Vegan therories at 3 in the morning.

Sarauk2sf

I see the google search works well for you. The point is proven. However the science remains - we are not carnivores or omnivores naturally. It's not our "ideal diet".

I don't know about you, but I do know that every human will defend their choices even if evidence shows their beliefs are wrong (at one point or another). Many people can't accept it, I couldn't for the longest time, but to dispute the facts would just be ignorant... (like disputing humans are the only animals to drink milk past infancy) - it's equally as ignorant to think our bodies are designed for consumption of meat.

Just goes to show you that NO ONE is too smart to get away from the propaganda machine.

lol - I am not even going there on the omnivore v herbivore debate. I am a vegetarian and believe we are omnivores. So, in fact, I am defending someone elses diet...your point is invalid.

I assume you are also encompassing to you in your rhetoric.

You can believe in something, but it doesn't make it true or right. Our chemistry says that your vegetarian diet is what our bodies are designed for. If you read my post (and did the research to confirm from reputable sources) you'd see that we are not omnivores at all. Maybe if we keep it up, we'll evolve to that, but for the time being, we are everything a herbivore is right down to our insides & PH.

Why do you think humans have to worry about cholesterol levels, while omnivores and carnivores don't? It has to do with our intestines not being anything like theirs.

Same reason why cats can get diabetes. Much of their food is "filler" that their bodies are not designed for, - just like much of humans sicknesses

I disagree with your hypothesis. And even if I agreed with it..we can eat meat..simple as that.

bathsheba_c

Herbivores don't wonder about their cholesterol levels either. Also, you seem to be implying that men are designed to be herbivores while women are designed to be omnivores because we have "different nutrient needs."

Why are these discussions about what humans are "designed" to eat always so asinine?

jjrichard83

So many people think that humans are "so unique" that we each need a different diet. It's preference, not need. VERY big difference. Much of our diets are the reason why we are so unhealthy. Only 3 animals in the world have a problem with obesity - Humans, cats & dogs. I can assure you that the only reason cats and dogs do is because the crap we feed them too!


Even with solid facts in front of people, they will defend their point in fear of looking stupid. If you can find one peer reviewed paper that shows any of the list I made is incorrect, I would gladly admit I was wrong. I don't think you can, but in trying so, you'd see we are in fact herbivores.

The problem is most people will look for facts to support their ideas, and stay close minded. I looked on both sides, and the fact is truth doesn't have a side.

Can humans eat meat? yes - is it good for them? debatable.
Can cats eat grains? Yes! Is it good for them? not really.

Just because it's seen as acceptable and the meat/dairy industry lie to us, doesn't mean it's right.

Lastly- milk from the USA is pretty unhealthy too- with all the chemicals they inject to the cows, plus Jamie Oliver did a talk (ted talks) where Milk in the States had just as much sugar in it as soda pop. Maybe whole milk is good, but the milk most of you drink is nothing like when it first came out.

Sarauk2sf

I have yet to see a convincing study that milk, taken in context of a balanced diet is 'bad for you', and I have looked.

jjrichard83

I see the google search works well for you. The point is proven. However the science remains - we are not carnivores or omnivores naturally. It's not our "ideal diet".

I don't know about you, but I do know that every human will defend their choices even if evidence shows their beliefs are wrong (at one point or another). Many people can't accept it, I couldn't for the longest time, but to dispute the facts would just be ignorant... (like disputing humans are the only animals to drink milk past infancy) - it's equally as ignorant to think our bodies are designed for consumption of meat.

Just goes to show you that NO ONE is too smart to get away from the propaganda machine.

lol - I am not even going there on the omnivore v herbivore debate. I am a vegetarian and believe we are omnivores. So, in fact, I am defending someone elses diet...your point is invalid.

I assume you are also encompassing to you in your rhetoric.

You can believe in something, but it doesn't make it true or right. Our chemistry says that your vegetarian diet is what our bodies are designed for. If you read my post (and did the research to confirm from reputable sources) you'd see that we are not omnivores at all. Maybe if we keep it up, we'll evolve to that, but for the time being, we are everything a herbivore is right down to our insides & PH.

Why do you think humans have to worry about cholesterol levels, while omnivores and carnivores don't? It has to do with our intestines not being anything like theirs.

Same reason why cats can get diabetes. Much of their food is "filler" that their bodies are not designed for, - just like much of humans sicknesses

I disagree with your hypothesis. And even if I agreed with it..we can eat meat..simple as that.

We CAN drink alcohol too, but that doesn't mean it's good for us. We CAN eat poop, but we are getting second hand/ recycled nutrients that way too. Just because we can doesn't mean it's our best option.

Sarauk2sf

I see the google search works well for you. The point is proven. However the science remains - we are not carnivores or omnivores naturally. It's not our "ideal diet".

I don't know about you, but I do know that every human will defend their choices even if evidence shows their beliefs are wrong (at one point or another). Many people can't accept it, I couldn't for the longest time, but to dispute the facts would just be ignorant... (like disputing humans are the only animals to drink milk past infancy) - it's equally as ignorant to think our bodies are designed for consumption of meat.

Just goes to show you that NO ONE is too smart to get away from the propaganda machine.

lol - I am not even going there on the omnivore v herbivore debate. I am a vegetarian and believe we are omnivores. So, in fact, I am defending someone elses diet...your point is invalid.

I assume you are also encompassing to you in your rhetoric.

You can believe in something, but it doesn't make it true or right. Our chemistry says that your vegetarian diet is what our bodies are designed for. If you read my post (and did the research to confirm from reputable sources) you'd see that we are not omnivores at all. Maybe if we keep it up, we'll evolve to that, but for the time being, we are everything a herbivore is right down to our insides & PH.

Why do you think humans have to worry about cholesterol levels, while omnivores and carnivores don't? It has to do with our intestines not being anything like theirs.

Same reason why cats can get diabetes. Much of their food is "filler" that their bodies are not designed for, - just like much of humans sicknesses

I disagree with your hypothesis. And even if I agreed with it..we can eat meat..simple as that.

We CAN drink alcohol too, but that doesn't mean it's good for us. We CAN eat poop, but we are getting second hand/ recycled nutrients that way too. Just because we can doesn't mean it's our best option.

I was actually giving you the benefit of being able to take my statement in context and applying it with some reasonableness.

Sharkington

crunchybubblez

Has anyone else notices we're the ONLY species that drinks milk past the 1 year mark? Does that not seem a bit off to you?

I need to say, this is one of the dumbest statements EVER!
My son will be 3 years old next week, and he's nursing and going to sleep right now as I'm typing this.
I would love that he be weaned by now, and encourage him to eat/drink other things,
but I believe in self weaning, and don't want to hear a devastated 2yr old scream (because it can be traumatic).

Fact: Mammals self wean when their back molars grow in.
Human babies don't grow their back molars after a couple months, but a couple year.
These would be known as the "2 year molars".
If a child is left to truly self wean it usually happens approximately between 2-4yrs of age,
depending on when they are nutritionally and emotionally ready to stop.

Fyi I try to stick to a vegetarian diet, and eat mostly vegetarian/vegan meals.

jjrichard83

I have yet to see a convincing study that milk, taken in context of a balanced diet is 'bad for you', and I have looked.

That could be because funding it would be a major problem. Dairy industry is like the mob when it comes to advertising and marketing.

Child car seats have been PROVEN to be no better than a normal seat belt after the age of 2 years, but no one in the industry will say so b/c their funding loss potential.

Here is a Ted Talk from Jamie Oliver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_QOzc79Uc

We eat more meat now, we eat more sugar, more processed foods than ever before. We are also lowering our life expectancy through our diets. Ignorance is whats keeping these "junk food" companies afloat.

Sarauk2sf

I have yet to see a convincing study that milk, taken in context of a balanced diet is 'bad for you', and I have looked.

That could be because funding it would be a major problem. Dairy industry is like the mob when it comes to advertising and marketing.

Child car seats have been PROVEN to be no better than a normal seat belt after the age of 2 years, but no one in the industry will say so b/c their funding loss potential.

Here is a Ted Talk from Jamie Oliver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_QOzc79Uc

We eat more meat now, we eat more sugar, more processed foods than ever before. We are also lowering our life expectancy through our diets. Ignorance is whats keeping these "junk food" companies afloat.

Aaaahh, that argument.

jjrichard83

I have yet to see a convincing study that milk, taken in context of a balanced diet is 'bad for you', and I have looked.

That could be because funding it would be a major problem. Dairy industry is like the mob when it comes to advertising and marketing.

Child car seats have been PROVEN to be no better than a normal seat belt after the age of 2 years, but no one in the industry will say so b/c their funding loss potential.

Here is a Ted Talk from Jamie Oliver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_QOzc79Uc

We eat more meat now, we eat more sugar, more processed foods than ever before. We are also lowering our life expectancy through our diets. Ignorance is whats keeping these "junk food" companies afloat.

Aaaahh, that argument.

Surely you're not arguing about our diet being a major (if not the only significant) cause of lowering life expectancy. Or are you talking about the "mob". I believe it's much easier to get a grant to prove something in a big industry than it is to disprove it. I've tried it myself in the travel industry. It's an uphill battle.

crunchybubblez

I have yet to see a convincing study that milk, taken in context of a balanced diet is 'bad for you', and I have looked.

That could be because funding it would be a major problem. Dairy industry is like the mob when it comes to advertising and marketing.

Child car seats have been PROVEN to be no better than a normal seat belt after the age of 2 years, but no one in the industry will say so b/c their funding loss potential.

Here is a Ted Talk from Jamie Oliver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_QOzc79Uc

We eat more meat now, we eat more sugar, more processed foods than ever before. We are also lowering our life expectancy through our diets. Ignorance is whats keeping these "junk food" companies afloat.

Dude! Ok, I know the food industry is corrupt, but have you seen a 2year old in a normal seat belt?!
My kids are in one of the top of the line car seats. The company voluntarily does crash tests with their carseats.
There are rave reviews from people who've been in bad accidents with them.
I've heard so many stories over the years of kids being projected from cars during car accidents, because they weren't in a carseat, or weren't buckled in correctly.
And I'm talking about locally.
*SMH

**Just wanted to add, a little girl almost 3yrs old died in a car accident down the street from my house about 3wks ago.
She was in a booster seat, and was not big enough to be in it.
Because she did not have the snugness of a 5 point harness her little body was thrown around like a rag doll.
The accident wasn't even that bad. The dad didn't even have a scratch.

geebusuk

If your going to drink milk that's for helping infants grow can't you at least drink it from your own species?

If you're going to eat an embryo, cant you at least eat one from your own species?

That's the problem with using that sort of logic in a 'real' argument.
It's not really a "good argument" .

As far as humans being omnivores go; all the definitions I've found suggest that it's something along the lines of "eats plants and animals" - which most of us do.

As for trying to compare evolutionary design - humans are perhaps the most unique species on this planet in their evolution.
So trying to compare our design to others doesn't tell us much.

As for milk being bad for you studies - there's a lot of money in milk alternatives.
If they thought there was a chance of success, pretty sure they would be funding studies!

neandermagnon

Humans are NOT adapted for a vegetarian diet. Humans would not have even evolved on a vegetarian diet. In fact, there are not very many vegetarian primates. Contrary to the popular belief of vegans, gorillas are not vegetarians, they eat insects. In fact there's a rule about primate brain size, vegetarian = smaller brain, animal protein = bigger brains.

the great apes are the largest brained of the primates (scientifically speaking, humans are a kind of great ape). no great apes are vegetarian, they are all omnivores. The largest brained great apes hunt and eat meat. Chimpanzees hunt and eat small monkeys, and they also eat a lot of insects. Humans hunt and eat large animals and in the last 10,000 years many have farmed animals as well as hunting them.

There is no species of human that ate a vegetarian diet. Even australopithecines are most likely to have had a similar diet to a chimpanzee, i.e. hunting small animals and eating insects as part of an omnivorous diet. (yes the robust australopithecines may have been adapted for more plant foods and less animal protein, but a) they're not our ancestors and b) they had smaller brains than gracile australopithecines of which some were our ancestors, and Australopithecus gahri had stone tools similar to Homo habilis, which suggests a diet similar to Homo habilis, and this species (A. gahri) is believed to be directly ancestral to all humans)

Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it.

Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones)

Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire.

Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools

Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. therefore they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)

upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe)

neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens

Basically - the more meat humans (and australopithecines) ate, the bigger their brains got. The bigger their brains got, the better they got at hunting animals and cooking meat. H.sapiens sapiens has a slightly smaller brain than H. neanderthalensis had, but also probably ate less meat than them, plus they ate fish. But you're talking differences in macronutrient ratios, not the absence of animal products in the diet. H. sapiens sapiens ate meat and fish, and modern hunter gatherers have a high protein diet (like 80g+ a day, more for arctic populations) and most of the protein comes from meat or fish.

So where does vegetarianism fit into it? Well it's equally as natural in the human diet as drinking milk is, i.e. something that was only possible in post-neolithic populations. Prior to that, humans needed to eat meat and could not digest lactose. Without agriculture, humans can't get enough protein to live entirely off plant foods. Even that is not possible everywhere in the world, because high protein plant foods like soya and lentils don't grow everywhere. You need a post-industrial infrastructure to be able to import high protein plant foods from other parts of the world. Veganism is not even post-neolithic for many people, it's post-industrial.

So if you want to claim that milk is unnatural in the human diet because humans have adopted it only recently, well the same is true, in fact even more true, of the production of large quantities of plant protein. The fact that humans *can* live entirely off of plant protein, is evidence of just how adaptable humans are, and I don't have a problem with anyone who does not want to eat animal products. However to try to claim that veganism is more natural for humans than eating meat is ridiculous, unless you have the brain the size of a small monkey!! (which you don't have...)

EvgeniZyntx

Oh look, an anti-milk thread that used the same tired arguments as we've seen a hundred times before.

We shouldn't do it because other animals don't do it.
Ok, hope you like living in you hole in the ground without clothes, electricity, complex speech, architecture, or the written word. For starters.

So you're wrong. We can accept that, maybe you can't, but no need to attack.

If you want to drink milk, go ahead. Do we need it? Not at all! Is it healthy for us? Not near as healthy as the milk industry would want you to believe. Will it hurt you? Only if you're LI. Is there better sources for the same nutrients? Of course!

Lol. How is my post an attack? I didn't post the OP attacking people's lifestyle. I'm not the one starting with "You're wrong" and some passive-agressive mumbo-jumbo.

I don't drink much milk - don't even put it in my coffee. Maybe a glass every two weeks or so. I do eat a lot of diary because I enjoy it.

The "do we need it" argument is an exclusion of the middle fallacy - we not not need any single specific food. This can be argued about most foods We do need a variety of nutrients and while you have chosen to restrict yours (I've seen your other posts) I find, through my experience and personal research, that it makes no sense to me to do so.
And my basis of choice has little to do with the milk industry - I guarantee you that I know sufficiently about the nutritional profile of dairy to include it in *my* nutritive and tasty cornucopia. If it isn't your choice, you will not see me ever posting here why *you* should/must include it.

Are there better sources of nutrients - is that what the OP (or you) wants to discuss? I'd suggest that my nutrient intake profile is imperfect but that dairy is not were I would make much modifications. I'd also suggest that the geo/ethno/cultural basis - or "what I eat because of where I live" - guarantees me a pretty nice nutrient variety which includes milk-based products. Nous avons plus de types de fromages que des jours dans l'année

Your statement up thread that humans have the exact biology of herbivores is factually incorrect - if you want to discuss the pros/cons of a vegan/vegetarian diet I'd suggest that you are best served by dropping the pseudo-science statements, which are macro and micro-morphologically incorrect, like those.

I actually respect many aspects of vegetarianism quite a bit - I do not find it as the path I want to follow now or possibly ever. I DO NOT have any respect for the "holier than thou" attitude that push to eliminate one or more food types as the OP. Wanting to argue the scientific basis of a lifestyle choice or gather new converts will likely result in what I do in most of these discussions - a semi-neutral look at the pro/cons. For me, there is no compelling evidence that this is where I should focus my lifestyle energy for a value-add that I get more from quality-of-life and food-enjoyment choices.

In other words, blue cheese? Oh, yeah.

Lupercalia

I was a veggie, vegan, even weirdo raw vegan for a total of 20 years. I ate very carefully and very well, however I am much healthier and happier eating meat, eggs, animal fats, and a little bit of dairy. So is my teenage son who I raised from an infant as veggie and vegan up until about 2.5 years ago. We both feel and look better in pretty much every way imaginable since adding animal products into our leafy diets.

No, humans don't NEED cow's milk. My son grew up very healthy and happy without drinking cow's milk. He very rarely got sick. But full fat, organic, raw cow's milk can be a great source of calories, healthy fats (which we DO need), vitamins, and minerals. Processed milk is just that, and will have less to offer in terms of nutrition. More weird stuff one needs to watch out for as well.

Citing Jamie Oliver is pretty funny!

shella_bella

What I would like is for everyone to just shadap about milk. We are all well informed about this topic. Drink milk, don't drink it, don't care. Just stop arguing about it.

bathsheba_c

I just want to add a disclaimer here that my endorsement of drinking milk does NOT apply to raw milk, which poses a much greater health risk due to the potential presence of harmful microbes, such as listeria. While it is true that skimming milk reduces the nutrients provided, the same cannot be said of pasteurization, which destroys bacteria, especially flash pasteurization.

EvgeniZyntx

I eat meat, however you are VERY wrong. I'll list the ways.

1. Vitamin B12 does not come from an animal source. It is ingested by the animal, so technically you are getting second hand B12. It actually comes from bacteria from dirt. The animals get it b/c they don't wash their food before eating them. B12 can also stay in your system for YEARS, so if you were to get a supplement, having one pill every few months would be fine.
2. Humans are not carnivores at all. In fact our bodys are designed EXACTLY like herbivores.

Here is what we share with herbivores that carnivores do not.

- Our intestines - carnivores & omnivores 3-6 times body length, herbivores(and humans) 10-12 times their body length
- Our saliva. Carnivores do not produce saliva to aid in digesting food
- K9's. Our K9's are similar to other herbivores K9's, not carnivores K9's (or teeth in general.
- facial muscles - carnivores have reduced facial muscles to allow for wide mouth gape, we along with herbivores do not. (along with multiple other "jaw" reasons
- chewing - carnivores swallow whole (or don't chew they tear), humans need extensive chewing - just like herbivores.
- Stomach acidity - Carnivores and omnivores PH1 or lower, in humans PH 4-5 same as herbivores
- colon - simple, short and smooth in carnivores and omnivores. Herbivores - long, complex and sacculated
- liver - carnivores can detoxify Vitamin A - herbivores and humans can not.
- kidney - extremely concentrated urine in carnivores and omnivores. In herbivores and humans it's moderately concentrated urine
- nails - carnivores and omnivores their nails are actually sharp claws. In herbivores and humans - flattened nails or hooves.

You would have been just slightly less wrong if you said we were omnivores, but still wrong.
Even apes who eat meat are still 98% vegetarian. btw you can add omnivores to any of the carnivore list I did not - they apply, I just got lazy.

I'll address your list.

1) nutritional deficiency in vegetarians is a well researched subject area
I'll cite one article - http://dach-liga-homocystein.org/Fachlit/publikationen/DACH37.pdf but can list hundreds. Get your zinc and iron if you go vegan.

2) Bad biology - using "carnivore", "omnivore" as a taxonomic definition independent of actual diet is silly at best, any biologist worth their salt will explain that most Carnivora eat some greens. Humans are classed as omnivore - your wishful thinking does not make it otherwise. Platypus are mammals - even if they lay eggs.
Humans are capable of, and do consume both animal and vegetable matter - we do not have specializations for acquiring or processing only one type of matter. No multiple stomachs and no pure hunters morphologies.

sarahmoo12

my cat and dog both drink cow milk .... im trying not to anymore, baby steps to vegan lol

Yogi_Carl

I am recently vegan and I was uncomfortable with the original post on this thread, which was ill informed and attacking and has given rise to painful and heated exchanges of views. Not surprising people think vegans are weird.

For me, I am well aware that eggs and milk are primary sources of protein and are far superior to meat, fish and vegetable sources in that order. My choice was made because I could no longer accept the ill treatment and captivity of animals kept in meat and dairy and the pollution directly caused by those industries. Simple as that.

My dog will eat grass, meat and eggs, drink milk and other animals’ faeces and all are to varying extent good for him. I choose not to follow his example because he does not have the dilemmas that I have to deal with.

Regarding vegan food deficiencies, there are supplements available which have been produced from vegan sources to address these – just a little research needed.

I used to soap-box – until I realised it is not the best way to bring people on board or even state a sound argument. I guess – to a point – I am enlightened.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

ladymiseryali

That cat's ear position tells me he don't want to share with that fat rat!

Yogi_Carl

In addition: I notice the original poster hasn't come back yet - perhaps they are busy or just thinking about how to reply to everyone?

Minerva624

I like how she misspelled the word "theories."

bathsheba_c

I like how she misspelled the word "theories."

Well, it was 3 in the morning. And I mean that to be understanding, not snarky. Which is rare, but there you go.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Humans are NOT adapted for a vegetarian diet. Humans would not have even evolved on a vegetarian diet. In fact, there are not very many vegetarian primates. Contrary to the popular belief of vegans, gorillas are not vegetarians, they eat insects. In fact there's a rule about primate brain size, vegetarian = smaller brain, animal protein = bigger brains.

. . .

So if you want to claim that milk is unnatural in the human diet because humans have adopted it only recently, well the same is true, in fact even more true, of the production of large quantities of plant protein. The fact that humans *can* live entirely off of plant protein, is evidence of just how adaptable humans are, and I don't have a problem with anyone who does not want to eat animal products. However to try to claim that veganism is more natural for humans than eating meat is ridiculous, unless you have the brain the size of a small monkey!! (which you don't have...)

Sorry, cut part of your quote out for brevity, but just wanted to say :flowerforyou:

rocket_ace

I'm a veggie, not vegan. My diet is full of contradictions I'm sure, but I"m not sure why you are being so "militant" about it? Your vitriolic attitude is why all the meat-eaters hate us? Do you believe there is some higher law that says meat eating is wrong? If there is, no one has delivered it yet. Which makes one's diet a personal decision - so I really think you have no basis for such condemnations. Basically, who are you to cast a stone?

That is all. Now its time for me to take a bath in 2% milk. Does a body good.

Minerva624

I like how she misspelled the word "theories."

Well, it was 3 in the morning. And I mean that to be understanding, not snarky. Which is rare, but there you go.

I wasn't trying to come off as snarky either but her misspelling the word kind of counteracts her attempt at educating others.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I am recently vegan and I was uncomfortable with the original post on this thread, which was ill informed and attacking and has given rise to painful and heated exchanges of views. Not surprising people think vegans are weird.

For me, I am well aware that eggs and milk are primary sources of protein and are far superior to meat, fish and vegetable sources in that order. My choice was made because I could no longer accept the ill treatment and captivity of animals kept in meat and dairy and the pollution directly caused by those industries. Simple as that.

My dog will eat grass, meat and eggs, drink milk and other animals’ faeces and all are to varying extent good for him. I choose not to follow his example because he does not have the dilemmas that I have to deal with.

Regarding vegan food deficiencies, there are supplements available which have been produced from vegan sources to address these – just a little research needed.

I used to soap-box – until I realised it is not the best way to bring people on board or even state a sound argument. I guess – to a point – I am enlightened.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I think you'll find that in spite of the arguments this type of thread inevitably produces, most people here don't have a problem with ethical veganism. It's evangelical veganism that tends to upset people. It's also not just evangelical veganism, I think people get upset with anyone who wants to tell everyone how their diet is the only correct one.

bathsheba_c

I am recently vegan and I was uncomfortable with the original post on this thread, which was ill informed and attacking and has given rise to painful and heated exchanges of views. Not surprising people think vegans are weird.

For me, I am well aware that eggs and milk are primary sources of protein and are far superior to meat, fish and vegetable sources in that order. My choice was made because I could no longer accept the ill treatment and captivity of animals kept in meat and dairy and the pollution directly caused by those industries. Simple as that.

My dog will eat grass, meat and eggs, drink milk and other animals’ faeces and all are to varying extent good for him. I choose not to follow his example because he does not have the dilemmas that I have to deal with.

Regarding vegan food deficiencies, there are supplements available which have been produced from vegan sources to address these – just a little research needed.

I used to soap-box – until I realised it is not the best way to bring people on board or even state a sound argument. I guess – to a point – I am enlightened.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

As someone who has put up with an obnoxious amount of vegan soap-boxing lately, I salute you, sir! :drinker:

I agree that people need to put more thought into the welfare of the animals that provide us with food, as well as the negative secondary effects, such as the overuse of antibiotics, contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant microbes. However, it is far from clear that veganism is the solution to these problems, and I think animal rights folks do a great disservice to the animals whose lives they hope to improve when they go around calling people like me murderers, torturers, and slavemasters (and hypocrites and disgusting, which is a result of the soapbox phenomenon).