Why are you not vegan?

Post Reply New Topic

Cos I love bacon.

Also, I think thats factory farming your talking about. All the stuff I eat is organic!

"Organic" is a buzzword that doesn't mean quite as much as it should. Furthermore, something can still be labelled "organic" while also fitting into the definition of "factory farmed." Their standard of life is no better than non-organic. Grain-fed organic cows (and similar issues with chickens, pigs, and sheep) are the major problem here.

So buy pasture raised animals that are allowed to graze for their food, rather than ones that have grain shoveled down their throat in crowded feeding pens for their entire lives. Not only is it better for them, it's better for you.

Edit: For further information about how pasture raised (AKA grass fed) cattle is better for you, Google grass fed CLA. Also keep in mind that CLA in levels that are beneficial can only be found in an omnivorous diet (some studies have shown CLA supplimentation to have adverse effects that do not occur when the CLA comes from a natural source), and it's very difficult even for omnivores to get it unless obtained from pasture raised animals.

B goup vitamins are easily sourced from fermented products and yeasts as well as fungi.

Iron 'deficencies' are spurious as many people 'technically' deficient show no signs of anemic problems, most nutritionists I have discussed this with say that what is considered 'normal' iron levels have been set against statistical averages set by the bar of western high meat intake diets and if they had been done in India would have been set much lower.

Iron can be sourced easily from dark green vegetables and uptake enhanced through food combining, [presense of vit C in digestive tract prior to and during digestion]

Comparing us with other animals to find an example is basically fairly spurious as we are very different to all of them in key areas of physique and evolution.

Pigs? ok our digestive tract is very similar in most regards and capable of much the same tasks. Pigs are indeed omnivorous I have seen them feeding from a dead deer in the forest, I have seen a boar devour the infants he himself sired and I have seen them eat my own fecal matter.
The pig has a very different jaw structure to us which enables them to root around and source their main animal protien source - worms, [I will pass on them thankyou] this jaw also allows them to tear open the thick skinned belly of the deer and tear the organs within [try doing this with your jaw and teeth?]
Pigs will indulge in canabilism? I will pass thankyou however if you can find a consenting adult go for it, I have no moral or ethical problem but will not watch.
As for eating someone elses fecal matter - no sh*t! thankyou

Primates? Several baboon and chimpanzee studies have produced ample evidence of opportunistic meat eating in both these species as well as very rare incidences in bonobos, however all of these studies have observed a dietry culture which is primarily herbivorous with some supplementation of protien from insect sources. All these species have significantly different jaw and digestion charcteristics.

Us? Homo sapiens sapiens? Well we have evolved as tool users, we have evolved to cook and consume various food groups and some animal protien [meat or other products] consumption certainly seems to be beneficial for some people while being unnessasary for others and even harmful for some, I would offer the rational of it being neither good or bad in any simplistic dualistic sense and enter the Zen approach of asking whether it is appropriate or inappropriate? [my secon post today refering to this? - perhaps there is something to it?]

There are no happy farm animals, just degrees of misery - a prison iis a prison no matter how pictuesque the cell, there is no humane slaughter methods as waiting in line to die will always cause distress to those who wait regardless of the actual method of execution. Slaughter houses smell of death, the smell spreads for miles and miles around [real estate near a freezing works in this country is always somewhat cheaper]. I When most people encounter these truths they usually recoil in some extent of shock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyjVGlQdt2k
The Skeptics - AFFCO

Here I will leave the decision to you, may I suggest that while considering the ethical considerations that ultimately define this debate you read the ethicist Peter Singers book 'Animal Liberation' and look into the concerns of the deep ecologists and the global justice movements concerns about resource allocation and use?

1. That video might be more effective without the sweaty, bloody guy covered in plastic wrap and the bad music. Seriously. (I am aware that it's supposed to be "artistic," but it really doesn't work out that way)
2. Is there a humane way to die at all? Actually, death from natural causes is much more painful than a sudden death from trauma.
3. As far as "prisons"? Certainly, being trapped in a small space is something they don't enjoy, but (aside from the fact that, by your argument, people live in prisons that confine them much more than animals) pasture raised livestock don't feel trapped as long as they are given proper space. Furthermore, this holds true to all grazers, even wild ones. Look at zebras in Africa. Most of them end up in a pattern of migration that limits them to a very small area relative to the size of the herd. They're not restricted by fences, but they are restricted by the grazeable land. Neither the actual fence nor the confinement itself negatively impact emotional health. It's whether or not the amount of space is adequate.

More on number 2: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/peta ... ay-to-die/

Edit: Also note that the first step to domestication is reduced adrenal production. If aurochs had not gone extinct, I'd suggest you try to meet one. Cows (all domesticated animals [not all farm animals or pets are actually domesticated], in fact) are much more laid back than their wild counterparts. People are not domesticated.

Nope.
It implies both omnivores and vegans are knowledgeable about nutrient sources, and therefore any deficiencies they might have is due to deficiencies in the diet itself versus another type. But keep calling my dismantling your fallacies and inability to isolate variables "vegan propaganda"- I guess the American Dietetic Association is in cahoots with the...um...non-meat....industry.

Nope. THAT was my response to your overall demand for sources about vegan nutritional adequacy as well as this:

Your obsession with arachidonic acid was addressed here (which you QUOTED):

And here:

And since you are too lazy to do your own research before making claims about the imaginary magicality of animal products:
http://www.ftb.com.hr/40/40-311.pdf
"Arachidonic acid (AA), an essential fatty acid in human body, fermented by Mortierella
alpina I49-N18 was investigated in a shake-flask, and a 50-ton fermentor. In order to optimize
the culture conditions, the effects of temperature, initial pH, culture time, carbon and
nitrogen sources were studied. Furthermore, the way of adding sugar during fermentation
was evaluated in a 50-ton fermentor. Under the optimum culture conditions, arachidonic
acid produced in shake-flask and 50-ton fermentor was 4.55 and 5.11 g/L media, respectively.
It was shown that the highest percentage of AA in lipids in shake-flask and 50-ton
fermentor reached 70.20 and 53.01 %, respectively. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
tests showed that the oil contained 80 % of polyunsaturated fatty acids such as arachidonic
acid,
-linolenic acid, and linoleic acid."


If the American Dietetic Association is a "special interest group" in your eyes, I can understand why you are so dogmatic about untruths- you're a zealous conspiracy theorist.
It all makes sense now.

Probably because it's being replaced with wheat and corn-based products which are also-subsidized. If you'd instead said "notice that as the contribution of meat in our diets goes down in proportion to consumption of grains, fruits, and vegetables, obesity goes up", this would be a relevant statement. But that would be absurd.


So long story short, a man was at one time outspoken about the detriments of certain foods until he had a greedy financial incentive to heartily-endorse them. Thank you for proving my point about corporate and personal incentives by definition advocating consumption vs. NON-consumption.


Well at least you CAN name a logical fallacy, even if you're forced to make up a random quote and imply it's mine to exemplify it's meaning.


I must have, indeed missed any link about vegetable oils and processed foods being inherently non-vegan- I presumed that was your point in claiming vegans "cannot" eat them by virtue of being vegan. Those foods being unhealthy is irrelevant to said claim.

That really has nothing to do with whether it is or not. Corporate ass-covery doesn't denote ingredient content.

Well, in all honesty in any academic venue you'd be the one getting met with raised eyebrows until you made good on your claim that animal products are magical substances containing nutrients not found elsewhere, but since you fail to understand the notion of burden of proof, I did provide a link whereby arachidonic acid and linoleic acids were isolated in high quantities from mushrooms- it never occurred to me that this was truly in contest, as athletes have been consuming synthetic arachidonic acid in supplements for quite some time now.

Because every time you put forth an argument, it's contrary to the concensus of the HUMAN NUTRITIONAL and BIOLOGY FIELDS, those being that veganism is more than nutritionally-adequate, and that the animal kingdom possesses such different experiential capacities from the plant kingdom so as to be incomparable, respectively.

Speaking of nutritional deficiencies, do you have problems with Vitamin D? I can't imagine there's too much sunlight down in the bunker, and your foil hat might obstruct it even if you dared venture out into the malicious evil world.

A nervous system with which to transmit pain response to a brain with which to consciously-perceive it and serve as the seat for emotional pain such as terror, depression, and anguish.

You mean sources like the concensus of the LARGEST BODY OF EXPERTS IN HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIET?

(From your link http://www.dhaomega3.org/Overview/Conve ... -in-Humans, under "FOOD SOURCES"):
"DHA and EPA omega-3 fatty acids are primarily found in ocean life. However, with recent developments in the argi-food sectors via domestic animal feed formulations and nutrient enrichment strategies for food fortification, DHA and EPA can be found in a variety of food sources."
Listed:
Smart Grain Natural Flax Powder (http://www.smartgrain.com/)
"SmartGrain products are naturally ingrained with DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) OMEGA 3s through our patented process technology."

If you've cited anything from a nutritional body as I have, I must have missed it. Apologies.


See my quote from the ADA regarding vegan diets being appropriate for all stages.

See my quotes regarding vegan diets being appropriate for all stages, and nutritional deficiencies in vegans not being synonymous with nutritional deficiencies in veganISM, as well as the inaccurate implication that omnivores are not likewise unhealthy and nutritionally-deficient.

I have never once mentioned beef in any of my posts.

"Compassionate certified"? That's a USDA label now? There's really a corporation that only sells meat of animals who died of old age? Where can I find it?

You mean Monsanto? The company that makes 80% of American corn and also a considerable amount of wheat and soy? Yeah, actually, ADA is funded considerably by them.

In case you didn't know, Monsanto was the company that suppressed research showing how dangerous GMO crops are. (FYI: Monsanto also makes canola oil, which, if you've ever talked to a CNS, you'd know how horrible it is, in spite of the PR that Monsanto runs)

Feel free to look that up, I'll wait. You'll find it's difficult to get the information on it from news sources because Monsanto is one of those companies that's really good at working behind the scenes. Try to find a New York Times from Nov. 15th, 1995.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/dairy.html



Uh, no. Vegans cannot eat at fast food restaurants (as I've shown). Fast food restaurants use considerable amounts of vegetable oil and processed food. Vegetable oil and processed food has been shown to be wildly unhealthy. The cutting out of meat is not what benefits vegans, it's the cutting out of unhealthy processed foods that are (often times) non-vegan.

Again, either you intentionally misconstrue what I say or you really don't process it very well. (Edit: In all seriousness, if you did not intentionally misconstrue it, get your fatty acid and B12 levels checked)



This concensus only exists in the mind of vegans. Mary Enig (who holds a PhD in Nutritional Studies and whose work has been at the cutting edge of nutrition since the 70's), as an example of one of the nutrition specialists (including RDs, since you approve of them so much) whose work is not funded by Monsanto and other agribusinesses, opposes the idea that a vegan diet can not only provide the necessary nutrients, but also provide them in the correct ratios (see: Omega-6:Omega:3 ratio).

She was one of the first to oppose hydrogenated oils, and also one of the first to recommend coconut oil (still controversial, though opinion is shifting). In fact, she reviews a lot of the studies done that the ADA uses to support the claim that a vegetarian diet is the way to go, some of which I've linked.

More on RDs:

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-issu ... onist.html
http://jonnybowdenblog.com/american-die ... sociation/

RDs are the ones that support vegan diets. They also support the consumption of soda.

Those with CNS certification hold no such beliefs.



The requirement here is centric to the idea that a brain is the only organic processing unit available. Lobsters do not have brains. Do they not feel pain? Is it OK to eat them?

Keep in mind that pain is not exactly an indicator of intelligence, merely a response to injury. In animals, the response to pain is muscular action. Most plants, however, do not move quickly enough to be able to react to pain in this way (though the sensitive plant does). In fact, your requirement for pain as intelligence completely removes people with CIP from the list of beings that are intelligent. Are you OK with eating people with CIP?

The only way we can prove the presence of pain in an animal is by its physical response. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 599400095V This is the proof that I will give you for plants.

One more thing: There is an evolutionary advantage to feeling pain, being that you can react to the pain. The major argument that exists outside of scientific study is that plants can't react to damage, and thus would have no reason to feel pain. Plants do, in fact, react to damage. Acacia trees, for example, increase tannin production and emit ethynol, which warns other acacia trees that animals are feeding (and so they should increase tannin production as well).

Plants do have a central processing unit (again, not present in lobsters), and it does register pain (at least in the way that has been proven with animals). In addition to the acacia trees, when tomato plants are damaged, there is a signal that is sent from the damaged area to another area of the plant as well as a chemical released in the wounded area (much as a zebra might try to bite a lion that is attacking it, this response is meant to fight off a plant's predators): http://www.springerlink.com/content/e9d539l0dqb1qlde/

For indicators of actual intelligent behavior (again, pain is not and has not been proven in many animals, especially lobsters and crabs): http://www.biology-online.org/articles/ ... plant.html

It should also be noted



But you have shown the belief that omnivorous diets aren't as healthy, in spite of the fact that most of these problems come from grain fed animals (as opposed to pasture raised), injections of hormones, etc. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the health benefits of eating pasture raised animals. Health benefits that do not exist in a vegan diet (See: CLA).

One thing I forgot to address in my other post was that you mentioned that your doctor put you on a vegan diet. This is the sum total of the professional knowledge a doctor has in terms of nutrition:

http://primalmeded.com/2011/04/06/doctorsandnutrition/

I don't trust doctors that use their MD as reasoning why they know more about nutrition. It shows a dangerous ego. What you want is someone with a PhD in nutritional sciences (AKA Mary Enig or Jonny Bowden). Preferably with a CNS.

I have nothing wrong with special interest groups. ASAN is a special interest group and I support them (well, emotionally and mentally).

I would like to address the fact that there are some people for which a vegan is best, and even those for which it is necessary (some people really cannot process animal matter, and others have difficulty). While the amount of meat we need may vary, there's no doubt that we really do need it.

http://jonnybowdenblog.com/why-i-am-not-a-vegetarian/

Point 1.
The video was included for sh*ts and giggles, your subjective assesment is irrelevant to the discussion but point noted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkzClysDXE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3V8Q8oGWJA

Point 2.
This statement is rediculous, which of the dozens of deaths are you comparing with which other dozens. As a self proclaimed Taoist I am surprised you have made such an absolutist and subjective statement.

Point 3.
I am forced to wonder exactly how well you understand any modern farming, if at all?

The life of a dairy cow.
Firstly you are torn from your mother while still way to young for natural weaning and fed substandard substitute formula made up in a factory, then you are grouped in a ghetto of age and gender until old enough to be mechanicaly/manually violated by a human. Once you give birth to your offspring they are forcibly removed, girl children will become a future dairy cow, boys are killed for 'veal' or castrated and raised for beef again in an age and gender ghetto. Cows display multiple faces of extreme distress at this separation, they show signs of anxiety based behaviour and disfunctional 'false herd' social dynamics from which bullied individuals cannot remove themselves due to confinement in fenced areas.
Modern dairy cows are the result of selective breeding for maximum udder size and lactation, they now have udders that when at the peak of lactation nearly drag on the ground and require much care while moving, modern dairy farms are getting bigger and bigger, herds bigger and bigger, staff more and more removed from a culture of good animal husbandry and more akin to factory work, herds are often hurried to the milking shed by men on quad bikes rather than on foot and in the process the swollen udders of some cows sometimes tear away the supporting tendons causing intense pain even imobilisation, they are put down [killed], this is a common injury.
My grandfather was a dairy farmer until the mid '70's, I have been around dairy farms throughout my childhood and known many farm labourers as recently as two years ago, I know what I am talking about.

Beef steers? how do you fancy forced castration and age/gender ghettoisation?

Sheep for lamb roasts? year after year the forced seperation from your offspring?

Do you think the occupants of open air prisons such as Auschwitz were any happier than those with their own cell in Colditz? Do you think they feel any less imprisoned? I haven't even talked about barn raised animals or battery hens whose lot is much worse.

If any of these things were done to a human they would be crimes and treated acordingly.

How does any of this fit in with the Tao? where is the 'harmonious way' in any of this?

How does ecological collapse of large areas of the planets surface, the destruction of entire waterways fit in with the 'way'?

It would be more honest if you just said 'I eat meat beacuse I am selfish' and did away with the irrelevant rationalisations that ultimately don't stack up unless you just admit that non-humans don't count in your ethical framework, ecology is irrelevant in your worldview and at the end of the day 'it is all about me'.

This may be a harsh response but really... think about it - honestly.

peace j

Red herring fallacy: You're arguing against something that I'm not arguing for (and mentioned several times that I am not arguing for). I had typed up quite a bit explaining this, but I think I'll just leave it at that.

Also: Ad hominem, against my beliefs and against my person.

Another: False analogy (also Godwin's Law).

Edit: I'm not sure what the last fallacy I want to point out would be, exactly. I'm pretty sure that it's cherry picking, a dicto simpliciter, or misleading vividness. It could even be all three.

Edit2: Basically, the whole point here is this: Shut up about factory farms. I get it. You've seen factory farms and think that nobody who eats meat could possibly know what they're like while completely ignoring the fact that I have not once claimed support for factory farms. In fact, I claimed quite the opposite. Not only that, but you apply the treatment, breeding, and raising of cattle on factory farms to every farm. You seem completely incapable of making a distinction between factory farmed and naturally raised (as in, breeding that ensures health, feeding on the mother's milk, and then being set in a series of very large fields that produce no real feelings of confinement, especially when you consider the differences in the nature of cows vs. the nature of humans, and then being allowed to live out the rest of their lives after they are done producing milk. You really need to study the difference between confinement and fencing. Something you might want to look into for this would be the zebra in Africa and the fences they encounter near their migratory routes).

Firstly I have responded specifically in my last post to your assertions in your post responding to my previous post.

Secondly, you claim some immunity to scrutiny? don't be so arrogant, nor dissmissive, I have every right to challenge your assertions in relation to your professed beliefs, defend them do not evade them I am not evading your challenges, nor asserting absolutes, you have harped on post after post in exchange with Bethie/VelentinWiggin about this issue repeating ad infinitum the same assertions with regard health and using isolated incidents to rationalise your points so who is cherry picking - certainly not me, I have spoken in generalisations based on real experience and evidence and never defended the idiocy of those isolated 'I starved my baby to death' arguments.

Lastly, ok you profess some intimacy with some farming ideal I have never seen please offer examples, or are they merely fantasies? I am intrigued as some sustainable solution to this serious conflict between human activity and the broader ecosphere is my primary concern. For the record I am opposed to fences unless they are to keep things out of gardens or orchards etc, not to contain things or obstruct movement across the landscape - let nature be her own barriers in this regard.

Also you assert humans are not domesticated? perhaps this book may prove of interest,

Rogue Primate; an exploration of human domestication - by John A Livingston.

Also how well could you survive as a wild or feral human?

peace j

This is what your argument is comparable to. The majority of East Asia is communist (putting aside the issues of China's exact definition). Ergo, if you go to East Asia, you must go to an area that's communist. The issue of informed choice is completely absent from your argument.



Visit local farms that subscribe to the grass fed (Edit: Or traditional) model (in the specific case of dairy farms, anything that doesn't raise Holsteins, which are the breed that primarily suffer from udder problems is also a good way to judge how humane the farm is). I am in the US, so I don't know how common these sort of farms are in NZ compared to America. Near where I live, there are four different farms that raise cows this way (the land is also unfit for cultivization, so the only thing it can be used for is grazing). Not all grass fed farms raise cows this way, which is where the issue of informed choice, completely absent from your argument, takes effect.

To understand the issue of fences, I guess I'll explain about migratory zebras.

In Africa, there are migratory zebras. An example are the zebras that, every year, travel from their grazing lands to the Makgadikgadi Salt Pans. If fences are placed in some areas, the zebras would push through them (like migratory ruminants tend to do). These would be confinement fences (or attempted confinement). If the fences are placed right next to the migratory zebras, then year after year, the zebras will not suffer the effects of attempted confinement, as the zebras have no desire to go beyond the fences (a case of this took place with another group of migratory zebra).

In the same way, fences can be set up so that cows have no feeling of confinement. There are a number of ways of avoiding this feeling, or determining if it exists (and thus fixing it). Farmers that use the grass fed model tend to know how to recognize them and fix them.



Domestication is not the same as an inability to live in the wild. Take Peregrine Falcons as an example. Peregrines taken from the nest as eggs or infants cannot survive in the wild without considerable training (a great read on this matter is Falcons Return by John Kaufman and Heinz Meng... if you can find it). They are still wild, however. If you study the domestication of silver foxes, you'll find that it comes from genetics. The ability to survive in the wild is a learned ability, but domestication is genetic.

Actually, George Peterson has a number of interesting theories about how human instinct from our hunter/gatherer natures have worked their way into human behavior in our civilized society. Our instincts are still the same, it's just that we don't learn to use them in the wild. In fact, we may still be learning with our instincts as a foundation.

"Ommivores in the animal kingdom actually eat a small percentage of meat"

So do non-vegan humans, even the most unhealthy ones . Take the most unhealthy animal diet possible: a fast food chicken actually seems to include more bread than chicken.

But yes, I really think that a balanced diet is one that includes all sorts of things and keeps things like cow meat low. I should try insects one day, but shrimp and fish are cool for me. Combining fried stuff with salad or oven stuff with mushrooms and things like that allows so many things. Oh and then we have the blessing and Nobel-award deserving thing that pasta is.

I cannot think of a culinary life more boring than the raw food vegan one: Just getting some processed liquid with green dust that always tastes like grass. At least they are not killing any animals, except for the ones that died indirectly due to them owning a house and consuming energy for a computer. Err, but at least they don't eat dead things, except for plants...

"..but vegans can be healthy"

Don't particularly care. I like meat. If for whatever reason people like eating animal products, and they can pay for them, then they will likely eat it. Plus billions of them don't seem to be dropping dead just because of eating animal products. Unhealthy diets that include animal products exist and as noted a small percentage of omnivores have diet-related issues (small percentage, but since almost everyone is an omnivore, the small percentage becomes a huge number).

But I think it would be rather unfair (and intellectually dishonest) to compare the low denominator of omnivore diets (Most people accounting for the deaths of the omnivore side are probably eating fastfood every day and not doing the minimal effort to have some balance) with the high denominator of vegan diets. Let us avoid comparing trash food junkie with vegan guy who puts the work of a statistician into his diet that requires up to 600 different products a week and supplements and plenty of control

.. But you can put a quarter of the same level of care into an omnivore diet and you can get a very healthy and much more richer one with 4^800 more variety in flavors.

"factory farming"

I guess it is tragic. But attempts to humanize food to make us sorry are ineffective to me, specially when I notice that, contrary to what vegan nuts would like us to believe, plants are alive too. The life of a plant in a factory farm is probably as substandard as that of a cow in the same conditions and it ends with death as well. The things you eat don't enjoy their lives, and that's terrible.

"statistics show vegan people are ... "

These statistics tend to be utter BS. People love answering the question "Are you a vegetarian" with a yes even when they eat fish and chicken, eggs or insects.

I find this worrying. It is odd for a doctor to be promoting such diet for 'health benefits' unless you had some sort of meat allergy/intolerance that you are not disclosing. Actually, this sort of non-sense rings many of my alarms, I would be wary of him being a quack. If he then proceeds to go with other new age solutions to real health problems like homeopathy you should run away of that quack , fast.

Since you like anecdotes, I have two relatives that got into life threatening-risk for switching to vegan irresponsibly. One died. But they are all anecdotes and they are worth 0 points.

Admit it , there is a reason why every vegan propaganda site is filled with book-long instructions about how to actually have a healthy vegan diet. MrLoony is partially right about B-12, it is not found in non-animal products. So, you'll guys need supplements on top of everything. And yes, supplements. For guys who taunt on having more natural diets every single site with instructions for a healthy vegan diet (at least the good ones) include supplements because there is no other way.



---

Something that annoys me about these discussions is that it is unbelievably hard to find actual information on the web. Every attempt at google will take you to obvious vegan propaganda sites or celebrity news. If you try to do more specific stuff, you may end on the other side and end in a meat propaganda site like vegetariansareevil.com. I would love to find actual information on the matter. I can claim out of experience that both Bettie and MrLoony are pretty indoctrinated.


...
One for the math fans:
Proof that the optimal omnivore diet is at least as healthy as the optimal vegan diet : The set of omnivore foods includes non-animal foods as a subset. This means that the optimal vegan diet is achievable for omnivores too. More so, If at least one of the foods vegans cannot eat turns out to be healthy, then the optimal omnivore diet is healthier.

@ MrLoony

Your analagy in regards Asia is incomprehensible to me, no, don't bother explaining I am quite sure it is because it is nonsense rather than because I am stupid.

Almost all our dairy farms and dry stock farms are 'grass farms' these are what I have been describing, and you have still to provide an actual example of 'fairyland farming' for my scrutiny, merely asserting it exists will not convince me.

Lastly I will cease to bang my head against your willfull ignorance, at least most posters haven't tried to shoot veganism down to justify their decisions - they have just aserted the desire and the choice which is at least honest and worthy of some respect.

peace j

Maybe it's because your brain isn't getting enough nutrients?



These "fairyland farms" as you call them are local farms, as I've said many times. Go to a local farm that follows the grass fed or traditional model and see for yourself. The issue here is that you are completely ignorant of good farming practices. (Edit: After all, what do you want? A website for one of these small, local farms that documents every day of these animals' lives?)

(Edit3: Oops. My bad. There is one I can point to: http://beekman1802.com/ In case you've never heard of the Fabulous Beekman Boys, you obviously never watch Planet Green. I'm not sure what their policy on synthetic formula is, though [Edit4: It seems that the kids are bottle fed from the mother's milk, though other articles seem to indicate that they are kept together]. From what I can tell, they turn the goat milk, along with cow milk [60/40, I believe] into cheese and sell that product [along with soap]. You can probably find the episodes online if Planet Green doesn't broadcast in your area)



Yes, how dare I cite sources that actually point out the nutritional deficiencies inherent in a vegan diet. For the record, I only dealt with health issues inherent in a vegan diet as well as your claims that the only farms out there are factory farms.

You have no desire to educate yourself beyond your extreme bias. You've shown a complete unwillingness to actually seek out the farms in your area and see this for yourself.

(Edit5: I'm not even going to bother with this point because I would have to explain how it is not ad hominem)

Edit2: Vexcalibur: I saw vegetariansareevil.com after I posted this and it cracked me up. If you could suggest some good sources, I would appreciate it.

I'm a 'ovo-lacto' vegetarian. Like 90% plant based. I grow much my own food, too. I don't hold anything at all against meat-eaters though. I do it for personal reasons, and I don't push what I happen think about it on other people. It's my personal ethical choice, between me, and the animals.

In my mind, omnivores and vegetarians are on fairly equal ground, nutrition-wise, simply on the fact that our species has a highly faculative digestive system. This adaptable diet is a key distinguishing aspect of our species. Nutritional anthropology clearly indicates that humans have eaten meat for eons - but it also indicates that meat was only one element in our diet - selecting/cultivating plants, grains, and gathering nuts, fruits, tubers, fungi from the wild was another major element, and in some cases completely replacing meat. Humans are kind of right in the middle of all that. The "basic needs" of a human can be met by either an omniverous or a vegetarian diet - and throughout human history, we have employed both depending entirely on our circumstances. Consistent, frequent meat consumption has not really been the norm except in some of the colder climates. Humans are not heavy meat-eaters by nature and as such we're not aptly compared to protein-dependent caloric hard-burning animals like cheetahs, lions, sharks, or neanderthals. Our sleek metabolism is more mellow, efficient, and humans are far more diverse in their diet adaptability. So, whether omnivore, or vegetarian (or vegan), everyone's on fairly equal ground it seems, and arguing for one over the other seems very non-productive. At least to me.

Oh thank god Im Irish , we eat very well on top of a lifestyle that indulges in alcohol!

If your vegan where are your going to get your protein? You need proper ratios of protein, carbs and fat. I don't think soy is a healthy protein. People that eat vegan are very passionate that it is the healthiest diet. I beg to differ.