Philosophical Vegan Forum

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 1:58 am**

When it comes to eating, I love my meat, I feel good when I eat meat. I am on the Paleo diet which means I do not eat grains, dairy, nor legumes and I haven't felt great since ever. All the brain fog and muscle weakness and all kinds of feeling like crap were gone when I cut grains out. However, I know some people love grains and are dependent on them and are healthy while some people are like me where grains cause bloating and weakness and all other kinds of horseshit which only proves that everyone functions the most optimal on very different diets.

So when it comes to people like me, my choices are limited especially in America where you see processed cancer everywhere. Toxic chemicals approved by the FDA while banned in other countries are consistently used in most of our foods to this very day.

So let me ask you a few questions

1) Judging by my sensitivity to grains and legumes, if I were to convert to a vegan, what steps should I take to overcome this?

2) Are there any actual benefits from me converting to veganism?

3) Do you believe that you can convince the whole world to become Vegans?

4) If you believe that it is impossible to convert the whole world to Veganism, isn't it better, more effective, and easier to just improve the quality of life of animals? Mind you I don't actually advocate for animal cruelty nor experimenting on them but I believe we have bigger issues such as overpopulation and poverty all over the world which I believe serves higher priority over Veganism. If we have a better control over the environment and the people and education, then I believe it would be much easier to advocate for Veganism if it proves to be an overall benefit for humanity.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 9:57 am**

1) Judging by my sensitivity to grains and legumes, if I were to convert to a vegan, what steps should I take to overcome this?

I can see why you could have sensitivity to grains, but not legumes. Why do you omit legumes? is it just because of your paleo diet restrictions? If you have a reaction to legumes, perhaps you could consider fermented legumes or processed (like tofu), or find which legumes agree with you better and limit yourself to those. There is such a wide range of available beans, peas, nuts, seeds, etc to consume I can't imagine that you would be reacting to everyone of them.

2) Are there any actual benefits from me converting to veganism?

Yes, definitely.
You are not indirectly/directly contributing to an industry that...
a) kills BILLIONS of sentient animals each year
b) destroys rain forests and biodiversity to clear land to grow crops. The large majority of these crops end up as animal feed.
c) water pollution produced from keeping 58 Billion animals alive and dealing with their waste
d) green house gas emission produced by farmed animals, which the United Nations, a few years ago, determined was greater than all transportation emissions combined (all cars, trucks, planes, ships, etc).
e) the health effects of eating plant foods has shown to be very beneficial to our avoidance of the major causes of death in affluent countries.

3) Do you believe that you can convince the whole world to become Vegans?

No, but I think the majority can be. We can't convince everyone alive that slavery, racism, sexism, infanticide, genocide, rape, murder, etc are bad, but that doesn't mean we should give up fighting to try to make the world free of these things.

4) If you believe that it is impossible to convert the whole world to Veganism, isn't it better, more effective, and easier to just improve the quality of life of animals? Mind you I don't actually advocate for animal cruelty nor experimenting on them but I believe we have bigger issues such as overpopulation and poverty all over the world which I believe serves higher priority over Veganism. If we have a better control over the environment and the people and education, then I believe it would be much easier to advocate for Veganism if it proves to be an overall benefit for humanity.

It is not better, more effective or easier to improve the quality of life of animals. Animal agriculture is a billion dollar business and what matters most is the continual growth of revenue. As long as animals are considered property, they will receive only as much care as the property owner is willing to lose money (which isn't much if any). I would suggest that you watch/listen/read to anything from Prof. Gary L. Francione (law professor) who goes into this at some length and is much more articulate in his response then myself.
I have a question for you: Would you consider the problem of human slavery solved by improving the quality of life for the slaves? Treatment of slaves, while important, is not the primary objection. What needs to be addressed above all else is the moral justification of USE. What justification do we have to own other humans, irrespective of our treatment? None. Talking about "more effective", "better", is missing the central issue. Apply any human issue into your argument and you see how it fails: humane rape? humane murder? humane slavery? humane child abuse? etc.
In regards to your comment that we have bigger issues... the world is full of problems, and most of us have the means and capability of dealing with a number of issues at the same time. Being vegan doesn't mean you have to spend time advocating for veganism. It means that you don't consume animal products, and that you don't use/wear products derived from animal body parts. What you do with the rest of your time is your own business. You could spend every other waking second fighting for women's rights, or poverty, or overpopulation, or racism, sexism, child labour, etc. Its not a one or the other situation.
Are you against rape? are you against sexism? Can you live as a person who opposes rape and sexism at the same time, or must you accept one and fight the other?
Waiting for the perfect time for veganism will result in it never happening. New issues will arise, and nothing will ever be done. There still is human slavery in this world... should we forgo our campaigns against sexism until we solve the issue of slavery? No, we can work on multiple fronts simultaneously. I live my life as a vegan, and while I do a lot of activism regarding veganism (because I don't think it gets enough attention), I am a passionate defender of equal human rights (gay, women, men, transgendered), I'm against slavery, pedophilia, murder, rape, war, economic class disparity, religious indoctrination, limited education, etc.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 7:57 pm**

TheVeganAtheist wrote:
1) Judging by my sensitivity to grains and legumes, if I were to convert to a vegan, what steps should I take to overcome this?
I can see why you could have sensitivity to grains, but not legumes. Why do you omit legumes? is it just because of your paleo diet restrictions? If you have a reaction to legumes, perhaps you could consider fermented legumes or processed (like tofu), or find which legumes agree with you better and limit yourself to those. There is such a wide range of available beans, peas, nuts, seeds, etc to consume I can't imagine that you would be reacting to everyone of them.

Well, it's half and half, I'm allergic to some legumes such as nuts and it's part of my diet restrictions. I'll try to see which ones agree with me later on so I'll be prepared if I ever decide to be a vegan. For now though I think I'll stick to paleo as I can't go cold turkey with my delicious meat.

2) Are there any actual benefits from me converting to veganism?
Yes, definitely.
You are not indirectly/directly contributing to an industry that...
a) kills BILLIONS of sentient animals each year
b) destroys rain forests and biodiversity to clear land to grow crops. The large majority of these crops end up as animal feed.
c) water pollution produced from keeping 58 Billion animals alive and dealing with their waste
d) green house gas emission produced by farmed animals, which the United Nations, a few years ago, determined was greater than all transportation emissions combined (all cars, trucks, planes, ships, etc).
e) the health effects of eating plant foods has shown to be very beneficial to our avoidance of the major causes of death in affluent countries.

A-D are good points but for e, can't you just reduce the amount of meat products you eat and have majority of your diet consist of fruits and vegetables and have it just as effective? In America most of the diseases we have here are usually caused by consumption of refined grains and sugars and all types of pharmaceutical cancer anyways so it's not like a little bit of meat would do any harm. I'm pretty healthy with paleo right now so in terms of a nutritional standpoint I'm not sure why I would benefit from omitting all meats completely if majority of my diet is fruits and vegetables.

4) If you believe that it is impossible to convert the whole world to Veganism, isn't it better, more effective, and easier to just improve the quality of life of animals? Mind you I don't actually advocate for animal cruelty nor experimenting on them but I believe we have bigger issues such as overpopulation and poverty all over the world which I believe serves higher priority over Veganism. If we have a better control over the environment and the people and education, then I believe it would be much easier to advocate for Veganism if it proves to be an overall benefit for humanity.
It is not better, more effective or easier to improve the quality of life of animals. Animal agriculture is a billion dollar business and what matters most is the continual growth of revenue. As long as animals are considered property, they will receive only as much care as the property owner is willing to lose money (which isn't much if any). I would suggest that you watch/listen/read to anything from Prof. Gary L. Francione (law professor) who goes into this at some length and is much more articulate in his response then myself.
I have a question for you: Would you consider the problem of human slavery solved by improving the quality of life for the slaves? Treatment of slaves, while important, is not the primary objection. What needs to be addressed above all else is the moral justification of USE. What justification do we have to own other humans, irrespective of our treatment? None. Talking about "more effective", "better", is missing the central issue. Apply any human issue into your argument and you see how it fails: humane rape? humane murder? humane slavery? humane child abuse? etc.
In regards to your comment that we have bigger issues... the world is full of problems, and most of us have the means and capability of dealing with a number of issues at the same time. Being vegan doesn't mean you have to spend time advocating for veganism. It means that you don't consume animal products, and that you don't use/wear products derived from animal body parts. What you do with the rest of your time is your own business. You could spend every other waking second fighting for women's rights, or poverty, or overpopulation, or racism, sexism, child labour, etc. Its not a one or the other situation.
Are you against rape? are you against sexism? Can you live as a person who opposes rape and sexism at the same time, or must you accept one and fight the other?
Waiting for the perfect time for veganism will result in it never happening. New issues will arise, and nothing will ever be done. There still is human slavery in this world... should we forgo our campaigns against sexism until we solve the issue of slavery? No, we can work on multiple fronts simultaneously. I live my life as a vegan, and while I do a lot of activism regarding veganism (because I don't think it gets enough attention), I am a passionate defender of equal human rights (gay, women, men, transgendered), I'm against slavery, pedophilia, murder, rape, war, economic class disparity, religious indoctrination, limited education, etc.

I see your point but I do not believe that domesticated animals and humans are on the same level. Livestock is breed for the sole purpose of being eaten by humans and unlike human slaves, they are not of the same species as us. They cannot understand and communicate with us nor can they be educated in sciences and ethics and all other kinds of things we take for granted. If they were directly taken from their own habitat and affected other animals and the environment, then I could see that the idea of livestock is a problem. Right now, there is a problem, which is why I do not support the industry. However, I do not see the problem with idea of a limited livestock if they are treated well and do not cost the environment to maintain. They were created to serve a different purpose than animals in a natural habitat which is why I cannot feel the same way for both.

And by the way, you said it yourself, there is no way you'll ever convince the whole world to convert to veganism, so there's no way the animal industry will ever cease to exist which means they will keep killing animals regardless which is why I believe that we should prioritize over improving the quality of animal treatment first(or better yet, just fight the way our food and livestock is being handled as a whole). It'll be easier to convince people to switch to veganism as people will be more healthier with higher quality of food which leads to healthier brains and healthier brains means a higher intellectual capacity to understand why X and X is bad. When you said that we can work on multiple fronts, I don't think it'll work like that. It is better to have a stronger force pushing through which you can convince most of the majority to agree on(compared to animal cruelty and just outright telling people to omit all forms of animal domestication and eating of meat products, I think animal cruelty would have a bigger force) and then work on other fronts after the major issues are tackled down. If we can all concentrate our efforts on the major issues first, it'll be easier to deal with the smaller issues. Unless you have a lot of time which most people don't have, it is harder to hold up multiple equally strong forces than it is to hold up one powerful force that can't be shut up by the government.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 9:16 pm**

Infinix wrote: see your point but I do not believe that domesticated animals and humans are on the same level. Livestock is breed for the sole purpose of being eaten by humans and unlike human slaves, they are not of the same species as us. They cannot understand and communicate with us nor can they be educated in sciences and ethics and all other kinds of things we take for granted. If they were directly taken from their own habitat and affected other animals and the environment, then I could see that the idea of livestock is a problem. Right now, there is a problem, which is why I do not support the industry. However, I do not see the problem with idea of a limited livestock if they are treated well and do not cost the environment to maintain. They were created to serve a different purpose than animals in a natural habitat which is why I cannot feel the same way for both.

Same level? In what way? How is that relevant? What difference is livestock is bred for the sole purpose of beating eaten? If i own slaves, and force my slaves to have children so that I have future slaves at no additional cost, does that make these slave children (who were bred to be slaves) okay to keep as slaves?

What moral relevance does being able to communicate with other animals have to do with anything? I can't communicate with a person who is severely mentally damaged, but I would not consider eating or forcing that person to do something painful. Why is the ability to communicate with humans a morally significant criteria to be entered into the moral community?

Why is the ability to understand or be educated in our ways morally relevant? is a highly educated human worth more morally than a person of low IQ? Is it okay to kill and eat a human who has no education?

Is it okay to keep slave children in your basement away from all civilization, media and knowledge of the outside world? By your logic, if they don't know what they are missing, they aren't suffering, and Im not doing anything wrong.

They were not created, but force bred into existence because we chose to do so. We have valued them as nothing more than objects, but that doesn't make them nothing more than fancies of our desires. If I rape a women and she gets pregnant, that child is not mine to do with whatever I choose. I can't morally justify enslaving that child just because I chose to rape her mother.

Take your above argument, and insert "Human" anytime you talk about animals, and you will see that your logic fails. Sure there are great differences between the human animal and other animals, but the question is not about the differences, but about the similarities: sentience and the desire to avoid suffering.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 5:25 am**

TheVeganAtheist wrote:I live my life as a vegan, and while I do a lot of activism regarding veganism (because I don't think it gets enough attention), I am a passionate defender of equal human rights (gay, women, men, transgendered), I'm against slavery, pedophilia, murder, rape, war, economic class disparity, religious indoctrination, limited education, etc.

I just want to make a little comment on pedophilia. There is a big difference between pedophilia and actually having sex with children. Pedophiles do exists, and a small percentage of them has abused a child. This sexual attraction can be found in the brain structures of these people and are most of the time developed in the uterus (also possible at later stages in life because of a tumor or something). So it's really a question how to deal with this people, than disgust them (I'm not saying you did, just wanted to make it clear).

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2014 9:30 pm**

Infinix wrote:In America most of the diseases we have here are usually caused by consumption of refined grains and sugars and all types of pharmaceutical

Nope. That's factually incorrect on almost every point.

Also, you might consider whether your "sensitivity" to grains is just a placebo effect. The researcher who identified "non-celiac gluten sensitivity" as a thing was unable to replicate his results in further experiments, and has retracted his claims. He now attributes it a "no-cebo" effect, in which people get bloated and feel "ill" because they think grains are bad for them, even though they aren't.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... ally-exist

Philosophical Vegan Forum

Questions for Vegans

Questions for Vegans

Re: Questions for Vegans

Re: Questions for Vegans

Re: Questions for Vegans

Re: Questions for Vegans

Re: Questions for Vegans