Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ebola?]

Aren't there certain proteins that are only found in meat?

It doesn't really matter. Our bodies break down proteins into their component amino acids in order to synthesize their own proteins, to constitute tissue. Cooking also denatures most proteins. While the amino-acid content of food varies a bit, all essential amino acids are found in plants (there are a couple interesting non-essential ones in animals, eg, taurine, carnitine). When we say that an amino acid is "complete", we mean that it has a distribution of amino acids, particularly essential ones, similar to human tissue (or in practice, eggs, 'cause they're at over 90 percent 'complete'). Per this metric, beef is roughly 80 percent 'complete' while soy is at about 70 percent. To compensate for amino acid deficits, one may eat protein from a variety of sources throughout the day (not within each meal, as once thought).

Basically, you're only really in trouble if your main source of protein is grains.

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

It may be just as ridiculous, in your mind, but it doesn't qualify as hypocritical. Even if they are both ridiculous, they are different - unrelated - statements that have no bearing on each other.



I don't equate eating meat with rape. My hypothetical implies no such thing.
(Research the functionality of parallel hypothetical terms, if you don't believe me.)

Here's an example:

When a child says that it's not fair that they can't go to a Marilyn Manson concert because "everyone is going" and their father lays down that old adage, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?", he is not equating the concert with suicide. It is an intentionally extreme example to illustrate the flaw in logic. Essentially: you cannot dictate behavior based on the behavior of others.

The flaw in your logic that I was trying to illustrate with the rape / Sesame street example is similar but that, again, doesn't imply - in any way - that rape is comparable to the consumption of animal products... For someone who's studied philosophy, and claims - therefore - to have a better understanding of logic and reason than most people, you appear to be seriously lacking in basic comprehensive skills...

Although I suspect you're just being antagonistic.

I don't have to waste much time on this. Your argument is called a false analogy.

Willow already implied that he does not believe it is immoral to eat meat.

Willow has consistently responded directly to my arguments that were irrelevant to his particular views. Whether he intended to or not, he stepped to the aid and the defense of his fellow vegetarian to counter my criticisms by misapplying it to his more tolerant/flexible views.

When a fellow vegetarian was criticized for their views that they are immoral for discriminating against opposing view points without adequate justification, Willow quickly felt the need to criticize the use of the word "immoral." I was simply pointing out that, under similar circumstances, he not only neglected to make any judgements about what qualifies as immoral, he started defending them against criticisms. By applying the reasoning that, " one should not use their own experience as the only truth in a given circumstance," then it stands to reason that one ought not make the claim that the eating meat is inherently immoral.

You may feel in your mind that eating meat is comparibly as justifiably immoral as rape. However, to me, and I imagine most other meat eaters, such a comparison is ridiculous, because it assumes that they are both on similar moral footing. I have no idea why I have wasted this much of my time. I can no longer feel there is absolutely any value in carrying on like this. I will try to disregard and ignore any future comments. Thank you for your efforts, but I find it doubtful we will ever understand each other with any accuracy.

Think what you want, I really don't care how you apply my arguments, anymore. I gave it sufficient effort, now I must move on.

 

[ebola?]

You may feel in your mind that eating meat is comparibly as justifiably immoral as rape.

He clarified his analogy (namely, that the comparison didn't entail that eating meat does the same magnitude of harm as rape, nor that it is a qualitatively comparable experience to that of animals in factory farms), but you don't seem to have taken any stock of the clarification across multiple posts responding to FEA. You would do well to take your own advice, implied here:

It seems you would rather respond to the things that you imagine I say, instead of reading what I have actually been telling you this entire time. As I said, you say these hypocritical things without any indication that you are applying them to your own behavior.

Look: we're not getting anywhere by condemning each other for failing to understand us. We all need to give each other some leeway and explain things patiently if we're going to make fruitful progress in this conversation.

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

right, then what point would the analogy have? if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy. If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications. However, this is tricky because Willow has already admitted that he does not believe eating meat is inherently immoral, whereas we can all agree(or I hope we can) that rape is inherently immoral.

 

[murphythecat]

right, then what point would the analogy have? if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy. If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications. However, this is tricky because Willow has already admitted that he does not believe eating meat is inherently immoral, whereas we can all agree(or I hope we can) that rape is inherently immoral.

for some, killing is immoral, for other its not. at this point, theres nothing to argue. its a matter of values and some people doesnt have the same value. I consider that we have to protect life and make sure we dont create suffering in any living organism if possible.

taking a life/killing another being is immoral imo but for some its not. theres nothing to prove here. its evidence. some consider its okay because we have to eat. whats there to argue really?
I dont see how rape is immoral but killing is not.

 

[ForEverAfter]

This is the last time I'm going to respond to you, turk.

what point would the analogy have? if its admittely uncomparable, then its a false analogy.

It isn't a false analogy. You read it wrong.
It was clear what I meant when I wrote it and I've made it even clearer since.

You suggested that immorality must either apply to all things or nothing...
To be selective, you said, is hypocrisy.

I provided you an exaggerated example of how absurd this kind of logic can be, when applied to a different situation...

My point did not rely on any of the terms being directly comparable.
I was making a logical comparison, not a qualitative comparison.
Perhaps you should read it again.

Before you get worked up again, just consider the following for a moment.
This is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.

...

a) it is immoral to eat meat
b) it is immoral to assume that your body is the same as another person's

You're saying that they both need to coexist or neither can exist at all.
That is absurd... Similarly, the following can exist independently of each other.

c) it is immoral to rape
d) it is immoral to watch Sesame Street

All I'm doing is showing you an example of two things that can be immoral independently of each other, without being contradictory or hypocritical. For the last time: I'm not saying that rape is the same as eating meat.

If he wants to criticize mine on similar grounds, then he must prove that eating meat has any comparable immoral implications.

What I'm saying, if you bother to comprehend it, is not reliant on any qualitative comparison whatsoever.
(My point stands, regardless of whether or not I can prove anything of the sort.)

Please try and understand what I'm saying.
It's not particularly complicated.

 

[Munchkoala]

I was thinking of going vegan for a month, just to see if there are any benefits or dis-benefits for myself. It would have nothing to do with being worried about the morals of eating animals. More for a trial of health, and to see whether it helps me in anyway or does the opposite.

It will be hard for me though, because I love a nice fat steak at least one day per week.

I'm making the plans in my mind now of when I will implement this one month vegan trial.

 

[ForEverAfter]

It takes serious planning to transition from a meat diet to a vegan diet, without using vegetarianism as a stepping stone... You have to eat a lot of food when you're vegan and you have to be much more careful about what food you are eating, just to meet your dietary requirements.

I urge you to do some research and make a plan (on paper) that includes what you need to eat on a daily basis.
Monitor your intake carefully and get tested after the two week mark to make sure that everything is kosher.

If you don't do this, you might end up making the false conclusion that veganism is incompatible with your body.
It will be incompatible (unhealthy) if you do it incorrectly, so be careful.

While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Munchkoala]

It takes serious planning to transition from a meat diet to a vegan diet, without using vegetarianism as a stepping stone... You have to eat a lot of food when you're vegan and you have to be much more careful about what food you are eating, just to meet your dietary requirements.

I urge you to do some research and make a plan (on paper) that includes what you need to eat on a daily basis.
Monitor your intake carefully and get tested after the two week mark to make sure that everything is kosher.

If you don't do this, you might end up making the false conclusion that veganism is incompatible with your body.
It will be incompatible (unhealthy) if you do it incorrectly, so be careful.

While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for your suggestions. Perhaps I should take into account how much iron and protein I am getting when I transition over. Is there anything in particular you can think of that I should be watching out for?

 

[ebola?]

Protein's pretty easy. Just have a protein-rich food, ie more concentrated than wheat, at every meal. Iron's a bit trickier, but not by much. Just be sure to consume leafy greens, legumes, etc. daily, ideally combined with something rich in vitamin c, to improve absorption of non-heme iron. The two main key micronutrients to look out for are zinc and b12.

ebola

 

[Abject]

I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism. Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)). I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).

What are you trying to say man? plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate? that's gibberish iirc
I don't understand your ratios since you can get cheese with a higher ratio of protein to fat than eggs, and you can get cheese with a much lower protein to fat ratio than eggs.
Furthermore I'm unaware of any legumes that pack more protein for the calories than eggs/lower fat cheese (let alone lean meat) so if you could be specific as to which legume(s) I'd love to look into them.

 

[Abject]

While it is possible for both meat diets and vegan diets can be (just as) healthy (as each other), I find that a vegan diet forces me to eat healthier foods. When I eat meat, I'm more likely to eat a steak and neglect my fruit / vegetable intake. When I'm vegan, I eat an enormous amount of health food... This is not representative of everyone, obviously. Just my 2 cents.

Also sorry for the double post but eating a big steak and less vegetables is healthier.
The only bonus u get for eating heaps of preform vitamins is darker piss, and it's actually unhealthy to eat heaps of proform vitamin (something vegans don't need to worry about)
If you've got all the micronutrients you need (you don't lose them overnight either, as ebolas post seems to suggest, except for electrolytes) eating a bunch of salad is akin to eating junk food, that is, empty calories that could be used towards getting the macros you need.
A steak is full of protein and fat goodness, the opposite of "junk food"

 

[ebola?]

that's gibberish iirc

You don't recall correctly.
What I meant is that plants one grows will contain a certain number of calories. You feed those to animals, and a fraction of those calories will end up in their meat (including edible organs). The ratio between calories contained in the animal feed used and calories of meat produced is the "plant calorie to animal calorie ratio" I was talking about.

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

eating a big steak and less vegetables is healthier

I think what I was trying to say came across wrong.
I didn't mean to suggest that quality steak is junk food.
Having said that, my diet when I'm not vegan isn't as healthy.

I tend to not eat enough fruits and vegetables, when I'm eating meat, partly because I'm too confident that steak is healthy (so I severely neglect the rest of my diet). I also eat a lot of junk food when I'm not following a vegan diet, simply because it (non-vegan junk food) is readily available (and there aren't many vegan junk food options, around here)...

When I'm vegan my diet is super healthy and when I eat meat it isn't... which isn't to say that either choice is theoretically superior in terms of health (for me). That's just the way it is. I don't think anyone can say that either (meat or non-meat diets) are absolutely healthier. Some vegans look like skeletal late-stage cancer-patients and some meat eaters are forever surfing that fine line between another cheeseburger and triple bypass surgery. It is quite possibly to be healthy/unhealthy with a vegan or "omnivorous" diet.

 

[Abject]

You don't recall correctly.
What I meant is that plants one grows will contain a certain number of calories. You feed those to animals, and a fraction of those calories will end up in their meat (including edible organs). The ratio between calories contained in the animal feed used and calories of meat produced is the "plant calorie to animal calorie ratio" I was talking about.

ebola

I'm still not understanding. Let's say grains contain x calories. Chickens and cows eat those grains. The produce will have 3 plant calories for each non-plant calorie, whereas the meat will have 10 plant calories for each non-plant calorie? If not I'm stumped, because I can't see how it could be that one requires more calories than the other, whether a chicken is just laying eggs or getting slaughtered it's gonna need the same amount of feed to grow.


ForEverAfter: I'm not arguing that you can't be a healthy vegan, or an unhealthy meat eater. What I am saying is that it's much easier to get your macronutrients through animal product. What I'm saying is that we need protein and fat, whereas carbs aren't needed for healthy function.

As I've said earlier, diets are a personal thing with objective parameters. For me to try and eat the amount of protein I currently eat, I would be way over my calories due to the carbs/fat that come with plant proteins. And I'd still be hungry and eating more, because it's not as satiating as meat and I have a massive appetite.
Because of meats calorie to protein ratio, I'm able to eat a lot of meat and vegetables to fill myself up. If I eat potato/grains/rice/etc I get way more calories for the same amount of food, and i'm much hungrier than I would be had I eaten a lot of meat. Eating vegetables is a good filler for me, but it doesn't provide many macros/calories at all, just a few vitamins and minerals. I like organs for micros, but they're too tasty and I don't wanna overdo them so it's more of a sporadic thing.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm not arguing that you can't be a healthy vegan, or an unhealthy meat eater. What I am saying is that it's much easier to get your macronutrients through animal product.

Okay, well I'm not going to argue with that.
Eating meat is much easier. If it wasn't more people would be vegan.
Whether or not it's easier doesn't have any impact on whether or not it is ethically questionable to knowingly contribute to the unnecessary suffering of animals, anyway.

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible for you, or anyone, to adjust to a vegan diet.
Meat is tasty, efficient (nutritionally) and more convenient than compensating with plants.
I accept that; but, I don't accept that it cannot be done.
It may be more difficult for some than others.

 

[swilow]

Is 'easiness' that sound a basis for making an ethical decision though?

again, you make your own assumptions. read the quote again and you will see where I didn't say you said it. I said others have said this, and I have took issue with it. You can't change the sequence of events. In response to my criticisms of the absolutist claims made by Murphy, you have been trying to dispute my claims against this particular fundamentalist perspective, while applying it as a general criticism of all vegetarians. With every step I have tried to explain what my argument was and how it is not a criticism of a vegan lifestyle, and was certainly not meant to be applied as the opposite absolutist claim against a vegetarian lifestyle.

It seems you would rather respond to the things that you imagine I say, instead of reading what I have actually been telling you this entire time. As I said, you say these hypocritical things without any indication that you are applying them to your own behavior.

Look man, I must say that our interaction is actually causing me a bit of anxiety and unease. You seem to have some issue with me directly, which is why you keep talking about me. I understand that I disagreed with some of your comments earlier and questioned them. This was never meant to be taken personally. I questioned ONLY what was written here and made no comment (that I recall) about you as a person. If I did, I apologise. Thing is, you have been making comments about me as a person and you've no grounds to do that. I'm not really keen on getting called a hypocrite because I disagreed with PART of what you said. I absolutely know that I am not 100% ideologically sound or always consistent and logical. No human is. I refuse to have that hurled at me as an insult by another human. I'm not sure why you can't see that despite being told that on many occaisions that personal comments are uncalled for and not permitted and, furthermore, basically obliterate the logical basis of your reasoning.

Its frustrating being misunderstood, but I have to accept that the fault is mine because every time I explain myself, you don't seem to get it. So I have to give up and cease communicating with you in this thread.

Trust me, it'll be better for all concerned.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Vegetarianism is closer to meat consumption than veganism is, in terms of the implied contribution towards the suffering of animals... I get that vegetarianism can be a stepping stone.

I think it depends on how you practice vegetarianism. Yeah, having a cheese and egg based diet isn't going to be a whole lot better, due to the factory farming load (though the plant calorie to animal calorie conversion rate is a whole lot more efficient with eggs and dairy (~3:1) than with meat (~10:1)). I, for one, get more protein from legumes than eggs and dairy (being a cheesitarian isn't too healthy ).

I'm not sure that it does depend on what kind of vegetarian you are.
Consuming dairy and eggs contributes to the suffering of cattle/chickens.
Consuming meat contributes to the suffering of cattle/chickens.
Consuming neither doesn't contribute.

Veganism doesn't exist on that scale. You could argue that being vegan contributes indirectly to the suffering of all animals, by contributing to the suffering of the planet via other industries. But, you could say the same thing about driving a car or using the internet.

As far as directly contributing to the suffering of farmed animals, vegetarianism must be closer to meat consumption... Unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible, since you're obviously very well educated and you have clearly applied more brain power to / spent more time thinking about this issue than I have).

 

[Ninae]

You can't have both convenience, health, and taste, you have to sacrifice at least one.

So if inconvenience is a big problem for you it can become very difficult as you have to work even harder to compensate the best you can in the two other areas.

I understand this can make it seem almost un-overcomable for many. Especially for men who's idea of cooking is to heat things and it's the most they're willing to do. Cooking from scratch takes time, learning to cook takes time, and coooking without meat even more so. So it would be a lifestyle change many are simply not willing to make.

Most eat so much processed and unhealthy food anyway, though, so it's questionable how much the health aspect really comes into it. Of course not for everyone, but for many, and even the majority. In that case it works more as an excuse.

There still are so many who only care about taste and convenience and being able to eat whatever they want at any time so it's a bit meaningless to take the health approach as a justification in that case. I guess everyone has to be honest with themselves.

 

[Abject]

I'm not convinced that it would be impossible for you, or anyone, to adjust to a vegan diet.
...but, I don't accept that it cannot be done.

I literally couldn't maintain my levels of protein (disregarding fat completely) without gaining fat from too many calories with the protein.
Sure, I could eat vegan if I wanted to eat an entirely different ratio of protein/fat/carbs, but I would either be hungry all the time (to the point where I'd just not eat in order to binge) or I'd be gaining fat all the time (due to plant matter not having anywhere near the satiety/fullness that meat/animal product provides)
It's possible for me to eat vegan, but it'd result in a higher BF% and constant hunger, which would affect all my interpersonal interactions and everyone would hate me for being a grumpy hungry fuck