Arguments against veganism - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 09-20-2003, 11:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
chiaraluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,704
This is not new, but I just found it when I was messing around online... I HATE things like this.



http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
chiaraluna is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 09-20-2003, 11:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
borealis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiaraluna View Post

This is not new, but I just found it when I was messing around online... I HATE things like this.



http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm





I admit I didn't read the whole thing. I stopped after the deaths of field mice were mentioned, because I've heard it all before.



What they seem to overlook is that many more field mice and other small animals will die to raise the food that feeds the beef they think we should all be eating. It's a stupid argument.
borealis is offline  
#3 Old 09-21-2003, 12:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,866
I don't know if I'd say it's a stupid argument. It's actually quite good. I like when people question everything.



With that said, I still disagree.



It's unfortunate that field animals die to grow our food, but it's worthwhile to mention that up until the point of their death they were completely free-roaming, reproducing, fully in the circle of life animals. This is unlike any of the animals that they are suggesting people eat.



I didn't read the entire article either, I'll admit, but by the looks of the title "The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet" he suggests that we should eat beef and lamb, and not chickens or fowl. I completely agree with this. It's sad for me that people who consider themselves vegetarian yet eat chicken and fish are actually causing more suffering than other omnivores who also eat beef. A cow can produce several hundred servings of food while an average bird will produce only a few (In the US 10 billion chickens are killed each year and the remaining farm animals total just 1 billion.)



I think the argument that we should eat beef in order to cause the least amount of harm is quite sound, but I won't do it. I think this is akin to giving in to a hijackers demands.
Walter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 09-21-2003, 03:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
shewolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikie View Post

I don't know if I'd say it's a stupid argument. It's actually quite good. I like when people question everything.



With that said, I still disagree.



It's unfortunate that field animals die to grow our food, but it's worthwhile to mention that up until the point of their death they were completely free-roaming, reproducing, fully in the circle of life animals. This is unlike any of the animals that they are suggesting people eat.



I didn't read the entire article either, I'll admit, but by the looks of the title "The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet" he suggests that we should eat beef and lamb, and not chickens or fowl. I completely agree with this. It's sad for me that people who consider themselves vegetarian yet eat chicken and fish are actually causing more suffering than other omnivores who also eat beef. A cow can produce several hundred servings of food while an average bird will produce only a few (In the US 10 billion chickens are killed each year and the remaining farm animals total just 1 billion.)



I think the argument that we should eat beef in order to cause the least amount of harm is quite sound, but I won't do it. I think this is akin to giving in to a hijackers demands.



Also, if you want to eat healthily, you have to eat vegetables and grains anyway... humans can't survive on animal products alone for a long period of time.
shewolf is offline  
#5 Old 09-22-2003, 02:38 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Yeah, there's this one kid whom I've talked about veganism with a little bit. He doesn't actually know I'm vegetarian, though, which is the funny part, because I wonder if he knew if he would still be all outspoken on being anti-vegan. Hehe. I didn't want to put him on the spot, though. So he's telling me that vegans are deluding themselves because so many field animals get injured or killed in wheat fields and stuff.



Him: Would a person who murdered 10 people be less guilty then one who murdered 20 people?

Me: . . . yes . . .
GhostUser is offline  
#6 Old 09-22-2003, 02:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
chiaraluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,704
The way I see it, there is ABSOUTELY no way to avoid death if we want to eat. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. I am vegan because I want to reduce animal suffering and death as much as possible. Those field mice, while it is a horrible tragedy that they have to die for my sake, had much better lives than the cows, chickens, etc. that were born and raised in factory farms. At least by being a vegan, I know that I am doing everything in my power to eliminate that kind of torture.
chiaraluna is offline  
#7 Old 09-22-2003, 03:04 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I agree. It's sad that any animal has to die for us to eat but unfortunately there is no way to avoid all death of animals. But the argument in this article is just ridiculous. Farm animals are forced into a certain lifestyle which is out of their control and I don't agree with that. If a wild roaming animal dies it is not as tragic since they actually had a chance to enjoy their life.



I have a friend who will only eat wild game and not farm meat. While I would not eat any meat no matter where it came from, I can see her reasoning behind it from both an ethical and environmental aspect.



Meanwhile, my truly carnivorous friends agrue that killing plants is also taking a life.
GhostUser is offline  
#8 Old 09-22-2003, 03:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Quizeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,180
Not to mention, it's environmentally unsound to continue to eat flesh and flesh foods. It's simply an inefficient, wasteful use of potential resources.



As someone else mentioned earlier, too, one cannot survive solely on meat/dairy/eggs. Deficiency diseases would consume them over time, but one can live solely on plant foods. We all have to be at least slightly pragmatic about this, unless a Jim Jones style mass suicide is in the works.
Quizeen is offline  
#9 Old 09-22-2003, 03:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Simply: read the counter-arguments.



http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm



Quote:
The way I see it, there is ABSOUTELY no way to avoid death if we want to eat.



Probably so. However, there is a way to avoid killing mammals, fish, birds and reptiles. Growing your food yourself or being in a vegan organic commune of people who do that.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#10 Old 09-22-2003, 08:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,211
OK, so this guy decides that he wants to take a break from promoting his wildlife damage control thingy, in order to demote vegetarianism. It sounds like this guy has a real issue with vegetarians. I'd say that he's probably pissed off at animal rights activists pissing him off, and instead of targeting his campaign back at animal rights activists, he wishes to have a go at discrediting veganism, which is associated with AR. He's got the same kind of attitude diaplayed by trolls. Except this guy is a little smarter than your average troll. This guy doesn't cast his flamebait into another pond. he simply keeps it in his own yard with a big sign. On his page, he states how he loves to get responses to these articles. he enjoys hatemail and displays any feedback as medals of honour. This is the sign of a guy who wishes to have the article displayed for the purpose of what I call "Non-aggressive trolling" which basically means that whilst he doesn't actually invade other sites to get his feedback, he does it on his own site, and waits for his catch to arrive and take the hook. This gives him security in knowing that he isn't a true troll.



Oh well, that's the analysis of the guy who runs that site. the article has completely changed my life around, with it being so convincing. Hell, i might as well have a steak for lunch tomorrow. And a bacon cheeseburger for a snack.
Loki is offline  
#11 Old 09-22-2003, 08:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
NDvegan85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,379
Seems to me that someone concerned with wildlife would support using cows as a food source, seeing as how they are the largest producers of methane, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, which that increase isn't good for wildlife either. If we continue to raise Earth's temperature until it becomes uninhabitable, that will cause a lot of harm.
NDvegan85 is offline  
#12 Old 09-22-2003, 09:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
dvmarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,301
I couldn't resist emailing him and filling in a couple blanks (that I'm sure were blank to support his arguement).

Primarily that our livestock is very much grain fed - and has been for some time (with grazing an afterthought) - so as it is now - we're killing both field critters and livestock.
dvmarie is offline  
#13 Old 09-23-2003, 04:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
1vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,440
I haven't read it at all, but would a person like that also eat everything certified organic?



"Normal" agriculture is more harmful to animals than "certified organic" so........
1vegan is offline  
#14 Old 09-23-2003, 09:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
veganinohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikie View Post




I think the argument that we should eat beef in order to cause the least amount of harm is quite sound, but I won't do it.



Sound? How so?



Generally, the larger the animal farmed, the MORE harm, due to the larger amount of land, water, food, and other resources needed, and all of the consequences that go along with them.
veganinohio is offline  
#15 Old 09-23-2003, 12:53 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I have to take exception with Mikie's statement that the argument is "quite good". It isn't.



When you consider 75% of farming today is done to grow grain and feed for livestock, the argument is invalidated. When you consider that the largest source of pollution in this country today is from raising livestock, the argument seems silly. When you think of all the antibiotics and growth hormones being fed to livestock in order to get them to slaughter faster and that pathogens like E. Coli and its various strains are becoming more prevalent, the argument doesn't deserve a response. When you learn that working in a slaughterhouse is the most dangerous job there is, the guy's argument is embarrassingly uninformed.



There will always be people who disagree with a position, even to the point of skewing data in order to justify their beliefs. As long as you're secure in your own beliefs, and you have information to back it up, this sort of website with this sort of misinformation just takes up space. The type of people who read it and believe it are probably already meat-eaters and looking for self-justification.
GhostUser is offline  
#16 Old 09-23-2003, 06:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,211
This guy isn't trying to justify his lifestyle. Gor him, it is already justified. All he wants to do is take his ange rout on vegetarians.
Loki is offline  
#17 Old 09-23-2003, 06:31 PM
Veggie Regular
 
chiaraluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,704
Somehow not surprising... Few people can resist a little veg-bashing every now and then.
chiaraluna is offline  
#18 Old 09-24-2003, 07:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
michael_veggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 604
I'm typing up an email of complaint
michael_veggie is offline  
#19 Old 09-24-2003, 07:43 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvmarie View Post

I couldn't resist emailing him and filling in a couple blanks (that I'm sure were blank to support his arguement).

Primarily that our livestock is very much grain fed - and has been for some time (with grazing an afterthought) - so as it is now - we're killing both field critters and livestock.



YES YES YES!!!



Hello!! This is such a silly argument!!! I am surrounded with fields and fields of corn and sorgum. For humans??? NONONONONO!! FOR COWS!!!



Animals die to feed the cows and chickens and pigs so they can die too. All to feed our insatiable appetites...
GhostUser is offline  
#20 Old 09-24-2003, 07:47 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
As I've stated before, many omnivores are bothered by the superior ethics and morals of veg*ns and strive to attain equality in any way they can.
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#21 Old 09-24-2003, 08:03 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurmudgeon View Post

As I've stated before, many omnivores are bothered by the superior ethics and morals of veg*ns and strive to attain equality in any way they can.



Gosh...this is sobering. I don't think I am the most moral person I know. Far from it. (I do try to be ethical, but to me that has nothing to do with my eating habits-it's more of how I behave in my relationships with others...) I know many more people that have lived a more "moral" life than me. You think they just interpret our passion for our lifestyle choices with percieved arrogance about it? Or are most of us walking around feeling the above?...
GhostUser is offline  
#22 Old 09-24-2003, 08:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
1vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,440
Omni's (subconsionsly) recognize we're right.

This makes them feel uneasy, therefore they try to catch us on something, because if you're not 100% pure then they don't have to bother at all.



It's also known as cognitive dissonance.
1vegan is offline  
#23 Old 09-24-2003, 08:11 AM
Banned
 
Kurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1vegan View Post

Omni's (subconsionsly) recognize we're right.

This makes them feel uneasy, therefore they try to catch us on something, because if you're not 100% pure then they don't have to bother at all.



It's also known as cognitive dissonance.



You are spot on, 1vegan
Kurmudgeon is offline  
#24 Old 09-24-2003, 08:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
shewolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,541
Plus, Kurm feels omnis are beneath him...
shewolf is offline  
#25 Old 09-24-2003, 08:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
1vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,440
From where he is (down under) he's probably right
1vegan is offline  
#26 Old 09-25-2003, 08:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 487
I think this quote is appropriate here:

Quote:
Isn't man an amazing animal?

He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs,

mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.

This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.

So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases.

Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition

because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man,

who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for

'Peace on Earth'. "

For the love of life,

Jo-Ann

Tova is offline  
#27 Old 09-25-2003, 10:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
*sprout*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 878
oooo i hate things like that with all my mite !!



i saw this article in the paper the other day telling girls to have more dariy if they wana lose thier stomaches (like get a flatter stomach sorry the first one didnt sound right)



And im like are you serious dairy is sooo fattning !!



I feel sorry for the girls that read it and actually listen to it



i love that quote also Tova
*sprout* is offline  
#28 Old 09-25-2003, 07:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Fenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 452
Seeing as how livestock are raised on magic pellets that materialize directly into the animals' food bins, his argument makes a lot of sense.



o wait nm
Fenguin is offline  
#29 Old 10-08-2003, 09:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
I almost feel sorry for the author... imagine being so mislead as to write something that skewed.

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#30 Old 11-26-2007, 11:43 AM
Banned
 
theplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 0
The idea that by stopping eating meat we could reduce suffering is a touching but fundamentally floored one.



Many vegetarians argue that if we stopped eating meat we could feed the world, this sounds very convincing when you hear the statistic that 179,941,270 square kilometers of land is suitable for farming which you would assume ( based on the idea knowledge 1 sqkm can feed 30 with cereal crops) could be used to grow the more efficient cereal crops.



Unfortunately only 11% of this is suitable for growing cereal crops while almost all of it is suitable for the rearing of grazing animals which can survive on grass alone(although at the momment grain is often fed to further fatten them). If we all stopped eating meat there would not be enougth food in the world to support the global population, now if you then add in that we don't eat fish the product of two thirds of the earth you are talking starvation of gigantic proportions.



Also purely farming crops can lead to desertification in 1880 9.4% of the earth was desert by 1952 it has grown to 25%. This is partly due to the use of irrigation methods in unsuitable areas leading to build up of salts on the land eventually leading to it being unable to support crops.



Now please also factor in the fact there are many natural disasters that can cause the loss of crops whilst animals have a much higher chance of surviving due to being able to move and think.



Therefore in my opinion to move purely to vegtable sources for nutrition would apart from being pointless also harmfull to both the enviroment and the human population of our world.
theplater is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off