Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, the UN Environment Program wasn't saying that overpopulation is caused by eating meat; it's saying that due to population growth, the impact on the environment from agriculture will increase substantially, and because the meat industry is a major greenhouse gas emitter, they're saying that a reduction of impacts on the environment from agriculture can only occur if we all move towards a diet that doesn't have any animal products in it.

    Responding to stimuli is not suffering, though, as you yourself admit, so there's no reason why they should matter any more than a rock matters.

    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    They do plan on committing cannibalism too? Well, I would say they should be locked away. Animals cages are for animals like cow, chicken, pigs. Interesting, you align eating meat to torturing people and locking babies and handicaps people in cages. I however, do not thank that way which is obvious. Your values to cause less suffering to animals do apply to everyone or on everyone's agenda.
    Why should they be locked away? They have different values to you and you're trying to force your values on them. I'm not equating eating meat to anything, I'm saying that your argument for eating meat is complete and utter balderdash, because using the same argument, we can justify not stopping people from committing any crime.

    You're a hypocrite: you want to force your values on other people even though they don't share your values. You're such a sanctimonious human rights activist. Lions kill other lions - why shouldn't humans be able to kill other humans? It's the circle of life. You know how to tell whether someone doesn't torture other people? They'll tell you!

    The real question is: why do you want to force your values on to people who don't share your values, if that, according to you, is a bad thing?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Hank of the Vlogbrothers explores it pretty well:

    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Emeliaaaaa)
    I'm a Vegan, and I understand why some people get annoyed when some vegans "preach" but it's only to benefit you? Veganism is a much healthier way of living and that's what people like freelee the bananagirl tries to point across, although some of what she says can be harsh, so I'm not defending that. But WHY hate us? We're causing no physical harm to anyone or anything? And this may come across as preaching but I'm not, I'm just wondering thank you
    I'm a Christian, and I understand why some atheists get annoyed when some Christians "preach" but it's only because we care about your soul?

    Because mind your own ****ing business, and I'll mind mine.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    I have no problem with vegans. I'm also not a preachy Christian (or I hope I'm not). I'm just illustrating the point :woo:
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Actual scientist here.
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Do people like you seriously realize that with each footstep you're squashing millions of bacteria? Just think about how many bacteria you kill each day.
    :facepalm:
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    I'm a Christian, and I understand why some atheists get annoyed when some Christians "preach" but it's only because we care about your soul?

    Because mind your own ****ing business, and I'll mind mine.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I have no problem with vegans. I'm also not a preachy Christian (or I hope I'm not). I'm just illustrating the point :woo:
    When you start exploiting other living, feeling animals, it stops being purely your own ****ing business.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's because of the way we are brought up. I turned vegan a few months ago, and my family just can't comprehend HOW or WHY I would do that! It's madness! Because they have lived their whole lives being told its okay and believing it is okay and so now do not want to change, because what they're doing is 'healthy' and 'moral'.

    Apart from it isn't. I think people tend to hate vegans because they're made uncomfortable by them because they feel guilty on some level about eating animals. I have several friends who 'want' to turn vegan or vegetarian but 'can't'. It's because we are just brought up in a world where the meat and dairy industries are made out to be normal and necessary for our survival, but they're really not. And so when you contradict everything someone knows it can make them uncomfortable. And so when they hear someone speak about veganism it's all 'stop forcing your opinion on me!!' but no one is forcing anyone's opinion on anyone? Unless you are talking to an ******* who speaks about it in every other sentence

    PS I know this doesn't apply to everyone. Some omnivores 'just love bacon' and are educated on the industries and are fine with it, but I think this is a majority of the reasons people are made uncomfortable by veganism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I find them way too preachy and i think some of them must have other issues to become so obsessed with animals. A lot of meat eaters dont give a flying **** about animal rights. Give me a burger any day, beats tofu a million times.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't hate vegans but SOME of them like super religious people can come off as too preachy. People should be able to live their lives as they want without others interfering.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Hank of the Vlogbrothers explores it pretty well:

    Yeah, I really liked that when I watched it. You can get a lot more insight as to why people continue to eat meat from people who actually admit that eating meat is wrong but still eat meat than from people who come up with every rationalization under the sun to defend their actions.

    Both Richard Dawkins - who compares his position on eating meat to that of a slaveowner in the 19th Century - and Hank, seem to suggest that it's about going along with the rest of society and meeting cultural expectations. It's hard to change your lifestyle when the vast majority of others aren't.

    I thought his discussion about donating money spent on unnecessary luxuries to charities was a good comparison too. Again, he says that the reason he doesn't do it is because there's only so much breaking with culture you can do without becoming uncomfortable. Yet, from my experience, I had no resistance whatsoever to becoming vegetarian (aside from the "it won't make any difference" argument which I did put forward for a while) or indeed to donating money to effective charities.

    People have different mindsets, but I think people in general, once they've settled down into a lifestyle which does "break with culture", get used to it very quickly. It's the getting there that's the problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Vegan gains...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    And, to avoid me repeating myself, here's a comprehensive refutation of the nonsense in that second post. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post65267471

    Yet, what you're saying is also untrue in any case. A review of the evidence by the American Heart Association, synthesising the conclusions of nine leading researchers, concluded:

    Although increasing omega-3 PUFA tissue levels does reduce the risk for CHD, it does not follow that decreasing omega-6 levels will do the same.Indeed, the evidence considered here suggests that it would have the opposite effect... The data also suggest that higher intakes appear to be safe and may be even more beneficial (as part of a low–saturated-fat, low-cholesterol diet). In summary, the AHA supports an omega-6 PUFA intake of at least 5% to 10% of energy in the context of other AHA lifestyle and dietary recommendations. To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for CHD.

    Dr. Walter Willett, the chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and the second most cited researcher in clinical medicine, puts it nicely:

    in humans higher intakes of n-6 fatty acids have not been associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers. n-6 Fatty acids have long been known to reduce serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol... Adequate intakes of both n-6 and n-3 fatty acids are essential for good health and low rates of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes
    No, it's not untrue at all. Excessively high omega-6 : omega-3 ratios have been found to increase the risk of breast cancer and cause inflammation, which is exactly what I said in my post. Appropriate ratios have been found to have anti-inflammatory effects instead, but as you can see it depends entirely on the ratio.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

    "Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...23394/abstract

    You can read more of it here, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false.

    "Intakes of HAs were not associated with breast cancer incidence (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.28, for highest compared to lowest quintile). In individuals with low HA intakes, a significant increased risk was observed among those with high intakes of omega-6 PUFAs. In conclusion, intakes of HAs are not associated with breast cancer incidence in this Swedish cohort, but dietary patterns very high in omega-6 PUFA may promote breast cancer development."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26002802

    "People eating different balances of omega-3 and omega-6 nutrients develop predictably different proportions of competing highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) in their tissue lipids. While epidemiological studies have associated wide differences in HUFA balance with disease severity, some clinical studies that did not examine wide differences failed to confirm the association."

    Are you sure you didn't grab one of those narrower studies?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Colourful metaphors, but plenty of food have phytic acid in them. Spinach and broccoli have phytic acid in them. Should we all stop eating green vegetables because of the big, scary phytic acid? Of course not. Iron levels can easily be maintained on a vegan diet, in spite of the presence of phytic acid in some foods which can bind to iron.
    I'm glad you liked my metaphors but you've missed the point of my post entirely. Vegans are more susceptible to the effects I've mentioned because of their higher dietary intake of phytic acid. That is in no way saying we should ban all vegetables right now because they're "scary." Lay off of the appeal to ridicule and straw men, would you?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Are you actually a scientist? Because this is a shocking, shocking summary of the evidence. First, let's separate the isoflavone compounds you're talking about from dietary soy itself, because they can have different effects on the body. There's an element of truth to what you're saying, but there's no evidence whatsoever that dietary soy increases your risk of any cancer. As the American Cancer Society concluded:

    In fact, in human studies, the estrogen effects of soy seem to either reduce breast cancer risk, or have no effect at all. This might be because the isoflavones can actually block the more potent natural estrogens in the blood.

    What about the American Institute for Cancer Research? They contend:

    Because soy contains estrogen-like compounds, there was fear that soy may raise risk of hormone-related cancers. Evidence shows this is not true.

    What you've done is cite numerous studies either conducted on animals or discussing the biochemical effects of estrogen-like compounds on their own. Human studies demonstrate that soya products either reduce your risk of hormone-related cancers or have no effect.
    The number of fallacies in your post is what's truly shocking. In this chunk alone you're guilty of both argumentum ad hominem and handwaving. No evidence whatsoever, you say?

    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/4/465.short

    "Our results do not support the presence of a protective effect of higher intake of phytoestrogens in low doses on cardiovascular disease risk, "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11431339

    "Soy protein diets containing varying amounts of genistein increased estrogen-dependent tumor growth in a dose-dependent manner. Cell proliferation was greatest in tumors of animals given estrogen or dietary genistein (150 and 300 ppm). Expression of pS2 was increased in tumors from animals consuming dietary genistein (150 and 300 ppm). Here we present new information that soy protein isolates containing increasing concentrations of genistein stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells in vivo in a dose-dependent manner."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694625

    "Previously our laboratory has shown that the soy isoflavone, genistein, stimulates growth of human breast cancer (MCF-7) cells in vivo and in vitro."

    "In conclusion, dietary treatment with genistein at physiological concentrations produces blood levels of genistein sufficient to stimulate estrogenic effects, such as breast tumor growth, cellular proliferation and pS2 expression in athymic mice in a dose-responsive manner similar to that seen in vitro."

    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/5/10/785.short

    "The findings did not support our a priori hypothesis. Instead, this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the premenopausal female breast, characterized by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic epithelial cells, and elevated levels of plasma estradiol. These findings are suggestive of an estrogenic stimulus from the isoflavones genistein and daidzein contained in soy protein isolate."

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Bone loss? Same thing - no evidence for what you're saying. In fact, there have been suggestions that soya may help to prevent bone loss, but there is inconclusive evidence on this. Decreased fertility? No evidence for what you're saying.

    Beaton et al. (2010) found no evidence of this being the case, concluding: "Consumption of soy protein of low or high isoflavone content does not adversely affect semen quality in a sample of healthy adult men."

    Similarly, a 2010 meta-analysis found no evidence of hormones being screwed up: "The results of this meta-analysis suggest that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable T concentrations in men."

    Finally, according to the American Association of Paediatrics: "there is no conclusive evidence from animal, adult human, or infant populations that dietary soy isoflavones may adversely affect human development, reproduction, or endocrine function." [My bold]
    You're handwaving again.

    http://www.biolreprod.org/content/73/4/798.full

    "Neonatal treatment with Genistein causes abnormal estrous cycles, altered ovarian function, early reproductive senescence, and subfertility/infertility at environmentally relevant doses"

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...90623806002796

    "Studies in our laboratory have shown that developmental exposure to genistein causes deleterious effects on the reproductive system."

    "Mice treated neonatally by subcutaneous injection of genistein (0.5–50 mg/kg) exhibit altered ovarian differentiation leading to multi-oocyte follicles (MOFs). Ovarian function and estrous cyclicity were disrupted in genistein treated mice with increasing severity over time. Reduced fertility was observed in mice treated with genistein (0.5, 5, or 25 mg/kg) and infertility was observed at 50 mg/kg."

    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1....ED.2.SAT-0359

    "In patients with subclinical hypothyroidism, soy protein and isoflavone combination has been shown to increase the risk of developing overt hypothyroidism; however, it is unclear if soy affects thyroid function in those without existing thyroid compromise."

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha

    "These studies suggested that a goitrogenic agent was present in this particular soybean product, which interfered with thyroid hormone synthesis in susceptible individuals, and which raised the daily requirement for iodine."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

    "Hyperplastic goiters were observed frequently in female rats of Wistar strain when given defatted soybean under iodine deficiency for 6 to 12 months. The findings in the thyroid were those of malignant tumors in which the features of thyroid carcinomas were seen, accompanied with metastasis in the lungs of some animals. Enlargement of the thyroid was completely inhibited in rats when a small amount of iodine was added to the diet. The role of soybean factor(s) which causes enlargment of the thyroid is discussed in relation to the development of malignant goiter, together with pathological findings in the animals."

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...e2=tf_ipsecsha

    "Soy-induced goiter was a well-known phenomenon before 1966, the back date used in many computerized literature databases.1-4 In the mid-1960s, iodine-supplemented infant soy formulas prepared from isolated soy protein were introduced by commercial manufacturers.5 Since then, there have not been any documented cases of soy formula-associated hypothyroidism."

    I think I've made my point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because they don't realise that to live an 'animal free' life you must forgo everything, including medication, shoes.. etc
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I feel like the majority of people are now aware of exploitation of animals but shouldn't the real concern be that of the exploitation of the human race. Many vegans and non vegans are campaigning for animal testing free products etc but aren't even aware of the massive exploitation humans face in third world countries. For example I know someone who is vegan for ethical reasons yet she continues to shop at primark. Primark is one example of a company that uses sweatshops where human beings mostly women and children are making clothes in dangerous conditions with horrible pay. These people are exploited, raped sometimes killed in their line of work. It's not just sweatshops, there are many more examples. In my opinion these problems are even worse than the ones of animal rights, we have a special duty of care to thoes of our own species yet these problems are rarely talked about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tsrsarahhhh)
    I feel like the majority of people are now aware of exploitation of animals but shouldn't the real concern be that of the exploitation of the human race. Many vegans and non vegans are campaigning for animal testing free products etc but aren't even aware of the massive exploitation humans face in third world countries. For example I know someone who is vegan for ethical reasons yet she continues to shop at primark. Primark is one example of a company that uses sweatshops where human beings mostly women and children are making clothes in dangerous conditions with horrible pay. These people are exploited, raped sometimes killed in their line of work. It's not just sweatshops, there are many more examples. In my opinion these problems are even worse than the ones of animal rights, we have a special duty of care to thoes of our own species yet these problems are rarely talked about.
    Fully agree! It's one rule for the cute animals but then another for the rest. It's hypocritical and that's why I don't like vegans. There.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    No, it's not untrue at all. Excessively high omega-6 : omega-3 ratios have been found to increase the risk of breast cancer and cause inflammation, which is exactly what I said in my post. Appropriate ratios have been found to have anti-inflammatory effects instead, but as you can see it depends entirely on the ratio.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

    "Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...23394/abstract

    "Intakes of HAs were not associated with breast cancer incidence (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.28, for highest compared to lowest quintile). In individuals with low HA intakes, a significant increased risk was observed among those with high intakes of omega-6 PUFAs. In conclusion, intakes of HAs are not associated with breast cancer incidence in this Swedish cohort, but dietary patterns very high in omega-6 PUFA may promote breast cancer development."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26002802

    "People eating different balances of omega-3 and omega-6 nutrients develop predictably different proportions of competing highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) in their tissue lipids. While epidemiological studies have associated wide differences in HUFA balance with disease severity, some clinical studies that did not examine wide differences failed to confirm the association."

    Are you sure you didn't grab one of those narrower studies?
    Thank you for your reply: my apologies if I came across as uncharitable. On the topic of Omega-6 and in particular the Omega-6 to Omega-3 fatty acid ratio, there is some disagreement in the literature on this issue. The two studies I cited - one a review by the American Heart Association - clearly state that the ratio does not matter. The review by the AHA looked at all of the studies conducted on the topic, so it wasn't a "narrow study" because it wasn't a single study in the first place.

    More of my probability weight would be placed on the review of the evidence, but as I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that there is dissent on this issue.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I'm glad you liked my metaphors but you've missed the point of my post entirely. Vegans are more susceptible to the effects I've mentioned because of their higher dietary intake of phytic acid. That is in no way saying we should ban all vegetables right now because they're "scary." Lay off of the appeal to ridicule and straw men, would you?
    Your colourful metaphors made the problem sound far more serious than it actually is, and your generalization at the end of your post, "you're slowly killing yourselves", implying that all vegans are equally as susceptible to, say, the negative effects of phytic acid, suggested that you were adopting a far less nuanced position than the one you've described now.

    In my post, I didn't just consider the diet of a meat-eater who doesn't take his saturated fat and processed meat intake into account: I considered the diet of a health-conscious meat-eater, and it would be charitable of you to consider the diet of a health-conscious vegan.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/4/465.short

    "Our results do not support the presence of a protective effect of higher intake of phytoestrogens in low doses on cardiovascular disease risk, "
    When did anyone claim that they had a protective effect for cardiovascular disease?

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11431339

    "Soy protein diets containing varying amounts of genistein increased estrogen-dependent tumor growth in a dose-dependent manner. Cell proliferation was greatest in tumors of animals given estrogen or dietary genistein (150 and 300 ppm). Expression of pS2 was increased in tumors from animals consuming dietary genistein (150 and 300 ppm). Here we present new information that soy protein isolates containing increasing concentrations of genistein stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells in vivo in a dose-dependent manner."
    This is an animal study: as I said, you've cited many studies looking at the theoretical biochemical effects of compounds in isolation, or animal studies, but you haven't engaged with the human studies which, as both the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research point out, show no indication that dietary soy increase one's risk of breast cancer.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694625

    "Previously our laboratory has shown that the soy isoflavone, genistein, stimulates growth of human breast cancer (MCF-7) cells in vivo and in vitro."

    "In conclusion, dietary treatment with genistein at physiological concentrations produces blood levels of genistein sufficient to stimulate estrogenic effects, such as breast tumor growth, cellular proliferation and pS2 expression in athymic mice in a dose-responsive manner similar to that seen in vitro."
    This is another animal study. Animal studies are very often not at all useful.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    "The findings did not support our a priori hypothesis. Instead, this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the premenopausal female breast, characterized by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic epithelial cells, and elevated levels of plasma estradiol. These findings are suggestive of an estrogenic stimulus from the isoflavones genistein and daidzein contained in soy protein isolate."
    This study concerns breast gland function, not breast cancer risk.

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    You're handwaving again.
    Again, when it comes to thyroid function, you're citing studies that are either looking at these compounds in isolation, or those which have been conducted on animals. As long as one has sufficient iodine intake, there's no risk whatsoever from regular consumption of soy, and even without iodine, you would have to eat a lot of soy for any harmful effects that would occur. As the final study you cite yourself states: "Since then, there have not been any documented cases of soy formula-associated hypothyroidism."

    Which, again, begs the question of why you brought it up in the first place, especially when all of the experts in the field have stated that human consumption of soy is either beneficial or neutral in terms of health effects. And, when the evidence demonstrates that the average vegetarian/vegan has a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than the average meat-eater, and either a similar or lower risk of cancer, using these studies taken out of context to promote scare-stories is highly misleading.

    (Original post by 97Y)
    Because they don't realise that to live an 'animal free' life you must forgo everything, including medication, shoes.. etc
    Most vegans tend to buy vegan shoes, in my experience. As for medication, refusing to take medication isn't going to stop such medication from being prescribed: the damage has already been done during the experimentation phase. By contrast, abstaining from meat and dairy products reduces the amount of nonhuman animals that unnecessarily suffer.

    (Original post by Tsrsarahhhh)
    I feel like the majority of people are now aware of exploitation of animals but shouldn't the real concern be that of the exploitation of the human race. Many vegans and non vegans are campaigning for animal testing free products etc but aren't even aware of the massive exploitation humans face in third world countries. For example I know someone who is vegan for ethical reasons yet she continues to shop at primark. Primark is one example of a company that uses sweatshops where human beings mostly women and children are making clothes in dangerous conditions with horrible pay. These people are exploited, raped sometimes killed in their line of work. It's not just sweatshops, there are many more examples. In my opinion these problems are even worse than the ones of animal rights, we have a special duty of care to thoes of our own species yet these problems are rarely talked about.
    This isn't a reason to hate vegans, though, is it? As it happens, sweatshops are often better than the alternatives, and pay people more than the alternatives. But, even if it were otherwise the case, the solution is to simply persuade your vegan friend to buy from ethical retailers, and minimise their impact on humans in other ways too.

    We should be concerned about unnecessary suffering being inflicted on any sentient being. Similar interests require similar treatment, and we don't have a special duty of care to our species simply because we're also members of our species. "Because I'm human too" isn't a logical argument.

    Sweatshops and human rights abuses get talked about a lot, lot more than our appalling treatment of nonhuman animals, incidentally. Only 2% of charitable donations go to animal causes, and many of these causes only help a small number of animals. Perhaps the most pressing ethical issue we face today in terms of how humans act is the confinement, transport and slaughter of 58 billion animals every single year. Factory farming is the biggest source of human-caused suffering in the world today.

    (Original post by 97Y)
    Fully agree! It's one rule for the cute animals but then another for the rest. It's hypocritical and that's why I don't like vegans. There.
    Really? The people who claim to care about animals yet still eat meat tend to only think about the cute animals, namely cats, dogs and rabbits. Vegans have actually expanded their circle of moral concern to include pigs, cows, chickens and fish, and some, including myself, take seriously the suffering that all sentient beings experience in the wild.

    So, you're just empirically incorrect: it's not about the cuteness of an animal for many vegans, at all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gtre)
    Ohh you mean the way that meat eaters in the west have no problem eating cows, sheep pigs etc that suffered however they are all up in arms about how some parts of china eat cats and dogs because they are'cute'. They start petitions and go on marches to try and get people in china to stop eating dogs while they get stuck into their hamburger? Go figure out who the real hypocrites are you moron.
    This post isn't doing you any favours.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'd eat dog. Not my dogs, but someone else's, sure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To paraphrase CS Lewis and Orwell, of all the tyrannies that threaten us the tyranny for our own good is easily the worst. Robbers must rest from robbing. Murderers cannot murder all the time but those who feel they are acting for your good never sleep. They are espousing something from which they cannot possibly derive any benefit and this surely proves they are right and the more they are right the more everybody else must be bullied into thinking likewise. You answered your own question in the last six words of your first sentence. That's why Vegans are disliked so much.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Lol I was thinking of turning vegan...then i read this thread...Im still going to try :P
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emeliaaaaa)
    I'm a Vegan, and I understand why some people get annoyed when some vegans "preach" but it's only to benefit you? Veganism is a much healthier way of living and that's what people like freelee the bananagirl tries to point across, although some of what she says can be harsh, so I'm not defending that. But WHY hate us? We're causing no physical harm to anyone or anything? And this may come across as preaching but I'm not, I'm just wondering thank you
    I'm just saying you are proving it right now XD

    You did not have to say you're a vegan, it does not contribute anything to the paragraph. We didn't need to know, I am not a vegan and I could have asked this and the paragraph would be similar. I would only bring up that I am a vegan if someone offered me meat, or anything vegans can't eat. Or when buying stuff that may contain something that can't be eaten by a vegan.

    I guess it is sort of the same reason why some people hate religions for preaching, it is just an annoyance if you don't want anything to do with anything like that but they are trying to shun you towards it.

    Good luck with your responses!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.