"Veganism: Why it is nothing more than a pile of hypocrisy" - My Rebuttal

Welcome

This thread is going to serve as a one-to-one debate between myself and user @noobsnowman. As you can tell from the title, I will be providing refutation to noobsnowman’s criticisms of veganism, and the debate will take place from there. My only request is that this thread is treated similarly to a Challenge a Viner on the Battles board - that the audience let us carry out our debate without interruption until the end. When we are both done, you can feel free to review the debate and our arguments. You can post in the meantime, I'm mainly asking that you do not post arguments for or against a side, or counter any of our posts directly until we are finished.

Noob created an essay/blog of sorts titled: “Veganism: Why it is nothing more than a pile of hypocrisy” on another forum that we are both members of. We had some back and forth there, as we have in the vegan thread on Comic Vine, but I felt that we ought to have a conclusive debate that others can review. Who knows, we may end up agreeing by the end of it.

Table Of Contents

The topics being discussed are as follows:

1. What Is Veganism? What Makes You Vegan? Is Veganism Hypocritical?
2. Does Veganism Endanger Indigenous Tribes People?
3. Are Animals Equal To Humans?
4. A discussion about vegan nutrition.
5. A discussion about the role of distant ancestors and modern science in shaping our behaviour
6. Closing Statements.

Note: I am not making any arguments in favour of veganism, rather, I am refuting noob's arguments. That's an important distinction to make, because I am not stressing reasons for why you should go vegan - I am countering arguments posited against veganism. This debate could turn into questions like "Is veganism more moral than eating meat", however, noob would need to ask me those questions.

What Is Veganism? What Makes You Vegan? Is Veganism Hypocritical?

So, let’s begin. Noob’s position is as follows:

“Putting it short, my personal opinion is that veganism is a belief that is very hypocritical in nature, despite the good intentions behind it.“

noobsnowman

And, quote:

“As far as I'm concerned, there are two interpretations to veganism:

1. Veganism as a diet. This is perfectly respectable, because people avoid consuming meat to express their disapproval towards animal slaughter and brutality.

2. Veganism as a social justice movement. The purpose of this article is to tackle why such a movement is bound to fail. Vegans who fall into this category believe that cutting down on meat consumption is a way to spread awareness on animal brutality in hopes to create a vegan world. A world where animals share the same rights as humans, with absolutely zero direct consumption on animal products. In other words, they want to give 'justice' to animals and completely eliminate the notion of humans killing animals."

noobsnowman

These are noob’s interpretations of veganism, for the record, not “the” interpretations of veganism. Veganism, as a concept, only really has a colloquial meaning, not a strict dictionary definition, which as you will see is a big part of what noob hinges his criticisms on. Even "The Vegan Society" do not have a monopoly over the definition of Veganism, though they do serve as political and social ambassadors and cooperate with government more than any other group. Veganism likely is, on some levels, a little bit different to every individual.

However, the colloquial definition and threshold of veganism is as follows:

• You do not eat or buy meat

• You do not eat or buy animal milk or other animal secretions, such as eggs or honey

• You do not use or buy any other animal products, such as wool, silk, leather, etc

• You, as far as possible, limit your usage of animal products within what is considered practical for a modern human being; there are countless examples where this is impossible, such as animal fat being used in roads and glue, medicine, including vaccines, which are typically tested on animals or containing animal byproducts (lactose in birth control pills, for example)

So it’s pretty simple to understand. If you don't fit the criteria above, 99% of people will understand and agree that you don't meet the threshold for being a vegan. Vegans don't eat meat, or milk, or eggs, or wear fur and leather. They avoid involvement in anything that involves the usage or exploitation of an animal, as best they can.

It’s also simple to understand that there comes a point where there are diminishing returns. You cut out 98% of your contribution to the problem once you have stopped eating meat, dairy and eggs, and buying clothes/beauty products that have animal ingredients. After that, while it would be good to continue researching ethical consumerism, you’re making much less of an impact.

As you will see later, noob posits that in order to truly be a vegan, you need to either live in the woods and scavenge off of berries, or simply commit suicide - I wouldn’t consider either practical or useful, and these “solutions” have serious diminishing returns. Killing yourself is not valid criteria for being a vegan. So, like 99% of people, I do not think you are non-vegan simply because you function like a modern human being - you do not have to live in the woods to be a vegan.

So for his first point (1): veganism isn’t a “diet” so to speak. Obviously, being an extension of vegetarianism (where you only cut out meat), it’s right to assume food consumption is the main component of veganism, however, it goes beyond just what you eat. A diet does not mandate that you stop buying leather.

Also, a diet may tell you what not to eat, but it also, nearly always, tells you what you should eat: veganism doesn’t tell you what to eat. Paleo tells you what specific foods you ought to eat, as does "The Mediterranean" diet, the Atkins diet, the Ketogenic diet, the blood type diet - diets, particularly fad diets, give you guidelines on what to eat. Veganism doesn't. There are tens of thousands of edible plants that we know of, and countless different recipes to choose from. You can eat healthy, whole plant foods or processed foods, fast foods, etc, all while being a vegan.

There is such a thing as a “wholefood, plant-based diet”, which is a diet that seeks to limit all animal product consumption, as well as consumption of foods that are no longer “whole”, e.g, you would eat a whole orange instead of drinking orange juice, or you would eat raw cocoa instead of a chocolate bar. That isn’t what we will be discussing today, as veganism, although it ties into health and environmentalism, is primarily a movement related to animal abuse. So again, to be clear: we're not discussing dieting.

On point (2): I do not class veganism as a “social justice movement”, in the sense that it is trying to elevate the social rights and status of animals within human society. You can say vegans are providing a type of justice for animals, by reducing the demand for animal products, but is veganism in the same vein as intersectionalism, feminism, LGBT rights, the fight against racism etc? No, they’re different issues, and I don’t think it’s worth drawing parallels between them, at least for the purpose of this debate.

Now, to counter noob’s first argument:

“The definition of veganism being hypocritical in nature

First, let's define veganism. According to The Vegan Society, the world's leading vegan organization, it is:

"A way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose"

The underlined is the problematic part of the definition. What do you define as possible and practicable? Is human welfare taken into account when showing compassion to animals? More importantly, who gets to define what is possible and practicable?”

noobsnowman

Like I said earlier, there is no concrete definition of what veganism is, mainly because, to cut a long story short, veganism isn’t about being perfect: it’s about doing the best you can. However, there is an agreed upon threshold for who is a vegan and who isn’t, as I detailed above in bullet-points.

Now, you have the absolute power, in your own life, to say that you’re a vegan even if you don’t fit that criteria, or conversely, say someone isn’t a vegan even if they do. You can do that. My suggestion is that we either agree on what the threshold is for a vegan so that we can have some kind of structure to the debate, or, we do away with the term “vegan” altogether, and simply discuss the merits of cutting meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products out of your spending.It’s pertinent that we keep on topic, and don’t start a meta-debate about semantics.

“A high and mighty vegan leader of a religious cult who hops on a pedestal, defines the term by himself, then proceeds to demonise every meat eater who does not conform to his own standards as if they are some sort of godlike entity.”

noobsnowman

It’s not a cult or a religion… there is no group membership in any formal or informal capacity… “vegan” is simply a term people use as a reference point. E.g, when I walk into restaurants and ask for a vegan menu, the staff tend to know what I mean. So with that said, I don’t plan to waste much more time on combating the cult-vegan stereotype.

“The root of the problem is that nothing is objectively clarified here. What's the result? Vegans define the term for themselves then criticize meat eaters for not conforming to their definition of veganism. Already from it's roots, the subjective nature of the term is setting itself up for failure.”

noobsnowman

The criticism aimed at meat eaters is, 100%, rooted in the reality of what happens to animals when they are bred, processed and killed, and the contribution of the consumer in that process. It’s nothing to do with checking boxes off a vegan list of criteria. I’m sure you can find examples of vegans displaying elitism, but I would counter that you can find people displaying elitism in any walk of life, any movement, any group - so again, I would like to remain on the topic, which is, the merits or drawbacks of being a vegan in the colloquial sense.

Most importantly: criticising the behaviour of vegans does not invalidate arguments for veganism. Just because you can cite an example of some, many or even all vegans behaving poorly, they could still have entirely logical reasons for being vegan, and that is what I want this debate to focus on: the facts.

“Which of course brings it to my next point: The definition of the term veganism does not conform to its practice. Eliminating all forms of meat consumption is not the the most practicable method to reduce harm on animals. Vegans are capable of much more than modifying their diet in order to reduce harm to animals. And guess what? According to the term veganism, we are all vegans too. Because vegans always get to define the term for themselves, we are all just as entitled to do the same. You may find it practical to not actively participate in animal brutality, but find it impractical to completely cut meat from your diet for whatever reasons. So based on the definition, I can safely say that we are all vegans”

noobsnowman

Like I said before, you can indeed call yourself whatever you like. What is practical for the individual is a question for us all to ask ourselves. But that doesn’t serve as a refutation of veganism in it’s common understanding, nor does it make vegans hypocritical. But we’ll get onto that.

“I'm going to throw a disclaimer out there in regards to the next couple of paragraphs, because I am in no way advocating practicing what is going to be mentioned below. I'm going to state the logical conclusion of veganism and the fact that they refused to practice such things to reduce harm all the more exposes their hypocrisy.

I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but the logical conclusion to veganism is suicide - that is if you do not factor in human welfare into the concept of veganism. Suicide on an individual level is the most practicable and possible method a human can do to reduce harm.“

noobsnowman

Human beings are animals, so yes, they are factored into veganism. As much as I may love animals, I am not going to kill myself to ensure I never hurt one ever again: I’m pretty sure everyone prioritises their own survival above nearly everything else, apart from in dire circumstances. So this is an unreasonable criticism of veganism: just because I have not committed suicide, it does not negate the merits of refusing to buy meat.

“So long as humans exist on this world, animals will inevitably suffer and die at human's hands. For example, in order to produce vegetables that vegans live off of, pesticide is used to ensure their maturity. What is the result? The excessive use of pesticide on animal farms is responsible for the deaths of thousands of fish and other sea creatures nearby those farms. Not to mention the insects that are killed by the direct spraying. Or Organic foods being produced using animal blood and fish bones. And somehow vegans don't feel disgusted when eating them?'”

noobsnowman

Like I mentioned earlier, veganism isn’t concerned with being perfect: it’s concerned with taking real action, and doing something to make the world a better place. I fully accept that one of the consequences of modern plant agriculture is animal death: that’s the price we pay for producing food for people to eat. Veganism does not mandate that we stop producing food for people to eat.

However, as you are well aware, we grow a ludicrous amount of crops in order to fatten up livestock. Once the animals have fully grown, we then kill the animals and eat them. And then we eat more plants in addition. The calorie conversion ratio from the plants we feed to animals, to the animals we feed to humans, is absurdly slanted: we put in far more resources than we get a return on. This is known as the “feed conversion ratio.”

So, seeing as you have just highlighted how terrible it is that animals are killed for modern farming, is it not better that we stop growing extra crops to feed to animals, when we could just eat the crops ourselves?

This is going to be the first example of many, during this debate, where you will criticise vegans for contributing to a problem that you are not only contributing to yourself, but you are doing nothing about. Whereas a vegan has drastically reduced the amount of resources needed to sustain their energy needs, someone consuming meat, dairy and eggs regularly is wasting huge amounts of resources, and killing far more animals/insects in modern farming.

Is it not hypocritical that you criticise vegans for this issue, meanwhile, you contribute to a far more severe version of it? And while vegans are eating plants which are essential in the human diet (due to their fibre content and vitamin C, among other things), it is not necessary that you eat meat, let alone cow’s breast milk or the menstrual secretions of a chicken. And if, for whatever reason, it is necessary for you to consume those things, is it not your responsibility to find out how much of them you actually need, instead of eating as much of them as you like?

And as for vegans feeling disgusted: we power-wash all of our food in 2017, and my potential disgust for how we produce food is irrelevant to the debate.

“Literally, nearly every product necessary for humans to survive is the result of animal slaughter in any shape or form.”

noobsnowman

However, the animal suffering involved in producing 1kg of potatoes is a far cry from the animal suffering caused in producing 1kg of beef, or poultry, or eggs, which is an important distinction to make. Eating potatoes, or as you will argue, merely existing as a human being, is nowhere near as damaging as eating meat. Me using roads or bank notes, which contain animal fat, is obviously not anywhere near as bad as buying meat 2-3 times a day.

“Not to mention, our source of entertainment and travel, or our modern life in a broader sense, becomes a reality at the expense of the lives of many animals. The evolution of technology, the reason why veganism could even be practiced in the first place (the production of animal substitute foods) comes at the expense of animal's lives. So long as humans exist, animal will die under their hands. And even if the human race is completely exterminated, animals will still be killed for food by other animals, so human extermination is the most logical conclusion to reduce suffering. So what's the logical conclusion to veganism? Suicide. The number of vegans who actually practice it? ZERO.”

noobsnowman

This position is logically bankrupt, because it’s just an appeal to futility fallacy, not a solution. Imagine if a police officer posited the following:

“So long as humans exist, we will kill each other. Therefore, why should I bother stopping the murders that I can stop, if I can’t stop them all? I might as well let people kill each other, because it’s going to happen either way. The only solution is that we all kill ourselves.”

Hypothetical Police Officer

That’s nonsense. So much in the same way, vegans are going to do what they can, what they are willing to do, to make the world a better place… what are you going to do, other than suggest we all kill ourselves?

“Let's say that human welfare is taken into account, so suicide would not be the logical conclusion to it anymore. Then the next best solution to it is to not procreate. By giving a new life into this world, they will ultimately be responsible for the deaths of thousands more animals, no matter how strict their diet is. Nothing can get more ironic than a vegan pregnant couple giving a lecture about the importance of exercising against animal slaughter when they are about to give a life that would inevitably claim the lives of more animals. ”

Sure, you can choose not to procreate. There are people who choose to do that: in fact, I’ve thought about adopting children in the future instead of having my own. However, just because that would be the most moral thing to do, it doesn’t undermine the merits of veganism.

If you’re going to say procreating is harmful, and that I’m a hypocrite for being vegan and procreating… then you are surely the biggest hypocrite of all, who not only eats meat, dairy and eggs, wears animal products and procreates on top of that. You have offered no solutions, you have merely suggested that any effort to make the world a better place is futile. And that’s just not true.

Indigenous Tribes People?

“A Vegan world would wipe out half the world's population

Half the world's population need to eat animal meat to simply survive. Indigenous people, for the most part, have eating meat and using animal products as a core part of their culture, not to mention lacking the money to even purchase expensive vegan substitutes that is found in nonexistent shopping malls in native countries. Veganism will kill their ability to survive. And if vegans were willing to compromise their lives in order to create the perfect vegan world over suicide to contribute to the cause, then it clearly contradicts the notion of equal rights among all. After all, vegans want animals to have the same degree of rights as humans, yet they were willing to kill off indigenous people? They wouldn't mind to compromise their lives, but not their own to fulfil the cause? This shows that vegans demonstrate lack of human compassion, and considering that humans are a type of animals, they lack compassion to animals despite claiming that they care for them.”

noobsnowman

This is ultimately a strawman on noob’s part. Quote: “in order to create the perfect vegan world” - that’s a lofty goal, and not really the point of this debate. I’m not saying we create the perfect vegan world, I’m saying that, if you have the power to do so, reducing your consumption of animal products is beneficial. The inability for us to create a “perfect world” is not a refutation for why there are merits to creating a better one. Another appeal to futility fallacy.

Using this strawman as his pretext, noob has suggested that vegans want all indigenous tribes people to kill themselves, or that we exterminate them, so that they stop eating animals. However, nobody said that human beings should never kill animals again: I’m sure there are people around the globe, in different tribes/societies, who are forced to hunt and eat animals for survival. Places where, rightly so, veganism would be impractical. That’s a case of survival.

I’m not talking to them. And I’m not actually sure how many of these people there are, I’m not an expert in the field of indigenous tribes (funnily enough). I’m talking to people living in 1st world countries, who have control over what they eat, who have options, who have an internet connection and the ability to do research. To those people, I say, if you can find a way to swap out beef for beans, you would be doing a lot of good. It’s that simple, and it’s nothing to do with global genocide or mass suicide.

Animals = Humans?

“After all, vegans want animals to have the same degree of rights as humans”

noobsnowman

This is nonsense - why would anyone want to afford a cow the right to vote?Nobody is saying animals are equal to humans. The argument is, animals are of enough moral value not to be killed if it isn’t necessary. None of us would ever dream of hurting a cat or dog, and sure enough, 10,000,000 people petitioned to ban dog meat in China, and many thousands protested in the street to end the Yulin dog festival. There were no calls for “free range” dog farms, where we let them lead a happy life before they are killed. The argument is, dogs do not like being bred just to be killed, so let’s stop breeding and killing dogs.

It’s the same argument for any other animal: if we don’t need to, let’s stop breeding and killing animals, be they dogs or pigs.

“This shows that vegans demonstrate lack of human compassion, and considering that humans are a type of animals, they lack compassion to animals despite claiming that they care for them.”

noobsnowman

You have just painted millions of people with the same brush. I’m afraid I don’t agree with your conclusion: vegans choose not to eat animals out of compassion for animals. Not all vegans are the same, just like not two people are the same. We all have varying degrees of compassion in us. Some of us are militant and argumentative with our beliefs (not just vegans, but this is the case with virtually any movement), meanwhile others would rather they just be left alone. Some of us speak from a place of anger, others understanding.

Whatever the case may be with the individual person, you have still yet to raise one valid criticism for veganism itself. You have still yet to explain why it is impractical that for those of us who can, it would be a good idea to reduce our meat consumption. You have still yet to explain why vegans are hypocrites for trying to reduce the harm they cause, meanwhile, you contribute just as much and then far more by consuming animal products, and seemingly have made no attempt to reduce any of your contribution.

A Detour Into Nutrition: Can "Everyone" Be Vegan?

“Not everyone can sustain a vegan diet

While it is true that a vegan diet provides all the necessary nutrients for one to survive, it is equally as true that animal products provide more of the same nutrients as compared to their plant counterparts.”

noobsnowman

So now we are getting into nutrition. It’s important to mention that neither me or noob are nutritional experts with any qualifications in this field of science (to my knowledge [though I am studying nutrition as part of my course in fitness instruction]). However, despite our lacking credentials in nutrition, there are a few empirical facts anyone can understand:

• The number of practicing vegans has skyrocketed in recent times

• There is no data to suggest that this surge in plant-based eating has caused a general decline in health in those populations: if anything, the data suggests that these individual’s health has improved

• You can source every essential macro and micro nutrient, vitamin and mineral, on a plant-based diet

• The world’s leading bodies of authority on health and nutrition, namely The World Health Organisation, the NHS, the American Dietetic Association, British Dietetic Association, and more, have all agreed that “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian [and vegan] diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

Sources below:

British Dietetic Association:

American Dietetic Association:

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:

As you can see, not only is a vegan diet considered nutritionally adequate, but it is associated with lower risks of many chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and obesity.

On this point, I would like to provide a quote from Kim Williams: he has recently stepped down as the President of the American College of Cardiology, aka, world-leading experts in cardiovascular disease, i.e, heart disease, strokes etc.

“As far as I am concerned, vegan's source of B12 and Omega 3 comes from ALA, which is then converted to DHA.”

noobsnowman

Well, I would encourage you to base your nutritional conclusions not on what concerns you, but what concerns world-leading nutritional experts. For example, you’ve already made a mistake: Vitamin B12 and fatty acids, such as Omega 3, are totally different.

Vitamin B12 is an essential vitamin which is carried by bacteria in fresh water sources and dirt: every human being needs to supplement this Vitamin in some shape or form, because we do not drink fresh water or eat dirty food anymore. This is why animal feed is supplemented with B12, breads, cereals, plant-milks, tofu products, multi-vitamins, and many other common products are fortified with B12. Every source of B12 people eat nowadays, is, in all likelihood, a supplement, unless you go to the source of the original bacteria.

The fatty acids, namely Omegas 3, 6 and 9 are found in fat, and fat is a nutrient found in a wide variety of foods both animal and plant-based. You are correct in saying that Omega 3 fatty acids begin as ALA in plant-form, and then our body converts this into DHA: this tends to be the case with many nutrients, such as K2 converting into K3, or D2 converting into D3.

“Sources of EPA and DHA comes from external sources such as algae supplements and flax seeds.”

noobsnowman

Those are some of the best sources, but you also get adequate Omega 3 from a large variety of nuts, seeds, fatty foods like avocados, vegetable oils, and also small amounts from other foods that accumulate, even vegetables. I, for example, eat a tablespoon of ground flax or hemp seeds a day, and that provides me with 100% of my recommended amount of Omega 3.

“ALA is converted to DHA through conversion enzymes, and the result of it is that very minimal amounts of DHA is actually produced. And according to an article from Today's Dietitian, conversion enzymes may not function as well with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, genetics, and age. This means that certain groups of people would not be able to produce DHA from ALA intake, which in turn leads to Omega 3 deficiency. Different people need different flax seed intakes to maintain a good amount of DHA depending on their conversion enzyme ability. And the supplements taken from algae and flax seeds do not help enhance such conversion enzymes.”

noobsnowman

Could you provide a source for these claims? The data I have seen suggests that while you get less DHA by converting it from ALA, than if you just ate DHA pre-formed, it does not typically impact your health negatively. That is to say, you get enough DHA if you’re eating enough fat from plant foods. Not to mention, there have been no reports I know of, of large amounts of vegans dropping dead or becoming severely ill from a DHA deficiency:it’s practically unheard of with any statistical significance. And that is in spite of the fact that, from numerous reports, the amount of practising vegans has surged massively, into the millions in just the last few years, some estimates saying as much as a 350% increase.

Perhaps, as you’ve said, if people with chronic disease or other factors have a limited ability to convert they should supplement… but supplementing DHA has nothing to do with veganism, let alone mandating that these people should continue drinking cow’s breast milk and chicken eggs. You can also get vegan DHA supplements, and many people take them as a cheap insurance policy.

“Let's put some famous figures as an example to this. Gandhi was proven to be incapable of sustaining a vegan diet. His beliefs were vegan in nature as he fully advocated against the harming of cows and other animals, yet his doctors confirmed that he needed animal milk in order to maintain a healthy diet.”

noobsnowman

Doctors are not trained extensively in nutrition, and are perfectly fallible. There could be any number of reasons Gandhi couldn’t sustain a vegan diet, and at the end of the day, one anecdote is not going to refute the position of world-leading health authorities, like those I cited earlier.

“As a result, he had to drink goat milk simply to ensure his ability to remain healthy. Dalai Lama tried to practice a vegan diet too but he contracted hepatitis, and his doctors had to advice him to consume meat every other day so that his health would not suffer. Gandhi and Dalai Lama would have been dead if they forced themselves to practice veganism.”

noobsnowman

Firstly, let's just understand, fully, how absurd this claim is: you are suggesting that an adult human being, would be incapable of being healthy, or surviving, unless they had access to the breast milk of another species, produced by a mother for her child, for that child to consume only until they reach adolescence. A species, like a goat, which is anatomically far different from a humanbeing.There is absolutely zero science to support the claim that human beings require dairy.

And I have an anecdote for you: President Bill Clinton nearly died of coronary heart disease, and had two stents put in his coronary arteries. This was attributed to his consumption of animal products and other unhealthy foods.After being put on a wholefood, plant-based diet by Dean Ornish, not only did his heart disease halt in it’s tracks, it actually reversed, and he reportedly felt better than he ever had after the fact. That was the president of the United States, who has some of the best modern financial and intellectual resources on the planet, and a vegan diet saved his life.

There are plenty of anecdotes just like this one, of people reversing chronic disease on a vegan diet, of athletes thriving on a vegan diet, and so on, but that’s all they are: stories.

The fact is, you have no evidence to suggest a significant amount of the population cannot be healthy on a vegan diet. And for those few who, genuinely, cannot do it: nobody is asking them to. But everyone would benefit from eating less meat, as it’s simply not necessary to gorge on the amount of meat we currently are. You have in no way refuted the merits of consuming less animal products.

“The symptoms to vegans who have insufficient DHA intake have anger issues, health problems, and in terms of interacting tend to be way more condescending towards others than meat eaters. Considering that humans are a form of animals, being condescending to others clearly shows lack of animal compassion, which goes against what they preach.”

noobsnowman

If you can base this on something solid, let me know. There are plenty of angry, condescending people in the world, are they all deficient in DHA as well? And if that is your hypothesis, how did they become deficient in DHA if they aren’t vegan? For someone with zero nutritional expertise, and someone who has presented zero scientific evidence to the debate,you are making extremely bold claims and theories about universal human nutrition.

“Let me get this straight: It is definitely possible for one to sustain a vegan diet on a lifetime. There are countless success stories out there about it.”

noobsnowman

Agreed. I'm glad you padded your otherwise outlandish claims with this disclaimer, because if you were truly trying to assert that the average human being could not survive without consuming dead animals, baby's breast milk from a different species, and the menstruation secretions of a bird, I would be extremely worried.

“Yet there are even more stories on how people decided to give up on veganism because it simply did not work for them. Studies showed that 84% of vegans decide to revert back to eating meat. This data alone speaks for itself that trying to apply 3D logic to reduce animal suffering clearly isn't the way to solve the problem.”

noobsnowman

Perhaps if we take a closer look at the data, we’ll see why.

http://thesurge.com/stories/heres-why-84-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-to-eating-meat

It was a survey of only 11,000 people, including vegetarians as well as vegans.

Vegans were found to be 16% less likely than vegetarians to return to eating meat.

Only 29% of people returned due to nutritional issues, and even with that number, I don’t find this significant: a very small amount of the population is knowledgeable about nutrition, and of those who returned to meat due to health concerns, there was undoubtedly a great number of them who 1. Used this as an excuse or 2. Failed to plan their diet appropriately, and became ill because of it. As mentioned earlier, the world’s leading authorities in nutrition advise that people plan their diets responsibly, regardless of whether you are vegan or not, in order to get everything you need.

43% of people returned to eating meat because they found it too difficult.This in no way refutes the health, environmental or animal welfare benefits of veganism: it just goes to show how strong societal and social pressure is, how convenient it is to eat meat, and frankly, a lack of conviction on the part of those who decided to give up meat. Humans are not perfect and can be frivolous: they got into vegetarianism or veganism for the right reasons, but they didn’t stick to it. That’s not an argument against veganism.

“Data on promoting veganism is never accurate

To my knowledge, there is no valid scientific study that veganism can be healthily practiced on everyone. Participation is voluntary and dropouts are not included. This means that in such studies, only healthy vegans participated, rather than a random number of participants. And those who tried but failed and had to drop out? Their data was not included.

In order to produce an accurate study, one would need to force a random number of participants to participate in the study and forbid any form of drop out regardless of their health condition. This is a form of human experimentation, and a clear infringement of human rights. Unethical practice yields the best results, and so long as human rights laws exist, an accurate study like that would never exist.”

noobsnowman

There is no empirical proof that any one method of diet is perfectly healthy for every human being. Of course there are examples of people who would not be healthy as a vegan, just as I can cite the millions of people who die every year as a result of chronic lifestyle diseases which are heavily associated with the consumption of saturated animal fat. I can also mention that 75% of human beings are lactose intolerant, that is to say, three-quarters of the human species are allergic to dairy.

Virtually all infants and young children have the lactase enzymes that split lactose into glucose and galactose, which can then be absorbed into the bloodstream. Prior to the mid-1960s, most American health professionals believed that these enzymes were present in nearly all adults as well. When researchers tested various ethnic groups for their ability to digest lactose, however, their findings proved otherwise. Approximately 70 percent of African Americans, 90 percent of Asian Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, and 74 percent of Native Americans were lactose intolerant.1-4 Studies showed that a substantial reduction in lactase activity is also common among those whose ancestry is African, Asian, Native American, Arab, Jewish, Hispanic, Italian, or Greek.5

In 1988, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported, "It rapidly became apparent that this pattern was the genetic norm, and that lactase activity was sustained only in a majority of adults whose origins were in Northern European or some Mediterranean populations."6 In other words, Caucasians tolerate milk sugar only because of an inherited genetic mutation.

Overall, about 75 percent of the world's population, including 25 percent of those in the U.S., lose their lactase enzymes after weaning.7 The recognition of this fact has resulted in an important change in terminology: Those who could not digest milk were once called "lactose intolerant" or "lactase deficient." They are now regarded as normal, while those adults who retain the enzymes allowing them to digest milk are called "lactase persistent."

Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine

http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-intolerance

However, the point is this: each person has to be honest with themselvesand ask:

If I replace my steak with kidney beans, will I be healthy?

Do I need to eat meat everyday?

Do I need to eat the breast milk of another species, while I am an adult?

Do I need to consume the unfertilised egg of a chicken that has fallen out of it’s anus-vagina?

If you can reduce or eliminate those products from your life, the benefits are clear: less animals harmed, less environmental destruction, and lower risks of a wide range of lifestyle diseases.I am not even saying go fully vegan, I am merely arguing that the reduction of using and purchasing of animal products is a good thing.

For the record though, there is a 1990 randomised control trial, performed by Dean Ornish, the same guy who saved Bill Clinton’s life. It’s about the best you can possibly get as far as hard science is concerned. If you’re really interested, it’s worth looking up.

Ancestors? Cavemen? Technology? Intelligence?

“Veganism and its history

Veganism is a relatively new concept. The term saw its debut in 1944, which is extremely late into human history. A period of time where research was significantly more advanced, and when thinking became significantly more in depth. Since the beginning of time when homo sapiens were evolved, humans hunted animals in order to survive. This shows that basic human intellect program us to eat meat. Regress us to our most primal instinct, and we would be killing animals in order to feed ourselves. Veganism, on the other hand, is the result of extremely advanced research, and its ability to be practiced is the result of extremely advanced technology.

Humans had been, are, and will be consuming meat until the ends of time because they are naturally programmed to do so. With that being said, allow me to quote Albert Einstein, "You cannot solve the problem with the same mind that created it."”

noobsnowman

Yes, using cutting edge technology and research, we are realising that we do not need to eat meat, dairy and eggs every day, if at all. We’re realising it is not ideal for our health, for the planet, and obviously not for the animals.

You’re suggesting that we behave like our distant ancestors, essentially hunter gatherers and cavemen, because thousands/millions of years ago we were forced to adapt and eat meat to survive. You are saying we should live in the past, and model our morality, nutrition and environmental concerns by how primitives behaved.

There’s many problems with this line of thinking: firstly, just because something is natural, that does not make it beneficial or good. Just because humans have done something in history, that does not make it good. Just because you can do something, that does not make it good.

Humans have killed each other since the beginning of our time, that does not make it good.

Humans have raped each other since the beginning of our time, that does not make it good.

Humans even have a history of cannibalism, and have evolved in some ways to counter the negative health effects of this: that does not make it good.

Much in the same way, just because we have a history of meat eating, that does not mean it is a good idea to keep doing it in 2017.

Not to mention, the way we eat meat is vastly different from how we used to. Whereas before we would hunt and eat meat during what was essentially times of famine and starvation, now we gorge on meat, everyday, as a luxury product. We eat as much as we want and we do not count the lives lost or resources used for it. We do not hunt for our meat, we send docile, domesticated animals into a “slaughterhouse”, where they are killed, chopped up and packaged in the supermarket, with clinical precision. We kill, at a conservative estimate, 60 billion land animals a year, and 3.3 trillion if you count marine life. And that’s just the ones we eat, not counting those caught in the crossfire. That is not sustainable for 7 billion people, especially considering that there is an estimated 700,000,000 people starving, meanwhile, wealthy countries feed crops to farm animals.

Not to mention, there is nothing natural about consuming the breast milk of a cow, as an adult human being.

There is nothing natural about consuming the menstruation cycle of a chicken, namely their unfertilised eggs, which fall from their anus-vagina.

Tell me, what part of that is natural to you? Is this the result of your “natural programming”, or can you can you use your superior human intellect to reason, and realise that there might be something unnatural, detrimental and immoral about the way we treat animals?

You’re advocating that we live in the past, I’m suggesting we learn from the past and move into the future. I think we both know which one makes more sense.

Closing Statements

“Conclusion

Veganism, as a social justice movement, is doomed to fail from it's very roots. Ethically speaking, it is hypocritical due to the subjective nature in its definition. They believe diet to be the most practical method to reduce harm when they can go actually go further such as living a much more simpler life, not procreating, and suicide - yet they are unwilling despite that those methods are possible and practicable.”

noobsnowman

No, it’s hypocritical to cast stones from a glass house. To criticise others for trying to make a difference while you do nothing. Nobody will ever be willing to kill themselves for animal rights, and pretending the argument for veganism is somehow debunked by this is foolish.

“What they don't realise is that the production of vegetables also include the killing of various animal species such as fish and insects. Scientifically speaking, not everyone is capable of sustaining a vegan diet. Conversion enzymes is hardly reliable to obtain DHA from ALA, and even then it could only produce them at minimal amounts. 84% of vegans convert back to eating meat, and the data alone speaks for itself on the poor results of the movement.”

noobsnowman

All of which has been clarified and refuted.

“At the same time, if one embarks on veganism to express their personal disapproval on animal slaughter without participating in the social justice movement of creating a Vegan world, then that is a perfectly respectable practice. The society has done much to cater to vegan needs, and existing vegans should appreciate that the society were accommodating to them, rather than use it as an excuse to explain how a vegan world would ever be remotely possible.”

noobsnowman

If veganism is respectable, what is respectable about it, and why aren’t you considering doing it? Surely if taking a moral stance like veganism is “respectable”, that implies the opposite is not respectable, or is less respectable? You will need to clarify this, because it sounds like you’re saying veganism has merit (gasp).

Of course I appreciate that I live in a world where I am not forced to eat meat, dairy and eggs, and where I have enough access to information to make the informed choice not to. So with that in mind, why not put that privilege of wealth and information to good use, instead of making asinine, hypocritical, logically bankrupt arguments about why animal welfare advocates and environmentalists who are vegan want to perform genocide and ought to kill themselves?

You have provided excessive criticism, but absolutely zero solutions. So what are your solutions to factory farming? To the immorality of killing and forcibly breeding animals? To climate change and environmental destruction? To the links between consumption of animal fat and chronic disease? Have you got anything meaningful to say about these issues, or are you just here to cast stones from a glass house?

@noobsnowman I leave the floor open to you.

That is a huge list of strawmans I see there, lmfao.

Alright, have it your way. I'll break it down once I have the time to do so.

@i_like_swords:

Reading this, while enjoying some KFC.

I'm looking forward to it.

Now I am really craving some bacon.

I did it for two weeks and here were the results.

• I found that it helped my digestive system a lot.
• I felt less heavy and less tired after eating.
• I felt more energetic.

However, here are the cons:

• It's not easy to maintain, especially since I'm a college student and you have to go out of your way to prep these meals.
• A lot of the mainstream restaurants don't serve vegan alternatives. So again, not very easy to maintain.
• I felt really restricted about my eating habits at first.

After I graduate and have some spare cash I'll seriously consider it. I didn't do it as a conscious effort to save animals, but rather as a dietary alternative. I would recommend it for people to try it out at least once in their lives. Everyone has different bodies, so going vegan might not have the same results that it did for me.

Anyways, those were my two cents.

@radioactivehaggis: He's going to clarify that he isn't actually calling for mass suicide. Which is kind of besides the point, but that's my prediction. Thanks Haggis (how ironic :p ).

I really wish I had some chicken right now.

Couldn't you guys do this in a pm or something? I guess you two needed to put on a show and get pats on the back from people.

@silkyballfro94: I do enjoy competition, and I am interested to see what people think of the arguments we presented. Your criticism could be aimed at virtually countless forms of sport, competition, debate, both on this website and the wider world. So I could do it in a PM, but I'm not going to. Especially not for your sake. ;)

You're back? I thought you quit after I debunked all of this ideological zealotry. Ah well, if you want to continue spreading the word of extremism, I will be there to naturally oppose anything irrational that would inevitably arise from it. xD

Though I do got to ask, why are you so interested in converting users on a comic book website? Kind of a strange place to place all this if you ask me.

@mutant1230: Someone clearly has no chill. If you phrase your post differently I'll give you the answers you're looking for.

Eh?What's wrong with become vegetarian.

No chill? Why? I didn't insult you or anything. I just expressed my opinion, I have against you as a person (or veganism for that matter) I just don't think your arguments and insistence that veganism is the only moral lifestyle is well founded.

I'm surely entitled to believe/debate this, yes?

@mutant1230: You said I engage in zealotry, irrational thought etc. And implied that I'm making a poor use of my time for posting a comic site? Not really the way normal people talk to each other. Of course you're entitled to say whatever you like. Being a moron is 100% your decision to make, and luckily, nobody can take that away from you. I don't think much of you either, but if you can speak to me with a bit of respect I will reciprocate.

Well, I'm sorry if my comment was interpreted that way. But come on, based on your previous discussions I can't really see how calling you a zealot would even be an insult. You've openly admitted you wish for the entire world to go Vegan and that there is absolutely no moral justification not to. You can think it's completely reasonable but it's still extremist thinking at the end of the day.

So I once again ask you, respectfully this time, what is your goal doing this Animal Rights CaV on Comic Vine? There are plenty of other soapboxes on the internet for which you can preach contently about the virtues of the vegan lifestyle. Hell, there are so many anti-meat/animal rights circlejerks all over the internet you'd probably find a ton of people who would both side & agree with all of this.

Too long, didn't read.

Way to make an entire thread just to approach one person.

@i_like_swords: Just out of pure curiosity what are your thoughts on the production of mass vegetables and other plant based food (Soy etc...) contributing to the destruction of the rainforest (eg: farms in Brazil) and in consequence the destruction of the habits of many different species of animal thus endangering and/or killing them in the process?

I am well aware that meat farming is a far worse offender for rainforest destruction however it doesn't change the fact that mass growing of vegtables is contributing to it but if everyone did turn Vegan this would become a far bigger problem would it not?

Would you still be opposed to eating meat if it was artificially made in a lab? (ie: no animals harmed in the manufacturing)

Have you got a point to make? This is identical procedure to CaV threads on the battle board. Do you piss and moan every time you see one of those

Definitely a problem. However, the majority of soy as well as any other major crop is fed to livestock. So not contributing to either industry seems best. Some vegans for the reasons you've put forth boycott palm oil. If everyone turned vegan, less soy would be grown because there would be less need for it, so presumably it'd be better.

I think there are some ethical hurdles to lab grown meat. But assuming there was 100% no animal cruelty involved I still wouldn't eat meat for health and taste reasons.

@i_like_swords: Lol T4V

This is a CaV right orrr...?

@i_like_swords: No, but those have a structure, not someone pissing and moaning then posting an insanely long response just because they got their feelings hurt.

@conner_wolf: I've got no issue with you. As I stressed in my post, I want the debate to be structured and invited criticism once we're both done. Exactly like a CaV. Do what you will with that. *shrugs*

@i_like_swords: half way through this post... I'd recommend a summary of points you guys are going to cover in bullet format before the whole post starts.

Damn it I wanted to make that joke but you beat me to it.

Hey eat what you wanna eat do what you wanna do but start telling me I should and I'm gonna rip the f*** into you! That's my opinion anyway

@slimj87d: Well, I could do that if it'd make it more clear. Not on a laptop atm but I'll have a go at that later.

Fair enough

Again fair enough if you don't want to eat meat thats fine however getting rid of meat entirely is not possible due to the vitamins like B12 which are necessary for growth. Pretty sure quite a few people have gone to jail for forcing a vegan diet on children and causing them to have bad medical problems. I think there was a case in Italy not long ago. Once you're adult sure because your body has finished developing.

Another factor is cost, For example if I go shopping I know for a fact I can feed myself for less by having different food groups ie: fish, dairy, vegtables etc.... but to feed myself an all vegan diet would leave me hungry for far more money (this is just my own experience as a reasonably active 25 year old male also price is a big factor for me maybe different countries have different food prices but in my experience being vegan is expensive). Which means that to afford to be vegan you have to have the means to do it in the first place.

So if thats the case would it not be better and more achievable to make people eat artificially grown meat as opposed to changing to a very restrictive diet that is not suitable or achievable for everyone?

Great minds think alike :D

@strider1992: I addressed B12 in detail in my post. It doesn't originate in meat, or any food, it's carried by bacteria. Parents, vegan or not, go to jail for child neglect. There's countless healthy vegan children.

Two things about money: 1. The healthiest foods are the cheapest. Rice, oats and other grains, beans, lentils, fruits, vegetables etc tend to be dirt cheap. In my own life, my food shopping has gotten way cheaper. 2. Meat, dairy and eggs are heavily subsidised by government. That's the only reason these foods are affordable. A $4 burger should really cost $11 once you factor in water use, energy use, and other factors.

But look, I can't tell you what's best for you or what's cheapest in your city. This is just what I've found to be the case after doing this since February this year.

I'm well aware that child neglect exists in other forms but i'm pointing cases that are pertinent to the discussion. In their early stages from what I have read there seems to be no benefit in feeding a child a vegan child and in fact it seems it can actually be harmful.

I see your point however what i'm saying is that where I could pay £8 for a steak and some potatoes and be full I could spend £8 on vegetables and other such products and not feel satisfied or have to eat more thereby increasing my expenditure.

On another note there is also the fact that people like meat. What i'm getting at is that people (like me) eat meat because they like it and unfortunately when people like something it doesn't matter what you do or say it will be impossible to convince them otherwise so rather than attempt to force something on them that eliminates stuff they like would it not be a better use of time pushing for better alternatives such as artificial meat rather than saying everyone should be vegan? as this could have a global effect as opposed to only appealing to a few.

@i_like_swords: thanks. I think it makes it easier for us to read since it serves as a summary and kind of like a table of contents so we know what we're getting ourselves into.

@strider1992: I posted abstracts from the dietetic associations of America and Britain, stating that it is their position that a vegan diet is suitable for all stages of life. I'm aware of what sensationalist media has to say about veganism, but the science has reached a consensus: plant based nutrition is both adequate and beneficial in many ways.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I don't consider anything I do in my free time on a forum as activism. I'm just here to debate noob. But no, I think asking people to replace meat with kidney beans is more practical and cost effective than waiting for lab grown meat to become affordable. I enjoyed meat when I ate it too, but I made the decision to give it up. That's a decision for people to decide on their own, as far as I'm concerned.

In your steak scenario: I could buy 1kg of potatoes, 1kg of sweet potatoes, 1kg of mixed veg, 1kg of broccoli, 1kg of rice, 1kg of beans and 1kg of lentils for the same price as that steak. These foods aren't only nutritious but have both soluble and insoluble fibre, and water content, which is vital for digestive health and gut health. Meat has no fibre. So, honestly, my view is the steak is just less efficient for everyone.

Even though I am not a vegan myself, I see nothing wrong (or hypocritical) with it. If meat isn't your thing, fine, you live your own life and let me live mine.

@i_like_swords: Tag me when yall finish so I can read everything plz.

Is a diet really worth arguing over?

@mutant1230:

Not exactly, people lose the ability to use the argument of being neutral and all when people start trying to argue with you about what you are eating. The overwhelming majority of vegans and to a lesser extent vegetarians are not just going to eat what they want and let everyone else do the same, they have to voice their opinion about how others eat and then imply their are better because of how they eat.

The moment you offer your opinion about your diet or anyone else's you lose the ability to be neutral.

I have only ever once in my life seen where a person who ate meat started an argument with someone who did not eat meat. At least once a week I see a vegan/vegetarian tell someone they are wrong because they are eating animal related products.

Oh, you're preaching to the choir. When I reposted that comment I meant it to go both ways. That meat eaters shouldn't look down on Vegetarians/Vegans and vice versa. Any one side claiming moral superiority and trying to control the personal decisions other people make are what I am opposed to, certainly.

@mrmonster: Eh, the only thing I am contesting is whether the entire world population can convert to a vegan diet, which is a bit of a reaching claim.

That being said, I have nothing against people converting to veganism, but if they impose their ideas on others and guilt trip them for eating meat, then I can't say that I'm on their side.

Essentially, I am of the opinion of what @mutant1230 said.

Looking back, I would have toned down my essay a bit because it can give off the wrong impression that I think veganism shouln't exist (which isn't true), but the core arguments still stand.

I stopped reading after the first 4 lines. I EAT MEAT!!!!

Thread has arguments like this.

Do I need to consume the unfertilised egg of a chicken that has fallen out of it’s anus-vagina?

Did you know that fruits are grown in animal shit?

Did you know that the organs we have sex with are also used for the expulsions of urine?

Flawed emotional arguments.

Granted I am cherry picking but

obviously not for the animals.

The animals we eat would all but cease to exist if we no longer had a use for them.

To the immorality of killing and forcibly breeding animals?

The animals we eat would all but cease to exist if we no longer had a use for them.

To climate change and environmental destruction?

That would not resolve these issues, human population management is required especially in the third world.

To the links between consumption of animal fat and chronic disease?

This is a case of people who either want to stop over eating or only have access to cheap high fat/sugar food. Telling them about the benefits of veganism is less helpful than telling a smoker about green tea.

Interesting debate so far, and a lot more civil than I expected tbh. Keep it up peeps, and feel free to give me a shout if things get ugly or intense in here ;)

@dextersinister1:

Did you know that fruits are grown in animal shit?

Did you know that the organs we have sex with are also used for the expulsions of urine?

Flawed emotional arguments.

Granted I am cherry picking but

It's not the crux of my argument, no, so yes, you are cherry picking. I just thought it worthwhile to note what a chicken egg actually is - something a chicken excretes as part of it's menstruation cycle. A chicken period. And that it is secreted from a hole that serves as both it's anus and vagina. I'm not drawing any conclusions on behalf of you or anyone else, but when I found out about that - when I saw footage of where an egg originates from - I suddenly lost my appetite. And I questioned why so many people eat eggs.

The fruits we eat and the organs we use for reproduction are thoroughly cleaned before we use them, and using shit as fertiliser serves some kind of utility - a bit different from my point about eggs.

The animals we eat would all but cease to exist if we no longer had a use for them.

Yeah, they would. I would rather we stop breeding animals to live painful, short lives. We don't breed them because we think it's important 60 billion animals are born every year, we breed them for a purpose. I don't mind talking about saving endangered species, but breeding animals for the sake of breeding animals isn't positive.

That would not resolve these issues, human population management is required especially in the third world.

That's a whole other debate, but if you are interested in looking into it, I advise learning about greenhouse gas emissions being produced by the animal agriculture industries, the pollution they cause, the resources they waste, the amazon rainforest being destroyed, on so on. As you say, human population rising is an issue, so surely, it isn't much of a leap to understand that breeding 60 billion animals a year puts similar strain on the environment.

This is a case of people who either want to stop over eating or only have access to cheap high fat/sugar food. Telling them about the benefits of veganism is less helpful than telling a smoker about green tea.

Again, that's a whole other debate, but the scientific consensus is clear that many of our major killers are directly caused by consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, which is primarily found in animal foods; though saturated fat is also found in hydrogenated oils and other sources, i.e processed junk foods.

There is a vegan thread, or you could PM me, if you want to discuss it further, because I do want this thread to be mainly between me and noob.

Thanks bumpy.

That's not a claim I ever made. And you're also claiming that, merely encouraging veganism, is hypocritical, and is by and large, unhelpful. You have also made claims about nutrition and agriculture. So you've raised plenty of areas for debate.

I added the table of contents. Is the thread more easily navigated now?

@i_like_swords: yes, thank you! I will read the last half today.