WTF is with Vegans?

[Go Green Girl]

Originally Posted by JonBMSU

Also recently there has been quite a bit of info that indicates their is a significant negative environmental impact of a meat based diet.

Cattle farming is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet.

[Gene Parmesan]

If god didn't want us to eat cows then why did he make them out of steak? If god didn't want us to eat pigs then why did he make them out of bacon?

[bbshanny]

Originally Posted by PennSpartan

Vegans are the cause of the needless slaughter of millions of vegetables.

I've wondered about this before... What makes it acceptable for vegans to kill plants? I think we all agree that plants are "alive."

Is it because they do not have a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain? I imagine a lot of vegans are opposed to deforestation and pollution... But then it is ok to eat plants for personal energy use?

[Go Green Girl]

Originally Posted by bbshanny

I imagine a lot of vegans are opposed to deforestation and pollution... But then it is ok to eat plants for personal energy use?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Meat-based agriculture creates deforestation and pollution, not plant-based agriculture.

[Left_Of_The_Dial]

Originally Posted by bbshanny

I've wondered about this before... What makes it acceptable for vegans to kill plants? I think we all agree that plants are "alive."

Is it because they do not have a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain? I imagine a lot of vegans are opposed to deforestation and pollution... But then it is ok to eat plants for personal energy use?

I think you pretty much answered you own question regarding the difference between vegetables and animals.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

I think you pretty much answered you own question regarding the difference between vegetables and animals.

So it would be cool to eat animals if we put them to sleep before killing them? They certainly wouldn't feel it. Or was it the deforestation thing?

[bbshanny]

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

I don't understand what you're asking here. Meat-based agriculture creates deforestation and pollution, not plant-based agriculture.

What I'm trying to say is that if you are against deforestation because you believe the trees have a right to live there, then why is it ok to kill plants to eat them?

[bbshanny]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

I think you pretty much answered you own question regarding the difference between vegetables and animals.

So it is the actual pain caused to the animals during death, and not the ending of their life that you are opposed to?

[Go Green Girl]

Originally Posted by bbshanny

What I'm trying to say is that if you are against deforestation because you believe the trees have a right to live there, then why is it ok to kill plants to eat them?

I can't speak for EVERY vegetarian/vegan on the planet, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that is NOT the reason most people (vegetarian or not) are opposed to deforestation.

[MSURed]

Originally Posted by bbshanny

So it is the actual pain caused to the animals during death, and not the ending of their life that you are opposed to?

Vegetarians have a wide range of opinions on that but for me, I rarely think of the actual slaughter itself, but rather the conditions the animals live in and how they are treated throughout their lives. That's part of why I have no ethical issue with hunting or fishing if done for food and not sport. To use the term that omnivores like to throw at me, it's 'natural'

[Left_Of_The_Dial]

Originally Posted by scott91575

So it would be cool to eat animals if we put them to sleep before killing them? They certainly wouldn't feel it. Or was it the deforestation thing?

It's a personal choice. If you would feel better about putting them to sleep before killing them...then by all means you should do that. My personal choice is that it would not effect my decision one way or the other.

Deforestation and pollution are another problem with the meat industry...although a separate issue.

Nearly half of the world's grain is currently used to feed livestock. It takes one pound of grain to provide one pound of bread. On the other hand...it takes sixteen pounds of grain to provide one pound of beef.

It's estimated that 20 vegetarians can live off the land required to feed one meat eater. Even if only 5 or 10 vegetarians could live off the land required to feed one meat eater...it's quite an amazing statistic.

[The Toll Spartan]

I think the real question is, have you ever eaten a deforested vegan?

If not, you really don't know what you're missing.

[Misterray]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

I think you pretty much answered you own question regarding the difference between vegetables and animals.

Sorry, Chuck. They are all living things.

Killing a tree for its wood is not more ethical than shearing a sheep for its wool.

Tigers are not evil.

I would not stomp a flower into the mud, nor would I kill a deer and leave it to rot.

I eat broccoli and I eat chicken.

I eat beans and I eat eggs.

I drink apple juice and I drink milk.

I wear cotton and I wear leather.

There are sustainable methods of producing both plant and animal based food.

Moderation is a virtue.

[AvgMSUJoe]

Originally Posted by The Toll Spartan

I think the real question is, have you ever eaten a deforested vegan?

If not, you really don't know what you're missing.

Pretty sure the vegans I know don't "believe" in deforestation either...

[Go Green Girl]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

It's a personal choice. If you would feel better about putting them to sleep before killing them...then by all means you should do that. My personal choice is that it would not effect my decision one way or the other.

Deforestation and pollution are another problem with the meat industry...although a separate issue.

Nearly half of the world's grain is currently used to feed livestock. It takes one pound of grain to provide one pound of bread. On the other hand...it takes sixteen pounds of grain to provide one pound of beef.

It's estimated that 20 vegetarians can live off the land required to feed one meat eater. Even if only 5 or 10 vegetarians could live off the land required to feed one meat eater...it's quite an amazing statistic.

A new study, by the former lead environmental advisor to the World Bank, found that livestock production is responsible for 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

[shomboo]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

Here is a list of people who might disagree with you:

Pythagoras
Plato
Voltaire
Immanuel Kant
Albert Einstein
Mark Twain
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mohandas Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy
Franz Kafka
Leonardo da Vinci
Emile Zola
Martin Luther King Jr.
George Bernard Shaw
Sir Isaac Newton
Alice Walker
Vincent Van Gogh
Albert Schweitzer
John Coltrane
Charles Darwin
Louisa May Alcott
Thomas Edison
William Blake
Arthur Schopenhauer
Anthony Robbins
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Socrates
Nikola Tesla
Flavius Claudius Julianus
Richard Wagner
Upton Sinclair
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Srinivasa Ramanujan
Henry David Thoreau
Henry Ford
Alan Watts
Charlotte Bronte
H.G. Wells
John Milton
Aristotle
Apollonius of Tyana

Just think what these people could have accomplished had their brains been able to develop properly.

Just doing a bit of googling into some random people on your list is showing me that several of those people weren't vegetarians until later in life, i.e. after their brains had already developed. Several people on vegan and vegetarian forums readily admit that many of those famous vegetarian lists on the Internet are wildly inaccurate, like with Martin Luther King, Jr. Dexter and Coretta Scott King are vegan, but weren't until Martin Jr. had died.

[Go Green Girl]

RCMB favorite Carrie Underwood is a vegetarian.

[AvgMSUJoe]

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

A new study, by the former lead environmental advisor to the World Bank, found that livestock production is responsible for 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

So if we all were veggieterians, the world could look like Gary, Indiana and everything would be peachy?

This sounds fishy.

I heard one of the right wing dbags on the radio say something about a study that when buffalo filled half the country, they produced more greenhouse gasses than are produced now...I figured that was BS too.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Left_Of_The_Dial

It's a personal choice. If you would feel better about putting them to sleep before killing them...then by all means you should do that. My personal choice is that it would not effect my decision one way or the other.

Deforestation and pollution are another problem with the meat industry...although a separate issue.

Nearly half of the world's grain is currently used to feed livestock. It takes one pound of grain to provide one pound of bread. On the other hand...it takes sixteen pounds of grain to provide one pound of beef.

It's estimated that 20 vegetarians can live off the land required to feed one meat eater. Even if only 5 or 10 vegetarians could live off the land required to feed one meat eater...it's quite an amazing statistic.

Being a vegetarian is more efficient use of energy. I have no problem with that way of thinking. As I have stated multiple times I don't care if people are vegetarians of not.

As far as feeling better about it if the animal felt no pain, that is not a question for me. I am just wondering if animals were more humanely treated before slaughter, and then felt no pain once killed would that change any vegetarians minds? I am thinking no, so the whole animals feel pain and plants don't is not a real reason.

[bbshanny]

Originally Posted by MSURed

Vegetarians have a wide range of opinions on that but for me, I rarely think of the actual slaughter itself, but rather the conditions the animals live in and how they are treated throughout their lives. That's part of why I have no ethical issue with hunting or fishing if done for food and not sport. To use the term that omnivores like to throw at me, it's 'natural'

Sounds good, just something I've thought about before so I was curious.

[Left_Of_The_Dial]

Originally Posted by Misterray

Sorry, Chuck. They are all living things.

Killing a tree for its wood is not more ethical than shearing a sheep for its wool.

Tigers are not evil.

I would not stomp a flower into the mud, nor would I kill a deer and leave it to rot.

I eat broccoli and I eat chicken.

I eat beans and I eat eggs.

I drink apple juice and I drink milk.

I wear cotton and I wear leather.

There are sustainable methods of producing both plant and animal based food.

Moderation is a virtue.

Sorry Chuck...but so are people.

You seem to have not trouble making a distinction between people and animals...yet you refute another persons distinction between animals and vegetables.

All of my friends eat meat and I don't judge them based on their personal dietary decisions. But your refutation of people who choose not to eat animals based on your "animals are the same thing as vegetables" philosophy is simply nonsense.

If people just say that they believe animals are meant for people to eat and a part of the natural cycle of life...I can understand that. I may not necessarily agree with it...but I understand it.

But your argument that animals and vegetables are the same thing is just silly.

[bbshanny]

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

I can't speak for EVERY vegetarian/vegan on the planet, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that is NOT the reason most people (vegetarian or not) are opposed to deforestation.

Tell that to the people in Berkeley!

[shomboo]

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

I don't understand what you're asking here. Meat-based agriculture creates deforestation and pollution, not plant-based agriculture.

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

Cattle farming is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet.

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

A new study, by the former lead environmental advisor to the World Bank, found that livestock production is responsible for 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Aren't all these statements more about the negative effects of the industrialization, mass production, and greed present in the current state of the meat industry rather than arguments against animal domestication itself? Raising animals may not be a natural way to increase our food supplies, but how is the concept itself any less unnatural than having plants grow when, where, and how we want them to?

[The Toll Spartan]

All I know is if I stop eating meat for energy efficiency, Al Gore is going to be jetting around eating all the killer Kobe beef and I'm going to be angry all the time. Especially when all the sea bass are gone.

[Watch out Pylon!]

Originally Posted by Go Green Girl

I don't understand what you're asking here. Meat-based agriculture creates deforestation and pollution, not plant-based agriculture.

Why do you value the life of a tree over the life of a rutabaga?