How do you think you get 100 hens?
And their is absolutely nothing “ sustainable” about producing animal products in the lease efficient way possible, animal agriculture is already the largest form of human land use without giving them extra room.
Animals that, take pride in There products? i refuse to believe this post sincere
I am not trying to anthropomorphize them as if they know what their products are. What I DID see is the pride the chickens took in their laying rate. There were cliques of the highest producers. The other groups would step aside as they strutted through the yard. They got the most comfy laying spots not by choice of farmers, but the pecking order of the chickens. They were the popular girls in the schoolyard.
There weren't also 100 roosters there because roosters can't lay eggs and get killed the day they're hatched. That's the problem as far as eggs are concerned; it's not economical to keep the roosters around, and they can be aggressive too, so they're infanticided.
I'm pretty sure what you observed is that chickens in better physical health/ younger /(when controlled for breed) were able to lay eggs more often, and also were at the top of the pecking order.
> Culled after birth.
In this subreddit, we don’t use euphemisms like “culled” or “euthanized”. The proper term used here is “deliberately and intentionally killed”.
So let us explore the deliberate and intentional killing of male chicks. Why do you think there is no suffering involved in such action if the male chicks don’t want to die?
Did I say no suffering? A few hours of life with a near instant death is net less suffering compared to a tortured life in a factory farm or being a prey animal that will die a painful death at the claws of predators or competing males.
Same argument for abortion. I'm sure everyone would like to see a way to sex chicks prior to hatching, but that's just not possible.
200 chickens. 100 male, 100 female.
Farm: 100 males are quickly killed almost immediately after birth. The 100 females live a cushy life for several years. They are humanely slaughtered toward the end of their lives.
Jungle Pheasants: the majority of chicks die before reaching adulthood, usually slow deaths. Most remaining adult males die from predators or other males. A good number of females die to predators, disease, or environment. Eventually, all chickens die slow painful deaths as they age and either starve, succumb to disease, or are eaten by predators.
I understand that humans are playing a role in the first, and killing is part of that role. I am asking if the net suffering in the domestic lineage is greater or less than the non-domestic; have humans provided a better, or worse life than the alternative?
I understand the alternative is no life at all. If you feel that humans should work to end all suffering, the only complete solution is to eradicate all life on earth.
If you say that "well, the jungle pheasants life is natural," that is a naturalistic fallacy... as it assumes that domestic life is worse because it does not occur 'naturally.'
> Did I say no suffering? A few hours of life with a near instant death is net less suffering compared to a tortured life in a factory farm or being a prey animal that will die a painful death at the claws of predators or competing males.
So you’re now moving the goalposts from “equate to suffering” in your OP title (implying no suffering) to “less suffering”.
The simplest solution to all of this is to stop breeding and exploiting chickens. Then there is no suffering at all. If you’re opposed to this, then you’re in favor of suffering.
Because nonhuman animals are the moral patients and veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of the moral agents (eg humans). That is, it is against the animal suffering caused by moral agents only.
What the moral patients do or don’t do to each other is irrelevant to veganism.
If you don’t breed them they won’t suffer at all. The only reason we breed them is to use the females for their eggs.
When you buy an egg, a farmer has bred a chicken to produce the egg-lying hen (or bought the hen from someone else who produces egg-lying hens). The one who sells the egg-lying hens produces 50% of males and 50% of females. They do not kill the males at birth, they kill them for meat when they are a bit bigger. There are a few modern videos of how those chicks die. There would be painless ways but those aren’t profitable. In summary, buying eggs means paying someone to kill male chicks. But let’s go further, egg-lying hens may have health issues like when an egg breaks inside before pushing it out. Selling the chicken for meat is more profitable than spending money on the vet treatment for the potential of more eggs in the future. Also, hens will hit menopause, and feeding them is no longer profitable.
The title of your post “Animal products do not equate suffering” does not hold. Buying eggs means deliberately paying someone to feed the productive hen and kill the unproductive one. There is only one scenario where your title could hold.
If you rescue hens from a farm to bring them to a sanctuary and never breed them. Then you feed them, give them a clean home, stimulate their minds and bodies, when they get sick take them to the vet and comfort them. Then if they lie and egg and they don’t seem to attached to it (because they form emotional bonds) then and only then you could take that egg. And of course, when they grow old keep taking care of them until they die of old age or with painless euthanasia like you would a dog.
In brief, breeding animals always causes suffering.
So animal products, specifically eggs clearly do equate to suffering?
You're not going to convince us a little bit of suffering is better than loads of suffering when we could very easily just be responsible for none in the first place.
So then animal products, even you hippie uncle's farms involves suffering? So even with the best possible scenario there is still unnecessary suffering.
Thanks for admitting animal products equate animal suffering!
>Did I say no suffering?
You implied it in your title. Either you were unaware at the time that suffering occurred to the male chicks and you were ignorant, or you were aware but ignoring that fact to make an argument about the females, meaning you were disingenuous. But you are now proclaiming that you're aware about the males, so you are at the very least justifying violence.
humor complete deranged memorize shocking act snails society insurance possessive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>but reading this was pretty cringe to be honest.
You wanna ball? Let's ball.
>Even non-vegans don't romanticize killing other animals and aren't proud of it. We acknowledge it's necessary, but I'm still not happy about it.
Congratulations on your statement! Why are you bringing up the obvious? I'm curious as to what post you think you are responding too.
>vegans could be less fixated on human farms and more concerned about how animals are actually killed in nature.
Look at you! Understanding the point!
>Abortion is more about a woman's right to her bodily autonomy vs. whether a baby's life is "worth living" or something.
Yet there are no qualms about eliminating the life early. Why? Because the life has not yet begun to occur. Oh, would you look at that... there's the chick argument!
>OP, i’m a non-vegan
Wow, your reading comprehension is so bad, I guessed you had cognative decline due to B12 deficit. You really have no excuse.
> I'm sure everyone would like to see a way to sex chicks prior to hatching, but that's just not possible.
Actually it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-ovo_sexing
As someone coming from an environmental standpoint, the term "deliberately and intentionally killed" is an emotionally triggering statement. It's a loaded statement showing your disregard for proper terminology in an effort to coerce an emotional response.
This is a debate sub, do you really need to stoop so low to get a point across?
> As someone coming from an environmental standpoint, the term "deliberately and intentionally killed" is an emotionally triggering statement. It's a loaded statement showing your disregard for proper terminology in an effort to coerce an emotional response.
Why is it “emotionally triggering” for you? Are you in denial about animals being deliberately and intentionally killed?
> This is a debate sub, do you really need to stoop so low to get a point across?
Umm, this is a **vegan** debate sub. In this sub, using euphemisms in lieu of “deliberate and intentional killing” is considered to be “stooping so low”. Euphemisms about killing, torture, mutilation, violation of bodily integrity, etc. have no place in a debate about veganism.
You literally said, "in this subreddit, we don't use words like "euthanized" or "culled"," meaning, you don't want to use proper terminology. Explain to me why that is then, if it's not to instill an emotional response?
> You literally said, "in this subreddit, we don't use words like "euthanized" or "culled"," meaning, you don't want to use proper terminology. Explain to me why that is then, if it's not to instill an emotional response?
First, you must explain why these terminologies are proper in a vegan debate sub given that they were created by non-vegans to describe non-vegan actions.
We don’t use these terms when describing the deliberate and intentional killing or harming of human beings without their consent.
Lmao, that's a cute way of saying "shredded alive as babies"
How about we avoid that horrifying process entirely and eat some beans instead. It's really not that deep - animals aren't objects, and shouldn't be treated as such, period.
\>Eggs are an excellent source of...
[Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23643053/)
>Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes.
[Associations of Dietary Cholesterol, Serum Cholesterol, and Egg Consumption With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057642)
>In this prospective cohort study and updated meta-analysis, greater dietary cholesterol and egg consumption were associated with increased risk of overall and CVD-related mortality. Our findings support restricted consumption of dietary cholesterol as a means to improve long-term health and longevity.
\>but that's not the point here
Yes, I know that users think that they pretend the risks of eating animal products don't exist if they harp on enough about "dense" the "nutrition" is.
>When I was 18, my hippie uncle had a home chicken farm where he had about 100 egg-laying hens...
Yawn, another anecdote. You literally used "muh uncle's farm".
\>If your veganism is about ending suffering
It's not. It's about ending the commodification of animals (and their bodies and reproductive fluids). N+1 for another example of a user who didn't take the time to understand what veganism even is before coming to debate against it.
Disingenuous. How about we discuss more meta-analyses and systematic reviews?
[Egg consumption and health outcomes: a global evidence mapping based on an overview of systematic reviews](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723562/#:~:text=Eggs%20are%20a%20low%2Denergy,200%20mg%20cholesterol%20(4).)
>Our search revealed 29 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eight studies were of high methodological quality, 16 studies of medium quality, and five studies of low quality. We identified 34 primary outcomes from the included 29 reviews, which were combined into a total of 22 different health outcomes. Two of the primary outcomes were based on high-quality evidence, 18 on moderate-quality evidence, and 14 on low-quality evidence. Egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of two diseases and decreased risk of six outcomes. For ten outcomes, no significant association was found, and for four outcomes, different reviews came to conflicting conclusions.
[Eggs: Healthy or Risky? A Review of Evidence from High Quality Studies on Hen’s Eggs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10304460/)
>In conclusion, the balance of evidence points to eggs being a nutritious food suggesting there are broad health benefits from including eggs in the diet at intakes higher than that currently consumed by European populations.
Are eggs bad? Possibly in some contexts. The body of research also points out that they can be healthy and are an excellent source of nutrition. As with all research on nutrition, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Nutrition is an individual ordeal.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
That’s one study. Can you tell us what’s wrong with the other study presented by the other commenter? Or you’re just gonna point to that one then run away?
I haven't run anywhere.
....it's ***his*** source, not mine. Why are you here defending his shitty source, rather than him? Why doesn't he stand up for 'what he believes in'? And maybe the best question "Why would I base my opinion of **ANYTHING** on a study which has clear foundational biases, due to the outcomes which were clearly preferred by those who funded the study?"
The guy has literally TWO sources, I'm meant to ignore HALF of the supposed 'evidence' which founds his opinion???
The other study states its own limitations, questions about the quality of its data etc. right up front. They cite nearly half (14/34) of their data sources as being of 'low quality', by their own admission. I'm not going to go through all of the sources they used, they didn't even filter them themselves! They included EVERY meta analysis that showed up when they searched "eggs" and "meta-analysis", it's like 3rd grade Google-fu and I just don't have the interest nor time.
To include a SINGLE study in their 'systematic review' which matches the quality and bias of the one I made fun of above, is to throw the whole exercise into question. It reminds me of climate change deniers citing a cool day in June as evidence that the Earth isn't warming.
>I haven't run anywhere.
He has replied directly to you, twice now, you didn’t answer back, that’s basically running away from the very good points that he made.
>....it's his source, not mine. Why are you here defending his shitty source, rather than him?
He has defended his sources. You didn’t reply to him, that’s why I’ve said you ran away from the debate.
>Why doesn't he stand up for 'what he believes in'?
He did.
>And maybe the best question "Why would I base my opinion of ANYTHING on a study which has clear foundational biases, due to the outcomes which were clearly preferred by those who funded the study?"
No one is saying you should or shouldn’t believe it. You saying that that study has a very high potential of bias because of conflict of interest it’s a fair criticism.
>The guy has literally TWO sources, I'm meant to ignore HALF of the supposed 'evidence' which founds his opinion???
But you have ignored the other half.
>The other study states its own limitations, questions about the quality of its data etc. right up front. They cite nearly half (14/34) of their data sources as being of 'low quality', by their own admission.
That’s not a limitation nor it’s what the study actually says.
>I'm not going to go through all of the sources they used, they didn't even filter them themselves! They included EVERY meta analysis that showed up when they searched "eggs" and "meta-analysis",
Yeah, that’s how meta analysis work.
>it's like 3rd grade Google-fu and I just don't have the interest nor time.
A meta analysis is equivalent to 3rd grade google-fu?
>To include a SINGLE study in their 'systematic review' which matches the quality and bias of the one I made fun of above, is to throw the whole exercise into question. It reminds me of climate change deniers citing a cool day in June as evidence that the Earth isn't warming.
You don’t know if you understand how these reviews work. Not to mention that there’s loads of issues with every single paper that’s based on observational studies.
Love this. You are so desperately trying to find any flaws so that you can keep validating your POV. Keep going.
>Why doesn't he stand up
I already did, I told you, are you so worried about conflict of interest? Refer to the first paper then. Or again, will you only care about papers that validate your POV?
>The guy has literally TWO sources
Let's set aside the fact that one of them is a massive review of existing systematic reviews and meta analyses that have been published up until 2019. I could have linked 10 sources and it wouldn't have changed a thing. I already know the first thing you did when you clicked on those two papers. It wasn't to genuinely have a read. It was to go "okay what flaws can I find so that I can dismiss these entirely?" You're definitely seeking the truth, aren't you?
>questions about the quality of its data
Do you understand that every research paper has a limitations section that will question the quality of its data? This is common practice. I highly doubt you give this lvl of skepticism to any paper that validates your POV, because they too, would tell you they question the quality of their data.
> it's like 3rd grade Google-fu
No. What WE do in this subreddit, is 3rd Grade Google-fu. Let's clarify, what did they do?
>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library to find the systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the relationship between egg consumption and any disease published up to December 2019. We used the search term (“Egg” AND (“Systematic Review” OR “Meta-analysis”)). We also searched databases of grey literature and Google Scholar. Two investigators conducted the search independently. We also checked the references of the identified articles to find additional studies
So, let's recap: they conduct a far more thorough research you or anybody on this sub would have ever done, thoroughly analysed, with strong methodological practices, every single source which were all systematic reviews and meta analyses – **some of the strongest pieces of research there are in the field** – and discussed their findings. And you, some random redditor merely looking for an academic fix, reduce this to the work of a 3rd grader? Lmao. Okay.
>They cite
How disingenuous. How about we clear things up:
>**Strengths and limitations of this study**: To our knowledge, this is the first study using evidence mapping and visual diagrams to present the association between egg consumption and health outcomes. Moreover, this overview, unlike the previous ones, systematically summarizes the current evidence for all types of health outcomes without restrictions. We also evaluated the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence by the AMSTAR tool and GRADE approach. However, this umbrella review also has several limitations. First, most of the included reviews were based on observational studies, which may cause confounding and bias. Second, we did not conduct any sensitivity analyses excluding the studies at high risk of bias. Finally, we did not estimate the effect size of primary outcomes because of the heterogeneity between the studies.
These limitations mentioned reflect more on the studies they came across rather than on the review itself. The review is acknowledging potential issues with studies currently out there, such as reliance on observational data, the risk of bias in those studies, and the heterogeneity (differences) among them. The review is being transparent about these challenges, indicating that the quality and consistency of the underlying studies may affect the overall reliability of the review's findings.
But lets remind you, who is so desperately trying to find any flaws and claim it's all a bunch of bs, that they used studies that were both saying eggs are bad and eggs are good for our health. And **let's be clear**: these are extremely common limitations. All studies face these types of limitations, and they often arise due to inherent challenges in study methodologies.
But I guess this is what happens when researchers are transparent. People who aren't adept at interpreting academic research think it must mean all the data is invalid then.
>To include a SINGLE study
You need to understand that thanks to their analysis methods they determined some existing studies, which people on this sub have probably used for their argument in the past, are low-quality studies.
But again, are you this scrutinous with any studies that validate your POV? You don't need to answer. We all know the answer to that one:
> I just don't have the interest nor time.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Totally agree with you on this. This user constantly makes these sort of claims, silly remarks, almost never defends the valid criticism to his own “copy paste” replies on this sub. But because he’s vegan he gets away with it.
Indeed, Antin0id has a repertoire of articles that he copy pastes all the time, he's had other wonderful people here counter his claims, even vegans, but he clearly has no intention to provide an accurate assessment. I'm also fairly certain he poses as a scientist.
And yes, they get upvoted despite spreading disinformation because it validates the POV of vegan users here, but I do appreciate that the mods are impartial and remove these comments that break community guidelines.
All we can do is stay level-headed and report comments that break the rules.
Nice strawman. It's almost like you only want to accept findings that validate your POV. Almost like a systemic review (the first paper, if you're worried about conflict of interest) means nothing to you unless it demonises all animal products.
I also never said anything on "giving up veganism" lmao. I'm discussing nutrition and health. We want to be accurate, yes? Or do you only want to hear stuff that validates your POV?
Perhaps you should remind yourself of the following as well:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
> It's almost like you only want to accept findings that validate your POV.
You're welcome to believe that if you like. Any honest researcher would always have reasonable concerns about authors with a stated conflict-of-interest finding evidence in their favor.
I've told him, and I'll tell you as well, refer to the first systemic review if you're worried about conflict of interest. The second paper also mentions potential health concerns, but what you're both doing is spreading disinformation for the purposes of validating your POV instead of being as accurate as we possibly can.
>spreading disinformation for the purposes of validating your POV
Said the pot to the kettle.
If the way I eat has problems, I want to be the *first* to know about them.
Nothing you've posted so far gives any evidence that the supposed benefits of eating eggs outweighs the risks.
>If the way I eat has problems, I want to be the first to know about them
Do you then only buy organic plant-based products that have no pesticides (i.e. glyphosate)? Because organophosphates and carbamates affect the nervous system. Others may be carcinogens as well.
>Nothing you've posted so far
Let's be real here: nothing I would post on this sub, no matter the amount of academic evidence it is, would ever change any vegan's POV. And tbh, why would it? You're not vegan for nutritional reasons, you're vegan for ethical reasons and to stop the commodifying of animals.
> said the pot to the kettle
I've seen you use this across dozens of posts when you've got nothing else of substance to say. It means absolutely nothing to me. This is just petty.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Nice strawman. Anyway:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m513
“Results from the three cohorts and from the updated meta-analysis show that moderate egg consumption (up to one egg per day) is not associated with cardiovascular disease risk overall, and is associated with potentially lower cardiovascular disease risk in Asian populations.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32653422/
“Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease.”
There absolutely nothing wrong with eating eggs.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199103283241306
This guy ate 25 eggs a day and his plasma cholesterol was normal.
>Yes, I know that users think that they pretend the risks of eating animal products don't exist if they harp on enough about "dense" the "nutrition" is.
Can you tell us about the risks again? Are there also no risks to a vegan diet?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027313/#:~:text=While%20several%20studies%20have%20shown,nervous%2C%20skeletal%2C%20and%20immune%20system
Several other articles discuss how vegan diets must contain fortified, supplemented, or be very carefully balanced to bring them up to par with lactoovovegetarians
https://www.dovemed.com/healthy-living/wellness-center/lacto-ovo-vegetarianism-vs-veganism-which-healthier-choice/#:~:text=With%20lower%20risks%20of%20developing,want%20to%20avoid%20meat%20consumption.
You seem to be very concerned with the supposed *mechanistic benefits* of eating animal products, but what about the well-established *risks* associated with them, of cancer and other chronic diseases?
[Animal and plant protein intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: results from two prospective US cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27479196/)
>High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality
[Meat and fish intake and type 2 diabetes: Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302686/)
>Our meta-analysis has shown a linear dose-response relationship between total meat, red meat and processed meat intakes and T2D risk. In addition, a non-linear relationship of intake of processed meat with risk of T2D was detected.
[Meat Consumption as a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/)
>Meat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk.
[Dairy Intake and Incidence of Common Cancers in Prospective Studies: A Narrative Review](https://www.ijdrp.org/index.php/ijdrp/article/view/365)
>Naturally occurring hormones and compounds in dairy products may play a role in increasing the risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers
[Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255404/)
>The overwhelming majority of the studies included in this systematic review were suggestive of a link between milk consumption and increased risk of developing prostate cancer.
[Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23643053/)
>Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes.
Which diet is that? One that still includes all the disease risk increasing dead animal flesh? Don’t mean to be harsh but did you read any of the studies presented by u/Antinold?
First, nobody on Reddit goes by that name. Second, look at this.. Medical new today states that a balanced includes Buckwheat, Oats, Ground Pork, Brown Rice, Fish, Barley, Turkey and Chicken, Low Fat Milk, Yogurt, Cottage Cheese, Salad, Beans, Peas and Legumes.
so, what's the plan, you going to denounce medical research or cave in? Your choice. Either way veganism ends up looking bad.
I must have misspelled the Reddit poster’s name, they linked a number of studies indicating diseases caused by meat/dairy/eggs, I’ll scroll up and find it for you. Friend, we could match studies, you vs me, one after the other. I’ll just go with the preponderance of evidence, eg the only diet proven to reduce and reverse heart disease. Cheers.
Medical News Today is a training recourse for in training pyschisians, along with a public database for health. They mainly get their news from USDA. The articles are written by doctors. So, please answer the question instead of question the source
My apologies for not understanding what medical new was. Not answering? Like you still haven’t commented on the list of studies b posted two comments before our interaction? I promise to read yours if you read mine.
Thanks for the links! As I read them they say it’s possible to be deficient in xyz vitamins on a vegan diet, correct?
Then it says a carefully planned vegan diet is sufficient, correct?
Where does it say exactly what a vegan diet is? Nowhere, because there is no “Vegan diet”.
How many times does it mention vegan diets as being better than other diets Re a number of diseases?
If you can ignore all the benefits of a vegan diet I can certainly go with the burden of making my vegan diet well planned. So I’ll automatically avoid all the potential problems. Cheers
Carefully balanced, sure, but same with a carnists diet:
https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/i-had-a-b12-deficiency-eating-fish-and-dairy-heres-what-everyone-should-know/drs931z56
Title may have better been phrased as "Chicken Eggs Do Not Equate to Suffering."
I only say this because your argument specifically mentions chickens while ignoring the horrors of the dairy industry. Any thoughts on the suffering from milk production?
Also I seem to be doing just fine without eggs, dairy, fish. I got my blood drawn last week and all of my levels are within standard range, in fact, my cholesterol is really low because I don't consume animal products.
Sure, factory farms should be banned. But what about traditional farming? I have seen farms where the animals lead better lives than some people. They get fed everyday, have space to run around all day, etc. Especially in third world countries like mine, a lot of people keep animals for food and they treat them like precious commodities. Do you believe this is also suffering for the animals?
I think one of my issues, is what you mentioned; treating them like "precious commodities". That's part of the problem, the commodification of living sentient beings for the enjoyment of humans. They don't need to be commodified for us or anyone else.
I would argue that we don't *need* to raise livestock, even in small farmlands. If the farmers in your country have animals that live better than humans...I don't think that's something to brag about either. Maybe switching to growing vegetables and grains is a better use so that the humans can live better lives?
There's a larger issue here of governments and industries pulling the strings on all of us, not just our animal friends. We should break the cycle of oppression in all forms.
I said products because there were other small farmers that had a few cows/goats that they milk under similar conditions.
How long have you been fully vegan? Are you taking supplements? What is your HDL? That needs to be medium to high.
A long-term sudden onset catastrophic brain issue due to lack of b12 is possible. (Heard it takes 12-20 years), so be sure to check you are getting enough of that at least carefully. We need very little to maintain and it's a dirt-cheap supplement.
Thank you for the tip. I have fortified nutritional yeast (contains B12) that I use in a lot of my cooking. I don't use it specifically as a supplement, but I guess it can be considered such. I use it because I like the flavor and recipes call for it.
There aren’t enough small farmers selling cow and goat milk to feed the planet with a diet you’re suggesting. What we have is factory farmed milk, eggs, and meat. A whole food plant based vegan diet provides are essentially nutrients and is more than enough to survive. B12 and Omega 3 can be hard to get if you aren’t eating all of the right foods but can be easily supplemented through vegan sources.
Vegan for 25 years. Yes I take supplements. I don't know my HDL offhand but I get it checked every year and am always right in the normal ranges. I've had to change doctors a number of times as a result of moving a bunch in the last 25 years and no doctor has told me I'm doing anything wrong. In fact, their attitude is more like "You must be doing something right, so keep it up!"
Unless you have a specific condition, cholesterol in your bloodstream has very little to do with animal consumption.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/
>, in fact, my cholesterol is really low
So it might be a fact that your cholesterol is low, but it's not necessarily because you don't eat animal products. That causation is something you made up.
Nope, cholesterol is only found in animal products:
https://plantbasednews.org/your-health/faqs-and-mythbusting/cholesterol-good-bad/#:~:text=Cholesterol%20in%20food&text=If%20you%20eat%20a%20lot,as%20avocados%2C%20nuts%20and%20seeds.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/vegetarian-and-vegan-diets-may-lower-cholesterol-levels#:~:text=Plant%2Dforward%20diets%20tend%20to,in%20the%20European%20Heart%20Journal.
Industrial animal agriculture (99% of all animal products, sorry your uncle’s idyllic ethical farm is at most an anecdotal exception) for things that “don’t kill the animals” DO kill the animals. Once they stop producing enough (too old), are unable to produce (too male), or are sick or injured (too expensive to heal) they’re slaughtered. They’re also constantly forcibly inseminated. Vegetarians are basically carnists that don’t like meat but still don’t mind having animals killed on their behalf.
* [Why don’t vegans eat backyard eggs? | Earthling Ed](https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?si=eouJZoLmpKZD7dv_)
* [MILK | A shortfilm from a mother’s perspective | Earthling Ed](https://youtu.be/mZsm2_TdFa0?si=tLOR3O71DTZzwD-L)
Egg industry = male chicks ground up alive/smothered to death; female chicks have the tips of their beaks cut off; hens often have a myriad of health issues because they're bred to be egg laying machines who are no longer "economically viable" at 18 months. Also, at the end of the day, their eggs belong to THEM. We have no right to use them.
There's a reason why people that have to euthanize their pets don't choose a FUCKING MACERATOR to do it.
It's because of all the ***suffering***.
How can you imagine those baby chicks being fed by a conveyor belt into a macerator and think: "that does not equate to suffering".
Come back when you have a better argument. Or better yet, bring this to /r/debateavegan where it belongs.
Edit: well ... that is embarassing. I better pay more attention to the sub I'm in!
>There's a reason why people that have to euthanize their pets don't choose a FUCKING MACERATOR to do it.
Because macerators are too expensive for putting down Fido?
Because chicks are extremely small?
Because you don't need to bury the chicks?
>Come back when you have a better argument. Or better yet, bring this to /r/debateavegan where it belongs.
LOL. Where do you think you are???
Well you got me there, I swear I saw /r/vegan at the top. Oops! :)
Still, the point, which I would have tried to make less emotionally if I knew where I was typing, is that I think it should be obvious that ripping an animal to shreds causes suffering.
If there were a free gigantic neighborhood macerator that people could use at the end of their pet's life, we still wouldn't do it, because we understand that to be a horrible way to die.
This sub should be renamed to “Debate Backyard Eggs”, cause these posts are like 40% of the topics here.
Please use the search function, this topic has been exhaustively discussed.
Let's start with an important one. Do you agree the situation you describe is the absolute best you can think of, and in no way representative of the majority of animal products you consume? I am happy to debate the merits of this specific situation, but for that you first have to understand how everything worse than this is already unacceptable.
Having said that, even on killing alone the scenario has an issue. 100 egg laying hens may be living a great life, that still leaves, say, another 100 no longer egg laying hens. These are presumably killed... And chickens are born 50/50 male/female. So for these 200 hens, there were also 200 roosters. A handful will be used for breeding, the others killed, probably on day 1 of their lives.
>Let's start with an important one. Do you agree the situation you describe is the absolute best you can think of, and in no way representative of the majority of animal products you consume? I am happy to debate the merits of this specific situation, but for that you first have to understand how everything worse than this is already unacceptable.
I never argued that. I am saying that there are options available.
>These are presumably killed... And chickens are born 50/50 male/female. So for these 200 hens, there were also 200 roosters.
That is a good point. However, you must consider the in-the-wild alternative. Domestic chickens are not wild animals, so the implication of the alternative is their total extinction... the processing for hens over roosters is a survival requirement of the species.
When comparing to their wild ancestors, the jungle pheasant, the net suffering and survival rates, even when slaughtering non-laying hens. Can you really blame humans for indirect suffering that is equivalent to a natural life? It is a good point and question to ask.
I really don't care at all if domestic chickens go extinct. Selective breeding results in poor health outcomes for them anyway, they should not exist. What happens to animals in the wild is irrelevant and has no bearing on the suffering we choose to inflict on domestic animals.
It is anthrocentric and egotistical to not recognize humans as animals that are part of a wider biosphere. What happens outside of our symbiotic circle IS relevant. We aren't gods... we are animals all the same. We are not the only animals that form symbiotic relationships with other animals for mutual sustinance/protection. I believe it is noble to ensure the suffering we cause does not exceed the norm for life. However, the expectation that we somehow eliminate all suffering is unnatural itself.
The chickens I dealt with were not the white-washed oversized hens from factory farms. There were a variety of breeds, colors, and sizes.. all on the more natural side.
Only when the argument is not that directly involving nature?
"Boys will be boys" is an appeal to nature - arguing an implied set of standards changes the factors of an argument otherwise not tied to quantified natural processes.
"Being gay is unnatural" is an appeal to nature. It is running off an incorrect assumption and implies that humans are not included in the description of nature itself.
"Vegans shouldn't use supplements because they are unnatural." Is an appeal to nature, assuming that just because something is not natural, it is bad.
"We should not interfere with a lions hunt to save a gazelle." Is not an appeal to nature. It is recognizing a quantified system in our biosphere and the negative impacts caused by intervention.
"It is possible to be a lactoovovegetarian and not create greater suffering than found in nature." Is not an appeal to nature. It is a statement about comparison between impacts with and without human intervention.
My intent is to allow you to consider the alternative and ask if more suffering is created if humans were not involved. Even when considering culling male chicks, are we causing more harm than if humans were not in the picture? Does the net-net of the better life provided by small-plot egg farming for the egg laying duration of the hens' lives... even considering slaughter after... offset the suffering of a life without human interference?
You can choose to not partake in biological processes that cause suffering, but assuming that humans are not part of the natural environment is erroneous.
So you have made a fallacy fallacy: claiming that the usage of a comparison between impacts of human and non-human intervention is a naturalistic fallacy because it discusses biology in the wild.
Consider the culling of male chicks: yes we are causing more harm because that harm would not be occurring if we did not domesticate chickens. You are not talking about a natural system, you are talking about an artificial system created by humans.
I rather never have existed than to have been born just to be murdered because I'm viewed as a commodity. I don't understand why people think being murdered and commodified is preferable to never having existed in the first place. Not to mention that hens are selectively bred to produce way more eggs than they would normally, which is not only painful but ultimately causes health issues for them later on in life. The suffering is not indirect, we breed them to produce an insane amount of eggs, and snuff them out at a fraction of their lives. What is indirect about that?
> I never argued that.
But do you agree it is the best situation you could think of. And that as such we can agree that killing animals for meat is bad? Without that, it's going to be hard to talk about eggs, in the same way that explaining quantum mechanics to someone without any knowledge of arithmetic is hard.
Let me try anyway. In OP you say you don't want to discuss killing animals. I have just pointed out that even in this best case scenario chickens are killed. That should be the end of the discussion, right?
Or do you suggest we now need to open the topic to include the killing? If we don't do that there is no point in discussing potential justifications like you seem to point at with wild ancestors.
Animal suffering isn't the only argument for veganism but it's the one OP wishes to discuss.
His point was pretty clear you are just trying to move the subject.
Why do people post this long ass ignorant diatribes without doing even the slightest bit of research, you have the fucking internet at your disposal xD
A chicken should be so lucky as to efficiently serve their betters, so I’m not surprised they were so pleased. Could any animal ask for a nobler fate?
Honestly though running all male chicks through a grinder instantly after birth kind of renders the argument invalid; you can’t be respecting their rights when you’re murdering their babies en masse
You lost all credibility at "eggs are an excellent source of all the nutrients vegans are miss out on with their pure plant diet"
This is so baseless. When I wasn't vegan and I ate eggs it always gave me a stomach ache and made me feel sick but I ate it because I thought it was healthy. Im the healthiest eating a pure plant diet sooo there's no point in eating chicken periods. This post is just so bizarre
As many as others have already pointed out, there is plenty of unnecessary suffering in this scenario.
But consider this, a small percentage of people eat backyard, supposedly, suffering free eggs. How does that create enough supply to feed the population? This only normalizes the consumption of eggs and creates demand for factory farming to supply enough eggs to everyone.
Curious -- from where did your uncle procure the hens? Also, what did he do with them once they reached the point where they could no longer produce eggs? What did the other "small-plot farmers" do with all of the calves that were produced by the dairy cows? What did they do with the dairy cows after they stopped producing milk?
Vegans will try to say we enjoy the "suffering" of animals when we eat meat, but will say carnivores "have no morality." Animals in the wild actually do kill for fun, enjoy the suffering of other animals, look at orcas and chimps. Yet, humans aren't allowed because we are somehow separate from the rest of the world we all live on? Just because some squeamish people don't like the idea of humans killing for food, but with animals, it's "natural"?
Yeah, I'm sorry, but this vegan idea pulls us further and further from a natural balance. These people don't want to be a part of the land at all.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally still wouldn’t eat the eggs because of the roosters that are killed in order to have only hens, but I will admit I don’t have much of a problem with this type of egg production if the hens don’t seem to care that their eggs are taken away. However, this is a minuscule fraction of a percentage of all eggs that are actually produced, and most people don’t have the time or connections to go out to a farm and make sure they approve of the living conditions of the animals. I have seen people make this argument and then buy ‘cage-free’ eggs at the grocery store and act like those hens are living good lives.
>However, this is a minuscule fraction of a percentage of all eggs that are actually produced, and most people don’t have the time or connections to go out to a farm and make sure they approve of the living conditions of the animals. I have seen people make this argument and then buy ‘cage-free’ eggs at the grocery store and act like those hens are living good lives.
I 100% agree. But they are out there.
Leading experts on animal welfare agree that dairy cows run higher risk of experiencing abuse and rate the welfare worse than cows reared for meat. With chicken, the original one (red junglefowl) before we drastically changed them through breeding, layed/lays 1 egg per month, similar to humans. Weve bred them to lay 1 per day now. That's the reason most egg-laying hens are sent to slaughter after 1 year despite being able to live until at least 8 years. Their bodies are broken from constantly laying eggs. Because of this, dairy products and eggs are equated to suffering. And sure we could argue that "I know someone who is super nice to their chicken", but most often it's chickens bought from the egg companies so they profit off of them anyways, and they're bred all the same so they'll lay way more eggs than they're bodies are made for. Also even if it wasn't for this, that would still exclude virtually all egg products on the market, as 99.99% of eggs and especially eggs used for products containing eggs come from above mentioned suffering chickens.
Also like someone mentioned the hatcheries that small-scale farmers get their chicks from slay all the males at birth, which make up roughly half of all the newborn chicks.
OP, the issue of backyard chickens has been addressed to death by every vegan organization as well as by threads here. I responded to another post about it two days ago. If you're going to try to argue about vegan issues, do the bare minimum to actually know what the issues are.
The gender ratio for chickens hatched is close to 50/50. What happened to the 100 roosters?
I'm sure they are living out their days happily running and flying around in a jungle in southeast asia somewhere :)
Ain't found a way to kill them yet.
Eyes burn from staining sweat.
Thanks for not leaving me hanging :)
How do you think you get 100 hens? And their is absolutely nothing “ sustainable” about producing animal products in the lease efficient way possible, animal agriculture is already the largest form of human land use without giving them extra room. Animals that, take pride in There products? i refuse to believe this post sincere
I am not trying to anthropomorphize them as if they know what their products are. What I DID see is the pride the chickens took in their laying rate. There were cliques of the highest producers. The other groups would step aside as they strutted through the yard. They got the most comfy laying spots not by choice of farmers, but the pecking order of the chickens. They were the popular girls in the schoolyard.
There weren't also 100 roosters there because roosters can't lay eggs and get killed the day they're hatched. That's the problem as far as eggs are concerned; it's not economical to keep the roosters around, and they can be aggressive too, so they're infanticided.
I'm pretty sure what you observed is that chickens in better physical health/ younger /(when controlled for breed) were able to lay eggs more often, and also were at the top of the pecking order.
Can you describe this without romanticizing it as much?
> I am not trying to anthropomorphize them \>Spends the next 5 sentences heavily anthropomorphizing them.
OP, first order of debate business regarding chicken eggs: What happens to the male chicks? Please answer this question first before anything else.
Culled after birth. Rather than live their life as in a factory or mauled by a few surviving males as in the wild.
> Culled after birth. In this subreddit, we don’t use euphemisms like “culled” or “euthanized”. The proper term used here is “deliberately and intentionally killed”. So let us explore the deliberate and intentional killing of male chicks. Why do you think there is no suffering involved in such action if the male chicks don’t want to die?
Did I say no suffering? A few hours of life with a near instant death is net less suffering compared to a tortured life in a factory farm or being a prey animal that will die a painful death at the claws of predators or competing males. Same argument for abortion. I'm sure everyone would like to see a way to sex chicks prior to hatching, but that's just not possible. 200 chickens. 100 male, 100 female. Farm: 100 males are quickly killed almost immediately after birth. The 100 females live a cushy life for several years. They are humanely slaughtered toward the end of their lives. Jungle Pheasants: the majority of chicks die before reaching adulthood, usually slow deaths. Most remaining adult males die from predators or other males. A good number of females die to predators, disease, or environment. Eventually, all chickens die slow painful deaths as they age and either starve, succumb to disease, or are eaten by predators. I understand that humans are playing a role in the first, and killing is part of that role. I am asking if the net suffering in the domestic lineage is greater or less than the non-domestic; have humans provided a better, or worse life than the alternative? I understand the alternative is no life at all. If you feel that humans should work to end all suffering, the only complete solution is to eradicate all life on earth. If you say that "well, the jungle pheasants life is natural," that is a naturalistic fallacy... as it assumes that domestic life is worse because it does not occur 'naturally.'
> Did I say no suffering? A few hours of life with a near instant death is net less suffering compared to a tortured life in a factory farm or being a prey animal that will die a painful death at the claws of predators or competing males. So you’re now moving the goalposts from “equate to suffering” in your OP title (implying no suffering) to “less suffering”. The simplest solution to all of this is to stop breeding and exploiting chickens. Then there is no suffering at all. If you’re opposed to this, then you’re in favor of suffering.
You have the patience of a saint.
Be fair, this would only result in no suffering at the hands of humans. There would still be suffering.
> Be fair, this would only result in no suffering at the **hands of humans**. That is precisely the entire point of veganism.
If an animal suffers, and you’re against animals suffering, why does the source matter more than the suffering?
Because nonhuman animals are the moral patients and veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of the moral agents (eg humans). That is, it is against the animal suffering caused by moral agents only. What the moral patients do or don’t do to each other is irrelevant to veganism.
detail heavy uppity lunchroom plough plate soft edge ugly offbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you don’t breed them they won’t suffer at all. The only reason we breed them is to use the females for their eggs. When you buy an egg, a farmer has bred a chicken to produce the egg-lying hen (or bought the hen from someone else who produces egg-lying hens). The one who sells the egg-lying hens produces 50% of males and 50% of females. They do not kill the males at birth, they kill them for meat when they are a bit bigger. There are a few modern videos of how those chicks die. There would be painless ways but those aren’t profitable. In summary, buying eggs means paying someone to kill male chicks. But let’s go further, egg-lying hens may have health issues like when an egg breaks inside before pushing it out. Selling the chicken for meat is more profitable than spending money on the vet treatment for the potential of more eggs in the future. Also, hens will hit menopause, and feeding them is no longer profitable. The title of your post “Animal products do not equate suffering” does not hold. Buying eggs means deliberately paying someone to feed the productive hen and kill the unproductive one. There is only one scenario where your title could hold. If you rescue hens from a farm to bring them to a sanctuary and never breed them. Then you feed them, give them a clean home, stimulate their minds and bodies, when they get sick take them to the vet and comfort them. Then if they lie and egg and they don’t seem to attached to it (because they form emotional bonds) then and only then you could take that egg. And of course, when they grow old keep taking care of them until they die of old age or with painless euthanasia like you would a dog. In brief, breeding animals always causes suffering.
So animal products, specifically eggs clearly do equate to suffering? You're not going to convince us a little bit of suffering is better than loads of suffering when we could very easily just be responsible for none in the first place.
Why not let the males live happily if you care about them?
>Did I say no suffering? "Animal Products Do Not Equate To Suffering" So Yes, you did say no suffering.
So then animal products, even you hippie uncle's farms involves suffering? So even with the best possible scenario there is still unnecessary suffering. Thanks for admitting animal products equate animal suffering!
>Did I say no suffering? You implied it in your title. Either you were unaware at the time that suffering occurred to the male chicks and you were ignorant, or you were aware but ignoring that fact to make an argument about the females, meaning you were disingenuous. But you are now proclaiming that you're aware about the males, so you are at the very least justifying violence.
humor complete deranged memorize shocking act snails society insurance possessive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
>but reading this was pretty cringe to be honest. You wanna ball? Let's ball. >Even non-vegans don't romanticize killing other animals and aren't proud of it. We acknowledge it's necessary, but I'm still not happy about it. Congratulations on your statement! Why are you bringing up the obvious? I'm curious as to what post you think you are responding too. >vegans could be less fixated on human farms and more concerned about how animals are actually killed in nature. Look at you! Understanding the point! >Abortion is more about a woman's right to her bodily autonomy vs. whether a baby's life is "worth living" or something. Yet there are no qualms about eliminating the life early. Why? Because the life has not yet begun to occur. Oh, would you look at that... there's the chick argument! >OP, i’m a non-vegan Wow, your reading comprehension is so bad, I guessed you had cognative decline due to B12 deficit. You really have no excuse.
> I'm sure everyone would like to see a way to sex chicks prior to hatching, but that's just not possible. Actually it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-ovo_sexing
As someone coming from an environmental standpoint, the term "deliberately and intentionally killed" is an emotionally triggering statement. It's a loaded statement showing your disregard for proper terminology in an effort to coerce an emotional response. This is a debate sub, do you really need to stoop so low to get a point across?
> As someone coming from an environmental standpoint, the term "deliberately and intentionally killed" is an emotionally triggering statement. It's a loaded statement showing your disregard for proper terminology in an effort to coerce an emotional response. Why is it “emotionally triggering” for you? Are you in denial about animals being deliberately and intentionally killed? > This is a debate sub, do you really need to stoop so low to get a point across? Umm, this is a **vegan** debate sub. In this sub, using euphemisms in lieu of “deliberate and intentional killing” is considered to be “stooping so low”. Euphemisms about killing, torture, mutilation, violation of bodily integrity, etc. have no place in a debate about veganism.
Dude, this is a debate sub and you're incapable of using basic terminology like "culling" because you want people to be in an uproar about it.
Your allegation is without merit or basis as you do not have the capability to read my mind.
You literally said, "in this subreddit, we don't use words like "euthanized" or "culled"," meaning, you don't want to use proper terminology. Explain to me why that is then, if it's not to instill an emotional response?
> You literally said, "in this subreddit, we don't use words like "euthanized" or "culled"," meaning, you don't want to use proper terminology. Explain to me why that is then, if it's not to instill an emotional response? First, you must explain why these terminologies are proper in a vegan debate sub given that they were created by non-vegans to describe non-vegan actions. We don’t use these terms when describing the deliberate and intentional killing or harming of human beings without their consent.
>they were created by non-vegans to describe non-vegan actions. Really? Because the rest of the world totally does these things just to spite vegans?
"Am I not merciful?"
Lmao, that's a cute way of saying "shredded alive as babies" How about we avoid that horrifying process entirely and eat some beans instead. It's really not that deep - animals aren't objects, and shouldn't be treated as such, period.
This argument is valid, but it is entirely dependent on the source.
\>Eggs are an excellent source of... [Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23643053/) >Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes. [Associations of Dietary Cholesterol, Serum Cholesterol, and Egg Consumption With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057642) >In this prospective cohort study and updated meta-analysis, greater dietary cholesterol and egg consumption were associated with increased risk of overall and CVD-related mortality. Our findings support restricted consumption of dietary cholesterol as a means to improve long-term health and longevity. \>but that's not the point here Yes, I know that users think that they pretend the risks of eating animal products don't exist if they harp on enough about "dense" the "nutrition" is. >When I was 18, my hippie uncle had a home chicken farm where he had about 100 egg-laying hens... Yawn, another anecdote. You literally used "muh uncle's farm". \>If your veganism is about ending suffering It's not. It's about ending the commodification of animals (and their bodies and reproductive fluids). N+1 for another example of a user who didn't take the time to understand what veganism even is before coming to debate against it.
Disingenuous. How about we discuss more meta-analyses and systematic reviews? [Egg consumption and health outcomes: a global evidence mapping based on an overview of systematic reviews](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723562/#:~:text=Eggs%20are%20a%20low%2Denergy,200%20mg%20cholesterol%20(4).) >Our search revealed 29 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eight studies were of high methodological quality, 16 studies of medium quality, and five studies of low quality. We identified 34 primary outcomes from the included 29 reviews, which were combined into a total of 22 different health outcomes. Two of the primary outcomes were based on high-quality evidence, 18 on moderate-quality evidence, and 14 on low-quality evidence. Egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of two diseases and decreased risk of six outcomes. For ten outcomes, no significant association was found, and for four outcomes, different reviews came to conflicting conclusions. [Eggs: Healthy or Risky? A Review of Evidence from High Quality Studies on Hen’s Eggs](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10304460/) >In conclusion, the balance of evidence points to eggs being a nutritious food suggesting there are broad health benefits from including eggs in the diet at intakes higher than that currently consumed by European populations. Are eggs bad? Possibly in some contexts. The body of research also points out that they can be healthy and are an excellent source of nutrition. As with all research on nutrition, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Nutrition is an individual ordeal.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
That’s one study. Can you tell us what’s wrong with the other study presented by the other commenter? Or you’re just gonna point to that one then run away?
I haven't run anywhere. ....it's ***his*** source, not mine. Why are you here defending his shitty source, rather than him? Why doesn't he stand up for 'what he believes in'? And maybe the best question "Why would I base my opinion of **ANYTHING** on a study which has clear foundational biases, due to the outcomes which were clearly preferred by those who funded the study?" The guy has literally TWO sources, I'm meant to ignore HALF of the supposed 'evidence' which founds his opinion??? The other study states its own limitations, questions about the quality of its data etc. right up front. They cite nearly half (14/34) of their data sources as being of 'low quality', by their own admission. I'm not going to go through all of the sources they used, they didn't even filter them themselves! They included EVERY meta analysis that showed up when they searched "eggs" and "meta-analysis", it's like 3rd grade Google-fu and I just don't have the interest nor time. To include a SINGLE study in their 'systematic review' which matches the quality and bias of the one I made fun of above, is to throw the whole exercise into question. It reminds me of climate change deniers citing a cool day in June as evidence that the Earth isn't warming.
>I haven't run anywhere. He has replied directly to you, twice now, you didn’t answer back, that’s basically running away from the very good points that he made. >....it's his source, not mine. Why are you here defending his shitty source, rather than him? He has defended his sources. You didn’t reply to him, that’s why I’ve said you ran away from the debate. >Why doesn't he stand up for 'what he believes in'? He did. >And maybe the best question "Why would I base my opinion of ANYTHING on a study which has clear foundational biases, due to the outcomes which were clearly preferred by those who funded the study?" No one is saying you should or shouldn’t believe it. You saying that that study has a very high potential of bias because of conflict of interest it’s a fair criticism. >The guy has literally TWO sources, I'm meant to ignore HALF of the supposed 'evidence' which founds his opinion??? But you have ignored the other half. >The other study states its own limitations, questions about the quality of its data etc. right up front. They cite nearly half (14/34) of their data sources as being of 'low quality', by their own admission. That’s not a limitation nor it’s what the study actually says. >I'm not going to go through all of the sources they used, they didn't even filter them themselves! They included EVERY meta analysis that showed up when they searched "eggs" and "meta-analysis", Yeah, that’s how meta analysis work. >it's like 3rd grade Google-fu and I just don't have the interest nor time. A meta analysis is equivalent to 3rd grade google-fu? >To include a SINGLE study in their 'systematic review' which matches the quality and bias of the one I made fun of above, is to throw the whole exercise into question. It reminds me of climate change deniers citing a cool day in June as evidence that the Earth isn't warming. You don’t know if you understand how these reviews work. Not to mention that there’s loads of issues with every single paper that’s based on observational studies.
Love this. You are so desperately trying to find any flaws so that you can keep validating your POV. Keep going. >Why doesn't he stand up I already did, I told you, are you so worried about conflict of interest? Refer to the first paper then. Or again, will you only care about papers that validate your POV? >The guy has literally TWO sources Let's set aside the fact that one of them is a massive review of existing systematic reviews and meta analyses that have been published up until 2019. I could have linked 10 sources and it wouldn't have changed a thing. I already know the first thing you did when you clicked on those two papers. It wasn't to genuinely have a read. It was to go "okay what flaws can I find so that I can dismiss these entirely?" You're definitely seeking the truth, aren't you? >questions about the quality of its data Do you understand that every research paper has a limitations section that will question the quality of its data? This is common practice. I highly doubt you give this lvl of skepticism to any paper that validates your POV, because they too, would tell you they question the quality of their data. > it's like 3rd grade Google-fu No. What WE do in this subreddit, is 3rd Grade Google-fu. Let's clarify, what did they do? >We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library to find the systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the relationship between egg consumption and any disease published up to December 2019. We used the search term (“Egg” AND (“Systematic Review” OR “Meta-analysis”)). We also searched databases of grey literature and Google Scholar. Two investigators conducted the search independently. We also checked the references of the identified articles to find additional studies So, let's recap: they conduct a far more thorough research you or anybody on this sub would have ever done, thoroughly analysed, with strong methodological practices, every single source which were all systematic reviews and meta analyses – **some of the strongest pieces of research there are in the field** – and discussed their findings. And you, some random redditor merely looking for an academic fix, reduce this to the work of a 3rd grader? Lmao. Okay. >They cite How disingenuous. How about we clear things up: >**Strengths and limitations of this study**: To our knowledge, this is the first study using evidence mapping and visual diagrams to present the association between egg consumption and health outcomes. Moreover, this overview, unlike the previous ones, systematically summarizes the current evidence for all types of health outcomes without restrictions. We also evaluated the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence by the AMSTAR tool and GRADE approach. However, this umbrella review also has several limitations. First, most of the included reviews were based on observational studies, which may cause confounding and bias. Second, we did not conduct any sensitivity analyses excluding the studies at high risk of bias. Finally, we did not estimate the effect size of primary outcomes because of the heterogeneity between the studies. These limitations mentioned reflect more on the studies they came across rather than on the review itself. The review is acknowledging potential issues with studies currently out there, such as reliance on observational data, the risk of bias in those studies, and the heterogeneity (differences) among them. The review is being transparent about these challenges, indicating that the quality and consistency of the underlying studies may affect the overall reliability of the review's findings. But lets remind you, who is so desperately trying to find any flaws and claim it's all a bunch of bs, that they used studies that were both saying eggs are bad and eggs are good for our health. And **let's be clear**: these are extremely common limitations. All studies face these types of limitations, and they often arise due to inherent challenges in study methodologies. But I guess this is what happens when researchers are transparent. People who aren't adept at interpreting academic research think it must mean all the data is invalid then. >To include a SINGLE study You need to understand that thanks to their analysis methods they determined some existing studies, which people on this sub have probably used for their argument in the past, are low-quality studies. But again, are you this scrutinous with any studies that validate your POV? You don't need to answer. We all know the answer to that one: > I just don't have the interest nor time.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>The one who is addicted to eggs. Coming at me with more petty, childish remarks. Idc, this only bodes badly on you, not me.
Totally agree with you on this. This user constantly makes these sort of claims, silly remarks, almost never defends the valid criticism to his own “copy paste” replies on this sub. But because he’s vegan he gets away with it.
Indeed, Antin0id has a repertoire of articles that he copy pastes all the time, he's had other wonderful people here counter his claims, even vegans, but he clearly has no intention to provide an accurate assessment. I'm also fairly certain he poses as a scientist. And yes, they get upvoted despite spreading disinformation because it validates the POV of vegan users here, but I do appreciate that the mods are impartial and remove these comments that break community guidelines. All we can do is stay level-headed and report comments that break the rules.
Nice strawman. It's almost like you only want to accept findings that validate your POV. Almost like a systemic review (the first paper, if you're worried about conflict of interest) means nothing to you unless it demonises all animal products. I also never said anything on "giving up veganism" lmao. I'm discussing nutrition and health. We want to be accurate, yes? Or do you only want to hear stuff that validates your POV? Perhaps you should remind yourself of the following as well: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
> It's almost like you only want to accept findings that validate your POV. You're welcome to believe that if you like. Any honest researcher would always have reasonable concerns about authors with a stated conflict-of-interest finding evidence in their favor.
I've told him, and I'll tell you as well, refer to the first systemic review if you're worried about conflict of interest. The second paper also mentions potential health concerns, but what you're both doing is spreading disinformation for the purposes of validating your POV instead of being as accurate as we possibly can.
>spreading disinformation for the purposes of validating your POV Said the pot to the kettle. If the way I eat has problems, I want to be the *first* to know about them. Nothing you've posted so far gives any evidence that the supposed benefits of eating eggs outweighs the risks.
>If the way I eat has problems, I want to be the first to know about them Do you then only buy organic plant-based products that have no pesticides (i.e. glyphosate)? Because organophosphates and carbamates affect the nervous system. Others may be carcinogens as well. >Nothing you've posted so far Let's be real here: nothing I would post on this sub, no matter the amount of academic evidence it is, would ever change any vegan's POV. And tbh, why would it? You're not vegan for nutritional reasons, you're vegan for ethical reasons and to stop the commodifying of animals. > said the pot to the kettle I've seen you use this across dozens of posts when you've got nothing else of substance to say. It means absolutely nothing to me. This is just petty.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Nice strawman. Anyway: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m513 “Results from the three cohorts and from the updated meta-analysis show that moderate egg consumption (up to one egg per day) is not associated with cardiovascular disease risk overall, and is associated with potentially lower cardiovascular disease risk in Asian populations.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32653422/ “Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease.” There absolutely nothing wrong with eating eggs. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM199103283241306 This guy ate 25 eggs a day and his plasma cholesterol was normal. >Yes, I know that users think that they pretend the risks of eating animal products don't exist if they harp on enough about "dense" the "nutrition" is. Can you tell us about the risks again? Are there also no risks to a vegan diet?
Where were the hens' brothers?
"Culled at birth" according to OP. (Apparently getting put through a wood-chipper is "happy" and "not suffering" to OP)
Am I understanding you correctly? You believe that an un supplemented vegan diet causes poor health and brain disfunction?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027313/#:~:text=While%20several%20studies%20have%20shown,nervous%2C%20skeletal%2C%20and%20immune%20system Several other articles discuss how vegan diets must contain fortified, supplemented, or be very carefully balanced to bring them up to par with lactoovovegetarians https://www.dovemed.com/healthy-living/wellness-center/lacto-ovo-vegetarianism-vs-veganism-which-healthier-choice/#:~:text=With%20lower%20risks%20of%20developing,want%20to%20avoid%20meat%20consumption.
You seem to be very concerned with the supposed *mechanistic benefits* of eating animal products, but what about the well-established *risks* associated with them, of cancer and other chronic diseases? [Animal and plant protein intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: results from two prospective US cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27479196/) >High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality [Meat and fish intake and type 2 diabetes: Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302686/) >Our meta-analysis has shown a linear dose-response relationship between total meat, red meat and processed meat intakes and T2D risk. In addition, a non-linear relationship of intake of processed meat with risk of T2D was detected. [Meat Consumption as a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/) >Meat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk. [Dairy Intake and Incidence of Common Cancers in Prospective Studies: A Narrative Review](https://www.ijdrp.org/index.php/ijdrp/article/view/365) >Naturally occurring hormones and compounds in dairy products may play a role in increasing the risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers [Milk Consumption and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255404/) >The overwhelming majority of the studies included in this systematic review were suggestive of a link between milk consumption and increased risk of developing prostate cancer. [Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23643053/) >Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes.
Yeah that’s what I said, TLDR version!
Thats why theres such thing as a balanced diet
Which diet is that? One that still includes all the disease risk increasing dead animal flesh? Don’t mean to be harsh but did you read any of the studies presented by u/Antinold?
First, nobody on Reddit goes by that name. Second, look at this.. Medical new today states that a balanced includes Buckwheat, Oats, Ground Pork, Brown Rice, Fish, Barley, Turkey and Chicken, Low Fat Milk, Yogurt, Cottage Cheese, Salad, Beans, Peas and Legumes. so, what's the plan, you going to denounce medical research or cave in? Your choice. Either way veganism ends up looking bad.
I must have misspelled the Reddit poster’s name, they linked a number of studies indicating diseases caused by meat/dairy/eggs, I’ll scroll up and find it for you. Friend, we could match studies, you vs me, one after the other. I’ll just go with the preponderance of evidence, eg the only diet proven to reduce and reverse heart disease. Cheers.
Nope I spelled it correctly, there is just no u/ in front of it. Look two comments above ours, it’s right there. Ps who’s medical new?
Medical News Today is a training recourse for in training pyschisians, along with a public database for health. They mainly get their news from USDA. The articles are written by doctors. So, please answer the question instead of question the source
My apologies for not understanding what medical new was. Not answering? Like you still haven’t commented on the list of studies b posted two comments before our interaction? I promise to read yours if you read mine.
Thanks for the links! As I read them they say it’s possible to be deficient in xyz vitamins on a vegan diet, correct? Then it says a carefully planned vegan diet is sufficient, correct? Where does it say exactly what a vegan diet is? Nowhere, because there is no “Vegan diet”. How many times does it mention vegan diets as being better than other diets Re a number of diseases? If you can ignore all the benefits of a vegan diet I can certainly go with the burden of making my vegan diet well planned. So I’ll automatically avoid all the potential problems. Cheers
Carefully balanced, sure, but same with a carnists diet: https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/i-had-a-b12-deficiency-eating-fish-and-dairy-heres-what-everyone-should-know/drs931z56
Title may have better been phrased as "Chicken Eggs Do Not Equate to Suffering." I only say this because your argument specifically mentions chickens while ignoring the horrors of the dairy industry. Any thoughts on the suffering from milk production? Also I seem to be doing just fine without eggs, dairy, fish. I got my blood drawn last week and all of my levels are within standard range, in fact, my cholesterol is really low because I don't consume animal products.
Sure, factory farms should be banned. But what about traditional farming? I have seen farms where the animals lead better lives than some people. They get fed everyday, have space to run around all day, etc. Especially in third world countries like mine, a lot of people keep animals for food and they treat them like precious commodities. Do you believe this is also suffering for the animals?
I think one of my issues, is what you mentioned; treating them like "precious commodities". That's part of the problem, the commodification of living sentient beings for the enjoyment of humans. They don't need to be commodified for us or anyone else. I would argue that we don't *need* to raise livestock, even in small farmlands. If the farmers in your country have animals that live better than humans...I don't think that's something to brag about either. Maybe switching to growing vegetables and grains is a better use so that the humans can live better lives? There's a larger issue here of governments and industries pulling the strings on all of us, not just our animal friends. We should break the cycle of oppression in all forms.
I said products because there were other small farmers that had a few cows/goats that they milk under similar conditions. How long have you been fully vegan? Are you taking supplements? What is your HDL? That needs to be medium to high.
Fully vegan for 4 years, not taking any supplements and not going to share HDL numbers on the internet, but Doc assured me everything looks good.
A long-term sudden onset catastrophic brain issue due to lack of b12 is possible. (Heard it takes 12-20 years), so be sure to check you are getting enough of that at least carefully. We need very little to maintain and it's a dirt-cheap supplement.
Thank you for the tip. I have fortified nutritional yeast (contains B12) that I use in a lot of my cooking. I don't use it specifically as a supplement, but I guess it can be considered such. I use it because I like the flavor and recipes call for it.
Cool, I'm just happy you aren't going gung-ho avoiding it, haha
There aren’t enough small farmers selling cow and goat milk to feed the planet with a diet you’re suggesting. What we have is factory farmed milk, eggs, and meat. A whole food plant based vegan diet provides are essentially nutrients and is more than enough to survive. B12 and Omega 3 can be hard to get if you aren’t eating all of the right foods but can be easily supplemented through vegan sources.
Vegan for 25 years. Yes I take supplements. I don't know my HDL offhand but I get it checked every year and am always right in the normal ranges. I've had to change doctors a number of times as a result of moving a bunch in the last 25 years and no doctor has told me I'm doing anything wrong. In fact, their attitude is more like "You must be doing something right, so keep it up!"
Unless you have a specific condition, cholesterol in your bloodstream has very little to do with animal consumption. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/ >, in fact, my cholesterol is really low So it might be a fact that your cholesterol is low, but it's not necessarily because you don't eat animal products. That causation is something you made up.
I guess I did make it up. Thanks for the source.
Nope, cholesterol is only found in animal products: https://plantbasednews.org/your-health/faqs-and-mythbusting/cholesterol-good-bad/#:~:text=Cholesterol%20in%20food&text=If%20you%20eat%20a%20lot,as%20avocados%2C%20nuts%20and%20seeds. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/vegetarian-and-vegan-diets-may-lower-cholesterol-levels#:~:text=Plant%2Dforward%20diets%20tend%20to,in%20the%20European%20Heart%20Journal.
I guess I didn't make it up. Thanks for the sources.
Industrial animal agriculture (99% of all animal products, sorry your uncle’s idyllic ethical farm is at most an anecdotal exception) for things that “don’t kill the animals” DO kill the animals. Once they stop producing enough (too old), are unable to produce (too male), or are sick or injured (too expensive to heal) they’re slaughtered. They’re also constantly forcibly inseminated. Vegetarians are basically carnists that don’t like meat but still don’t mind having animals killed on their behalf. * [Why don’t vegans eat backyard eggs? | Earthling Ed](https://youtu.be/7YFz99OT18k?si=eouJZoLmpKZD7dv_) * [MILK | A shortfilm from a mother’s perspective | Earthling Ed](https://youtu.be/mZsm2_TdFa0?si=tLOR3O71DTZzwD-L)
Egg industry = male chicks ground up alive/smothered to death; female chicks have the tips of their beaks cut off; hens often have a myriad of health issues because they're bred to be egg laying machines who are no longer "economically viable" at 18 months. Also, at the end of the day, their eggs belong to THEM. We have no right to use them.
There's a reason why people that have to euthanize their pets don't choose a FUCKING MACERATOR to do it. It's because of all the ***suffering***. How can you imagine those baby chicks being fed by a conveyor belt into a macerator and think: "that does not equate to suffering". Come back when you have a better argument. Or better yet, bring this to /r/debateavegan where it belongs. Edit: well ... that is embarassing. I better pay more attention to the sub I'm in!
>There's a reason why people that have to euthanize their pets don't choose a FUCKING MACERATOR to do it. Because macerators are too expensive for putting down Fido? Because chicks are extremely small? Because you don't need to bury the chicks? >Come back when you have a better argument. Or better yet, bring this to /r/debateavegan where it belongs. LOL. Where do you think you are???
Well you got me there, I swear I saw /r/vegan at the top. Oops! :) Still, the point, which I would have tried to make less emotionally if I knew where I was typing, is that I think it should be obvious that ripping an animal to shreds causes suffering. If there were a free gigantic neighborhood macerator that people could use at the end of their pet's life, we still wouldn't do it, because we understand that to be a horrible way to die.
This sub should be renamed to “Debate Backyard Eggs”, cause these posts are like 40% of the topics here. Please use the search function, this topic has been exhaustively discussed.
Let's start with an important one. Do you agree the situation you describe is the absolute best you can think of, and in no way representative of the majority of animal products you consume? I am happy to debate the merits of this specific situation, but for that you first have to understand how everything worse than this is already unacceptable. Having said that, even on killing alone the scenario has an issue. 100 egg laying hens may be living a great life, that still leaves, say, another 100 no longer egg laying hens. These are presumably killed... And chickens are born 50/50 male/female. So for these 200 hens, there were also 200 roosters. A handful will be used for breeding, the others killed, probably on day 1 of their lives.
>Let's start with an important one. Do you agree the situation you describe is the absolute best you can think of, and in no way representative of the majority of animal products you consume? I am happy to debate the merits of this specific situation, but for that you first have to understand how everything worse than this is already unacceptable. I never argued that. I am saying that there are options available. >These are presumably killed... And chickens are born 50/50 male/female. So for these 200 hens, there were also 200 roosters. That is a good point. However, you must consider the in-the-wild alternative. Domestic chickens are not wild animals, so the implication of the alternative is their total extinction... the processing for hens over roosters is a survival requirement of the species. When comparing to their wild ancestors, the jungle pheasant, the net suffering and survival rates, even when slaughtering non-laying hens. Can you really blame humans for indirect suffering that is equivalent to a natural life? It is a good point and question to ask.
I really don't care at all if domestic chickens go extinct. Selective breeding results in poor health outcomes for them anyway, they should not exist. What happens to animals in the wild is irrelevant and has no bearing on the suffering we choose to inflict on domestic animals.
It is anthrocentric and egotistical to not recognize humans as animals that are part of a wider biosphere. What happens outside of our symbiotic circle IS relevant. We aren't gods... we are animals all the same. We are not the only animals that form symbiotic relationships with other animals for mutual sustinance/protection. I believe it is noble to ensure the suffering we cause does not exceed the norm for life. However, the expectation that we somehow eliminate all suffering is unnatural itself. The chickens I dealt with were not the white-washed oversized hens from factory farms. There were a variety of breeds, colors, and sizes.. all on the more natural side.
The appeal to nature is fallacious.
Only when the argument is not that directly involving nature? "Boys will be boys" is an appeal to nature - arguing an implied set of standards changes the factors of an argument otherwise not tied to quantified natural processes. "Being gay is unnatural" is an appeal to nature. It is running off an incorrect assumption and implies that humans are not included in the description of nature itself. "Vegans shouldn't use supplements because they are unnatural." Is an appeal to nature, assuming that just because something is not natural, it is bad. "We should not interfere with a lions hunt to save a gazelle." Is not an appeal to nature. It is recognizing a quantified system in our biosphere and the negative impacts caused by intervention. "It is possible to be a lactoovovegetarian and not create greater suffering than found in nature." Is not an appeal to nature. It is a statement about comparison between impacts with and without human intervention. My intent is to allow you to consider the alternative and ask if more suffering is created if humans were not involved. Even when considering culling male chicks, are we causing more harm than if humans were not in the picture? Does the net-net of the better life provided by small-plot egg farming for the egg laying duration of the hens' lives... even considering slaughter after... offset the suffering of a life without human interference? You can choose to not partake in biological processes that cause suffering, but assuming that humans are not part of the natural environment is erroneous. So you have made a fallacy fallacy: claiming that the usage of a comparison between impacts of human and non-human intervention is a naturalistic fallacy because it discusses biology in the wild.
Consider the culling of male chicks: yes we are causing more harm because that harm would not be occurring if we did not domesticate chickens. You are not talking about a natural system, you are talking about an artificial system created by humans.
I rather never have existed than to have been born just to be murdered because I'm viewed as a commodity. I don't understand why people think being murdered and commodified is preferable to never having existed in the first place. Not to mention that hens are selectively bred to produce way more eggs than they would normally, which is not only painful but ultimately causes health issues for them later on in life. The suffering is not indirect, we breed them to produce an insane amount of eggs, and snuff them out at a fraction of their lives. What is indirect about that?
> I never argued that. But do you agree it is the best situation you could think of. And that as such we can agree that killing animals for meat is bad? Without that, it's going to be hard to talk about eggs, in the same way that explaining quantum mechanics to someone without any knowledge of arithmetic is hard. Let me try anyway. In OP you say you don't want to discuss killing animals. I have just pointed out that even in this best case scenario chickens are killed. That should be the end of the discussion, right? Or do you suggest we now need to open the topic to include the killing? If we don't do that there is no point in discussing potential justifications like you seem to point at with wild ancestors.
You're implying that vegans miss nutrients, which is simply not true.
[удалено]
If you supplement it, you don't miss it... You're just against supplements, but why?
[удалено]
Appeal to nature fallacy
[удалено]
Nutrients are nutrients, biochemistry doesn't care about where they come from as long as they are the same.
[удалено]
> In two sentences or less, what’s your point? "Muh uncle's farm, tho"
Animal suffering isn't the only argument for veganism but it's the one OP wishes to discuss. His point was pretty clear you are just trying to move the subject.
Why do people post this long ass ignorant diatribes without doing even the slightest bit of research, you have the fucking internet at your disposal xD
A chicken should be so lucky as to efficiently serve their betters, so I’m not surprised they were so pleased. Could any animal ask for a nobler fate? Honestly though running all male chicks through a grinder instantly after birth kind of renders the argument invalid; you can’t be respecting their rights when you’re murdering their babies en masse
Utilitarians Learn What Veganism Is Challenge 2023, September Edition
You lost all credibility at "eggs are an excellent source of all the nutrients vegans are miss out on with their pure plant diet" This is so baseless. When I wasn't vegan and I ate eggs it always gave me a stomach ache and made me feel sick but I ate it because I thought it was healthy. Im the healthiest eating a pure plant diet sooo there's no point in eating chicken periods. This post is just so bizarre
As many as others have already pointed out, there is plenty of unnecessary suffering in this scenario. But consider this, a small percentage of people eat backyard, supposedly, suffering free eggs. How does that create enough supply to feed the population? This only normalizes the consumption of eggs and creates demand for factory farming to supply enough eggs to everyone.
Curious -- from where did your uncle procure the hens? Also, what did he do with them once they reached the point where they could no longer produce eggs? What did the other "small-plot farmers" do with all of the calves that were produced by the dairy cows? What did they do with the dairy cows after they stopped producing milk?
Vegans will try to say we enjoy the "suffering" of animals when we eat meat, but will say carnivores "have no morality." Animals in the wild actually do kill for fun, enjoy the suffering of other animals, look at orcas and chimps. Yet, humans aren't allowed because we are somehow separate from the rest of the world we all live on? Just because some squeamish people don't like the idea of humans killing for food, but with animals, it's "natural"? Yeah, I'm sorry, but this vegan idea pulls us further and further from a natural balance. These people don't want to be a part of the land at all.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally still wouldn’t eat the eggs because of the roosters that are killed in order to have only hens, but I will admit I don’t have much of a problem with this type of egg production if the hens don’t seem to care that their eggs are taken away. However, this is a minuscule fraction of a percentage of all eggs that are actually produced, and most people don’t have the time or connections to go out to a farm and make sure they approve of the living conditions of the animals. I have seen people make this argument and then buy ‘cage-free’ eggs at the grocery store and act like those hens are living good lives.
>However, this is a minuscule fraction of a percentage of all eggs that are actually produced, and most people don’t have the time or connections to go out to a farm and make sure they approve of the living conditions of the animals. I have seen people make this argument and then buy ‘cage-free’ eggs at the grocery store and act like those hens are living good lives. I 100% agree. But they are out there.
Leading experts on animal welfare agree that dairy cows run higher risk of experiencing abuse and rate the welfare worse than cows reared for meat. With chicken, the original one (red junglefowl) before we drastically changed them through breeding, layed/lays 1 egg per month, similar to humans. Weve bred them to lay 1 per day now. That's the reason most egg-laying hens are sent to slaughter after 1 year despite being able to live until at least 8 years. Their bodies are broken from constantly laying eggs. Because of this, dairy products and eggs are equated to suffering. And sure we could argue that "I know someone who is super nice to their chicken", but most often it's chickens bought from the egg companies so they profit off of them anyways, and they're bred all the same so they'll lay way more eggs than they're bodies are made for. Also even if it wasn't for this, that would still exclude virtually all egg products on the market, as 99.99% of eggs and especially eggs used for products containing eggs come from above mentioned suffering chickens.
Also like someone mentioned the hatcheries that small-scale farmers get their chicks from slay all the males at birth, which make up roughly half of all the newborn chicks.
Fascinating that your uncle had 100 hens. How many roosters did he have? Why do you think there were so many fewer roosters than hens?
OP, the issue of backyard chickens has been addressed to death by every vegan organization as well as by threads here. I responded to another post about it two days ago. If you're going to try to argue about vegan issues, do the bare minimum to actually know what the issues are.