Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Vegan No More

voraciouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 275 posts

Re: A Vegan No More

#81

Post by autarch »

burgerbrain wrote: post #50
autarch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Ginny's saying that the the author of the blog post is simply echoing things she read elsewhere. That doesn't mean it's some sort of propaganda effort on the part of the blog poster.

I think that's definitely how she's trying to spin it "officially", but her actual intent is pretty clear. > I have to admit I’m always a little suspicious when an ex-vegan dives headlong into a love affair with meat. I mean come on, what else is that supposed to mean? Is she "suspicious" that the author is simply echoing a new-found respect for meat? That doesn't even make sense.

Sheesh, you really love your conspiracy theories.

Ginny's post is primarily about debunking the ridiculous health claims in the original post. She's "suspicious" of the claims because they're ridiculous, and the amount of fervor that Tasha shows suggests that there's something going on besides nutrition.

Re: A Vegan No More

#82

Post by autarch »

jacquesm wrote: post #72
autarch wrote: post #12

Ginny Messina, who is a dietitian and actually has some qualifications to talk about this stuff, wrote a great response to this blog post - http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/do-ex-vegans%E2%80%99-stor...

I think she misses out on that people need to justify stuff for themselves and those that do this justification loudly (for others to hear) are going to persist in that pattern no matter what their decisions. Personally I think that being a vegan, vegetarian or omnivore is an entirely personal thing and you don't need to blast it out like that. Also so that you can change your mind without having to do mental double…

I don't think Ginny's missing that at all. In fact, I think that's her main point, that Tasha's entire post is a post-facto attempt to rationalize a decision made for non-rational reasons.

Re: A Vegan No More

#83

Post by makmanalp »

abeppu wrote: post #62
frossie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for making that point. False dichotomies annoy the heck out of me. I encourage people who are not to try and eat vegetarian (never mind vegan - and BTW I am neither) for one week as an intellectual exercise. The issue is not whether one eats meat, but how totally unthinking our meat consumption has become - bacon for breakfast, ham sandwich for lunch, burger for dinner. The question isn't whether to be vega…

For bonus points, keep track of hidden meat , like gelatin in 'yogurt' and marshmallows, isinglass in your wine, or bonechar in your sugar, or lard, oyster sauce, fish sauce or chicken broth snuck into otherwise vegetarian dishes.

I appreciate the sentiment that you should know what you eat, but don't understand this mentality that I observe many vegetarian / vegans have. Oh no, gelatin snuck in your food, you're not a proper vegan / vegetarian anymore! Beat yourself up about it!

It oddly reminds me of those tiny silly inconsequential rules that you're supposed to pay attention in some religions. Like no alcohol. What does that have anything to do with the main idea of the religion? Oops, you ingested some chicken broth. Feel bad about it. Maybe we'll forgive you later.

Re: A Vegan No More

#84

Post by rtrunck »

chime wrote: post #54
araneae wrote: post #31

That was kind of eye-opening. Not because it shows how bullshit veganism is; I knew that already. But because it reminds me of this friend I have, who is always complaining that she feels tired and weak. She goes to the doctor at least monthly, who diagnosis her with some new deficiency. She's always taking some new pill or food type. I always thought she was a hypochondriac. But it just occurred to me that she might…

> because she's a vegetarian. 400 million Indians are vegetarian (milk and/or eggs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India and I've been a vegetarian all my life. Last year I ran 50 miles non-stop in Grand Teton at 10,000ft elevation so I can say from personal experience that it is certainly possible to be healthy on a balanced vegetarian diet. I can't say the same about veganism though and it's not pop…

I totally agree that it may be possible. But a deeper question is it optimum? We are coders, what could the A/B/C test of Vegan/Vegetarian/Carnivore be? No judgement, just interesting to me.

Re: A Vegan No More

#85

Post by colanderman »

zaphar wrote: post #6
dejb wrote: post #4

> I never expected this post to get so much attention. There is nothing more popular than an anecdote that appeals to people's pre-existing biases. Unfortunately there will be many for which this one story will provide the same weight of evidence as the entire China Study.

The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. While this is just one example it does demonstrate the principle that meat is a necessary and vital part of some peoples healthy eating. I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife.…

> I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well.

I think it's safe to assume that you are against rape. Do you worry about dolphins in the ocean raping other dolphins?

Re: A Vegan No More

#86

Post by cvg »

Evgeny wrote: post #23
cjbprime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. There are, you'll be pleased to hear, many vegans with stronger ethical arguments than "meat is murder". Such as, in summary: * unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable. * some non-human animals (notably the ones we eat most of) are as capable of suffering at the physical level as humans are. We shouldn't discount their suffering just because they aren't members of homo…

* unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable.* I'm wondering, what is the vegan's position on eating: fish; oysters/mussels; squid, octopus; crabs etc.

I can see the issue with animals with brains.

However, Oysters/mussels should be separated out of this list as they don't. After watching this Ted video, http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_... , I think high level plants may be functioning at near the same level as low functioning animals.

Re: A Vegan No More

#87

Post by jerf »

pyre wrote: post #78
dasil003 wrote: post #13

I'm all for radicalism since radicals are the main force questioning conventional wisdom. But the size of the vegan movement is totally out of proportion to its veracity. Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. It's ridiculous from the outset and completely ignores our existence within the earth's ecosystem. I mean industrialized animal farming is fairly horrific, but the way to stop that is by advocating and paying…

> Meanwhile, as vegans focus on the elimination of > meat from our diets, they practically ignore the > industrialized food that wreaks direct reproducible > havoc on our metabolisms causing epidemic obesity > and diabetes. This is a bit of a strawman. You're basically saying that if you can find any fault with someone that is vegan, then their entire message is null and void. Think about it. You've stated that vegan…

Your accusation of strawman doesn't hold. It is a valid point that if you claim your movement is about health, but you ignore the biggest health problem there is (because it does not fit the ideology), the claims to health should be, if not entirely ignored, certainly not taken at face value. It's perfectly logical.

Re: A Vegan No More

#88

Post by huhtenberg »

cjbprime wrote: post #61
xenophanes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. I believe suffering is caused by, roughly, difference between one's preferences and reality. But animals do not have preferences (this is controversial. will you agree that if th…

> I wouldn't really call those arguments. They assume that animals can suffer without giving an argument that animals can suffer. Whether animals can suffer is the core issue which should be addressed, and is not addressed by these statements. No, you're decades out of date. It is established fact, on all sides of the animal rights argument, that animals suffer and feel pain. I'd be shocked if you could find a single…

Wait till they discover Plant and Fungus Suffering. That should make things plenty more interesting :)

Re: A Vegan No More

#89

Post by jfb »

cjbprime wrote: post #16
dasil003 wrote: post #13

I'm all for radicalism since radicals are the main force questioning conventional wisdom. But the size of the vegan movement is totally out of proportion to its veracity. Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. It's ridiculous from the outset and completely ignores our existence within the earth's ecosystem. I mean industrialized animal farming is fairly horrific, but the way to stop that is by advocating and paying…

> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. There are, you'll be pleased to hear, many vegans with stronger ethical arguments than "meat is murder". Such as, in summary: * unnecessary extreme suffering is unjustifiable. * some non-human animals (notably the ones we eat most of) are as capable of suffering at the physical level as humans are. We shouldn't discount their suffering just because they aren't members of homo…

There is a strong ethical case for not accepting instrumentality in ending another creature's life -- ask a Jain. I'm not sure I buy it, but it has a long and proud tradition. I'm on the fence w/r/t my diet(1), but the animal suffering argument is by far the most compelling, and making the ethical decision to no longer participate in an unethical system is to my mind sufficient, particularly when the ethics are conflicted.

(1) http://homonculus.net/posts/personal/2010-10-30-veganism_con...

Re: A Vegan No More

#90

Post by zzzeek »

dasil003 wrote: post #13

I'm all for radicalism since radicals are the main force questioning conventional wisdom. But the size of the vegan movement is totally out of proportion to its veracity. Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. It's ridiculous from the outset and completely ignores our existence within the earth's ecosystem. I mean industrialized animal farming is fairly horrific, but the way to stop that is by advocating and paying…

Well that's the problem with radicalism...they live on the other side of the chasm, ignoring all non-revolutionary paths that might lead in that direction from current reality, so they have virtually no effect on mainstream discourse. Just like to them, the Dems and Republicans are "the same". It's an attitude I'm sure they enjoy having but it sure is ineffectual.
Post reply on HN