Vegan Death Cult

MeTheMan wrote: »

You can not live without affecting the lives of other animals! That's a fact.

I for one am not denying that fact. I am not sure what it has to do with veganism though and the claim that veganism is a death cult.

MeTheMan

You can not live without affecting the lives of other animals! That's a fact.

gozunda wrote: »

Not so. Yes I had to go through yet another lengthy process of explaining that soy beans from the Amazon are not 'grown' for cattle feed. But that yes that the by-products are variously used for that purpose.

But more importantly that soy grown in the Amazon is directly the result of the demand for soy OIL.

You suggested soy meal should only be fed to humans. Certainly it can but there seems to be little or no demand from the big food producers.

What I did disagree with was that shouldn't happen where that soy meal comes from soy grown the Amazon.

All agriculture whether arable, horticulture and not just animal results in significant environmental impacts. Specifically Intensive ploughing and cultivation results in soil erosion (remember the dust bowl? ) - the use of fertliser and pesticides to grow crops are all hugely damaging to the environment. Irrigation involves huge wastage of water and consequent impacts on wildlife and habitats. And so on it goes.

Over the past century - improvements in agricultural efficiency means that despite huge increases in population-

Even the recent UN report on food and climate did not suggest that we need to get rid of animal agriculture. This was the their recommendation

A normal balanced diet inclusive of animal sourced food in other words. So the expert opinion is that there is no case that we should 'take animals out of the equation"

Tbh the main ones I see pushing that idea is aggressive plant food industry interests and those whose beliefs mean they dont eat meat.

Hey delete some messages in your inbox....then i can reply to you!

RobertKK wrote: »

Veganism is also leading to higher demands for dairy milk substitutes with things like almond milk. Almond farming is killing tens of billions of bees. Last year an estimated 50 billion bees died.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/07/honeybees-deaths-almonds-hives-aoe

Climate change is killing bees.

Bees are dying for other reason mostly climate change its nothing to do with almond milk. Climate change is killing bees. So are pesticides.

If almond crops use pesticides then they would pose a threat to bees ..BUT EVERY CROP USES PESTICIDES and they all pose a threat to bees.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah and what did vegans do before supplements?
So being vegan was never the natural position.
Taking pills or needing food to be enriched is natural food?

No, its not natural. But if you have any stronger argument in favour of it other than it being unnatural then I'd like to hear. Most studies show the vegans live the same or longer than the general population. If a diet being 'unnatural' was an inherently bad thing then they would have worse health than the general population, not better.

RobertKK wrote: »

Veganism is also leading to higher demands for dairy milk substitutes with things like almond milk. Almond farming is killing tens of billions of bees. Last year an estimated 50 billion bees died.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/07/honeybees-deaths-almonds-hives-aoe

Right, so 4.1% milk sales in the US are almond milk.
https://fortune.com/2015/05/27/almond-milk-sales-soaring-health/
And only 0.5% the population identify as vegan.
https://veganbits.com/vegan-demographics/

So clearly more non vegans are contributing towards this damage than vegans.

Lyan

I tend to agree that many vegans are idiotic whackjobs, but I cannot see a way around the ethicial arguments for veganism. I probably ought to become one myself, but for the life of me I could never stop eating meat.

RobertKK

wakka12 wrote: »

Um have you heard of supplements? There are many nutrient dense plant foods, legumes, greens, nuts, seeds.
We do many unnatural things daily as part of normal and healthy lifestyles. It's not a valid argument.

Yeah and what did vegans do before supplements?
So being vegan was never the natural position.
Taking pills or needing food to be enriched is natural food?

RobertKK

Veganism is also leading to higher demands for dairy milk substitutes with things like almond milk. Almond farming is killing tens of billions of bees. Last year an estimated 50 billion bees died.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/07/honeybees-deaths-almonds-hives-aoe

RobertKK wrote: »

Veganism is not natural as vegans needs to get Vitamin B12 supplements to replace how most people get their B12 which is from animal products.

A lot of people (whether vegan or not) will end up malnourished on a diet if they don't understand what their body needs.
But it is easier to get malnourished when one chooses to avoid what is nutrient dense food like meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

Um have you heard of supplements? There are many nutrient dense plant foods, legumes, greens, nuts, seeds.
We do many unnatural things daily as part of normal and healthy lifestyles.Talking on a phone is unnatural, does it mean its not healthy? It's not a valid argument.

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

What about the carbon footprint from shipping produce from all around the world and massive deforestation and removal of biodiversity to facilitate single crop plantations. Massive green deserts.
When a vegan is eating a nice avocado do they think of the involvement of cartels in Mexico in the plantations? The market became so lucrative that they rapidly got involved.

Vegans have to eat something too. What do you propose they eat then? Everyone has an impact by the food they consume. A vegan diet simply produces far fewer carbon emissions than a diet high in meat does. Thats all, nobody said vegan diet is totally carbon neutral, its just trying to minimise the impact, which it most certainly does. Not all vegans eat avocados as they are aware of the damage of importation and generally the most eco conscious group in our society, and the majority of avocados are consumed by people who also eat meat and animal products anyway so please stfu with this absolutely inane argument

RobertKK

Veganism is not natural as vegans needs to get Vitamin B12 supplements to replace how most people get their B12 which is from animal products.

A lot of people (whether vegan or not) will end up malnourished on a diet if they don't understand what their body needs.
But it is easier to get malnourished when one chooses to avoid what is nutrient dense food like meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

quokula wrote: »

It's not really anecdotal. Anecdotal is when you base something on personal experience which may not be representative. This is not based on personal experience, this is somebody with an agenda deliberately trawling online through who knows how many hours of footage to cherrypick some examples to fit their twisted worldview.

Not really, Cambridge defines anecdotal as 'information that is not based on facts or careful study'

fryup

MrAbyss wrote: »

There has never been a vegan society on earth ever.

well now there is :cool:

MrAbyss wrote: »

This video is one of the most incredible things I have watched. Vegans literally dying in front of the camera as they tell us how healthy they are.

https://youtu.be/97Wry4ppywQ

You realize the more you fight them the bigger they get?

There are vegan magnums in every news shop now and soya milk in every centra.

Its over. You lost.

Assetbacked wrote: »

This is shifting your position and adding in several different points. Your original position on soy beans was that it was only the byproduct or residue of soybean oil extraction that was being used to feed animals. My point is that soybean meal can be used to feed humans and the animals can and should be taken out of the equation. You say you don't agree with the Amazon being destroyed for food production but the point being made to you is that this is directly the result of the demand for meat. With populations in developing countries increasing at uncontrollable rates, demands for meat will continue to rise which will lead to more environmental destruction to produce the animals from which the meat is obtained. All of this can be avoided by moving away from meat consumption.

Not so. Yes I had to go through yet another lengthy process of explaining that soy beans from the Amazon (or most anywhere) are not 'grown' for cattle feed. But that yes that the by-products are variously used for that purpose.

But more importantly that soy grown in the Amazon is directly the result of the demand for soy OIL.

You suggested soy should only be fed to humans. Certainly it can but there seems to be little or no demand from the big food producers.

What I did disagree with was that shouldn't happen where any soy products come from soy grown the Amazon.

All agriculture whether arable, horticulture and not just animal results in significant environmental impacts. Specifically Intensive ploughing and cultivation results in soil erosion (remember the dust bowl? ) - the use of fertliser and pesticides to grow crops are all hugely damaging to the environment. Irrigation involves huge wastage of water and consequent impacts on wildlife and habitats. And so on it goes.

Over the past century - improvements in agricultural efficiency means that despite huge increases in population-

For the world as a whole, per capita food availability has risen from about 2220 kcal/person/day in the early 1960s to 2790 kcal/person/day in 2006-08, while developing countries even recorded a leap from 1850 kcal/person/day to over 2640 kcal/person/day” (FAO, p. 174). This is enough to feed everyone.

Even the recent UN report on food and climate did not suggest that we need to get rid of animal agriculture. This was the their recommendation

“Balanced diets featuring plant-based foods, such as coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and animal-sourced food produced sustainably in low greenhouse gas emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation to and limiting climate change,”

A normal balanced diet inclusive of animal sourced food in other words. So the expert opinion is that there is no case that we should 'take animals out of the equation"

Tbh the main ones I see pushing that idea is aggressive plant food industry interests and some of those whose beliefs mean they dont eat meat.

MadYaker

MrAbyss wrote: »

I don't find it bizarre at all. Disturbing more like.

The threads you start are more disturbing.

Assetbacked

gozunda wrote: »

True it could. But you know that there is no shortage of food globally?

That where there is hunger it is largely due to corruption and inequality

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

Nice that you would suggest that we should use the soy meal from soy beans grown in places like the amazon!

Imo there should be no use of the Amazon for the production of such foods imo.

The facts are that the US is currently the largest producer of soybeans. Again most of that goes for oil and the what's left gets used for feedstuffs on the US.

Theres nothing stopping food companies buying soy meal if they wish - the fact is they dont.

In Ireland cattle and other livestock are mainly fed different types of fodder with a very small amount being used as supplementary feed.

And as detailed previously Livestock use large areas of pastures where nothing else could be produced. Yes soy meal does get used more in poultry rearing and pig production - but a huge amount also gets used to make pet food and horse feeds.

This is shifting your position and adding in several different points. Your original position on soy beans was that it was only the byproduct or residue of soybean oil extraction that was being used to feed animals. My point is that soybean meal can be used to feed humans and the animals can and should be taken out of the equation.

You say you don't agree with the Amazon being destroyed for food production but the point being made to you is that this is directly the result of the demand for meat. With populations in developing countries increasing at uncontrollable rates, demands for meat will continue to rise which will lead to more environmental destruction to produce the animals from which the meat is obtained. All of this can be avoided by moving away from meat consumption.

[Deleted User]

mathie wrote: »

Articles tend to be more palatable than research papers.

They also tend to be distorted - agenda driven - sensationalised - misleading - and often leave out any mention of the important things in the paper such as controls, limitations, methodology and much more.

mathie wrote: »

Over-cited ... So it can't be referenced?

I never said that. You literally took what I said and changed it to something else entirely.

mathie wrote: »

That's just over one sausage. For some people that's not a pretty above average amount.

What are you citing there? What is one sausage???

El_Duderino 09

seamus wrote: »

I'm sure I could make a compilation of morbidly obese people on scooters and respirators and claim that it's evidence of how dangerous a non-vegan diet is.

It'd be exactly as valid as the video in the op, and exactly as nonsensical.

Kind of odd how people who have a problem with veganism are far louder and more obsessed about it than vegans themselves.

Completely agree. Those people in the video look to have an eating disorder and are vegan. Strictly controlled diets to the point of being unhealthy is a sure sign of an eating disorder.

But, don't let that get in the way of the usual suspects banging on about vegans.

Assetbacked wrote: »

The soybean meal "byproduct" of soybean oil extraction is edible though and could be used to feed humans rather than wasting this high protein feed on bulking up animals for the slaughter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein

True it could. But you know that there is no shortage of food globally?

That where there is hunger it is largely due to corruption and inequality

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

Nice that you would suggest that we should use the soy meal from soy beans grown in places like the amazon!

Imo there should be no use of the Amazon for the production of such foods imo for anyone whatever diet is being pushed

The facts are that the US is currently the largest producer of soybeans. Again most of that goes for oil and the what's left gets used for feedstuffs in the US.

Theres nothing stopping food companies buying more soy meal if they wish - the fact is they dont.

In Ireland cattle and other livestock are mainly fed different types of fodder with a very small amount being used as supplementary feed. Most of that comes from the US btw.

And as detailed previously Livestock use large areas of pastures where nothing else could be produced. Yes soy meal does get used more in poultry rearing and pig production - but a huge amount also gets used to make pet food and horse feeds.

Assetbacked

gozunda wrote: »

I presume you must have missed it?

Yes soy is primarily grown for oil. That oil gets extracted from the whole bean and what is left over (the soy meal) gets fed to animals. Thats all types of animals - pets, horses, fish, chickens, pigs and yes some cattle as well.

And I'm not a fan of soy btw. Interestingly whilst the biggest proportion of soy is grown in the United States - I am against it being grown in the Amazon.

The soybean meal "byproduct" of soybean oil extraction is edible though and could be used to feed humans rather than wasting this high protein feed on bulking up animals for the slaughter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I don't believe you for a second. You posted a Twitter link above from someone where every one of his tweets is anti-plant diet. It's fine, it's your livelihood. It would be nice to get a definitive answer on soy growth once and for all however.

Again you are wrong in your supposition.

But you don't have to believe me Thelonious. In fact I dont think you believe anyone but no matter.

This is the industry source for soy bean production.

https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts

And the 'someone' you dont seem to like for some strange reason is Professor of Nutrition (emeritus) University of Illinois. And I've seen no evidence for you bile against him other than he referred to soy oil production in his tweet.

What I see in most in these discussions is that a few who little or nothing about food production expounding on the topic and when someone like Professor Layman is referenced regarding a topic as mundane as soy oil production - they try do a hatchet job on the individual because that person doesn't accord with a particular world view.

But then what's new eh?

mathie

Deleted User wrote: »

We saw one user cite an opinion piece about research rather than bothering to cite the original research for example -

Articles tend to be more palatable than research papers.

Deleted User wrote: »

before then going on in a later post to simply drop the "Processed meat causes cancer" link which is one of the most over cited - most misrepresented - things in recent history of this discussion

Over-cited ... So it can't be referenced?

Deleted User wrote: »

For example the aforementioned Processed Meats causing cancer issue which the papers fell all over themselves to report. If you wanted to write a news paper story and get clicks - would you report that processed meats can cause a 20% increase in your risks - or would you report that it increases your _overall life time risk_ from and an already existing baseline of 5% to a mere 6% and then _only if eaten daily consistently and in pretty above average amounts_?

That's just over one sausage.
For some people that's not a pretty above average amount.

MMXX

mathie wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Well... it's not very scientific - but I've seen a LOT of YouTube videos, of ex-vegans, and I've watched them - and listened very carefully to them. And I really do believe them, not because they are telling me to - but because I can see with my own eyes.