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

261–270 of 275 posts

Re: A Vegan No More

#261

Post by dejb »

zaphar wrote: post #204
dejb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. When you hear a story about how some substance 'cured cancer' do you instantly conclude that the claims are necessarily correct - even for the cured person in the story? Would you expect the story to become popular on HN? The problem with one-off anecdotes like this is that they don't even conclusively demonstrate anything. > I so…

> Dude that is a really ignorant and insulting thing to say. Why? We have it within our power to prevent that particular form of animal suffering. Give me enough money and political power and I could round up all the antelope and lions and keep em seperated. How is ignoring that form of animal suffering any different than ignoring animal farming? > And here you demonstrate your limited grasp of evolution which a reso…

>> Dude that is a really ignorant and insulting thing to say.

>Why?

You obviously have absolutely no idea of the range of reasons people have for being vegan do you? Here are a few

- Visceral disgust at the though of consuming animal flesh / produce

- The view that a vegan diet is healthier than a diet with meat. Also a view that meat products are a significant cause of many of our chronic diseases. Both of these views are well backed by a large amount of science for example 'the China Study'.

- The view that plant food is significantly more efficient to produce (5-10 times) and far less harmful for the environment than meat. This is true not just in term of calories but also for protein.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism

- Religious beliefs

- The view that human control of animals represents a kind of slavery.

- The view that it is immoral for humans to knowingly and unnecessarily kill and/or cause pain to another being. The fact that humans are intelligent enough to have a choice and understand the consequences of their actions is the important thing. Many vegans feel especially strongly about factory farming which is often cruel in the extreme.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat

So now do you see how ignorant your point about lions is? Veganism is primarily about humans relationship to animals not about animals relationships with each other.

> I'll bite. How is it a fallacy?

By definition, that's how. Look it up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

> Citation needed

There are so many but I'll just stick with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Study cause I'm lazy.

> Because the market would provide?

Yes there would be numerous vegan options with the nutrient mix customized to suit vegan diets.

> Either way you still have to work harder and be far more careful with what you eat in order to pull it off so my point still stands.

You have to work pretty hard with a meat based diet to avoid the chronic diseases it can cause.

Re: A Vegan No More

#262

Post by gregwebs »

gregwebs wrote: post #253
Xodarap wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grass-fed meat is often worse for the environment. See e.g. http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-be... In any case, consider an analogy: suppose you wanted to end human slavery. Would supporting "sustainable" slavery end it more quickly, or not supporting any slavery at all? I realize that slavery is not the moral equivalent of eating meat, but in terms of the effectiveness of boycotts, they are…

none of the "science" (or blogs in your case) people quote about pastured meat is close to correct. This blogger assumes that all methane from cows will be released into the atmosphere like in the factory model when it is in a big pile by itself. This assumption does not hold when the cow manure is spread out and worked into the soil by nature. Methane is probably the least of our concerns in such a comparison anyway…

actually, I remember now that most methane emissions from cattle are from burping. But I still have never seen someone analyze the whole system- equally important is how much methane is absorbed back from the atmosphere in a pasture.

Re: A Vegan No More

#263

Post by lucasjung »

zatara wrote: post #134
lucasjung wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the most humane way you can get your meat is, in many places, to hunt for it. Because humans have reduced habitats and/or eliminated other predators in many places, wildlife management agencies have to use human hunting as a tool to keep populations at sustainable levels. Example: if there is enough food in a given area for 100 deer to survive the winter, but there are 200 deer, that doesn't mean that…

If you are into hunting, I think you should make things fair for both sides. Leave the gun at home and try something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

Not sure why this is getting down-voted: I had assumed the comment to be tongue-in-cheek, and that video is absolutely fascinating. I'm completely in awe of those guys.

Re: A Vegan No More

#264

Post by Egregore »

elblanco wrote: post #191
Egregore wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants and fungus don't have nervous system, so there are no scientifically demonstrable ways how they will use ability to suffer. Animals can move and suffering helps them find better conditions, for example if there is to hot an animal will seek another place, if something causes suffering animals will try to avoid it, plants on the other hand can't move and can't avoid suffering so plants don't need to feel suffer…

>Plants and fungus don't have nervous system Who says plants don't have a different, but equivalent way of sensing their environment? Plants respond to stressors in the same way that animals do, they fail to thrive -- they wilt, or don't produce fruit, they grow more slowly, etc. Overtime, plants evolve defensive mechanisms like bark, thorns or poisons. Everything an animal does (or at least with strong analogies to…

Plants don't need the mechanism of suffering, because it's useless for them, plant's can't run away from somebody who is harming them and can't move location from a bad place to a better place.

Re: A Vegan No More

#265

Post by zatara »

slackito wrote: post #213
zatara wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are into hunting, I think you should make things fair for both sides. Leave the gun at home and try something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

Why should we go for "fairness" when hunting for food? Using our brains isn't fair? Animals won't show any restraint when using their strengths to kill any weaker prey.

So, according to your definition of fairness, we should for example nuke Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia et al., as terrorists show no mercy with our women and children, so why should we bother? Or maybe Microsoft was just right to use its OS/Office monopoly to kill Netscape and many others, as they were in top of the food chain...

IMHO, fairness is necessary linked to bringing balance into the world. Using our brains is of course fair, but we should agree that there is much less brain work in the average modern hunter, drinking beer in a hideout and waiting for an opportunity to shoot a power rifle from a safe distance, than in any of the hunters depicted in the video. I of course cannot do what they do, but it was very humbling and moving to see such display of respect and fairness.

Re: A Vegan No More

#266

Post by lucasjung »

zatara wrote: post #265
slackito wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we go for "fairness" when hunting for food? Using our brains isn't fair? Animals won't show any restraint when using their strengths to kill any weaker prey.

So, according to your definition of fairness, we should for example nuke Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia et al., as terrorists show no mercy with our women and children, so why should we bother? Or maybe Microsoft was just right to use its OS/Office monopoly to kill Netscape and many others, as they were in top of the food chain... IMHO, fairness is necessary linked to bringing balance into the world. Using our brain…

I think that you and parent both played the straw man against each other. This isn't a binary issue, it's a continuum. Modern hunters have a wide range of tools to choose from, at various points on the spectrum of "fairness." I would posit that "fairness" isn't even the primary factor in choice of equipment for most hunters in modern countries. Other considerations such as "challenge level" and laws/regulations probably have much more to do with it. For example, in the U.S. most areas have two deer seasons: a longer, earlier season where only bows and/or muzzle-loaders are allowed and a shorter, later season where modern high-power rifles are allowed.

This is, of course, anecdotal, but I don't know any hunters who use high-power rifles from blinds. Typically, deer stands are used by bow hunters. High-power rifles are typically used from much greater distances where the shots are correspondingly more difficult. I'm not really into deer hunting (I prefer upland fowl), so my experience with the subject is limited. Either way, the "brain power" part of it went into the development of the tools, not so much into their use. Also, only an idiot mixes alcohol with firearms (or broadheads). Yes, there are people out there stupid enough to do so, but they are a very small minority (it tends to be self-enforcing). Hunting from a deer stand typically involves getting up before dawn and climbing up onto a rickety platform to shiver silently for hours hoping that a deer comes by close enough to shoot. That's why I'm not a big fan of deer hunting.

Let's also not conflate "fair" with "humane." As I mentioned, the area where I currently live is so overpopulated with deer that professional hunters have to be hired to kill a few hundred each year (it's truly astounding how fast the local herds grow). If they don't kill enough, even more will die by starvation and disease. If they were overly concerned about fairness, they wouldn't be able to kill enough deer in time, and that would be inhumane.

Re: A Vegan No More

#267

Post by zatara »

lucasjung wrote: post #266
zatara wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, according to your definition of fairness, we should for example nuke Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia et al., as terrorists show no mercy with our women and children, so why should we bother? Or maybe Microsoft was just right to use its OS/Office monopoly to kill Netscape and many others, as they were in top of the food chain... IMHO, fairness is necessary linked to bringing balance into the world. Using our brain…

I think that you and parent both played the straw man against each other. This isn't a binary issue, it's a continuum. Modern hunters have a wide range of tools to choose from, at various points on the spectrum of "fairness." I would posit that "fairness" isn't even the primary factor in choice of equipment for most hunters in modern countries. Other considerations such as "challenge level" and laws/regulations proba…

You certainly show a level of maturity that is not common among typical hunters. I understand that you enjoy the process of hunting, not only the result, and I can sympathize with that. Thanks for augmenting my perspective on the subject.

Re: A Vegan No More

#268

Post by lucasjung »

zatara wrote: post #267
lucasjung wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you and parent both played the straw man against each other. This isn't a binary issue, it's a continuum. Modern hunters have a wide range of tools to choose from, at various points on the spectrum of "fairness." I would posit that "fairness" isn't even the primary factor in choice of equipment for most hunters in modern countries. Other considerations such as "challenge level" and laws/regulations proba…

You certainly show a level of maturity that is not common among typical hunters. I understand that you enjoy the process of hunting, not only the result, and I can sympathize with that. Thanks for augmenting my perspective on the subject.

On the one hand, I appreciate the second two sentences of your post. On the other hand, the first sentence wipes out any semblance of goodwill:

"You certainly show a level of maturity that is not common among typical hunters."

This is just plain stereotyping. I don't know how you formed your perception of the average maturity level of a typical hunter, but it clearly wasn't by actually interacting with typical hunters. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what a "typical" hunter is. That's kind of like a "typical" golfer, or a "typical" swimmer. I move around a lot, but I don't like to hunt alone, which unfortunately means I don't get to hunt very much any more. It also means that I'm always looking for new people to hunt with, and I've found hunters from all walks of life, often in very heterogeneous groups where the only thing they share in common is hunting.

If anything, hunting promotes maturity: when you teach a ten year old how to utilize a deadly weapon, and all of the ways you can accidentally hurt or kill yourself or others with it, and all of the rules for avoiding such mishaps, and all of the myriad ways you can get hurt or killed outdoors even without weapons involved, the sudden load of responsibilities tends to instill maturity in a way that less hazardous activities can't. True, some kids simply aren't ready for it as young as others, but most parents/mentors see this quickly and wait another year before resuming the lessons. Much like alcohol use in conjunction with firearms, it's rather self-enforcing: would you want to hang out in the middle of nowhere with an immature kid wielding a lethal weapon? Neither would I. Does it happen? Sure. Is it common? No.

Re: A Vegan No More

#269

Post by erikpukinskis »

Tichy wrote: post #202
erikpukinskis wrote: post #68

For what it's worth, I don't think of people who eat diets supposedly free of animal products as "vegan". I think of them as "fundamentalist". To me, veganism is about creating a culture where we don't abuse animals. It happens that part of that work for me involves mostly not eating meat. But sometimes eating meat is exactly what I need to do. Eating meat, in specific ways, can be a way to connect with people, a way…

There are lots of reasons for being vegan. What if you can not digest animal products very well, or just think it is healthier to eat vegan. YOur world view seems rather black and white. Also I don't understand the part about connecting with people - so if you don't eat meat, you have troubles connecting (if you eat something else)? How so? Also, does eating meat also help you to connect with vegans, or maybe not? Al…

There are lots of reasons for being vegan. What if you can not digest animal products very well, or just think it is healthier to eat vegan.

That's great. I think those are wonderful reasons, and am happy for those people to include themselves under the umbrella of veganism.

YOur world view seems rather black and white.

Why are you attacking me?

if you don't eat meat, you have troubles connecting (if you eat something else)? How so?

When I went to Spain, there were often situations where I could either eat Spanish food with Spanish friends, or I could sit and not eat anything with them, and then go home and cook my own food. I chose to share in their culture and participate. I didn't really eat much meat, but I did eat some vegetarian food. And I did try some of the meat.

does eating meat also help you to connect with vegans, or maybe not?

I don't recall a situation where eating meat helped me connect with vegans. I generally connect with vegans by eating vegan food with them, or talking about vegan food.

All in all, I call bullshit.

Why are you antagonizing me? I'm just honestly expressing my thoughts about something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. Please be a little nicer to me.

Re: A Vegan No More

#270

Post by erikpukinskis »

Tichy wrote: post #202
erikpukinskis wrote: post #68

For what it's worth, I don't think of people who eat diets supposedly free of animal products as "vegan". I think of them as "fundamentalist". To me, veganism is about creating a culture where we don't abuse animals. It happens that part of that work for me involves mostly not eating meat. But sometimes eating meat is exactly what I need to do. Eating meat, in specific ways, can be a way to connect with people, a way…

There are lots of reasons for being vegan. What if you can not digest animal products very well, or just think it is healthier to eat vegan. YOur world view seems rather black and white. Also I don't understand the part about connecting with people - so if you don't eat meat, you have troubles connecting (if you eat something else)? How so? Also, does eating meat also help you to connect with vegans, or maybe not? Al…

Another case that comes up frequently is I tell meat-eaters about the fact that I often eat pizza, even though I consider myself vegan. And that I think it's OK to be vegan and still eat your favorite non-vegan foods every now and then.

It DOES help me connect with those people. People often hear that and thing "oh! that sounds like something I could do!" Unlike abstaining from animal products entirely, which, to most people does NOT sound like something they could do.

Post reply on HN