Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Outlaw_(A)_Punk, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. BlinkoChrist

    BlinkoChristExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    158

    1

    0

    Nov 1, 2009
     
    Beans nut's and whole grains man :)
    And your dark greans contain more protein than cooked meat.
    My best friend is a raw foodist haha.
     
  2. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    ...and eat more than when you ate meat!
    Congrats to the 13 days!
     
  3. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    For anybody that's concerned about nutrition it is worth bearing in mind that protein is available throughout the vegetable kingdom. Our bodies need 8 types of protein called amino acids. These 8 amino acids are combined in various forms within our bodies as building blocks for the construction of cells. They do not provide fuel. That comes from carbohydrates.

    The 8 essential amino acids are lysine, phenylalanine, valine, tryptophan, methionine, leucine, isoluceine, threonine

    After World War 2 and the era of strict rationing (when people were lucky to get meat and/or dairy products more than once a week) nutritionists of the time came together to try and address the problem of protein shortages in future. But the problem was that in those days they didn't understand that amino acids were widely available throughout the plant kingdom. They set to work and invented things like TVP and later quorn. Today nutrtionists know that protein is easy to get from a vegetarian diet.

    Nuts, seeds, beans and pulses, dark leafy green vegetables all have a range of amino acids. So by eating a wide range of plant foods (rather than just packaged meat substitutes) you'll get all the protein you need. Pumpkin seeds, for example, contain all 8 amino acids so use them regulalrly and eat widely from the other group.

    The other thing about eating vegetable proteins is that your body doesn't have to waste energy deconstucting animal proteins only to reassemble them. This goes to show why in many studies vegetarians have more energy as their digestive tracts have less work to do. :thumbsup:
     
  4. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Apologies I don't have the time to do this. But you need to establish whether you are making a philosophical arguement or not. If you are making a philosophical arguement you need to establish criteria. In the case of Peter Singer's book he uses the concept of specieism as his criteria, based on a form of preference utilitarianism that the greatest good of the greatest number is the only way to measure ethical behaviour from which we construct morals and 'rights'. From this construct he suggests that there stems a moral imperative to minimise suffering. In order to minimise suffering we create and apply a system of 'rights'. But nowhere does Singer say that this means that humans and animals must have equal rights.

    "There are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." he wrote in Animal liberation. What he;'s saying here is that humans and animals do NOT have equal rights. He does however suggest that any beings who are capabale of suffering deserve an equal consideration. There's an important difference here and it's why I mentioned this book in my last post, because I think many misunderstand it. To not show equal consideration is a form of discrimination. Animals display a lower form of intelligence than humans but some animals can show displays of intelligence that are higher than humans - a chimpanzee doing sign language can display a higher form of intelligence than a young baby or a retarded adult. Animals have many complex systems that humans do not. All said, intelligence and the measure of it, is not a suitable criteria on which to base the idea of 'rights'.

    What Singer suggests is that we minimise the suffering of animals. He also does not imply that vivisection is wrong IF it can be shown that the harm inflicted on animals is outweighed by the benefits.

    These are his criteria and if you understand how philosophy works simply saying something is bollocks does not mean you negate the criteria and therefore the arguement. That's why I suggested in the last post, and it's also not my statement (its accepted in philosophical schools of thought) that it is a 'won argument'.

    Animal liberation and the concept of animal rights should be based on minimising the suffering of animals. Those who later came to say that animals were absolutely equal to humans and should have rights absolutely equal to hmans do not offer any criteria to justify that arguement. At least I haven't seen it and if someone has, I would really like to read it.


    When I became vegan, over 25 years ago now, it wasn't because of specieism, although that's something I accept now. It was because of the economics of meat production. A single acre of land which provides subsistence for 2 cows yields a specific amount of protein and a few other animal products such as leather. The same area growing a wide range of crops could produce 4-10 times more protein, as well as carbs and unsaturated fats AND maintain a more diverse eco-system AND provide other useful items such as building materials. In effect then the West with its overconsumption of flesh created an unsustainable system of food production which is an important factor in why 1 billion face starvation. Better land use = higher food production. Later it came to light that 18% of carbon emissions came from standard factory farming of animals for the flesh diet - that means that it's the single biggest factor in global warming, higher than transportation.

    You'll notice that I'm not saying the world has to give up eating flesh. But the current systems are entirely unsustainable and will bury us all unless we radically alter the way we live and consume. This was my original decision for going vegetarian and later vegan.

    Of course when you start out you're not sure what you're doing and many people lose weight quickly or get ill, simply because they don't understand the body's nutritional requirements. I was a terrible vegan at the start but as time went on it became actually quite easy. You can get fruit and vegetables anywhere. I began to look into nutrition, indeed general health. I looked at the 2 number 1 causes of human death -heart disease and cancer- I read research and it was quite striking that over-consumption of flesh and dairy products was implicated as the number one casue of these ailments. In fact not just these ailments but many others besides. I wanted to understand why.

    The human body is alkaline by nature but acid by function. What does this mean? Well there's a range to measure how acid or alkaline something is called the pH scale. Human bodies are alkaline in nature - the body rigorousy maintains the pH level of our blood between pH 7.35 and 7.45. If it was to tip lower than this towards the more acid end of the scale we would die, so when acid minerals begin to build up the body will dump it into one of the organ systems, such as the heart or colon in order to keep that pH balance. Human beings are also acidic by function - by moving and by the chemical processes which go on in our bodies -we create acid residues such as hydrogen. A good example of this is when we exercise the lactic acid builds up in our muscles. Acid minerals come from our own activity and from the food we eat. In order to remove them from our bodies we need to consume lots of alkaline minerals such as magnesium which bind, at a biochemical level, to the acid minerals after which our body is able to extract them by the usual processes of elimination. See the problem is when we eat too much meat and dairy, which when consumed leave an acid residue in the body, the acid minerals build up in an organ system and that's what causes that system to weaken and fail over decades - hence our heart disease and cancers. There are of course other factors but diet is the mian one.

    You'll notice that I'm not suggesting that people need to give up eating flesh. What I am saying is that we out to much of them. It causes untoward suffering for animals but also later on ourselves. Fruit and vegetables are highly alkaline so our diet should be based predominantly on them. We do need some acid minerals in our bodies, Grains are acidic in nature. Nutritionists suggest that an 80/20 balance in favour of alkaline foods i.e. fruit and vegetables is ideal. If we look at factory farming then we might consider the allocation of land-use in an 80-20 fashion. This would be more sustainable and healthy for ALL concerned no matter what the diet.

    I keep looking into all this but don't take my word for it - research it yourself.

    Some interseting stuff here: http://www.rense.com/general20/meant.htm

    Her's some interesting info:

    "A carnivore's teeth are long sharp and pointed - all of them!
    We have molars for crushing and grinding. A carnivore's jaws
    move up and down only, for tearing and bit ing. Ours can move
    from side to side for grinding. A carnivore's saliva is acid and
    geared to the digestion of animal protein; it lacks ptyalin, a
    chemical that digests starches. Our saliva is alkaline and
    contains ptyalin for the digestion of starch. A carnivore's
    stomach is a simple, round sack that secretes ten times more
    hydrochloric acid than that of a non-carnivore. Our stomachs
    are oblong in shape, complicat ed in structure, an d convoluted
    with a duodenum.
    A carnivore's intestines are three times the length o f its trunk,
    designed for rapid e xpulsion of an imal p roteins, which qu ickly
    rot. Our intestines are twelve times the length of our trunks and
    designed to keep food in them un til all nutrients are extracted.
    The liver o f a carnivore is capable of eliminating ten to fif teen
    times more uric acid than the liver of a non-carnivore. Our
    livers have the capacity to eliminate only a small amount of
    uric acid. Uric acid is an extremely dangerous toxic substance
    that can wreak havoc in your body. All meat consumption
    releases large quantities of uric acid into the system. Unlike
    most carnivores and omnivores, humans do not have the
    enzyme uricase to break down uric a cid.
    A carnivore does no t sweat through the skin and has no po res.
    We do sweat through the skin and have pores. A carnivore's
    urine is acid. Ours is alkaline. A carnivore's tongue is rough,
    ours is smooth. Our hands are perfectly designed for plucking
    fruit from a tree, not for tearing the guts out of the carcass of a
    dead animal as are a carnivore's claws."

    I'm not telling anybody what to do or what choices they should make. As an anarhcist I believe in minimising suffering, any kind of suffering and I personally believe veganism is useful in that regard.
     
  5. punkjoke

    punkjokeMember Forum Member


    17

    0

    0

    Oct 29, 2009
     
    wow great thread. I was wondering if there was meat subsitute and shit like that back then, I wasn't even born
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    It's not your fault, but honestly when I hear that word it's like Xenu or something.

    Well, that's two dfferent arguments, where do rights come from, and how does that apply to animals.

    You'd have to elaborate what you mean by consideration, and what the difference is.

    But that isn't it at all. Obviously babies and retarded adults are of lower intelligence but they are also human. That matters.

    Stop right there. You’ve made that accusation twice, now. I did not do that. I specifically pointed out previous arguments on the subject of animal rights. I have submitted over a dozen posts on that subject alone. I just get tired of repeating myself. You JUST got here, please don't rush to judgments like that.

    Again, that is dependant on who one asks. There have been many criticisms of this work, it is by no means universally accepted, except among animal rights activists. I referenced the debate with judge Posner, for example.

    In my experience militant veggos frequently alternate between utilitarianism and deontology depending on what is most advantageous at that second. I have found this over and over in animal rights texts and in conversation with individuals who espouse some form of this ideology. It's actually one of my major criticisms. I'd be more open to the idea of reducing suffering but frankly the animal rights, or whatever they are called, movement are, in my experience, completely against this.

    This is the best argument I've ever heard for vegetarianism. However, sadly, it's usually the last one to be mentioned, if at all.

    Most of the crowd on here are saying exactly that.

    This is actually very sensible.

    On this we’re in total agreement.

    I wouldn't trust anything from a conspiracy theorists' webpage. This is not a reliable source.

    That’s a nice break.

    [/quote]

    Minimizing suffering is good, but some suffering is much more important than others.
     
  7. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    To everyone that gave suggestions, thanks for the support.
     
  8. BlinkoChrist

    BlinkoChristExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    158

    1

    0

    Nov 1, 2009
     
    Make us proud man!
     
  9. divotfreely

    divotfreelyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    117

    2

    3

    Nov 4, 2009
     United States
    when i am sober i get choked up by thoughts of crying/dying animals ( guess im less than a man or need the thorazine) - reality is extremely sobering.
     
  10. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    NGNM85 thanks for a considered reply. I think we agree on certain things but this:

    "Obviously babies and retarded adults are of lower intelligence but they are also human. That matters."

    Can you explain why it matters? Is it just because they are 'human'? That isn't an explanation in itself. How does it matter?

    My thinking is that if we attempt to quantify 'intelligence' we soon run into very difficult areas. Humans can do things animals can't. Animals can do things humans can't. Therefore to talk about us mattering more because we are human, and therefore more important by proxy, is erroneous - that is using that criteria.

    By that thinking if humans matter more than animals because they are 'human' does it follow that anything non-human does not. The environment is non-human, should we not care for it and minimise our impact upon it?
     
  11. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Because we are of the same species. It is natural and logical to value the lives of ourselves and other human beings. Human beings are superior to some animals in several ways but superior to ALL animals in the sense, as I was saying before, we are the 'judges of the universe'. We can create and understand things that no other lifeform on this planet can. There are lifeforms that have unique physical attributes, but, even if echidna and platypi are the only mammals that can lay eggs, that can't be regarded as equally valuable as art, poetry, splitting the atom, etc. That's not to say that all other species are expendable. Certainly not. First, we depend on other species, plants, animals, bacteria, etc. to survive. Even if these animals are not necessary to support our civilization directly, we should take care to protect and preserve them within reason. I'm not arguing we shouldn't give them any consideration, but I don't see any logical moral argument against eating meat if it isn't threatening the species. The best argument against eating meat is simply the argument for the environment.

    No, because we're comparing a very specific trait. This is not arbitrary. I think it's pretty clear the ability to create art, reach other planets, or design a supercomputer is more significant than these other traits. Now, if we were to encounter a more intelligent organism, a life form with a mental capacity exceeding (or equal to) the physical limitations of the human brain, say, an extraterrestrial, or, more likely, an artificial intelligence, we would be ethically and morally bound to treat it with equal respect as any other human being. If the horny toad were to become extinct that would be definitely unfortunate, but I would say the extinction of the human race would be a greater tragedy, and not simply because I am one. As I've said, many creatures can look up at the stars, but only we can reach them.

    We inhabit the environment, so it is actually a survival imperative to protect it. Moreover, this planet is our home, and an important part of our culture and history. Ultimately, we should endeavor to get people off of it, which we've already taken tentative steps toward. The civilian space industry is just beginning, this was actually the Popular Science cover story last month. Until then, we should endeavor to preserve this planet, and (Within reason.) the life it sustains.
     
  12. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Thought so...
     
  13. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    "No, because we're comparing a very specific trait. This is not arbitrary. I think it's pretty clear the ability to create art, reach other planets, or design a supercomputer is more significant than these other traits. Now, if we were to encounter a more intelligent organism, a life form with a mental capacity exceeding (or equal to) the physical limitations of the human brain, say, an extraterrestrial, or, more likely, an artificial intelligence, we would be ethically and morally bound to treat it with equal respect as any other human being. If the horny toad were to become extinct that would be definitely unfortunate, but I would say the extinction of the human race would be a greater tragedy, and not simply because I am one. As I've said, many creatures can look up at the stars, but only we can reach them. "

    But... if we were to encounter a more intelligent organism bla bla... why would we treat it with equal respect as a human being? Shouldn't we just accept it as superior to us and ask them if they perhaps wanted to eat our children..?
     
  14. Carcass

    CarcassExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Your entire argument reduces to this kind of fuzzy thinking. "Significance" and "superiority" are not properties of matter, they are descriptions made by humans. Specifically, they are descriptions made by you. That building a supercomputer is a more significant way to spend an afternoon than taking a mud bath reflects your personal feelings, not anything "natural" or "logical." It certainly ought not be the basis for deciding who lives and who dies.

    Your arrogance astounds me. You are a speck on a pebble.

    I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you just really don't understand. Your affirmations of value are completely meaningless. You are setting up a measure of worth that puts your own interests at 100 and those of non-human animals at 0, and then declaring the self-evident superiority of your interests. It makes no goddamn sense to say that a system of evaluation based on your preferences legitmizes the murder of 50 billion non-human animals per year! If we use the echidna's standards, then supercomputers certainly don't compare to the laying of a clutch. In fact, if we use most humans' standards, then supercomputers don't matter. Most humans are fucking poor as shit; a fancy mainframe couldn't be less relevant to their lives.

    Because every animal is an individual who feels pain and has interests that you deny by paying to have him or her killed. Vegan anarchists are fighting for every individual's desire to be free from pain and to exercise autonomy are respected. You say you're an anarchist so you ostensibly respect these desires in some individuals, it just seems like you exclude non-human animals because it would be inconvenient for you.

    You first, mang. :ecouteurs:
     
  15. jessfive

    jessfiveExperienced Member Experienced member


    59

    0

    1

    Jan 27, 2010
     
    Vegan straightedge here. I never thought I would be a vegan. I've always been edge for the most part. I guess compassion got the better of me. I view animals to be running on windows 95 and we're on windows xp. Different operation systems but still life is life. It's precious. I have an intolerance for meat eating because I view it as murder. I often don't go out with my family because they want to indulge in flesh. I'm not a zombie that feeds on the dead.

    We have three cockatiels. I am always trying to be considerate of them when it's nighttime and not working too late so they can sleep. I mentioned my concern about their well-being to my dad and his answer is, "They're just birds." I guess they aren't just birds to me. There another living being that deserves respect and consideration. Afterall, we are all just animals.

    Being a meat eater seems like indirect cannibalism to me. We feed the corn to the cows (who aren't supposed to be eating corn to begin with - cows eat grass) which we could use to feed people in third world countries. Instead, lots of resources are used to create one pound of meat. And by eating the meat, you are indirectly eating the poor because they'll starve due to our improper use of resources. In my opinion, meat eating is really selfish. It's saying "My life is more important than yours."
     
  16. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,720

    171

    716

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I fuckin loved your post! :rock: It's Righteous in a good way....
     
  17. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    At a whopping 132 pounds 5 foot 10 inches my dietician officially deemed me healthy enough to go 100 percent vegan!!!!! :D
     
  18. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    You had a dietician descide for you if you should be vegan? Sorry, it might be due to lack of sleep here, but at the moment, this is so funny i'm laughing ao hard i get soymilk up my nose! :lmao:
     
  19. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I would say the same of most of your rhetoric.

    I don't see that you have any legitimate point, here. Just because philosophy involves ethereal concepts doesn’t mean there aren’t right or wrong answers. Moreover, this dubious line of thinking would also invalidate everything you’re saying as well.

    You're deliberately misconstruing what I said, nevermind everything else that's wrong with that statement.

    You’re just stating this idea of human and non-human life as equivalent as if it’s a given. First of all, I seriously doubt you actually believe this asinine idea, but even if you did, you’d have to provide substantial justification for it.

    That’s a double-edged sword. Seriously, I really can't tell if you're really this dense or just being provocative. It has NOTHING to do with arrogance. Human beings possess a capacity for higher reasoning and self awareness that surpasses the cognitive capacity of every other life form on this planet. We are the only ones who are truly self-aware. If, in fact, there is no other intelligent life in the universe, which we have no way of presently verifying, this is even more precious.

    That is significant. I don't know how to get you to comprehend that self awareness, the capacity to manipulate abstract concepts, to create art, poetry, music, and technology is more wondrous than some other arbitrary physical characteristic. Even if you can't comprehend that, it should still be of enormous importance because we are the only organism on the PLANET capable of it.

    You took the words right out of my mouth.

    Well, according to you, all determinations of value are meaningless. Therefore, you have no point. I stated very specific and clear reasons. I don't know how I can make it any more plain.

    I did no such thing. Also, I didn't in any way present those interests as self-evident. It should be because it's not very complicated, but I provided a very clear reasons.

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. You're just being sensationalistic. The word "murder" isn't applicable.

    You’d have a point if we were echidnas. You’re also misconstruing what I said, again.

    You’re eliminating the context. I was using the example of a supercomputer to highlight the wondrous capabilities of the human brain and the cognitive processes that our species is uniquely capable of, which you treat with such horrible disdain.

    This is really a crap argument, first, because it's fundamentally false. Advances in computing contribute to virtually every industry from medicine to agriculture, you name it. Now, a lot of the problems in the third world have to do with governments, certain corporations, and religion, and that should be addressed and I'm all for that. However, technology also offers great solutions to these problems as well. Like ending genetic disease, or disease, period, or unlimited clean power, for just a few examples.

    Again, my point was the wonderful and remarkable capabilities unique to the human brain, although I'm obviously wasting my time.

    It’s the same nonsense over and over. Don’t look now but you’re using a utilitarian argument, until that isn’t convenient. You insist humans are no better than any animal, (Which is really psychologically revealing.) then you insist that humans have to be held to these higher standards. You claim moral superiority, but seem far more interested in the plight of non-sentient creatures than any human being. This is ridiculous.

    No, what you’re advocating is something radically different, this isn’t Anarchism. In fact, any sane Anarchist should take great pains to dissociate themselves from this nonsense.

    They might be "individual" organisms, but not "individuals" in the same sense as human beings.

    Freedom from pain is universal but that’s it. Liberty as we experience it necessitates a higher level of awareness. There is no comparison.

    No, I have much better reasons.

    Not that you care, but that was a paraphrase of Steven Hawking. Harvard physicist Michio Kaku has essentially said the same thing, it’s pretty basic logic. On the macro scale, unless we spread out into space human extinction is inevitable. I tend to look at that as a bad thing.
    Incidentally, I just came across this line that was posted on the official NASA website; “At the core of NASA's future space exploration is a return to the moon, where we will build a sustainable long term human presence.” But, that's totally beside the point, and really belongs on another thread.
     
  20. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    "Human beings possess a capacity for higher reasoning and self awareness that surpasses the cognitive capacity of every other life form on this planet. We are the only ones who are truly self-aware."

    That is a statement and not an absolute - using a statement as an absolute is a straw man.


    The fact that human beings are engaged in continual warfare, that they collectively allow themselves to be herded into corporate disneyland and up religious garden paths and that they've brought the climate to the brink of disaster in which life is seriously threatened can hardly be justification of 'superiority' and 'higher reason'. WE have abused resources and polluted our planet, even the last pure aquifiers have been contaminated and water is essential for all life. Hardly 'higher reasoning'.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - SxE Vegetarianism Veganism
  1. elahrairah
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    862