Turn on thread page Beta

Views on veganism / vegeterianism watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuttynutz)
    I am Vegan and i think that killing an
    Animals is just wrong. Whats the point? We can get all our nutrients from plants. theres more proteon in broccoli than there is in a bit of beef. Killing aninals is wrong. They have feeligs. They shouldnt be take away from their babies/mothers. The milk industry is absolutely horiffic. 'Not you mum, not your milk.'

    Also, its a helluva lot healthier for you!!
    So yeah. That's my views on veganism.
    i'm not sure this is true, no matter what measure of protein density you use lol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    i'm not sure this is true, no matter what measure of protein density you use lol
    I think you may be able to argue that compared to the carbon footprint, or the water usage, or the price, broccoli has more.
    But gram for gram it certainly doesn't.

    However if you look at the actual wording:
    (Original post by Nuttynutz)
    I am Vegan and i think that killing anAnimals is just wrong. Whats the point? We can get all our nutrients from plants. theres more proteon in broccoli than there is in a bit of beef. Killing aninals is wrong. They have feeligs. They shouldnt be take away from their babies/mothers. The milk industry is absolutely horiffic. 'Not you mum, not your milk.'Also, its a helluva lot healthier for you!!So yeah. That's my views on veganism.
    'Broccoli' implying all of the broccoli in the universe certainly does have more that 'a bit' of beef.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is 6.4g of protein in 100 calories of beef. There's 11.1g of protein in 100 calories of broccoli...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I've been a vegetarian (for ethical reasons) for 2 and a bit years, and don't preach it / try and convert others because each to their own, it's not my place to say what they should / shouldn't do, that's a personal choice.

    However, everyone talks about preachy veggies / vegans but I have the opposite issue, every time we go out to eat I get pretty bored pretty quickly of the same argument from meat eating friends:

    But if nobody ate meat then the animal wouldn't have a life at all..

    Yah but it also wouldn't have to live in intensive conditions (yes I know free range exists) for its whole life to end up on your plate :sleep:.

    I'm all for letting people decide what they want to do themselves, I don't see the issue with having to make people feel guilty (either way) for their choice.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing against veganism. In fact it's a pretty admirable quality if you're doing it for ethical reasons rather than just as a diet.

    However, my friends who are vegan tend to be quite annoying about it. Like that's the only thing they talk about. I stopped hanging out with them because I just didn't have any input and I couldn't join in their conversations. Plus I ate donuts around them once and they gave me dirty looks.

    I don't know if how they're practising it is all that healthy either because they weigh themselves everyday, which is starting to look like an eating disorder.

    Basically, if you're a vegan - good. You do you. I do me. Just don't start preaching. Please.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuttynutz)
    There is 6.4g of protein in 100 calories of beef. There's 11.1g of protein in 100 calories of broccoli...
    Boll*cks.

    Source?

    (Also, we need to consider the fact that beef protein is much better than broccoli protein in terms of the essential amino acids that the body needs, so even if your statement was true, which it's not, broccoli still would be no better than beef).

    It's also worth noting that I was vegan for five years, and I am still vegetarian now. But this is nonsense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuttynutz)
    There is 6.4g of protein in 100 calories of beef. There's 11.1g of protein in 100 calories of broccoli...
    where did you get that information? it's wrong. taking sainsbury's as an example, 100g beef has 120 calories and 24.4g protein, which means 20.3g per 100 calories. 100g broccoli has 40 calories and 4.3g protein, which means 10.8g per 100 calories. the story is the same for any other supermarket or broccoli/lean beef you choose
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amelienine)
    Nothing against veganism. In fact it's a pretty admirable quality if you're doing it for ethical reasons rather than just as a diet.

    However, my friends who are vegan tend to be quite annoying about it. Like that's the only thing they talk about. I stopped hanging out with them because I just didn't have any input and I couldn't join in their conversations. Plus I ate donuts around them once and they gave me dirty looks.

    I don't know if how they're practising it is all that healthy either because they weigh themselves everyday, which is starting to look like an eating disorder.

    Basically, if you're a vegan - good. You do you. I do me. Just don't start preaching. Please.
    I'm vegan and although I don't think that eating animals is right etc etc and I do post a few things on Twitter, I am definitely not in your face about it. Ever since I started being Vegan I knew I never wanted to become one of 'those' people. It does annoy me too when people are all in your face about it... Even to me, they're like 'you need to preach it more!' And I'm just like, er... I don't HAVE to do anything! Constantly weighing yourself, vegan or not, is not healthy. And yes, you're right, that's showing signs of an eating disorder. People then get the idea that being vegan is unhealthy and you only go vegan if it's to lose weight. People think that being vegan means you can't eat anything. When actually, you can still eat a lot of stuff!! I weigh a healthy 63kg. When I started being vegan. I weighed a healthy 64kg. So basically, my weight has stayed the same. I've been vegan for a few months and it's fantastic. Feel healthier. And yes, when people ask me why I went vegan I say it's mainly for health reasons but also for ethical reasons. People get SO teasy when I say that. You have to do it for ethical reasons. Er.... Nope. Go away.

    I'm completely with you on annoying vegans. Let me be me and you be you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I don't think that vegetarianism or veganism is any healthier than an omnivorous diet. But I do think people generally eat too much red meat, way way too much red meat. Nothing wrong with eating fish and white meats though.
    I would recommend starting here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtGf2FuzKo4
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You know when religious people try to enforce their beliefs onto you, this is how I feel with some vegans/vegetarians. You live your life and I'll live mine.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    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.
    Okay you make an interesting point and sorry for my delayed reply.

    I think sex, death and pain are natural. If you rape, murder and torture, it's because of something in your brain that isn't common to all that makes you do it. Whether that be jealousy, greed, mental illness whatever. The point is that it isn't something the majority of humans do, and it's usually treatable through conversation or help.

    Eating meat, I would say, is natural. We've always done it. Yes, it isn't necessary for a healthy diet. But it helps to just eat it, and it's nice.

    I love it how animal lovers are quick to defend lions etc when they're killed, like Cecil (the killing of whom I thought was vile, by the way), when that lion if it was hungry would see them as nothing but food. It's nature.

    If farming is done ethically, animals are looked after properly before they die. Being eaten is just one way they're gonna go. They aren't developed to question their existence like us. If it isn't us, it's disease or another predator.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattylong28)
    Okay you make an interesting point and sorry for my delayed reply.

    I think sex, death and pain are natural. If you rape, murder and torture, it's because of something in your brain that isn't common to all that makes you do it. Whether that be jealousy, greed, mental illness whatever. The point is that it isn't something the majority of humans do, and it's usually treatable through conversation or help.

    Eating meat, I would say, is natural. We've always done it. Yes, it isn't necessary for a healthy diet. But it helps to just eat it, and it's nice.

    I love it how animal lovers are quick to defend lions etc when they're killed, like Cecil (the killing of whom I thought was vile, by the way), when that lion if it was hungry would see them as nothing but food. It's nature.

    If farming is done ethically, animals are looked after properly before they die. Being eaten is just one way they're gonna go. They aren't developed to question their existence like us. If it isn't us, it's disease or another predator.
    It would be rather interesting to have a discussion about trophy hunting like that. In many ways, it's a fantastic idea, and it has a hell of a lot of potential.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone is forgetting the environmental effects of meat production.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UDZ)
    Everyone is forgetting the environmental effects of meat production.
    No, everyone is not. If you read back through my posts, you will notice that that's the main point I made, and it is (one of) the main reason(s) that I am vegetarian.
    Unlike most people who go vegetarian, I gave up eating fish before I gave up eating meat due to overfishing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    We'll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I don't think it's sensible to think somebody is dismissive of your views just because they disagree with you and try to make you see things their way. The key factor is of course how they go about doing that! Disagreement and honest, open discussion and persuasion can occur without disrespect (case in point - our discussion [I hope!]).
    "There's a difference between helping people to understand your mindset and trying to get them to have the same mindset."

    I agree with you though, the crucial factor is in their MO.


    Perhaps you're correct and there isn't much of a difference. As above though, I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I object to Christians trying to bully or force their worldview on people, but I don't have any problem with them trying to convince other people in principle.
    To repeat a point we've both made, it depends on how they go about it.
    If they were all "I <3 Christ, he's fabulous", I'd be all "that's cool, man, but I don't partake." But if they kept pushing and pushing and pushing then I'd get kinda pissed (like I do with the Jehovah's Witnesses that turn up at my parents house every damn month).

    In essence, it depends on how persistent they are, because there definitely is a line between being respectful of other people's choices and being dismissive of them (and the dismissiveness is implied by their insistence that what they do is right, which insinuates that what you do is wrong).


    Some things can be objective without being obvious. I agree that there are a lot of grey areas when trying to determine what is the best thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an objectively moral thing (or some objectively moral things) to do.
    True, but relating to what?


    Perhaps. I'd be interested to see survey results if we asked people the question 'is it immoral to squash mosquitos?', for example. I don't think all people have principle-based systems of morality where certain classes of actions are deemed immoral a priori. Certainly some do, but for example anybody who subscribes to a consequentialist view of morality must concede (by definition) that whether or not killing another living thing is immoral depends fully upon the consequences.
    I think the answers to that survey wouldn't truly represent the intelligence that they deserve though, especially 'round these 'ere parts :sad:

    For instance, on what do you base the morality? An argument could be put forth that it's not immoral to do so if the mosquito is carrying malaria because you're protecting yourself, but could be immoral if you're doing it purely to stop the annoying buzzing (which would be an act of indulging yourself in comfort, could be considered as selfish).

    I don't know what the name for the Philosophical branch for that particular line of thought is, but in that case it would depend upon the motivations more than the consequences.

    I don't disagree with you though.


    Indeed, but that doesn't make it/them moral!
    Ahh, but that would depend on certain factors. For example, I would argue that choosing to starve yourself to death (situational suicide? Struggling to think of a name for it, but that'll do for now) for the sake of upholding your morals, whilst it could be considered somewhat honourable depending on who you ask, would be less moral than surviving to see your family and friends again.



    Interesting. I've not polled all my vegetarian friends or anything like that, but this has come up in conversation a number of time with some of them and they've all said they wouldn't. I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised that some vegetarians are hypocrites though
    All people are hypocrites in one form or another, I struck it off as part of the human condition a long time ago.

    Not that I'm calling your friends liars, but people at large will often say anything to save face. If we polled everyone (eeeeeverryyyyyyoooooone) then in order to get the most honest answers from them, there would need to be absolutely no pressure or potential judgement from anyone, and even then that plan isn't foolproof.

    Obviously it goes without saying that not all vegetarians are secretly insect serial killers, but it would be interesting to see a completely honest spread of answers.


    If you think about it carefully, the same argument applies to other humans though. Measuring and quantifying suffering isn't straightforward, no matter the species.
    Indeed it does. Galen (was it Galen? My Class Civ knowledge has gotten a bit rusty) once thought that the womb in humans acted in exactly the same way that it does in dogs. Actually I might be completely wrong about that, but I definitely vaguely remember something about dogs, wombs, and anatomical inaccuracy.


    Well, would an insect be displeased if you started pulling its legs off? Certainly it would make an effort to avoid the things it 'thinks' is pulling its leg off, but there's more to suffering than that. For example, humans withdraw from harmful stimuli before we've even had the chance to feel the pain. I think that process is called nociception and as far as I know appears in everything considered 'animal'. A rigorous definition of suffering should probably include these biological reflexes AND the emotional response to the stimulus. If an organism has the capacity for nociception but has no capacity for emotion whatsoever, can it really suffer? I'm not particularly familiar with the academic literature, but I think the consensus in the field is 'no, it can't'.
    But the end result is the same: the creature dies.
    We all die eventually, but it makes little sense to kill for the sake of it, no?
    I don't think whether something suffers should be dependent on whether it realises it's suffering (and by that I mean it understands the concept of suffering enough to make it distinct from the generic "oh, here comes trouble, better skedaddle" reflex) or not, but I understand where you're coming from.


    Indeed, there does seem to be a double standard here. But what happens if we think about the consequences? First, there's the fact that humans tend to be social creatures and instantaneously killing one human will likely cause suffering of others. But that's perhaps academic, as we could set up a thought experiment where this isn't the case and most would probably still agree that the murder is still not okay.
    I'll agree with you there; the consequences of a human death are much more likely to be felt than the consequences of an insect death.

    But then, if we're talking practicality, the death of an insect would quite likely feed another creature, whereas the death of a human won't (unless they die in the wild and don't get recovered, of course). Though I doubt many people think about that when killing insects, so it's kind of a redundant point


    Perhaps the prolem with killing someone is not just the suffering they do or do not experience during death, but the loss of positive experience they would have had if they hadn't been killed. Killing someone isn't wrong because killing is wrong; it's wrong because it reduces the net wellbeing of the universe by removing an individual who would otherwise have lived a happy life. You might think that we could again set up a thought experiment where the human being killed would have lived on awful life (or even a neutral one), and claim that it's still obvious we shouldn't kill them. One solution is to simply bite the bullet here and insist that no, it's perfectly okay to kill someone if you are certain that they would have spent the rest of their life in suffering.

    Of course, the same argument should apply to insects too. What if that insect you killed was going to have an awesome life? Well, one other thing to consider is the argument that humans have a much larger capacity for suffering than insects, and so perhaps it is not unreasonable to attribute more importance to the suffering of humans. In fact, from the little bit of research I've done, it seems unlikely to me that insects can suffer at all - in which case this whole line of argument is academic!
    I was going to say that the same could apply to insects but you beat me to it :shakecane:
    As per the above though, at a base level death is still the final result. Whilst it's true that humans may feel more about the death (as far as we know, though you say you've done a bit of research on it whereas I haven't so I'll take your word for it), it's also true that the blood of a previously living thing would still be on the hands of the person who killed the insect. And I can't help but feel as though writing it off as less immoral is merely sweeping it under the rug in an attempt to absolve oneself (which I would argue is connected to the aforementioned speciesism).

    However, despite that, I do largely find myself in agreement with you.

    Also, you mentioned the difference between killing someone who could go on to lead a happy life and euthanasia. Personally, I'm a firm advocate of euthanasia if there are valid grounds on which to do it. I've filed it under "sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind", but would it really be cruel if the person wanted to die?
    This is getting slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless.


    Indeed. Drawing the line at 'edible' does seem like a unjustifiable double standard. The line is arbitrary. I would propose instead drawing the line at suffering.
    I agree with you on the double standard bit, but drawing the line at suffering doesn't take into account cultures that eat insects or other animals that we wouldn't typically consider "food".


    What about farming other humans for our consumption? Why is it okay to do this with other animals but not humans? Surely this is a prime example of speciesism?
    Bit tongue-in-cheek, but I'll rise to the occasion and simply say "I'm not sure"

    Probably because of the social connotations and stigma regarding cannibalism.

    Apologies for the late reply, sometimes it takes me a while to put these together depending on how deep in thought I get, and we've put together a really good discussion that I've enjoyed thoroughly and I'd be doing you a dishonour if I didn't give it my full attention.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This offends me as a vegan transgender atheist who vapes and crossfits 4 times a week and im also a male feminist as I identify myself as a Rastafarian apache helicopter dog mega multi combo god of hyper death and if you dont agree with me You're an ignorant arrogant globaphobic sexist lesbian
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We seem to agree on a lot of things so for the sake of brevity I'll just skip over that to avoid finding fifteen different ways to say I agree!


    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I think the answers to that survey wouldn't truly represent the intelligence that they deserve though, especially 'round these 'ere parts :sad:

    For instance, on what do you base the morality? An argument could be put forth that it's not immoral to do so if the mosquito is carrying malaria because you're protecting yourself, but could be immoral if you're doing it purely to stop the annoying buzzing (which would be an act of indulging yourself in comfort, could be considered as selfish).

    I don't know what the name for the Philosophical branch for that particular line of thought is, but in that case it would depend upon the motivations more than the consequences.

    I don't disagree with you though.
    I'm not sure what the name is either, but I actually think it's a fairly redundant line of thought once we stop trying to play the blame game. Once we give up the notion that only 'bad people' do bad things, we don't really have to worry about it. We can have our consequentialist moral framework and simply allow the fact that people can do bad things even when their intentions are pure. I don't think there is actually a problem with that. Certainly we'd still want to take intentions into account when assessing whether to trust people, how to sentence them within the criminal justice system etc. etc. but I don't see why that need feature in the moral framework itself.

    In the example you give, there is more than just intent at work. If you're killing the mosquito for convenience, then you have to weigh up the suffering you cause by killing it with the suffering you prevent. So with when the mosquito is likely to have malaria. In that case, the balance would probably tip in favour of killing it. What your reasons were for the killing can be considered irrelevant to whether the killing itself was a good thing. Did it or did it not decrease the net wellbeing? If it did, it was bad. If it increased it, it was good. Certainly we might want to be more wary of people who intend to do bad and accidentally do good, but I don't see why we need to relabel their actions as bad just because that's what they intended to do.


    Ahh, but that would depend on certain factors. For example, I would argue that choosing to starve yourself to death (situational suicide? Struggling to think of a name for it, but that'll do for now) for the sake of upholding your morals, whilst it could be considered somewhat honourable depending on who you ask, would be less moral than surviving to see your family and friends again.
    Consequences, eh? :holmes:


    I was going to say that the same could apply to insects but you beat me to it :shakecane:
    As per the above though, at a base level death is still the final result. Whilst it's true that humans may feel more about the death (as far as we know, though you say you've done a bit of research on it whereas I haven't so I'll take your word for it), it's also true that the blood of a previously living thing would still be on the hands of the person who killed the insect. And I can't help but feel as though writing it off as less immoral is merely sweeping it under the rug in an attempt to absolve oneself (which I would argue is connected to the aforementioned speciesism).
    Indeed. But the question is 'is that immoral?' If the insect cannot suffer, I can't see why it should be. We don't worry about getting the 'blood' of plants on our hands!


    I agree with you on the double standard bit, but drawing the line at suffering doesn't take into account cultures that eat insects or other animals that we wouldn't typically consider "food".
    What do you mean? The heuristic surely works the same? If the insect has the capacity for suffering, it's probably not moral to kill and eat it. If it doesn't, why not? May as well be a stone.


    Bit tongue-in-cheek, but I'll rise to the occasion and simply say "I'm not sure"

    Probably because of the social connotations and stigma regarding cannibalism.
    It was a bit tongue in cheek, but it's actually a very powerful analogy to consider for those of us to eat meat I think. I'm not sure of my opinion either. How do we square our belief that it's okay to farm animals for meat with our belief that it's not okay to farm humans for meat? How do we do it without resorting to some kind of vague, silly argument about humans being 'superior' or something?


    Apologies for the late reply, sometimes it takes me a while to put these together depending on how deep in thought I get, and we've put together a really good discussion that I've enjoyed thoroughly and I'd be doing you a dishonour if I didn't give it my full attention.
    No problem haha. I often plan to do that but then get distracted and forget about it until it's far too late! Good chats :cool:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLittlestElf)
    This offends me as a vegan transgender atheist who vapes and crossfits 4 times a week and im also a male feminist as I identify myself as a Rastafarian apache helicopter dog mega multi combo god of hyper death and if you dont agree with me You're an ignorant arrogant globaphobic sexist lesbian
    Why is atheist in there? And vaping? I don't vape but I don't see how it's related to tumblr SJWs.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.