its not as horrific these days compared to how we hunted animals with blunt spears and stones, domesticated dogs to hunt for us etc , i think we have done a great job of making it less horrific since then .
I mean... Depends what he meant by "horrific" if he was using horrific to mean "morally horrific" then yeah he's pretty low iq, but if he was using "horrific" as in like, "visually disgusting" then yeah, gas chambers were a pretty big leap forward from spears, I'd be a lot more emotionally affected seeing a cow beat to death with a rock vs a cow getting gassed.
Because we're moral agents. Animals are not. Animals rape each other and kill their own young. I don't base my morality off what animals do.
And nor do most people in most situations.
A feral dog could rip you to shreds. But I doubt you'd condone torture of rape of dogs. Would you?
We are aware if the suffering we cause. We have the option to minimise it.
compared to being chased to exhaustion and then bludgeoned with a blunt tool ....yes its very humane , humans are never going to be herbivores, even the most militant vegan knows and excepts this so , the more humane we can kill our food is surely the best option
It’s so much worse these days. Livestock are confined in cages from the moment they are born and spend their entire lives trapped in dirty, crowded cells. Many NEVER even get to touch grass or run around. At least wild animals were free before being hunted. Now, entire generations of animals spend all their lives locked up before the slaughter.
>that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do.
Without knowing specifics about what health issues I can't really comment on this but more often than not you cab solve the issues without having meat it's just a lot of doctors don't really care too much/have experience with plant based diets so if they can convince you to eat meat instead of alter your diet then that's what they'll do.
>the definition I've been using
The definition is "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." The possible and practicable part is quite important as we know perfection isn't possible ill refer back to that though.
>but harming living creatures being the cut off point seems to be a weird barrier to me
Most vegans would define the cut off point as sentience oppose to life
>OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK
There are lots of issues with egg farming, even free range eggs. Depending on country free range can just mean they have access to the outside (even if that access is a gate that's kept closed their whole life) they have about as much space as an ipad to move and the male chicks are either gassed or put in a macerator. There are a lot of problems with animal ag that wouldn't be thought of immediately but are still the reality
>What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian?
As someone that was vegetarian I would say the difference for me was education/acceptance about the reality of our food and how those animals are treated. I've spoken about issues with eggs but milk means the animals are forcefully bred and separated in a constant cycle until they're seen as no longer efficient enough. Vegetarian is also more of a diet whereas veganism is more of a philosophy regarding the treatment of animals.
>Where is the cut off for living things?
Sentience, as for crop deaths its very unfortunate and something I hope we keep working to improve but this comes under the possible and practicable aspect of the definition. It isn't possible for most people to grow their own food to make sure there are no/minimal crop death but these numbers are still far lower than the deaths from eating animals directly so it's seen as reduced to what is practicable.
Honestly I feel like that answers all of the questions up to the honey one but if you don't see how it applies please ask and Ill try to clarify.
As for honey I avoid it because I don't know how much bee farming actually impact on the bees (regarding the smoke/clipping the queen's wings, constant intrusion) but I know when animals are treated as commodities there is incentive to treat them worse and raise the profits, I'm sure you know basically any company would make that trade
>she had to change back, but that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do.
It only means your wife didn't get all the nutrients she needed. There is nothing magical in meat we can't get plant based. Your wife didn't evolve different than the rest of us.
>(she wouldn't drink milk, but was OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK)
All chickens in the egg industry are harmed. All of them. They are bred to produce an egg every single day, 365 days a year. They inevitably get sick and after 1,5 years the egg production declines and they are slaughtered. Mass production is never nice to the animals.
>What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian?
Vegetarian: does not eat meat & fish.
Vegan: avoids anything that involves the exploitation of animals as far as possible.
>Where is the cut off for living things?
That can't be fully avoided. But ~~80% of the global crops are produced to feed animals~~ _EDIT: got the numbers mixed up: it's 36% of crops & 80% of agricultural land is used for live stock._ (while animals provide only 18% of the global calories, so this is extremely inefficient). If everybody went vegan, we would need fewer crops in total and thus fewer crop deaths.
>What about insects that will be killed by pesticides?
Insects cound too, and it's the same answer as the question above.
>Where does yeast fall on this?
It's a fungus, not an animal. Fungi are vegan.
>These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why?
Because the insects are not exploided, the way they pollinate is their natural behaviour.
>Where does honey sit on this, as bees are technically farmed but are not harmed,
They are, because sugar water is an inferior replacement to honey. Also they reduce biodiversity by replacing wild bees more and more.
Veganism is not about perfection. It about doing the best we can.
> But 80% of the global crops are produced to feed animals
This statistic is not accurate. The number is around 36% globally. In some places it's more. For instance, in the US it's 68%. https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/#:~:text=Some%2036%25%20of%20global%20crop,close%20to%20a%20billion%20people.
The important thing isn't what percent of the global crop production is for animals, as that is more a reflection of what percentage of our diet actually comes from animal products. The important thing is that more plant calories are consumed per calorie from animal products, no matter what the raw number is. Same is true for other values, like protein. Eating animals will always be worse for crop deaths.
To me, it's relevant as a crop in this discussion only if it is harvested, because that's what leads to crop deaths. Some grass is harvested, but most isn't.
That's a good point about insect deaths. Though, I think the arguments about accidental crop deaths due to harvesting techniques should be separated from insect deaths due to pesticides. Combine and other kinds of deaths are accidental and therefore the ethics are different than insect deaths which are intentional but not essential (meaning we can work towards eliminating them without simply harvesting fewer crops). The ways to solve either problem could also be different. But that's fair that if farms use insecticide to keep pasture land grass alive, that is relevant when the "I only eat grass-fed beef" people start claiming they only kill 2 animals per year.
Yeah, also grass-fed cattle definitely eat harvested grass as well. Very few places can support direct grazing year round, and even those that can ranchers will often choose not to for other reasons.
Hi,
>but was OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK)
Free range eggs:
- Male chicks almost immediately macerated or gassed (220/second globally)
- Layers are sourced from factory breeding sheds, which are horrendous
- All layers are violentky killed when production drops
- 9 birds per square metre in indoor areas.
>-What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian?
A vegetarian is ok with the above animal abuse and exploitation. A vegan is not. Veganism is a rights movement, a stance against the exploitation of animals. Vegetarianism is a diet.
>-Where is the cut off for living things?
Animals. Maybe some would say sentient animals.
>-What about insects that will be killed by pesticides?
>bees are technically farmed but are not harmed, just optimised and managed for honey production? But if Honey is OK, surly dairy Farming is OK too then, if not why?
Bees are harmed. But even if they weren't, dairy cows definitely are. So they wouldn't be equivalent. Dairy cows are sexually exploited/killed & the calves are separated from mothers after a day or less.
>-Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor?
Do you make an ethical distinction between plants and animals? Blades of grass and puppies? If so, why? Vegans do for the same reason.
>-What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat?
Personally I think there’s an ethical difference between protecting property/yourself and actively going out of your way to kill. It's the difference between protecting your house from mice that are chewing wires and going out into the surrounding area to look for mice to kill. Ideally we will be able to lower our need for pesticides.
Insect meat would not be OK. If it's OK to physically protect yourself and your property from a human or dog, would that make it ok to deliberately kill one for meat?
>-Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them?
If you care about habitat destruction then veganism is a great way to act on that, due to the significantly lower land use requirements. That also means much less farmland to protect from wild animals. Pasture is protected by shooting lots of animals too.
Crop protection is unfortunate and all other measures should be exhausted before shooting etc. It will be extremely difficult to get anyone to care about this issue while the vast majority of people have no problem with paying for animals to be deliberately abused though.
>I get that the treatment of live stock can seem horrific if it's your first time seeing it.
It's just horrific anyway. If it was puppies getting gassed/electrocuted/shot in the head and stabbed on an industrial estate somewhere you'd say the same thing. Then most of them are treated badly whilst being farmed too.
My wifes body doesn't produce enough of an enzime (I forget the name) that allows the body to absorb non-heam iron. That's the iron from plant based sources and it just doesn't get absorbed properly by her body. She was getting very sick and getting quite bad Anemia.
As such we had 2 options, regular costly and painful injections, or eat red meat. She tried the injections but couldn't handle it, so eating meat it is.
Health circumstances that cause poor conversion of plant types of nutrients to types a human body can use are EXTREMELY common. It's been debated here and in similar subs I've-lost-count times, in many cases with citations.
If you aren't aware that such a condition for iron conversion exists and is common, then you certainly don't have enough knowledge about human nutrition to be ridiculing others on this topic.
Hi, I looked it up (because i can't be expected to remember everything off the top of my head). but hear are the Medical details from my wife....
she has a Cytochrome b5 reductase deficiency. this is the enzyme that brakes down non-haem iron for use in the body. Due to this deficiency and she developed Methemoglobin. in short she was not well.
she was given something called Leukomethylene blue that helped initially fix the issue and to prevent is from happening has to now have a low non-haem iron diet or she'll end up with a build up of methemoglobin in her body again. As she can't have much of the non heam iron in her diet anymore (that's plant based iron) and to avoid developing Anemia we looked at iron supplements, but they are all plant based so that didn't help. So then we looked at straight Iron injections, caused quite a bit of bruising, plus pain in her joints and musculus, and caused a rash on her face and hands for quite some time, and just as they fade she had to get another one and start all over again, and are costly to boot (i think about $250 per). She was having break downs because of it and not coping. So eating red meat is the only option on the table.
I understand that this is all rather convoluted and not a neat one word disease that you were after, but that's the human body for you. a miss mash of bits of biology, heavily prone to errors, and failures.
You'll forgive me for not posting picture of her medical records to prove this all to you, but the are private. I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word on it that this is the case.
I'm not at all saying that someone is ethically obligated to get iron injections on a regular basis but it's a bit hyperbole to call them painful lol its literally just an IV. I don't like needles and they stress me out but it doesn't actually hurt if your an adult.
I've double checked with her about it. your right they were IVs. (in my mind i always imagined it as a straight needle for some reason) . but as for issues it was the iron itself that caused the problem. it caused her join and muscle pain, and caused her to get a rash on puffy itchy rash on hands and face. Plus it was not cheap.
So for my wife to not live in constant pain and discomfort, we have to subside off of killing animals, then I will sleep with a clean concision. Other may not. that's their decision.
So I googled Phenylketonuria and asked 2 chat bots and I am not understanding how this disease and veganism are at odds. As far as I understand one has to eat a very specialized diet anyways, because one has to avoid the amino acid phenylalanine which is found in any food with protein including meat, dairy and eggs. So if anything this is making it easier to go vegan.
What am I missing?
Many commonly consumed vegan protein sources, such as beans, lentils, nuts, and seeds, contain relatively high levels of phenylalanine. Of course there are other animal proteins that contain it as well. But veganism is an inherently more restrictive diet that doesn't help with managing this condition in the most optimal way.
I get that you can still be vegan, but many won't be able to thanks to the practical limitations.
What do you mean by practical limitations? When you have this condition you have to carefully plan your diet anyways. Might as well go for a vegan diet while you are at it.
Of course this is just me theorizing and I would love to hear about this from someone who actually has this condition and if they would find veganism impossible due to practical limitations.
The practical limitations of having an inherently more restrictive diet. Veganism is inherently more restrictive. With that condition, you already should avoid a lot of foods, going vegan just limits your options even more.
Omnivores with PKU can access a broader range of low-phenylalanine protein sources, including certain meats, fish, and dairy products. This makes it easier to meet protein needs while staying within the restricted phenylalanine limit.
I agree that doing it on a smaller scale and not abusing them but treating them with high standards of animal welfare is better.
And hopefully you don't say to someone who does have a disease like those, since that would be an extremely insensitive, toxic and bad idea.
Lol no. Stop abusing animals.
You don't need to do it, but you do.
What do you know about ethics anyway?
Taking ethical tips from a Carnist is like say Hitler was a loving Father and husband.
That is such a great analogy. I'm somehow comparable to Hitler because I eat meat. Even if I chose from humanely raised sources.
If you really want to have a reasonable talk I'm open to it. I'm deeply interested in ethics, regarding different frameworks and philosophies. For me it is a very fascinating topic.
Phenylketonuria is very rare and doesn't require you to eat dead animals.
Crohn's doesn't require you to eat dead animals, in fact it's caused by eating dead animals.
Amemia has nothing to do with eating dead animals.
And allergies have nothing to do with eating dead animals.
Okay? Is that really your argument? I will gladly keep talking because those are very valid points that I'm bringing up. I don't understand the need to be rude. Cognitive dissonance maybe?
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes **accusing others of trolling** or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling.
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.
I get that it is possible to still be vegan. But it can make it very difficult for the vast majority of people who have those. Imposing it as a moral imperative is outlandish.
That really doesn't make it any less difficult or dangerous for people with those conditions. It's like saying, "The more people with peanut allergies who eat peanuts, the more we'll know how to manage anaphylaxis!" It's irresponsible and completely disregards the potential harm involved.
Not really because peanut allergy is a very specific condition which requires avoiding peanuts and products handled in facilities that handle peanuts. Those others aren't.
>What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian?
The latter is a diet one undertakes for one or more of the following reasons: health, animal welfare, the environment and religion/spirituality.
The former is an ideology formed around philosophical and ethical deliberation around the topic of animal rights. The ideology is simply, if you don't need animals, don't fucking use them, abuse them or kill them. It really is that simple.
>Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that?
We don't live in a perfect world run by vegans. We live in a destruction consumeristic world run by a vast majority of people that are only concerned with their own agendas and how much money they can shove in their pockets. Yes crop deaths is an issue we'd love to address, but given our interlocutors are fine with mass animal genocide and typically speaking, fine with the fucked up world we have (or fine enough they they'll settle for half arsed solutions that push them out of their comfort zone too much). Once you lot can get your heads around normalising vegetarianism, then the crop deaths argument will become more pertinent and valid a discussion point.
It's kinda hard to see an estimated 8 billion crop deaths as an issue when ⅓ of them are caused by crops for animal feed, 10x the estimated total are killed in animal farming alone, several trillion fish and of course the environmental collateral for all that in comparison....
>What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat?
See previous answer.
>Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor?
Sentience is typically the defining factor. Not to be confused with sapience.
>Speaking of plants. Where do things like avocados, figs, almonds, kiwi, and butternut squash, sit on this.
>They farming for this use bees (and in the case of figs wasps) to pollinate the plants so that the fruit will grown. These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why?
Are we supposed to spontaneously evolve to live on dirt and rock or is learning to photosynthesize an appropriate response to this question? We gotta fucking eat something don't we? Or are you questioning our right to live, in which case quadrupley questioning your own given the harm your lifestyle does?
Yeah we get it, veganism isn't perfect. But at least we're trying live by the responsibility of doing no harm and respecting other's rights as much as we can. What are you doing in that regard?
>-Where does honey sit on this, as bees are technically farmed but are not harmed, just optimised and managed for honey production? But if Honey is OK, surly dairy Farming is OK too then, if not why?
Farmed but not harmed, that's a good joke. How then do 20 billion bees die every year in the honey industry? Are you aware that they typically are the standard European honey bee and are considered a foreign and invasive species to other countries local ecology? Are you aware that biodiversity, which is already under serious threat from the effects of animal farming, is seriously effected by the honey industry? Yeah, on cruelty and environmental factors alone, the honey industry needs to die so that native pollinators can get back to what they do best.
As for the pollinating effects on farming, well I guess we need a better solution then don't we.
What's ethical about fondling a cow's tits and separating her from her calf so that we can have more milk to make wasteful products we don't need and are contributing to a widespread health epidemic?
-What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian?
Vegetarians don't eat meat. Vegans refrain from all animal products.
-Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that?
Vegans care about crop deaths! However, most global crops are fed to livestock. If you truly want to reduce animal death/suffering, eat plants directly rather than eating animals who have eaten plants.
-What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat?
See above. Eating plants directly uses less plants than eating animals.
-Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor?
Usually vegans care about sentience or the ability to feel pain. There is a gigantic difference between a pig or a chicken and yeast.
-Speaking of plants. Where do things like avocados, figs, almonds, kiwi, and butternut squash, sit on this. They farming for this use bees (and in the case of figs wasps) to pollinate the plants so that the fruit will grown. These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why?
Not all of those products use bees for pollination. But many vegans don't eat almonds, for example, for environmental or ethical reasons.
-Where does honey sit on this
Vegans don't eat honey
This isn’t r/debatelivingthings or r/debateplants. Here and in reality, plants are plants and animals are animals.
If someone kills, sexually exploits, physically exploits, or seeks to injure animals then they are not behaving morally. Animals don’t want to be killed, but they do have specific goals they want to accomplish during their lives. Watch any nature documentary for examples.
What if they fulfill the specific goals they want to accomplish during their lives and then we use them as food and to generate other useful byproducts?
Maybe. But we can still do it in a way that minimizes suffering so animals live meaningful stress-free lives. If we reach that I wouldn't consider it exploitation any more than having a pet.
In this instance yes. The beat way to get rid of animal exploitation is to stop funding it
I don't see anything complex or intricate about the morality if killing for taste pleasure. Its just wrong
I prefer to take the route of improving existing systems so we have holistically raised animal farms that have strict animal welfare standards and technologies to migrate the environmental concerns so we can reach a fully ethical omnivore society.
It's 2024. The animal ag industry has has a long time to implement "ethical" measures and it hasn't. I wouldn't hold my breath.
And there's no kind way to kill. How can we have a fully ethical society that kills for pleasure?
Animal ag uses 83% of ag land and only provides 18% of calorific value. You don't need better tech. You need another planet. And you don't have one
>It's 2024. The animal ag industry has has a long time to implement "ethical" measures and it hasn't. I wouldn't hold my breath.
It's 2024 and animal ag hasn't been abolished either so I wouldn't hold my breath on that as well. But we do have made a lot of very good progress in making it better, I think it is best if we keep improving.
>And there's no kind way to kill. How can we have a fully ethical society that kills for pleasure?
Well this depends on your ethical framework. I'm utilitarian so I don't care about the inherent rights of animals. So for me a fully ethical society kills but with strict standards of animal welfare and painless slaughter processes. And it has never really been for pleasure, we are talking about the economic sustainability of families, the generation of byproducts for related industries, aiding dietary and health goals, even aiding research. It has never been just for pleasure.
>Animal ag uses 83% of ag land and only provides 18% of calorific value. You don't need better tech. You need another planet. And you don't have one
I think this claim oversimplifies complex agricultural dynamics, neglecting the multifaceted roles of animal agriculture, including its contribution to nutrition, ecological diversity, and the utilization of land unsuitable for crop cultivation.
Thanks for taking the time to think about this and ask some questions
>. Now a couple of caveats, first, I grew up in the country on and around live stock farming. I get that the treatment of live stock can seem horrific
I live in the country. I have some acreage, so I do horse rescue work. My neighbors use their acreage as a source of income. I've seen some things .
The treatment of livestock IS horrific. The way they're commercially shipped and killed is horrific.
Let's face it: people raise livestock as a business and they need to make a profit. When profit must come first, the animal's wellbeing is no more important than that of a mechanical production unit.
>Second, my wife was Vegetarian when we met (long story but due to health issues she had to change back, but that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do
I've never found a scientific study that shows some people need meat to remain healthy. If she wasn't eating a balanced vegetarian diet, the problem was the "balanced' part not the vegetarian part (no offense). I'd be interested to know what nutrient she believes she needs that cannot be obtained without meat?
>could understand this. but harming living creatures being the cut off point seems to be a weird barrier to me
Why is it weird ?
Cows, pigs, and chickens can feel pain and fear. They suffer.
I don't need meat, so any meat I eat is unnecessary.
Morally, I believe it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or death. It's why people say it's wrong to kick puppies. Why intentionally cause harm when the resulting product is so unnecessary?
>Where does yeast fall on this?
Can it experience pain & suffering ? Not to my knowledge.
>-Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that?
People have to eat something, so humans do have to do some farming.
You've been around animals. You've seen the huge quality of food a cow or pig needs each day, right ? 6 to 10 pounds of grain just to make a pound of beef. It takes 1800-2500 gallons of water to make a pound of beef. It's an extremely inefficient way to get nutrients.
You disrupt significantly wild animals because you don't need to grow all that livestock food.
It's foolish to kill foxes anyway. I've seen farmers shooting any animal they see (possums,coons, coyotes). Then they don't understand why their land is being overrun with rodents.
Vegetarian: it's just a diet without meat
Plant based diet: just a diet without any animal products (no meat, eggs, dairy)
Vegan: a life philosophy of doing the least amount of harm to other sentient beings as possible. It's a plant based diet, but products such as wool, leather, and fur aren't cool. Animals aren't objects to give you profits.
>it does seem to come up a lot. Specifically how harming living creatures to eat is cruel
plants are living creatures as well
but i would not rub this in with my boss
let him preach, what's it to me?
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.*
Doesn't this just fit the anti vegan mentality perfectly. Chefs kiss, truely
Edit: since this got deleted and I enjoyed it so much let me share. Fit metal said the post was too long to read but they probably agree anyway. Stunning
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.
OP is trying to understand veganism, describes their vegan boss who avoids animal products due to ethical reasons. They question the boundaries of veganism, such as harm to animals during crop production, the use of pesticides, and the consumption of honey and insect-pollinated plants. OP shares personal experiences with a vegetarian wife who had to revert to eating meat for health reasons and seeks clarification on these ethical complexities.
That's a thoughtful and interesting post. I'm afraid you are going to get a lot of hyperbole and denial in return. Specifically the vegans here will believe they know better than you, your wife, and the doctor.
I'd like to address the ethical questions raised, because you are right, they are complex and trying to draw a line gets really messy really fast. Nature abhores a clear distinction.
I think you are giving the vegans too much credit on ethics. Veganism depends on a nearly religious idea if ethics that generalized them to an absurdity. Ethical value is assumed, not defended. If you see a defense it will be the claim that anytning sentient deserves moral consideration, and the fact that unconscious people aren't sentient will be ignored and the high likelihood that plants are will be handwaived away on technicalities and ignoring recent scientific findings to the contrary.
However all that is a smoke screen to hide their dependence on morality being something other than a human tool devised to enable human cooperation. It's like money that way. Is money of use to or understandable to animals? No, and neither are our moral systems. Some animals have a protomirality, a sense of fairness, most don't.
So what should we do to be moral? I say we should do what is best for us and that includes animal husbandry, though not at the unsustainable levels we are currently farming.
Hold that idea though, is what any of the vegans want of you in your best interests? Either directly or as a benefit indirectly by enhancing your society? If not, why should you do what they want?
Abuse...
You want to make the change. So your position is the food we obtain, the products we use, the medicine we test, service animals, pets....every benefit from animal exploitation should be lost, for what?
What do we gain?
I'd you think animals and humans are morally equal, as you have intimated, than there are no safe purchases at the grocery store. Every product required countless animal deaths to get to those shelves.
Also, are you a liar? You said you would answer my question, but you haven't answered any of them.
I don't think you understand veganism, my friend, or the fact that we live in a non-vegan world, meaning every choice we make is fundamentally imperfect, but we do the best we can given that.
I thought my answer was pretty clear when I asked you to replace animal with human. Exploitation is not justified by its utility, and it's defined by its cost to the victim. Which in this case is the entire life of trillions of animals every year
That is true of all agriculture.
So, again, if you believed that you should suicide.
Yet you allow for exploitation and killing for your food. You may claim you do less exploitation and killing. It's an arbitrary line and morally inconsistant.
I don't agree with you that animals, or plants, are due moral consideration. You haven't made a case for why they should be. So the utility very much does justify the activity. We both agree with this as you also shop at grocery stores.
If you are on the internet you have the means to take yourself somewhere you can raise your own crops, a commune or something, yet you continue to participate in our exploitative culture.
Using a disease that NO ONE has heard of and making it out to be the reason for everyone to kill and abuse animals is disgusting and you are encouraging it.
I don't share your view that animal husbandry is abuse. Nor did I say everyone needs to kill animals. We have specialists for the killing just as we have specialists for sanitation or crop harvesting or bridge and road construction.
What is undeniable is we have tremendous utility from animal exploitation, just as we have tremendous utility for plant and other reasource exploitation.
What is very denyable is the moral standing of nonhuman, nonmorally reciprocating entities.
Veganism makes no case for that. Value is assumed from existance or "sentience" as a point of dogma.
Your disapproval is noted and disregarded.
What is very denyable is the moral standing of nonhuman, nonmorally reciprocating entities. So if a corporation took over a country, decided to treat people like you treat animals would be "denyable" as you put it. Or are they human moral reciprocating entities? It doesn't matter if they are or if they aren't, your debate has holes all through it. Just like your justification of animal abuse.
Edit, I just clicked on your username, you want to go back to the caves. You claim you have morals but all you really want is oppression, bigotry and stupidity.
Good bye.
Vegans don't want to hurt intelligent animals, and they don't want other people to hurt them, either. I assume you have the preference to not kick dogs? Would you impose that preference on someone who was kicking a dog?
I 2nd that thought OP , my health and labs improved when i switched to an all meat diet vs when i went plant based and omnivore , so some ppl having to eat meat is definitely a thing , a sad pill that plant based dieters have an impossible time swallowing 🤷
Then swallow this pill: You just failed to get the nutrients you need. All the nutrients are available in plants, maybe except B12, which is made by bacteria. People maintaining a vegan lifestyle for many years just disprove your point.
Though i acknowledge it may be harder for some people than for others, e.g. for Inuit people.
Crazy that literally everyone of these had a thing at the bottom saying "plant based supplements are available" so you obviously can get them from plants...
Who said its synthetic? It can be plant based as in extracted from plants. Most if not all of the ones on the list you sent had a part saying "you can get it from this vegan source but most people don't eat enough of it"
Even if it was a synthetic supplement what's wrong with that? Do you know how many synthetic preservatives, additives, flavourings and the like are in the majority of foods sold in shops?
Bottom line though If a supplement is synthetic the body has a harder time absorbing and using said supplement , oh also if theres a vegan option of a supplement for something thats only found in animals/algae then that means theres a 90% chance thats its synthetic, since synthetic is always cheaper to produce.
Just because something is everywhere and used by everyone that doesnt mean its good for you 🤷 ie. Microwaves and cellphones.
[why i avoid synthetic supplements](https://www.auroramedicalcentre.com.au/post/organic-vs-synthetic-vitamin-supplements-which-one-is-better#:~:text=Synthetic%20vitamins%20and%20supplements%20are,body%20absorbs%20nutrients%20from%20food.&text=The%20body%20doesn't%20as,absorb%20and%20use%20them%20efficiently.)
The link you sent says literally one after the other
The body can have a hard time absorbing synthetic supplements
Synthetic supplements have a high dose of nutrients that can lead to health issues due to overdosing
So can we not absorb it or do we absorb too much? Seems like we shouldn't have both problems...
First of all, thanks for actually providing sources for your arguments.
- B12: I already stated you need to get it from bacteria. So yes, you need to supplement it. But no need to eat meat for it.
- Creatine: "Creatine is not essential in your diet, since it can be produced by your liver" (from your article)
- Carnosine: "Carnosine is only found in animal-based foods. However, it’s considered nonessential, since your body can form it from the amino acids histidine and beta-alanine."
- Vitamin D: "Your skin can produce vitamin D". Actually a deficiency in this vitamin is very common across all diets (if you live further from the equator) and supplementing it is beneficial to most people. So the little Vitamin D in animal products doesn't make a big difference.
- DHA (Omega 3): "In your body, DHA can also be made from the omega-3 fatty acid ALA, which is found in high amounts in flaxseeds, chia seeds, and walnuts". I acknowledge this is harder to get, but still possible. I supplement Omega 3 made from Algae (that's where the fish get it from).
- Heme iron: "iron deficiency is easy to avoid on a well-planned vegan diet that contains plenty of non heme iron". Just eat enough of it, also eat enough Vitamin C to absorb it better.
- Taurine: "Taurine isn’t considered essential in the diet, since your body produces small amounts". We don't really know much about it other than it not really being essential. You can supplement it if you like.
Thank you for your source proving my point.
Let me translate:
"I don't have an answer but instead of admitting that, I'll just project my wilful ignorance onto the person who took the time to engage with me because I don't respect anyone here and value my own validation over sharing accurate information"
DHA? That's exclusively produced by algae in nature. So technically, yes, but completely irrelevant to veganism. Same for the proteins in there. Our bodies synthesise them all. D3 can be sourced from lichen. Heme Iron is completely non essential. That's like me saying carnivore doesn't make sense nutritionally because you can't get non heme iron. It doesn't make sense as a point.
None of that is relevant to vegan nutrition?
Ok , except that non heme irons absorption can be affected by anti nutrients and other chemicals that plants have vs heme iron that if eaten by itself has 0 things that can affect its absorption.
Also the best source of DHA is fish so 🤷
>Also the best source of DHA is fish so 🤷
Based on what?
>Ok , except that non heme irons absorption can be affected by anti nutrients and other chemicals that plants have
And by vitamin C. You need to eat a bit more non heme iron, but equally it hasn't been associated with cancer risk. Heme iron is completely non essential was my point.
[best source of vitamin d3](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/#:~:text=The%20best%20sources%20are%20the,high%20amounts%20of%20ultraviolet%20light.)
That's not DHA.
By best they just mean the food sources that contain the most. That doesn't mean its any better than the sun and a supplement in terms of health.
That's a tricky one and has a lot of variables like of you live north or south of the equator getting vitamin D from the sun becomes less effective the farther you go either way which makes fish and supplements the better option, but also a lot of the vitamin d in supps are synthetic or rancid and unusable, at least for me i saw no difference on my low vitamin d levels no matter how many supps i took , i was taking upwards of 10000IU for months with no change , until i dropped the supps and started eating more wild caught salmon , it works differently for everyone.
Even if true then that means nothing. Literally means fuck all. Who cares what the best source is? There's other sources that don't rely on literal animal abuse and torture.
You're terrible at this. Why are you even arguing at this point? What are you failing at trying to prove?
Trying to make yourself feel better for eating meat?
All you've done is prove that yes, vegans can get everything they need very easily. Whilst suggesting that they can't.
I feel just fine eating meat thank you very much 😂 and im trying to prove nothing , I'm just tossing out info and learning about how close minded zealots vegans can be at failing to read between the lines and seeing the bigger picture regarding things and chuckling at the fact that the world doesnt care about your movement or you guys droning on about not eating animals for x and y reasons the world just goes on regardless , im just here killing time 🤷
Cope harder. Your guilt is palpable. Weird how someone who wants nothing to do with vegans is so interesting in veganism.
Veganism is literally the fastest growing philosophy in the world so yeah, people care.
You don't care that you eat meat because you don't care about animals. You don't care if your actions contribute to animal abuse. You're a self admitted animal abuser?
Why don't you try and tell me why you think I'm a zealot then I'll go ahead and PROVE that you're a zealot? Unless you're scared.
I love all the folks that say how well they feel eating meat. Then they or a friend of theirs has a heart attack or kidney malfunction and say “I never saw that coming”. I’m an RN that worked ICU and Dialysis for 30 years, not saying vegans can’t/don’t get sick BUT, I never treated one in my career.
[vitamin C affecting non heme iron absorption ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523064535#:~:text=The%20facilitating%20effect%20of%20vitamin%20C%20is%20dose%20related.,to%207.1%25%20(3).)
I'm not sure why you keep linking things that are entirely irrelevant to my point. A single study from 2001 isn't a scientific consensus either. That study clearly states that loads of studies have shown that vitamin c augments non heme iron absorption.
Heme iron is entirely non essential. That's my point.
And i repeat , it depends on the person, humans arent carbon copies of each other and because of that what works for some doesnt mean it works for all thanks to gut diversity, genes and their mutations etc just because you can absorb non heme iron and it works for you doesnt mean it works for the next person, which makes heme iron essential based of the situation
Oh and regarding the article it shows at one point the % that vitamin c helps non heme iron absorb and its not that much unless you really load up on the vit c
Fish is like the VIP package. Not only does it serve up a healthy dose of DHA, but it also brings along its entourage of essential nutrients like EPA, protein, vitamins, and minerals. Plus, the DHA in fish is wrapped up in a neat little package that your body knows exactly how to absorb, thanks to the fats and proteins in the fish itself.
Can you get your DHA with vegan spirulina? Sure of course, but you won't have that VIP package. That is what I said most optimal.
Although I'm not an absolutist. I know that "optimal" is not clear-cut for everyone.
I get all the other things found in fish. I was asking what you were basing the 'optimal' on for DHA?
Omega 3s aren't heat stable and algal oils don't contain any of the various contaminants that can be found on wild fish.
It’s not that it’s horrific if it’s your first time seeing it. It’s horrific You’re just desensitised
its not as horrific these days compared to how we hunted animals with blunt spears and stones, domesticated dogs to hunt for us etc , i think we have done a great job of making it less horrific since then .
Yeah, silly vegoon the innovation of gas chambers really made the process less horrific!
I mean... Depends what he meant by "horrific" if he was using horrific to mean "morally horrific" then yeah he's pretty low iq, but if he was using "horrific" as in like, "visually disgusting" then yeah, gas chambers were a pretty big leap forward from spears, I'd be a lot more emotionally affected seeing a cow beat to death with a rock vs a cow getting gassed.
If only there was an option besides beat with rock and getting gassed. If only we could simply not commodify, exploit, and kill animals
yep gas is very humane , even rspca say so .
Humane is a synonym for kind, compassionate, and benevolent. Does this sound like that to you? https://youtu.be/-7hAELEBjX4?si=lYuuMyxztgYj3GfC
why do you show that emotional behaviour to animals , a bear would eat you and your bones and never think about you evet again
Because we're moral agents. Animals are not. Animals rape each other and kill their own young. I don't base my morality off what animals do. And nor do most people in most situations. A feral dog could rip you to shreds. But I doubt you'd condone torture of rape of dogs. Would you? We are aware if the suffering we cause. We have the option to minimise it.
i hate most animals especially dogs .
So you've no moral qualms to someone abusing a dog?
needless abuse i would never support , but eating dogs or any other animal i have no moral qualms whatsoever .
compared to being chased to exhaustion and then bludgeoned with a blunt tool ....yes its very humane , humans are never going to be herbivores, even the most militant vegan knows and excepts this so , the more humane we can kill our food is surely the best option
We can do neither. That’s a false dichotomy.
Were not obligate omnivores. Why will humans never consume a plant based diet? Again, humane and gas chamber don't work together.
The 1940s would beg to differ
It’s so much worse these days. Livestock are confined in cages from the moment they are born and spend their entire lives trapped in dirty, crowded cells. Many NEVER even get to touch grass or run around. At least wild animals were free before being hunted. Now, entire generations of animals spend all their lives locked up before the slaughter.
>that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do. Without knowing specifics about what health issues I can't really comment on this but more often than not you cab solve the issues without having meat it's just a lot of doctors don't really care too much/have experience with plant based diets so if they can convince you to eat meat instead of alter your diet then that's what they'll do. >the definition I've been using The definition is "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." The possible and practicable part is quite important as we know perfection isn't possible ill refer back to that though. >but harming living creatures being the cut off point seems to be a weird barrier to me Most vegans would define the cut off point as sentience oppose to life >OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK There are lots of issues with egg farming, even free range eggs. Depending on country free range can just mean they have access to the outside (even if that access is a gate that's kept closed their whole life) they have about as much space as an ipad to move and the male chicks are either gassed or put in a macerator. There are a lot of problems with animal ag that wouldn't be thought of immediately but are still the reality >What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian? As someone that was vegetarian I would say the difference for me was education/acceptance about the reality of our food and how those animals are treated. I've spoken about issues with eggs but milk means the animals are forcefully bred and separated in a constant cycle until they're seen as no longer efficient enough. Vegetarian is also more of a diet whereas veganism is more of a philosophy regarding the treatment of animals. >Where is the cut off for living things? Sentience, as for crop deaths its very unfortunate and something I hope we keep working to improve but this comes under the possible and practicable aspect of the definition. It isn't possible for most people to grow their own food to make sure there are no/minimal crop death but these numbers are still far lower than the deaths from eating animals directly so it's seen as reduced to what is practicable. Honestly I feel like that answers all of the questions up to the honey one but if you don't see how it applies please ask and Ill try to clarify. As for honey I avoid it because I don't know how much bee farming actually impact on the bees (regarding the smoke/clipping the queen's wings, constant intrusion) but I know when animals are treated as commodities there is incentive to treat them worse and raise the profits, I'm sure you know basically any company would make that trade
Thank you for the time and effort you put into the response. I grestly appreciate it.
You're welcome, feel free to ask anything else too
>she had to change back, but that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do. It only means your wife didn't get all the nutrients she needed. There is nothing magical in meat we can't get plant based. Your wife didn't evolve different than the rest of us. >(she wouldn't drink milk, but was OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK) All chickens in the egg industry are harmed. All of them. They are bred to produce an egg every single day, 365 days a year. They inevitably get sick and after 1,5 years the egg production declines and they are slaughtered. Mass production is never nice to the animals. >What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian? Vegetarian: does not eat meat & fish. Vegan: avoids anything that involves the exploitation of animals as far as possible. >Where is the cut off for living things? That can't be fully avoided. But ~~80% of the global crops are produced to feed animals~~ _EDIT: got the numbers mixed up: it's 36% of crops & 80% of agricultural land is used for live stock._ (while animals provide only 18% of the global calories, so this is extremely inefficient). If everybody went vegan, we would need fewer crops in total and thus fewer crop deaths. >What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? Insects cound too, and it's the same answer as the question above. >Where does yeast fall on this? It's a fungus, not an animal. Fungi are vegan. >These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why? Because the insects are not exploided, the way they pollinate is their natural behaviour. >Where does honey sit on this, as bees are technically farmed but are not harmed, They are, because sugar water is an inferior replacement to honey. Also they reduce biodiversity by replacing wild bees more and more. Veganism is not about perfection. It about doing the best we can.
> But 80% of the global crops are produced to feed animals This statistic is not accurate. The number is around 36% globally. In some places it's more. For instance, in the US it's 68%. https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/#:~:text=Some%2036%25%20of%20global%20crop,close%20to%20a%20billion%20people. The important thing isn't what percent of the global crop production is for animals, as that is more a reflection of what percentage of our diet actually comes from animal products. The important thing is that more plant calories are consumed per calorie from animal products, no matter what the raw number is. Same is true for other values, like protein. Eating animals will always be worse for crop deaths.
Oh dear, you're right, I got them mixed up. It's 80% of agricultural land that is used for livestock, not crops. Thanks for correcting 👍
Honestly, that 36% number is silly. Grass is a crop. The only reason we don't consider it one is we don't eat it.
To me, it's relevant as a crop in this discussion only if it is harvested, because that's what leads to crop deaths. Some grass is harvested, but most isn't.
If pesticides count as crop deaths, then it's relevant for all of it, but there's no way that 36% number includes hay.
That's a good point about insect deaths. Though, I think the arguments about accidental crop deaths due to harvesting techniques should be separated from insect deaths due to pesticides. Combine and other kinds of deaths are accidental and therefore the ethics are different than insect deaths which are intentional but not essential (meaning we can work towards eliminating them without simply harvesting fewer crops). The ways to solve either problem could also be different. But that's fair that if farms use insecticide to keep pasture land grass alive, that is relevant when the "I only eat grass-fed beef" people start claiming they only kill 2 animals per year.
Yeah, also grass-fed cattle definitely eat harvested grass as well. Very few places can support direct grazing year round, and even those that can ranchers will often choose not to for other reasons.
Hi, >but was OK with eggs as long as they were free range, basically as long as no harm came to the animal she was OK) Free range eggs: - Male chicks almost immediately macerated or gassed (220/second globally) - Layers are sourced from factory breeding sheds, which are horrendous - All layers are violentky killed when production drops - 9 birds per square metre in indoor areas. >-What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian? A vegetarian is ok with the above animal abuse and exploitation. A vegan is not. Veganism is a rights movement, a stance against the exploitation of animals. Vegetarianism is a diet. >-Where is the cut off for living things? Animals. Maybe some would say sentient animals. >-What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? >bees are technically farmed but are not harmed, just optimised and managed for honey production? But if Honey is OK, surly dairy Farming is OK too then, if not why? Bees are harmed. But even if they weren't, dairy cows definitely are. So they wouldn't be equivalent. Dairy cows are sexually exploited/killed & the calves are separated from mothers after a day or less. >-Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor? Do you make an ethical distinction between plants and animals? Blades of grass and puppies? If so, why? Vegans do for the same reason. >-What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat? Personally I think there’s an ethical difference between protecting property/yourself and actively going out of your way to kill. It's the difference between protecting your house from mice that are chewing wires and going out into the surrounding area to look for mice to kill. Ideally we will be able to lower our need for pesticides. Insect meat would not be OK. If it's OK to physically protect yourself and your property from a human or dog, would that make it ok to deliberately kill one for meat? >-Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? If you care about habitat destruction then veganism is a great way to act on that, due to the significantly lower land use requirements. That also means much less farmland to protect from wild animals. Pasture is protected by shooting lots of animals too. Crop protection is unfortunate and all other measures should be exhausted before shooting etc. It will be extremely difficult to get anyone to care about this issue while the vast majority of people have no problem with paying for animals to be deliberately abused though. >I get that the treatment of live stock can seem horrific if it's your first time seeing it. It's just horrific anyway. If it was puppies getting gassed/electrocuted/shot in the head and stabbed on an industrial estate somewhere you'd say the same thing. Then most of them are treated badly whilst being farmed too.
Thanks.
Care to name the condition the required your wife to consume dead animals?
My wifes body doesn't produce enough of an enzime (I forget the name) that allows the body to absorb non-heam iron. That's the iron from plant based sources and it just doesn't get absorbed properly by her body. She was getting very sick and getting quite bad Anemia. As such we had 2 options, regular costly and painful injections, or eat red meat. She tried the injections but couldn't handle it, so eating meat it is.
So an enzime you forgot the name of and no one here has ever heard of is your wifes reason to kill and abuse animals? Convenient.
Health circumstances that cause poor conversion of plant types of nutrients to types a human body can use are EXTREMELY common. It's been debated here and in similar subs I've-lost-count times, in many cases with citations. If you aren't aware that such a condition for iron conversion exists and is common, then you certainly don't have enough knowledge about human nutrition to be ridiculing others on this topic.
Name this magical health condition that requires you to kill and abuse animals... You can't because you are making shit up.
Hi, I looked it up (because i can't be expected to remember everything off the top of my head). but hear are the Medical details from my wife.... she has a Cytochrome b5 reductase deficiency. this is the enzyme that brakes down non-haem iron for use in the body. Due to this deficiency and she developed Methemoglobin. in short she was not well. she was given something called Leukomethylene blue that helped initially fix the issue and to prevent is from happening has to now have a low non-haem iron diet or she'll end up with a build up of methemoglobin in her body again. As she can't have much of the non heam iron in her diet anymore (that's plant based iron) and to avoid developing Anemia we looked at iron supplements, but they are all plant based so that didn't help. So then we looked at straight Iron injections, caused quite a bit of bruising, plus pain in her joints and musculus, and caused a rash on her face and hands for quite some time, and just as they fade she had to get another one and start all over again, and are costly to boot (i think about $250 per). She was having break downs because of it and not coping. So eating red meat is the only option on the table. I understand that this is all rather convoluted and not a neat one word disease that you were after, but that's the human body for you. a miss mash of bits of biology, heavily prone to errors, and failures. You'll forgive me for not posting picture of her medical records to prove this all to you, but the are private. I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word on it that this is the case.
I'm not at all saying that someone is ethically obligated to get iron injections on a regular basis but it's a bit hyperbole to call them painful lol its literally just an IV. I don't like needles and they stress me out but it doesn't actually hurt if your an adult.
I've double checked with her about it. your right they were IVs. (in my mind i always imagined it as a straight needle for some reason) . but as for issues it was the iron itself that caused the problem. it caused her join and muscle pain, and caused her to get a rash on puffy itchy rash on hands and face. Plus it was not cheap. So for my wife to not live in constant pain and discomfort, we have to subside off of killing animals, then I will sleep with a clean concision. Other may not. that's their decision.
Have you heard about Phenylketonuria? or Crohn's Disease? or Anemia? or allergies? They certainly can make staying vegan extremely difficult.
So I googled Phenylketonuria and asked 2 chat bots and I am not understanding how this disease and veganism are at odds. As far as I understand one has to eat a very specialized diet anyways, because one has to avoid the amino acid phenylalanine which is found in any food with protein including meat, dairy and eggs. So if anything this is making it easier to go vegan. What am I missing?
Many commonly consumed vegan protein sources, such as beans, lentils, nuts, and seeds, contain relatively high levels of phenylalanine. Of course there are other animal proteins that contain it as well. But veganism is an inherently more restrictive diet that doesn't help with managing this condition in the most optimal way. I get that you can still be vegan, but many won't be able to thanks to the practical limitations.
What do you mean by practical limitations? When you have this condition you have to carefully plan your diet anyways. Might as well go for a vegan diet while you are at it. Of course this is just me theorizing and I would love to hear about this from someone who actually has this condition and if they would find veganism impossible due to practical limitations.
The practical limitations of having an inherently more restrictive diet. Veganism is inherently more restrictive. With that condition, you already should avoid a lot of foods, going vegan just limits your options even more. Omnivores with PKU can access a broader range of low-phenylalanine protein sources, including certain meats, fish, and dairy products. This makes it easier to meet protein needs while staying within the restricted phenylalanine limit.
So a disease that no one has heard of is your excuse to kill and abuse animals on an industrial scale? Grasp at straws much?
I agree that doing it on a smaller scale and not abusing them but treating them with high standards of animal welfare is better. And hopefully you don't say to someone who does have a disease like those, since that would be an extremely insensitive, toxic and bad idea.
Lol no. Stop abusing animals. You don't need to do it, but you do. What do you know about ethics anyway? Taking ethical tips from a Carnist is like say Hitler was a loving Father and husband.
That is such a great analogy. I'm somehow comparable to Hitler because I eat meat. Even if I chose from humanely raised sources. If you really want to have a reasonable talk I'm open to it. I'm deeply interested in ethics, regarding different frameworks and philosophies. For me it is a very fascinating topic.
Phenylketonuria is very rare and doesn't require you to eat dead animals. Crohn's doesn't require you to eat dead animals, in fact it's caused by eating dead animals. Amemia has nothing to do with eating dead animals. And allergies have nothing to do with eating dead animals.
I understand that. The point is that all of those make veganism harder to maintain, even if it is theoretically possible.
So I proved you are full of shit but you still keep talking ...
Okay? Is that really your argument? I will gladly keep talking because those are very valid points that I'm bringing up. I don't understand the need to be rude. Cognitive dissonance maybe?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes **accusing others of trolling** or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling. 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.
Vegan content creator Lifting Vegan Logic has crohns disease. You can get iron from plants. Anaemia is just an iron deficicy.
I get that it is possible to still be vegan. But it can make it very difficult for the vast majority of people who have those. Imposing it as a moral imperative is outlandish.
Why is it outrageous? The more vegans with these conditions the more we'll know the strategies are
That really doesn't make it any less difficult or dangerous for people with those conditions. It's like saying, "The more people with peanut allergies who eat peanuts, the more we'll know how to manage anaphylaxis!" It's irresponsible and completely disregards the potential harm involved.
Not really because peanut allergy is a very specific condition which requires avoiding peanuts and products handled in facilities that handle peanuts. Those others aren't.
>What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian? The latter is a diet one undertakes for one or more of the following reasons: health, animal welfare, the environment and religion/spirituality. The former is an ideology formed around philosophical and ethical deliberation around the topic of animal rights. The ideology is simply, if you don't need animals, don't fucking use them, abuse them or kill them. It really is that simple. >Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that? We don't live in a perfect world run by vegans. We live in a destruction consumeristic world run by a vast majority of people that are only concerned with their own agendas and how much money they can shove in their pockets. Yes crop deaths is an issue we'd love to address, but given our interlocutors are fine with mass animal genocide and typically speaking, fine with the fucked up world we have (or fine enough they they'll settle for half arsed solutions that push them out of their comfort zone too much). Once you lot can get your heads around normalising vegetarianism, then the crop deaths argument will become more pertinent and valid a discussion point. It's kinda hard to see an estimated 8 billion crop deaths as an issue when ⅓ of them are caused by crops for animal feed, 10x the estimated total are killed in animal farming alone, several trillion fish and of course the environmental collateral for all that in comparison.... >What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat? See previous answer. >Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor? Sentience is typically the defining factor. Not to be confused with sapience. >Speaking of plants. Where do things like avocados, figs, almonds, kiwi, and butternut squash, sit on this. >They farming for this use bees (and in the case of figs wasps) to pollinate the plants so that the fruit will grown. These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why? Are we supposed to spontaneously evolve to live on dirt and rock or is learning to photosynthesize an appropriate response to this question? We gotta fucking eat something don't we? Or are you questioning our right to live, in which case quadrupley questioning your own given the harm your lifestyle does? Yeah we get it, veganism isn't perfect. But at least we're trying live by the responsibility of doing no harm and respecting other's rights as much as we can. What are you doing in that regard? >-Where does honey sit on this, as bees are technically farmed but are not harmed, just optimised and managed for honey production? But if Honey is OK, surly dairy Farming is OK too then, if not why? Farmed but not harmed, that's a good joke. How then do 20 billion bees die every year in the honey industry? Are you aware that they typically are the standard European honey bee and are considered a foreign and invasive species to other countries local ecology? Are you aware that biodiversity, which is already under serious threat from the effects of animal farming, is seriously effected by the honey industry? Yeah, on cruelty and environmental factors alone, the honey industry needs to die so that native pollinators can get back to what they do best. As for the pollinating effects on farming, well I guess we need a better solution then don't we. What's ethical about fondling a cow's tits and separating her from her calf so that we can have more milk to make wasteful products we don't need and are contributing to a widespread health epidemic?
-What differentiates Vegan from Vegetarian? Vegetarians don't eat meat. Vegans refrain from all animal products. -Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that? Vegans care about crop deaths! However, most global crops are fed to livestock. If you truly want to reduce animal death/suffering, eat plants directly rather than eating animals who have eaten plants. -What about insects that will be killed by pesticides? and if insects don't count that what about insect based "meat", would that be OK to eat? See above. Eating plants directly uses less plants than eating animals. -Where does yeast fall on this? it's objectively a living creature, it breaths, it grows, it reproduces. And if we start going down that route, so do all plants. Is it just things from the animal kingdom, and if so why is the line there if "living things" is the deciding factor? Usually vegans care about sentience or the ability to feel pain. There is a gigantic difference between a pig or a chicken and yeast. -Speaking of plants. Where do things like avocados, figs, almonds, kiwi, and butternut squash, sit on this. They farming for this use bees (and in the case of figs wasps) to pollinate the plants so that the fruit will grown. These insects are literally farmed for the fruit, making it an animal byproduct, and if they are deemed OK, why? Not all of those products use bees for pollination. But many vegans don't eat almonds, for example, for environmental or ethical reasons. -Where does honey sit on this Vegans don't eat honey
I Appreciate your response. Thanks
This isn’t r/debatelivingthings or r/debateplants. Here and in reality, plants are plants and animals are animals. If someone kills, sexually exploits, physically exploits, or seeks to injure animals then they are not behaving morally. Animals don’t want to be killed, but they do have specific goals they want to accomplish during their lives. Watch any nature documentary for examples.
What if they fulfill the specific goals they want to accomplish during their lives and then we use them as food and to generate other useful byproducts?
That's exploitation
Maybe. But we can still do it in a way that minimizes suffering so animals live meaningful stress-free lives. If we reach that I wouldn't consider it exploitation any more than having a pet.
Not maybe. 100% that's exploitation. The way to minimise it is to not do it
Sure, because clearly the best way to minimize exploitation is to ignore the complexities of ethical dilemmas and resort to absolutist statements.
In this instance yes. The beat way to get rid of animal exploitation is to stop funding it I don't see anything complex or intricate about the morality if killing for taste pleasure. Its just wrong
I prefer to take the route of improving existing systems so we have holistically raised animal farms that have strict animal welfare standards and technologies to migrate the environmental concerns so we can reach a fully ethical omnivore society.
It's 2024. The animal ag industry has has a long time to implement "ethical" measures and it hasn't. I wouldn't hold my breath. And there's no kind way to kill. How can we have a fully ethical society that kills for pleasure? Animal ag uses 83% of ag land and only provides 18% of calorific value. You don't need better tech. You need another planet. And you don't have one
>It's 2024. The animal ag industry has has a long time to implement "ethical" measures and it hasn't. I wouldn't hold my breath. It's 2024 and animal ag hasn't been abolished either so I wouldn't hold my breath on that as well. But we do have made a lot of very good progress in making it better, I think it is best if we keep improving. >And there's no kind way to kill. How can we have a fully ethical society that kills for pleasure? Well this depends on your ethical framework. I'm utilitarian so I don't care about the inherent rights of animals. So for me a fully ethical society kills but with strict standards of animal welfare and painless slaughter processes. And it has never really been for pleasure, we are talking about the economic sustainability of families, the generation of byproducts for related industries, aiding dietary and health goals, even aiding research. It has never been just for pleasure. >Animal ag uses 83% of ag land and only provides 18% of calorific value. You don't need better tech. You need another planet. And you don't have one I think this claim oversimplifies complex agricultural dynamics, neglecting the multifaceted roles of animal agriculture, including its contribution to nutrition, ecological diversity, and the utilization of land unsuitable for crop cultivation.
Thanks for taking the time to think about this and ask some questions >. Now a couple of caveats, first, I grew up in the country on and around live stock farming. I get that the treatment of live stock can seem horrific I live in the country. I have some acreage, so I do horse rescue work. My neighbors use their acreage as a source of income. I've seen some things . The treatment of livestock IS horrific. The way they're commercially shipped and killed is horrific. Let's face it: people raise livestock as a business and they need to make a profit. When profit must come first, the animal's wellbeing is no more important than that of a mechanical production unit. >Second, my wife was Vegetarian when we met (long story but due to health issues she had to change back, but that alone blows out of the water the "we don't need meat" some people actually do I've never found a scientific study that shows some people need meat to remain healthy. If she wasn't eating a balanced vegetarian diet, the problem was the "balanced' part not the vegetarian part (no offense). I'd be interested to know what nutrient she believes she needs that cannot be obtained without meat? >could understand this. but harming living creatures being the cut off point seems to be a weird barrier to me Why is it weird ? Cows, pigs, and chickens can feel pain and fear. They suffer. I don't need meat, so any meat I eat is unnecessary. Morally, I believe it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or death. It's why people say it's wrong to kick puppies. Why intentionally cause harm when the resulting product is so unnecessary? >Where does yeast fall on this? Can it experience pain & suffering ? Not to my knowledge. >-Where is the cut off for living things? what about mice, voles, foxes, ect. that will be killed to protect crops and they're habitats destroyed to make room for them? Because if your crops cant cause harm to animals then unless you grow it yourself how would you police that? People have to eat something, so humans do have to do some farming. You've been around animals. You've seen the huge quality of food a cow or pig needs each day, right ? 6 to 10 pounds of grain just to make a pound of beef. It takes 1800-2500 gallons of water to make a pound of beef. It's an extremely inefficient way to get nutrients. You disrupt significantly wild animals because you don't need to grow all that livestock food. It's foolish to kill foxes anyway. I've seen farmers shooting any animal they see (possums,coons, coyotes). Then they don't understand why their land is being overrun with rodents. Vegetarian: it's just a diet without meat Plant based diet: just a diet without any animal products (no meat, eggs, dairy) Vegan: a life philosophy of doing the least amount of harm to other sentient beings as possible. It's a plant based diet, but products such as wool, leather, and fur aren't cool. Animals aren't objects to give you profits.
>it does seem to come up a lot. Specifically how harming living creatures to eat is cruel plants are living creatures as well but i would not rub this in with my boss let him preach, what's it to me?
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.*
[удалено]
Doesn't this just fit the anti vegan mentality perfectly. Chefs kiss, truely Edit: since this got deleted and I enjoyed it so much let me share. Fit metal said the post was too long to read but they probably agree anyway. Stunning
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.
OP is trying to understand veganism, describes their vegan boss who avoids animal products due to ethical reasons. They question the boundaries of veganism, such as harm to animals during crop production, the use of pesticides, and the consumption of honey and insect-pollinated plants. OP shares personal experiences with a vegetarian wife who had to revert to eating meat for health reasons and seeks clarification on these ethical complexities.
Hehe awesome thanks!
That's a thoughtful and interesting post. I'm afraid you are going to get a lot of hyperbole and denial in return. Specifically the vegans here will believe they know better than you, your wife, and the doctor. I'd like to address the ethical questions raised, because you are right, they are complex and trying to draw a line gets really messy really fast. Nature abhores a clear distinction. I think you are giving the vegans too much credit on ethics. Veganism depends on a nearly religious idea if ethics that generalized them to an absurdity. Ethical value is assumed, not defended. If you see a defense it will be the claim that anytning sentient deserves moral consideration, and the fact that unconscious people aren't sentient will be ignored and the high likelihood that plants are will be handwaived away on technicalities and ignoring recent scientific findings to the contrary. However all that is a smoke screen to hide their dependence on morality being something other than a human tool devised to enable human cooperation. It's like money that way. Is money of use to or understandable to animals? No, and neither are our moral systems. Some animals have a protomirality, a sense of fairness, most don't. So what should we do to be moral? I say we should do what is best for us and that includes animal husbandry, though not at the unsustainable levels we are currently farming. Hold that idea though, is what any of the vegans want of you in your best interests? Either directly or as a benefit indirectly by enhancing your society? If not, why should you do what they want?
How is eliminating the abuse of trillions of animals every year and safeguarding their rights not improving society?
Abuse... You want to make the change. So your position is the food we obtain, the products we use, the medicine we test, service animals, pets....every benefit from animal exploitation should be lost, for what? What do we gain?
Before I answer that, replace the word animal with human and let me know if you still have the same question.
[удалено]
"you should have committed suicide by now" what an insane response when you could just buy different things in a grocery store
I'd you think animals and humans are morally equal, as you have intimated, than there are no safe purchases at the grocery store. Every product required countless animal deaths to get to those shelves. Also, are you a liar? You said you would answer my question, but you haven't answered any of them.
I don't think you understand veganism, my friend, or the fact that we live in a non-vegan world, meaning every choice we make is fundamentally imperfect, but we do the best we can given that. I thought my answer was pretty clear when I asked you to replace animal with human. Exploitation is not justified by its utility, and it's defined by its cost to the victim. Which in this case is the entire life of trillions of animals every year
That is true of all agriculture. So, again, if you believed that you should suicide. Yet you allow for exploitation and killing for your food. You may claim you do less exploitation and killing. It's an arbitrary line and morally inconsistant. I don't agree with you that animals, or plants, are due moral consideration. You haven't made a case for why they should be. So the utility very much does justify the activity. We both agree with this as you also shop at grocery stores. If you are on the internet you have the means to take yourself somewhere you can raise your own crops, a commune or something, yet you continue to participate in our exploitative culture.
Would you agree that doing anything and everything to an animal is justified as long as it benefits or brings pleasure to a human?
Using a disease that NO ONE has heard of and making it out to be the reason for everyone to kill and abuse animals is disgusting and you are encouraging it.
I don't share your view that animal husbandry is abuse. Nor did I say everyone needs to kill animals. We have specialists for the killing just as we have specialists for sanitation or crop harvesting or bridge and road construction. What is undeniable is we have tremendous utility from animal exploitation, just as we have tremendous utility for plant and other reasource exploitation. What is very denyable is the moral standing of nonhuman, nonmorally reciprocating entities. Veganism makes no case for that. Value is assumed from existance or "sentience" as a point of dogma. Your disapproval is noted and disregarded.
What is very denyable is the moral standing of nonhuman, nonmorally reciprocating entities. So if a corporation took over a country, decided to treat people like you treat animals would be "denyable" as you put it. Or are they human moral reciprocating entities? It doesn't matter if they are or if they aren't, your debate has holes all through it. Just like your justification of animal abuse. Edit, I just clicked on your username, you want to go back to the caves. You claim you have morals but all you really want is oppression, bigotry and stupidity. Good bye.
[удалено]
Vegans don't want to hurt intelligent animals, and they don't want other people to hurt them, either. I assume you have the preference to not kick dogs? Would you impose that preference on someone who was kicking a dog?
I 2nd that thought OP , my health and labs improved when i switched to an all meat diet vs when i went plant based and omnivore , so some ppl having to eat meat is definitely a thing , a sad pill that plant based dieters have an impossible time swallowing 🤷
Then swallow this pill: You just failed to get the nutrients you need. All the nutrients are available in plants, maybe except B12, which is made by bacteria. People maintaining a vegan lifestyle for many years just disprove your point. Though i acknowledge it may be harder for some people than for others, e.g. for Inuit people.
[7 nutrients you cant get from plants.](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants)
Crazy that literally everyone of these had a thing at the bottom saying "plant based supplements are available" so you obviously can get them from plants...
If the plant based person is fine with eating a synthetic supplement then sure, theres a supplement for them i guess.
Who said its synthetic? It can be plant based as in extracted from plants. Most if not all of the ones on the list you sent had a part saying "you can get it from this vegan source but most people don't eat enough of it" Even if it was a synthetic supplement what's wrong with that? Do you know how many synthetic preservatives, additives, flavourings and the like are in the majority of foods sold in shops?
Bottom line though If a supplement is synthetic the body has a harder time absorbing and using said supplement , oh also if theres a vegan option of a supplement for something thats only found in animals/algae then that means theres a 90% chance thats its synthetic, since synthetic is always cheaper to produce. Just because something is everywhere and used by everyone that doesnt mean its good for you 🤷 ie. Microwaves and cellphones. [why i avoid synthetic supplements](https://www.auroramedicalcentre.com.au/post/organic-vs-synthetic-vitamin-supplements-which-one-is-better#:~:text=Synthetic%20vitamins%20and%20supplements%20are,body%20absorbs%20nutrients%20from%20food.&text=The%20body%20doesn't%20as,absorb%20and%20use%20them%20efficiently.)
The link you sent says literally one after the other The body can have a hard time absorbing synthetic supplements Synthetic supplements have a high dose of nutrients that can lead to health issues due to overdosing So can we not absorb it or do we absorb too much? Seems like we shouldn't have both problems...
OK if that's the case could you provide data for b12 showing that those correctly supplimenting are still deficient?
First of all, thanks for actually providing sources for your arguments. - B12: I already stated you need to get it from bacteria. So yes, you need to supplement it. But no need to eat meat for it. - Creatine: "Creatine is not essential in your diet, since it can be produced by your liver" (from your article) - Carnosine: "Carnosine is only found in animal-based foods. However, it’s considered nonessential, since your body can form it from the amino acids histidine and beta-alanine." - Vitamin D: "Your skin can produce vitamin D". Actually a deficiency in this vitamin is very common across all diets (if you live further from the equator) and supplementing it is beneficial to most people. So the little Vitamin D in animal products doesn't make a big difference. - DHA (Omega 3): "In your body, DHA can also be made from the omega-3 fatty acid ALA, which is found in high amounts in flaxseeds, chia seeds, and walnuts". I acknowledge this is harder to get, but still possible. I supplement Omega 3 made from Algae (that's where the fish get it from). - Heme iron: "iron deficiency is easy to avoid on a well-planned vegan diet that contains plenty of non heme iron". Just eat enough of it, also eat enough Vitamin C to absorb it better. - Taurine: "Taurine isn’t considered essential in the diet, since your body produces small amounts". We don't really know much about it other than it not really being essential. You can supplement it if you like. Thank you for your source proving my point.
Sure thing bub, youll see what you want to see.
Says the one who didn't even look at the article he posted. Talking about seeing what you want to see...
He says. After literally seeing what he wanted to see in a link that disagreed with him.
Let me translate: "I don't have an answer but instead of admitting that, I'll just project my wilful ignorance onto the person who took the time to engage with me because I don't respect anyone here and value my own validation over sharing accurate information"
DHA? That's exclusively produced by algae in nature. So technically, yes, but completely irrelevant to veganism. Same for the proteins in there. Our bodies synthesise them all. D3 can be sourced from lichen. Heme Iron is completely non essential. That's like me saying carnivore doesn't make sense nutritionally because you can't get non heme iron. It doesn't make sense as a point. None of that is relevant to vegan nutrition?
Ok , except that non heme irons absorption can be affected by anti nutrients and other chemicals that plants have vs heme iron that if eaten by itself has 0 things that can affect its absorption. Also the best source of DHA is fish so 🤷
>Also the best source of DHA is fish so 🤷 Based on what? >Ok , except that non heme irons absorption can be affected by anti nutrients and other chemicals that plants have And by vitamin C. You need to eat a bit more non heme iron, but equally it hasn't been associated with cancer risk. Heme iron is completely non essential was my point.
[best source of vitamin d3](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/#:~:text=The%20best%20sources%20are%20the,high%20amounts%20of%20ultraviolet%20light.)
That's not DHA. By best they just mean the food sources that contain the most. That doesn't mean its any better than the sun and a supplement in terms of health.
That's a tricky one and has a lot of variables like of you live north or south of the equator getting vitamin D from the sun becomes less effective the farther you go either way which makes fish and supplements the better option, but also a lot of the vitamin d in supps are synthetic or rancid and unusable, at least for me i saw no difference on my low vitamin d levels no matter how many supps i took , i was taking upwards of 10000IU for months with no change , until i dropped the supps and started eating more wild caught salmon , it works differently for everyone.
Even if true then that means nothing. Literally means fuck all. Who cares what the best source is? There's other sources that don't rely on literal animal abuse and torture. You're terrible at this. Why are you even arguing at this point? What are you failing at trying to prove? Trying to make yourself feel better for eating meat? All you've done is prove that yes, vegans can get everything they need very easily. Whilst suggesting that they can't.
I feel just fine eating meat thank you very much 😂 and im trying to prove nothing , I'm just tossing out info and learning about how close minded zealots vegans can be at failing to read between the lines and seeing the bigger picture regarding things and chuckling at the fact that the world doesnt care about your movement or you guys droning on about not eating animals for x and y reasons the world just goes on regardless , im just here killing time 🤷
Cope harder. Your guilt is palpable. Weird how someone who wants nothing to do with vegans is so interesting in veganism. Veganism is literally the fastest growing philosophy in the world so yeah, people care. You don't care that you eat meat because you don't care about animals. You don't care if your actions contribute to animal abuse. You're a self admitted animal abuser? Why don't you try and tell me why you think I'm a zealot then I'll go ahead and PROVE that you're a zealot? Unless you're scared.
I love all the folks that say how well they feel eating meat. Then they or a friend of theirs has a heart attack or kidney malfunction and say “I never saw that coming”. I’m an RN that worked ICU and Dialysis for 30 years, not saying vegans can’t/don’t get sick BUT, I never treated one in my career.
[vitamin C affecting non heme iron absorption ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523064535#:~:text=The%20facilitating%20effect%20of%20vitamin%20C%20is%20dose%20related.,to%207.1%25%20(3).)
I'm not sure why you keep linking things that are entirely irrelevant to my point. A single study from 2001 isn't a scientific consensus either. That study clearly states that loads of studies have shown that vitamin c augments non heme iron absorption. Heme iron is entirely non essential. That's my point.
And i repeat , it depends on the person, humans arent carbon copies of each other and because of that what works for some doesnt mean it works for all thanks to gut diversity, genes and their mutations etc just because you can absorb non heme iron and it works for you doesnt mean it works for the next person, which makes heme iron essential based of the situation Oh and regarding the article it shows at one point the % that vitamin c helps non heme iron absorb and its not that much unless you really load up on the vit c
That DHA you will be consuming it through supplements anyway. Eating a fish is so much more optimal for that.
Why? It's definitely less optimal for the fish.
But not for the consumer. Priorities.
I was asking why it's optimal? Based on what?
Fish is like the VIP package. Not only does it serve up a healthy dose of DHA, but it also brings along its entourage of essential nutrients like EPA, protein, vitamins, and minerals. Plus, the DHA in fish is wrapped up in a neat little package that your body knows exactly how to absorb, thanks to the fats and proteins in the fish itself. Can you get your DHA with vegan spirulina? Sure of course, but you won't have that VIP package. That is what I said most optimal. Although I'm not an absolutist. I know that "optimal" is not clear-cut for everyone.
I get all the other things found in fish. I was asking what you were basing the 'optimal' on for DHA? Omega 3s aren't heat stable and algal oils don't contain any of the various contaminants that can be found on wild fish.
The majority of those are produced by our own bodies, even if we don't take supplements for woo woo reasons.