How to tell vegan friends to back off?!

LoupGarouTFTs

Ethical veganism is a way of eating, but also a moral code - it's about right vs. wrong. And really, what is religion other than a moral code that designates what is right and wrong?

Cool. So next time someone starts to preach at me about veganism, I can start proselytizing my Eastern Orthodox Christianity to them. Fair is fair, right?

But yes, this justification is why people have little chance against militant "ethical" vegans. They're just like any other zealots--which is why I ignore 90% of the vegans I encounter on this site and on others. It's just not worth the effort of attempting to reason with them.

daffodilsoup

Ethical veganism is a way of eating, but also a moral code - it's about right vs. wrong. And really, what is religion other than a moral code that designates what is right and wrong?

Cool. So next time someone starts to preach at me about veganism, I can start proselytizing my Eastern Orthodox Christianity to them. Fair is fair, right?

But yes, this justification is why people have little chance against militant "ethical" vegans. They're just like any other zealots--which is why I ignore 90% of the vegans I encounter on this site and on others. It's just not worth the effort of attempting to reason with them.

I mean, if you wanted to preach Eastern Orthodox Christianity to them, you certainly could. No one's stopping you. In fact, it might be a decent distraction tactic.

LoupGarouTFTs

Cool. So next time someone starts to preach at me about veganism, I can start proselytizing my Eastern Orthodox Christianity to them. Fair is fair, right?

Now that sounds like fun. Do that. Please

LOL I just might do it--and get a couple new copies of the Little Red Book to help me. But heck, for a couple of months out of the year we practically have a vegan-approved diet, anyway, so it shouldn't be that bad.

Rubie81

This reminds me of a great joke:

How do you know someone's a vegan?

Don't worry they'll tell you!

:drinker: :laugh:

Perfect!

albayin

Seriously people? If you want to be respected, please respect others first...Why do some people give me the impression that their choice is superior than the rest? Geez....
:huh:

aldenxnedla

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154583/puff-daddy-kills-peta

Iwishyouwell

I love my friends to death, but I wish one of them would try and push an eating regimen on me. I guarantee you after a few well placed, choice words, that wouldn't be a problem.

Unless you're genuinely open to vegan prosthelytizing, don't give your friends even an inch. Nip that boldly, strongly, and if necessary, rudely in the bud at the get go. Because for some fanatics if you're too nice, too sweet, and let them down too gently, they'll look at is as an opening to continue on ad infinitum.

purplishblue

I have to say though, the whole "we're meant to eat meat" thing is annoying. "Meant to" by who? God? Will we die without it? Am I a zombie at this point?

Physiologically, it's hard to argue that human beings are "meant to be" omnivores. Most herbivores have eyes set on the sides of their heads, to see predators coming. They generally have vision up to about 270 degrees or so. Human beings have eyes set on the front of their heads, like predatory species, not prey species.

Human beings primarily have teeth that cut and tear. Our grinding teeth are limited and set at the back of our mouths. Other omnivorous or carnivorous animals have such teeth. Herbivorous mammals have tearing teeth at the font of their mouths and grinding teeth all along their jaws.

Human beings have two breasts on the front of their bodies. In terms of mammals, we're pikers: dogs, for example, have up to ten "breasts" on their bellies (I think they actually have 8 breasts and 10 nipples, but I might be mistaken). Regardless. Most herbivores nurse their young from udders between their hind legs. I'm pretty sure Al Bundy didn't read "Udder 'Uns."

Herbivores digest cellulose. Human beings do not. Some herbivores have several stomachs that allow them to break down cellulose efficiently. When was the last time anyone here saw a human being chew his/her cud?

Human beings have guts of moderate length. Herbivores tend to have very long or complex guts, including those multiple stomachs at times, to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Our guts are neither as long as herbivores or as short as carnivores. That in itself would suggest an omnivorous diet.

Herbivores are born capable of walking and running within minutes of their birth. Human beings, like other omnivores, are born with poor vision and essentially undeveloped. We are slightly more developed than carnivorous animals or to omnivores closer to carnivorous. Feline and canine species, after all, are born with sealed ears and eyes, whereas human beings have limited vision and can hear.

So, whether you argue the existence of God or not--and I believe that God exists and is the Creator--it would seem logical that we were physiologically "meant" to eat meat. We might not die without it, but most vegans take a boatload of supplements. In my opinion, most vegans don't look healthy, especially those who have been at it for a while or those who claim to have active lifestyles. To me, that would speak to them having a less than adequate diet *for the species* even if they can sustain themselves quiet adequately on what they eat.

I hear what you're saying. But to address your points:

Most, but not all animals with eyes in front are carnivores/omnivores (pandas, koalas), and not all animals with eyes on the side are herbivores (fish, orca).

As far as the teeth argument, our teeth don't primarily cut and tear like a carnivore's would. Our incisors are very small. In fact our teeth are most similar to chimpanzee teeth. Chimpanzees, coincidentally, are mostly vegetarian. Even that though, there are animals with big incisors who don't use them to tear meat.

But that's neither here nor there. What makes an animal a carnivore, omnivore, or herbavore is what they eat/need to eat. So for example, obligate carnivores need meat. We are omnivores, but not obligate omnivores. Meaning, we *can* eat both meat and plants, but do not need to eat meat. An animal that is an obligate omnivore would need both plants AND meat to subsist. Essentially humans are "made" to eat whatever's convenient. But meat is not necessary, if one chooses to eschew it.

shmerek

Be firm, don't engage in any debate just shut it down. I am a vegetarian who never brings it up unless someone asks and even then I say nothing but I have to say from my experience meat eaters can be just as bad as vegans tried to shove their choices down my throat. All I say is thanks but no thanks not interested.

albayin

Be firm, don't engage in any debate just shut it down. I am a vegetarian who never brings it up unless someone asks and even then I say nothing but I have to say from my experience meat eaters can be just as bad as vegans tried to shove their choices down my throat. All I say is thanks but no thanks not interested.

if everyone did what you did, I think we can truly co-exist. I think OP said that "no thank you" is not enough to shut the other party up.

Trechechus

"No other animal drinks milk into adulthood!"


"That's because no other animal is smart enough to figure out how to milk a cow."

calves are

shmerek

if everyone did what you did, I think we can truly co-exist. I think OP said that "no thank you" is not enough to shut the other party up.

In that case slap them in the face and tell them to shut their piehole... Seriously, if they are actually friends with these people a firm "no thank you" should suffice otherwise I would consider telling them to **** off as friends.

CalicoMonroe

I think you need better friends if they're forcing their views upon you.

I am not vegan, just a vegetarian myself but I never force my decision upon friends or family. If they ask then I provide them with the information they're requesting.

Obviously you cannot get new family members BUT simply telling them you respect their decision but to continue eating meat is your own decision is the best approach, not any of the moronic crap that other people are on here posting believing that they're funny.

shmerek

I think you need better friends if they're forcing their views upon you.

I am not vegan, just a vegetarian myself but I never force my decision upon friends or family. If they ask then I provide them with the information they're requesting.

Obviously you cannot get new family members BUT simply telling them you respect their decision but to continue eating meat is your own decision is the best approach, not any of the moronic crap that other people are on here posting believing that they're funny.

+1

snazzyjazzy21

I have to say though, the whole "we're meant to eat meat" thing is annoying. "Meant to" by who? God? Will we die without it? Am I a zombie at this point?

Physiologically, it's hard to argue that human beings are "meant to be" omnivores. Most herbivores have eyes set on the sides of their heads, to see predators coming. They generally have vision up to about 270 degrees or so. Human beings have eyes set on the front of their heads, like predatory species, not prey species.

Human beings primarily have teeth that cut and tear. Our grinding teeth are limited and set at the back of our mouths. Other omnivorous or carnivorous animals have such teeth. Herbivorous mammals have tearing teeth at the font of their mouths and grinding teeth all along their jaws.

Human beings have two breasts on the front of their bodies. In terms of mammals, we're pikers: dogs, for example, have up to ten "breasts" on their bellies (I think they actually have 8 breasts and 10 nipples, but I might be mistaken). Regardless. Most herbivores nurse their young from udders between their hind legs. I'm pretty sure Al Bundy didn't read "Udder 'Uns."

Herbivores digest cellulose. Human beings do not. Some herbivores have several stomachs that allow them to break down cellulose efficiently. When was the last time anyone here saw a human being chew his/her cud?

Human beings have guts of moderate length. Herbivores tend to have very long or complex guts, including those multiple stomachs at times, to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Our guts are neither as long as herbivores or as short as carnivores. That in itself would suggest an omnivorous diet.

Herbivores are born capable of walking and running within minutes of their birth. Human beings, like other omnivores, are born with poor vision and essentially undeveloped. We are slightly more developed than carnivorous animals or to omnivores closer to carnivorous. Feline and canine species, after all, are born with sealed ears and eyes, whereas human beings have limited vision and can hear.

So, whether you argue the existence of God or not--and I believe that God exists and is the Creator--it would seem logical that we were physiologically "meant" to eat meat. We might not die without it, but most vegans take a boatload of supplements. In my opinion, most vegans don't look healthy, especially those who have been at it for a while or those who claim to have active lifestyles. To me, that would speak to them having a less than adequate diet *for the species* even if they can sustain themselves quiet adequately on what they eat.

I hear what you're saying. But to address your points:

Most, but not all animals with eyes in front are carnivores/omnivores (pandas, koalas), and not all animals with eyes on the side are herbivores (fish, orca).

As far as the teeth argument, our teeth don't primarily cut and tear like a carnivore's would. Our incisors are very small. In fact our teeth are most similar to chimpanzee teeth. Chimpanzees, coincidentally, are mostly vegetarian. Even that though, there are animals with big incisors who don't use them to tear meat.

But that's neither here nor there. What makes an animal a carnivore, omnivore, or herbavore is what they eat/need to eat. So for example, obligate carnivores need meat. We are omnivores, but not obligate omnivores. Meaning, we *can* eat both meat and plants, but do not need to eat meat. An animal that is an obligate omnivore would need both plants AND meat to subsist. Essentially humans are "made" to eat whatever's convenient. But meat is not necessary, if one chooses to eschew it.

But what about B12? We need B12, and the general population gets it from meat sources without a problem. Vegans need B12 supplements because they don't get it in their diet. If we didn't need meat, then why is it (basically, with the exception of dairy and eggs) the only source of B12?

ETA: My knowledge on the whole B12 thing is relatively small, so if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me. But from my general understanding, someone on a vegan diet would struggle greatly without supplementation. I doubt man kind would be here today if our ancestors partook in a vegan diet. Although, given our access to B12 supplements I suppose you could say that nowadays, meat isn't necessary?

shapefitter

I knew a vegan (male), who was oversensitive about certain issues, to the point where I began to question his mental health. About a year ago, he decided to become a vegetarian, and within a month, I could see a vast improvement. He became more relaxed, and I almost began to like him.

Human's are different, as we control fire. We are hunters, farmers, scavengers. We eat everything, and anything. Watch, and observe babies. Everything, has to be sampled.

LoupGarouTFTs

I have to say though, the whole "we're meant to eat meat" thing is annoying. "Meant to" by who? God? Will we die without it? Am I a zombie at this point?

Physiologically, it's hard to argue that human beings are "meant to be" omnivores. Most herbivores have eyes set on the sides of their heads, to see predators coming. They generally have vision up to about 270 degrees or so. Human beings have eyes set on the front of their heads, like predatory species, not prey species.

Human beings primarily have teeth that cut and tear. Our grinding teeth are limited and set at the back of our mouths. Other omnivorous or carnivorous animals have such teeth. Herbivorous mammals have tearing teeth at the font of their mouths and grinding teeth all along their jaws.

Human beings have two breasts on the front of their bodies. In terms of mammals, we're pikers: dogs, for example, have up to ten "breasts" on their bellies (I think they actually have 8 breasts and 10 nipples, but I might be mistaken). Regardless. Most herbivores nurse their young from udders between their hind legs. I'm pretty sure Al Bundy didn't read "Udder 'Uns."

Herbivores digest cellulose. Human beings do not. Some herbivores have several stomachs that allow them to break down cellulose efficiently. When was the last time anyone here saw a human being chew his/her cud?

Human beings have guts of moderate length. Herbivores tend to have very long or complex guts, including those multiple stomachs at times, to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Our guts are neither as long as herbivores or as short as carnivores. That in itself would suggest an omnivorous diet.

Herbivores are born capable of walking and running within minutes of their birth. Human beings, like other omnivores, are born with poor vision and essentially undeveloped. We are slightly more developed than carnivorous animals or to omnivores closer to carnivorous. Feline and canine species, after all, are born with sealed ears and eyes, whereas human beings have limited vision and can hear.

So, whether you argue the existence of God or not--and I believe that God exists and is the Creator--it would seem logical that we were physiologically "meant" to eat meat. We might not die without it, but most vegans take a boatload of supplements. In my opinion, most vegans don't look healthy, especially those who have been at it for a while or those who claim to have active lifestyles. To me, that would speak to them having a less than adequate diet *for the species* even if they can sustain themselves quiet adequately on what they eat.

I hear what you're saying. But to address your points:

Most, but not all animals with eyes in front are carnivores/omnivores (pandas, koalas), and not all animals with eyes on the side are herbivores (fish, orca).

As far as the teeth argument, our teeth don't primarily cut and tear like a carnivore's would. Our incisors are very small. In fact our teeth are most similar to chimpanzee teeth. Chimpanzees, coincidentally, are mostly vegetarian. Even that though, there are animals with big incisors who don't use them to tear meat.


But that's neither here nor there. What makes an animal a carnivore, omnivore, or herbavore is what they eat/need to eat. So for example, obligate carnivores need meat. We are omnivores, but not obligate omnivores. Meaning, we *can* eat both meat and plants, but do not need to eat meat. An animal that is an obligate omnivore would need both plants AND meat to subsist. Essentially humans are "made" to eat whatever's convenient. But meat is not necessary, if one chooses to eschew it.

Point taken with the koala bear--however, it is an entirely different type of herbivore--not a hoofed herbivore, lives in trees, etc. They are not representative of herbivores and neither are pandas.

On the contrary, chimpanzees are omnivores. The large incisors on most carnivores are not used for tearing. They are used for gripping. We're omnivores, face it. That's what "eat(ing) whatever is convenient" is all about. Human beings did not start developing the brains of modern humans until they began eating an omnivorous diet--so, yes, it was necessary for us to eat meat to become us. We also thrive when we eat meat and receive sufficient nutrition without supplements. Don't preach at me about plant proteins. They are not sufficient. If they were, then there would not be so many vegans on supplements.

shmerek

I have to say though, the whole "we're meant to eat meat" thing is annoying. "Meant to" by who? God? Will we die without it? Am I a zombie at this point?

Physiologically, it's hard to argue that human beings are "meant to be" omnivores. Most herbivores have eyes set on the sides of their heads, to see predators coming. They generally have vision up to about 270 degrees or so. Human beings have eyes set on the front of their heads, like predatory species, not prey species.

Human beings primarily have teeth that cut and tear. Our grinding teeth are limited and set at the back of our mouths. Other omnivorous or carnivorous animals have such teeth. Herbivorous mammals have tearing teeth at the font of their mouths and grinding teeth all along their jaws.

Human beings have two breasts on the front of their bodies. In terms of mammals, we're pikers: dogs, for example, have up to ten "breasts" on their bellies (I think they actually have 8 breasts and 10 nipples, but I might be mistaken). Regardless. Most herbivores nurse their young from udders between their hind legs. I'm pretty sure Al Bundy didn't read "Udder 'Uns."

Herbivores digest cellulose. Human beings do not. Some herbivores have several stomachs that allow them to break down cellulose efficiently. When was the last time anyone here saw a human being chew his/her cud?

Human beings have guts of moderate length. Herbivores tend to have very long or complex guts, including those multiple stomachs at times, to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Our guts are neither as long as herbivores or as short as carnivores. That in itself would suggest an omnivorous diet.

Herbivores are born capable of walking and running within minutes of their birth. Human beings, like other omnivores, are born with poor vision and essentially undeveloped. We are slightly more developed than carnivorous animals or to omnivores closer to carnivorous. Feline and canine species, after all, are born with sealed ears and eyes, whereas human beings have limited vision and can hear.

So, whether you argue the existence of God or not--and I believe that God exists and is the Creator--it would seem logical that we were physiologically "meant" to eat meat. We might not die without it, but most vegans take a boatload of supplements. In my opinion, most vegans don't look healthy, especially those who have been at it for a while or those who claim to have active lifestyles. To me, that would speak to them having a less than adequate diet *for the species* even if they can sustain themselves quiet adequately on what they eat.

I hear what you're saying. But to address your points:

Most, but not all animals with eyes in front are carnivores/omnivores (pandas, koalas), and not all animals with eyes on the side are herbivores (fish, orca).

As far as the teeth argument, our teeth don't primarily cut and tear like a carnivore's would. Our incisors are very small. In fact our teeth are most similar to chimpanzee teeth. Chimpanzees, coincidentally, are mostly vegetarian. Even that though, there are animals with big incisors who don't use them to tear meat.


But that's neither here nor there. What makes an animal a carnivore, omnivore, or herbavore is what they eat/need to eat. So for example, obligate carnivores need meat. We are omnivores, but not obligate omnivores. Meaning, we *can* eat both meat and plants, but do not need to eat meat. An animal that is an obligate omnivore would need both plants AND meat to subsist. Essentially humans are "made" to eat whatever's convenient. But meat is not necessary, if one chooses to eschew it.

Point taken with the koala bear--however, it is an entirely different type of herbivore--not a hoofed herbivore, lives in trees, etc. They are not representative of herbivores and neither are pandas.

On the contrary, chimpanzees are omnivores. The large incisors on most carnivores are not used for tearing. They are used for gripping. We're omnivores, face it. That's what "eat(ing) whatever is convenient" is all about. Human beings did not start developing the brains of modern humans until they began eating an omnivorous diet--so, yes, it was necessary for us to eat meat to become us. We also thrive when we eat meat and receive sufficient nutrition without supplements. Don't preach at me about plant proteins. They are not sufficient. If they were, then there would not be so many vegans on supplements.

I am not going to get into anything you have said but plant proteins are sufficient without supplements. If you have any actual science that proves to the contrary I will retract my statement otherwise you are just spreading bollocks

LoupGarouTFTs

I am not going to get into anything you have said but plant proteins are sufficient without supplements. If you have any actual science that proves to the contrary I will retract my statement otherwise you are just spreading bollocks

No, I think you've made a pretty strong statement and need to back that up.

shmerek

I am not going to get into anything you have said but plant proteins are sufficient without supplements. If you have any actual science that proves to the contrary I will retract my statement otherwise you are just spreading bollocks

No, I think you've made a pretty strong statement and need to back that up.

Actually You made the claim they are insufficient therefore it is your responsibility to back your claim, not mine. I am calling you out on it to prove your assertion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

PennyVonDread

Wow. The anger. "All we are saying ♪ is give peas a chance!" ♫

LoupGarouTFTs

I am not going to get into anything you have said but plant proteins are sufficient without supplements. If you have any actual science that proves to the contrary I will retract my statement otherwise you are just spreading bollocks

No, I think you've made a pretty strong statement and need to back that up.

Actually You made the claim they are insufficient therefore it is your responsibility to back your claim, not mine. I am calling you out on it to prove your assertion.

But I didn't call your claim "bollocks." So go ahead. Back it up. Otherwise just admit you're angry at me for disagreeing with you.

shmerek

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446?pg=1

Just did, not angry at you but I do get angry at anyone who spouts off bull**** without evidence regardless of the topic. If you assert something back it up or shut the hell up. Simple as that. If you claim something without backing it up it probably is bollocks.

LoupGarouTFTs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

ngry at anyone who spouts off bull**** without evidence regardless of the topiJust did, not angry at you but I do get ac. If you assert something back it up or shut the hell up. Simple as that. If you claim something without backing it up it probably is bollocks.

That's vegetarian. Not vegan. You've backed up nothing.

shmerek

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

ngry at anyone who spouts off bull**** without evidence regardless of the topiJust did, not angry at you but I do get ac. If you assert something back it up or shut the hell up. Simple as that. If you claim something without backing it up it probably is bollocks.

That's vegetarian. Not vegan. You've backed up nothing.

"it is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."

From the first link read again SLOWLY.

Strokingdiction

This poor topic and it's complete derailment:

shmerek

This poor topic and it's complete derailment:

Apologies, I just couldn't let that one statement slide. As you were.

LoupGarouTFTs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

ngry at anyone who spouts off bull**** without evidence regardless of the topiJust did, not angry at you but I do get ac. If you assert something back it up or shut the hell up. Simple as that. If you claim something without backing it up it probably is bollocks.

That's vegetarian. Not vegan. You've backed up nothing.

"it is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."

From the first link read again SLOWLY.

So yeah . . . supplementation.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Vegetarian-Diets_UCM_306032_Article.jsp

http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/recommended-supplements-for-vegans.html

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/natural

http://blog.healthkismet.com/vegan-diet-supplements

http://www.vegandude.com/2011/09/supplementation-in-vegan-diet.html

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

Just a guess, but I think the ADA is what is known as, "wrong."

shmerek

"In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients."

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem. See those first three words? They mean something. And no I don't think they are wrong, I will take the research of a well known institution over that of the "vegandude"

In case your memory is bad as your reading comprehension you originally asserted that

"Don't preach at me about plant proteins. They are not sufficient."

This is what I called you out on and you are wrong as I have shown so get over it.

shmerek

Hey I didn't want to get into the politics of it. I never do. I am not claiming one diet is better than the other. I just take issue when someone asserts something that is clearly not true, it wouldn't matter what the topic was.