Is anypony a vegetarian?

[Whiteshade 1,426]

Meat accounts for about 40-100% of my food consumption everyday, so I don't believe I'm vegetarian

 

I'm well aware of the environmental damage and the shit animals go through, but to put it cynically, that's never stopped me before. I would still eat meat just as I still eat chocolate even given its source.

[hoofian 10]

Did you know the industry that manufactures dietary supplements for vegetarians is four times as damaging to the environment than the entire meat industry? (poultry, red meat, fisheries etc.)

 

I'd never make a good vegetarian, as I'm allergic to Soy and products made from Soy Milk (That includes Tofu)

 

And now, some vegetarian jokes:

 

I love vegetarian food; It goes so well with steak.

 

I'm a vegetarian. I only eat vegetarians.

 

If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

 

I'm a carnivore, and my food eats your food...

 

 

Also, if anyone is feeling lethargic, depressed, and generally not having the energy to do things, it may be because of an iron deficiency in your bloodstream. Iron helps red blood cells carry oxygen around the body.

Has anyone cut their lip, and/or tasted blood before? Thats why it tastes like iron!

 

And where do humans get the majority of their Iron intake? RED MEAT!

 

What supplements are you talking about? Do you have a source? I have a difficult time believing that, knowing from observation how devastating factory farms are to the environment. Also, are you talking about the farms here in the US, or the farms you have in Australia, as they are completely different (which you mentioned as well). I still find it nearly impossible to believe, but it would make more sense if you are talking about a more sustainable type of farm.

 

As far as the iron thing goes, liver is the best meat-related source of iron. Essentially, the part most people throw away. There are plenty of vegetarian ways to get iron though, like Flaxseed, Edemame (soy, not good for you though I suppose), canned beans, and cooked spinach among others (see http://www.fitsugar.com/8-Vegetarian-Sources-Iron-3751173?slide=0 ). As I mentioned earlier another good source is by cooking with cast-iron cookware, as it leaches iron into the food being cooked (don't use it for highly acidic foods like tomatoes though, as it can do a lot of damage to the cookware). Just because most people get iron through red meat doesn't make it the best or only way. Remember, if a nutrient is in an animal, the animal got it from plants. You are what you eat, everything in meat can be found in plants.

 

Sorry about the soy allergy. I went a long time without ever touching soy, though. I only found out I like tofu in the past 3 months. My primary source of protein comes from beans and other legumes, like peanuts.

 

 

 

Why the cows eat corn in the first place is because of the massive benefts from the government US farmers recieved WAY BACK WHEN that now means TOO MUCH CORN is being grown instead of things like wheat.

The result? Everything in American food is pumped FULL of high fructose corn syrup.

America has too much corn.

 

Here in the Country Down Under, we feed our meat and dairy cows grass. The cows destined for expensive restraunts (e.g. The Stag here in Adelaide) are fed wheat for one to two weeks, to create the fat marbling that makes them so delicious. (and expensive)

However, there is a serious difference between the marbling of American steak and Australian steak. Australian steak has 5... 10% fat tops, but I've had an American steak and I swear the entire thing tasted like it was made of fat.

No wonder Americans are so obese.

 

If I lived in the US I would be a vegetarian, but only for health reasons. As such, our meat industry is much healthier, both for the environment and for the livestock. Farmers learnt quckly that if you dont give the Austrlian environment the respect it deserves, it will come back and kick your backside later.

The stuff you learn in a country where 90% of the animals are deadly, and the landscape does the rest.

 

You are absolutely right. Thanks to the Nixon administration, and every subsequent one for not changing it, we have an overproduction of corn that finds its way into everything we eat and use (there is even corn in aluminum and tires). I mentioned this in a previous post in this thread. Eating grass fed cattle is much more responsible and better for the person and the cow. I still would not eat meat for various other reasons, but I have less issues with people doing it in a more responsible way, as you mentioned. Also, from previous experience as an almost-carnivore, as a professional cook and culinary arts student, grass fed beef tastes a lot better. As in... it has taste. I still find it gross now, but at the time, I remember it being much much better. And healthier.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

Never tried being a vegetarian, though I recently stopped eating pork. I adopted that one Jewish law, I'll see if I actually can stick to it.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Lady Sludge Pony

[Raptor_a22 83]

As far as the iron thing goes, liver is the best meat-related source of iron. Essentially, the part most people throw away. There are plenty of vegetarian ways to get iron though, like Flaxseed, Edemame (soy, not good for you though I suppose), canned beans, and cooked spinach among others (see http://www.fitsugar....3751173?slide=0 ). As I mentioned earlier another good source is by cooking with cast-iron cookware, as it leaches iron into the food being cooked (don't use it for highly acidic foods like tomatoes though, as it can do a lot of damage to the cookware). Just because most people get iron through red meat doesn't make it the best or only way. Remember, if a nutrient is in an animal, the animal got it from plants. You are whatyou eat, everything in meat can be found in plants.

 

It's true that the liver is the best source of meat related iron, but eaating liver is actually dangerous.

 

Sir Douglas Mawson, an Australian geologist and Antarctec Explorer, let two other men on an expedition. Xavier Mertz died from Vitamin A poisoning combined with physical exertion and malnutrition. Why? They wre forced to eat their sled dogs to survive. Liver is rich in Vitamin A, and too much of that stuff is toxic.

 

EDIT:

 

I challenge you to find long protein strings in plants. (I did Chemistry in final year)

Edited April 26, 2012 by Raptor_a22

[hoofian 10]

Ironically, if moral vegetarians had their way, people would lose incentive to breed some domesticated animals, and given that they are a product of artificial selection, I do not think they would fare well on their own in the wild. Some of them may survive and undergo a bit of reversion, but many of them would perish.

 

I also find moral vegetarianism to be hypocritical, given that such vegetarians typically don't blink an eye when it comes to utilizing healthcare, and medical science is largely predicated in "animal cruelty," i.e. animal testing. To be logically consistent, they would have to refuse to use modern medicine, clinics, hospitals, etc.

 

My apologies, I didn't cover these two in my last response to you and I just realized this. The part about the animals seems to have been added when making my reply, and I just forgot about the medical advancements part.

 

You are right, those animals wouldn't be able to survive. If left alone natural selection would have taken care of this and most of them wouldn't exist. As it is, there are a few options to take care of this problem: Sterilization, to prevent them from breeding and the last generation of these animals can live their life, and die. Alternately, as people consume less and less meat, as is the current trend, we will produce fewer and fewer animals of this sort. Since most of these are bread through artificial means anyway, there is no risk. Last, these breeds will likely not die out completely, as many people would still have an interest in dairy, and show animals.

 

Offering those 3 solutions to the problem, lets look at your issue. We apparently would let these animals go (which no one I have known of would advocate, as it would be pointless and dumb. Even PETA as radical as they are have no qualms with having animal companions) and they die of natural causes, either illness or predators. That fate is no worse than what they have now. Once again, I don't follow your logic.

 

Like most people, I enjoy many of the modern advancements of modern medicine. Thankfully, being relatively young and healthy, I don't have as much of a need for it as most people. However; to say I should not enjoy these advancements because they use animals is once again ignoring your human rights argument. What about all the poor people exploited to test drugs? Many of them develop problems and are used similarly to lab rats and monkeys but you, I assume, also use modern medicine, right? Anyone can sign up to test medicines but it is usually poor people, needing money. And what about medical and other advancements found through unethical means? Believe it or not, there were advancements found through the Holocaust which saved lives. One of which was the discovery that a life vest that keeps your neck out of the water causes you to freeze less slowly than the older styles of life-vests. This was found by sticking Jews into freezing water at various depths and seeing how long it took them to die. A horrendous, terrible, awful experiment by a hate-filled regime! However; I'm not going to refuse a life vest if I am in a sinking ship in the middle of the Atlantic, and I bet you aren't either (source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html )

 

It's true that the liver is the best source of meat related iron, but eaating liver is actually dangerous.

 

Sir Douglas Mawson, an Australian geologist and Antarctec Explorer, let two other men on an expedition. Xavier Mertz died from Vitamin A poisoning combined with physical exertion and malnutrition. Why? They wre forced to eat their sled dogs to survive. Liver is rich in Vitamin A, and too much of that stuff is toxic.

 

EDIT:

 

I challenge you to find long protein strings in plants. (I did Chemistry in final year)

 

I forgot about the Vitamin A. I wasn't advocating eating a liver rich diet anyway, but you bring up a good point. I am not a chemist, so please forgive my ignorance. When you say long protein strand, you are talking about a complete protein, right? If that is the case, why would I have to? As a lacto-ovo vegetarian I can get this from eggs, but, even if I were/when I was a vegan, there is no reason to. Because of our digestive systems, we are capable of making these from various amino acids, just like our herbivore brethren (and sister-en).

[Raptor_a22 83]

Offering those 3 solutions to the problem, lets look at your issue. We apparently would let these animals go (which no one I have known of would advocate, as it would be pointless and dumb. Even PETA as radical as they are have no qualms with having animal companions) and they die of natural causes, either illness or predators. That fate is no worse than what they have now. Once again, I don't follow your logic.

 

AHEM

 

I just saw this and had to add in a quick reply

 

PETA certainly DOES have a problem with domestic pet breeds. They are of the opinion that they shouldn't exist. In one year, PETA killed 90% of animals left in their care. NINETY PERCENT! Thats higher than your average pound!

 

PETA dosen't want to set them free, they don't want to help find owners, they want them off the face of the earth.

 

PETA isn't just against animal ABUSE, they're against animal USE.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Raptor_a22

[hoofian 10]

AHEM

 

I just saw this and had to add in a quick reply

 

PETA certainly DOES have a problem with domestic pet breeds. They are of the opinion that they shouldn't exist. In one year, PETA killed 90% of animals left in their care. NINETY PERCENT! Thats higher than your average pound!

 

PETA dosen't want to set them free, they don't want to help find owners, they want them off the face of the earth.

 

PETA isn't just against animal ABUSE, they're against animal USE.

 

I have heard this before, about PETA killing animals, and it is complete bullshit. If you actually look up PETA's opinion on the matter, they state that while animals would be better off if never domesticated at all, the harm is done and they enjoy animal companions (source: http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx ). They discuss the issue of overpopulation of pets which is a serious problem! But no where do they advocate killing animals. I don't get behind everything PETA does, particularly some of their stuff that is rather demeaning towards women (no more so than the average magazine advertisement, but it doesn't make it right anyway). I am not saying PETA does no wrong, but that rumor is bullocks.

 

Once again, do you have a reliable source for the information you posted? You seem to be a well educated person, why do you not cite sources when making such important radical claims?

[Tyger 213]

The standard diet of a meat-eater is blood, flesh, veins, muscles, tendons, cow secretions,hen periods and bee vomit. And once a year during a certain holiday in November, meat-eaters use the hollowed-out rectum of a dead bird as a pressure cooker for stuffing.....

 

And people think vegans are weird because we eat tofu?

[hoofian 10]

The standard diet of a meat-eater is blood, flesh, veins, muscles, tendons, cow secretions,hen periods and bee vomit. And once a year during a certain holiday in November, meat-eaters use the hollowed-out rectum of a dead bird as a pressure cooker for stuffing.....

 

And people think vegans are weird because we eat tofu?

 

That is amazing! I like that a lot! I was vegan for 4 months, and have not written off the idea of returning to the diet, it is just slightly more difficult to maintain than is a lacto-ovo diet. Not so much eating at home, but it is difficult to find truly vegan options while eating out or at other people's houses.

Edited April 26, 2012 by hoofian

[Victoria and Co. 782]

I enjoy non-meat products IMMENSELY, in my book you can't get much better than a nice salad, but I do eat my fair share of meat. Doing so is flawed in many ways, and as such I have considered going vegetarian, but have yet to fully act.

 

I mean, look at energy pyramids people! Being at the top is usually just as bad as it is good.

 

Anyway, I support the choices of those who don't eat meat, keep on using those molars guys!

[hoofian 10]

I enjoy non-meat products IMMENSELY, in my book you can't get much better than a nice salad, but I do eat my fair share of meat. Doing so is flawed in many ways, and as such I have considered going vegetarian, but have yet to fully act.

 

I mean, look at energy pyramids people! Being at the top is usually just as bad as it is good.

 

Anyway, I support the choices of those who don't eat meat, keep on using those molars guys!

 

Thanks for the input! [brohoof]

[M14Brony 92]

First of all you are generalizing, and probably not on anyone you actually know. I as well as almost all the vegetarians I know care as much or more about human rights, as well. You logic, is fallacy. It makes no sense.

Let us tear this contention to shreds:

 

You are also ignoring the problems in first world countries. Vegetarianism is a human rights issue. One of the most dangerous jobs currently, is working in a slaughterhouse. Since the unions were weakened, almost none of them have unions anymore, and hire illegal immigrants to work under minimum wage. These workers are discouraged from reporting accidents, and quite often suffer crippling injuries as a result. These overworked underpaid exploited people are also people getting screwed by the meat industry, just like the animals (See http://motherjones.c...-eric-schlosser )

The solution to these conditions in the slaughterhouse needs to be brought about by a rebirth of the labor movement. The unions need to break with the reactionary liberal leaders that are bought off by and in bed with the bosses. Since illegal immigrants play a pivotal role in the economy, they should be given unconditional amnesty, as this would prevent such people from being subject to such exploitation. The solution will not come from a boycott dictated by the agenda of a logically inconsistent lifestyle.

 

If anything, this is most likely an opportunist jesture on your behalf, given that I give priority to our own species. Nevertheless, this opportunism of yours is utterly self-defeating, as it only serves to emphasize the hypocrisy and logical inconsistency of your viewpoints. Since moral vegetarians raise the tactic of the boycott to a principle, surely you would have to boycott so many of your precious consumer goods in order to be logically consistent, and your refusal to do as such in itself shows that you care more about the lesser animals than those of your own species. This is ultimately misanthropic.

 

Next, let's talk about the exploited farmers. Are you aware that companies like Purdue get farmers to raise chickens, by loaning them money for chicken houses. Sounds good, until you realize that a farmer goes into debt half a million USD for 2 chicken houses, which will raise them less than $20,000 USD for profit. Sure sounds like a human rights issue to me! (source: The film Food Inc., not a pro vegetarian movie, just a pro-knowing-your-food-movie).

I am aware of this, but again, the solution to this lies witih the labor movement, which needs to be revived. Those agribusiness giants should be natioinalized under democratic workers' control and predatory lending practices to smaller farmers should be abolished. See above regarding the moral vegetarian boycott principle and logical inconsistency.

 

Last, let's talk about the environment (a human rights issue, since we live here. I want clean air and potable water avaliable for my infant nephew). Ever seen a factory farm? They are all around me. They are horrible. The conditions for the animals are bad, and they produce so much greenhouse gasses (from the cows, the trucks that haul cattle, the trucks that haul grain all hours of the night), they produce a lot of run-off in the creeks and rivers which is bad for fish and the people who drink that water.

Yet you maintain dead silence over the pollution caused by factories, extraction of aluminum from bauxite (the "red mud" that is produced from extracting aluminum from this ore is rather toxic), the pollution caused by cars, trucks, buses, etc. Should you not boycott automobiles, public transit, manufactured goods, etc. to remian logically consistent? Once again, we have an opportunist jesture that has backfired and served to more openly expose the logical inconsistency of moral vegetarianism.

 

Cows are also not meant to eat corn. That is another problem with factory farming. Wonder why we have so many issues with E. Coli? The stomach acid of cows are messed up from the corn they eat, since they are supposed to eat grass (corn is mass produced for other horrible reasons, but is really cheap and allows farmers to cram cows into small places without grass, which means more money). The result is e. coli grows in their stomachs, spreading to people, and the runoff of manure even gets in our produce which is why we have spinach and other veggies that gets contaminated with e. coli. Cows that eat grass, like they are supposed to, don't support the virus. (source: films King Corn and Food Inc., as well as basic biology).

I believe that Raptor_a22 covered this pretty well.

 

Meat is very much a human rights issue. You are right, buying third world garbage is not good either, and most people (no matter their diet) don't pay attention to it. But to deny that meat is a human rights issue, is just ignorant of the facts.

 

The problem is the capitalist mode of production, not meat itself. Everything I use is covered in blood in one way or another, but at the same time, one cannot simply abstain from such things. Society must evolve and put and end to the exploitation of one person by another.

 

My apologies, I didn't cover these two in my last response to you and I just realized this. The part about the animals seems to have been added when making my reply, and I just forgot about the medical advancements part.

 

You are right, those animals wouldn't be able to survive. If left alone natural selection would have taken care of this and most of them wouldn't exist. As it is, there are a few options to take care of this problem: Sterilization, to prevent them from breeding and the last generation of these animals can live their life, and die. Alternately, as people consume less and less meat, as is the current trend, we will produce fewer and fewer animals of this sort. Since most of these are bread through artificial means anyway, there is no risk. Last, these breeds will likely not die out completely, as many people would still have an interest in dairy, and show animals.

And the delicious irony is brought forth for all to see, as if PETA had their way, a lot of the animals they claim to be fighting for would be dead, or at best, significantly reduced in population.

 

I also believe that the demand for meat is increasing, not decreasing, particulalry as sections of society in the so-called developing world become more affluent. Factory farming will not be abolished by a tiny handful of vegetarians and vegans - it will be replaced by a more efficient method of meat production brought about by a scientific breakthrough (growing meat in laboratories).

 

Offering those 3 solutions to the problem, lets look at your issue. We apparently would let these animals go (which no one I have known of would advocate, as it would be pointless and dumb. Even PETA as radical as they are have no qualms with having animal companions) and they die of natural causes, either illness or predators. That fate is no worse than what they have now. Once again, I don't follow your logic.

It is rather difficult for moral vegetarians to say they stand for such animals when their ways would ultimately do wonders to drive them to extinciton at worst and significantly reduce their numbers at best.

 

Like most people, I enjoy many of the modern advancements of modern medicine. Thankfully, being relatively young and healthy, I don't have as much of a need for it as most people. However; to say I should not enjoy these advancements because they use animals is once again ignoring your human rights argument. What about all the poor people exploited to test drugs? Many of them develop problems and are used similarly to lab rats and monkeys but you, I assume, also use modern medicine, right? Anyone can sign up to test medicines but it is usually poor people, needing money. And what about medical and other advancements found through unethical means? Believe it or not, there were advancements found through the Holocaust which saved lives. One of which was the discovery that a life vest that keeps your neck out of the water causes you to freeze less slowly than the older styles of life-vests. This was found by sticking Jews into freezing water at various depths and seeing how long it took them to die. A horrendous, terrible, awful experiment by a hate-filled regime! However; I'm not going to refuse a life vest if I am in a sinking ship in the middle of the Atlantic, and I bet you aren't either (source: http://www.jewishvir...sm/naziexp.html )

Unlike moral vegetarians, I do not raise the tactic of the boycott to a principle. I am well aware that many advancements and consumer goods are dripping in blood, but abstaining from them will solve nothing. It is hypocritical for moral vegetarians to boycott meat due to "animal cruelty" on the one hoof while utilizing modern medicine on the other hoof, given that it is also largely predicated on "animal cruelty." Hell, PETA's Ingrid Newkirk is a massive hypocrite that owes her survival to dog-tested insulin.

 

And when it comes to the Nazi regime, PETA is anti-semitic, given that they trivialized the Holocaust when they made a billboard that compared raising and slaughtering chickens to what the Jews dealt with in Hitler's death camps.

 

I didn't mean it by a moral aspect. What I meant was that meat is bad for you, meat is a good source of protein but it exists in other foods that aren't meat like almonds and such.

I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

As an omnivore, I am not going to abstain from one or the other. Copious quantities of red meat are harmful, but I believe that a temple at Delphi had applicable statements here:

 

"Know thyself."

"Nothing in excess."

Edited April 26, 2012 by M14Brony

[roomforapony 285]

Once again, do you have a reliable source for the information you posted? You seem to be a well educated person, why do you not cite sources when making such important radical claims?

 

I'm not the same person, but here are some sources on PETA's practices in killing animals.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof/

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?cat=10

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/03/27/does-peta-kill-animals-absolutely-says-newkirk/

[Raptor_a22 83]

Once again, do you have a reliable source for the information you posted? You seem to be a well educated person, why do you not cite sources when making such important radical claims?

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4988-Skin-Game

I'm quite happy to point towards MovieBob on this one. The man knows his stuff, and knows how to argue and reason well.

This is where I learnt about it, as I watch his show closely.

 

M14Brony also has pointed out that PETAs secretary uses pig-sourced insulin for her survival, even though PETA forbids its use.

roomforapony has some sources there, but the main one I'm quoting is MovieBob, who has sources in his video.

 

As for the dietary supplements, I'll get in touch with the person who told me, as he'll definitely have a source.

[ELRealBoredmario64 24]

i eat purely meat.

 

[hoofian 10]

Rather than addressing every single point made on here, as I originally planned, I'm just gonna make some main points and brief replies.

 

First of all, the entire purpose of this thread, was to see if anyone shared my interest in a plant-based diet. I stated clearly I had no intentions of starting any arguments, and no arguments or debates here were started by me. I have not tried to convert anyone other than those who expressed interest, and even then I only mentioned my personal experiences with the subject. Any argumentative points was to fight against the unsourced misinformation that people have no problem posting all over this thread.

 

All of these attacks against the way I choose to eat and live my life are completely unwarranted, childish, and pointless.

Let us tear this contention to shreds:

 

 

 

The solution to these conditions in the slaughterhouse needs to be brought about by a rebirth of the labor movement. The unions need to break with the reactionary liberal leaders that are bought off by and in bed with the bosses. Since illegal immigrants play a pivotal role in the economy, they should be given unconditional amnesty, as this would prevent such people from being subject to such exploitation. The solution will not come from a boycott dictated by the agenda of a logically inconsistent lifestyle.

 

If anything, this is most likely an opportunist jesture on your behalf, given that I give priority to our own species. Nevertheless, this opportunism of yours is utterly self-defeating, as it only serves to emphasize the hypocrisy and logical inconsistency of your viewpoints. Since moral vegetarians raise the tactic of the boycott to a principle, surely you would have to boycott so many of your precious consumer goods in order to be logically consistent, and your refusal to do as such in itself shows that you care more about the lesser animals than those of your own species. This is ultimately misanthropic.

 

 

 

I am aware of this, but again, the solution to this lies witih the labor movement, which needs to be revived. Those agribusiness giants should be natioinalized under democratic workers' control and predatory lending practices to smaller farmers should be abolished. See above regarding the moral vegetarian boycott principle and logical inconsistency.

 

 

 

Yet you maintain dead silence over the pollution caused by factories, extraction of aluminum from bauxite (the "red mud" that is produced from extracting aluminum from this ore is rather toxic), the pollution caused by cars, trucks, buses, etc. Should you not boycott automobiles, public transit, manufactured goods, etc. to remian logically consistent? Once again, we have an opportunist jesture that has backfired and served to more openly expose the logical inconsistency of moral vegetarianism.

 

 

 

I believe that Raptor_a22 covered this pretty well.

 

 

 

The problem is the capitalist mode of production, not meat itself. Everything I use is covered in blood in one way or another, but at the same time, one cannot simply abstain from such things. Society must evolve and put and end to the exploitation of one person by another.

 

 

 

And the delicious irony is brought forth for all to see, as if PETA had their way, a lot of the animals they claim to be fighting for would be dead, or at best, significantly reduced in population.

 

I also believe that the demand for meat is increasing, not decreasing, particulalry as sections of society in the so-called developing world become more affluent. Factory farming will not be abolished by a tiny handful of vegetarians and vegans - it will be replaced by a more efficient method of meat production brought about by a scientific breakthrough (growing meat in laboratories).

 

 

 

It is rather difficult for moral vegetarians to say they stand for such animals when their ways would ultimately do wonders to drive them to extinciton at worst and significantly reduce their numbers at best.

 

 

 

Unlike moral vegetarians, I do not raise the tactic of the boycott to a principle. I am well aware that many advancements and consumer goods are dripping in blood, but abstaining from them will solve nothing. It is hypocritical for moral vegetarians to boycott meat due to "animal cruelty" on the one hoof while utilizing modern medicine on the other hoof, given that it is also largely predicated on "animal cruelty." Hell, PETA's Ingrid Newkirk is a massive hypocrite that owes her survival to dog-tested insulin.

 

And when it comes to the Nazi regime, PETA is anti-semitic, given that they trivialized the Holocaust when they made a billboard that compared raising and slaughtering chickens to what the Jews dealt with in Hitler's death camps.

 

You tore nothing to shreds, you simply stated a bunch of opinions, backed by your own flawed logic of circular reasoning. You are a rather good debater; that is to say you would be if you had reliable sources, and didn't rely so heavily on your own opinion as fact.

 

Your argument is based largely around your idea of how you think people should think. While quite egocentric, you do sometimes raise good points. I agree with you that unions need to regain power (though this is unlikely to happen, thanks to Ronald Reagan and companies like WalMart), that we need amnesty for immigrants (so they can get livable wages and pay taxes, as well as benefits they are due. Like you said they are already valuable to our economy), and that we should stop grainfeeding animals (or paying farmers to overproduce grain in the first place).

 

All of those points, will significantly raise the price of meat (and food in general). Those methods are in place because they are cheap. That is how McDonalds can sell a double cheesebuger for $1 (the slices of cheese are worth more than the meat). I am all for raising the price of meat. It means people will eat less of it, because as it stands meat is significantly more expensive than vegetables.

 

You are lumping all moral vegetarians into one group... When have you ever known one umbrella term to cover everyone? Did I ever make this point regarding omnivores? Absolutely not. It would make no sense. My lifestyle has been deemed logically inconsistent by you... Yet you don't know me or how I live my life. I cannot possibly fight every injustice, but fighting the battles I can is better than fighting none, which seems to be your solution. You never said you boycotted WalMart, or that you refused to buy any coffee that is not fair trade. What do you do for these people? Sitting behind a computer talking about the problems of the world does nothing, if you take no further steps. "The best thing someone can do is the right thing, the second best is the wrong thing, and the worst thing someone can do is nothing" -Abraham Lincoln.

 

Are you saying there is no problem with overpopulation of animals? I am all for reducing the populations of domesticated animals, that is why my cat is neutered. If fewer people ate animals, or eventually if no one did (a long way down the road), we would have no reason to have such a population. Actually, if we stopped grain feeding them, they couldn't all survive anyway. It takes an acre of grazing land to support one cow, in addition to providing hay and silage (for a cow that is not being force fed corn on a feed lot). I learned this when my family raised cattle. There is no chance of those animals becoming extinct; there is a huge problem with overpopulation though. Why would someone NOT want the population of animals to be reduced? It doesn't mean one has to kill them, but just keep subsequent generations from happening. Obviously domesticated animals have no trouble thriving on their own, or we wouldn't have an out of control dog and cat population. It would be in these animals best interest, as natural selection could again take over. Commercial pigs have such sensitive immune systems from inbreeding and the like, that they have to be artificially inseminated or the boar and sow could infect one another. There is a huge difference between letting nature sort out nature and killing these animals ourselves. More in this topic later, as I reply to Raptor_a22.

 

Since you say that abstaining from things solves nothing... Well... Then what do you do to solve these problems? As I mentioned, the unions you (and I) support advocate boycotting. It is the most essential backbone of unions, along with striking. Saying boycotting solves nothing is a huge cop-out. You are trying to separate yourself from the principles you claim to have, and the actions you practice.

 

And what makes you think I am silent about issues like pollution? Talking about factories and cars here would be irrelevant (since it is about meat), but it doesn't mean I am always silent on the issue. I carpool whenever possible, I consolidate the trips I make in automobiles so I have the least amount of gasoline, I drive a vehicle that is as fuel efficient as I could afford, I recycle whatever I possible can, I reuse containers to keep them out of landfills, buy everything I possibly can second hand to keep them from going to the dump, I plant trees, I use energy efficient appliances, I grow as much of my own food as possible, and organically at that. But that is all unrelated to the topic behind this thread.

 

http://www.escapistm.../4988-Skin-Game

I'm quite happy to point towards MovieBob on this one. The man knows his stuff, and knows how to argue and reason well.

This is where I learnt about it, as I watch his show closely.

 

M14Brony also has pointed out that PETAs secretary uses pig-sourced insulin for her survival, even though PETA forbids its use.

roomforapony has some sources there, but the main one I'm quoting is MovieBob, who has sources in his video.

 

As for the dietary supplements, I'll get in touch with the person who told me, as he'll definitely have a source.

 

This video makes interesting points! I agree, it seems out of PETA's place, if for no other reason than their social image, to perform euthanasia on animals. However, most of the quotes this guy used were taken slightly out of context (Saying the animals would be better off had we never domesticated them, if not the same thing as saying we should eliminate their existence. He also ignored the first part of the first quote he used, that said the people at PETA also enjoy their animal companions). Also, killing animals for fur is different than euthanasia. For one thing, the animals for fur are brutally slaughtered, not painlessly put to sleep. For another, the animals are bread to die and treated cruelly throughout their life. The problem with domesticated animals is they pretty much rely on people, and though they can survive in the wild, they are not as well adapted for it. Nor is the wild. The purpose of killing these animals through painless euthanasia is to prevent suffering, not to cause it (as is the case with the fur trade, as well as the meat industry). I am not saying this is ideal. Ideally, the animals wouldn't be overpopulated in the first place. I am also not supporting everything PETA does, but equating the fur trade with euthanasia is fallacy.

 

I was also unaware PETA engaged in acts of euthanasia. Though I don't disdain this practice, it is good to know, and does slightly alter my perception of PETA. However; as I already stated, I am not a member of PETA and I am not saying or under the impression that they never go too far or do anything wrong. They are also not as extremist as they have a reputation for, and I think they generally have a good view of things, but their shock tactics sometimes go too far.

 

I also agree, that is is odd for someone who is a vegan to take insulin which is derived from pigs (not because it was tested on dogs in the past, but because it is taken from animals now). I have often considered what I would do if faced with such a dillema, and I still don't know. However; I think it is odd for someone who's life revolves around not using animal products would use insulin.

 

I do not think comparing chicken farming with the holocaust is anti-semitic. In fact, it would be foolish of them to be anti-semitic since PETA has many Jewish members. From the standpoint of an organization that euquates (or at least claims to) all life as being equal (human and animal), this is not anymore anti-semitic than comparing the holocaust to Darfur, or the USSR under Stalin (who actually killed MORE people, more viciously than Hitler... And they were his own people!).

 

*Phew*

 

Also, I am openly admitting I was wrong about PETA euthanising animals. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but like I said i do not see this as logical fallacy since the death is to prevent suffering.

 

My conflict over being on this forum is still something I am debating about. While I don't mind debating and conversing calmly and respectfully, someone lumping me into a group, outright attacking my personal beleifs and questioning my morals is not debating: it is senseless arguing. I am fully aware I am going to convert none of you, and as I also stated that was not my intention. I never made any personal attacks or anything offensive, I was merely defending my morals. Seeing that that has become very time consuming aspect of my time when I am busy enough with work and college. I originally came here to wind down and talk about MLP with people, and maybe make some personal connections over similar interests. This forum has become anything but a place to wind down for me.

[M14Brony 92]

Rather than addressing every single point made on here, as I originally planned, I'm just gonna make some main points and brief replies.

 

First of all, the entire purpose of this thread, was to see if anyone shared my interest in a plant-based diet. I stated clearly I had no intentions of starting any arguments, and no arguments or debates here were started by me. I have not tried to convert anyone other than those who expressed interest, and even then I only mentioned my personal experiences with the subject. Any argumentative points was to fight against the unsourced misinformation that people have no problem posting all over this thread.

 

Let us see what was actually stated in the original post:

 

I looked for a thread about this, but couldn't find one. I was just wondering if anypony else is a vegetarian? Or vegan or pescetarian? If so, why?

 

I am a vegetarian, and have been for about a year and a half now. I do it for health (I lost about 60 pounds just by not eating meat), ethical & spiritual reasons environmental reasons. I'm not starting this thread to be preachy, just to see if anypony else shares my dietary habits, or any close to them? But of course, if anypony has any legitimate curiosities or questions, I would be happy to discuss them.

Nowhere in this paragraph is anything stated about a refusal to engage in any sort of debate on the subject at hand. Simply by being a moral vegetarian, one is throwing down the gauntlet against omnivorous tendencies. This in itself opens things up to criticism, given that an omnivore is entitled to point out logical inconsistencies in moral vegetarianism and why they remain omnivores. Curiosities and questions open up one's elaborations to criticism, given that others will point out why they are do not find the responses to the said curiosities and questions convincing.

 

It is also hard for you to say you are not preaching or "attacking our lifestyle" when you say that some of our food choices remind your of death and are as appetizing as roadkill.

 

And would you not be ignoring such criticism if your intention was truly one of a refusal to debate such an issue?

 

All of these attacks against the way I choose to eat and live my life are completely unwarranted, childish, and pointless.

 

This is a public forum, and there are no rules dictating that we cannot debate things with which we do not agree. If one's amour-propre is scathed by mere debate, one should not be posting such things on a public forum to begin with (no offense intended here). Anything publicly stated in a society predicated on freedom of speech is subject to criticism.

 

 

You tore nothing to shreds, you simply stated a bunch of opinions, backed by your own flawed logic of circular reasoning.

 

We will see about that, particularly given that you cannot prove the existence of the alleged "flawed logic of circular reasoning" in concrete manner. We will also proceed to see that your rebuttal is full of evasion.

 

 

You are a rather good debater; that is to say you would be if you had reliable sources, and didn't rely so heavily on your own opinion as fact.

 

Relying on my own opinion as fact? The issues I pointed out about the suffering of people in various industries that are put on the backburner by moral vegetarians in order to emphasize the plight of animals are common knowledge, so one cannot dismiss this as reliance on one's opinion as fact. I pointed out the logical inconsistencies pretty clearly, as since you raise the tactic of the boycott to a principle, you would surely have to boycott countless consumer goods that make civilized life possible if you truly cared about human rights in general. It is extremely inconsistent to boycott meat due to "human rights" issues on the one hoof while continuing to buy anything made by superexploited Latino immigrants, using medical technology predicated on vivisection and other things unpleasant to animals, etc. Yet, when somepony who raises the tactic of the boycott to the level of a principle only boycotts meat, the image of that person caring more about the lesser animals than those of our own species stands out in a crystal clear manner.

 

 

Of course, I still suspect that your method was nothing more than an opportunist gesture employed to snare somepony like me in the moral vegetarian trap, and the said gesture backfired.

 

Your argument is based largely around your idea of how you think people should think.

 

This is contention is predicated on a straw man fallacy and is consequently invalid. Pointing out logical inconsistencies in one's stance on a given issue is not the same thing as you charge me with.

 

 

While quite egocentric, you do sometimes raise good points. I agree with you that unions need to regain power (though this is unlikely to happen, thanks to Ronald Reagan and companies like WalMart), that we need amnesty for immigrants (so they can get livable wages and pay taxes, as well as benefits they are due. Like you said they are already valuable to our economy), and that we should stop grainfeeding animals (or paying farmers to overproduce grain in the first place).

 

This in itself shows that the alternative does not lie in the elimination of the meat industry.

 

All of those points, will significantly raise the price of meat (and food in general). Those methods are in place because they are cheap. That is how McDonalds can sell a double cheesebuger for $1 (the slices of cheese are worth more than the meat). I am all for raising the price of meat. It means people will eat less of it, because as it stands meat is significantly more expensive than vegetables.

 

Raising living standards of the said workers would do wonders to increase their purchasing power, and given the popularity of meat, it is not something that is going to go away (contrary to what you have previously stated, meat production is increasing It is the task of the scientific community to make additional breakthroughs, as growing meat in laboratory settings would do wonders to increase the efficiency of production (such knowledge could also most likely be used to grow tissues and organs in laboratories to eliminate long waits for organ donations).

 

You are lumping all moral vegetarians into one group... When have you ever known one umbrella term to cover everyone? Did I ever make this point regarding omnivores?

 

Actually, I was specifically attacking the common boycott principle of moral vegetarians, in addition to pointing out its logical inconsistencies and misanthropic implications.

 

 

Absolutely not. It would make no sense. My lifestyle has been deemed logically inconsistent by you... Yet you don't know me or how I live my life.

 

I do not need to know you personally to point out logical inconsistencies in your stances. By this logic, one cannot criticize a given person's political stances, religious beliefs, taste in the cinema, etc. without personally knowing the said person. Hell, by your very own logic, you cannot accuse me of "egocentrism," "circular logic," and the like since you do not know me in person. This contention of yours is utterly self-defeating in nature.

 

 

I cannot possibly fight every injustice, but fighting the battles I can is better than fighting none, which seems to be your solution. You never said you boycotted WalMart, or that you refused to buy any coffee that is not fair trade. What do you do for these people? Sitting behind a computer talking about the problems of the world does nothing, if you take no further steps. "The best thing someone can do is the right thing, the second best is the wrong thing, and the worst thing someone can do is nothing" -Abraham Lincoln.

 

Surely on one could stop you from just as easily applying your principled tactic of the boycott to other things dripping in blood and/or harmful to the environment, such as anything made in China, anything containing aluminum ("red mud" from the extraction of aluminum from the bauxite ore), etc. But of course, this is not done, as those animals are considered to be more important than the suffering of Chinese and Congolese miners, super-exploited Latino immigrants (who often pick your beloved fruits and vegetables for less than minimum wage at times), etc. By your very own logic, a hardcore cyclist could just as easily castigate you for not "fighting what you can fight" by focusing your boycott on meat instead of on automobiles and public transit!

 

Are you saying there is no problem with overpopulation of animals? I am all for reducing the populations of domesticated animals, that is why my cat is neutered. If fewer people ate animals, or eventually if no one did (a long way down the road), we would have no reason to have such a population. Actually, if we stopped grain feeding them, they couldn't all survive anyway. It takes an acre of grazing land to support one cow, in addition to providing hay and silage (for a cow that is not being force fed corn on a feed lot). I learned this when my family raised cattle. There is no chance of those animals becoming extinct; there is a huge problem with overpopulation though. Why would someone NOT want the population of animals to be reduced? It doesn't mean one has to kill them, but just keep subsequent generations from happening. Obviously domesticated animals have no trouble thriving on their own, or we wouldn't have an out of control dog and cat population. It would be in these animals best interest, as natural selection could again take over. Commercial pigs have such sensitive immune systems from inbreeding and the like, that they have to be artificially inseminated or the boar and sow could infect one another. There is a huge difference between letting nature sort out nature and killing these animals ourselves. More in this topic later, as I reply to Raptor_a22.

 

This amusingly contradicts what you stated previously regarding animals produced via artificial selection. I also stated that some would undergo reversion and avoid extinction. Is it not rather amusing how vegetarians can claim to support such animals on the one hoof while advocating something that would drive some of them to extinction?

 

Since you say that abstaining from things solves nothing... Well... Then what do you do to solve these problems? As I mentioned, the unions you (and I) support advocate boycotting. It is the most essential backbone of unions, along with striking. Saying boycotting solves nothing is a huge cop-out. You are trying to separate yourself from the principles you claim to have, and the actions you practice.

This is a straw man fallcy of the purest water, as I never stated that boycotts were impermissible under all circumstances. The difference is that I do not elevate such a tactic to a principle, and I realize that it can only work under particular circumstances. The abolition of the capitalist system, which has long since outlived its useful purpose, is the only way to solve the pressing needs of an increasing human population.

 

And what makes you think I am silent about issues like pollution? Talking about factories and cars here would be irrelevant (since it is about meat), but it doesn't mean I am always silent on the issue. I carpool whenever possible, I consolidate the trips I make in automobiles so I have the least amount of gasoline, I drive a vehicle that is as fuel efficient as I could afford, I recycle whatever I possible can, I reuse containers to keep them out of landfills, buy everything I possibly can second hand to keep them from going to the dump, I plant trees, I use energy efficient appliances, I grow as much of my own food as possible, and organically at that. But that is all unrelated to the topic behind this thread.

 

And of course, these things are not boycotted by you. Talk about logical inconsistency. Not to mention that the factory that produces the fuel efficient car you drive (in addition to the factory that produced my fuel efficient Corolla) produces copious amounts of pollution. Vehicles that produce copious amounts of pollution also deliver our fuel efficient cars. In short, one is still a part of this cycle of pollution in spite of buying a car that burns less fuel (I would advocate the nationalization of the fuel and oil industry to eliminate that profit motive that keeps oil in use when it could have probably been done away with decades ago) See above for my comment on how a die-hard cyclist (an activist sort) could, by your very own logic, castigate you for focusing your boycott on meat instead of cars.

 

I have not viewed the said video, so I will refrain from commentary regarding it.

 

I also agree, that is is odd for someone who is a vegan to take insulin which is derived from pigs (not because it was tested on dogs in the past, but because it is taken from animals now). I have often considered what I would do if faced with such a dillema, and I still don't know. However; I think it is odd for someone who's life revolves around not using animal products would use insulin.

 

And thus Ingrid Newkirk engages in hypocrisy and logical inconsistency.

 

I do not think comparing chicken farming with the holocaust is anti-semitic. In fact, it would be foolish of them to be anti-semitic since PETA has many Jewish members. From the standpoint of an organization that euquates (or at least claims to) all life as being equal (human and animal), this is not anymore anti-semitic than comparing the holocaust to Darfur, or the USSR under Stalin (who actually killed MORE people, more viciously than Hitler... And they were his own people!).

 

Comparing chicken farming with the Holocaust is anti-semitic, as it trivializes the crimes of the Nazi regime. Jews quickly detected such anti-semitism, and PETA received so much flak from that anti-semitic billboard that they caved into the pressure exerted by the Jews and consequently removed the billboard. One cannot compare eating and slaughtering chickens to the the death of six million Jews.

 

 

While I do not defend Stalin, he cannot be accurately compared to Hitler (Hitler also never got to kill as many as he intended, as his regime was toppled by Allied armies, while Stalin lived to a ripe old age), given that Hitler's Holocaust was a planned genocide, while the deaths from Stalin's Holodomor were a result of bureaucratic bungling (don't get me wrong, as Stalin's crimes are still unforgivable).

 

My conflict over being on this forum is still something I am debating about. While I don't mind debating and conversing calmly and respectfully, someone lumping me into a group, outright attacking my personal beleifs and questioning my morals is not debating: it is senseless arguing.

 

Criticism is a part and parcel of any debate, and as I stated above, one should not post them on a public forum if he/she does not want to have to deal with criticism. I am not stopping you or anypony else from criticizing any of my beliefs.

 

 

I am fully aware I am going to convert none of you, and as I also stated that was not my intention. I never made any personal attacks or anything offensive, I was merely defending my morals.

 

You do not have to make a personal attack to be subjected to criticism; posting a contention of any sort on a public forum opens the said contention to rebuttals being raised by people with a different viewpoint.

 

 

Seeing that that has become very time consuming aspect of my time when I am busy enough with work and college.

 

And? You are not the only one that is busy with such things. I have a full-time job and I am toying with the idea of returning to college. There are other posts I have not been able to reply to in other threads, but I hope to get to them later.

 

 

I originally came here to wind down and talk about MLP with people, and maybe make some personal connections over similar interests. This forum has become anything but a place to wind down for me.

 

While this forum is based on MLP, it is not solely for discussing MLP and making such connections, for if it were only about MLP and such connections, surely this off-topic area of the forum would not exist.

Edited April 27, 2012 by M14Brony

[Raptor_a22 83]

Rather than addressing every single point made on here, as I originally planned, I'm just gonna make some main points and brief replies.

 

First of all, the entire purpose of this thread, was to see if anyone shared my interest in a plant-based diet. I stated clearly I had no intentions of starting any arguments, and no arguments or debates here were started by me. I have not tried to convert anyone other than those who expressed interest, and even then I only mentioned my personal experiences with the subject. Any argumentative points was to fight against the unsourced misinformation that people have no problem posting all over this thread.

 

All of these attacks against the way I choose to eat and live my life are completely unwarranted, childish, and pointless.

You did however ask the important question of why? in your original post, opening up the thread for discussion. Not only did you do that, but you also stated your reasons and stated that you were happy to discuss. Why the flipflop now?

 

 

All of those points, will significantly raise the price of meat (and food in general). Those methods are in place because they are cheap. That is how McDonalds can sell a double cheesebuger for $1 (the slices of cheese are worth more than the meat). I am all for raising the price of meat. It means people will eat less of it, because as it stands meat is significantly more expensive than vegetables.

McDonalds has meat now?

 

You are lumping all moral vegetarians into one group... When have you ever known one umbrella term to cover everyone? Did I ever make this point regarding omnivores? Absolutely not. It would make no sense. My lifestyle has been deemed logically inconsistent by you... Yet you don't know me or how I live my life. I cannot possibly fight every injustice, but fighting the battles I can is better than fighting none, which seems to be your solution. You never said you boycotted WalMart, or that you refused to buy any coffee that is not fair trade. What do you do for these people? Sitting behind a computer talking about the problems of the world does nothing, if you take no further steps. "The best thing someone can do is the right thing, the second best is the wrong thing, and the worst thing someone can do is nothing" -Abraham Lincoln.

I don't buy fair trade tea, for the simple reason that fair trade tea SUCKS! It's absolutely disgusing. If I'm going to pay a higher than average price, as a consumer, I expect to have a higher quality product. As it stands, I highly doubt 'fairtrade' tea/coffee is actually doing anything helpful.

 

Also, that quote from Abraham Lincoln can go both ways as well. Is it not preferable to do the right thing than the wrong thing? Intelligent discussion can change people's viewpoints and beliefs about issues. I myself, as an Australian, have no knowledge whatsoever of the true political and economic climate in America. (Aside from what the media tells me, but I'm inclined to watch very carefully what they say seeing as we have no 'free press' anymore since the lefties have come in and corrupted everything)

 

I've learnt things by participating in this discussion, and that may help me to make the right decisions later in life. Furthermore, participating in an intellectual debate is still doing something, as opposed to zoning out on the couch watching something stupid on television and ignoring the problem completely.

 

Are you saying there is no problem with overpopulation of animals? I am all for reducing the populations of domesticated animals, that is why my cat is neutered. If fewer people ate animals, or eventually if no one did (a long way down the road), we would have no reason to have such a population. Actually, if we stopped grain feeding them, they couldn't all survive anyway. It takes an acre of grazing land to support one cow, in addition to providing hay and silage (for a cow that is not being force fed corn on a feed lot). I learned this when my family raised cattle. There is no chance of those animals becoming extinct; there is a huge problem with overpopulation though. Why would someone NOT want the population of animals to be reduced? It doesn't mean one has to kill them, but just keep subsequent generations from happening. Obviously domesticated animals have no trouble thriving on their own, or we wouldn't have an out of control dog and cat population. It would be in these animals best interest, as natural selection could again take over. Commercial pigs have such sensitive immune systems from inbreeding and the like, that they have to be artificially inseminated or the boar and sow could infect one another. There is a huge difference between letting nature sort out nature and killing these animals ourselves. More in this topic later, as I reply to Raptor_a22.

Humanity has overpopulated the planet, and I agree that is a bad thing, but it's not just animals. The earth vurrently has more living things on it that its resources can support, but that's a different topic and we shouldn't get too sidetracked by discussing it in this particular thread.

 

This video makes interesting points! I agree, it seems out of PETA's place, if for no other reason than their social image, to perform euthanasia on animals. However, most of the quotes this guy used were taken slightly out of context (Saying the animals would be better off had we never domesticated them, if not the same thing as saying we should eliminate their existence.)

Misinterpretation in my opinion.

 

Simple logic:

Domestication of pets is wrong

Domestication should never ahve existed

If domestication didn't exist, then pet breeds would not exist either

Therefore, pet breeds should not exist

 

He also ignored the first part of the first quote he used, that said the people at PETA also enjoy their animal companions.

Thankyou for validating my point. Does anyone else here see that the people at PETA sem a little hypocritical when they don't get rid of their own pets?

 

Also, killing animals for fur is different than euthanasia. For one thing, the animals for fur are brutally slaughtered, not painlessly put to sleep. For another, the animals are bread to die and treated cruelly throughout their life. The problem with domesticated animals is they pretty much rely on people, and though they can survive in the wild, they are not as well adapted for it. Nor is the wild. The purpose of killing these animals through painless euthanasia is to prevent suffering, not to cause it (as is the case with the fur trade, as well as the meat industry). I am not saying this is ideal. Ideally, the animals wouldn't be overpopulated in the first place. I am also not supporting everything PETA does, but equating the fur trade with euthanasia is fallacy.

I personally never said anything about the fur trade, and the only reason MovieBob did was to quiet down any possible retribution by anyone who percieved him as somehow 'anti-animal-rights', or retribution from anyone who had not seen the episode 'Maddening'.

 

Also, do you know how they actually slaughter animals? I don't know if it is different where you live, but here they apply a strong electric shock to the back of the cow/bull's neck, temorarily 'shorting out' the nervous system. This means that when the killing blow is delivered, the animal's nervous system in incapable of feeling pain (or annything else for that matter). I don;t know what the electric shock would feel like, but I have had an unfortunate encounter with flowing electrons in the past and I can assure you I didn't feel pain for very long before my arm went numb.

 

I was also unaware PETA engaged in acts of euthanasia. Though I don't disdain this practice, it is good to know, and does slightly alter my perception of PETA. However; as I already stated, I am not a member of PETA and I am not saying or under the impression that they never go too far or do anything wrong. They are also not as extremist as they have a reputation for, and I think they generally have a good view of things, but their shock tactics sometimes go too far.

You do realise that these were healthy, adoption ready pets right? I have no problems with euthanasia of sick, terminally ill or otherwise injured animals whose life from that point would be much worse than any normal average animal.

 

I also agree, that is is odd for someone who is a vegan to take insulin which is derived from pigs (not because it was tested on dogs in the past, but because it is taken from animals now). I have often considered what I would do if faced with such a dillema, and I still don't know. However; I think it is odd for someone who's life revolves around not using animal products would use insulin.

Again, this is why I think PETA is hypocritical. The woman is the secretary for petes sake. Anyone who is that far up the chain of an organisation should practice what they preach.

 

I do not think comparing chicken farming with the holocaust is anti-semitic. In fact, it would be foolish of them to be anti-semitic since PETA has many Jewish members. From the standpoint of an organization that euquates (or at least claims to) all life as being equal (human and animal), this is not anymore anti-semitic than comparing the holocaust to Darfur, or the USSR under Stalin (who actually killed MORE people, more viciously than Hitler... And they were his own people!).

So you're saying German Jews weren't Hitler's own people? Theres substantial evidence to say that part of Hitler's family was Jewish.

 

My conflict over being on this forum is still something I am debating about. While I don't mind debating and conversing calmly and respectfully, someone lumping me into a group, outright attacking my personal beliefs and questioning my morals is not debating: it is senseless arguing. I am fully aware I am going to convert none of you, and as I also stated that was not my intention. I never made any personal attacks or anything offensive, I was merely defending my morals. Seeing that that has become very time consuming aspect of my time when I am busy enough with work and college. I originally came here to wind down and talk about MLP with people, and maybe make some personal connections over similar interests. This forum has become anything but a place to wind down for me.

 

You tore nothing to shreds, you simply stated a bunch of opinions, backed by your own flawed logic of circular reasoning. You are a rather good debater; that is to say you would be if you had reliable sources, and didn't rely so heavily on your own opinion as fact.

 

Your argument is based largely around your idea of how you think people should think. While quite egocentric, you do sometimes raise good points.

*ahem*... yes, well about that...

 

You see that bold test? I think thats a little aggressive, and I'm sure M14Brony aggrees with me.

 

 

Also, I never attacked your personal beliefs, or morals, I simply questioned the facts you said you based those beliefs and morals on. Furthermore, I don' know why you have to immediately become so defensive when talking about your own beliefs.

 

 

The abolition of the capitalist system, which has long since outlived its useful purpose, is the only way to solve the pressing needs of an increasing human population.

I have to say I do not agree. Pergaps the economic/political climate is different where you are, but I'd prefer to see Australia continue to be capitalist thankyou. We've had enough 'nanny laws' designed to limit our freedoms already.

 

While this forum is based on MLP, it is not solely for discussing MLP and making such connections, for if it were only about MLP and such connections, surely this off-topic area of the forum would not exist.

Very true. You chose to come in here and post this topic, we only chose to join in.

[roomforapony 285]

First of all, the entire purpose of this thread, was to see if anyone shared my interest in a plant-based diet. I stated clearly I had no intentions of starting any arguments, and no arguments or debates here were started by me. I have not tried to convert anyone other than those who expressed interest, and even then I only mentioned my personal experiences with the subject. Any argumentative points was to fight against the unsourced misinformation that people have no problem posting all over this thread.

 

All of these attacks against the way I choose to eat and live my life are completely unwarranted, childish, and pointless.

 

I knew right when you started this thread it was going to turn into a "omg why don't you eat meat" fest.

 

To try to stay on topic, would you recommend any recipes or websites with recipes for vegetarian or even vegan dishes? I'm not one myself, but I've been wanting to add more vegetarian elements into my diet and I have no idea where to start. I know I could easily Google it I suppose, but I would much rather ask someone who has more experience with this.

 

Btw, I hope my post to you on sources about PETA's euthanasia practices didn't offend you or anything. I'm totally for animal rights and think it's stupid when people berate others for what they eat. I just despise PETA. My intentions were not to add more to what everyone has turned your topic into, including myself. I apologize for being one of the ones to derail your thread.

Edited April 27, 2012 by roomforapony

[MyLittleCell 106]

Seariously, how did this get this far? he was asking a simple question and somehow people always have to shove thier own opinions into it. It's ok to have opinions. But seriously, Respect others opinions as well. Just because thats how you see somethign doesnt mean you should constantly bring it up. But as a last say, some things animals are used for We as vegatarians cant change. We do what we can because its SOMETHING. Better then nothing right?

[Jonesy 40]

nope not me, i love meat..mmmm meat, BACON

[Marra da poni 100]

I am, i have been it for 2 years, but i've been a half vegitarian all those years before it. I eat fish and shellfish, because my parents are forcing me to eat something, but i'd rather not eat it. I became it because it felt discusting, the fact that you're eating a dead animals insides, ew! I also did it to loose weight, save money and be healthy

[Veiled Enigma 389]

I'm not a vegetarian, but I can see how being one can help people feel morally good about themselves.

[Aphelion 253]

I've tried.

[Swit Swat 536]

All ponies are vegetarian. It'd be kind of creepy watching a pony eat another horse.

 

But on the serious side, no. Meat is delicious. :3

Edited June 26, 2012 by Switazoid