What is your take on a Fully Raw Vegan Lifestyle?
Replies
-
Boring, unnecessary, untasty, restrictive, difficult, unsustainable, potentially malnutritious.a fully raw vegan lifestyle ... what is your take on this lifestyle?
I like salmon, and bacon, and chicken noodle soup, and pizza, and beer, and frozen fudge
pops, and tapioca pudding, and pasta, and even salad dressing ...
But if it's what you want to do, have at it. Why should my opinion matter?
If you just want to experiment, try it for a couple months. Keep a detailed diary of how you feel
physically & mentally. Be honest with yourself. Maybe even keep track of how easy or hard it is to
do various exercises, how long/fast you can run, how much you can lift, etc.
At the end of the experimental period, look back & compare, see if there's been any change, and
if so is it for good or ill?
If there's no change, is the moral high ground worth the fuss & difficulty? If so, keep at it.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.0 -
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Those of my friends who eat this way look like they are on chemo. Usually after several years I have noticed they switch to "regular" vegetarianism or even pescatarianism. One guy went back completely to meats, poultry and fish along with the veg and dairy and he is doing so much better both physically and mentally.
Humans have evolved to be omnivores. You *can* survive doing otherwise, and it is of course your right to eat as you wish, but on a health level, I have to consider it suboptimal. Absent medical conditions that demand you do otherwise, I am a proponent of the old fashioned 4 food groups, portioned out in the modern "my plate" method.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.
So, just to make sure I understand you here:
You are judging me for my dietary practices, because you think they imply that I am judging you for your dietary practices?
Seems legit.0 -
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Those of my friends who eat this way look like they are on chemo. Usually after several years I have noticed they switch to "regular" vegetarianism or even pescatarianism. One guy went back completely to meats, poultry and fish along with the veg and dairy and he is doing so much better both physically and mentally.
Humans have evolved to be omnivores. You *can* survive doing otherwise, and it is of course your right to eat as you wish, but on a health level, I have to consider it suboptimal. Absent medical conditions that demand you do otherwise, I am a proponent of the old fashioned 4 food groups, portioned out in the modern "my plate" method.
Vegetarianism is suboptimal from a health perspective as compared to an omnivorous diet?0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.
So, just to make sure I understand you here:
You are judging me for my dietary practices, because you think they imply that I am judging you for your dietary practices?
Seems legit.
that is not my argument (or judgement) in the slightest. you are free to follow any diet you wish, as I am free to object to such a diet being touted as an "ethical" decision.
it is often a luxury to even be able to consider such a diet in an industrialized nation. it does not involve hardship (other than self-imposed hardship if you do not enjoy the diet), in fact, as a luxury, it would be difficult to adhere to if enduring actual hardship. but that is not my point either.
the argument that it is an ethical practice is fallacious in that there are no premises which can stand to support it. I have already given my argument against supply and demand, as well my argument of the negligible impact, as well as my argument of the indirect (at best) guilt/responsibility of the consumer. and in regards to you specifically, your comparison between eating meat and voting (in terms of negligibility of impact) did not hold.
if it makes you feel better about yourself, then I have no issue. but it is not a moral high point, and it is not beneficial to animals. it is just a diet.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
I have no argument against this. it is very thoughtful and well-worded.
per the economic aspect, I am not an economist and so I probably undervalue the effect of individuals in such systems.
my initial comment was an offhanded sentiment at most, although when pressed repeatedly to elaborate, it is obvious that I do have a particular mindset which would inspire me to make such a comment.
perhaps it is an overly reactionary stance on my part, especially regarding what may come across as egregious assumptions. I would highlight being browbeat with ethical veganism as an impetus for such a mindset, but of course ultimately the buck stops here.
I'm continue to kick up dirt when I get a smarmy response from someone about animal cruelty, if for no other reason than my own entertainment. but maybe only when it's obviously warranted.0 -
Before you take the leap, please watch this video (nine minutes long). I would love to hear your opinion on this scientist's findings.
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en
I loved the video, thank you
Michael Pollan talks about the same thing here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVyo712BBRk
16 minutes in.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
I have no argument against this. it is very thoughtful and well-worded.
per the economic aspect, I am not an economist and so I probably undervalue the effect of individuals in such systems.
my initial comment was an offhanded sentiment at most, although when pressed repeatedly to elaborate, it is obvious that I do have a particular mindset which would inspire me to make such a comment.
perhaps it is an overly reactionary stance on my part, especially regarding what may come across as egregious assumptions. I would highlight being browbeat with ethical veganism as an impetus for such a mindset, but of course ultimately the buck stops here.
I'm continue to kick up dirt when I get a smarmy response from someone about animal cruelty, if for no other reason than my own entertainment. but maybe only when it's obviously warranted.
:flowerforyou:
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
How are those two things even remotely connected?
They're not.
ETA: I replied before reading the rest.
0 -
carakirkey wrote: »My colleague has a raw vegan diet and is very healthy and educated about it. She didn't adapt that for weight loss though, more for health and ethical reasons.
Do the veggies scream if you steam them or something?
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
don't worry bro for every animal you don't eat I probably eat 5
so I'm like -5 vegans
Laughsss0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
The only thing I will caution is as a woman who may want to have children there are issues when you become pregnant.
I have vegetarian friends and in order to ensure the health of their children they had to start eating some form of meat/animal products while pregnant as it can cause health issues with the babies...
One women (not a friend) developed an inability to process certain nutrients (can't remember which one) late in her pregnancy (it reversed itself after the child was born)but her child was born with it and can't at all and will never be able too...
along with other issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/159182750 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
The only thing I will caution is as a woman who may want to have children there are issues when you become pregnant.
I have vegetarian friends and in order to ensure the health of their children they had to start eating some form of meat/animal products while pregnant as it can cause health issues with the babies...
One women (not a friend) developed an inability to process certain nutrients (can't remember which one) late in her pregnancy (it reversed itself after the child was born)but her child was born with it and can't at all and will never be able too...
along with other issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918275
You can get all those nutrients noted in the study while being a vegetarian - you just need to be mindful of the fact that they are often lower in 'typical vegetarian foods'. You need to be even more mindful when a vegan as it is even more restrictive. A meat eater who eats very little fruits and veggies also runs the risk of being deficient.0 -
My take is you will get very few dinner party invitations
0 -
I've been a vegan-leaning vegetarian (not raw) for almost 25 years now, during which time I gave birth to 2 children, who have always been and are still healthy vegetarians, ages 19 and 22. No issues at all during pregnancy, and I've eaten both healthy and not so healthy (my reason for being on MFP now!) during that time. Vegan diets are not automatically healthy, though eating vegan does keep me conscious of food, nutrition, and especially vegetables. I really don't understand the whole raw thing, personally. As for the diet being boring--Not for me-It's encouraged me to try recipes from all over the world, using ingredients most of my omnivorous friends have never heard of. As for the diet being socially limiting--Sometimes. I tend to eat dairy and eggs when we are visiting people because even cooking ovo-lacto can be a stretch for some folks, let alone vegan. But it's nothing that can't be worked around. I'd examine your reasons for wanting to make the change. Try eating vegan for awhile without making a declaration about it and take a multivitamin. Raw, I don't know...0
-
Danielle721007 wrote: »Well thank you all for your opinions ! I personally love to eat raw veggies and of course yummy fruits and nuts so it doesn't bother me as far as eating goes. In terms of the "healthier" mention, what I should have clarified was referring to it is healthier in terms of most people don't eat as much or even half veggies and fruits as a person should based on the nutritional daily amount. Of course grains and meats are consumed more (by those who do not adapt an evenly nutritional lifestyle) that is. My reason for excluding meat is merely because my body feels better and I don't feel so lethargic after meals.
While I am on a weight loss journey, this is not a diet or ploy to lose my weight. I am simply eating this way because I enjoy the way my body feels eating these delicious fruits and vegetables.
So why not just focus on upping your veggie and fruit intake, instead of making drastic cuts from your diet? It would be much easier, and more sustainable long term, to add things instead of arbitrarily cutting things out.
0 -
No meat, no eggs, no dairy, no fun.
I could not live without butter, ice cream and other sweets made with butter and eggs, beef, and pork.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions