The Student Room Group

Views on veganism / vegeterianism

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
But you're kind of ignoring my previous argument with regards pollution. By your logic - that we don't need to eat meat so we shouldn't, so as to curb pollution - we should also ban all cars. I mean, we don't actually need cars, we did alright before them. We also did fine before power stations, before the industrial revolution. That is why I called the pollution argument specious.


This is a flawed analogy. We didn't do alright before cars, and we're doing much better now, economically, because of better transportation links. Where it is possible to walk, cycle or take public transport, we should, just as, where it is possible to cut meat and other animal products out of the diet, we should.

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
It's natural to feed on those animals which are below you in the food chain. As humans, we're at the top. Which means it's natural for us to eat more or less whatever we fancy.


This is an entirely specious argument, relying on a fallacious appeal to nature. Whether or not something is 'natural' has no bearing on whether we should do it.

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
That's not my point. You wouldn't make so impassioned a plea for the lives of insects as you would for the lives of cows, pigs and the like. Which again means you're drawing a distinction which suits your agenda, even when there isn't one. I imagine you wouldn't debate against someone who killed a fly, yet somehow that's more acceptable than killing a cow. Why? What's the difference? It's another specious argument.


And, this is an appeal to hypocrisy - just because some people haven't fully expanded their circle of moral concern, doesn't mean we shouldn't make the circle larger than it is currently.

Insects are unlikely to feel pain and suffer, first of all, and even if they did, people who kill insects do so on an individual basis: we don't confine, transport and slaughter insects en masse. Many vegetarians and vegans, including myself, have no objection to the actual killing of an animal either, because most animals (aside from chimpanzees and other primates, elephants, dolphins, whales and some birds) have no interest in continuing to live because they aren't self-aware or rational. We have an objection to the suffering inflicted upon the animals in the meat industry, as well as the contribution to climate change and higher food prices in the developing world that the meat industry is responsible for.

That said, I personally do take the potential interests of insects into account when I'm making decisions, and so do other vegetarians: I don't walk on the grass, for instance, because more insects live on the grass.

On top of this, the lives of insects are likely to be negative on balance, because a large portion of their life is spent dying, either due to starvation, predation or disease, as they're very short-lived beings. As a result, I think it would be better if there were fewer total insects in existence, and there are certain ways we can reduce long-term insect populations, by, for instance, reducing the total amount of biomass available for them to eat. [Killing insects is unlikely to reduce long-term insect populations, as the food that would have been eaten by the dead insect would just be eaten by another insect instead, so total suffering may actually increase if we squash insects, and so on.]
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9

That said, I personally do take the potential interests of insects into account when I'm making decisions: I don't walk on the grass, for instance, because more insects live on the grass. On top of this, the lives of insects are likely to be negative on balance, because a large portion of their life is spent dying, either due to starvation, predation or disease, as they're very short-lived beings. As a result, I think it would be better if there were fewer total insects in existence, and there are certain ways we can reduce long-term insect populations, by, for instance, reducing the total amount of biomass available for them to eat.


You can go down that route and end up justifying the killing of all life on Earth :-/

What happens if we have mass starvation of the human population? Would you ever justify killing off vast swaves of the human population?
Original post by FredOrJohn
Apologies - this 2.6 million includes DAIRY COWS killed . You need to deduct those (as you said they are not used for beef) then look at the 400K male calves) as a percentage of that.

I think you will find, I've been right all along (About 20% to 30%) but for all the wrong reasons - lol. Anyway - I thinkbeing a vegetarian is a good thing

Cheers JohnOrFred


I can't really remember what my original point was anyway. :tongue:
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You can go down that route and end up justifying the killing of all life on Earth :-/

What happens if we have mass starvation of the human population? Would you ever justify killing off vast swaves of the human population?


Not all life is net-negative, however. The overwhelming majority of humans, for instance, have a preference to continue to live, and I suspect that most animals that engage in k-selection and are therefore long-lived have positive lives on balance (unless they're animals in a factory farm).

We should be able to ensure that all life is positive on balance, instead of wiping out all life on Earth. Destroying the world and therefore increasing the suffering and violating the preferences of billions of humans plus some animals too is a worse scenario than simply reducing the populations of beings whose lives are likely to be negative in balance and maintaining the existence of the world.

If, hypothetically, we had mass starvation of the human population, then I would say that it's up to the humans themselves. Some humans might wish to be euthanised or commit suicide in such an extreme situation, whereas others may not want to.
Original post by viddy9


If, hypothetically, we had mass starvation of the human population, then I would say that it's up to the humans themselves. Some humans might wish to be euthanised or commit suicide in such an extreme situation, whereas others may not want to.



I think you could make a utilitarian argument that would justify one set of humans killing off another set in order to create a net gain in happiness if the circumstances were correct.
(edited 7 years ago)
Veganism is great, better for animals, the planet & people once they get rid of their meat/dairy addiction.
Original post by acupofgreentea
I'll echo a lot of others and say each to their own. :yep:

I'm not someone who believes we're meant to follow a plant-based diet, but personally, I do feel wrong consuming and using animal products and really respect those who follow a vegan / vegeterian diet.

In terms of the effects on the environment, I do think we need to think about cutting down on our animal product consumption long-term.



I think a big problem with this, though, is factory farming came as a result of increased demand from the population.

While I'd like to see us go to more ethical practices, I don't think -- with the current population -- it's possible to go back to the days of traditional farming and still meet the demands of everyone (taking into account the manpower and land it would require, the time it would take and the like).

Just my opinion, though. :lol:


Absolutely agree, but if people cared more about the livestock maybe their eating habits would change, they'd eat less meat and the need for factory farming would be reduced. Sadly, I don't see that happening, it just seems like a nice, idealistic compromise in my eyes.
Im a vegetarian. Its decent. Life is decent aswell.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
What kind of an argument is that?! I presume you wash food before you cook with it? Washing and cooking the food before you eat it largely solves the problem with regards bacteria in my experience. Once again, increased risk of heart disease, obesity and cancer have been linked to overconsumption of red meat and processed meat. There is absolutely nothing to suggest white meat carries any such danger, and indeed the studies all say that white meat is incredibly good for us.

Taking supplements isn't ideal. It's not cheap, and it pretty much confirms that a vegetarian/vegan diet is less healthy than an omnivorous diet based on white meats. You're admitting that a vegetarian or vegan diet does not give you all the nutrients you need to be healthy, whereas an omnivorous diet does.

I don't buy the animal cruelty argument one bit. It's not cruel to live off of your natural prey. That's a fact of life, it's nature.
By your argument, we shouldn't build cities because these involve clearing land to make room, which definitely would result in the deaths of thousands of animals, and we could always live in huts instead. And cars are most certainly out of the question, just think of all the animals that have died because we have automobiles; what was wrong with horse-drawn carts anyway? Your argument is specious.

I actually don't disagree with you about the huge damage that cows have on the Earth in all kinds of ways, but you'll notice again that this is red meat. Last I checked, fish, poultry and the like are having nothing like so damaging an effect. So whilst you've presented a great many arguments against red meat - which I don't dispute for a moment - you've put forward little and less to dissuade someone from white meat.

You're right, we don't have to be omnivores. It's just cheaper, more convenient and better for your health, presuming you steer clear of red meat. Your point about the animals wanting to live; I presume you've never killed a spider, fly or any other insect then? Or is it only animals of a certain size you sympathise with? I hope you always watch where you're walking, lest you commit genocide on a vast scale against the poor innocent ants among us. This is another specious argument.

Also, no wonder you're revolted by meat. If I was being served rotting flesh, I'd be a veggie in no time too!

P.S. Chill out dude, it's a debate about a difference of opinion, no need to get quite so aeriated.


"Bowel cancer risk is 9-50% higher per 25-50g/day of processed meat intake, meta-analyses have shown" cancerresearchuk "over-consumption" being a pretty easy thing to do then.

There is nothing wrong with taking supplements, not everyone gets all the vitamins requires from being an omnivore: B12 deficiency is just more common in vegans, so please don't imply being an omnivore is "healthier" because of this (a lot of meat-eaters are still deficient in B12). Do you actually have a solid reason for saying supplements are "unideal"? Please share that with me, I don't see how swallowing a small tablet is unideal - or is that just a totally unfounded opinion? "Not cheap" yeah <£10 for half a years worth of supplements is just too much man, don't think I can spend such an enormous amount or else I might have to get another job. :s-smilie:

Educate yourself. The conditions that animals are put in in the meat, dairy, egg (yes, even free-range) are sickening; if you don't think being locked in a cage in your own faeces your whole life/males chicks being crushed or gassed to death/beaks sawn off to prevent them pecking each other etc. is cruel then you have a problem.

Do you not know how much overfishing is taking it's toll on the ocean habitats? Stop being so ignorant and spewing out stuff like this.

Just because something is cheaper and more convenient, that doesn't make it better: crisps, ready meals, takeaways are all probably (admittedly) cheaper than a vegan lifestyle, and obviously infinitely more convenient; they are soooo healthy right? (sarcasm)

LOL, kind of grasping at straws here. The whole, "you kill INSECTS, therefore that makes it ok for me support the killing and cruel treatment of millions upon millions of animals", akin to "you use modern technology and so you CAN'T care about the environment"... by that logic it's better to not care at all, right? I'll just stop recycling since I'm using my mobile and laptop which causes pollution, if everyone used your logic, the world would be a terrible place: thankfully this isn't the case.
At least drawing the line somewhere is better than doing things thoughlessly, better than supporting animal cruelty.

Please educate yourself, you come across as VERY ignorant (meaning no offense).

EDIT: Also, the fact that various studies have shown that vegans have a longer life expectancy kind of says something: so much for it being "unhealthy".

/rant
(edited 7 years ago)
I am actually planning to become a vegetarian when I start uni.. it is going to be really tough. I wish I grew up as a vegetarian sometimes.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I think you could make a utilitarian argument that would justify one set of humans killing off another set in order to create a net gain in happiness if the circumstances were correct.


Probably, although I'm more interested in preferences than happiness so it would be more difficult to justify. However, if we had to kill 1 million people to save 5 billion, I would think that to be not only permissible, but morally obligatory.
Good for them. I would never go vegan but I've done vegetarian before and it felt pretty good.


End of the day I do eat meat but i try make that as little as possible.
Veganism is great, I've never felt more alert and healthier since becoming one. I have no cravings for meat since I eat to my heart's content on mainly pasta, fruit and veg :smile:

My eczema and various other conditions have all miraculously disappeared too: it really is amazing what a lifestyle change like veganism can do. Skin is clearer etc. Not to mention obviously now I can eat all my meals knowing they are cruelty-free. The fact that animals are exploited is sickening enough, but the fact that stuff like battery farms are even allowed to exist by law just tells me everything wrong with the world.

I spend about £20-£30 at most on food shopping - that includes 5 or 6 portion of fruit and veg a day - per week. I seriously don't understand the whole "it's expensive" argument, most of the produce I buy is organic as well!

I think if people did more research into the environmental, ethical, health aspects of meat-eating (as well as dairy and egg etc) very few people would still be eating animal flesh. It's amazing how detached the majority of the population have become with what they eat: something which you are putting in your body which has a direct impact on your health.

There are so many vegan options out there, people don't do enough research and think that they will have to just live on raw fruit and veg, but that isn't true! For example I made the most delicious vegan pancakes the other day and they tasted better than any I have tasted before. You just need to make an effort and you can basically make anything you want but animal-product free.
(edited 7 years ago)
I am not a vegetarian or a vegan because a world without meat is a world of misery and pain. However, as a person who's always loved animals, I did have a brief vegetarian stage as a child. And I am open minded and understand why people do it, my argument always being that it's just nature, surely?
I am willing to let anybody voice their opinion, and always listen, but the arguments just don't convince me. I am entirely against killing animals for pleasure, killing animals in a way that causes them great pain, and killing animals that are not for human consumption or for use. If you want to cause pain or simply want to kill, then, like, that's a bit sadistic in my book.
Nature can be horrible. I could understand, if you were religious and believed the state of the world didn't come about by chance, why it might be difficult to wonder whether or not it is okay to kill and eat animals, but the fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that it's just natural.
Original post by Mattylong28
I am not a vegetarian or a vegan because a world without meat is a world of misery and pain. However, as a person who's always loved animals, I did have a brief vegetarian stage as a child. And I am open minded and understand why people do it, my argument always being that it's just nature, surely?
I am willing to let anybody voice their opinion, and always listen, but the arguments just don't convince me. I am entirely against killing animals for pleasure, killing animals in a way that causes them great pain, and killing animals that are not for human consumption or for use. If you want to cause pain or simply want to kill, then, like, that's a bit sadistic in my book.
Nature can be horrible. I could understand, if you were religious and believed the state of the world didn't come about by chance, why it might be difficult to wonder whether or not it is okay to kill and eat animals, but the fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that it's just natural.


Rape, murder and torture are natural. What's your opinion on those?

There's also the inconvenient fact that killing animals for food is killing them for pleasure. Meat is not necessary for a healthy diet.

A world with meat consumption is a world of misery and pain - for the animals that become meat.
Original post by Serpentine111
"Bowel cancer risk is 9-50% higher per 25-50g/day of processed meat intake, meta-analyses have shown" cancerresearchuk "over-consumption" being a pretty easy thing to do then.

There is nothing wrong with taking supplements, not everyone gets all the vitamins requires from being an omnivore: B12 deficiency is just more common in vegans, so please don't imply being an omnivore is "healthier" because of this (a lot of meat-eaters are still deficient in B12). Do you actually have a solid reason for saying supplements are "unideal"? Please share that with me, I don't see how swallowing a small tablet is unideal - or is that just a totally unfounded opinion? "Not cheap" yeah <£10 for half a years worth of supplements is just too much man, don't think I can spend such an enormous amount or else I might have to get another job. :s-smilie:

Educate yourself. The conditions that animals are put in in the meat, dairy, egg (yes, even free-range) are sickening; if you don't think being locked in a cage in your own faeces your whole life/males chicks being crushed or gassed to death/beaks sawn off to prevent them pecking each other etc. is cruel then you have a problem.

Do you not know how much overfishing is taking it's toll on the ocean habitats? Stop being so ignorant and spewing out stuff like this.

Just because something is cheaper and more convenient, that doesn't make it better: crisps, ready meals, takeaways are all probably (admittedly) cheaper than a vegan lifestyle, and obviously infinitely more convenient; they are soooo healthy right? (sarcasm)

LOL, kind of grasping at straws here. The whole, "you kill INSECTS, therefore that makes it ok for me support the killing and cruel treatment of millions upon millions of animals", akin to "you use modern technology and so you CAN'T care about the environment"... by that logic it's better to not care at all, right? I'll just stop recycling since I'm using my mobile and laptop which causes pollution, if everyone used your logic, the world would be a terrible place: thankfully this isn't the case.
At least drawing the line somewhere is better than doing things thoughlessly, better than supporting animal cruelty.

Please educate yourself, you come across as VERY ignorant (meaning no offense).

EDIT: Also, the fact that various studies have shown that vegans have a longer life expectancy kind of says something: so much for it being "unhealthy".

/rant


I intended to not post any more in this thread, but then I get some militant vegan come out with this vitriolic response, so I guess I'll go one more time.

You quoted a study which linked consumption of processed meat to bowel cancer. Given as my argument was that eating unprocessed, white meat is in no way unhealthy, I'm not sure what you think this proves? If you can show me a study which conclusively links the reasonable consumption of white meat with any of these health risks, I'll be willing to reconsider. Otherwise, the argument about health is a nonsense because white meat is totally healthy.

B12 isn't the only example of deficiencies more common in vegetarians and vegans. Iron alongside many other metallic nutrients, a whole host of amino and fatty acids, dietary sulphur and some vitamins are more commonly deficient in those who exclude animal products from their diet. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with taking supplements, I said it flies in the face of the claim that the vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier than an omnivorous one; if it was so much healthier, it seems odd that it would raise the chances of loads of deficiencies. And last time I checked in Holland & Barrett's, a year's course of supplements of any vitamin cost a lot more than £10.

I didn't say that the conditions of animals kept in farms were 5 star, I said that making that argument is hypocritical. Do you think it's reasonable to destroy the habitats of tens of thousands of animals just for our convenience? Because that's what building roads and cities entails, and they most definitely aren't necessary for our survival. We did just fine for thousands of years before them. So you can't say that it's unfair to the animals to farm them, but also say it's fine to kill thousands of them to build ourselves a shiny new power station. Or rather, you can't argue that the animal industry is inherently wrong without also believing that the building of roads and cities is inherently wrong.

I said it had nothing like so damaging effect, not that it had no effect. And given how bad the effects of cow farming are, this would seem to be a fact. So instead of insisting I educate myself, mayhaps you could learn to read before you get on your pedestal?

Once again, give me a piece of evidence which links the reasonable consumption of white meat to any adverse health effects. Because until you - or anyone else - does so, then I'll stand by an omnivorous diet with white meat being at least as healthy as a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Once again, what you're utterly misinterpreting what I said. My argument is that you cannot say that eating meat is terrible because it involves hurting animals, and at the same time be okay with the mass slaughter of animals to indulge our desire for an easier life. The difference with your example is that recycling doesn't involve altering anyone's lifestyle. You're saying that everyone should alter their lifestyle to avoid harming animals (by no longer eating meat) but at the same time we should maintain our lifestyle of living in cities and driving, in spite of that harming animals. There's an inherent hypocrisy. I don't care if someone else is vegetarian/vegan because they oppose the suffering of farm animals, but you can't argue that everyone should be vegetarian/vegan on that basis unless you equally argue against all the ways we make animals suffer for our convenience.

I'm perfectly well educated thank you very much, or at least 3A*s at A2 would suggest that much. Once again, provide me with any evidence that proves a statistically significant link between the responsible consumption of white meat and any adverse health effects and I'll reconsider my position. But no one here has managed to do so yet, which rather speaks for itself. And yes, vegans have a longer life expectancy than your average meat-eater, because your average meat-eater eats a lot of red meat. But this once again does nothing to discredit my position that a diet with white meat is no less healthy than one without.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
x


Lol, first of all the fact that you call me a militant vegan is so funny when you're the one who is coming across as extremely narrow-minded.

You can get unhealthy and healthy people on both diets. The fact is that vegans don't eat crap like cheese, red meats etc. and mainly eat more fruit and veg - of course, they could eat crap on a vegan diet too, but chances are that most of the population would benefit health-wise following a vegan diet seen as veganism excludes the above named unhealthy foods and encourages fruit and veg consumption. I'm not saying that veganism is naturally healthier; it just encourages a healthier lifestyle because you cut out cholesterol etc and most people will eat more fruit and veg instead. I never said that white meat is unhealthy - I would eat chicken for example if I didn't disagree with the ethics of it.

The relevant thing is that red and processed meat is linked to cancer and only a tiny amount a day is enough to increase your risk, and that's the thing which non-vegans need to think about: I am sure the overwhelming majority of the meat-eating population don't exclusively eat white meat.

You can get most of those nutrients naturally, it just requires a balanced diet,
you'll only be deficient in those if you aren't eating the right foods (aside from B12). If you're denying the fact that a diet which consists of eating less saturated fats, cholesterol (found in chicken) and consuming large amounts of fruit and veg i.e. a vegan diet, is unhealthy whilst the former two are linked to heart disease (pretty much the leading cause of death) just because you are more likely to be deficient in some vitamins (which is easily remedied by taking supplements) which in the vast majority of cases will not be fatal, then all I can say is: OK.

Holland and Barrett? You do know that you can get supplements from supermarkets right? Definitely less than £10 a year since I am currently taking them :s-smilie: Or do you only buy Holland and Barrett because their quality of vitamin is better? LOL

Ah, the good old hypocrisy argument. The environmental side is just one of many reasons why I became vegan. But as for your "you can't say that you don't eat meat because you don't like harming animal whilst driving or living in a city which has killed animals" argument: how many cows, pigs, chickens etc. are slaughtered each year for the meat/egg/milk industry? Billions upon billions.

The fact is that destroying animals' habitats to build cities is bad, but that's already done; it's not a continuing cycle which causes direct pain and suffering on billions of animals a year. I'm not going to suggest flattening cities and stopping people from driving cars, banning technology etc. because that's unrealistic, veganism is something which is realistic, it doesn't require you to request people walk to work 6 hours a day because you've destroyed their car. If you can make a change then it's better to do that then do nothing at all.

So yes, I can argue that the meat industry is worse than driving cars etc (hence why people should consider veganism) the former inflicts direct suffering on animals on a massive, endless cycle, the latter does not.

Well done on your grades, that just one A less than what I got at A2 (N.B. getting A*s does not mean you are not ignorant). Congratulations, if you are happy with your omnivorous-diet-which-consists-of-very-little-red-meat-and-mainly-white-meat then stick with it? I have never criticized your personal diet. As you have noted, most meat-eaters eat red meat, which is what I am drawing attention to.

The fact that you're thinking that the vegans here are trying to "convert" you by presenting simple facts just tells me that you have a very inflated sense of self-worth. Quite ludicrous really.

There no need to be so smug about eating an omnivorous diet consisting mainly of white meat btw - it's how you're coming across and quite frankly I find your obsession quite odd. You've mentioned "white meat" and "omnivorous" at least a few hundred times now.
(edited 7 years ago)
Pescetarianism is the way to go - at least for me it is!
Reply 118
Original post by emxily
Do you think the whole world should stop the consumption of animal products?


No because then we'd have an uncontrollable population of certain animals
Original post by Dwellman1997
Pescetarianism is the way to go - at least for me it is!


If the whole world ate largely fish-based diets, fish stocks wouldn't cope.
They can't cope as it is.

Quick Reply