok? It doesn't matter how much B-12 your soy milk has in it... what matters is how much of that B-12 is in a form that your body can actually USE. If you can't absorb it you can eat a hundred times the amount you need and still not get any good out of it.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Bokonon

I think the exact opposite is true. Its been my experience that many omnivore find the need to justify their actions by belittling vegetarians and vegans. How have I played the moral high horse card?

Your health arguments were quite flawed. I'd welcome you to produce studies that disprove anything I said.

The debate was quite civil in my view till the comment that vegans tend to be "unstable". That's very offensive to me. While I know there are unstable people in the animal rights community (as there are in any political movement I might add), to suggest that we tend to be unstable is ridiculous.

I dislike and distrust PETA. They are a useful resource at times, and I belive they are in it for the cause, but I can't ignore the many pointless antics and the bending of truths. If one is intellectually dishonest, I find it hard to believe other things that person may say.

EDIT: I just saw your addition.

If the B-12 I regularly consume is not absorbable, then why does the ADA say a Vegan diet is perfectly healthy when balanced?

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

spin

Corwin:
---------------------
there is a moral/ethical survival issue here. The two basic, universal moral laws are very simple. 'Survive' is the first... and can be superceded by 'Women and Children First.' (Males are unfortunately expendable. Offspring and breeding females are more important from the species perspective.)
---------------------

Survival has nothing per se to do with morals. If this is your idea of morals then apparently you are still in the jungle.

Corwin:
---------------------
So... I'd suggest that Spin, defending the moral position of vegetarianism/veganism should provide us with a moral imperative that can supercede the survival aspect.
---------------------

As you are not in the jungle any more, I think you have no realistic basis for morality. Humans have to some degree placed themselves outside nature -- you do wear clothes don't you? you don't collect your own food do you? you do live in a house don't you? -- you have the ability to make decisions not based solely on survival. One of those decisions you can make is not to eat meat. You may claim you need it by looking for something people think only meat has. Perhaps I'm really dead because I haven't eaten meat for the last 14 years and I need you to tell me -- my eye. People can concoct the most ludicrous arguments to justify maintaining the eating of other animals. If you need the stuff you claim to, you will find it elsewhere or get it synthesized.

spin

LadyShea:
---------------
This thread was not meant to start the whole thing over again! It was a specific challenge for a formal debate.
---------------

I really don't understand why you decided to stop the discussion before. PB may have been a little theatrical, but what could happen? If people want to discuss the subject or spinoffs from it, why interrupt it?

LadyShea:
---------------
Spin and Corwin, your bestiality discussion probably has some merit for discussion, but cool it with the insults please.
---------------

I can't help the mores of Corwin who insisted on pushing the subject. It seemed innane to me and still can't see the merit in it. I attempted to deal with it as decorously as I could given the lack of content.

tronvillain

Tom Piper:

If you are not indifferent between the two deaths, it seems likely that you do not actually hold that there are no morally relevant differences between the two species. I am trying to determine whether you agree with the argument or not.

tronvillain

Tom Piper:
Except that Melaclypse said it was a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, and your initial statement assumes that it is a sufficient condition.