Against PROTEINS? Are they capitalist? (clarifying concept)

[Red Dreadnought]

-I'm not entering in ethical, or philosophycal reasons about to be vegetarianist, or vegan.

BUT I WOULD LIKE CLARIFY:

- PROTEIN IS NOT EQUAL TO MEAT OR ANIMAL FOOD, in general: there are too a lot of PLANT PROTEINS, and life would be imposible without them: for exemple, those who join to chlorophyle, and make photosynthesis possible, or RUBISCO, the protein that transform inorganic CO2 in organic materia, and the most abundant protein in earth.

Even if vegan you obtain your proteins from plants (specially from cereals or leguminosae) cause all we are are made in part of proteins: our musculs, the colagen of our bones an skin, those that catalyse our reactions.

[Plagueround]

:blink:

I don't think I've ever heard a vegetarian or vegan argue against proteins. If anything, they emphasize the fact that they can get it from other sources.

[Invincible Summer]

If you are referring to the vegetarian/vegan group (which i believe has a different name now), it's a joke... vegetarians/vegans always get asked "Where do you get your protein from if you don't eat meat?!" so... yeah.

And even if someone was against protein, how does that make them a capitalist?!

[Red Dreadnought]

Well I supposed it was a joke, but I wanted to clarify it.

[9]

I used to be a vegetarian, and then I got healthy x1000 when I started eating meat again. Fucking useless lifestyle, vegetarianism. :)

[Dimentio]

This entire thread makes me think of an old classmate I had in primary school. He was into body-building for a time, and had these immortal quotes. This one was one regarding body-building.

"HO HO HO! I AM GOING TO EAT FAT AND PROTEINS AND BECOMING STRONG LIKE TYSON! SO I COULD KICK UP ALL THESE HIPHOPPERS! HO HO HO, SURE I AM SMART LIKE SATAN, AM I NOT?"

[jake williams]

I used to be a vegetarian, and then I got healthy x1000 when I started eating meat again. Fucking useless lifestyle, vegetarianism. :)
I've (mostly) cut down way down on my meat in the last two years or so. Recently I've been eating more meat recently because I've moved to start school and have been eating more fast food (and free food), and less of the vegetarian food I like cooking. When I cut down on my meat, it made me a whole lot healthier. That said, I think the important thing is it may well make a lot of people healthier to stop eating meat, but not because of the meat but rather because they then start eating less shitty processed food and more vegetables.

[9]

I've (mostly) cut down way down on my meat in the last two years or so. Recently I've been eating more meat recently because I've moved to start school and have been eating more fast food (and free food), and less of the vegetarian food I like cooking. When I cut down on my meat, it made me a whole lot healthier. That said, I think the important thing is it may well make a lot of people healthier to stop eating meat, but not because of the meat but rather because they then start eating less shitty processed food and more vegetables.

Well, eating shitty food and not fruits and vegetables is definitely unhealthy. For me, though, vegetarianism wall something I undertook out of guilt, and being raised in a culture of habitual guilt-induction which naturally becomes internalized, this sort of thinking spread into all areas of my diet until I wouldn't really even touch dairy products. It resulted in anemia and me basically being malnourished and significantly underweight and was overall extremely unhealthy.
As of late, I've been reading a bit about some new information that has come out which shows that the real culprit which leads to people being unhealthy is an excessive intake of grain-based carbohydrates. Ironically, if you've seen the US food pyramid which has been out forever, grain-based carbs have been considered the most important food and its been constantly advocated that people consume more servings of grain-based carbs than anything else. It's not particularly surprising that this pyramid should be so grossly flawed, looking at the general health of the average American.
So really, I don't know that it is necessarily important whether one eats meat or doesn't (assuming they get proper amounts of protein and iron from other sources if they're vegetarians). Certainly, though, I found it far more difficult to consume adequate levels of protein when I was not eating meat, which has led to my being immeasurably more healthy since I ditched vegetarianism.

[Invincible Summer]

I used to be a vegetarian, and then I got healthy x1000 when I started eating meat again. Fucking useless lifestyle, vegetarianism. :)

I think it depends on what you ate... lots of people who have tried vegetarianism/veganism go back to eating meat because they claim vegetarianism/veganism made them "more sick" or something. But then all they ate was shitty iceberg lettuce or empty carbs... no real nutrition at all. Not saying that that's what you did, but that's just a common problem with people who try vegetarianism.

[Jethro Tull]

i love eating animal flesh and pummeling vegans with my might

[Plagueround]

i love eating animal flesh and pummeling vegans with my might

Please don't spam serious threads with useless one liners.

[Revy]

I've been a vegan for six years. I'm glad the name of the group was changed. That annoyed me. Vegetarians and vegans are not against protein. Though many bring up the fact that having too much protein can be damaging to one's health.

The vitriol against veganism seems to come from a very insecure place. I have often seen it combined with homophobia (not on this forum, at least).

I do think that sometime in the future most people will be vegan, out of a combination of factors, ethics, health, environment.

[Atrus]

I agree, the mockery of vegertarianism and veganism is completely beyond me. I've seen people have parties where no Vegans are allowed, and this just strikes me as insanity.
Personally, I eat meat, although once I was asked "How can you justify taking a life when you can get all the protein you need from other sources?" I had trouble answering. But ultimately I think it comes down to, until I can feed by photosynthesis, I must kill [non-humans] to live. If I'm doing that anyway, I might as well enjoy what I eat.

[Red Dreadnought]

Neither Vegetarianism, nor Veganism are a mockery, those are personal convictions. But I argue my position. No problem if you eat eggs and/or lactics; but strict veganism can objectivelly give health problems by lacking certain aminoacids soja(tofu) can partially compese it) and vitamines (maybe B12¿?, and here's no alternative). And if you are entering playing with your health, well you can be a hero, but I find it un-natural and forced

[The Broke Cycle]

I am a meatatarian, and so I get all the protein I need.

I don't think veganism and vegetarianism are for everyone. I am one of those people. I simply do not feel full until I eat some meat, and although I really like greens, I don't think they could sustain my high metabolism.

What is important to me is making sure that I buy local meat products that are raised ethically, preferably by a small business.

[9]

I agree, the mockery of vegertarianism and veganism is completely beyond me. I've seen people have parties where no Vegans are allowed, and this just strikes me as insanity.
Personally, I eat meat, although once I was asked "How can you justify taking a life when you can get all the protein you need from other sources?" I had trouble answering. But ultimately I think it comes down to, until I can feed by photosynthesis, I must kill [non-humans] to live. If I'm doing that anyway, I might as well enjoy what I eat.

To be honest, while I don't participate, I do understand what fuels what you've referred to as "the mockery of veganism". It is the behavior of many vegans, and I am not speaking based on rumors I heard from other people, I am speaking based on first-hand experience with many vegans and the intolerable smugness and holier-than-thou attitude that many of them attach to something as absurd and inconsequential as a fucking diet. I was a vegetarian for a short time, not because of personal convictions but because I was basically harassed by friends and family who'd taken up the lifestyle, who would launch into tirades about how I was responsible for taking lives and slaughtering animals etc. etc. because I ate meat. This behavior is absurd, and people who behave this way are pieces of shit, particularly those who believe they are doing something radical by not eating meat. Of course, I don't mean to box all vegans into that label; those who don't eat animal products for whatever reason and keep it to a personal matter and don't pretend its some sort of activism - I have no ill feelings for them at all. But in my experience, however limited, most vegans do not keep it personal, but rather, insist on harassing others who have more important things to worry about than some fucking chickens. That behavior is in the same shit liberal lifestylist vein as harassing people who shop at walmart or drink Pepsi or drive a car instead of riding a bike or whatever. Just the sort of people I really wouldn't mind accidentally backing my car into...:lol:

[Jethro Tull]

Please don't spam serious threads with useless one liners.

"against proteins" is a serious thread? this whole message board's a joke....:laugh:

[Invincible Summer]

"against proteins" is a serious thread? this whole message board's a joke....:laugh:

Why are you here

[MarxSchmarx]

People can be vegetarian/vegan for all sorts of reasons. Some I can understand - for instance, the belief that supporting the consumption of mammals is a massive contributor to world hunger. Not that I agree with these claims, but I respect them. Others, I do respect, such as people who genuinely just prefer vegetables and fruits and don't much care for meat or meat products. And some I embrace, as when I get an airplane meal I always ask for the vegetarian option as it is usually tastier.

The most commonly cited reason, though, that of ethical solidarity with mammals and animals more generally, just is not persuasive. Why does a cow have any more of a right to life than a mosquito I smash, or for that matter than a virus or a carrot? Our biology compels us to draw the line somewhere. I mock those vegetarians/vegans who insist on the self-righteous crusade without thinking seriously about the ethical contradiction they engage in.

It's people like these that are typified by this quote:


Personally, I eat meat, although once I was asked "How can you justify taking a life when you can get all the protein you need from other sources?"

Right. So when I pluck a turnip from the field and mercilessly boil it, I'm not taking a life, right? These people need to stop and think about what they're saying, it's about as bad as the "but dogs are people too" type claims.

[9]

^As much as smug middle class animal rights vegans make me want to scream, I actually think that's a pretty bizarre argument to try to make...
Unlike the turnip you pick, the dog has a developed brain and nervous system. The dog can feel pain. If you kick a dog, it's going to cry out. The fact that I eat meat - and quite enjoy it - does not make me oblivious to the fact that animals feel pain and vegetables don't - that an animal and a vegetable are two completely different forms of life that can't reasonably be compared. If you do not consider a dog, which is immeasurably closer to a human than a turnip, to have any more capacity to experience pain and suffering than a vegetable, you are simply ignoring basic science.
Of course, there is no reason that someone should have any need to take this specious line of vegetables being the same as dogs in order to make the case that intake of protein via animals has been enormously important to the development of modern humans, and that as humans - towering over every other living thing on the planet in terms of complexity, capacity, and scope of intelligence - we are rightfully concerned with the lives of humans above all other species. As such, we will certainly kill for our survival, and we will certainly kill if it means a more convenient and accessible source of nutrition. This is absolutely morally justified in my opinion, and I see no reason to resort to unscientific - and frankly, rather worrisome - claims equating the intelligence, emotional capacity, and presence of nerve-endings in mammals with the absence of all of these things in vegetables. Particularly when, a good part of the time, vegans who become crusaders for animal rights are bourgeois misanthropes who find the slaughter of domesticated livestock for human consumption more bothersome than the rampant exploitation and slaughter of massive numbers of human beings for the sake of private profit. The concern with the suffering of non-human animals before that of human animals is a big red flag that something is off. Then again, lacking recognition of the capacity for pain in other mammals is not quite 'on', either, and shouldn't have anything to do with the argument in the first place.

[Tjis]

I am a vegan. I was vegetarian for 2 years at first, and went vegan this year. I've never been more healthy, mainly because my diet before going vegetarian was awful.

My issue with eating meat or dairy products is not that I am eating something that was once alive. Lettuce was alive too. The issue is that it was SENTIENT life. It might be less advanced than human sentience, but these are thinking creatures, not just instinct machines. They can learn, reason and feel emotions. Enslaving them for their milk and eggs and killing them for their meat just seems wrong to me.

But I doubt that me being vegan has any influence whatsoever. Just like boycotting coca-cola won't really help exploited workers, boycotting animal products won't save lives. Also, it's probably impossible to completely live without using any product for which an animal was exploited in some way in todays society, just like it's probably impossible to completely live without using any product for which sweatshop labor was necessary.
I admit that I initially became vegetarian because I thought it'd actually matter, but now it has become a personal matter. I simply can't eat meat or eggs, drink milk or wear leather without feeling disgusted and therefore I don't do it.

I don't look down on people that eat meat. That'd put me on the same level as livestylist "anarchists" that look down on people with a job. People that eat meat are as much guilty of the bio-industry as people that have a job in a capitalist system are guilty of capitalism - that is, not at all. We, the working class, have no control over how the means of production are managed. For those that aren't directly affected, the entire process is a mystery. The only thing most people ever see is the tasty bacon, not the live of slavery ending in slaughter that preceded it.

The bio-industry is a big player in worldwide capitalism. It's not just animals getting hurt either. Huge soy fields in South America feed North American and European cattle, while the locals have no ground for themselves to grow food on. To keep the animal feed cheap, Barely tested genetically modified soy is being grown. In an effort to make maximum gains out of livestock, growth hormones are used.
In short, half the world starves while the other half becomes fat and unhealthy on food that hardly provides nutrition and could even be harmful.

I think working class control over the means of production would change a lot. People might like their bacon, but without a profit motive, few would like to enslave and eventually kill animals on today's scale. I doubt eating meat and drinking milk will ever completely go away everywhere, but the horrible industry around it will.

Besides, we don't really have a choice. As I wrote earlier, huge soy fields in South America are needed right now already to feed European and North American cattle, which are mostly only meant for the European and American market. It's simply impossible to provide this amount of meat for every person on earth, and I doubt the South American working class will be willing to keep providing soy so North America and Europe can have their bacon. At the very least the entire world will have to vastly reduce their meat and dairy consumption.
Which is fine really, you can get all nutrition you need from non-animal sources.

Edit: Oh also I'm not a capitalist.

[TC]

Frankly, if you think the momentary enjoyment you get from eating a hamburger is worth the agony it causes to a living, thinking, feeling thing, then you're living a morally indefensible life. If you think using grains to feed farm animals when there are people starving is a good way to allocate the planet's resources, then you're living a morally indefensible life. If you think maintaining an unnecessary capitalist industry, animal agriculture, that accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transport combined, is worth sinking island nations and making human life unsustainable in much of the world, then you're living a morally indefensible life.

If you avoid thinking about this, as you surely do, then you're engaged in an act of self deception, because you're selfish. Sometimes its okay to be selfish, everyones a little selfish, but lets be honest about it. The reason why there is so much vegan bashing on this website is because meat eaters know what they're doing is morally indefensible so they resort to insults.

[Invincible Summer]

Lots of text

This is my position as well, although I stopped being vegan because it was too difficult for me.

[The Broke Cycle]

Frankly, if you think the momentary enjoyment you get from eating a hamburger is worth the agony it causes to a living, thinking, feeling thing, then you're living a morally indefensible life. If you think using grains to feed farm animals when there are people starving is a good way to allocate the planet's resources, then you're living a morally indefensible life. If you think maintaining an unnecessary capitalist industry, animal agriculture, that accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transport combined, is worth sinking island nations and making human life unsustainable in much of the world, then you're living a morally indefensible life.

If you avoid thinking about this, as you surely do, then you're engaged in an act of self deception, because you're selfish. Sometimes its okay to be selfish, everyones a little selfish, but lets be honest about it. The reason why there is so much vegan bashing on this website is because meat eaters know what they're doing is morally indefensible so they resort to insults.

Eating animals is as morally indefensible as a bear killing a fish.

[bcbm]

Eating animals is as morally indefensible as a bear killing a fish. that's really the best you can come up with?

[MarxSchmarx]

A couple things.

First, pain and suffering are not the basis of what I do and don't eat. I do not care much if a tapeworm in my stomach dies a painful death so that I may be rid of it and live a healthier life. What I eat for my pleasure is similarly just as mundane.

Indeed,


Unlike the turnip you pick, the dog has a developed brain and nervous system. The dog can feel pain. If you kick a dog, it's going to cry out.

All that pain is is a series of chemical signals in response to distress. A plant can similarly have a series of chemical signals in response to distress.


The fact that I eat meat - and quite enjoy it - does not make me oblivious to the fact that animals feel pain and vegetables don't - that an animal and a vegetable are two completely different forms of life that can't reasonably be compared.

The modern science of Biology, which shows that these multicellular eukaryotes aren't really as different as we once thought, would beg to differ.


If you do not consider a dog, which is immeasurably closer to a human than a turnip,

Actually about 50% closer, according to recent genomic surveys.


have any more capacity to experience pain and suffering than a vegetable, you are simply ignoring basic science.

Although I am not, what's so wrong with that? Basic science says a lot of things that I don't care much about in my daily going abouts.

[The Broke Cycle]

that's really the best you can come up with?

Well, no, I could write a great number of paragraphs detailing why killing animals is perfectly fine, but a quick and simple reference to the food chain is often enough.

That's probably why you didn't come up with an actual rebuttal.

[bcbm]

Well, no, I could write a great number of paragraphs detailing why killing animals is perfectly fine, but a quick and simple reference to the food chain is often enough.

That's probably why you didn't come up with an actual rebuttal. well your post wasn't much of a rebuttal to the one that preceded it by tc, so i didn't feel a really need to just copy and paste that again and wait for a decent response. i mean, really, what does the food chain have to do with


If you think using grains to feed farm animals when there are people starving is a good way to allocate the planet's resources, then you're living a morally indefensible life. If you think maintaining an unnecessary capitalist industry, animal agriculture, that accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transport combined, is worth sinking island nations and making human life unsustainable in much of the world, then you're living a morally indefensible life. that?

the modern meat industry is one of the worst industries right now in terms of conditions for workers and the animals, environmental destruction, resource allocation, etc. a bear eating a fish doesn't make people work in disgusting and dangerous factory farms, or clear cut a rainforest, or keep the fish in a small pen for months while its skin falls off. come on.

[9]

well your post wasn't much of a rebuttal to the one that preceded it by tc, so i didn't feel a really need to just copy and paste that again and wait for a decent response. i mean, really, what does the food chain have to do with

that?

the modern meat industry is one of the worst industries right now in terms of conditions for workers and the animals, environmental destruction, resource allocation, etc. a bear eating a fish doesn't make people work in disgusting and dangerous factory farms, or clear cut a rainforest, or keep the fish in a small pen for months while its skin falls off. come on.

On the other hand, thinking its justifiable to eat meat does not necessarily translate into support for the present practices of the meat industry.
So we have the question of lifestylism. It's no coincidence that veganism is largely a middle class phenomenon. Most people don't have the money, time, or information available to quit eating all animal products (presumably TC doesn't drink milk or eat any animal products, otherwise she's being laughably hypocritical) while continuing to get the nutrition needed to sustain themselves.
I don't like the motor industry, for example. Do I quit driving my car? Do I quit going to work? After all, isn't it morally indefensible to drive a car when emissions are raping the environment? Shouldn't working people feel guilty about having to get around from place to place? Or maybe we should quit being a bunch of lifestylist hippie moralists and start focusing on things that are actually relevant to the living conditions of most working people, instead of this "voting with your dollars" bullshit that says we can protest exploitative industries through our personal decisions on what we do and do not buy.

[bcbm]

On the other hand, thinking its justifiable to eat meat does not necessarily translate into support for the present practices of the meat industry.

of course not. i eat meat. but its something a lot of other meat eaters seem to gloss over and ignore, and i find that problematic. i'm not suggesting everybody become vegan, but i am suggesting we pay attention to these issues and try to do something about them. and really, this can be directed at the animal rights types as well, as their struggle largely ignores worker's issues.


I don't like the motor industry, for example. Do I quit driving my car? Do I quit going to work? After all, isn't it morally indefensible to drive a car when emissions are raping the environment? Shouldn't working people feel guilty about having to get around from place to place?

actually i think it would be good if we made a more conscious effort to combat the car culture as it exists in this country by organizing more carpools and rideshares, fighting for better public transportation (something that has been consistently under attack in almost every city i've lived in and is certainly a class issue) and more bike accessible cities.


Or maybe we should quit being a bunch of lifestylist hippie moralists

come on, that's not necessary.


and start focusing on things that are actually relevant to the living conditions of most working people

i think the horrible and degrading conditions in factory farms are relevant to the living conditions of the people who work there (often undocumented workers). i think the environmental problems caused by large scale factory farming are relevant to the living conditions of the people who live near such industries, or downstream from such industries.


instead of this "voting with your dollars" bullshit that says we can protest exploitative industries through our personal decisions on what we do and do not buy.

i wasn't suggesting that we should be voting with our dollars, which isn't to say that boycotts can't be a tactic in worker's struggles, but pointing out that there are serious concerns with animal industries and we can certainly struggle against them in the present instead of pretending there are no issues here affecting working people.

[9]

come on, that's not necessary.
That wasn't directed at you; I was referring to the left as a whole, which has a bad habit of focusing on middle class issues.



i think the horrible and degrading conditions in factory farms are relevant to the living conditions of the people who work there (often undocumented workers). i think the environmental problems caused by large scale factory farming are relevant to the living conditions of the people who live near such industries, or downstream from such industries.
This is absolutely true, but combating the meat industry on the basis of "eating meat is morally indefensible" rather than on the basis of "worker exploitation is morally indefensible" is the problem. In the case of the former, we essentially vilify the people working in the meat industry who are being exploited. Which is why the focus needs to be the rights of the workers, and not the rights of the livestock.




i wasn't suggesting that we should be voting with our dollars, which isn't to say that boycotts can't be a tactic in worker's struggles, but pointing out that there are serious concerns with animal industries and we can certainly struggle against them in the present instead of pretending there are no issues here affecting working people.
I certainly was not suggesting that there were no issues affecting working people. I was attempting to make a distinction between opposing the meat industry because it harms livestock, and opposing capitalism as a whole because it harms working people.

[bcbm]

i guess my initial point was just that the issues raised are important and need to be considered, even if the way they were raised was wrong.

[The Broke Cycle]

the modern meat industry is one of the worst industries right now in terms of conditions for workers and the animals, environmental destruction, resource allocation, etc. a bear eating a fish doesn't make people work in disgusting and dangerous factory farms, or clear cut a rainforest, or keep the fish in a small pen for months while its skin falls off. come on.

Well I suppose my question is: why does eating meat have to mean those things?

Personally I eat organic, free range meat. Of course, all I have to do to get it is go three farms down the road. This supports both local economy and responsible agriculture. As a farmer, I am very familiar with the ins and outs of factory farms and small businesses, and the differences between them. I can assure you that none of the meat I eat came from animals that suffered, or were abused.

While raising meat does require a great deal of energy, it would require alot less once we stop shipping it around the world and it is grown locally again.

[bcbm]

Well I suppose my question is: why does eating meat have to mean those things?


i don't think it does, but the primary meat producers in this country are doing all of these things and that needs to be changed. i personally don't have a problem with meat consumption, i have a problem with how most of the industry functions.

[Invincible Summer]

Or maybe we should quit being a bunch of lifestylist hippie moralists and start focusing on things that are actually relevant to the living conditions of most working people, instead of this "voting with your dollars" bullshit that says we can protest exploitative industries through our personal decisions on what we do and do not buy.

I think members of Revleft are aware that the "voting with your dollars" thing is a crock, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stop eating meat if they disapprove of the way it is produced, or stop driving if one doesn't doesn't like the gasoline or motor industry.

I don't consider myself a lifestylist, yet I do both those things (not eat meat and not own a car; relying on public transit and cycling). It's not because I think I can change the world, but I feel more comfortable doing things this way.

We should distinguish between lifestylism and just like... personal preference.

[Die Rote Fahne]

you...you uhh....you need protein to live. If you don't ingest it...i'm pretty sure you die.

[Jethro Tull]

Unlike the turnip you pick, the dog has a developed brain and nervous system.

Plants have nervous systems.


The dog can feel pain.Plants can feel pain.


If you kick a dog, it's going to cry out.Is it OK to kick a dog with no vocal cords?


The fact that I eat meat - and quite enjoy it - does not make me oblivious to the fact that animals feel pain and vegetables don'tVegetables don't feel pain, because they're dead. Plants that are killed to make vegetables do feel pain. Life is pain.


that an animal and a vegetable are two completely different forms of life that can't reasonably be compared.Plants and animals have many differences, yes. They're also quite similar.


If you do not consider a dog, which is immeasurably closer to a human than a turnip, to have any more capacity to experience pain and suffering than a vegetable, you are simply ignoring basic science.I agree that a dog is more similar to a human than a turnip. How does similarity to humans determine capacity to feel pain? Who is ignoring basic science here?


humans - towering over every other living thing on the planet in terms of complexityTo my knowledge, this is not correct. Humans may be more adept at certain things (tool-making, communicating, etc.) this doesn't make them more "complex" in a neurological or genetic sense.


I see no reason to resort to unscientific - and frankly, rather worrisome - claims equating the intelligence, emotional capacity, and presence of nerve-endings in mammals with the absence of all of these things in vegetables.It's "worrisome" to suggest that plants have feelings and should be respected?


Particularly when, a good part of the time, vegans who become crusaders for animal rights are bourgeois misanthropes who find the slaughter of domesticated livestock for human consumption more bothersome than the rampant exploitation and slaughter of massive numbers of human beings for the sake of private profit.I hate vegans, but I think the industrial-scale slaughter of living beings is bothersome, regardless of what species they are.


The concern with the suffering of non-human animals before that of human animals is a big red flag that something is off.Possibly, but only in the sense that humans are as important as non-humans. Why is it logical for me, as a human, to think human suffering is worse? I might as well, as a brown-haired human, think that it's better for blonde-haired humans to be slaughtered.

[Jethro Tull]

I've never been more healthy, mainly because my diet before going vegetarian was awful.

Yes, but does that prove vegetarianism/veganism is healthy?

I can go from only eating Twinkies, to only eating raw celery, and I'd probably feel healthier. It doesn't mean a raw celery diet is healthy.


My issue with eating meat or dairy products is not that I am eating something that was once alive. Lettuce was alive too. The issue is that it was SENTIENT life. It might be less advanced than human sentience

"sentient" just means "possessing the ability to sense." Plants are certainly sentient; thigmotropism, phototropism, gravitropism, etc. would be impossible without sentient capacity.

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/plants-found-to-send-nerve-like-messages.html

I would also question how "advanced" human sentience is. Humans have pretty mediocre eyesight, compared to, say falcons. Even compare our hearing and scent to that of our closest animal companions, cats and dogs. Human reasoning may be more advanced, but that's another argument.


but these are thinking creatures, not just instinct machines.

In the strictly chemical sense, we are all "instinct machines". Humans no less than lettuce plants.


Enslaving them for their milk and eggs and killing them for their meat just seems wrong to me.

I definitely agree that capitalist industrial-agriculture is animal slavery. Are you suggesting, however, that all animal husbandry is slavery? I know some cows and chickens who live much better lives than I ever will.


But I doubt that me being vegan has any influence whatsoever. Just like boycotting coca-cola won't really help exploited workers, boycotting animal products won't save lives. Also, it's probably impossible to completely live without using any product for which an animal was exploited in some way in todays society, just like it's probably impossible to completely live without using any product for which sweatshop labor was necessary.

Exactly, so what's the point? It's certainly not healthier...


I simply can't eat meat or eggs, drink milk or wear leather without feeling disgusted and therefore I don't do it.

Maybe you shouldn't let your visceral emotions dictate your rational decision-making.


People that eat meat are as much guilty of the bio-industry as people that have a job in a capitalist system are guilty of capitalism - that is, not at all. We, the working class, have no control over how the means of production are managed. For those that aren't directly affected, the entire process is a mystery. The only thing most people ever see is the tasty bacon, not the live of slavery ending in slaughter that preceded it.

The bio-industry is a big player in worldwide capitalism. It's not just animals getting hurt either. Huge soy fields in South America feed North American and European cattle, while the locals have no ground for themselves to grow food on. To keep the animal feed cheap, Barely tested genetically modified soy is being grown. In an effort to make maximum gains out of livestock, growth hormones are used.
In short, half the world starves while the other half becomes fat and unhealthy on food that hardly provides nutrition and could even be harmful.

I think working class control over the means of production would change a lot. People might like their bacon, but without a profit motive, few would like to enslave and eventually kill animals on today's scale. I doubt eating meat and drinking milk will ever completely go away everywhere, but the horrible industry around it will.

Agreed, 100%.


huge soy fields in South America are needed right now already to feed European and North American cattle, which are mostly only meant for the European and American market. It's simply impossible to provide this amount of meat for every person on earth, and I doubt the South American working class will be willing to keep providing soy so North America and Europe can have their bacon.

I strongly disagree. No one needed soy monoculture to grow animal food before capitalism, no one will need it after capitalism either.


Which is fine really, you can get all nutrition you need from non-animal sources.

I'm no medical expert, but just from personal experience I get very sick if I only get my protein from nuts and beans. My digestive system cannot handle most beans, with the exception of mung, urad, and red lentils, (and even those beans in moderation) and can only handle nuts, soybeans, and peanuts in moderation as well. I eat a lot of beef, chicken, cheese, milk, eggs, and butter, because it's what's healthiest for my body.

[Jethro Tull]

Frankly, if you think the momentary enjoyment you get from eating a hamburger is worth the agony it causes to a living, thinking, feeling thing, then you're living a morally indefensible life.

Granted, there are probably some sick farmers out there who torture their free-range cattle, otherwise "agony" is really only inflicted by a specific form of beef-production that was introduced under capitalism. Just out of curiosity, have you ever slaughtered a cow?

Also everything we consume is a product of agony, human or otherwise. All commodities produced under capitalism are the product of exploitation, not just hamburger. Beef is much more necessary than, say, the Internet, which you use. The vast majority of us are workers who participate in capitalist consumption because we have no other option. Obviously the goal of communists should be to change this, but in the meantime, consumer moralism is obvious victim-blaming. (especially considering how contaminated most foods we consume are)


If you think using grains to feed farm animals when there are people starvingThey aren't starving because there aren't enough grains, they are starving because of capitalism. (How is denying them meat going to solve their starving problem, anyway? Humans need more than just grains you know, we aren't cows)

Also, cows don't particularly enjoy eating grains. Grains like soy and cow are cheap, hence why the beef industry uses them. Cows would much rather prefer green grass, which is much healthier for both the cow and the person consuming the cow's flesh.


If you think maintaining an unnecessary capitalist industry, animal agriculture, that accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transport combined, is worth sinking island nations and making human life unsustainable in much of the worldYeah, and what about the other 82 percent? I'm sure you're contributing to that in some way, especially since, as I said, you're using the Internet.


The reason why there is so much vegan bashing on this website is because meat eaters know what they're doing is morally indefensibleThe reason I bash vegans is because I'm sick of people who think that anyone who isn't following an unhealthy New Age fad is a "murderer" who is "morally indefensible" for enjoying animal protein, as humans have enjoyed for at least hundreds of thousands of years.

[Invincible Summer]

The reason I bash vegans is because I'm sick of people who think that anyone who isn't following an unhealthy New Age fad is a "murderer" who is "morally indefensible" for enjoying animal protein, as humans have enjoyed for at least hundreds of thousands of years.

Well, the difference is that hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was for survival. For us fortunate enough to live in developed nations, it's no longer survival but a taste preference.


And I think it's funny how some of the meat-eaters are getting all worked up and defensive - no one here is trying to convert anyone to vegetarian/veganism.

[Aeval]

A quick word to the people who seem to generalise that 'most' vegans are annoying, hippie lifestylists and that that's the reason they 'hate them' or feel it's acceptable to 'bash them':

Yes, some vegans are really fucking annoying. You know what though? Some meat eaters are really fucking annoying too. Especially the ones who think it's hilarious to start waving hamburgers right in your face and going on and on and ON about how much they like meat. I think a lot of veg*ans have the problem of utterly *hilarious* meat eaters starting on them to prove how wonderfully witty they are BEFORE THE VEG*AN HAS EVEN SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT EATING MEAT! Seriously, for every annoying vegan I've met I've probably met 20 total knobheads who do eat meat. It seems that often just mentioning the fact that I don't eat meat is enough to warrant a tide of abuse and ridicule from people who I don't even know - and no, I never go on at meat eaters unless they say something factually inaccurate or they start being a twat to me or someone else. I know a hell of a lot of vegans and can think of only one who deliberately starts on meat eaters - some vegans are knobs, some meat eaters are knobs, some people are knobs - hating vegans is just pretty sad to be honest, maybe if you weren't so hostile to them then they wouldn't be so hostile back.

[pastradamus]

Seriously...Proteins are good for red blood cells. I dont know why this original question is being asked.

[9]

I think members of Revleft are aware that the "voting with your dollars" thing is a crock, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stop eating meat if they disapprove of the way it is produced, or stop driving if one doesn't doesn't like the gasoline or motor industry.

I don't consider myself a lifestylist, yet I do both those things (not eat meat and not own a car; relying on public transit and cycling). It's not because I think I can change the world, but I feel more comfortable doing things this way.

We should distinguish between lifestylism and just like... personal preference.

No, you are absolutely right on the last point, and I did not intend to lump people who adopt veganism as a personal matter, whatever their reasons, in with the “lifestylist hippie moralist” camp.
My “beef” (no pun intended) is with those vegans who make their veganism a moral and political crusade – not simply against particular exploitive industries (which, in and of itself begs the question, which industries aren’t exploitive?), but against working people who eat meat (the majority of working people).
One of the greatest mistakes the left has made in the last half-century is the tremendous shift of focus away from championing the cause of oppressed groups and the working class in particular, and on to issues regarding middle class counterculture and individualism. It is not simply the baggage of Cold War propaganda that is responsible for the suspicion with which so many working people view the left; it is the fact that so many on the ‘left’ have betrayed the struggle for the emancipation of the working class in favor of lifestyle crusades which portray the working class – the “mindless consumer” of “immoral” products – as the problem rather than the solution.
Another factor frequently ignored by these “lifestyle crusaders” is the relevance of privilege in “personal choice” as it relates to lifestyle. So Person A, who works ten hour days and has to drive twenty-five miles in rush-hour traffic in the morning to get to work, and twenty-five miles in rush-hour traffic in the evening to get home, has to sacrifice a whole hell of a lot more to “quit supporting the motor industry and rely on public transit” than Person B, who works part time at the pizza place three blocks away from the house he shares with his parents. As such, Person B has no business harassing Person A about “supporting the motor industry” because the sacrifices incurred upon each by taking public transportation are not even comparable. The fact of the matter is that the more privilege one has – both in the way of time and in the way of money – the more accessible, practical, and all around easier the lifestyle choices like veganism and “not supporting the auto industry” are. This is why, as far as I can see, politicizing these issues comes down to a matter of class allegiance as well as illusions regarding the workings of the capitalist system and the necessary measures to overcome exploitation.

[Jethro Tull]

Well, the difference is that hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was for survival. For us fortunate enough to live in developed nations, it's no longer survival but a taste preference.

Oftentimes peoples' "taste preferences" have a lot to do with what their body craves, in other words, what nutrients their body needs. (I mean, this obviously isn't the case with addictive food additives such as MSG, HFCS, hydrogenated oil, etc.)

Also, most people still consume food for survival, in case you weren't aware.


no one here is trying to convert anyone to vegetarian/veganism.

Yes they are.

[Redmau5]

Vegetables don't feel pain, because they're dead. Plants that are killed to make vegetables do feel pain. Life is pain.

This is incredibly idiotic.

[Jethro Tull]

This is incredibly idiotic.

It's idiotic to say plants feel pain? Or it's idiotic to say life is pain? I feel fairly confident that I can defend both positions.

[Invincible Summer]

Oftentimes peoples' "taste preferences" have a lot to do with what their body craves, in other words, what nutrients their body needs. (I mean, this obviously isn't the case with addictive food additives such as MSG, HFCS, hydrogenated oil, etc.)

Also, most people still consume food for survival, in case you weren't aware.

So I like chocolate cake, and if I start craving it, that means my body isn't getting enough chocolate, fudge, cream (basically, fat and deliciousness)?

I never said that people don't need food for survival. I said that I see the consumption of meat in the past as more out of survival.

And before you start trying to pin me for being "anti-working class" and "bourgeois" or something, I realize that there are plenty of people in this world that have meat as a rare luxury due to the unequal distribution of food. I'm fine with them eating meat... hell I'm fine with anyone eating meat. I'm just saying that for people who are fortunate enough to not be in a situation like that, meat isn't an absolute necessity like meat-eaters make it out to be.




Yes they are.

Could you please point out a quote from a Revlefter that is directly telling another member to stop eating meat and adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle? From what I've read, the vegetarians/vegans here are simply asserting why that they, as individuals, make that dietary choice

[Jethro Tull]

So I like chocolate cake, and if I start craving it, that means my body isn't getting enough chocolate, fudge, cream (basically, fat and deliciousness)?

Chocolate is a stimulant, like coffee. It is addictive.
Refined sugar is also an addictive stimulant.

Meat is not chemically addictive.

[black magick hustla]

the argument that inflicting pain on animals is morally reprehensible only applies under a very shaky "kantian morality" applied to all organisms. i dont care about animals. i dont care about "morally defending" my eating habits. i wont point out at the "food chain" to prove the righteusness of my point of view. i simply dont sympathize with animals. whether the meat industry is awful because it affects us, that is another can of worms. there is no way to defend moral values with "reason" anyway. ethical statements are not the same as scientific statements or mathematical statements.

[Jethro Tull]

i dont care about animals. [...] i simply dont sympathize with animals.

That's a fairly bourgeois attitude to take!

[Redmau5]

It's idiotic to say plants feel pain?

Yes it is idiotic. Plants don't have a nervous system or brain, and they don't experience "pain" in the same way that humans and animals do.

[Red Dreadnought]

Probably sensibility at mamalians is more similar to us. But, at what level can you speak of feeling pain in the case of a fish, or a crustacean?

[Jazzratt]

That's a fairly bourgeois attitude to take!

No it isn't. People like you strip all meaning from words.