The Vegans

OldNotWIse

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

You have a case? That's generous

kylith

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

You seem to think it is some great mystery as to how to feed people, and it is for some people...guess who is more likely to know what every single vitamin does, is and where it comes from, a vegan or an omnivore? Who is more likely to be overweight, who is more likely to get cancer? Who thinks about nutrition more as part of their lifestyle? Who will feed more processed crap to their children? I mean most poeple know jack **** about any of this. There is a reason, vegans are more responsible with nutrition on average. The world health organisations agree, yet you do not. This isn't even close to what your thread was supposed to be about, which was superfluous in any case. I think you dropped mentioning it when every poster bashed it and starting clinging to "but think of the children"

Hiya, could you post some links for your claim that vegans are less likely to get cancer, the WHO report etc?

Merry Prankster

wretcheddomain wrote: »

We should agree at the outset that some beliefs should not be forced onto a child. I'm suggesting veganism is one of those beliefs. There's nothing inherently nonsensical about this.

Yes there is. Why do you privilege meat-eating over veganism as a belief system? Because it's the natural' default one? Do you advocate casual murder and rape and sex with minors just because most of the animals in nature do it?

Why is bringing a child up as a vegan 'forcing' a belief onto them, but feeding them meat is not? Acceptance of a meat-based diet is as much a belief and lifestyle choice as veganism is. To say otherwise is just plain wrong and nonsensical.

A child can never undo all of the animals it has eaten if it grows up to reject meat-eating, but a vegan child can chose to eat meat at any time in the future if they so wish.

One eyed Jack

archer22 wrote: »

You could always find some strange behaviour by some individual animals.Such as the case of a Lioness some time ago rearing an Impala fawn but that does not mean all Lioness will do that..quite the opposite.I have been around Deer all my life and never seen them eat any meat type.They will warily smell another dead animal or bird then jump back from it and trot quickly away from the scene.That is their more natural reaction.

But that's exactly the same logic you were using earlier when you suggested that because your friend couldn't stomach raw meat, it must stand to reason that most other humans can't digest raw meat either. Your friend's individual behaviour is hardly conclusive evidence for your claims, when it's been shown that the vast majority of human beings are quite capable of being able to digest raw meat. It's not unusual or unnatural behaviour at all, and it's only in recent decades that human beings have been able to choose a completely vegan lifestyle and maintain good health by supplementing their diet with vitamins and minerals not normally available in a strictly vegan diet.

I think the problem for the OP is that he wanted people to claim veganism was a healthier lifestyle choice than non-veganism, and nobody is making those claims, so now the OP has been trying to derail their own thread with other nonsense just to get some sort of an argument going, about something, anything!

Tar.Aldarion

kylith wrote: »

Hiya, could you post some links for your claim that vegans are less likely to get cancer, the WHO report etc?

Sure, there are pretty much hundreds/thousands of research papers on this so I'll stick up some. Each cancer is different and is affected by different things, for some if you smoke and eat meat you can see a 900% rise, for some no difference or low difference.

The official stance is that eating meat has a higher incident rate with a lot of cancers but nobody knows why. There are also meta-studies which whill look at all teh studies and decide what a pattern is. Currently there is a huge study going on with 7th day adventists as their lifestyle is exactly the same apart from some eat meat and some don't.

The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) and Dietitians of Canada published a joint position paper in 2003 on vegan diets, in which they wrote that properly planned vegan diets were nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation. The paper said that people avoiding meat were reported to have a lower BMI, and that from this followed lower death rates from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and fewer incidences of type 2 diabetes and prostate and colon cancers.[10]

An evidence- based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.

A 2012 analysis of all the best studies done to date concluded vegetarians have significantly lower cancer rates. For example, the largest forward-looking study on diet and cancer ever performed concluded that "the incidence of all cancers combined is lower among vegetarians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/337301

Here are some various ones that show some different things if you are interested, not entirely all "meat = cancer" to try and be fair.

Pan A, et al. Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies. Arch Intern Med. (2012)
Sinha R, et al. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med. (2009)
Higher Red Meat Intake May Be a Marker of Risk, Not a Risk Factor Itself
Aune D, et al. Meat consumption and cancer risk: a case-control study in Uruguay. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2009)
Keszei AP, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer subtypes in The Netherlands Cohort Study. Ann Oncol. (2012)
Arafa MA, et al. Dietary and lifestyle characteristics of colorectal cancer in Jordan: a case-control study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2011)
Williams CD, et al. Associations of red meat, fat, and protein intake with distal colorectal cancer risk. Nutr Cancer. (2010)
Le Marchand L, et al. A case-control study of diet and colorectal cancer in a multiethnic population in Hawaii (United States): lipids and foods of animal origin. Cancer Causes Control. (1997)
Le Marchand L, et al. Well-done red meat, metabolic phenotypes and colorectal cancer in Hawaii. Mutat Res. (2002)
Roberts-Thomson IC, Butler WJ, Ryan P. Meat, metabolic genotypes and risk for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. (1999)
Yeh CC, et al. Polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 1A2 and N-acetyltransferase genes, meat consumption, and risk of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. (2009)
Ishibe N, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in heterocyclic amine metabolism and risk of colorectal adenomas. Pharmacogenetics. (2002)
Yoshida K, et al. Association of CYP1A1, CYP1A2, GSTM1 and NAT2 gene polymorphisms with colorectal cancer and smoking. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2007)
Lin J, et al. Intake of red meat and heterocyclic amines, metabolic pathway genes and bladder cancer risk. Int J Cancer. (2012)
Lam TK, et al. Intakes of red meat, processed meat, and meat mutagens increase lung cancer risk. Cancer Res. (2009)
De Stefani E, et al. Meat intake, meat mutagens and risk of lung cancer in Uruguayan men. Cancer Causes Control. (2009)
Lang NP, et al. Rapid metabolic phenotypes for acetyltransferase and cytochrome P4501A2 and putative exposure to food-borne heterocyclic amines increase the risk for colorectal cancer or polyps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. (1994)
Major JM, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation impact on meat intake and mortality: NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Cancer Causes Control. (2011)
Héroux M, et al. Dietary patterns and the risk of mortality: impact of cardiorespiratory fitness. Int J Epidemiol. (2010)
Aune D, et al. Fruits, vegetables and the risk of cancer: a multisite case-control study in Uruguay. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2009)
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2003_ADA_position_paper.pdf
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.1-3 In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.

There are 40 more references to papers in that piece on the World Health Organisation which are all about that.

kylith

I think that it would be wrong to bring a child up being taught that eating meat is akin to murder, that it is 'evil', 'bad', or 'wrong' just as I think that to bring a child up being taught that vegetarianism or veganism is 'weird' or 'incorrect' is wrong. It would be much more appropriate to teach them that different people choose to eat different foods, and that when they are able to understand the ins and outs of it they can make the decision about what to eat for themselves.

The habit that some vegans/vegetarians have of likening eating meat to murder or rape doesn't do the whole group any favours, just like saying all Christians are child abusers wouldn't do atheism in general any favours.

And there is relatively little murder, rape, or sex with minors in the animal kingdom (seals and ducks being the only rapist species that spring to mind). What would be the point of wasting precious energy by mating with an animal that was incapable of bearing offspring? Or killing a rival when they can live on 1) knowing that you're better than them 2) bear offspring that you or your offspring can mate with in the future.

OldNotWIse

I would like to bring my children up not be be vegans (though I sometimes wonder how good for us dairy actually is) but certainly to be aware of the problems (ethical and health wise) surrounding intense factory farming. I would encourage a system whereby meat wasn't necessarily a staple of every day as it currently is, resulting in us eating processed shít, but good quality, ethically produced and toxin free meat once or twice a week. We are such hyper-consumers, it's frightening. Demanding meat every day resulting in a rush to supply the demand. I wouldn't particularly want them eating chicken nuggets, crispy pancakes, Big Al burgers etc - a vegan diet would be healthier than that shít....

Tar.Aldarion

kylith wrote: »

I think that it would be wrong to bring a child up being taught that eating meat is akin to murder, that it is 'evil', 'bad', or 'wrong' just as I think that to bring a child up being taught that vegetarianism or veganism is 'weird' or 'incorrect' is wrong. It would be much more appropriate to teach them that different people choose to eat different foods, and that when they are able to understand the ins and outs of it they can make the decision about what to eat for themselves.

This is how children should be brought up, "I think this and they think that, this is why we both have differing opinions". It is much healthier than merely being told what to do.

Of course children often have some strong input of their own and are not stupid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNntUXyWvw

Some guidance is necessaryt of course and parents will want to do things a certain way in their house but there is no reason to not teach of others beliefs and actually get a child to think for themselves. If my children did not want to be vegan then they would not be eventually, the same as how I was raised on meat and decided against it eventually.

archer22

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Yes there is. Why do you privilege meat-eating over veganism as a belief system? Because it's the natural' default one? Do you advocate casual murder and rape and sex with minors just because most of the animals in nature do it?

Why is bringing a child up as a vegan 'forcing' a belief onto them, but feeding them meat is not? Acceptance of a meat-based diet is as much a belief and lifestyle choice as veganism is. To say otherwise is just plain wrong and nonsensical.

A child can never undo all of the animals it has eaten if it grows up to reject meat-eating, but a vegan child can chose to eat meat at any time in the future if they so wish.

"casual murder and rape and sex with minors just because most of the animals in nature do it" Ahh C'mon thats an outrageous false claim about Animals :eek:.
I guess such beliefs take hold because we like to describe every Human who engages in those activities as an 'Animal'...an absurd form of scapegoatism instead of being willing accept that they belong to our species.

archer22

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's exactly the same logic you were using earlier when you suggested that because your friend couldn't stomach raw meat, it must stand to reason that most other humans can't digest raw meat either. Your friend's individual behaviour is hardly conclusive evidence for your claims, when it's been shown that the vast majority of human beings are quite capable of being able to digest raw meat. It's not unusual or unnatural behaviour at all, and it's only in recent decades that human beings have been able to choose a completely vegan lifestyle and maintain good health by supplementing their diet with vitamins and minerals not normally available in a strictly vegan diet.

I think the problem for the OP is that he wanted people to claim veganism was a healthier lifestyle choice than non-veganism, and nobody is making those claims, so now the OP has been trying to derail their own thread with other nonsense just to get some sort of an argument going, about something, anything!

I am pretty sure if you were giving a dinner party and you threw raw steak or chicken onto your guests plates the reaction you would get would be one of horror and disgust..and your guests would walk out the door and never return.So if eating raw meat is "not unusual or unnatural" why would you get that instinctive reaction to serving it?
By contrast if you served the same dish to a Dog which of course is a natural meat eater he would be delighted with it even if his diet had previously been pre cooked food.

OldNotWIse

archer22 wrote: »

I am pretty sure if you were giving a dinner party and you threw raw steak or chicken onto your guests plates the reaction you would get would be one of horror and disgust..and your guests would walk out the door and never return.So if eating raw meat is "not unusual or unnatural" why would you get that instinctive reaction to serving it?
By contrast if you served the same dish to a Dog which of course is a natural meat eater he would be delighted with it even if his diet had previously been pre cooked food.

I dunno about that. OEJ serves a mean steak tartare

Yurt2

Not saying these people are truly representative of the movement (though doubtlessly they would say they are its true adherents) but here are some folks suffering from a particularly vegan coloured strain of psychosis. Perhaps these folks could be said to be taking the vegan ethos to its logical conclusion, perhaps not but this sort of stuff is out there.

One eyed Jack

archer22 wrote: »

I am pretty sure if you were giving a dinner party and you threw raw steak or chicken onto your guests plates the reaction you would get would be one of horror and disgust..and your guests would walk out the door and never return.So if eating raw meat is "not unusual or unnatural" why would you get that instinctive reaction to serving it?

I understand the example you're trying to make, but it would be unusual for anyone to host a dinner party nowadays and not ask their guests in advance do they have any specific dietary requirements. Some of my guests have included people who were strict vegans who would indeed be horrified, and some of my guests have requested their steak bleu (or "wave it about in a warm room"). I couldn't say either way what that anecdotal evidence proves tbh, other than my friends are some fussy fcukers! :pac:

By contrast if you served the same dish to a Dog which of course is a natural meat eater he would be delighted with it even if his diet had previously been pre cooked food.

I suppose again, it depends on the dog too, I used walk dogs when I was younger (or more accurately - they used to drag me behind them!), greyhound pups, and the owner used feed them a diet of Weetabix, eggs, some other additive, but I can't recall them ever being fed meat. These were racing dogs so while they were lean, they were actually healthy and incredibly powerful (as I found out when one of them went for my jugular and latched onto my chin instead... I thought my goose was cooked! :pac:).

archer22

Yurt! wrote: »

Not saying these people are truly representative of the movement (though doubtlessly they would say they are its true adherents) but here are some folks suffering from a particularly vegan coloured strain of psychosis. Perhaps these folks could be said to be taking the vegan ethos to its logical conclusion, perhaps not but this sort of stuff is out there.

There is hardly a subject on earth where you will not find a minority of people with extreme views..on both sides.

Tar.Aldarion

Yurt! wrote: »

Not saying these people are truly representative of the movement (though doubtlessly they would say they are its true adherents) but here are some folks suffering from a particularly vegan coloured strain of psychosis. Perhaps these folks could be said to be taking the vegan ethos to its logical conclusion, perhaps not but this sort of stuff is out there.

Gary yourofsky speaks a lot of sense, even though I don't agree witha lot of what he says, like the bunny rabbit and apple thing, herbivore, physiology stuff.
Rest doesn't seem crazy at all.

Yurt2

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Gary yourofsky speaks a lot of sense, even though I don't agree witha lot of what he says, like the bunny rabbit and apple thing, herbivore, physiology stuff.
Rest doesn't seem crazy at all.

Comparing eating meat to the holocaust, saying that meat eaters should be raped. The guy is mentally ill. Either that or taking the vegan precepts to their natural conclusion if one signs up to the dogma wholesale.

Tar.Aldarion

Yurt! wrote: »

Comparing eating meat to the holocaust, saying that meat eaters should be raped. The guy is mentally ill.

I believe many Jews do as well, including the one who founded the animal rights movement in the US. A lot of what gary says is very caustic though, I don't agree with a lot of it or the way he interacts with people.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2h8df0/i_am_an_80yearold_holocaust_survivor_who/
As theis holocaust suvivior said about comparing the two:

The negative reaction is largely due to people's mistaken perception that the comparison values their lives equally with those of pigs and cows. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What we are doing is pointing to the commonality and pervasiveness of the oppressive mindset, which enables human beings to perpetrate unspeakable atrocities on other living beings, whether they be Jews, Bosnians, Tutsis, or animals. It's the mindset that allowed German and Polish neighbors of extermination camps to go on with their lives, just as we continue to subsidize the oppression of animals at the supermarket checkout counter.

Yurt2

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I believe many Jews do as well, including the one who founded the animal rights movement in the US. A lot of what he says is very caustic though, I don't agree with a lot of it or the way he interacts with people.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2h8df0/i_am_an_80yearold_holocaust_survivor_who/

I'm not apologizing for saying this, anyone who draws an ethical comparison between the holocaust (survivor or not) and a chicken fillet on a plate is a flat out moron. And that's not an unreasonable position to hold.

jimgoose

Yurt! wrote: »

Comparing eating meat to the holocaust, saying that meat eaters should be raped. The guy is mentally ill. Either that or taking the vegan precepts to their natural conclusion if one signs up to the dogma wholesale.

He's a fcukan ape.

Whosthis

Thousands of years of evolution is wasted on these berry sucking, hemp wearing, fools. We made it to the top of the food chain and these village idiots want to run around deriving protein from pine nuts. Screw em, eat vegans I say.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't think you understand the comparsion the survivor is making then, I don't see any dissent from the thousands of people that read it on there either. Your reply is grossly simplistic.

starlit

Lau2976 wrote: »

I am majorly confused by your post. A vegan eats no animal products at all, some don't care that much about cross contamination, but I've never even hear of a vegan who would eat any dairy(from a cow or goat).

A vegan certainly wouldn't eat meat either! I think you may be using vegan and vegetarian (as well as pescetarian) as alternatives to each other but they are very different things!

There are different types of vegetarians. There is the strict vegan that doesn't eat any animal products its all plant and substitutes for meat. A vegan is strict vegetarian no animal products what so ever. That is what I mean.

There are others that are vegetarians but eat one type of protein - fish/chicken/beef (polo, paleo) for the fish/chicken types and laco vegans for those that include dairy and laco ovo (dairy and eggs). So they are different types they don't have to be strict vegetarians.

I am friends with people who are variations of the different types of vegetarians, myself included.

Yurt2

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I don't think you understand the comparsion the survivor is making then, I don't see any dissent from the thousands of people that read it on there either. Your reply is grossly simplistic.

I understand it fully. People's dissent or lack of it Reddit is moot. It's moronic and if any vegan really believes there is any moral comparison to be inferred or drawn between the holocaust and eating meat or animal products they deserve all the ridicule coming their way.

archer22

At the bottom of the evolutionary scale is the Savage who can only feel empathy for his family.
On the next level the man who can feel empathy for his own kind.

At the most evolved level the man who can feel empathy for all living creatures.

Charles Darwin The descent of Man

dodderangler

Can we just start eating vegans?
Natural way of life for a carnivore to eat a herbivore

Shenshen

doovdela wrote: »

There are different types of vegetarians. There is the strict vegan that doesn't eat any animal products its all plant and substitutes for meat. A vegan is strict vegetarian no animal products what so ever. That is what I mean.

There are others that are vegetarians but eat one type of protein - fish/chicken/beef (polo, paleo) for the fish/chicken types and laco vegans for those that include dairy and laco ovo (dairy and eggs). So they are different types they don't have to be strict vegetarians.

I am friends with people who are variations of the different types of vegetarians, myself included.

Sorry for having to correct you there - if you eat any kind of meat or fish, you are not a vegetarian. There's plenty of other labels around these days you can pick and choose from - flexitarian, pescetarian, but you do not fall under the definition of vegetarian:


•A vegetarian is someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with, or without, the use of dairy products and eggs.


Or

•A vegetarian does not eat meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or by-products of slaughter.


There are different degrees of vegetarianism which may be what causes confusion with caterers. The four most common forms of vegetarianism are:
•Lacto-ovo-vegetarian. Eats both dairy products and eggs. This is the most common type of vegetarian diet.
•Lacto-vegetarian. Eats dairy products but not eggs.
•Ovo-vegetarian. Eats eggs but not dairy products.
•Vegan. Does not eat dairy products, eggs, or any other animal product.

Definition as given by the Vegetarian Society

kilkenny12

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think the first half of this quoted post reflects the problem with many vegans - that they must feel the need to enforce their views about meat onto a child who has not had the opportunity to think about the issue, or try the food for themselves. I find it very selfish for a parent to act in this way.

I'm glad to hear you agree with feeding obligate carnivores the meat they need, it's just a pity that every vegan/vegetarian doesn't think this way. This is why I said at the outset that this discussion is just as much about vegan-vegetarian-vegan interactions as it is about the wider debate about veganism.



Almost all of your posts have no substance. No valid and worthwhile contribution has been made by you over the course of this thread. All your posts have offered is cheap sarcasm.

I know a man who is probably one of the most hardcore vegans in the world. He feeds his dog vegan food and meat scraps from friends or butchers. It's a rescue dog and is perfectly healthy with a small amount of meat.


The vegan diet naturally attracts people with eating disorders as all "diets" or different ways of eating do. These people are mentally ill. They are not your everyday vegans.

kilkenny12

doovdela wrote: »

There are different reasons why some people are vegetarian, sometimes its out of choice, morals, lifestyle reasons or their taste in food, could be that they don't like the taste and could be down to health reasons.

Some of them just eat certain types of food and not others such as different variations of vegans some are very strict vegans no dairy what so ever others include dairy and other protein substitutes that are manufactured but not from animals while other protein substitutes from animals like goats cheese/milk.

Some vegans eat no meat but chicken or fish only others like myself eat mainly mince meat and dairy/eggs. So not totally strict vegetarian.

There are some that are more strict about it but that's their choice. Usually with kids they nearly decide themselves what they will eat. You can't force them to eat what you expect them to eat whether you are a vegan or carnivore parent.

You are not vegan or vegetarian. I don't understand what you're saying here...

kilkenny12

kylith wrote: »

Humans can, and do, eat raw meat: Beef carpaccio, steak tartare, rare steak is all-but raw, Inuits' traditional diet would have been big on raw fish and whale meat and would have had practically zero plant matter. Cooking just makes it more digestible so it's easier to get the nutrients.

In fact without eating meat there probably wouldn't be humans today, or not as we currently are. Getting the same nutrition and calories from plant matter as from meat takes a hell of a lot more food. Without our ancestor's meat-eating we would not have had the necessary calories to evolve a brain as large as the one we possess.

In fact, the truth is the opposite to what you claim - humans cannot process raw vegetables anywhere near efficiently enough to live on it. You would need to do nothing but sit and eat for hours on end to get the calories that you need just to keep your body running.

Humans are neither natural carnivores nor natural herbivores - we are omnivores as evidenced by our mix of traits from each - flat grinding back teeth for vegetation and pointed canine teeth for rending flesh. If some humans decide to live on just plants then that's their own choice, but to say that we're not designed as a species to eat meat is just wrong. Even the first proto-lion would have gotten its first taste of meat by scavenging.

Yes we have evolved to be able to digest meat for survival purposes but it is no longer necessary to continue eating it. Without cannibalism, there probably wouldn't be humans today... :eek: Yes it is true.

Who wants to eat raw meat?! Good luck to anyone who does.

Why do people think vegans live on vegetables... If anyone wants to eat a fully raw diet, calories are gotten from fruit. I prefer a high raw diet with cooked starches and steamed veg.

Fruit fruit fruit!!!!

kylith

kilkenny12 wrote: »

Yes we have evolved to be able to digest meat for survival purposes but it is no longer necessary to continue eating it. Without cannibalism, there probably wouldn't be humans today... :eek: Yes it is true.

What??

kilkenny12 wrote: »

Who wants to eat raw meat?! Good luck to anyone who does.

Raw meat is delicious.

kilkenny12 wrote: »

Why do people think vegans live on vegetables... If anyone wants to eat a fully raw diet, calories are gotten from fruit. I prefer a high raw diet with cooked starches and steamed veg.

Fruit fruit fruit!!!!

Fruits are vegetable matter. Cereals are vegetable matter. Vegans eat only vegetables. Saying fruit aren't vegetables is like saying clogs aren't footwear.