Paris exemption

[Volenta]

I think brimstoneSalad makes it look like veganism is failing, but I think that although recidivism might be high, it isn't failing. It feels like more and more people become aware of the farming problems and it is becoming more socially acceptable to be veg*n. Also environmentally; data on the impact of climate change is stronger than ever before and people are more open to things that reduce it, including veganism. Things like meatless monday—although you could argue it isn't a very radical change, in absolute numbers it does help a lot for the animals—are becoming more commonly, famous people are becoming vegan (who are examples for many people), and (western) societies in general are growing a lot morally. A lot of rights issues like gay marriage—something that was unthinkable not that long ago—are being discussed and many rights have been already established. Society is moving forwards and is more and more ready for the next step. Places that are very well developed are more likely to change things for the better. Look at Austria, where the data showed that 80.000 people (1% of the population) are vegan. It doesn't seem like much, but it was unthinkable years/decades ago. Also here in the Netherlands, the number of members of the Dutch Society for Veganism increased last year by 60%. I'm pretty optimistic that veganism isn't something that is going away unnoticed by the majority.

See also WikiPedia on this topic. I don't want to overstate, but a bit of optimism doesn't hurt.

[brimstoneSalad]

I should have said starving yourself from nutrients, that is what that hunger feeling is telling you but we often get it confused and eat bad foods to satisfy that hunger but; the nutrient requirments are not met. [...] so one keeps eating and eating always hungry because their bodies are screaming I need nutrient's but everytime their bodies scream this at themselves one gets confused and goes back to eating that falsly satisfying bad food...

You're attributing intelligence and agency to something that is not intelligent. Your hypothesis is false.

Hunger doesn't mean you need nutrients- hunger is based of psychological and physiological addiction and pleasure responses from eating. Getting more nutrients does not alleviate this hunger.

That's like saying the desire smokers feel to smoke is because they need more oxygen, and they confuse this with needing nicotine.
This is easy to test- give a smoker extra oxygen, and the desire to smoke should go away, right? Wrong. It doesn't go away, because it's an addiction. It has nothing to do with needing more oxygen.

Somebody addicted to fast food can eat more than enough nutrients, but still crave fast food. That hunger and craving has nothing to do with nutrients, or the body needing more of them.

Telling people they need more nutrients is not helpful, because it's wrong.

Yes, we should eat lots of nutrients- but this doesn't alleviate cravings. Starving can make cravings worse, but simply being well nourished will not eliminate them as you predict.

[brimstoneSalad]

I disagree. At least from how I understand it, a sacrifice has the implication that we are giving up something we are owed or own. If I sacrifice my life to save another, I am giving that which is mine (my life) in defence of another.

Not at all. A sacrifice means giving up something you have or control, or are physically able to do, whether you have it rightly or not.

You can kidnap a virgin from a neighboring village and sacrifice her to your gods. She didn't belong to you rightly, but you took her and you did it anyway.

Sacrificing just means giving up something- it doesn't matter whether you had it rightly or not.

If you are physically incapable of rape, then you can't sacrifice that, because you couldn't do it anyway.

When a serial rapist gives up raping, it may feel like a sacrifice to him because he is giving up something he desires, but the issue is he never was owed the pleasure of forcing others to have sex with him.

Which is why he should make that sacrifice. Because it was a wrong thing for him to do.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree on word usage. I don't think the common usage implies what you think it does.

When people talk of sacrifice they talk about what they have (or ought to have)... i.e. pleasure of good food, happy life, life (as a whole), ideal job, etc.

Not ought to have, but certainly would have had. This is opportunity cost. Even if you should rightly have something, if you wouldn't have had it because of some injustice, you can't sacrifice it.

A slave can not sacrifice his freedom, because even though he should have been free, he does not have freedom to sacrifice.

Now, if he gets an opportunity to go free at some point (where that result was all but guaranteed) but he turned it down to, for example, stay with his family, THEN he has sacrificed it.

Do we speak of sacrifice of a child pedophile who forces himself not to rape children anymore? Do we speak of the sacrifice that a murder who loves to kill people but now chooses not to for fear of punishment?

Not if it's for fear of punishment, no. That's not a sacrifice. That's not being allowed to do something. These are very different things.

In order to sacrifice something, you must be freely able to do it- either allowed to do it, or adept enough at the act as to evade consequence that would prohibit you from doing it.

A pedophile can sacrifice his sexual pleasures because he's a priest and the church is protecting him- he is able to pleasure himself with children, but chooses to stop doing so (if he has a shred of morality).
A murderer can make a sacrifice to stop murdering provided he's particularly good at it and wouldn't otherwise be stopped (many serial killers can give up what they're doing, because it's incredibly hard to find and stop them).

Sure, giving up your old ways may be hard, but I don't think attaching the word "sacrifice" is suitable to something that we never had right to in the first place.

That's just how the word is used; it doesn't imply a right to do the thing we're sacrificing. It just requires an ability to do it.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Im not sure I've been convinced. I understand what you are saying, and I could very well be wrong, but I dont think "sacrifice" is the right term. Perhaps from a purely academic level, sacrifice has the definition you assert, but I think the practical, everyday usage of the term is a bit different. It seems to me to be similar in the way theists/atheists use the term "faith".

How would you respond to this article:
http://animalrights.about.com/od/animal ... rifice.htm

You can kidnap a virgin from a neighboring village and sacrifice her to your gods. She didn't belong to you rightly, but you took her and you did it anyway.

That is a different usage of the term "sacrifice". In this example you are conflating the usage of "sacrifice" (i.e. the offering of something/someone up to the gods) with "sacrifice" (ie. the giving up something owned or owed (or precious) because of a worthy perceived goal)

[brimstoneSalad]

I think brimstoneSalad makes it look like veganism is failing, but I think that although recidivism might be high, it isn't failing. It feels like more and more people become aware of the farming problems and it is becoming more socially acceptable to be veg*n.

Flexi-veganism is doing quite well. As is the "vegan diet", but not the real vegan lifestyle.

Animal welfare is progressing, even to some extent animal rights, environmentalism is booming, meatless Mondays are becoming more popular, and vegan food is growing in appeal thanks to celebrities and vegan junk food- but most people who eat vegan food are not vegan.

There's a lot to be optimistic about, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of things that ARE working. Strict veganism just isn't one of them.

As a social movement, strict veganism has been floundering- barely growing if at all - and it's not for lack of trying. The resources we have been putting into it are monumental. It is due to flexi-vegans, the popularity of vegan food is growing quite a bit, and using the title "vegan" it becoming understood and socially acceptable.

Do you really think Bill Clinton is strictly vegan?
That most of those celebrities are? A large number of which you can find paparazzi photos of sneaking meat if you look for them.

A very large number of people "used to be" vegetarian or vegan- and it's a large part because of this that knowledge of the two is growing.
And a very large number of people are becoming flexi-vegans, and eating predominately vegan food, and not worrying too much about the details or perfection. And that's great.

But for all of the effort we put in, and all of the progress we don't see in people actually going vegan (for real), veganism itself as originally envisioned is a failed movement. Which is why people advocate flexi-veganism, dietary veganisms, Paris exemptions, etc. These are things that are really working.

The more mainstream vegan-ish things become, the more open, general, flexible, and strictly speaking non-vegan they will become- but that's not necessarily a bad thing, because it's part of social progress.

Maybe in a few decades we can revisit this whole strict vegan topic, but for now it's a small niche.
Like Catholics who don't masturbate (do they exist? Who knows).

EDIT: And that is not to say don't be vegan! If you're actually vegan, that's great, and it's a state a real consistency. The issue is that most people don't really want or care about real consistency. And that's just something we have to contend with and understand, without creating an environment so hostile to imperfection that it pushes them back to full blown carnism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Perhaps from a purely academic level, sacrifice has the definition you assert, but I think the practical, everyday usage of the term is a bit different.

Well, we could form a usage panel or do a survey to find out.

It seems to me to be similar in the way theists/atheists use the term "faith".

Maybe, but I don't think so. Theists don't even use "faith" consistently.

How would you respond to this article:
http://animalrights.about.com/od/animal ... rifice.htm

I would say it is rhetoric. Like "meat is murder"
Technically, murder is unlawful killing, particularly with malice aforethought. Just as war isn't murder, because it's outside and/or condoned by law. Still wicked, but not murder. Technically, the Nazis didn't systematically murder Jews (and others) during their ethnic cleanse- it was all in accordance with law, because they were in power.

Meat isn't really murder. But Murder is a useful and emotionally loaded word which has rhetoric value. And it's something that resonates with people.

Is it better to be more accurate and rational, or technically incorrect but perhaps more provocative?

Dictionary.com defines sacrifice as "the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim." The implication is that the prized or desirable thing being surrendered belongs to the person making the sacrifice.

No, no it isn't. That doesn't imply that at all.

When we do that kind of thing, the risk is that we make ourselves either look like fanatics who can't understand what words mean because we're too biased, or we appear deliberately dishonest (and perhaps we are, if we know better but do it anyway).

It's up to you if you want to use rhetoric over accuracy, and I don't want to step on your toes if you think that's the right thing to do (and you might be right; maybe it is worth the risk, and the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of public perception). But at the same time, cufflink is technically right here.

I think it's more useful to be correct.

Meat isn't murder in our current context, because murder is unlawful killing and our society cruelly permits violence and killing against non-humans. But Hitler also didn't murder any Jews, because under his law, it was allowed. That doesn't mean it's right. And maybe some day a higher law will justly convict us of our true crimes against other species, as international courts found the perpetrators of the holocaust guilty of crimes against humanity.

That is a different usage of the term "sacrifice". In this example you are conflating the usage of "sacrifice" (i.e. the offering of something/someone up to the gods) with "sacrifice" (ie. the giving up something owned or owed (or precious) because of a worthy perceived goal)

That's not a conflation, they have the same meaning.

In the case of sacrificing to the gods, the gods' favor is seen as the worthy perceived goal. And owning or being owed something has nothing to do with it- in either case. Even if it were, legally speaking, people do own animals and meat - they shouldn't, but they do. It's the way of things, and it's a sacrifice to give up that legal right (unjust as it is) for the greater good.

Rhetoric-wise, "sacrifice" isn't even a bad thing; in our society, it's the mark of moral righteousness. I don't know what we would gain by fighting against this word usage since it can potentially be used to our advantage.

[PrincessPeach]

You're attributing intelligence and agency to something that is not intelligent. Your hypothesis is false.

Hunger doesn't mean you need nutrients- hunger is based of psychological and physiological addiction and pleasure responses from eating. Getting more nutrients does not alleviate this hunger.

That's like saying the desire smokers feel to smoke is because they need more oxygen, and they confuse this with needing nicotine.
This is easy to test- give a smoker extra oxygen, and the desire to smoke should go away, right? Wrong. It doesn't go away, because it's an addiction. It has nothing to do with needing more oxygen.

Somebody addicted to fast food can eat more than enough nutrients, but still crave fast food. That hunger and craving has nothing to do with nutrients, or the body needing more of them.

Telling people they need more nutrients is not helpful, because it's wrong.

Yes, we should eat lots of nutrients- but this doesn't alleviate cravings. Starving can make cravings worse, but simply being well nourished will not eliminate them as you predict.

I feel the body only craves food when it is hungry, it is telling you 'hey I am missing something from your diet you are not providing me with something, I need more, I need that missing something' but; usually one's cognitive mind will mistake the body's need for whatever it is missing and associate that feeling with the need for 'fast foods' (or w.e one craves it could be sweets or)
When one smokes or drinks they know that they are harming themselves (usually), when one eat's fast foods they typically believe it is providing them the proper nutrient's, most people that eat mc donalds for a meal feel as if that was a satisfying meal because they're no longer hungry and they feel full.
So what I am trying to get at is if your nutrional requirement's are met you wont feel hungry and your body will no longer have the urge to eat because it is full of nutrients and does not need food.
As far as craving's go you probably are right telling one to just eat more nutirents will probably not help them with alleviating their craving's for bad foods.
Really the craving aspect goes a lot deeper than one would think...
One could crave anything from bad foods to drugs or sex...
Usually when one is craving something they are missing something, so when one is craving foods & it is not for the bodies need for nutrients then there has to be something psychologically wrong with that person, otherwise why are they going back to something they know is bad for them~ because it feels good~ we relate everything to feelings and we love to do what feels good.. Eating fast foods may make you feel good but it's only for the 10-30 seconds you are chewing the food that it really makes you feel good and that's it what is the point of eating something that only makes you feel good when you are chewing and tasting it? There is no point. Eat food for nutrient's not pleasure. If you want pleasure exercise and have sex more often.

EDIT:
Physical addictions like nicotine are much more intense to give up than one's thought process to want to eat shitty.
But one may smoke a cig. or eat fast foods and get that same 'feel good feeling'.
Giving up smoking is way more intense than giving up bad foods, the withdrawl from smoking in my opinion is much harder than giving up bad foods. I went vegan but I did not give up smoking (yet) There was no real physical withdrawl symptoms from me abstaing from meat (none that I could cognitively tell) but; giving up cigarette's took so much longer and was so much harder for me and everytime I would smoke a cig. I would set my self back from complete nicotine withdrawl..
Bad foods is a mental thing, nicotine withdrawl is more of a physical thing.
It's all about thought process you want to control your desire for the substance you do not want the desire for the substance to control you.

[brimstoneSalad]

I feel the body only craves food when it is hungry, it is telling you 'hey I am missing something from your diet you are not providing me with something, I need more, I need that missing something' but; usually one's cognitive mind will mistake the body's need for whatever it is missing and associate that feeling with the need for 'fast foods' (or w.e one craves it could be sweets or)

I understand what you're saying. I understood the first time.

What I'm trying to tell you is, that's factually wrong.

You can feel that the spirit of Jesus has entered your heart- but that doesn't make it true.
What we feel, and what is real, can be very different things.

What you have explained is fine as a hypothesis, and it seems reasonable, it even makes testable predictions, but in actual fact those things are incorrect.
Alternative health is full of these kinds of hypotheses that seem reasonable on the face, but actually conflict with observable reality.

The body doesn't crave food, the mind does- hunger is mostly psychological. Your body, namely your fat cells, produce chemical signals that can exacerbate hunger when they are being drained, but that doesn't mean you need nutrients (it just means you're losing weight), it doesn't even mean you should be hungry.
Likewise, there are certain feelings you can get from having low blood sugar- but they don't necessarily cause hunger, and people can have low blood sugar while being hungry, not being hungry at all, or have high blood sugar while being hungry or being full.

Hunger stops and starts with the mind. There are factors in the body that can make it worse or lessen it, but those have little to do with (are not caused by) lacking nutrition, and are only loosely correlated at best. Correlation is not causation.

Our bodies are incredibly stupid. We 'listen to them' at our peril. That's why we have brains

So what I am trying to get at is if your nutrional requirement's are met you wont feel hungry and your body will no longer have the urge to eat because it is full of nutrients and does not need food.

What I am getting at is that this hypothesis of yours is false. That's just not how it works. It sounds reasonable, but I can make up any number of hypotheses that sound reasonable. What matters is if it's true- and this turns out not to be true.

Hunger is dominated by psychology, and hormones and dependencies that have nothing to do with your actual state of nutrition (exacerbate hunger as they may at times). You can feel no hunger while starving, or feel hunger while being grossly overweight and getting more than enough nutrition, depending on your mental state.

Usually when one is craving something they are missing something, so when one is craving foods & it is not for the bodies need for nutrients then there has to be something psychologically wrong with that person, otherwise why are they going back to something they know is bad for them~ because it feels good~ we relate everything to feelings and we love to do what feels good.. Eating fast foods may make you feel good but it's only for the 10-30 seconds you are chewing the food that it really makes you feel good and that's it what is the point of eating something that only makes you feel good when you are chewing and tasting it? There is no point. Eat food for nutrient's not pleasure. If you want pleasure exercise and have sex more often.

This is mostly true, yes.

Physical addictions like nicotine are much more intense to give up than one's thought process to want to eat shitty.
But one may smoke a cig. or eat fast foods and get that same 'feel good feeling'.
Giving up smoking is way more intense than giving up bad foods, the withdrawl from smoking in my opinion is much harder than giving up bad foods.

This is different for different people. Dependency on junk food can be stronger for some people than dependency on nicotine, or other drugs.

Bad foods is a mental thing, nicotine withdrawl is more of a physical thing.

Both of them are physiological and psychological addictions. Physiological addictions are easier for most people to overcome faster, though, as the body changes its internal chemistry and adjusts to the new norm.

It's all about thought process you want to control your desire for the substance you do not want the desire for the substance to control you.

That's a good saying.

With strong enough will power, knowing what you want and why you want it, it's possible to overcome any desire. You just have to believe in yourself- if you doubt, you're setting yourself up for failure. But sometimes we find practical limits to our will power, and it's good to be aware of those at the same time to resist temptation.

[PrincessPeach]

When one is addicted to alcohol, or drugs their bodies actually get sick from the withdrawl of the substance.

When one is addicted to junk foods, there are no physical withdrawl symptoms.

To compare the withdrawl from these substances to be similar with the withdrawl of non physical addicting substance's is not a valid comparison.

If some one you knew was eating couch stuffing's or eating nail files you would tell them to stop eating that shit cold turkey.
Eating animals could be compared to some one eating nail files, there is no real purpose your just damaging your body.

Abstaining from junk food will not make your body physically sick for more junk food, one will not die from not eating junk foods for a few days. There are plenty of cases were alcoholic's die in jail from not having any alcohol, I've never heard of any junk food junkies dieing with out junk food.

I've been looking into the 'bioaccumaltion' aspect of things please correct me if I am wrong but, even though one's stopped putting junk food into their system there is still junk food in there system and now that there is none coming in what has been 'bioaccumalated' over the years is now coming out, as it is coming out and leached back into your system one could crave what is coming out until there body fully gets it out of your system, in order to do this succesfully one would need to abstain from all meats for a long time...

[brimstoneSalad]

When one is addicted to alcohol, or drugs their bodies actually get sick from the withdrawl of the substance.

Symptoms of withdrawal depend on the drug. But withdrawal has been observed in studies on sugar, etc.

The whole idea that junk food is literally physiologically addictive is still controversial. Here's an article, for example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-0 ... ience.html

I don't have time to search much more, but that covers the major controversies.

You could say "the jury is still out" I guess.

If some one you knew was eating couch stuffing's or eating nail files you would tell them to stop eating that shit cold turkey.
Eating animals could be compared to some one eating nail files, there is no real purpose your just damaging your body.

I think eating animals is much worse, because it harms other too.

If somebody truly wants to harm themselves, and only themselves, is it our right to stop them?
It's hard to say.

There are plenty of cases were alcoholic's die in jail from not having any alcohol, I've never heard of any junk food junkies dieing with out junk food.

Most drug withdrawals don't result in death. Caffeine withdrawal will give you a headache, nicotine withdrawal will make you shaky- extreme alcohol withdrawal can be special, along with a few other hard drugs.

I've been looking into the 'bioaccumaltion' aspect of things please correct me if I am wrong but, even though one's stopped putting junk food into their system there is still junk food in there system

Right, well, not "junk food", but some of the substances from that food.

They particularly accumulate in fatty tissue, which is a problem. Because when something is trapped in your f at, and then you start losing weight, it starts pouring out into your system all at once. For somebody who has bioaccumulated fat soluble toxicants, losing weight could literally be deadly- it has to be done very slowly, and it can be very painful.

Liposuction might actually be a good idea, in that case (even though the surgery itself carries risks).

and now that there is none coming in what has been 'bioaccumalated' over the years is now coming out,

Well, out doesn't depend on none coming in. It's stored in certain ways, usually what makes it come out is losing weight, because it's soaked up in your fat cells- metabolizing the fat releases it. If you stopped eating it, it would still stay in your body unless you started losing weight.

If it's stored in your muscle or organ tissue, though, it still won't come out.

as it is coming out and leached back into your system one could crave what is coming out until there body fully gets it out of your system,

Maybe. But from what I've seen it usually just makes people sick (these toxicants being released all at once into the blood).
It seems conceivable that it could trigger cravings, though, since you're being exposed again (partly) to the substance. Kind of like smelling something could trigger a craving.

I don't know. It would be an interesting thing to research.

in order to do this succesfully one would need to abstain from all meats for a long time...

It's an interesting hypothesis. Something like that might contribute. I don't think so, but I don't know.