Veganism

[Sdajii]

Yep, "Jains strive for", broadly speaking. But not very hard, unless they are actual holy man types.

Agreed.

True veganism would've been tough in ye olde times.

Impossible.

If close-ish to equator could be done, though.

I've spent most of the last 5 years near the equator and even today it is impossible for most!

You'd be ok for vitamin D with sunlight. B12 deficiency would not happen as it was on vegetables etc, from the bacteria in dirt.

You're focussing on non issues and ignoring actual issues.

It needs to be somewhere with decent range of edible flora that was selected over generations for size and taste.

You're right that selection (production of artificial cultivars) is one of the things which has recently made it possible, which is to say that naturally it was impossible. Taste is not relevant to whether or not it's possible.

Could've worked okay in parts of Mediterranean - and I'm sure it did, but only for special individuals and perhaps sects.

Not sure which planet you're talking about or how it was possible to warp your concept of reality so hard.

European peasants survived on a close to vegan diet at various time and places.

Maybe in vegan fantasy history, but not in reality. Unless by 'at times' you mean they sometimes went for a while between eating animal products, which is not the same as being vegan. It's extremely easy to be vegan 99% of the time. Even the most avid of meat eaters spend more time not eating meat than eating meat.

LOL yeah I guess whenever there's a bit o[f a trend it attracts...trend followers. But my motives are pure, not virtue signalling. It's about the animals. It's about crying YOUNG calves and lambs, terrified, searching for mum, smelling the blood of their mates, and then moments later their own body shredded, blood gushing on steel etc. I completely get that you do not get that. Most people don't. IF it means being a bit careful with diet or being slightly less capable of building (unnecessary) muscle it's well worth it for a clear conscience, for me.

It's quite arrogant of you to tell someone else they 'don't get it'. I've killed more animals than you have eaten. I've killed pigs, chickens, from little insects, mice and rats up to buffalo and fish larger than myself. But hey, 'I don't get it'.

At least you are honest about the diet being less than ideal and that you do it to save the animals. Of course, since even as a vegan you are indirectly killing animals anyway, so the fanaticism of eliminating all animals from your diet doesn't eliminate all animals from being killed for your ability to stay alive, and even your vegan food directly kills animals. Simply eating a small amount of animal products doesn't at all significantly increase the amount of harm you do to animals, and does a lot of good to you. It's also possible to eat animals with little to no suffering involved. Backyard chickens often live entirely happy lives and there are people who go out of their way to ensure animals don't suffer when they die - 'factory farmed' meat isn't the only option. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not like 'bacon for breakfast, devon fried in pig fat and layered with cheese for lunch and McDonald's chicken nuggets' is the only alternative to 'nothing but plants'.

It sounds like you do understand that a vegan diet is not the ideal diet, so at least it would be worth not being so dishonest as to push the nutritional myth. At least the 'I want to fanatically avoid eating animal products at the sacrifice of my own health and eating pleasure for the sake of animal welfare' line is honest.

Vegetarian for almost whole life, strict vegan for last 7.5 years. For me it's not about impressing people, but yes definitely hold it to be a morally superior diet in the modern world.

But I despise the meat taste anyway. Were we bombed back to stone age and I had to survive by predating wildlife I'd need to cook that 'roo (or whatever) meat to virtually charcoal to hide the taste.[/QUOTE]

 

[Value Collector]

It's about the animals. It's about crying YOUNG calves and lambs, terrified, searching for mum, smelling the blood of their mates, and then moments later their own body shredded, blood gushing on steel etc. I completely get that you do not get that. Most people don't. IF it means being a bit careful with diet or being slightly less capable of building (unnecessary) muscle it's well worth it for a clear conscience, for me.

Vegetarian for almost whole life, strict vegan for last 7.5 years. For me it's not about impressing people, but yes definitely hold it to be a morally superior diet in the modern world.

But I despise the meat taste anyway. Were we bombed back to stone age and I had to survive by predating wildlife I'd need to cook that 'roo (or whatever) meat to virtually charcoal to hide the taste.

One of the strangest things about becoming vegan is you notice the strange way some non vegans (not all) that haven’t made the connection yet seem to suddenly gloat about their treatment of animals, as if abusing animals makes them more manly.

They seem to think that just because you are vegan now, you must be some sort of hippy that has never eaten bacon or cut an animals throat, or you are some sort of pacifist that is incapable of violence which is just silly.

Upon explaining to a family friend when asked(who I know has never hunted or been anywhere near a slaughterhouse), that I didn’t feel comfortable killing an innocent animal just for a meal when I could simply choose something else to eat, they immediately started talking down to me in a tone like they suddenly thought they were some how more manly, and talked about how they could easily kill an animal and and eat it etc, as if I have never killed an animal before.

The fact is at 16 years of age I was able to look it a goats eyes, pull it’s head back and saw through it’s neck, that didn’t make me “manly” I was a punk ass kid with ship loads of insecurities, I can honestly say that as a 37 year old vegan, refusing to take advantage of animals makes me more manly.

 

[Value Collector]

Maybe in vegan fantasy history, but not in reality. Unless by 'at times' you mean they sometimes went for a while between eating animal products, which is not the same as being vegan. It's extremely easy to be vegan 99% of the time. Even the most avid of meat eaters spend more time not eating meat than eating meat

At least you are honest about the diet being less than ideal and that you do it to save the animals. Of course, since even as a vegan you are indirectly killing animals anyway, so the fanaticism of eliminating all animals from your diet doesn't eliminate all animals from being killed for your ability to stay alive, and even your vegan food directly kills animals. Simply eating a small amount of animal products doesn't at all significantly increase the amount of harm you do to animals, and does a lot of good to you. It's also possible to eat animals with little to no suffering involved. Backyard chickens often live entirely happy lives and there are people who go out of their way to ensure animals don't suffer when they die - 'factory farmed' meat isn't the only option. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not like 'bacon for breakfast, devon fried in pig fat and layered with cheese for lunch and McDonald's chicken nuggets' is the only alternative to 'nothing but plants'.

It sounds like you do understand that a vegan diet is not the ideal diet, so at least it would be worth not being so dishonest as to push the nutritional myth. At least the 'I want to fanatically avoid eating animal products at the sacrifice of my own health and eating pleasure for the sake of animal welfare' line is honest.

Vegetarian for almost whole life, strict vegan for last 7.5 years. For me it's not about impressing people, but yes definitely hold it to be a morally superior diet in the modern world.

But I despise the meat taste anyway. Were we bombed back to stone age and I had to survive by predating wildlife I'd need to cook that 'roo (or whatever) meat to virtually charcoal to hide the taste.

[/QUOTE]


You should read Adam smiths wealth of nations.

From what he describes, the average common person in his day ate almost no meat, except on religious holidays.

 

[Sdajii]

One of the strangest things about becoming vegan is you notice the strange way some non vegans (not all) that haven’t made the connection yet seem to suddenly gloat about their treatment of animals, as if abusing animals makes them more manly.

They seem to think that just because you are vegan now, you must be some sort of hippy that has never eaten bacon or cut an animals throat, or you are some sort of pacifist that is incapable of violence which is just silly.

Upon explaining to a family friend when asked(who I know has never hunted or been anywhere near a slaughterhouse), that I didn’t feel comfortable killing an innocent animal just for a meal when I could simply choose something else to eat, they immediately started talking down to me in a tone like they suddenly thought they were some how more manly, and talked about how they could easily kill an animal and and eat it etc, as if I have never killed an animal before.

The fact is at 16 years of age I was able to look it a goats eyes, pull it’s head back and saw through it’s neck, that didn’t make me “manly” I was a punk ass kid with ship loads of insecurities, I can honestly say that as a 37 year old vegan, refusing to take advantage of animals makes me more manly.

I literally haven't seen anyone in this thread even remotely hint at this comment until you brought it up just now.

But if you want to raise the topic, it is a natural male behavioural urge to hunt animals. Making a kill always brought prestige among the tribe. You provided valuable nourishment to your group and proved your physical ability. Naturally, I am sure women wouldn't have been squeamish about killing animals, but the men were more predisposed to hunting, especially larger prey. This does my definition make it 'manly', since it is a natural male behaviour, and less so a natural female behaviour.

Men are naturally (and still today are) larger and more muscular than women. As one of the vegans in this group pointed out, being vegan makes it more challenging to put on muscle, and so vegans are obviously less manly. They're also very prone to eating a lot of soy-based foods, which messes with hormones making men less manly, quite measurably so. Incidentally, when I was working in the medical research laboratory, one of the big projects being worked on was on the effects of phytoestrogens in soya products, and I was surprised to learn that they also have large effects on women, different and arguably more dramatic than on men. This puzzled me at first, but basically, it effects men in the way you would expect, making them more feminine and less manly, but it effects women 'more' because women are more reactive to estrogen, so their receptors and mechanisms are more sensitive and responsive to it. None of us working in the entire department, male or female, were ever keen to eat too much soy again!

I don't really care if someone wants to be manly or not, and I don't think it's a relevant argument for or against veganism, but it is definitely natural for a man to have drives to hunt and kill animals, and a lack of that drive and especially an inability to do it is definitely a display of lacking masculinity. To say it makes someone more manly to be squeamish about killing animals is just blatant reality denial. To be clear, I understand that we live in an artificial world now and things are not natural, people don't necessarily have to be natural, it's not bad to be whoever you want to be, but to say that you are more of a man because you act less like what men naturally are is just blatant reality denial.

And I'm not talking about some angsty teenager or worse still adult who gets jollies inflicting gratuitous pain on animals. That's a sign of mental issues (quite common, and is not mutually exclusive with a natural, healthy urge to hunt, which is where you get people being sadistic with the animals they hunt, which in my opinion is ugly and unfortunate). A healthy urge to hunt animals efficiently is natural for men.

 

[Value Collector]

I literally haven't seen anyone in this thread even remotely hint at this comment until you brought it up just now.

But if you want to raise the topic, it is a natural male behavioural urge to hunt animals. Making a kill always brought prestige among the tribe. You provided valuable nourishment to your group and proved your physical ability. Naturally, I am sure women wouldn't have been squeamish about killing animals, but the men were more predisposed to hunting, especially larger prey. This does my definition make it 'manly', since it is a natural male behaviour, and less so a natural female behaviour.

Men are naturally (and still today are) larger and more muscular than women. As one of the vegans in this group pointed out, being vegan makes it more challenging to put on muscle, and so vegans are obviously less manly. They're also very prone to eating a lot of soy-based foods, which messes with hormones making men less manly, quite measurably so. Incidentally, when I was working in the medical research laboratory, one of the big projects being worked on was on the effects of phytoestrogens in soya products, and I was surprised to learn that they also have large effects on women, different and arguably more dramatic than on men. This puzzled me at first, but basically, it effects men in the way you would expect, making them more feminine and less manly, but it effects women 'more' because women are more reactive to estrogen, so their receptors and mechanisms are more sensitive and responsive to it. None of us working in the entire department, male or female, were ever keen to eat too much soy again!

I don't really care if someone wants to be manly or not, and I don't think it's a relevant argument for or against veganism, but it is definitely natural for a man to have drives to hunt and kill animals, and a lack of that drive and especially an inability to do it is definitely a display of lacking masculinity. To say it makes someone more manly to be squeamish about killing animals is just blatant reality denial. To be clear, I understand that we live in an artificial world now and things are not natural, people don't necessarily have to be natural, it's not bad to be whoever you want to be, but to say that you are more of a man because you act less like what men naturally are is just blatant reality denial.

And I'm not talking about some angsty teenager or worse still adult who gets jollies inflicting gratuitous pain on animals. That's a sign of mental issues (quite common, and is not mutually exclusive with a natural, healthy urge to hunt, which is where you get people being sadistic with the animals they hunt, which in my opinion is ugly and unfortunate). A healthy urge to hunt animals efficiently is natural for men.

I don’t think hunting is natural behavior at all, it’s a learned behavior, and eating animals from a factory farm is hardly manly.

In my opinion, taking advantage of those weaker than you is not a manly thing, real men protect the weak.

Soy doesn’t mess with your hormones, that has been debunked, however drinking cows milk and the flesh of female cows puts heaps of female hormones into you.

 

[SirRumpole]

but it is definitely natural for a man to have drives to hunt and kill animals, and a lack of that drive and especially an inability to do it is definitely a display of lacking masculinity.

Rubbish really.

What percentage of the male population in Australia actually hunt animals ?

They would rather someone else do it so all they have to do is put a steak on the barby.

 

[StockyGuy]

I literally haven't seen anyone in this thread even remotely hint at this comment until you brought it up just now.

But if you want to raise the topic, it is a natural male behavioural urge to hunt animals. Making a kill always brought prestige among the tribe. You provided valuable nourishment to your group and proved your physical ability. Naturally, I am sure women wouldn't have been squeamish about killing animals, but the men were more predisposed to hunting, especially larger prey. This does my definition make it 'manly', since it is a natural male behaviour, and less so a natural female behaviour.

Men are naturally (and still today are) larger and more muscular than women. As one of the vegans in this group pointed out, being vegan makes it more challenging to put on muscle, and so vegans are obviously less manly. They're also very prone to eating a lot of soy-based foods, which messes with hormones making men less manly, quite measurably so. Incidentally, when I was working in the medical research laboratory, one of the big projects being worked on was on the effects of phytoestrogens in soya products, and I was surprised to learn that they also have large effects on women, different and arguably more dramatic than on men. This puzzled me at first, but basically, it effects men in the way you would expect, making them more feminine and less manly, but it effects women 'more' because women are more reactive to estrogen, so their receptors and mechanisms are more sensitive and responsive to it. None of us working in the entire department, male or female, were ever keen to eat too much soy again!

I don't really care if someone wants to be manly or not, and I don't think it's a relevant argument for or against veganism, but it is definitely natural for a man to have drives to hunt and kill animals, and a lack of that drive and especially an inability to do it is definitely a display of lacking masculinity. To say it makes someone more manly to be squeamish about killing animals is just blatant reality denial. To be clear, I understand that we live in an artificial world now and things are not natural, people don't necessarily have to be natural, it's not bad to be whoever you want to be, but to say that you are more of a man because you act less like what men naturally are is just blatant reality denial.

And I'm not talking about some angsty teenager or worse still adult who gets jollies inflicting gratuitous pain on animals. That's a sign of mental issues (quite common, and is not mutually exclusive with a natural, healthy urge to hunt, which is where you get people being sadistic with the animals they hunt, which in my opinion is ugly and unfortunate). A healthy urge to hunt animals efficiently is natural for men.

Hehehe this is why I avoid bringing up veganism. I'm pretty indifferent to non-veganism, after all most people at most times were non-vegan. It's the norm. It doesn't make you Arnold Schwarzenegger because you eat KFC.

But as observed in this thread, some omnivores have a weird frothing at the mouth reaction when veganism is brought up. The actual concept invokes seething rage! It's as though veganism is more interesting to them than to me. Perhaps it's a sense of guilt. Or fear...in the end, more than one religion has said, we will have to account for our decisions. To quote Rusty from one of my favourite films, "Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity". ​

​

Non-veganism is the norm; in that you are not controversial. This stuff about hunting for the sake of it, or manliness(?), probably puts you out of step with the modern western zeitgeist, though. That's no longer cool, bro lol - https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/hunting-poll-2015 . You can hunt for food or if you need to cull a species in an area. Hunting for fun, a trophy, "manliness", is almost no longer acceptable in polite western society. Almost like cannibalism, sacrificing your first born like the Phoenicians, animal sacrifice, killing for ivory, and even bullfighting for many Spaniards, hunting for fun is considered disgusting. It's the type of thing a mainstream politician in Aus (not the Shooters' Party!) would know they needed to hide. Even the Royals who still do so are much more discreet about their joy at shooting birds and other animals. It doesn't play very well in the suburbs. Thankfully we've at least got that far!

Regarding your soy anecdote, feel free to post link to any proper study re soy's issues for review. I'm not an advocate for soy, per se - I certainly consume it though, as do many non-vegans. But you're allegations are not really in line with current perceptions. I know there has been concerns, but I think what you're saying is outdated and unsupported in proper studies and "studies of studies". It's not to say having massive amounts of soy may not have risks - but then even many good vitamins and minerals can be dangerous beyond certain levels. Soy has many benefits, as I'm sure you'll see in the literature if you commence "hunting" (lol) for something to prove all vegan guys have man boobs.

Not completely sure about validity but you might get a kick out of this one lol - . Higher T levels! Fancy that! Regardless I have mixed feelings on testosterone - very high levels being related to things like hair loss, low impulse control, criminality. Declining T levels in Western men generationally largely about overweight and obese BMI which is largely about meatcentric fast food (and inactivity, among other things), not veganism.

If we're going to be anecdotal, the long term male vegans I've met tend to be rather rangy, weathered types - not so much the man boobed, effeminate ones whose weight distribution is around hips that you are apparently linking to soy consumption and probably veganism generally.
​

 

[fiftyeight]

But as observed in this thread, some omnivores have a weird frothing at the mouth reaction when veganism is brought up. The actual concept invokes seething rage!! ​

​

I am not vegan, but it has gobsmacked me how fired up people are getting at the idea of meat free diet.

 

[Sdajii]

Too much reality denial in this thread for it to be worth continuing to make an attempt at having something resembling a rational conversation.

Just as one example, if you're literally willing to say that hunting is not a natural behaviour, so are so divorced from reality and so deluded that clearly you will believe anything which fits your narrative no matter how clearly untrue it is.

Humans literally have digestive enzymes which serve no purpose other than to digest proteins found in meat. Literally every natural human population consumed animal proteins. Humans have always instinctively found meat the most appealing food. Unless you are following a vegan narrative, something which didn't even exist until fairly recently, if you imagine the most amazing feast possible, regardless of your race or culture, the natural instinct is to put a big roast animal as the centerpiece. Literally, meat is what humans living naturally always worked hardest to obtain. This began before humans were even humans and did not change in any culture until after the origins of modern civilisation.

But, hey, 'hunting is not natural behaviour'. Good grief. Reality denial truly is a large part of modern western culture, and it's no wonder people are increasingly confused.

And hey, if you only get your information from science denying, vegan propaganda sites, I guess you can believe that phytoestrogens don't interfere with hormones. I mean, hey, I'm just a scientist who literally worked in laboratories where the actual principles were being researched, what would I know?

And, well, I could go on, but if people have a desire to unconditionally believe a narrative regardless of the actual evidence and obvious reality in their face plain as day, I just can't do anything about it.

Goodness help us when a growing number of people live in a post fact world.

 

[Sdajii]

I am not vegan, but it has gobsmacked me how fired up people are getting at the idea of meat free diet.

I rarely see anyone caring about someone eating a meat free diet. If someone says "I choose to be vegan to avoid killing animals" I say "Okay, whatever"

But if they say "Eating meat is not natural" I say "That's not true".
If they get passive aggressive and try to belittle others and act superior, then deny having done that, which is very common, that's where people take exception and get angry. When they back themselves up with blatant misinformation, it gets people more fired up.

When they say "Not eating meat is more manly" some people will just roll their eyes, others will laugh, and others will get angry.

But simply saying "I choose not to eat meat" really doesn't annoy many people at all.

What you should be gobsmacked about is that you have found yourself gobsmacked about something which exists almost exclusively in your imagination while completely missing what's actually happening.

 

[SirRumpole]

But, hey, 'hunting is not natural behaviour'. Good grief. Reality denial truly is a large part of modern western culture, and it's no wonder people are increasingly confused.

"Hunting" was natural before people got the idea of "farming".

It's a matter of simple observation that there are more farmers than hunters these days. Why don't you use simple observation before slanging off at people who oppose your "theories" ?

 

[rederob]

Too much reality denial in this thread for it to be worth continuing to make an attempt at having something resembling a rational conversation.

You say this every time you are caught in a lie.

Just as one example, if you're literally willing to say that hunting is not a natural behaviour, so are so divorced from reality and so deluded that clearly you will believe anything which fits your narrative no matter how clearly untrue it is.

Nobody in our family ever felt the urge to go out and hunt, unless it's for a bargain at the shops: some feral behaviour has been seen!

Humans literally have digestive enzymes which serve no purpose other than to digest proteins found in meat. Literally every natural human population consumed animal proteins.

This is true - it's a result of evolution. It's a bit like us also having ancient viruses in our DNA: there are things which persist, but from which we also move on.

Unless you are following a vegan narrative, something which didn't even exist until fairly recently, if you imagine the most amazing feast possible, regardless of your race or culture, the natural instinct is to put a big roast animal as the centerpiece.

I think you have watched too many movies!
My time on the Indian subcontinent was filled with amazing foods/meals never involving meats. And I do eat meat and enjoy it, like eating chocolate and enjoying it. I do not believe either meat or chocolate are necessary, but they are tasty, easily obtained, and affordable.

Reality denial truly is a large part of modern western culture, and it's no wonder people are increasingly confused.

This looks like an "own goal."

I mean, hey, I'm just a scientist who literally worked in laboratories where the actual principles were being researched, what would I know?

You regularly prove you make up shyt.

And, well, I could go on, but if people have a desire to unconditionally believe a narrative regardless of the actual evidence and obvious reality in their face plain as day, I just can't do anything about it.
Goodness help us when a growing number of people live in a post fact world.

Again, start and end your posts proposing you are the one with real knowledge. Yet, except for occasionally stating the obvious, you have a poor grasp of actual science and seldom provide evidence to support ideas which seem unique to yourself.

 

[Value Collector]

Nobody in our family ever felt the urge to go out and hunt, unless it's for a bargain at the shops: some feral behaviour has been seen!

This comment made me giggle, haha.

————-

If killing animals was truly an inbuilt natural urge humans had, slaughter house jobs would be easy to fill, however slaughterhouses routinely have trouble filling positions, some resort to bringing in staff from over seas.

If the average family was driving down the road, and saw a sheep stuck in a barbed wire fence, you can bet there first thought is to jump out the car and help it, not take advantage of it.

If you put a live piglet and knife in front of people, the vast majority not want to cut its throat.

The vast majority of people don’t want to think about what happens to the animal before it gets to their plate.

 

[Value Collector]

Slaughter house workers have higher rates of mental health problems, domestic violence, alcoholism and suicide.

Eating more plant based foods doesn’t just help animals and the environment, but it helps create better jobs people.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/met...aughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/amp/

 

[moXJO]

Slaughter house workers have higher rates of mental health problems, domestic violence, alcoholism and suicide.

Eating more plant based foods doesn’t just help animals and the environment, but it helps create better jobs people.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/met...aughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/amp/

I think thats because of the people it attracts. There are some nutcases working in there.

 

[wayneL]

I think thats because of the people it attracts. There are some nutcases working in there.

Freakonomics strikes again

 

[Value Collector]

I think thats because of the people it attracts. There are some nutcases working in there.

And why is that?

Possibly because no one else wants to work there?

Possibly because the average decent person can’t actually stand going to work and killing animals all day?

Possibly because it’s such traumatic work that the decent people that are forced to work there for lack of other options and up with mental issues?

 

[Value Collector]

Non graphic video.

This video shows a bit of what I am talking about, how meat eaters get a bit cocky with talking about their choices as if they don’t really care, but when faced with it in reality their demeanor changes.

A cocky meat eating journalist is left visibly shaken after being taken to the back of a slaughter house to listen to the screams of the pigs.

This journalist debates this vegan for 20 mins, but you can see he is hit by the gravity of the situation when confronted by the sound of the pigs screams as they a choked to death on co2.


At the 20min mark you see he has lost his cocky side, and seems much more emotional.

 

[moXJO]

And why is that?

Possibly because no one else wants to work there?

Possibly because the average decent person can’t actually stand going to work and killing animals all day?

Possibly because it’s such traumatic work that the decent people that are forced to work there for lack of other options and up with mental issues?

I'd agree with all that. Its a sht job.

I have friends that can kill animals without blinking, that are otherwise upstanding citizens. So I do think its a stretch. People today wouldn't survive long if they had to get their own food.

Hitler was a vegetarian
Just saying.

 

[Value Collector]

Hitler was a vegetarian
Just saying.

If hitler ate meat, would you use that as an argument against eating meat?

But apparently he wasn’t vegetarian anyway, it was propaganda to make him seem a bit more like Gandhi.

But either way, that’s hardly an argument against veganism, as I said you wouldn’t be using it as an argument if he ate meat.

But, if you are against hitlers actions, eg putting people into gas chambers, maybe we shouldn’t be doing it to pigs.
Just saying.