Philosophical Vegan Forum

I'm in this heated debate with another atheist who is trying to say that Veganism is just another type of religion that one day will force all other non-vegans to eat their food until it will turn into something along the lines of the Spanish Inquisition. I debunked this (Although is may sound easy to, it was hard to debunk a claim made by a smart person who believed an idiotic claim. Sometimes you have to explain things like you were talking to a five year old) and he was very sporting about it, yet still wanted to know why we ate meat for thousands of years and why without meat or animal products we would have a b12 deficiency, hence the vegan b12 tablet special. I told him that we also had slavery for thousands of years but only recently 'discovered' it was wrong. I am having trouble with the b12 argument though. I understand it is found in most soy products and cereals and some leafy vegetables, but through my research I discovered there isn't really much b12 in them as would be desired. I have a few scrappy arguments, but how else can I debunk the b12 argument and how should I phrase it so he would understand that I'm trying to be healthy and exercise morality?

It's difficult to tell how we got enough B12 in the past. Since B12 comes from bacteria living in the earth, we should be able to get it from the plants, but if we look at livestock, they too become deficient in B12 and need supplementation. It seems like we've done something to the earth and water that kills much of the bacteria which leads to defiency.

I don't take pills because it's inconvenient to me. I prefer plant milk supplemented with B12 (and vitamin D etc). If it turns out to not be enough, I'll look for other sources for b12 later. Developing a deficiency takes years afterall, so there's plenty of time to try out different alternatives if it turns out that I need to. Even meat eaters develop deficiency, usually at around age 50+, so no one is really safe. The very last alternative would be to start eating meat again for ethical reasons.

I think he's arguing for eating as natural as possible, since he brought up the fact that humans have always eaten meat. To be consistent, he'd then need to avoid meat that is supplemented, and many other foods that is supplemented. He should also realize that we've genetically modified our food to be tastier, grow larger, grow faster and so on. Nothing is really natural anymore.

descendancy0 wrote:yet still wanted to know why we ate meat for thousands of years and why without meat or animal products we would have a b12 deficiency, hence the vegan b12 tablet special.

If you were a vampire, and you had to drink human blood to the last drop or you would die -- literally drain people dry and drain some kind of life force from them which kills them -- and then somebody developed a synthetic substitute for human blood, would you keep killing people because it was "natural", or would you switch to the substitute which is scientifically proven to replace human blood and keep you alive and which kills nobody?

Ask him that.

It's irrelevant whether eating meat is "natural" or not. The only important point is that B-12 produced in supplements (which is made from the same kind of bacteria that produce it in nature anyway) is proved to provide for your B-12 needs, and with it no animals need to be harmed.

While you could argue that the vampires who killed people before the substitute was available were justified, because the only alternative was to die, a vampire that doesn't switch to the substitute and continues killing people is an asshole, and furthermore fully irrational for using the "natural" excuse.

Being natural doesn't make something right, being man-made doesn't make something wrong. We live in a very man-made environment. From cradle to grave, our lives are completely different, and mostly for the better, due to scientific innovation. Man-made medical science lowers infant mortality so far few couples ever have to experience it, it treats and prevents common lethal childhood diseases, treats cancer to give people decades more life after diagnosis, gives people advanced mechanical limbs, relieves pain in the elderly.

If he wants to eat meat because it's a "natural" source of B-12, he can go out to the woods and fuck himself with a pine cone before dying of dysentery from his "natural" diet without any evil man-made medication.

I have little patience for people who ignorantly choose to reject what science has done for us due to some misplaced nostalgia for a "natural" time they idolize but that was in fact profoundly miserable in many ways compared to today.

descendancy0 wrote:I told him that we also had slavery for thousands of years but only recently 'discovered' it was wrong. I am having trouble with the b12 argument though.

We've known slavery was wrong for a long time, people just kept it up because they were selfish and sought financial gain from the exploitation.
What changed is that modern farming and manufacturing techniques were developed that made slavery less economically useful. Then people had the luxury of caring about morality without going broke.

Cynical much? Maybe, but thus is the world.


B-12 was meat-eaters last excuse for eating meat BEFORE it was discovered. In 1920 we just knew there was something mysterious in liver that treated pernicious anemia.

By the 1950's, B-12 was produced industrially from bacteria and required no animals products.
It's the final piece of the puzzle, as far as discovery of major essential vitamins goes.

Nobody after the 1950's has had a legitimate reason to eat meat in the Western world.

descendancy0 wrote:I understand it is found in most soy products and cereals and some leafy vegetables, but through my research I discovered there isn't really much b12 in them as would be desired.

I hope we have established that it's irrelevant where B-12 comes from in nature -- that is an important point. However, he's also wrong that it comes mainly from meat.

B-12 is pretty much only found in liver, shit, dirt, water contaminated with shit and/or dirt, and supplements. There's not much in muscle meats or anything else. B-12 ALWAYS comes from bacteria originally, and that's how it gets in animal products (because of what the animal ate or fermented internally).

Wild animals eat some of their own shit to supplement. This is nature's supplement. This is called coprophagia, and it's overwhelmingly common in nature -- including our closest relatives. Pretty much only ruminants don't need to eat poop. As another poster mentioned, though, all modern farm animals are given B-12 supplements produced industrially though.
The B-12 in a small dose of your own shit is proven to be enough to correct deficiency. This is where primates get B-12 from, for the most part (in addition to small rare doses carrion). Particularly frugivorous primates, who rarely eat animals aside from the ticks they pick off of each other, which only get their B-12 from the host, so aren't very useful.

Some animals like rabbits even produce two kinds of shit with different consistencies and moisture content. Eatin' shit and leavin' shit.
Eaten' shit is soft, containing a high moisture content, and is immediately eaten again after excretion. Leavin' shit has had more moisture removed, and is a small hard pellet; that one's finished, and gets left behind.

Is this gross? Yes. Nature is disgusting.

If you want to get B-12 naturally, do it by eating your own shit, not the corpses of other animals -- that's how our relatives do.

So, tell him if he wants to make the nature argument, he can literally go eat shit.
...And then fuck himself with a pine cone and die of dysentery for being an idiot.

Did I mention I don't have much patience for those kinds of people?

Just take the supplement. It's one of the great gifts of modern science. It won't cause cancer or clog your arteries and kill you in your 50's like meat, or make you sick from the bacteria your immune system is too soft to handle like feces will.

Yeah, like Anon and The Salad said, B12 is from bacteria. So why does it matter if the B12 goes through some animals before it gets to you? Is he arguing it's more natural or something? Send him this:
This appeal to nature shit needs to go.

Does he not use cars, then? Does he deem them unnatural too?

What about the computers you guys are presumably communicating via?

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.