She corrected herself because she doesn't know how many vegans agree with her (many? some? I don't know either).Sparhafoc said:Of note, I think there, is the fact that she felt obliged to correct herself.
Many vegans, like myself, well maybe not many, but (grin) some vegans like myself consider eating bivalves to be vegan.
She asks precisely this question in another video. In short: unclear.Sparhafoc said:who's right?
Since you haven't watched the whole video, or presumably any of her other videos, you are not in a position to speculate about what she does or does not think. And I am not interested in arguing for or against people who are not there.Sparhafoc said:But also interestingly, a layer back there, is that she's replying to a question about how to be a vegan and eating healthily, and responding: consider bivalves, which surely suggests that she thinks that eating 'vegan' without eating bivalves is less healthy than eating 'vegan' and bivalves?
This video was made several years ago, and to my knowledge Sam Harris is not vegan. Maybe he lacks motivation, I don't know. I wish she hadn't made it for a specific individual (Sam Harris or otherwise), but I think it is well-made, concise, informative and useful.Sparhafoc said:And another layer back: isn't it odd that Sam Harris, an academic and researcher, publicly requests help in finding out basic information readily available with even dramatically inferior researching skills? This actually causes a whole host of questions in my mind, but maybe too tangential here.
This seems to be a variation on an argument that I have seen several times in this thread and the other: if veganism can't solve everything, then it is not worth the effort. I believe this is not reasonable. That some/many people are unable to go vegan is not a valid justification for someone who can to not go vegan.Sparhafoc said:Vego said:More generally, vegans are not of one mind, there are disagreements on the fine points, but that should not detract from the main goal: reducing, if possible eliminating, animal exploitation by humans, starting with the big and relatively obvious (factory farming, industrial fishing, leather/furs, poaching, puppy mills, etc).
I'm more than happy to join you or anyone with that goal, so long as we kind find a way to accommodate the diverse economic situations in which human populations across the globe find themselves in for no fault of their own.
What technological shortcoming are you referring to?Sparhafoc said:Technology's got a long way to go before veganism can really become a moral compulsion.
I don't understand why you are trying to make it sound like my motivation is some kind of mystery. I have said it before, and I can say it again. If I don't need to eat something, and I don't feel a compulsion to eat it, then I won't unless I am forced to do so, independently of what it is and how it was procured. And the issue with animal exploitation is not just the killing: unnecessary killing is morally objectionable regardless of the method, and the suffering caused by animal exploitation is also objectionable.Sparhafoc said:In effect, your answer really is 'I wouldn't be prepared to eat beef even if I could be convinced they don't suffer a millisecond of pain or torture", which surely should be something you're quite clear with yourself about because it hones closer and closer to the actual motivation for you refusing to eat or use animal products.
Yes.Sparhafoc said:The most obvious is that the moral argument is actually about the treatment of the sentient animal while it is alive.
I am not completely sure, but this seems to match my position.Sparhafoc said:I do not believe it is actually immoral just to kill a sentient animal, I believe there is a moral context in what leads up to that killing.
Tossing out words like 'stupid' just looks insulting.Sparhafoc said:tossing out words like 'prejudice' just looks odd.
You wrote "do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig?" To me this looks like you are asking if, in your hypothetical scenario, a vegan would be willing to sacrifice their life (presumably by dying of hunger) to save the pig. Maybe you were trying to be rhetorical, but I am aware that some vegans actually make such claims. This kind of principled self-sacrifice looks like martyrdom, and it is not a requirement of veganism.Sparhafoc said:Vego said:... and you are not expected to commit suicide to save others, human or not.
Eh? Sorry, what has this got to do with anything I wrote?
From what I can tell, you seem to be asking what you think are rhetorical questions. If this is the case, then I misunderstood what you were doing because vegans tend to receive these questions in a more serious manner and some of us give answers that are inappropriate (in my opinion).Sparhafoc said:I am a little lost as to what information you're taking from my posts that don't actually contain such information.
Force of habit: generally having to defend veganism as I understand it and my adherence to it, while trying to keep some distance with points of view that I deem counterproductive.Sparhafoc said:Again, your answer is there, but I just fail to see why it's padded with all these gymnastics.
The way I see it, you are only stripping away the superfluous that you are bringing yourself. I do my best to repeat/restate my position, and if I am not clear, please ask me again. Incidentally, I don't know if this is a technical issue, but I was actually replying to two posts, and it wasn't clear to me that both were addressing ethical veganism (especially the second one, more on that below).Sparhafoc said:You seem to think I am trying to trap you or trick you into saying something, when what I am doing - as I thought was manifestly clear - is honing ever closer to the actual philosophical/ethical question as is expressly the purpose and content of the entire post you're replying to. In order to do that, one needs to strip away all the superfluous and define clearly the issue at hand.
Thanks. I am not hostile to you, but I am hostile to carnism.Sparhafoc said:I am not hostile to you or to veganism
Or you could peel the skin until you reach the ... nevermind.Sparhafoc said:, just hostile to bullshit and woolliness, and so I seek to scalpel it away, strip by strip until we get to the actual meat of the problem.
It is relevant if you want an answer to your question "Which is more moral? To intentionally kill a sentient animal ... Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals ... ?". Maybe you think that it is rhetorical and there is no answer, but in this case there is one: the intentional killing in your first option includes the same kind of collateral damage as your second option, with potentially more deaths because it is less resource-efficient. This is in part why the second option is morally better.Sparhafoc said:Vego said:A lot of crop is used as animal feed (especially for pigs and chickens, but also for cattle and even farmed fish): less farm animals will lead to less unintentional killing (because meat is less resource-efficient than directly eating plants).
So? That's irrelevant with respect to veganism.
So? For the "non-vegetarians" there doesn't seem to be any obligation to worry about the death of anything ending up in their plate. No worry therefore no problem?Sparhafoc said:Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate.
I don't know what you are talking about. Individuals growing their own crops: not practical, not scalable. Replacing harvesting machines with human labor? Indoor fields? If it can be done, that would be an advantage for veganism. But if it is too expensive, then it's not really practical. I am not trying to be pedantic, it's just that veganism is at least a partial solution to the general issue of humans killing animals.Sparhafoc said:Vego said:And until we develop a technology that allows us to grow plant food without killing anything (maybe growing in space, I don't know) this is simply a problem that doesn't currently have a practical solution. Animal farming does have a practical solution: consuming less of its products.
Does not make any sense: the former has just as many practical solutions as the latter, they're just not ones you're willing to countenance, for whatever reason.
Excluding special medical conditions (like allergies), human biology after infancy does not generally require the consumption of animal products, otherwise there would be no veganism. So yes, eating animals is biologically unnecessary for our survival.Sparhafoc said:Sorry - what's not biologically necessary for our survival? I do hope you don't mean that eating animals is 'biologically unnecessary for our survival' because that would be a silly contention.
Not clear at all. You said "Health vegans are just talking bollocks" apparently as a response to a section of my opening where I said "Health vegans claim that animal-derived foods are unhealthy and plant-based foods, especially whole plant foods, are beneficial to human health." To me that means that you object to the claims that "animal-derived foods are unhealthy" or "plant-based foods ... are beneficial to human health". And your next sentence is about "plant matter" and "major nutritional benefits of consuming meat". If you are not talking about health benefits, then I don't understand what this is about.Sparhafoc said:I think I was quite clear that I was specifically not talking about alleged health benefits.
I was replying to the second of two posts, and what you just quoted was in the first one (and not at the start).Sparhafoc said:Again, right at the start of the post you're replying to...
Sparhafoc said:...(ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments)...
I agree that it has little to do with ethics, but you did say that "health vegans are talking bollocks", and you made a claim about major nutritional benefits.Sparhafoc said:As I already indicated, there's an entirely different discussion to be had there that has bugger all to do with philosophical/ethical stances on the consumption of animals, which is why I said I wouldn't address it.
If this is like the video earlier, then you don't have a clue about what is in the material that I provided. The bullshit is from you here.Sparhafoc said:It's also prone to yet more stupid arguments that are frustratingly mired in wilful bullshit which has to be stripped away from a purely fact-based perspective.
None of that is an obstacle to veganism. In fact, every single item in your list is addressed in the references I mentioned in my opening (for example: protein, zinc, iron, selenium, vitamin A, vitamins B12/B2 (riboflavin)/B6, vitamin D, and the others that you mention later: calcium, ALA).Sparhafoc said:...Vego said:What are these "major nutritional benefits"?
Let's start with the most obvious; i) protein, ii) inorganic nutrients like zinc, iron, and selenium, iii) vitamins A, B, and D.
Is this what you call a major health benefit? Being alive? Well yeah, this is definitely important, but at the same time it is the lowest bar.Sparhafoc said:Protein is beyond essential for the animal body - it's needed in nearly every function and structure of the human body.
I am not sure this is actually saying anything out of the ordinary. Plants also provide protein in large quantities, is that the reason why there are herbivorous animals?Sparhafoc said:Animals provide a very ready source of protein, easily consumed, easily processed, and in large quantities - it's the reason why there are carnivorous animals.
I am only concerned with well-planned vegan diets. A diet that lacks nutrients is lacking in those nutrients, nothing said here.Sparhafoc said:Key inorganic nutrients, like zinc, iron, calcium etc. can be wholly lacking from a vegan diet
Can you please provide a reference for that?Sparhafoc said:Aside from other issues, like vitamins, riboflavin and alpha-linolenic acid, there are also studies showing not just poorer physical health with higher risk of of a set of chronic diseases such as certain cancers and allergies
As I tried to illustrate by mentioning Plant Positive's videos in my opening.Sparhafoc said:But of course, one must know how such studies work
This is not a claim that I made.Sparhafoc said:there is no one-size-fits-all, and any suggestion so is necessarily wrong.
On the contrary, it is a reasonable thing to do. My arguments only apply to people who have access to adequate vegan resources (information, food, tools, etc). Saying that veganism is lacking or unhealthy because there are people who don't have access to the adequate resources is nonsensical (like saying light bulbs don't work because some people don't have electricity).Sparhafoc said:Vego said:Are these benefits absent from a well-planned vegan diet (as promoted by legitimate experts in vegan nutrition)?
I am not restricting myself to your particular socioeconomic circumstances. I am talking about humans as a whole.
To do otherwise is blind.
When an action is impossible, it doesn't make sense to talk about moral obligation. Feasibility and choice are required.Sparhafoc said:For example, if a treatment became available in your country to ensure that an in vitro embryo could be given a fairly expensive treatment to ensure they never had diabetes, for instance, many people and in fact many nations might quickly come to believe it a fundamental requirement - a moral obligation - to perform that treatment (as they do with vaccinations), but if that treatment was unavailable in other countries, or if subsets of the population couldn't afford it, then it is not a situation that can be so simply defined from a moral perspective.
What you have said so far has been no different than meat provides nutrition, nothing exceptional about that.Sparhafoc said:As a whole, meat consumption provides exceptional health benefits to humanity.
Seems exceptional, but also hypothetical.Sparhafoc said:In the evolutionary journey that preceded our species, early human ancestors made a transition from being largely herbivorous (as can be seen by tooth and jaw morphology) to first consuming meat (through capturing carcasses), then specializing in actively hunting that meat. That transition coincided with a dramatic increase in brain volume. It's called 'the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis'.
This is a question that vegan activism is trying to address. Current answer: keep trying.Sparhafoc said:but what happens when consumers are informed but still elect to continue the status quo?
There are so few vegans (maybe 1%, I don't have an accurate number) that any help right now is going to look substantial to the current vegan community. I don't have any illusion for a time frame. Whether it happens through technology (lab meat) or cultural shift, an ethical vegan world is probably decades if not centuries away. Still, animals are suffering right now, and hopefully veganism is making things at least a little bit less bad.Sparhafoc said:As such, I personally wouldn't hold too much expectation of religion being a sufficient fulcrum from which to leverage veganism or even a reduction in animal suffering.
Pet ownership has already been discussed in this thread and the previous one, and the dietary aspect of pregnancy and childhood are addressed in the resources that I linked. To make it short: veganism as I promote it requires the ability to make informed decisions, and pets and children lack this ability to a variable extent.Sparhafoc said:veganism & embryo development, veganism and child raising, veganism and pet ownership.
Carnism is an ideology enforced onto non-vegan children. It seems to me that compassion for animals should be easier to grasp than unnecessarily killing for food.Sparhafoc said:it also seems damaging and irresponsible to most people, vegans included, to enforce a diet ideology onto growing children